Skip to main content

Corwin says she has a plan to reduce spending

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – More than a week after Jane Corwin outlined her plan to cut spending and prevent the United States from having its AAA credit rating downgraded (as S&P threatened yesterday if Washington doesn’t cut spending), career politician Kathy Hochul still has offered no plan to address runaway government spending and the skyrocketing national debt. It has now been six days since President Obama said he is amending his own 2012 budget proposal to call for a massive $1.5 trillion tax hike.

S&P, one of the three main agencies that rate the ability of companies and countries to repay their debts, cut its outlook for America's long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative" yesterday, a direct result of the failed leadership from Washington in addressing our fiscal crisis.

“Yesterday’s ominous news is the clearest sign yet that Washington needs to get serious about cutting spending, but despite the threat of America’s perfect credit rating being downgraded, trillion dollar debts and deficits, and a cry from Western New York taxpayers to get real about cutting spending, Kathy Hochul has refused to address the most pressing issue facing America’s future,” said Matthew Harakal, communications director for Corwin for Congress.

“Kathy Hochul has three options – she can continue to stand with Nancy Pelosi and refuse to do anything to cut spending, she can support the President’s plan for $1.5 trillion in crippling tax hikes on already struggling Western New York families and small businesses, or she can follow Jane Corwin’s lead and cut spending immediately to strengthen the economy and create jobs.”

Corwin’s detailed plan to cut spending has been posted on her Web site for more than a week (www.JaneCorwin.com) <http://www.janecorwin.com/>.

During her 30-plus years in the private sector, Corwin gained a firm understanding of the importance to cut government spending to strengthen the economy and create jobs.

Corwin’s Common Sense Spending Solutions:

--Repeal last year’s disastrous Obama health care law and replace it with common sense reforms to reduce health care costs.
--Rewind spending on non-security government agencies to pre-2008 levels, and enact a five-year spending freeze.
-- Reduce the federal workforce by 10 percent by 2014, implement a five-year pay freeze for government workers, and enact reforms to government workers’ generous benefit plans.
-- End corporate bailouts by removing government from the business of choosing which private companies win and which ones lose.
-- Impose a spending limit for fiscal year 2012 and establish a binding limit on total spending as a percentage of the economy.
-- End duplicate programs, streamline government and instill private sector management tools to make government more efficient.

Kathy Hochul has followed the lead of Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats, who did not even pass a budget last year, leading to the near-shutdown of government. Corwin repeatedly said she would have voted to prevent a government shutdown.

“During her 36 years in the private sector, Jane Corwin learned that when you see a problem you confront it head on; you don’t run from it,” Harakal added. “Kathy Hochul represents the type of failed leadership that has continued the borrow-and-spend philosophy that has given us trillion dollar debts and deficits.

"Given Kathy Hochul’s record of raising taxes and raising spending, taxpayers should be very worried to see which option she’d chose if she gets to go back home to Washington.”

Career politician Hochul has a long tax-and-spend record during her many years on the public dime. While on the Hamburg Town Board, Hochul voted to increase the tax burden on Western New Yorkers in 11 budgets for a total of 45 percent, then as the Erie County Clerk voted to increase her own budget at the Auto Bureau by an incredible 51 percent, despite calls from taxpayers to shrink the size of government.

Ed Gentner

Thank you Republican Jane Corwin for regurgetating the same tired Republican talking points, that she backs the budget plan put out by Republican Paul Ryan says it all. The Ryan Republican Budget plan Jane Corwin embraced calls for reducing costs by privatizing medicare, gutting medicaid and making pemanant the tax policies that brought the economy to it's knees.

Jane Corwin's claim of having 36 years of business experience in the private sector is at best a gross exageration that trades off the experience and accomplishments of her late father's business. A business that was sold and the new owners promptly laid off most of the employees with the notable exception of her husband and brother who remain on the payroll.

Ms. Corwin needs to do and say more than recite chapter and verse of the Republican Leadership and provide voters with something more original.

Apr 19, 2011, 1:48pm Permalink
Thomas Schneider

Both parties are riding a train right off a cliff. Constant lip service to reducing spending and never any actions that actually produce any results. I hope everybody who relies on government service has a back up plan, because when it comes time to pay the piper, who do you think the government (democrat and/or republican) is going to give the shaft too? I can tell you right now its not our creditors. What Iceberg?...Full steam ahead...

