Skip to main content

NY-26

Hochul hits Corwin on oil company profits

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

ERIE COUNTY – Oil companies British Petroleum (BP), Shell, ConocoPhillips, and Exxon Mobil all reported first-quarter profits today, with Exxon Mobil reporting an astonishing 69-percent increase in profits. 

“While Americans are paying more than $4 at the pump, oil companies are making exorbitant profits thanks to the help of their Republican friends in Congress,” said Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District. “Speaker John Boehner says Congress ‘ought to take a look at’ tax breaks for oil companies, but we know that the House has already given them far too many.

“The 2012 House budget, that my Republican opponent supports, further fuels the profits oil companies made last quarter by cutting federal spending in energy research and development, while calling for the elimination of tax breaks for wind, solar and other alternative energy technologies. House Republicans would rather gut alternative energy technologies and decimate Medicare, than cut subsidies for big oil. How is that competitive?”

Jane Corwin has publicly stated her support for the Republican’s 2012 budget that would decimate Medicare, while giving tax breaks to corporations and America’s wealthiest individuals. The proposal also terminates alternative energy development, innovation and exploration.

NY-26 candidate questions: Taxes and debt

By Howard B. Owens

This week, we asked each of the four candidates in the special election for the NY-26 Congressional District questions related to taxes, spending and debt.

Below are the questions. After the jump, the candidates' responses in the order received.

Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons. In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax, regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

Is it necessary to reduced the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

Jack Davis:

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

(A) I believe putting Americans to work is more important than any theory. The economic theories told us we don’t need to make anything in America anymore because we could sell derivatives and exotic financial debt instead. The theories were wrong. Economics 101 tells us the only way to create wealth is to grow, dig or manufacture a product. Common sense is more useful than academic theories in getting our economy on the right track.

(Q) A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent. Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

(A) The current tax code needs to be reformed.   

(Q) For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons. In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax, regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) The notion that a corporation is a “person” with the same rights as a person is ridiculous. This is another example of a theory that is completely out of touch with reality and common sense. It is wrong for GE to earn $5 billion in U.S. profits in 2010 and pay zero taxes.  They are able to do this thanks to tax laws passed by both Republicans and Democrats. This is a perfect example of how both parties in Washington have been bought off.

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) When we talk about federal agencies that need fixing, it’s hard to know where to start. The departments of education, commerce and energy are prime candidates for an “extreme makeover” or elimination. 

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) Working Americans – and those who would be working if we had a sane economic policy – should be first in line for tax relief. I oppose raising taxes.

(Q) Is it necessary to reduce the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases?  And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) We must reduce the crippling level of debt we are leaving our children and grandchildren. The first step is to stop digging ourselves deeper into debt, and that means cutting the deficit. We will do that by putting Americans back to work. Right now, 56 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are working. If that rises to 64 percent, Dan Fuss, vice president of the financial firm Loomis Sayles, points out the deficit disappears entirely. At the same time, we have to change the law so corporations like GE can’t hide profits overseas and avoid paying any taxes at all.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) We need to overhaul our entire tax structure. I will closely study all alternatives to the current system. Before the adoption of the income tax, the federal government derived most of its revenue not from working Americans, but from foreigners who wanted to sell their goods in this country.  

Ian Murphy

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

(A) To give one an idea of how very obtuse Ludwig Von Mises was, he once called Ayn Rand “the most courageous man in America." As for the Austrian School of Economics he helped shape, that misguided philosophy can be directly tied to the unregulated “free-market” madness which wrecked our economy and has made the income disparity in America greater than any industrialized country in the world. The top 400 Americans own more wealth than the bottom 150 million. Mises represents economics for those 400 people.

Keynes was the man. Keynesian economic policies got us out of the Great Depression, they got Japan out of their “Lost Decade,” they are a proven way to boost an economy. For example: every $1 spent on food stamps returns $1.73 <http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm>  into the economy. And according to the CBO's assessment <http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/100xx/doc10008/03-02-Macro_Effects_of_ARRA.pdf> of the '09 AARA stimulus package, government expenditure on goods and services has a far superior multiplier effect on GDP than does bogus trickle-down nonsense.

(Q) A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

(A) Hell yes, they need to be reformed; those tax rates are the antithesis of reasonable.

FUN FACT: Republicans worship Ronald Reagan. Even our Democratic President admires the Gipper. Oddly enough, during the Reagan years the tax rate for a millionaire was 47.7% <http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-taxrate_3.png> . Not even a Democrat could suggest such a rate today without being vilified by the wealthy elite and their propagandist lapdogs in the press.

We need a progressive tax code in this country—that is, if we want a stable society. Otherwise, keep slashing taxes for the rich like Paul Ryan would have us do—or Bush and Obama have—and invest in pitchforks and torches because they'll soon be a very hot commodity.

(Q) For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons. In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) Corporations are considered “persons” for the most illegitimate of reasons. This insane precedent started with a note made in the margins of an 1886 decision in the case of Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad by a court clerk. The clerk happened to be a former employee of Southern Pacific. The note was not legally binding, but through the hyper-litigious acts of Southern Pacific and other corporations, we've seen the 14th Amendment perverted in case after case, and the rights intended for slaves freed by the 13th Amendment extended to non-human entities. Forgive me the brief history lesson, but a pig is not a boat and corporations are not people.

There's really no need to be too clever about this. Outlaw corporate personhood, which is very important in terms of protecting the democratic process, and institute a progressive corporate tax. The end.

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) Duplicate? Does that mean every local teacher has a federal doppelganger who teaches clones of our children in shadow classrooms? That doesn't sound right—accurate. At any rate, I'm against cloning.

