Google Ads


Site Stats

NY-23: Bill Owens On (Some Of) The Issues

by: robert.harding

Sun Oct 04, 2009 at 2:04 PM EDT


Cross posted at Daily Kos

The other day, I shattered the ugly belief that the Republican candidate in the 23rd congressional district, Dede Scozzafava, was the most liberal. That post was a direct response to Markos' post Thursday, which also included a critique of Democratic candidate Bill Owens.

One of the arguments made by Markos is that Owens is a "conservaDem" and that he would be just another member of the Blue Dog Coalition should he win in November. Owens, who was an independent but has changed his party affiliation to become a Democrat, was picked over two Democrats to run.  

robert.harding :: NY-23: Bill Owens On (Some Of) The Issues
Because of that, there is a high level of uncertainty about Owens. Progressives are skeptical (and rightfully so) because they see the Blue Dogs throughout the country and don't want to see Owens end up just another Blue Dog. I also think that some of this skepticism is related to the district Owens is running in. He isn't the first Democrat running in an upstate New York district whose views have been questioned and who has been considered a prospective Blue Dog. It apparently comes with the territory, whether it's fair or not.

Here are two of Owens' television ads which give you an idea of his approach. His emphasis is jobs and creating jobs in the North Country.

This is what we know about Owens based on the issues page available on his campaign website:

- His area of expertise is jobs. He has a seven-point plan for creating jobs. The plan includes: An emphasis on green energy, recruiting Canadian investment (if you're familiar with NY-23, you know that it borders Canada), keeping Fort Drum strong, job training for veterans and graduates, investing in local infrastructure, higher education and agriculture.

- When it comes to health care reform, he supports all of the following: Controlling health care costs for the middle class; providing affordable health insurance to every American; preventing health insurance companies from using preexisting conditions and caps on lifetime coverage; giving small businesses and individuals access to lowest rates available to large corporations and government employees; allowing anybody to keep their existing coverage.

This part of his health care reform platform is very interesting:

Using profits from repayment of TARP funds, allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire, increased efficiency in our health care system (like putting all health care records on-line and requiring insurance companies to accept payment on-line), and cutting special interest tax loopholes (like tax benefits for companies that offshore jobs) to help pay for health care reform.

He also proposes the following: Allowing states to use savings from elimination of uncompensated care costs (Over $100 billion annually) to reduce taxes. In New York this would help prevent property tax increases.

Owens opposes Medicare benefit cuts, taxing health care benefits and increasing taxes on the middle class.

In addition to all of that, we also know the following:

- Owens supports the Employee Free Choice Act in its current form.

On top of asking about EFCA, the Watertown Daily Times also asked the candidates where they stand on a handful of other issues. Here's where Owens stands on those issues:

- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Owens said he would have voted for the ARRA if he was in the House at the time. Scozzafava also said she would have supported it, but then gave critiques of the stimulus that showed she has some problems with the package, which tells me that maybe she would not have voted for it. (Let me just add that it is easy to say now you would vote for it, as a Democrat or Republican, given the ARRA's positive impact.)

This is what Owens said about the stimulus:

Mr. Owens said he'd like to see more of the funds redirected toward job creation or assisting farmers.

"What you want to do with the stimulus dollars is set up a infrastructure base so that people going forward can independently make their decisions and hopefully be successful in their businesses," he said.

- Taxation of health benefits: Owens said in the article that he would have to look at it before giving a clear position. That article was written at the end of August. His website, which was recently updated, tells us that he is opposed to taxing health benefits.

- Cash for Clunkers: Owens said he supports the CARS program (commonly known as Cash for Clunkers) and that he believes "It helped put labor back to work. And it did a lot of important things to get the economy moving in the right direction."

- Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Owens said he wasn't familiar with this legislation (hard to imagine, given its profile) but he did say that "Everyone should be paid fair wages for their work, irrespective of any other factor that may come into play." While Owens should know the legislation, that position is better than the position of his two conservative opponents. Scozzafava (a woman, I remind you) said she was oppose the legislation. Conservative Doug Hoffman also said he would oppose the bill.