Apr 19, 2011, 5:11pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

Jack Davis has stated that with full employment the medicare and social security trust funds will have enough money to continue without having to resort to drastic cuts or dramatic changes in either program. To get back to full employment and a healthy economy Jack Davis has championed the idea of scrapping the trade policies and tax programs that have led to the decline of American industry and the export of American jobs. Jack Davis has been clear that he intends to push for changes in the tax code that will stop the practice of corporations setting up shop outside the country and avoiding their fair tax share. No more incentives to move industry offshore at the expense of American workers and their families.

Apr 19, 2011, 5:49pm Permalink
Daniel Jones

Edmund - Every time you bring up Jack, I will post this video. Think of it as equal time.

<object width="480" height="390"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8TevhNaJgoo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8TevhNaJgoo?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="390"></embed></object>

Any thoughts on Jack's desire to 'preserve the heritage of our fathers', or what that means?

Apr 19, 2011, 7:35pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

I was just curious if you had actually read the plan or if you were, as you put it, just regurgitating the same old talking points.

Your comment....

"The Ryan Republican Budget plan Jane Corwin embraced calls for reducing costs by privatizing medicare, gutting medicaid and making permanent the tax policies that brought the economy to it's knees."

...suggests that you read the plan and formed the above opinion.

You obviously haven't read the plan or you would have known what the proposed Business Consumption Tax is all about.

So, who writes your opinions for you?

Apr 19, 2011, 7:56pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

JoAnne, you still have not answered the question of what is the "border-adjustable Business Consumption Tax" you refer to. I have read enough of Republican Ryan's plan to know that if adopted will privatize medicare and cause harm to those under 55 years old when they become seniors at 65 years old. You want your well being left up tp the big insurance corporations trading medicare for a coupon that might cover a fraction of your future health care costs. Republican Jane Corwin has embraced Ryan's plan to privatize medicare, lets see if she campaigns on it, telling voters that if elected she will vote to privatize medicare as a supporter of the Republican Ryan's plan to solve the deficit while cutting taxes for billionaires and corporations that export American jobs.

Apr 20, 2011, 9:18am Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Edmund,

I don't understand what reading "enough" means. No one read the Health Care Bill before it's passage because they felt they knew "enough" about it. Turns out they were wrong. If something is going to effect me now or in the future, I want to read anything and everything about it. I want to know what supporters AND opponents say about it. Yet sadly, "enough", by most peoples standards, is the current talking points, catchphrases and buzzwords, which are seldom based on fact and usually based on party hype. Maybe "enough" is good enough for you and you are content to trust others to fill in the blanks for you. It's not good enough for me. I would love to have an honest discussion about the pros and cons of Ryan's plan, if only there was a single other person that I could find that has actually read it.

If Ryan's plan was in place last year:

I would have had a choice to use the existing tax code or the new simplified code. With the simplified code, my federal tax liability would have been about $800 less.

I also would have received a $2300 health care tax credit that I could have used toward my health care expenses or banked for future use. The credit is advanceable, so you can get it in the beginning of the year when you need it. It is also refundable for those with zero tax liability.

Health care premiums I paid would have been tax deductible.

I would own my health insurance, as opposed to my employer owning it. I could choose what was best for me and not have to be stuck with what was best for my employer. It would be portable, so I could take it with me if I changed jobs.

I would have been able to comparison shop for health insurance across State lines. As it is set up right now, only one company in Genesee County (MVP) has Rochester based rates. All others are Buffalo based with higher rates. My rates will double this year. They doubled last year. Not much of a choice.

Regarding Social Security, I would have a choice whether to remain in the current system or opt in to the new system similar to the one (TSP) that Federal employees have. I don't hear them complaining about it.

Regarding Medicare, I've read through all of the components of the plan and the CBO analysis and I am convinced that Medicare "as we know it" needs to be reformed. I don't see that as a bad thing. It is something that will affect me down the road, so it is in my best interest to be informed on the facts and disregard the hype.

