Kathy Hochul

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.

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

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.”

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>.

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.

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.

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.”

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?”

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.”

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.”

Press release:

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

“Yesterday, Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, challenged her opponents – Republican, Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis – to tell the voters of the 26th District where they stand on Congressman Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal that would decimate Medicare. After not responding to last week’s challenge on the budget compromise, it is not surprising to see that neither Corwin nor Davis have responded to Kathy’s challenge this week.

“This is the second week in a row that Kathy Hochul has called on her opponents to take a position on an issue currently facing Congress, but both Assembymember Jane Corwin and Jack Davis seem to be hiding out.  Instead of telling voters how they would vote on a budget that will inevitably be presented to the next Representative from the 26th District, Kathy’s opponents are keeping silent on an issue that will affect all Americans.

“The voters deserve to know if Jane Corwin and Jack Davis support ending Medicare as we know it or will they join Kathy Hochul in rejecting any budget proposal that will hold our seniors responsible for burdensome costs.”

Press release from Kathy Hochul's campaign:

ERIE COUNTY – Today marks the 15th anniversary of Equal Pay Day, which began in 1996 as a way to illustrate the wage gap between men and women.
 
Once elected, Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, promises to always fight for equal pay.

“When I first began my career as the only new female associate at a law firm, I was very much aware of the challenges women face in the workplace,” said Hochul.  “And as the mother of a young woman soon heading out into the workforce, I, like many fathers and mothers, hope their daughters' gender will not deny them equal pay for equal work.”

Kathy Hochul is the only woman in this race who supports equal pay for equal work.  In 2009 and, once again in 2010, Jane Corwin was part of the vast minority of Assemblymembers who voted against equal pay for women in New York State.

“My Republican opponent thinks she, myself, and all other women deserve to take a back seat to men when it comes to salary, I do not,” Hochul added.  “Once in Congress, I will fight to ensure women are paid equal wages for the same work they do as men.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, women currently make 80 cents to every dollar men make for the same job. 

More information about Kathy Hochul can be found at www.KathyHochul.com <http://www.kathyhochul.com/> .

Background:
In 2009 and 2010, Corwin voted against a bill that made it a discriminatory practice to compensate employees of different sexes differently for work that is of comparable worth. [A2351, New York State Assembly, 4/29/09 and 4/19/10]

UPDATE: Press release from the Jane Corwin campaign:

WILLIAMSVILLE – Matthew Harakal, Communications Director for Jane Corwin for Congress, made the following statement today regarding Kathy Hochul’s latest press release: 

“It’s not surprising that career politician Kathy Hochul thinks bureaucrats are in a better position than small businesses to decide how much their workers should get paid. Jane Corwin believes that small businesses know best how to run their companies, not government bureaucrats.

“Maybe Kathy Hochul should stick to sending out promotional press releases about our local hockey team because she clearly knows nothing about running a small business or creating jobs.” 

There are a number of questions I have for the candidates in the NY-26 special election race, and I'm sure you do as well. Rather than sit back and wait for position statements, I thought I would just start asking questions.

I plan to ask about a question per week until election day.

Today's topic: Foreign policy, particularly as it relates to the use of the U.S. military abroad. Each of the candidates were given four days to formulate a reply. 

Below is the question (which was a bit longer than I imagine most will be). Because of the length, and the length of answers, the question and answers appear after the jump.

The answers are presented in the order received, Ian Murphy, Kathy Hochul and Jane Corwin. We got no response from the Jack Davis campaign.

The question:

What is your position on our current military operations?

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq? What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same … 

Ian Murphy's answer:

What is your position on our current military operations?

All of them? It's getting hard to keep track.

Some military operations are good, like aiding in Japanese tsunami relief, but most strike me as the counterproductive actions of a waning empire, which is ruled by a corrupt and wealthy elite (see the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and the drone strikes in Pakistan,Yemen and Somalia).

Our current, aggressive military operations are guided by shortsighted greed. We've known since Eisenhower's “Military Industrial Complex” final address that war would be foisted upon the American people—under various and questionable pretexts—just so the business of war would boom. And it has.