If there truly are redundancies and inefficiencies, rather than federal departments working in concert with state and local agencies, then they should be eliminated. That's just common sense.

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) I was under the impression that the Making Work Pay Tax Credit, passed as small part of the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ranged between $400 for individuals and $800 for couples filing jointly. Regardless, I would not have voted to repeal this tax credit, which benefited most working Americans.

And as many competent economists have argued <http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/how-did-we-know-the-stimulus-was-too-small/> , the AARA stimulus package was not large enough. Though it should be noted that the House and Senate versions of the bill were drastically different.

The Senate sharply cut back spending on states and wasted approximately $70 billion extending revisions of the alternative minimum tax, which the Tax Policy Center <http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxtopics/senatereportcard.cfm>  rated as D-, writing that this was “[n]either timely nor targeted; makes no sense as economic stimulus.” I would have voted to overturn that extension. 

(Q) Is it necessary to reduced the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) Yes, it is necessary in the long term. Unfortunately, politicians constantly evoke the metaphor of personal, family finance and belt-tightening, which is not really how large scale economies work. Unlike personal finance, it's often necessary to spend your way out of a recession, rather than cut back on spending. As it ties into the above questions, consider the return of investment on food stamps and the multiplier effect of other Keynesian programs.

In theory, the debt could be reduced without increasing taxes. But why would we do that? Sure, we should cut our bloated military budget and take measures to maximize efficiency, but we have a vast river of untapped revenue in the super-wealthy and corporations. It's astoundingly irresponsible and immoral not to raise taxes on the very wealthy.

Instead, what you'll get from Republicans is a disingenuous lecture on 'austerity' and the slashing of vital social programs on which most Americans rely. And most tragic, by my estimation, is the absolute spinelessness of Democrats. Applauding a compromise between evil and a lesser evil is evil in itself. These people would have made FDR embarrassed to be a Democrat.

The people of NY-26 may not even be aware of how their very democracy is being taken from them by hatchet-happy Republicans and their simpering, acquiescing Democratic counterparts.

One small example is a Hochul press release <http://thebatavian.com/howard-owens/hochul-lauds-budget-compromise-calls-opponents-apathetic/25342>  I came across on this very Web site. My opponent “called on [her] opponents, Republican Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis, to join [her] in supporting a budget compromise to no avail.”

I'm glad you didn't ask me, Kathy. I will not support a $39 billion cut in non-defense discretionary spending. I will not support the slashing of funds for roads, bridges, schools, and myriad programs for women, the poor and the middle class. I will not support a budget that will hurt average Americans.

Excuse the rant, but that “wonderful” compromise slashed funding for PBS and, as I understand it, WNED cannot afford to produce a debate for this special election because they're broke. So it seems this is my only opportunity to rail against the evil, dumb and cowardly stances of my opponents--because of the evil, dumb and cowardly stances of my opponents.

We need to maintain the social programs we have and invest in our society again, rather than feeling lovey-dovey about being screwed by bipartisan compromise.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) Never. A flat tax or a national sales tax would shift the burden to the poor and middle class. And anyone who talks about these things as a serious option for America is either a tremendous fool or an incorrigible liar.

I'd also like to add that we need to close all tax loopholes, regulate Wall Street in a meaningful way (reinstate the Glass-Steagal Act), appropriately tax capital gains, and eliminate the Federal Reserve's disturbing and secretive, risk-free lending to wealthy jackals.

In case you didn't know, a bipartisan group including Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders recently pressed the Fed to open their books. They only were allowed to view two years of data, but what they found was shocking—a shadow budget rivaling the size of our official one.

All done without congressional oversight or presidential approval, there were literally trillions spent bailing out banks in Mexico and Bahrain—loans given to foreign car manufacturers and risk-free loans given to anyone with a connection on Wall Street.

If the beneficiaries (most notably two wives of investment bankers with no financial background <http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-real-housewives-of-wall-street-look-whos-cashing-in-on-the-bailout-20110411> ) made money off of the multimillion dollar loans, they'd pay them back at next to no interest. If their deals went south, they simply walked away. There was no penalty for default. And the American taxpayer was stuck with the bill. Again.

This is an outrage, and all abuses at the Fed must be put to an end. If I'm elected to Congress, I will demand transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve. 

Kathy Hochul:

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government. Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons.  In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as GE? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) When a company like General Electric reports worldwide profits of $14.2 billion without paying a single dollar in federal income tax, we know there is something wrong with our tax code. In fact, due to G.E.’s intense lobbying efforts and slick accounting, the company was able to claim a $3.2 billion tax benefit – money that could have been invested in small businesses that create jobs here at home. The fact that every taxpayer in the 26th District paid more in taxes last year than General Electric is plain wrong. 

So yes, without question, our tax code needs to be reformed.  Once elected to Congress, I will fight to ensure the wealthiest Americans and corporations start to pay their fair share. I’ll work to close corporate loopholes and end tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. We need to invest in local businesses that create jobs for hard working American families

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services.  Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) There is no question that we need to make substantial cuts in spending and streamline government services, just like I’ve done in Erie County. However, we cannot stop investing in education, medical research or high-tech research, since these programs help small businesses innovate and grow. And we cannot support any kind of budget that will decimate Medicare. 

There are numerous programs managed by the federal government where we could cut wasteful spending. For example, under the recommendations of the Department of Defense and Defense Secretary Gates, we can cut $178 billion in inefficient programs from that one department. It is time we enact this, and so many more, meaningful reforms and get our national debt under control.

