New NY 23rd

The costs of compliance with all these regulations lead(s) to higher consumer prices and reduced hiring.–Tom Reed

Do regulations prevent employers from hiring workers? Trump says so, Ryan says so, and Tom Reed says so, but none of them present any evidence. If it were true, one might expect the economy to have boomed after GWB rescinded regulations as fast as he could at the end of his term; instead the economy collapsed.

If Republicans really know of specific regulations that should be rescinded, one would think they would point them out. Or else, they could propose specific legislation. Instead they propose catch-all bills like the doomed REINS act.

Tom Reed may not believe his own story. He backed regulations limiting airline pilot hours at about the same time that he undermined regulations limiting grape haulers’ hours behind the wheel.

https://reed.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/reed-says-over-regulation-costs-small-business-jobs-urges-senate-take

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/427

This entry was posted in 2016, Reed’s Views and tagged Red Tape, Regulations, Reins Act. Bookmark the permalink.

Tom Reed claims to have four principles for reforming Social Security. The principles are:

1. Long-term economic growth by rewarding work, not penalizing it, 2. Equal treatment for public servants, 3. Act now to protect future generations’ benefits, and

4. Protect the most vulnerable people through focused reforms.

These statements are cryptic, but surely not good ideas. The first means cut taxes. The third means cut benefits. The fourth means change SS from retirement insurance to welfare. But what about the second? Lorie Konish, writing for CNBC explains:

The Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, went into effect along with Social Security reform changes that were enacted in 1983. The rule means certain workers who are eligible for Social Security retirement or disability benefits, but who have also worked for employers who don’t withhold Social Security taxes, receive reduced benefits.

The logic behind the rule is that those workers also receive pensions from their other jobs, often in the public service sector. The WEP has some exceptions. For example, it does not apply to workers who have 30 or more years of substantial earnings under Social Security. It also does not apply to survivors’ benefits.

I don’t know why Republicans propose changing the WEP rule; their proposals would increase the cost of benefits while they resist proposals to increase revenue. Concern for teachers retirement income seems improbable for Republican legislators. This could be an ill-motivated effort to drain the trust fund faster.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/05/new-bill-would-change-social-security-rule-on-public-workers-benefits.html

This entry was posted in Reed’s Views, Social Security. Bookmark the permalink.

Rep. Billy Long

Asked about Trump’s controversial statements, Rep. Billy Long said much of his rhetoric was “over-hyped hyperbole.”

Rep. Tom Reed

“We must move beyond the bombastic rhetoric to positive discussion about creating jobs and improving the lives of all Americans.

Never mind what Trump says, he doesn’t mean it. Trust us.

This PBS program is interesting:

FRONTLINE’s season premiere investigates American political leaders and choices they’ve made that have undermined and threatened democracy in the U.S. In a two-hour documentary special premiering ahead of the 2022 midterms, FRONTLINE examines how officials fed the public lies about the 2020 presidential election and embraced rhetoric that led to political violence.

The Frontline program suggests that there were many warnings of future trouble in the former president’s campaign and time in office. Republicans ignored the warnings and rallied around the candidate. The program details how close the effort to overthrow democratic elections came to succeeding.

I was annoyed by the suggestion that Democrats caused Republicans to close ranks by calling attention to the warnings. I doubt that had Democrats said and done less, Republicans would have said and done more.

This entry was posted in Political and tagged Frontline, Insurrection, Jan 6, PBS. Bookmark the permalink.

Leaks from the Supreme Court are rare. Surprisingly, the 1972 Roe decision was leaked. The following quotes are from Woodward and Armstrong’s 1979 book: The Brethren.

The day of the scheduled abortion decision the Chief sat in his chambers reading the latest edition of “Time” magazine. “Last week TIME learned that the Supreme Court has decided to strike down nearly every anti-abortion law in the land,” an article said. The abortion decision had been leaked.

Burger drafted an “Eyes Only” letter to the other Justices. He wanted each Justice to question his law clerks. The responsible person must be found and fired. Burger intended to call in the F.B.I to administer lie-detector tests if necessary.