A conservative estimate by former Chief Economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz pegs the total costs of Iraq and Afghanistan at $3 trillion. This is $3 trillion in debt our children will have to repay. This is $3 trillion spent destabilizing the world, making us less safe, and further perpetuating the war economy.

Again and again, we've been rooked into conflict after conflict. Our kids are conned into killing and dying for oil profit, for jet engine profit, for base construction profit, for the profit Halliburton makes selling cases of Coke to the Pentagon for $45 a pop, etc.

So my position on our current military operations is that most of them are a mechanism by which war profiteers rob the American people blind.

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

In a conventional military sense, it is not winnable. Battling insurgents in the mountains of Afghanistan has been a costly and pointless undertaking, historically. Every day we're there, we breed more enemies. And the more enemies we have, the longer we stay.

But some kind of victory is possible. An Afghanistan lifted out of abject poverty, which breeds religious tyranny, incubates terrorism and fosters rampant misogyny, would be a resounding victory. However, the road to that victory leads our troops back home.

Our obligation to the people of Afghanistan is the same obligation we have to our own people—to maintain a policy of diplomatic pressure, passive exertion of cultural influence, and wise economic support—in conjunction with the international community—to ensure a prosperous and less dangerous Afghanistan.

I should note that maintaining reliable intelligence efforts in the area is smart policy while we work toward the above.

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

No. No. Trucks, airplanes & ships.

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

Well, the Constitution states that declaring war is the responsibility of Congress alone. But there's also the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which gives high authority to treaties, so it could be argued that the prevention of genocide in Benghazi falls under our obligations to NATO. However, our international obligations should not usurp the power allotted to Congress in the Constitution—and make no mistake, the actions in Libya are the actions of war.

We should support the rebels with “Support the Rebels” bumper stickers. However, if that ridiculous suggestion is not adequate and our allies are determined to fund a revolution against Qaddafi, we should fulfill our obligations—or reevaluate them. But all efforts should be extremely limited in scope and duration.

Frankly, readers of The Batavian, I'm quite torn on Libya. We're engaged in far too many military operations as it is. On the other hand, if our quick action truly prevented the slaughter of tens of thousands in Benghazi, that seems morally righteous to me. That said, we can't always act as the world's police force.

Well, we've already sent the CIA, funds and weapons. Should we have? No, we should not take the lead on this thing. We should also be very wary of mission creep. We've seen the justification for the Iraq War change from one lie to another. As George Bush put it: “Fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

Our military can be a force for good. I'm hesitantly OK with using our military power to save lives. The hesitance comes from our inability to predict the resulting obligations and commitments of an action.

More fundamentally, our actions in Libya highlight our hypocrisy. We actively support brutal regimes in Saudi Arabia & Yemen. The people in the Middle East and Africa see this and question our motives in Libya. A more prudent strategy would be to encourage democracy, civil liberties, and economic freedom in troubled regions of the world with a preemptive, non-violent approach.

Our interventionist policies have included CIA training of Osama bin Laden, arming Saddam Hussein and, as recently as 2009, sending U.S. Senators to discuss selling Qaddafi military hardware. It's time we used our heads and stopped fighting monsters of our own creation.
 
If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same … 

Drastically decrease. We spend double what the next top ten nations spend combined on defense, and that money should go toward rebuilding America.

George Washington warned against funding and deploying standing armies around the world. He realized a long time ago that the business of military empire is a) very expensive and b) largely counterproductive. We have a war economy and ethos. It's unsustainable. Just as it was in Rome. An empire is like a balloon. If it gets too big, it will pop.

The more we spend on maintaining our empire, the less we have to invest in our own country—on our own people, our bridges roads and schools. War creates great suffering at home and abroad, for the profit of the very few. We need to reevaluate our priorities, and decide on a smarter, more ethical and democratic future.

Kathy Hochul's answer:

Q: On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan.

A: After nearly one decade at war, it is time for the U.S. to draw up a clear exit plan.  While we cannot simply disregard all the work that has been done over the last 10 years, the financial costs of our mission in Afghanistan has been far too high – costing the United States nearly $350 billion. We must begin the transfer of full operational control to the people of Afghanistan.