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit.  Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) The current financial climate is hitting middle-class families and small businesses harder than anyone else. Last year, Congress did not extend one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history. The Making Work Pay Credit saved individuals $400 and married couples, who filed jointly, $800. If I were a member of Congress, I would have supported this tax credit. In economic times like this, we cannot raise taxes on those individuals struggling to get by.

(Q) Is it necessary to reduce the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) There is no question we must work to reduce our national debt.  The number one way to cut our yearly deficit and reduce the debt is by cutting wasteful spending. There are plenty of federal programs that only add more and more to how much we owe each and every day.

Nonetheless, it is disingenuous for any candidate to talk about balancing the budget without discussing closing corporate loopholes on companies like General Electric, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, and so many others that paid absolutely nothing in federal income taxes last year. We then need to look to America’s wealthiest citizens and ensure they pay their fair share. I will not, however, raise taxes on middle-class families and small businesses, which fuel our economy and create much needed jobs.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) I reject any tax proposal that would shift the tax burden to middle-class families and small businesses, while giving large tax breaks to corporate giants and America’s wealthiest individuals.

Jane Corwin:

(Q) Let’s start with general economic theory. There are two primary, and opposing, schools of thought regarding modern economics and the role of government.  Which theories most closely match your own economic view, those of John Maynard Keynes or Ludwig Von Mises?

(A) I am a believer in the free market and limited government. That’s what allowed the family business my father started out of our garage to get started, and it’s what allowed my siblings and I to help grow it and create hundreds of jobs here in Western New York. That’s one of the most basic choices in this election -- other candidates in the race think that the government should have more control over how you spend your money. I believe that individuals are the ones who best know their own needs and how their money is spent most wisely.

(Q) A median-wage worker pays 23.4 percent of his or her income in federal taxes. A person in the top 1 percent of wage earners pays 16.9 percent.  Would you consider this differential something that should be reformed in the current tax code, or does this seem reasonable to you?

(A) Our tax code needs to be fair, and that’s something I believe Congress needs to address and if honored to be elected on May 24th that is something I will fight for. Along with most Western New Yorkers, I understand that some taxes must be paid for basic civic and social services and that we need to provide a safety net for those in need. As I said, I believe that individuals are the ones who best know their own needs and how they want to spend their money, whether they make $30,000 or $300,000.

(Q) For purposes of political speech, corporations are considered persons.  In tax law, persons must, at a minimum, pay an Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). Should the AMT be extended to the “persons” of corporations, such as General Electric Corp.? In other words, should corporations be required to pay at least some tax regardless of write-offs and other tax advantages?

(A) If we focus on reforming our current tax system we will ensure that everyone pays their fair share. That will enable us to eliminate the loopholes that corporations take advantage of. Again, Kathy Hochul has said that she would vote to raise taxes on anyone – individuals and small businesses – making more than $500,000.

This week I discussed my plan to lower gas prices and met with local independent station owners. Under Kathy Hochul’s plan, these Western New York small businesses would send more money to Washington instead of keeping it here in Western New York and growing and creating jobs.  

(Q) At the federal level, there are several departments and agencies – such as education, health, commerce, and more – that duplicate state and local services. Which, if any, of these departments and agencies could be eliminated or greatly reduced?

(A) We absolutely need to focus on is shrinking government, instead searching for ways to grow it, which is what we’ve seen over the last few years. For example, the Obama health care law created about 160 new government agencies, bureaus and departments.

I’m honored to have been selected as the only minority Assemblymember to serve on Governor Cuomo’s Spending and Government Efficiency (SAGE) Commission that will be looking at how we can rightsize government and allow individuals more of a say in what their hard-earned taxes are paying for, instead of leaving those decisions up to career politicians and bureaucrats.

I also believe that we need to constantly review existing agencies, departments, and regulations to ensure that 1) the departments/agencies/regulations in place are still needed, and 2) any new departments/agencies/regulations do not duplicate what is already in effect.

(Q) In 2009, Obama pushed through a tax cut for the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers that saved taxpayers from $800 to $1,600 per year. In December 2010, Congress overturned this tax credit. Would you have voted to repeal this tax cut if you were in office at the time?

(A) Even President Obama said that the bipartisan December 2010 tax compromise “would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family.” He added that allowing that tax increase “could cost our economy well over a million jobs.”

Repealing the part of the failed “stimulus” law and replacing it with an across-the-board payroll tax cut, which reduced the Social Security payroll withholding from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. President Obama said that “economists across the political spectrum agree is one of the most powerful things we can do to create jobs and boost economic growth."

(Q) Is it necessary to reduce the nation’s $14 trillion in gross national debt, and can it be reduced without tax increases? And if taxes have to go up, where should they go up first – corporations, the top 1 percent wage earners, the middle class, the poor?

(A) We absolutely need to reduce our $14.3 trillion national debt. It’s owed increasingly to foreign countries such as China and eventually it will need to be repaid. What do we do then? We simply don’t have the money to repay our debts. We need to get serious and focus on cutting spending so we can improve our country’s fiscal situation for current and future generations. If we focus on cutting spending we will eliminate the constant calls for tax increases.

(Q) Would you support a flat tax or national sales tax as an alternative to income tax?

(A) We should closely examine all feasible ways to simplify our tax system. One thing is for certain, however – if we don’t get serious about cutting spending so we can strengthen our economy and create jobs, the pressure to raise taxes will only grow stronger. We need to focus on cutting spending and not raising taxes, as some of the other candidates have advocated for.

Jack Davis says 'buy American'

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

Statement from Jack Davis, Independent Candidate for Congress (NY-26), on Report from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showing 1st quarter economic growth of 1.8 percent as the trade deficit widened:

Today’s report confirms what people outside Washington and Wall Street already knew: The economy is not getting better. 

