New NY 23rd

The House considered S.J. Res. 57, Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection related to “Indirect Auto Lending and Compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act”. The resolution invalidates a five year old guidance document issued by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) expressing its position that lenders who provide auto financing through dealerships are still subject to compliance with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s prohibition on discriminatory lending. After studying the issue, CFPB found that minority borrowers are often given financing at a higher cost and with less favorable terms. Issuing the guidance put the industry on notice that such behavior is illegal and can lead to enforcement action.

The mere fact that the lender is providing the loan indirectly using the car dealership as the intermediary does not absolve the lender from ECOA compliance. Indirect auto lenders include banks such as Wells Fargo and car manufacturers such as Toyota. While some members of Congress have introduced standalone legislation to repeal the CFPB guidance with provisions requiring the CFPB to revise its guidance, this use of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to repeal a federal agency guidance document is troubling and has consequences far beyond the auto lending issue. If Congress repeals an agency document under CRA, there is no judicial review of that repeal and the agency whose document was repealed is forbidden from issuing a substantially similar rule in the future unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the CRA resolution disapproving the original rule. Using CRA in this way could cause untold havoc throughout the federal government as any guidance, notice, or rule that Congress currently does not like – no matter how old, or how much reliance has been placed upon it, or how important to the public health and safety – could face repeal. Think of the worker protections, healthcare notices, environmental rules, civil rights guidance that could be on the chopping block now that Republicans in Congress have secured this “win”.

S.J. Res.  57 passed; two hundred twenty-three Republicans including Tom Reed voted AYE.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/57

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2018/roll171.xml

Politicians using the phrase “common sense” usually “beg the question”–they seek to get the reader to agree with an argument before they make it. Here are some examples: In 46 states across the nation, a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) has … Continue reading

Posted in Congress, Constituents, Economics, Environmental, Political, Reed’s Views, Uncategorized Tagged common sense, Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Voter ID

We are witnessing political confusion. We see states deal with changing the very essence of Democracy—the election process, primaries or caucuses, year and a half political campaigns, changing rules on political funding, new voting machines and new rules about who can vote. … Continue reading

Posted in Congress, Constituents, Education, Racism Tagged Differences in Voting Laws, Photo ID, Voter ID

Justice Ginsburg’s dissent: Those requirements, Justice Ginsburg wrote, “may prevent more than 600,000 registered Texas voters (about 4.5 percent of all registered voters) from voting in person for lack of compliant identification.” “A sharply disproportionate percentage of those voters are … Continue reading

Posted in Political, Supreme Court Tagged Justice Ginsburg, Texas, Voter ID

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.–Article I, Section 5 of The Constitution.

The Constitution is clear: each House makes its own rules. Rep. McCarthy’s challenge to the proxy voting rule was clearly frivolous, thus the Supreme Court has declined to hear it.

The proxy voting rule is needed during the pandemic, otherwise it would not have been reasonable. Members of Congress are intended to assemble and debate, not to name a proxy and leave town early.

Many who initially opposed the proxy voting rule found it convenient and made good use of it, so it may not be easily repealed. However, repeal would not be enough to restore the ideal of responsible debate and action by members of the House. It is rare now for members to listen while others speak. More often they stay in their offices until it is time to vote. Party-line voting shows that the need for legislation is overshadowed by party loyalty.

Members might better be required to be present when the House is in session. But since Members have a voice in the rules, such a rule change is unlikely.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/24/politics/kevin-mccarthy-nancy-pelosi-supreme-court/index.html

This entry was posted in Congress, Political, Supreme Court and tagged proxy voting. Bookmark the permalink.

Years ago, when I was hired by an electric utility company, a VP took me and other new hires out to dinner. He had two messages for us: the first had to do with unions, the second with Rural Electric Coops.

Coops were a sore point for the company. A big storm had cut power to a large rural area. Many of the company’s customers were left in the dark for a long time. However several coops were generating electricity locally, and their customers had their lights on.

REA Coops, the VP explained were an abomination.. As non-profits, they competed unfairly with investor owned private utilities. They were the vanguard of socialism.

President Roosevelt created the REA on May 11, 1935, under powers granted by the Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935. The goal of the REA was to bring electricity to America’s rural areas. Without the REA, many homes would have continued to lack electricity.

How else could the problem have been addressed:

• Private companies could have been paid to provide universal service which they otherwise couldn’t afford to do.
• Regulators could have allowed the utilities to raise everyone’s rates to cover the cost of extending service to a few.

FDR preferred to allow people to join together to solve the problem for themselves.

By mid-century, cities had near universal electric service. Generators, transformers, and wires were in place and had been long depreciated, paid for. As suburbs grew, electric service was extended to new customers over a wide area. To a large extent, existing customers in the cities where rates could have been lower, paid the price. That was unfair; perhaps new customers should have paid more until the companies investment in their behalf was paid off. That didn’t happen.