Q: On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

A: I did not support the invasion of Iraq.  Last year, I supported the end of combat operations in the nation and I currently support the plan to end all military operations by the end of 2011. 

Q: On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

A: The situation in Libya poses a grave threat to human life.  I stated early on that Moammar Ghadafi should be removed from power, but not by U.S. military force.  We cannot afford to lead another war, which is why I supported the transfer of operational control to NATO and believe that we must continue to develop a plan that works as part of a much larger coalition. 

Q: If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …

A: We must continue to protect the United States against all threats against us.  While I do support cuts to unnecessary programs like the new F-35 fighter jet engine under Pentagon recommendations, we must provide the military with the resources necessary to protect the American people.

Jane Corwin's answer:

What is your position on our current military operations?

As the daughter of a former Air Force Reservist, I have a deep respect and appreciation for all our men and women in uniform, and if honored to be WNY’s next representative in Congress would do everything I can to support those who proudly serve our nation. I recently attended a deployment ceremony for about 70 troops in Amherst and it was one of the most humbling experiences I’ve ever been a part of. I would take my responsibility as a federal official very seriously and would vote to bring our troops home as soon as the generals on the ground say it is possible.

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

Yes, it is a winnable war. We need to listen to our generals on the ground to determine when our mission is complete and we have secured freedom and liberty for the Afghan people and ensured that Afghanistan will not return to a safe haven for terrorists.

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

I did support the decision to invade Iraq. Our men and women serving overseas deserve our support and the resources they need to be safe and successfully do their job. As with Afghanistan, I believe that we must listen to our generals on the ground as to when our servicemembers can come home.

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels?

I was deeply disappointed that the president did not consult with Congress before issuing orders for military action against Libya. The president needed to define the purpose of our mission beforehand and the threat posed to our national security. There were no public hearings or discussions and thus taxpayers and servicemembers – not to mention many Members of Congress – did not know what the president’s objective was until military action had already been taken. Now we are deeply involved in another conflict overseas and there is not an end in sight. The president and his Administration must clearly outline what their plan is for sending more troops, arming the rebels (or anyone else), etc. If Congress was consulted before military action was taken, we would not be in the situation we are now.

If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations? – increase, decrease, keep the same …

We need to find efficiencies and savings wherever we can to address the long term spending pressures our nation faces.  However, the fundamental priority of any government is to protect its citizens and I will fight to make sure our military remains the best-trained, and best-equipped in the world.

UPDATE Wednesday, 9:34 a.m.: Adding response from Jack Davis:

What is your position on our current military operations?

On Afghanistan: Do you think this is a winnable war? How long should the U.S. stay in Afghanistan? What is our ongoing obligation to the people of Afghanistan?

As a former Marine and officer in the U.S. Coast Guard, I say it is time to find a way out of Afghanistan. Our soldiers and Marines are being killed and maimed in an endless conflict.

On Iraq: Did you support the invasion of Iraq? Do you support continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq?  What would be your plan for disengaging the U.S. military from Iraq, if at all?

The invasion of Iraq was based on false premises and I did not support it at the time. It is time to bring our troops home.

On Libya: What was Obama’s Constitutional/legal authority for engaging in military action in Libya? What should the U.S. policy be toward supporting the rebels in Libya? Should we send troops, advisors or arms to the rebels.

The Constitution is clear: Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.   By dropping bombs on Libya, President Obama has declared war.  We should not be expending our airmen’s blood or our treasure in Libya without Congressional approval.

If you are fortunate enough to become a representative, what would your policy be on future U.S. military appropriations?

We need to end our foreign entanglements and bring our troops home from around the world.  We are spending billions to station troops in places that haven’t seen hostilities in over 60 years.  We no longer fear Soviet tanks rolling through the Fulda Gap, but we still have troops stationed in Germany to stop them. We can no longer afford to foot the bill as the policeman of the world when Washington is planning to cut health care for our seniors and Americans’ needs are ignored.