Today’s report shows the trade deficit widened as businesses bought imported goods to restock their inventories. 

We need to put Americans back to work, and the surest way to do that is to make more of what we buy. If each American spent just 18 cents a day on American made products, it would put 200,000 people to work.

Every dollar spent on imports represents a job an American doesn’t have.  

Both parties in Washington continue to push failed economic policies that send our jobs overseas and make us dependent on imports from unstable foreign sources.

Ian Murphy creates site satirizing Corwin's NY-26 campaign

By Howard B. Owens

Ian Murphy, on the Green line in the NY-26 special election on May 24, may be considered such a long shot that the Buffalo News won't even mention him as a candidate in the race, but that's hardly keeping him silent.

As a long-time blogger at Buffalo Beast, Murphy has learned a thing or two about the Web, social media and PhotoShop.

Murphy has raised so little money for his campaign, he hasn't even needed to file campaign financing reports, but it doesn't take much cash to launch a Web site.

So Murphy is campaigning against the frontrunners in the race the best way he knows how -- with satire and digital media.

Within the last day or so, Murphy launched JaneCorwin.org.

The site is a direct copy of Corwin's own campaign site, JaneCorwin.com, but alter's text and photos to send a decidedly different message.

On the authentic site, where Corwin invites people to sign up for an e-mail newsletter, Murphy changed the submission fields from e-mail address and zip code to "Bank Account Number" and "SS #."  Where Corwin has a "Contribute" button, Murphy's button reads, "Give Me Your Money."

One blog post entry is titled "Corwin Outlines Comprehensive Pandering Strategy." The post begins: "Jane Corwin, successful daughter of rich people and candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, today outlined a comprehensive pandering strategy to say she’ll decrease gas prices because that’s what our polling research said people want to hear. Corwin discussed her pandering agenda to a crowd of local idiots."

The humor isn't always polite. Murphy also calls Corwin "ugly."

The disclosure on the footer of the site reads, "paid for by corporate greed."

Some of the links on the site lead to a page asking people to make contributions to Murphy's campaign.

Asked about the site, Murphy wrote back:

We set it up as a favor to Jane. Her current Web site doesn't accurately portray her vapidity, her corporate agenda, or her desire to decimate Medicare and Social Security for the financial benefit of the Wall Street elite. We just thought she deserved a more honest Web site.

We also asked Corwin's campaign for a response and this is what we received from Matthew Harakal:

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Now if we could only get liberals and career politicians like Kathy Hochul to follow Jane Corwin’s lead to reduce taxes, cut spending and create jobs, we could really start to fix Western New York’s economy.

Hochul campaign hits Corwin for DC fundraiser with 'Wall Street pals'

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

The following is a statement from Fabien Levy, director of communications, for Kathy Hochul for Congress:

“While voters of the 26th District express their concern over Jane Corwin’s support of the Republican budget that decimates Medicare, the Assemblymember is hitting the D.C. fundraising circuit with the same Washington insiders who voted for the proposal.

“This morning, Jane Corwin is headlining a fundraiser in Washington, D.C., with slick Washington politicians and her old Wall Street pals at the Capitol Hill Club. The fundraiser is being hosted by The Financial Services Roundtable – a group of Wall Street bankers, who were among the first to back President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security.

“So not only do Jane Corwin’s donors want to decimate Medicare, but they supported privatizing Social Security as well? Voters in the 26th District will not stand for politicians that support proposals that could send our seniors back into poverty, while lining the pockets of the super rich.

“Jane Corwin’s plans are wrong for all Americans and will only add burdensome costs onto the backs of our seniors, while providing massive tax breaks to America’s corporate giants and wealthiest individuals.”

UPDATE: Response from the Corwin campaign:

"Today, Jane is discussing how she would vote to cut spending and create jobs, while over the last few days Kathy Hochul has been sipping champagne with radical New York City special interests that have decimated Western New York’s economy. Instead of hobnobbing with glitterati on New York City’s Upper East Side, maybe Kathy Hochul will finally speak up and unveil her plan for cutting spending, creating jobs, lowering gas prices, or anything else for that matter."  -Matt Harakal

New commercial from Hochul attacks Corwin over support of GOP 2012 budget

By Howard B. Owens

This is the new commercial released today by Kathy Hochul's campaign. 

Here's a fact-checking assignment: The commercial cites several newspaper sources. Are the quotes being used in context?

UPDATE: A reply from Corwin's campaign: 

Statement from Matthew Harakal, communications director for Jane Corwin for Congress:

“This commercial and personal attack is a bold-faced lie.Politifact has given claims in this ad a “Pants on Fire!” rating. These types of baseless scare tactics are exactly what you’d expect from a career politician like Kathy Hochul, but Western New Yorkers deserve better.”

Harakal sends along a link to a Times-Union article as well.

UPDATE: New, related PR from Hochul's campaign:

“On April 15, after a week of prodding, Assemblymember Jane Corwin finally admitted she supports the Republican’s 2012 budget that would end Medicare as we know it and give massive tax breaks to America’s corporate giants – the same corporate giants that paid absolutely nothing in income taxes last year.

“Jane Corwin talks a lot about cutting spending, closing corporate loopholes, coming up with alternative energy plans, and protecting our seniors, but the truth is Jane Corwin is all talk and no action.  She says she has a ‘plan’ that would ‘fight to begin getting our national addiction to spending under control.’  Well that plan is a point-by-point copy of the Republican budget, which does none of those things.  