Brennan summoned his clerks and read them the Chief’s letter. It was another example, he said, of the Chief usurping the authority each Justice had over his own clerks. “No one will question my law clerks but me,” Brennen said. Then in a softer voice, he added, “And I have no questions.“

Marshall asked what his clerks knew about the incident. When he was assured they knew nothing, he told them to forget it.

Douglas treated the letter as he had treated a request from the Chief the previous term that all clerks be instructed to wear coats in the hallways. He ignored it.

Powell was out of town, so one of his clerks opened the Chief’s letter. The clerk had talked to the “Time” reporter, David Beckwith, trying to give him some guidance so he could write and intelligent story when the decision came down. But the delay in announcing the decision had apparently left “Time” with a scoop, if only for half a day.

The clerk called Powell and told him about the Chief’s letter and his own terrible mistake in talking to Beckwith. He volunteered to resign.

That would not be necessary, Powell said. But a personal explanation would have to be given to the Chief.

Chief Justice Roberts said the current leak will be investigated. I wonder how the Justices will react and what, if any, will result. The 1972 leak wasn’t motivated by dissatisfaction with the Court’s opinion, but the motivation for the 2022 leak may have been.

This entry was posted in Supreme Court and tagged 1972, 2022, leaks, Roe vs Wade. Bookmark the permalink.

The following is a collection of links to the social media sites of  the candidates who have announced that they are running to represent the NY 23rd in 2019-2020.  Included are links to their website, Facebook page, Twitter feed, and their Ithaca Times Article and Interview Video. Not all candidates have all of the sources listed. If that changes I will update the page.

Instead of listing Candidates’ email addresses, I assume the ones listed on the campaign websites are the proper ones to use. I listed the candidates’ occupations as reported on Politics1.com.  Also, you may want to view the Federal Election Commissions data,  which includes their fund raising information. Ballotpedia is another site that has information about our race.

If more than one democrat files nominating petitions with 1,250 valid democratic signatures there will be a democratic primary in June 2018. (You need to be a registered democrat by Friday, October 13 to be able to vote in the June Democratic Primary.) The Indpenendent Candidates will not need to have a primary but will need to file petitions with 3,500 valid signatures of registered voters who did not sign another petition for this race.

Linda Andrei (Dem):

• Thompkins County
• Retired Cardiologist 
• Website
• Salamanca Press Article

James Clasby (Ind):

• Tompkins County
• Self-Employed & Navy Veteran
• Facebook

Max Della Pia (Dem):

Rick Gallant (Dem):

Ian Golden (Dem):

John Hertzler (Ind):

Tracy Mitrano (Dem):

Tom Reed (Rep):

Eddie Sundquist (Dem):

Charles Whalen (Dem):

• Ontario County
• Business Consultant
  
• Website
• Facebook
• Twitter

This entry was posted in 2018 and tagged Charles Whalen, Eddie Sundguist, Ian Golden, James Clasby, John Hertzler, Karl Warrington, Max Della Pia, NY23rd Candidates, Rick Gallant, Tom Reed, Tracy Mitrano. Bookmark the permalink.

My experience as an election inspector, and as a candidate tells me that many voters would like to see the ballot they will be using before they reach the polls.

Most counties post their sample ballots on line. As of today Allegany, Schuyler and Tioga Counties have not posted them; the other counties have. Follow the links to the County’s website’ Sample Ballots page. Some people will need to add information (Street Address) or find your Town on a chart.

The links to Allegheny, Schuyler and Tioga Counties are to their Board of Election Website; they may add their sample ballots later. You could ask them where you could see a sample ballot.

Each polling location is suppose to have a sample ballot on display during election day.

Don’t forget that on the back of the ballts will be three State Proposals, the Constitution Convention question and two proposed amendments. Some Towns may have local  proposals. The Town of Barrington (Yates) has three alcohol related proposals on their ballot.