Press release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, today called on Congress to reject Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) 2012 budget proposal that would end Medicare as we know it and challenged her opponents – Republican, Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis – to join her in rejecting the proposal. 

“There is no question that we must get our fiscal house in order by making substantial cuts to our budget. It’s time we start working towards reducing our national debt, but the House leadership’s plan to decimate Medicare cannot be the solution. Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), both of whom are coming to Western New York to fund raise for Jane Corwin, have lauded this proposal calling it, ‘The Path to Prosperity;’ noting that it ‘paves the way to a brighter future for all Americans.’ Well, if this budget were to be passed, I could only see a dismal future paved for millions of our seniors. Adding burdensome costs onto the backs of our elderly population cannot be the way we revive the financial health of this country. 

“Representative Ryan’s plan also makes across-the-board cuts in medical research, high-tech research, and education – making it more difficult for businesses to innovate, create jobs, and compete in the global market.  Instead of investing in America’s growing competitive edge, the Budget Committee Chairman wants to give tax breaks to corporations and the highest wage earners.

“Once elected, I will work to cut wasteful spending, without breaking the promises made to our seniors or making it more difficult for American families to hold onto their jobs.

“While neither Jane Corwin nor Jack Davis took a position on Congress’s budget compromise last week, I call on them to join me in letting the voters know how they would vote on this Draconian measure. The voters of the 26th District deserve to know the key differences between the candidates for this position.” 

Press release from the Kathy Hochul campaign:

“Now that the regular season is officially over, I congratulate the Sabres on an amazing 40th season and look forward to watching them in the playoffs.  Since my opponents – Republican, Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis – have refused to take a position on Congress’s budget compromise, I now call on them to immediately join me in rooting on the Sabres in their run for the Stanley Cup.”

Press release from Kathy Hochul campaign:

“Tonight, with just over one hour before a massive a government shutdown, the United States Congress finally came to a budget compromise. 

“For days, I have called on my opponents, Republican Jane Corwin, and Tea Party-endorsed candidate, Jack Davis, to join me in supporting a budget compromise to no avail. I am thankful Congress has worked through their disputes and finally come to this compromise that cuts spending. However, I am greatly dismayed at the lack of concern Jane Corwin and Jack Davis have shown on this issue. Instead of supporting what was right for the people of the 26th District, my opponents chose to play politics and avoid the issue at hand. 

“If Jane Corwin and Jack Davis were currently serving in Congress, their apathy towards the budget compromise would have delayed students their loans, seniors their social security benefits, small business owners their loans, veterans their benefits, military men and women their paychecks, and hard working families their tax refunds.

“We cannot allow partisan politics to stand, which is why once elected I will work with all Members of Congress to make sure this fiasco does not occur again. I will work hard to pass a 2012 budget on time that makes substantial cuts, while still ensuring essential services are not disturbed. We cannot decimate Medicare and break the promises made to our seniors.”

Press Release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, today released a new television advertisement.

The 30-second spot, entitled “The Truth,” responds to misleading attacks made against Hochul in one of her opponent’s most recent TV ads.

“Jane Corwin has once again chosen to literally leave out half the story in her most recent television ad – distorting Kathy’s remarkable record of fighting for Western New Yorkers,” said Fabien Levy, communications director for Kathy Hochul. “Kathy Hochul saved Erie County residents over $200,000 when a new federal program came down on us from Washington.  Meanwhile, Albany politician Jane Corwin is playing political games by saying she supports budget cuts, and then voting against them.”

The campaign also included three supporting documents (all three files are PDF):

• Appendix 1
• Appendix 2
• Appendix 3

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) has proposed what he claims is a bold plan to reduce government spending by $4 trillion over 10 years.

The plan would:

• Repeal health care reform
• Turn Medicare over to private insurances and provide vouchers for recipients
• Turn Medicaid into a block-grant funded program with state's picking up any unfunded expenses
• Lower the highest individual and corporate tax rates from 35 to 25 percent
• Lift drilling moratoriums on and off shore
• Cap government spending at 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product
• It also makes claims for job creation, claims to spur growth and higher wages, bans earmarks and cuts corporate welfare.