“Assemblymember Corwin has publicly supported a budget that cuts taxes on major corporations and the highest-earning individuals, instead of making them pay their fair share.  She supports a budget that cuts spending on alternative energy research and development, instead of cutting subsidies for big oil.  She supports a budget that decimates Medicare, instead of ensuring we protect our seniors from burdensome costs.

“While Jane Corwin says she supports solutions for the people of the 26th District, she really only supports solutions that line the pockets of corporations, oil companies, and the super rich.”

Corwin says debt clock is ticking

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Matthew Harakal, communications director for Jane Corwin for Congress, made the following comments today regarding Kathy Hochul’s continued silence on the $14.3 TRILLION debt facing our country:

“Despite our fiscal crisis, Kathy Hochul continues to sit silently with Nancy Pelosi and refuse to say how she would cut spending. While Kathy Hochul refuses to take a stand, our national debt has increased $32.72 billion.

Western New York taxpayers deserve an answer from Kathy Hochul on spending. Does she support the president’s $1.5 trillion tax hike on families and small businesses? Or will she finally stand with Jane Corwin and commit to cutting spending?

Every day, another $4.09 billion is added onto our national debt, but Kathy Hochul remains silent. Kathy Hochul says she fights for Western New York, but it’s hard to win a fight without saying a word or taking a stand.”

Statistics on our record-high national debt can be found HERE <http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/> , and information on how Jane Corwin would cut spending can be found HERE <http://janecorwin.com/posts/janes-plan-to-cut-runaway-government-spending>.

Corwin calls out Hochul on Obama's proposed tax increase

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Matthew Harakal, communications director for Jane Corwin for Congress, made the following statement today after Kathy Hochul’s continued silence on how she would cut government spending:

“Now a full week after the President called for a massive $1.5 trillion tax increase, Kathy Hochul still remains silent on the dire financial condition our country is in. Will Kathy Hochul continue to stand with Nancy Pelosi and refuse to do anything to cut spending? Does Kathy Hochul support the President’s plan for $1.5 trillion in crippling tax hikes on Western New York families and small businesses? Or will she follow Jane Corwin’s lead and support cutting spending immediately to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Kathy Hochul has a long tax-and-spend record. As a Hamburg Town Board member she increased the tax burden by 45 percent and later as the Erie County Clerk, she increased spending in the DMV by an incredible 51 percent. When will Kathy Hochul make up her mind and get serious about cutting spending?”

Hochul’s silence comes even after the S&P issued a threat to downgrade our country’s prized AAA credit rating. S&P is one of the three main agencies that rate the ability of companies and countries to repay their debts. It recently cut its outlook for our country’s long-term credit rating from "stable" to "negative," a direct result of the failed leadership from Washington to address our fiscal crisis.

Candidates' Forum: Questions on social issues for NY-26 hopefuls

By Howard B. Owens

As part of our ongoing series to find out as much as we can about what the candidates for the NY-26 special election believe about issues, we present this week's questions and answers on hot button social issues.

Below are the questions as sent to the candidates and, after the jump, the answers from each candidate in the order received.

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom? Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

Ian Murphy:

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

My position is that the American people need to choose between outlawing abortion and taking proven steps toward lowering the abortion rate. Contrary to prevailing thought, they are not the same thing. According to a global study by the World Health Organization and the Guttmaker Institute, the legal status of abortion has no effect on a country's abortion rate. The same study found that where abortion is illegal it is an extremely dangerous procedure, which results in the worldwide death of roughly 67,000 women each year.

The only things that reduce a nation's abortion rate are an increase in its overall living standard and a strong commitment to reproductive/contraceptive education. For instance, Uganda is one of the poorest countries in the world, abortion is illegal, and its sex education focuses on abstinence alone. At 54 per 1,000 women of reproductive age, that country subsequently has one of the highest abortion rates in the world. The Netherlands, by contrast, has a much higher living standard, abortion is legal, and the rate is a scant 6 per 1,000 women. The United States' living standard is generally on par with the Netherlands, and yet the abortion rate is 21 per 1,000—double that of Western Europe.

Why? Well, according to the National Institute of Health, the low Dutch rate can be attributed to their firm commitment to family planning services, and sexual/contraceptive education. Like so many other issues in this country, we've been given a false choice. Abortion's been framed as “pro-choice” vs. “pro-life,” legal vs. illegal, moral vs. immoral, Republican vs. Democrat.

It's a very emotionally charged debate based on false assumptions. Regardless of your moral convictions on abortion, I think everyone can agree that as a society we want fewer of them. No one likes abortion. But the thing is, that will only happen with smart policies. It will not happen out of moral outrage. It will not happen out of anger and other extreme emotions. It will not happen by threatening women with prison. So, yes, abortion should remain safe and legal until about 15-20 weeks of gestation, which is roughly when a fetus is thought to be viable—that is to say, able to live outside of the womb. I base that number on the policies of Western Europe and an average of numbers put out by the Journal of the American Medical Association. I believe, however, that a procedure can and should be performed after 20 weeks if the mother's life is in danger or there are other legitimate, extenuating circumstances—such as a terrible genetic defect, which may or may not be the result of incest.

Though it is a tragedy in itself, whether a woman is raped has no bearing on my position. Now that we know we're engaging in an overly emotional and critically flawed debate, we should step back and reevaluate the impacts of federal funds used for family planning and abortion. The Republican-controlled Congress recently voted to cut funding for Planned Parenthood—making a bevy of misleading and factually inaccurate claims in the process. But it's quite clear that cutting federal funds to Planned Parenthood will actually raise the abortion rate in America. So, again, as difficult as it may be, the American people need to make a choice between overheated, manipulative rhetoric and a sensible policy that will result in fewer abortions. You can't have both.