- Davis-Bacon: If you aren't familiar with this (the Watertown Daily-Times apparently thought this was a good question to ask), Davis-Bacon is described as the following:

"The law, which has been in effect since the Great Depression, requires construction workers to be paid prevailing wages on public works projects."

Owens said he would support Davis-Bacon staying in place.

Some of the other positions I have been able to find on Owens is that he supports taking tax breaks away from companies who send jobs out of New York to other locations.

Bill Owens thinks that companies receiving tax breaks from the government must live up to their end of the promise. That's why he supports holding big businesses accountable by taking away tax breaks from companies that outsource jobs away from Upstate New York.

He also supports agriculture and rural development and this statement on his website gives us a glimpse into what his approach will be when it comes to agriculture:

That's why Owens will fight to help local farmers and ranchers by using subsidies and import limits to make sure they get fair prices for their goods. And Owens supports Senator Chuck Schumer's call for an investigation into why dairy farmers are getting paid lower and lower prices for their milk, while the price of milk remains high in stores. Bill will go to Congress and work for farm policy that works for producers as well as consumers to make our local economy work better for everyone.

New York has been hit hard by the dairy price crisis. One of the factors that plays into that are imports that are brought in from outside of New York (and in certain cases, outside of the country) and compete with local producers. Dairy farmers aren't getting enough to cover the cost of producing milk and that has caused many problems for these farmers. It is key for Owens to address this issue. As an upstate representative, he will be talking about it a lot.

Social issues: There is very limited information out there, but this is what we know about Owens and two big issues: Choice and marriage equality.

On marriage equality, Owens said this to PolitickerNY:

On the wedge issue of same-sex marriage, Owens is to the right of his Republican opponent Scozzafava. He does not support full marriage--he opposes any federal action on the "states rights issue"--telling me, "I fully support equal rights for everybody, and certainly civil unions are in that mix. For religious reasons, I have difficulty with the use of the word marriage in that process."

That same PolitickerNY piece said that "Both Scozzafava and Owens are pro-choice; Conservative Doug Hoffman is against same-sex marriage and is pro-life."

To what degree Owens is pro-choice (there are other reproductive rights issues, obviously, that he should be asked about) remains to be seen.

Here's the moment of truth: What ideology does Owens belong to? I have a hard time calling him a "conservaDem" or prospective Blue Dog. But I also have a hard time calling "progressive" or "liberal." This is a man who has been an independent. And in the media accounts about this race, the word "moderate" has been tossed around. I tend to agree with the perception here: Owens is a moderate. We do need to know more (while I know this post is helpful, we need more information on him) but this is a start. The only thing people seem to know about Owens is that he isn't a Democrat. That leads to immediate skepticism about what he will do, if elected.

Owens has made one thing clear: He will support the President. He's the only candidate saying that and that's something we need to focus on.

I hopefully outlined all the reasons why you shouldn't support Dede Scozzafava. I should also add that she is opposed to cap and trade legislation (even though her predecessor, John McHugh, supported the climate change bill) and that she supports the Bush tax cuts. Owens does not support the Bush tax cuts and has put an emphasis on keeping taxes low for the middle class.

To close, I don't believe Owens will be a Blue Dog should he be elected. But I also know that we need to know more about Owens. There has been a lack of access and information. Everything I have put here (with the exception of a few points) are items I had to look up on my own. There has been no clarification from the campaign on certain positions and that is something we need. We are working on getting that information, but for now, I hope this will suffice.

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

Not mentioned here
is Bill Owens' strong stand on health care, that he would certainly vote against any bill with a public option.  He seems to agree with Dede on a lot of issues and disagree with Hoffman, but this is one that they agree on.

I'm completely unsold on Owens.  So much so, that I'm not sure a win by him would be good.  What I'm unsure is whether I want him, Scozzafava or Hoffman to win.  The best long term result in this district might just be a Hoffman victory, in that he gives us the best chance to either defeat him in 2010 or 2012.  Or maybe Dede winning is best, with Hoffman taking her out in the 2010 primary.