In some cases, the unfairness issue was addressed by municipal electric systems. Public systems were not-for-profit and needn’t bear the cost of expansion to an ever wider service area. Thus rates could be low. The VP deplored all public owned utilities as unfair competition, socialism.

The unfairness issue comes up in other areas, highways for example. Should the people of a relatively small populous state, MA for example, pay for miles and miles of interstate highways in TX and other western states. Fair or not, they do.

Recently the bipartisan infrastructure bill raises the issue of fairness. This bill proposes to fund expansion of internet service to unserved areas by paying private companies to do so. Public money pays to extend service to relatively few. How else could this problem have been addressed:

• Towns and villages could have been authorized and supported in providing public owned internet service. This was omitted from the bipartisan internet bill probably because it was seen as socialism.
• Regulators could have required universal service with the cost passed on to all customers.

I think the bipartisan solution is workable, but only if the states ensure that private companies use the public money to extend service to those who otherwise couldn’t be economically reached, and that the result is near universal service.

The following is a Press Release from the Bill Batrowny Campaign. Bill is running for the NY Assembly against incumbent Chris Friend in the 124th Assembly District (Chemung, Tioga and western part of Broome Counties).

Bill Batrowny, candidate for State Assembly in the 124th Assembly District, today asks incumbent Assemblyman Chris Friend to participate in a debate that would allow voters to hear positions directly from the candidates.

“As I travel the district and listen to the community, overwhelming, people feel they aren’t being represented,” said Batrowny.  “For six years now, my opponent has been in office and we don’t have much to show in terms of tangible results. Our region is ready for a hands on leader who is willing to put party politics aside to bring results to the working men and women in the Southern Tier.”

The 124th Assembly district includes Chemung, Tioga and part of Broome Counties. Batrowny proposes a minimum of two debates; one in Chemung and Tioga counties, to ensure all voters have the opportunity to learn about the candidates and their positions.

“I am asking Assemblyman Friend to participate in at least one debate in Chemung County and one in Tioga County,” he said. “Voters deserve the opportunity to hear from the candidates and where they stand on the issues that matter. Our campaign is about standing up for the working men and women in the Southern Tier. We’re focused on creating jobs, improving education for our youth, weeding out corruption in the Capital and shifting the party politics mentality that shortchanges our communities.”

Bio: Bill Batrowny is the son of a teacher and factory worker; He is a military veteran and  lifelong resident of the Southern Tier. Bill served the community for 28 years in law enforcement, retiring as Detective Sergeant in the City of Elmira. He spent many years volunteering as a coach for the local youth sports leagues and other local organizations. Bill currently lives with his wife, Karen, in Big Flats, New York.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

With our budget vote I am standing with the 99 percent who will see a tax break with a compromise on the state and local tax deduction. The hardworking people I’m standing with deserve more money in their paychecks and the good paying jobs that tax reform will bring to our region. –Rep. Tom Reed (facebook, Oct. 26)

(Reed has never offered evidence in support of his claim.)

The trouble with large numbers

The trouble with large numbers is that we can’t grasp them. Tom Reed claims that SALT (State and local tax exemption) benefits only the wealthy. There is some truth in this.

• Low income taxpayers don’t itemize.
• Taxpayers who do itemize pay more in State and local taxes.

But what about very wealthy persons, the rich and super rich? Donald Trump is said to have amassed a fortune of 3 billion in about thirty years. This implies an annual income of about 100 million which is incredible, off the charts.

The Tax Foundation (right leaning) supports Tom’s view that SALT favors the rich. But the data they use covers incomes from 0 to a million–a hundred time less than Trump’s presumed income. Is SALT valuable to the likes of Donald Trump? No way:

• The only tax Trump pays is probably AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax), which is slated for repeal as is the Estate Tax.
• Trump presumably takes advantages of tax loopholes which dwarf SALT.

Reed, like Trump, refuses to release his tax returns. It would embarrass his family, Reed says.

Tax policy is hard. It is blatantly misleading to suggest that SALT benefits the rich without defining “rich” and without considering the many other factors which might make tax policy “fair.”

Republicans continue to squirm over taxes. The latest proposal is to allow property tax deduction but not income tax or sales tax deduction. This is a compromise between Republican factions, rather than some more reasonable compromise. Gary Cohn ( Director of the National Economic Council and chief economic adviser to President Donald Trump) has proposed a gas tax increase, which Tom Reed has hitherto bitterly opposed. Will Reed now change his mind about that?

Personal disclaimer: I never had income in six figures, but I did benefit from SALT.