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom? Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

People should be allowed to marry whomever they want, and receive equal benefit from the government.

There are some common sense areas where the federal government should intervene in matters of marriage: adults should not be allowed to marry children; children should not be allowed to marry children; sufferers of Stockholm syndrome should not be allowed to marry their captors; and no one should be allowed to marry Donald Trump. 

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

Yes. I agree with our top military brass in this matter.

I'd like to add an important point: In politics, “wedge” issues like gay rights and abortion are often used to manipulate social conservatives into voting against their own economic self-interest—and, in the case of abortion, against their own social goals.

Abortion, particularly, is an issue I know the people of NY-26 care about passionately. A candidate's views on abortion tell many people all they need to know before they vote. I've talked to a few people who really like my positions, generally, but they won't vote for me because I am not “pro-life.” Well, I'm the only candidate in this race to offer a stark break from the failed, bipartisan economic policies which have made everyone broke in this country. I'm the only candidate in favor of universal health care, universal family planning and universal reproductive/contraception education. In other words, I am the only pro-life candidate in this race.

Kathy Hochul:

Q: What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or late stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

A: This is obviously a difficult decision between a woman and her doctor, and I don’t think anyone should take this decision lightly. I do, however, believe abortion should be safe, legal, and rare, and think the federal government should not be involved in making medical decisions. I support the continuation of Roe v. Wade, which has been the established policy on this issue since 1973.

I support federal funding for the health services and guidance provided by Planned Parenthood, including breast, ovarian and cervical cancer screenings, infertility testing, pelvic exams, family planning and other vital services.

Q: What is your position on marriage?  Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom?  Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?


A: I don’t think the federal government should involve itself on issues of who can marry whom, that needs to be determined by the states. I believe everyone should be afforded equal rights under federal law. I do support the civil institution of marriage for gay couples, with absolutely no requirements placed on religious institutions.

Gay men and women, who want to fight to defend our freedom, should be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military.

Jack Davis:

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

I oppose federal funding for abortion, directly or indirectly. I oppose terminations of later stage pregnancies, including those known as “partial birth.”

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom?

Marriage is a state issue. Each state should decide its own rules for marriage.

Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. I oppose giving special privileges to any group.

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

I am a former Marine and officer in the Coast Guard and the only candidate to have served in the military. The fact is, anyone who has been in uniform can tell you gay men and women have served honorably in the military, probably since the founding of our country. Having said that, any soldier, sailor, Marine or airman whose conduct, of whatever kind, is detrimental to good order and discipline and corrosive to morale should be discharged.

Jane Corwin:

What is your position on abortion, addressing your position on when if it should be legal at all, or only in early and/or later stages of pregnancy and the circumstances of a pregnancy (age of the mother, whether rape or incest), also as it relates to federal funding either directly or indirectly of abortion and/or agencies that may be involved in providing abortions.

I oppose partial birth abortion, do not support taxpayer funding of abortion, would vote to defund Planned Parenthood and am supportive of parental notification.

What is your position on marriage? Should the federal government involve itself on issues of who can marry whom? Should the federal government provide the same benefits to heterosexual couples as well as gay couples?

I believe that marriage should be defined as the union between one man and one woman. Unlike any of my opponents, I spoke out when President Obama announced his plans to refuse to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The President of the United States swore an oath to uphold the laws of our great country and as a member of the Executive Branch he needs to enforce those laws, including the Defense of Marriage Act. It is the Supreme Court’s job to consider the constitutionality of the law and the President should not usurp the authority of the Supreme Court.

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into law nearly 15 years ago by President Clinton – he himself a democrat like President Obama – who understood that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Finally, should gay men and lesbians be allowed to serve openly in the U.S. military?

It’s important to look at the military’s implementation plan for allowing gay men and women to openly serve in the military, especially since we are a nation at war. Last year, Democrats made a political decision to decline to wait for the military’s report on repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It’s important for leaders in the military – those who would actually be the ones implementing a repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell – to testify before Congress about how they would implement a repeal of the law to ensure that military readiness during a time of war is not affected.

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.

Corwin announces NRA endorsement

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Jane Corwin, successful businesswoman and candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, announced the support of the National Rifle Association (NRA) today. The endorsement and "A" rating is representative of Corwin’s strong stance on protecting the Second Amendment. Corwin is a member of both the NRA and SCOPE, another advocacy organization committed to upholding the Second Amendment.

“I'm proud to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and I am grateful for the support shown by the NRA,” Corwin said. “As a member of the Assembly I voted against 14 pieces of legislation designed to restrict Second Amendment rights, and have met with countless fellow members of the organization to discuss protecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen. I have a firm understanding of the issues facing the Second Amendment community and will be a strong voice in Congress for one’s constitutional right to bear arms.”

Corwin was also endorsed by the national organization during her past Assembly campaigns and has been a proven leader on the issue during her time as an elected official.

Corwin defends GOP plan to issue insurance vouchers for Medicare

By Howard B. Owens

From Democrat & Chronicle reporter Jill Terreri:

Assemblywoman Jane Corwin today defended the 2012 budget plan put forth by Rep. Paul Ryan, which has been criticized by Rep. Louise Slaughter and others for ending Medicare as it is known today, shifting costs to seniors.

“What the proposal for Medicare does is it protects the program, it guarantees benefits for people in the future,” Corwin said today during a stop in Rochester. “It also protects seniors 55 and over. … For people in my age group, the Ryan proposal will actually provide benefits for them. If we don’t do something now, they will get nothing. I take objection (to) ‘wrecking’ the Medicare program. This protects the Medicare program and ensures that there are benefits for future generations.”