My reason for Owens
Owens thinks companies should be taxed, or have tax cuts rescinded, for outsourcing, Dede doesn't...I don't know if that's something that's even politically possible, but having a Congressman arguing for something like that is a good thing IMO.

If you end the financial incentive in outsourcing, there really isn't a reason to do it anymore.


[ Parent ]
That's a good argument for Owens
my only question is how much of a pain in the neck will be to Pelosi, and further, will he retire and go away in 2012, or will he switch parties and challenge Arcuri or Murphy.

But if Owens will not vote for a real health care reform bill, then he is not deserving for support. Not that it matters for passage, health care reform has the votes in the House.  


[ Parent ]
So the public option alone is more important
Than EFCA, green energy jobs, closing tax loopholes, being pro-stimulus and letting the Bush tax cuts expire combined?

[ Parent ]
No
but I don't think those are in danger of not being passed in the House.  The death knell for that is in the Senate.

However, we can use this as an opportunity to send a message to recalcitrant Democrats from the North on issues, that if you are not with us on the major legislation, you are on your own.

Bill Owens has not only said that he is against the public option, but has stated that he will vote against any bill with a public option.  Such a position IMO means you support the GOP plan on health care (as Alan Grayson has educated us).


[ Parent ]
Can't we use it as a message
That the GOP isn't going to have such a good 2010 as they think by winning one of their seats? I guess we just have difference of opinion on what constitutes a good Democrat.

[ Parent ]
That's the positive of Owens winning
I didn't say that Owens losing would certainly be the best thing, I said that it was unclear, long term, who to root for in this race.

There are significant positives, and potential negatives for progressives if Owens winning this race.  


[ Parent ]
Fair enough
At the end of the day difference of opinion is what we are all about.

[ Parent ]
Where did he say that?
This is what he's said:

One thing I asked each candidate was whether they would support the public, nonprofit option that Obama said he wanted.

Owens, who told me the night he was nominated that he did not support a public option, said that it was, as a component of an insurance exchange, something he "would look very carefully at; they seem reasonable as principles."

"My view is that there are a couple of principles that have to be adhered to in coming to a resolution of the health care issue," Owens told me. "I'm not in favor of a litmus test because I think that's one of the big problems in Washington today. I think we need to be able to analyze the bills and make a rational decision about it in line with the principals in the bill.

"As long as they meet the four criteria that I laid out, those are things that I would consider," he said. "Again, I don't want to apply a litmus test, I don't want to apply a label. I want to be able to analyze the information and the bill and come to a conclusion."

It's not what I would idally want to hear, but I don't see where he's said that he'd vote against a public option.


[ Parent ]
As I said below
I retract my statement.  I would like to hear Owens clarify his position on this issue, however.

[ Parent ]
the problem is that, other than EFCA, those aren't controversial issues
"green energy jobs" and "closing tax loopholes"? what democratic candidate isn't going to be for these principles? and how many democrats voted against the stimulus? (less than 10)

EFCA, yes, I agree, is a concrete issue so props for Owens. (Scozaffava is also for it, by the way, and so was McHugh, so NY-23 is clearly a district in which labor is strong enough that any politician is going to be in favor of it. Also McHugh voted against NAFTA, I believe).

Public option, gay marriage... those are concrete issues... and when the GOP nominates a candidate who supports EFCA and voted in favor of gay rights, I find it sad that all we can cite as signs that Owens is worth supporting is vague concept like "a seven point job plan," "green energy jobs" and "being pro stimulus..."

That Owens's ad don't even mention the word "Democrat" doesn't make me feel better about him. Not because I insist on all Democratic candidates having that word in their ads, but because it's such a dumb strategic move it REALLY speaks to Owens's conservatism: when we're talking about a Obama +5 district and a race in which turnout will be SO important, not even mentioning your party in your ads is just weird.