Since this is a plan that the next representative from the NY-26 could be asked to vote on, we asked each candidate to respond to Ryan's budget proposal.

Jane Corwin:

Our country is facing a historical challenge – we can either keep pursuing a path of runaway spending, and job-killing debt, or we can choose to get serious about reducing spending, cutting taxes and creating sustainable long-term economic growth for our children and grandchildren. The plan unveiled today recognizes this reality. I look forward to studying the proposals and working to change the direction of our country.

Kathy Hochul:

It’s time to get our fiscal house in order and start working toward reducing our national debt. There is no question that we need to make substantial cuts to our budget, but decimating Medicare cannot be the solution. Once elected, I look forward to working with all members of Congress to cut wasteful spending, while still keeping the promises made to our seniors and ensuring the survival of job re-training programs, so that our businesses can innovate, create jobs, and compete in the global market.

Ian Murphy:

Ryan's budget proposal represents the height of Republican dishonesty. It's a reverse-Robin Hood, where they rob from the poor and give to the rich. You can't reduce the deficit by lowering taxes on corporations and the super-rich, and cutting social spending. Anyone who suggests such an obvious lie should be laughed off the political stage. It's just one more example of our elected officials representing wealth, not people. 

As for Jack Davis, his communications director Curtis Ellis wrote, "This is a large and complex proposal. As an engineer, Jack wants to give it the attention it requires and deserves. He's looking closely at it and we'll get back to you." That was yesterday afternoon and we've not yet received a response from Davis.

For further reading:

• Paul Ryan in WSJ: The GOP Path to Prosperity
• WaPo Fact-Checker: Ryan Budget Plan 'Relies on Dubious Assertions, Questionable Assumptions and Fishy Figures
• Paul Ryan's Budget Plan: The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly

Press Release:

ERIE COUNTY – Kathy Hochul, candidate for New York’s 26th Congressional District, today declared her support for a budget compromise in Congress that would cut $30 to $40 billion in spending and called on her opponents Republican Jane Corwin, and Tea Party Line candidate Jack Davis, to join her in supporting the compromise. 
 
“There is no question that major budgetary cuts need to be made in Washington, and that is why I support a compromise that reduces spending by $30 to $40 billion. The House and Senate are in the middle of a dangerous standoff, and the only way to avoid a massive government shutdown that could disrupt essential services, like veterans’ benefits, new Social Security claims, student loans, and critical job-training services is by coming to a compromise on the budget,” said Hochul.
 
“If Washington politicians continue to engage in this brinkmanship, it will be the promises to our veterans, our seniors, our students, and our hard working families that are broken. Therefore it is time for the House and Senate to make the necessary cuts, without butchering vital programs, and agree to a $30 to $40 billion cut in the budget. I urge my opponents – Jane Corwin, the Republican nominee, and Jack Davis, the Tea Party Line candidate – to follow my lead and support this necessary compromise.
 
“The long-term financial health of our country depends upon getting our fiscal house in order, but some of the $61 billion in cuts approved by the House erode our ability to create jobs and compete in the global economy. Across the board cuts in job re-training, high-tech research, medical research and education will make it more difficult for American families to hold onto their jobs and keep our economy moving forward,” Hochul concluded.

Kathy Hochul, Democratic candidate in the NY-26 special election to replace Chris Lee, stopped at Kati's Place in Le Roy this morning to talk with voters.

The stop is part of a weekend effort by Hochul to visit all seven counties in the NY-26 on Saturday and Sunday. Yesterday, she stopped at Seaman's Hardware in East Pembroke. 

Her Republican opponent, Jane Corwin, also appears to be out on the campaign trail. She was in Genesee County yesterday but didn't notify the local media.

Yesterday, around noon, Corwin posted to Facebook:

Busy day meeting with folks in the community! Just left the Annual SCOPE Membership Meeting in Alabama and now on my way to the Wyoming County Hospital's 100th Anniversary Celebration in Warsaw. More on the schedule for later today.

No status updates from her since.