Jack Davis issues Tax Day statement

By Howard B. Owens

Press Release:

Democrats and Republicans continue to push partisan agendas rather than honestly confronting the problems Americans face.

The Republican plan for cutting Medicare is unacceptable. The Democrats propose continuing tax, spend and borrow policies -- business as usual.  This is unacceptable.

There is a third way: Put American men and women back to work. The inflow of revenue to the U.S. Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from taxes paid by working Americans and profitable businesses will solve the deficit problems.

It is time to reinstitute trade-balancing tariffs on imported manufactured products. With a level playing field, U.S. businesses will hire Americans to produce the goods Americans consume. From 1789 to 1913, a major source of revenue for the U.S. government was tariffs on foreign goods, not taxes on working Americans.

The third way budget also shuts down offshore tax havens that companies use to hide their profits. It closes unneeded military bases around the world and eliminates foreign aid to countries that hate us. 

The Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries and the responsibility to promote the general welfare – jobs. Congress must return to first principles: put America first and put Americans back to work.

ON TAX DAY, JACK DAVIS OFFERS INDEPENDENT VISION TO PUT AMERICANS TO WORK, MAINTAIN MEDICARE, CLOSE OFFSHORE TAX HIDEOUTS
 
(AKRON, NY) With the deadline for filing income taxes approaching, Jack Davis, independent candidate for U.S. Congress, is putting forward his vision for a federal budget that cuts deficits and spending and puts Americans back to work. It accomplishes these goals without eliminating Medicare as the Republicans propose, and without raising taxes, as Democrats propose. 

Jack Davis advocates shutting down offshore tax havens and closing tax loopholes supported by both parties that allow multinational corporations like GE to hide profits overseas and evade paying taxes. 

A provision of the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, passed by the Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, allows companies to avoid taxes by booking their profits overseas.

When that provision was set to expire in 2008, it was two New York Democrats, Rep. Charlie Rangel, then-chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee, and Committee Member Rep. Joe Crowley, who went to bat for the corporate tax evaders to keep the loophole open.  Crowley claimed it would help the financial services giant Citigroup. (See http://nyti.ms/eUQAce)

“This shows how both parties have sold out to the multinationals and big banks which are American in name only, ” says Jack Davis.

The key to balancing the budget is putting Americans back to work.

“The inflow of revenue to the U.S. Treasury and the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds from taxes paid by working Americans and profitable businesses will solve the deficit problems,” says Davis.

Analysis by authoritative financial experts bears this out. Dan Fuss, manager of the $18.5 billion Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, has been managing bond portfolios for 50 years. Earlier this month, Fuss pointed out that about 56 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are now gainfully employed. If that percentage rises to 64 percent, Fuss says, the budget deficit disappears entirely. (See http://reut.rs/f6GJKH)

And the key to putting Americans back to work is leveling the playing field for American businesses and working men and women. Right now, China and other foreign competitors are flooding the American market with manufactured goods of all kinds because they have an unfair advantage over American producers. This is putting Americans out of work and bankrupting American businesses.

Bert Baker, of Baker Drivetrain, an American manufacturer of motorcycle components, knows firsthand the unfair competition American producers face. He points to a Chinese company that sells its finished parts at a price equivalent to the cost of the raw materials.

“There are some parts being made in China, and the cost of that finished product is roughly the cost of my raw materials if I were to make it in this country. Aluminum and most raw materials are globally priced, they’re the same all over the globe. So what gives here -- how could they do that? I know their people are not working for nothing. What I’m guessing is that China is providing subsidies so they can sell it so cheaply,” says Baker. (See http://bit.ly/hJgNex)

A tariff on imported manufactured products would level the playing field for American producers.

“Businesses would invest in America and hire Americans to produce the goods Americans buy,” says Jack Davis.

Tariffs are as American as apple pie, Davis points out. Until the adoption of the income tax in 1913, tariffs on foreign goods, not taxes on working Americans, were the major source of revenue for the U.S. government. (See http://bit.ly/fgeOtb)

Davis opposes eliminating Medicare or cutting Social Security to reduce government spending. He advocates cutting expenditures on the nearly 900 military bases the U.S. maintains around the world and cutting foreign aid to nations that do not share our values. (See http://bit.ly/2j7oY)

Hochul announces she's raised more than $350K for campaign

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, will report raising more than $350,000 in the first quarter of 2011. 

In the report – that will be filed with the Federal Elections Commission today – Hochul will show having more than $300,000 in the bank. There were nearly 450 individual donors who contributed to the campaign, more than 90 percent of whom are residents of New York State.

“Our supporters are excited and committed to helping us win on May 24th,” said Fabien Levy, communications director for Kathy Hochul for Congress.  “More than 50 percent of the donations were at $250 or below, which shows we have strong grassroots support in this race. Western New Yorkers are sending a strong message that they want a fighter to represent them in Congress.”

Hochul demands Corwin state position on GOP budget proposal

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

The following is a statement from Fabien Levy, director of communications for Kathy Hochul for Congress:

“In just a few hours the House will vote on the Republican budget proposal that would end Medicare as we know it. For days, Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, has called on her opponents to join her in rejecting any budget that would add burdensome costs onto the backs of America’s seniors. Today, there is only one candidate whose silence signals her intentions to break the promises made to our elderly population.

“Jane Corwin remains the only candidate in this race who has refused to tell the voters of the 26th District where she stands on the current budget proposal. As the only Republican in the country currently running for Congress, she has repeatedly dodged every opportunity to take a position on the Republican’s 2012 budget.