[ Parent ]
The point being he is for those principles
If you just want Dems that are for controversial issues you aren't going to end up with many Dems at all. The evidence so far suggests at worst he would be to her right on marriage equality, the same on some issues but to the left on most. No brainer for me.

[ Parent ]
not the point
this is not about of being for controversial issues or non-controversial issues. we're not talking about issues AT ALL.

things like "green renewable jobs" and "middle-class tax relief" and "job creation" are not issues. they're goals everyone claims to have, with absolutely no policy substance behind them - controversial or uncontroversial.

EFCA is an issue. It's not controversial in NY-23, but it's an issue. And I praised Owens for supporting it.

For instance, I was just reading an article about Tom Perriello, written in October 2008, in which his position on jobs is a "seven-point plan to bring jobs to Southside." I'm bringing this up just to point out that having a "seven-point plan" (as Owens does) isn't proof of anything other else than he is running for Congress.


[ Parent ]
also
let's not forget that NY Dems could be in a position of eliminating a district in come 2011-2012. if dede wins the special, it's probable Dems can dilute her district and make her lose. If Owens wins, who knows what district will end up disappearing.

[ Parent ]
Hopefully
The 26th.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
I doubt Owens will be able to win that district
under any of the maps that have been drawn here.

If Owens wins and NY loses 1 seat, we might have to go the alternate route of eliminating Peter King's seat, and pushing all the upstate districts downward to the point where John Hall is drawn into NYC, as is Nita Lowey, who will also have to take in some of Long Island.

Either that, or bite the bullet and eliminate Owens (and of course getting rid of Peter King as well).


[ Parent ]
Gop seats NY
No way is a seat in NYC or Long Island being eliminated.

The best that can be done downstate is to weaken the 3rd, without weakening the 2nd.

Switch 13th district from Staten Island Brooklyn to Staten Island anywhere else.

Uplstate there are 5 tossup or lean districts.  Determining at this time which are going to be D after 2010 is a guess.

Eliminating the R 26 upstate district would have the effect of fatally wounding some Democrat.  Even leaving one R district upstate may leave several other weak seats vulnerable. It may be necessary to give the Rs 2 upstate districts to be sure to retain the rest.

Joe Cooper


[ Parent ]
I'll give you a prediction
No Democratic Congressperson will lose in 2010 in NY.  

The seats upstate are not tossups.  They are at least lean or likely Democratic.


[ Parent ]
I actually think
it's going to be Louise Slaughter's seat that gets eliminated.

And Chris Lee will be forced into a Buffalo/Niagara district to run against Brian Higgins...in a Presidential year.


[ Parent ]
Be better if it was
Slaughter vs. Lee is a fair-fight district.  I know she's old as the hills, but she's a fighter.  I'm not sure Higgins would be as strong.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

[ Parent ]
There's no way Owens switches parties
it's pretty much a given that Owens and Scozzafava were informed their seats will be gone after 2012...There's no way Owens switches parties...if he does, there's like 50 other Democrats in Congress who will before him.

[ Parent ]
I don't think it is a given
if Owens wins.

If the Dems have control, Owens will ask why the Dems don't eliminate Peter King's seat and move all the districts downward.  And if he wants to stay in Congress and his district is eliminated, the temptation to switch parties and take on say Murphy will be enormous.  

OTOH, one could argue that Scozzafava would be tougher opponent for Arcuri than Owens as a Repub would be for Murphy, but you still have the Conservative candidate to peel off votes.  


[ Parent ]
He ALREADY knows
his seat is the most likely one on the chopping block.


[ Parent ]
He might "know" today
but once in office, he might not accept it so well.

[ Parent ]
Seems like a stretch to me


[ Parent ]
Link?
that he would certainly vote against any bill with a public option.

[ Parent ]
I could swear that I read it somewhere
but I have not found a cite.  As such, I will retract the strength of the comment, and I will stick with, "Bill Owens opposes a public option in a health care bill."