Allegany    Cattaraugus     Chautauqua    Chemung     Ontario    Schuyler

Seneca    Steuben   Tioga    Tompkins  Yates

Reed said instead of 138 percent of the poverty level, he would set the Medicaid eligibility level at 100 percent and provide tax credits for those between 101 and 138 percent so they could buy health insurance from a private company.

We know how to fight poverty–raise incomes. There are many ways to do this:

• Increase the minimum wage.
• More public benefits like Medicaid for low income families
• Keep helping beyond the poverty level rather than cutting benefits there.
• Invest in America–upgrade our roads, dams, and levees.
• Recognize that all Americans, not only the wealthy, deserve a fair chance at the American Dream.

The majority of Americans who voted for Hillary Clinton understand that poverty isn’t inevitable–it is the result of government unconcern. The minority who voted for Donald Trump have a different, view.

Reacting to charges by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Lt. Gov. Kathy Hochul that people will die if Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act, Reed labeled it “political rhetoric. Nobody wants anyone to die.”

If Tom Reed really wants no one to die for lack of medical care, he wouldn’t seek to deprive many of affordable health care.

Many may believe that the rich deserve what they have and more. The majority of Americans reject that notion. Is NY-23 somehow not representative of America, or is Tom Reed out of step with his constituents?

http://www.salamancapress.com/news/reed-says-cbo-admits-uncertainty-in-their-score/article_4c2b8d0a-5c06-11e7-b6c6-d7395d32897d.html

https://newny23rd.com/2013/04/02/poverty-and-welfare/

This entry was posted in 2018, Congress, Health Care, Medicare, Reed’s Views and tagged Poverty. Bookmark the permalink.

Passage of this (Cromnibus) bill will show our people that we can and will govern responsibly–House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers

Can and will the GOP govern wisely. Past performance suggests not, but compromise on the 2015 budget offers hope.

.

• Clean water laws would be weakened for agricultural runoff.
• At least temporarily, truckers would be able to work as many as 82 hours a week.
• Manufacturers could continue to use lead in ammunition.
• Some underfunded pension plans could cut benefits.
• The Internal Revenue Service would get 12 percent below the administration’s request hindering enforcement of tax laws.
• A financial regulation, part of a package of reforms for Wall Street banks, would be repealed.
• Private donors could give more to national parties to help fund conventions, building funds and legal proceedings, such as recounts.
• Rules for taxing and regulating marijuana in the District of Columbia would not be funded.
• The Bureau of Engraving and Printing could spend no money to redesign the $1 bill.

The budget proposal does little to address the nation’s pressing problems. However it does fund the government for a year. Democrats and Republicans did compromise to get necessary legislation done, which bodes well for the future.

© William Hungerford – December 2014

REED APPLAUDS PASSAGE OF BILL APPROVING KEYSTONE PIPELINE

Today Tom Reed supported legislation which advances the approval process of the Keystone Pipeline. The Keystone XL Pipeline Act (H.R. 3) passed the House of Representatives this afternoon with a bipartisan vote of 266-153. The bill requires the Executive Branch to approve the pipeline.

Yes, 28 Democrats voted for it and no Republican voted against it (http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll016.xml). In Reed’s view, it doesn’t take many Democratic votes to make a bill he favors bipartisan.

“Passage of this bill is a win for all Americans,” Reed, Co-Chair of the House Manufacturing Caucus, said. “The Keystone XL Pipeline not only creates countless infrastructure construction jobs, but it will also lower energy costs and put us another step closer to reducing our dependence on Middle East crude.” In addition to creating jobs, lowering energy costs and increasing energy security, construction of the pipeline will contribute to the rebirth of domestic manufacturing.

Countless jobs, Tom, really? It is hard to see how this bill is a win for the many Americans who oppose it; perhaps they don’t count.

“It’s not fair that these jobs are held hostage to politics,” Reed said. “I urge the Administration to show that it cares about economic development by building this pipeline.”

The pipeline would be built by a private company, not the administration. This bill, H.R. 3, has nothing to do with politics? Who believes that?

© William Hungerford – January 2015

http://reed.house.gov/press-release/reed-applauds-passage-bill-approving-keystone-pipeline