The articles cited give the right-leaning Tax Foundation’s view, not mine.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-tax-deduction-primer/

https://taxfoundation.org/five-implications-retaining-property-tax-deduction-federal-tax-reform/

This entry was posted in Political, Reed’s Views, Taxes, Uncategorized and tagged Gary Cohn. Bookmark the permalink.

Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?–Bob Dylan

If Nixon goes free, I don’t think anyone should be found guilty of anything.–Statement of a prospective juror circa 1974. The judge warned him about contempt of court, but let him go unpunished.

The current administration seems determined to rerun Watergate. Here is the cast:

• Nixon/Trump
• Agnew/Pence
• Mitchell/Sessions
• Dean/McGahn

(Trump is not Nixon in many ways; unlike Pence, Agnew was a criminal; Mitchell and Dean were conspirators in a way that Sessions and McGahn may not be.)

Here is the plot:

• Crime
• Lies
• Exposure
• Desperate action

President Trump, lying about his actions, ranting about those investigating his crimes, threatening to fire investigators, and suggesting pardons for cronies, echos the unfolding of Watergate.

I don’t remember scandal around the 1968 election. As I remember, Nixon gave two reasons for selecting Agnew as his running mate.

• Agnew made Democrats see red
• No one would wish him ill if Agnew would be his successor

Pence may have been selected for other reasons, but he does meet Nixon’s criteria. As it happened, Agnew was replaced with Gerald Ford before Nixon resigned.

By 1972 Nixon, paranoid and determined to be a two-term president, was up to his neck in crime.

Watergate didn’t reach its conclusion until Republicans saw Nixon as an insufferable liability. We must be near that point now with a criminal conspiracy unraveling, potential for self-serving pardons, another “Saturday Night Massacre” possible, and midterm elections looming.

What’s next for Trump? If the analogy with Watergate holds, we already know how the drama ends.

This entry was posted in Trump and tagged Watergate. Bookmark the permalink.

If you wanted a man to encourage the van,
Or harass the foe from the rear,
Or to storm a redoubt, you had but to shout
For Abdulah Bul Bul Ameer.

If you need a man like the mythical Abdulah, you might shout for Jared Kushner, currently senior adviser to US President Donald Trump. Reportedly, Kushner is supposed to be able to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict in the morning and reorganize the Federal Government to run efficiently in the afternoon. He can do it if anyone can.

Yet there are some things that trouble even Jared Kushner, for example:

• Filling out a security form accurately is a challenge. Kushner has yet to be approved for a permanent security clearance.
• Kushner has trouble remembering what he did about important matters when questioned.

Kushner reportedly is a quick study, walking into government meetings, possibly contributing a brief remark, then slipping out when bored. It is astonishing that a person with so many grave responsibilities would have difficulty remembering.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/360826-kushner-working-with-temporary-security-clearance-in-the-white-house

This entry was posted in Political and tagged Jared Kushner, nepotism. Bookmark the permalink.

The article was written by Cath Kestler, activist and resident of Silver Creek, NY

The Science March held on Earth Day provided us with an actual picture of the participating masses filled with an untiring enthusiasm in unity for the need to save our planet, for there is no planet B; we only have one chance and that time is now because time will run out for we are very close to that line in the sand.

Those who are passionate about science exude a quest to understand the universe and science; it is ever-changing and evolving as I type this column.  I remember watching Bill Nye the Science Guy in his lab coat and bowties with my daughters back in the 90’s thoroughly enjoying the looks on their faces filled with amazement as he explained science in a fun way that made them eager to learn more.

Today, Bill Nye is like a rock star to those kids that are passionate about science and he is always willing to engage in conversations with our younger generations and has never turned down an opportunity to pose for a “selfie” to satisfy his fans.

My mentor as I was growing up was my eighth grade science teacher, Mrs. Burch who ignited my passion for science and my thirst to drink up all the knowledge I could find at that age.  I drove my mother crazy with all of my questions and I was frequently at the library in search of the answers.  I hope some of you out there advocate our young generation to seek the answers and develop a deep love for science.

During the March on Saturday in DC as well as other marches happening in conjunction were filled with scientists, doctors, educators and activists all with science related goals in mind.  It was reported that some 500 to in the government 600 other satellite marches took place to put the focus on varying scientific concerns depending on where the march took place.

Some of the goals in which the spotlight needed to shine upon were for funding for science education; promoting open outreach to further promote education and supporting diversity in different scientific fields.  Though the scientists reached out to state and local politicians to participate, only the Democrats responded to the call.

According to Laurie Krug, an associate professor in the Department of Molecular Genetics & Microbiology at SUNY Stoney Brook who marched Saturday in NYC stated in Live Science that “Scientists are going to be more active, we tend to be passive so that we are seen as non-partisan.  We need to keep STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) field strong to keep young people interested in research.”