[ Parent ]
Re
I don't remember seeing him say he'll vote against such a bill, though I did read many times he opposed a PO.

[ Parent ]
I am not even sure
That that statement is still operative. The Politicker guy claimed that Owens told him the night he was picked that he opposed a public option, but the piece he linked back to doesn't have any direct quote to that effect. And Owens' more recent statements, while annoying hedges, also don't express opposition to the public option.

[ Parent ]
indeed, public option + gay marriage = issues
(1) as you said, Owens is not in favor of the PO... worse so: he was the only one of the 3-4 final Dems vying for the nod who was opposing it.

(2) As for gay marriage, his stance (hedging) isn't that different from that of most other congressional Democrats. But it just looks ugly when you compare it to that of Scozzafava, who voted FOR it in the Assembly. Not just said she supported it, but actually VOTED for it.


[ Parent ]
Owens and the public option...
I don't believe Owens is completely against it. Of course, this is where Owens clarifying his stance comes into play. We need him to do that.

This is what I know: Owens has said that he doesn't support a public option. But he also has said that he supports the president's health care plan. So if the public option is included in the bill, there is no reason to believe he would vote against it.  


come on...
Thank you for all the work you did in breaking down Owens's position, but if you are using arguments like that it makes me wonder about the rest of your argument as well. Owens has said he is against the public option, I think we all know he has. We also know that other Dems who were vying for the nod said they supported the PO, so it's not like Owens is on the same page as other district Democrats on this one. There's really no getting around this, especially when we know that there are 20-30 House Democrats and 5-10 Senate Democrats who are concretely blocking the PO's implementation.  

[ Parent ]
I would like to see an actual quote
Where Owens said, "I oppose a public option."

[ Parent ]
Is this guy reputable?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/...


Bill Owens, who hopes to replace Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), has come out against the public insurance option, saying it doesn't belong in the House health reform bill.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
I think this is becoming a game of telephone
No one seems to have an actual quote of Owens saying he doesn't support the public option.

[ Parent ]
There's certainly nothing to indicate he DOES, though.


Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
Of course
But no one has made that claim. However, multiple people have claimed he's opposed to the public option, and the evidence looks quite slim.

[ Parent ]
Well, some evidence one way vs. none the other.
I'd side on the former.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
To extend your argument...
...where's the direct quote saying Owens supports the EFCA?  The link present in this diary is a secondary attribution.  Should that not count?

(NOTE: If I sound snippy, I don't mean to.)

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


[ Parent ]
Here's a few things to consider...
There is nothing definitive saying that Owens opposes the public option. To my knowledge, there is no direct quote. It was only a mention in a piece on Owens. But then there is this:

Owens, who told me the night he was nominated that he did not support a public option, said that it was, as a component of an insurance exchange, something he "would look very carefully at; they seem reasonable as principles."

This is why we need clarification, which I am holding out for, even though I thought it was necessary to post this information.

I know that we like to have these progressive versus Blue Dog battles, but what we need to focus on isn't preventing more Blue Dogs from being elected to Congress. What we need is to marginalize the Blue Dogs and make it so no new members of Congress want to join and we make the current coalition worthless.

To do that, we need to flex our progressive muscle instead of whining about the Blue Dogs.  


[ Parent ]
Please see my above comment.
It's still not a direct quote, but it appears clearer.

And I honestly read your last two paragraphs and thought, "Huh?"  To me the best way to flex progressive muscle and to marginalize the Blue Dogs is to deny the Blue Dogs seats and power.  

Hearing Owens' position on EFCA has made me more willing to support him, but I'm still unconvinced.  I'm still thinking that best thing long term would be to hand it to Hoffman.  That way, he'd be easier to defeat in 2010 than Scozzofava due to his conservatism and her purported moderation.  And in 2010, assuming things turn around, we'll have a the winds at our backs thanks to (hopefully) Cuomo and probably next door neighbor Gillibrand.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.