Regarding Corporate Tax Rates. Globalization is here whether anyone likes it or not. The US has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and companies have chosen not to do business here because of it and to park profits abroad to avoid it.

In order to make the US more competitive and attract foreign investment and job creation, the US now spends a ton of money on financing and administering economic development programs at every level of government in an effort to "level the playing field".

Instead of fixing the problem, we apply expensive band-aids that have not helped to stem the flow of jobs outsourced abroad and has caused more problems (insourcing of jobs from abroad, loss of tax revenue at every gov't level) that will require new band-aid solutions...more layers of government.

Jobs and foreign investment that does come our way through economic development incentives, does so with a high price tag attached (ex. Alpina Foods)

Ryan's plan proposes an 8.5% Business Consumption Tax which would replace the Corporate Tax. I believe it is a step in the right direction in actually fixing the problem rather than add another layer of band-aids. It is "border adjustable", meaning that it would be applied to foreign goods as they enter the US, but not applied to goods exported from the US. The current Corporate tax rate is not border adjustable (it cannot be removed from exports or imposed on imports).

Here is a link to an explanation of the proposed Business Consumption Tax. It is explained in pretty easy to understand terms, so there is no point in me trying to simplify it further here.

http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/plan/#federaltaxreform

To paraphrase Ian Murphy, go enlighten yourself.

Apr 20, 2011, 12:34pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

JoAnne, the bottom line for me is that the Republican plan put foreward by Paul Ryan and supported by Jane Corwin seeks to privatize medicare and leave seniors who depend on the program at the mercy of the big insurance corporations. As to the proposed tax code changes from Republicans, it's simply more of the same. Repiblican's had control over all three branchs of government at the time George W. Bush entered the White House with a budget surplus and he left with a trillion dollar deficit, so any argument from Republican's offering more of the same is just plain nonsense. The Republican party and it's minions in congress put this country into the worst recession since the "Great Depression" with half baked schemes to lower taxes and get rid of regulations put in place to protect the American ecomnomy and the American people. Republican Jane Corwin simply offers more of the same.

Apr 20, 2011, 1:56pm Permalink
JoAnne Rock

Edmund, the bottom line for me is that Paul Ryan's plan has a lot of merit and is worth looking at in detail.

Explain to me how the program will..."leave seniors who depend on the program at the mercy of the big insurance corporations". That is merely a partisan talking point and does nothing to advance the debate. Can you provide an specific example of how this program will screw future seniors?

You say that the tax code changes are "more of the same". The Ryan tax code will fit on a postcard. How is that more of the same?

I'm not really concerned with how we got here or whose fault it was - that's partisan bickering that will go on forever and also does nothing to advance the debate. The bigger issue for me is where do we go from here?

All ideas and proposals should be on the table and up for discussion. I don't care if it is a Republican, Democrat, Green or Rent Too Damn High idea. If it is a good idea it shouldn't matter who proposes it. Unfortunately, who proposes it seems to matter the most to a great majority of people.

FWIW, while I support Ryan's plan, I do not support Jane Corwin.

Apr 20, 2011, 2:54pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

JoAnne, the Ryan plan calls for medicare to be replaced with a voucher for health coverage for seniors to take and shop for health care coverage from private insurance companies thus replacing the plan currently in place. Insurance companies set prices and coverage based on projected costs of anticipated services to be provided, the lower the age group the lower the risk factor. The older the group to be insured the higher the cost to the insurance company because as we age our bodies deteriorate, arthritis, diabetes, hypertension are common when we age. Insurance companies operate to make money even the non-profit or not-for profit corporations look at the bottom line, in the corporate world when costs go up you either pass the costs along or cut services. Unless you are talking about regulating the insuarnce instry to contain costs while preserving a minimum level of service seniors end up with, having to pay out of pocket to cover additional costs, opting out of needed medical attention or being denied treatment because they have reached the limit of their coverage. Now enlighten me on how the Republican Ryan plan benefits seniors and assures an aging population that they will recieve proper care in their twilight years. Insurance companies will love this plan as once again they will be able to charge whatever they choose and pass the costs on to seniors, or more realisticly back on the tax payers once the scheme fails.

Apr 20, 2011, 3:20pm Permalink

Authentically Local