“While her silence signals apathy, the truth may be even worse. The people of the 26th want to know, if Jane Corwin was currently a Member of the House of Representatives, would she vote to slash benefits, increase costs, and hold America’s elderly population responsible for fighting with insurance companies? Kathy Hochul has firmly stated her opposition to this proposal and promised to reject any budget that fundamentally alters Medicare. 

“Assemblymember Corwin, before the vote is cast, tell the voters of the 26th District how you would vote today – would you reject the current budget proposal before the House or would you vote to decimate Medicare?”

Hochul releases statement on House budget vote

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

ERIE COUNTY – Today, the House of Representatives passed the 2011 budget compromise that was struck last Friday night, just one hour before a government shutdown.

While Kathy Hochul called for this compromise early on and challenged both her opponents – Republican, Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis – to join her in supporting the agreement, neither candidate ever stated their position.

“Last Friday, literally in the 11th hour before a government shutdown, House and Senate leaders came together and worked out a budget compromise that averted a massive government shutdown,” said Hochul.  “From early on, I called for this compromise and challenged both Jane Corwin and Jack Davis to follow my lead. Today – six days later – neither candidate has yet to say a word.

“The people of the 26th District do not currently have a Congressmember representing their best interests in Congress. If I was serving as a Representative for Western New York, I would have been working to avoid a government shutdown last week. However, if my opponents were in Washington, we have no idea what they would have done. 

“It is only fair to ask would they have supported a budget compromise that kept essential services going or would they have supported a massive shutdown that would have delayed essential services to our veterans, our troops, our business owners, our students, our seniors, and to the American taxpayers?

“The lack of interest and care by Jane Corwin and Jack Davis has been disheartening and I hope they finally join my lead and support this budget compromise that will cut waste and get our economy moving forward.”

Jack Davis releases statement on federal budget proposals

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

Statement from Jack Davis, Independent candidate for U.S. Congress (NY-26), on federal budget proposals:

The budget proposals from both parties in Washington fail to address the real issue: jobs for Americans. Putting Americans back to work is the way we will reduce the deficit and balance the budget.

I oppose privatizing Medicare and forcing seniors to buy insurance with vouchers. This would throw millions of senior citizens into poverty or worse, and it fails to lower health care costs.

Instead of cutting Medicare and Social Security, we can save money by cutting foreign aid and foreign military commitments, from Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, to Germany, Japan and Italy. We must end corporate welfare and tax giveaways that allow companies like GE to pay no taxes at all.  

We have given government an unlimited expense account – and it has exceeded it. Giving Washington more money is not the solution. That’s why I oppose raising taxes.

We need to put Americans back to work instead of pushing more trade deals like NAFTA that send our jobs overseas.

Putting Americans back to work is the best way to reduce the deficit. Right now, about 56 percent of Americans over the age of 16 are working. If the percentage of working Americans increases to 64 percent, the budget deficit disappears. To put it another way, working Americans and profitable businesses pay taxes and pay into the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The jobs offshored to China do not pay U.S. taxes.

But instead of focusing on jobs for Americans, the leaders of both parties are pushing for more failed trade deals that send American jobs overseas.

In the next 90 days, Congress will vote on a Korea trade agreement that would outsource thousands of American jobs and open the door to more imports from communist China. The party leaders are also pushing a NAFTA-style deal with Colombia that will cost us more jobs.

I will oppose these trade deals and will fight for American jobs. I ask Jane Corwin, Kathy Hochul and Ian Murphy to join me in making an iron-clad commitment to fight against these unfair trade deals.

Jack Davis, Independent candidate for U.S. Congress, is an engineer, innovator and entrepreneur who founded and manages I Squared R Element Co., Inc. a manufacturing company in Erie County. He has given the company to his employees and they will own and manage it when he retires.

New Hochul commercial touts effort to fight Thruway tolls

By Howard B. Owens

Press release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, today released her third television advertisement entitled “The Fighter.”

The 30-second spot tells the story of how Kathy Hochul fought for the residents of Western New York and became the “Stop the Tolls Pioneer.”

“Voters in Erie County know Kathy as a fighter, who persistently has worked for their best interests,” said Fabien Levy, communications director for Kathy Hochul for Congress. “‘The Fighter’ will tell one of those stories to the voters of the 26th District, so they know how hard Kathy will work for them once elected to Congress.”

Jack Davis releases first television ad

By Howard B. Owens

Press release: 

The first television ad from the Jack Davis independent campaign for Congress contrasts Jack’s record of creating good-paying American jobs with the record of both parties in Washington that support trade deals like NAFTA which encourage companies to move American jobs offshore. The spot begins airing on cable and broadcast in the Buffalo and Rochester media markets on Thursday.

The factory scenes in the commercial were shot at I Squared R Element, Inc., in Akron N.Y., the company Jack Davis founded and manages. Jack’s commitment to his country, his community and his employees led to his decision in 2009 to give his company to his employees. 

“The success of my company was made possible by the loyalty, dedication and hard work of the men and women who work here. They will own it when I retire. They don’t have to worry about the company being sold and losing their jobs,” Jack Davis says. See the attached letter from Jack Davis to his employees for details.

NAFTA passed Congress in 1994 with support from President Clinton and both political parties in Congress. After its passage, multinational companies closed U.S. plants and relocated to Mexico. Today, President Obama and the Republican leadership in Congress are pushing trade deals with Korea, Colombia and Panama. The Korea trade agreement alone will lead to 159,000 lost U.S. jobs, more imports from China and a higher trade deficit.  

Authentically Local