[ Parent ]
From a PR perspective
a Hoffman win would be a disaster, would imply conservatives are making a comeback and they're stronger than both parties.

and that would make it less likely we can beat him in 2010.  


[ Parent ]
Any PR narrative from this race is going to be marginal.
The two governor's races will take up the bulk of the attention.  Not to mention, there are several major cities (e.g. New York, Atlanta) having mayoral elections.  And the belief that conservatives are making a comeback (outside the auspices of the Republican Party no less) would probably push them to be more douchey than they already are, making him even more vulnerable in an Obama district with Cuomo and Gillibrand also on the ballot.  Plus, if he doesn't join the Republican Party, the Republicans can nominated their own candidate and thus split the right-wing vote and the DCCC can easily swamp Hoffman and the Conservative Party.

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
That might be a good thing actually
It might encourage wingnuts to run third party candidacies elsewhere and drown the GOP.  It might even encourage Sarah Palin to run as a third party candidate in 2012.

[ Parent ]
I'm leaning that way too
Hoffman winning this thing outright might be our best bet long term.  But then again Dede winning would result in a primary which she'd probably lose.  And Owens would be a vote at least some of the time, and it would give us some good PR.

Long term effects are just unclear.  I'm most concerned about the effects of redistricting in 2012.  If Owens wins and is not worth keeping, I have no guarantee that he wouldn't switch parties.  If Owens turns out to be a reliable Dem and is worth keeping, the lack of a seat to eliminate upstate could give us headaches in redistricting.


[ Parent ]
As I said above
If the Dems do that to conservative Dems then itll only hurt the party. This is a 2 party country...so to have an accepted party you need to be a big tent party. The GOP found that out and you see what happened to them.  

[ Parent ]
If you do that, though
You will alienate many Blue Dogs to the point where they will want to switch parties. And many conservative Democratic voters who will become or lean Republican (although that is certainly already happening). You see what happened in the GOP this past decade. The GOP leadership tried to make their party a small tent party and moderate Republicans, in places like suburban Philly, left in droves. True, what you are suggesting isnt as partisan as what the GOP did but itll still push alot more conservative Dems away.  

[ Parent ]
Stop attributing their losses to their pushes for cohesion.
They were the dominant party for the past two and half decades.  They were able to pass much of their right-wing agenda, turnout their base, define themselves and us, control the agenda, formulate and disseminate a message, and smash through Democratic opposition far too often.  All of that in part as a result of stronger cohesion.  They didn't lose until Americans finally realized they were being screwed over by conservatism.  

Follow the elections in Georgia at the 2010 Georgia Race Tracker.

[ Parent ]
The Democrats no longer need
Southern white rural areas to win.  And they should no longer cater to them, who are filled with people who think the President is not born here, think he is a Muslim terrorist, and think that the military should overthrow him.

[ Parent ]
I don't agree with giving up
Why do you? Or am I misunderstanding your meaning here?

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]
To be honest
I'm tired of having to cater to these rural white Southerners.  Period.  I'm tired of having to kiss their ass on their backward culture and social values, their affinity for the confederate flag, their fundamentalist religion and warmongering, their dislike for immigrants and non-whites, their hatred for anything "liberal" or "socialist" even when it helps them, etc.

Obama won without them, and we aren't going to win them anytime soon.  Let them be the base of the GOP.



[ Parent ]
I don't think
Democrats should cater to their worst tendencies, but I have a hard time thinking that the economic arguments that worked in Louisiana in the 30s can't work anywhere in the South. Maybe not now, but the smart thing would be for Democrats to make a populist, anti-corporate argument and stick to it. Of course, that requires not selling their souls to the banks and insurance companies...

"I'm not a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"
--  Will Rogers  


[ Parent ]

Copyright 2003-2010 Swing State Project LLC

Primary Sponsor

You're not running for second place. Is your website? See why Campaign Engine is ranked #1 in software and support among Progressive-only Internet firms. http://www.mediamezcla.com/

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


About the Site

SSP Resources

Blogroll

Powered by: SoapBlox