A website has been introduced that has advocacy news and tools to help scientists get connected to the political process.  There are mountains of information that scientists need to be better at opening up and communicating the information we need—not everyone is science minded.  Get some information: https://www.forceforscience.org/

This March was born and motivated by Trump who disparaged climate change as a hoax and voiced suspicions of the safety of vaccines.  Cabinet members were appointed to head up departments that are skeptical if not outright hostile to the sciences.  In an administration that relies on polls, a recent poll stated that the majority of the citizens trust and depend on scientists and their works.

Recent budget cuts hit the sciences straight to the bone.  The National Institutes of Health which is already cut to the quick will be further cut by 18 percent.  We are on the verge of life-saving breakthroughs in a lot of areas in medicine and diseases.

The Environmental Protection Agency headed up by Scott Pruitt (who is an open science denier) and has sued this agency 20 times will see a 31% cut to funding and a quarter (25%) of the EPA’s 15,000 employees will lose their jobs.  Bringing back polluted rivers, streams and lakes, not to mention rolling back regulations on dumping toxic waste and breathing in smog…I remember the 70’s and don’t want to go back there.

According to Denis Hayes an organizer from the first Earth Day in the 1970 stated in the NY Times, “You have a clear enemy,” he said.  “You’ve got a president who along with his vice president, his cabinet and his party leadership in both houses of Congress have a strong anti-environment agenda.  He’s basically trying to roll back everything we’ve tried to do in the last half-century.”

Let’s be clear, we can no longer afford a government that dismisses or denies science.  The People’s March for Science is scheduled for April 29^th in DC and I’m sure there will be sister marches to coincide with this march as well—if you missed the march on Earth Day, consider making a sign and letting your voices be heard this Saturday.  Hope to see some of you there.

Science is vitally important.  Where would we be without science?  It is used in absolutely every aspect in the lives we live…

This entry was posted in Environmental and tagged Bil Nye, Earth Day, EPA. Bookmark the permalink.

All major Social Security reforms were the product of Democrats and Republicans joining together to improve this landmark program.–Rep. Tom Reed (email, 9/21/19)

Social Security is based on non-partisan compromise; it is a very conservative retirement insurance program. Compromise was possible because legislators shared a common goal–workable retirement insurance for most Americans.

Reed claims:

However, the Democrat Social Security Plan (H.R. 860) would raise taxes on hardworking people while a Congressional Budget Office report released last week says the plan will only achieve solvency for another nine years – not permanent solvency as advertised. (email)

Reed is wrong. The CBO report he cites doesn’t say what he says it does.

As shown in Table 1, CBO and JCT estimate that over the current baseline projection period (2020 to 2029), enactment of H.R. 860 would:

• Increase Social Security outlays by $386 billion;
• Increase federal revenues by $911 billion, the net effect of a decrease in on-budget revenues of $719 billion and an increase in off-budget revenues of $1.629 trillion; and
• Reduce the federal deficit by $525 billion (excluding any effects on direct spending for programs other than Social Security).

The discussion of on-budget and off-budget is confusing; there is more detail in the report. The CBO report continues:

In the long term, H.R. 860 would increase Social Security revenues more than it would increase benefits, nearly closing the funding shortfall that is currently projected. Under the bill, the 75-year summarized value of revenues would increase by 1.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and the 75-year summarized value of outlays would increase by 0.3 percent of GDP, CBO estimates. The net effect of those changes would be to reduce the Social Security system’s 75-year actuarial deficit from 1.5 percent of GDP under current law to 0.1 percent under the bill (see Table 2).

This doesn’t sound bad. The report continues

At the end of the 75-year period in 2093, CBO projects, under H.R. 860, spending would increase by 0.4 percent of GDP and revenues would increase by 2.2 percent of GDP, compared with the amounts projected under current law. This would significantly reduce but not eliminate the annual gap between Social Security’s costs and its revenues. Under H.R. 860, that annual gap would be widening by the end of the 75-year period and would continue to widen thereafter, causing the program’s financial shortfall to increase in subsequent years.

The report notes that projections far into the future are uncertain. With this in mind 75 years of sustainability sounds rather good. Here is the section that Tom Reed misconstrues:

Under H.R. 860, the newly established Social Security Trust Fund would be exhausted in calendar year 2041. Under current law, CBO projects, the existing Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds will be exhausted in calendar year 2032 and fiscal year 2028, respectively. If their balances were combined, the OASDI trust funds would be exhausted in calendar year 2032. (Following common analytical conventions, CBO often considers the two trust funds as combined.)

Tom quotes predictions for current law which the CBO report says will be a concern in nine years, as if they applied to the proposed law: H.R. 860.

Is Tom, uninformed, careless, or disingenuous. What do readers think?

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55627

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/860