CONNOR HOFFMAN
Managing Editor
Republican Rep. Tom Reed (TR) has served New York’s 23rd district in Congress since 2013. He is being challenged by Democrat John Plumb (JP) for the seat in what’s turned out to be one of the biggest toss-ups in the state. The Leader spoke with both candidates separately about the issues facing college students today; their condensed answers are what follows.
What made you want to get into politics?
JP: I’m a fourth generation western New Yorker. I grew up in Randolph, [New York], a little bit south of here. My parents spent their whole career in Jamestown. My great-grandparents and my grandma, on my mom’s side, spent their whole lives in Jamestown, and as anybody in the Southern Tier knows, our district has been left behind for too long. We’ve been struggling economically for a long time. People worry their kids can’t find jobs here, they’re going to have to move away. If they want to move back, it’s really hard to do that … the thing that we all worry about, and one of the reasons people worry about it, is because no one is championing our rural communities and clearly our current congressman is not looking out for this district.
The second thing is, on a national security standpoint, I’ve been working on national security my whole life, both in the Navy and in the Pentagon. We’ve hit a point now where the politics of our nature have become so partisan in Congress that it does damage to our actual national security. It does damage to our troops. It does damage to our ability to demonstrate leadership as a country, and that also is a thing that I am sick of, and we aren’t going to fix that until we fix Congress. So I found myself in a place where I think, ‘maybe I could fix this one little part,’ and so if I care enough about this, I felt like I had to give it a shot because there’s an integrity issue. You can’t just complain about it when you have an opportunity to do something. You have to take that opportunity.
TR: It all stems from a desire to serve, to serve the public, and being raised in a military family, with my dad 20 years in the army, it kind of instilled in all of us that you know your community, your friends, your neighbors if you have an opportunity to serve to do it. So that’s what got me involved in it, and it has taken me through this entire course.
How do you plan to tackle the problem of college affordability?
JP: I’ve laid out a plan on protecting the jobs we have and growing new ones here in the Southern Tier, and one of the things in that plan is it talks about college affordability, because an issue we have here is [students] graduate from college, and kids will have so much debt they might not be able to find a job or do the job they want to take because they won’t be able to pay off their debt. So I think that addressing the issue of a reasonable way to pay off debt is a really good first step that we could really get to, and I’ve got two different proposals on that.
The first is this: straightforward, you have to be able to finance and refinance your college loans at a competitive rate because right now the system is rigged … The second thing is I think we should have a system where you’re paying off your college debt as a function of your salary, let’s say a percentage of your salary.
TR: Well, first I have heard so many stories from folks across the district, across the country, about how these young men and women are facing college costs that are going through the roof and coming out with staggering amounts of debt. And as someone who completed their studies with $110,000 worth of debt myself, I know what that debt load does to you. It limits opportunity. It limits life decision capability. And now that my daughter is a freshman in college, we’ve seen it firsthand … My wife and I sat her down and said, “We’re not going to be able to send you [to Syracuse University], we’ve only budgeted as planned for you to go to a different school, because at $65,000 a year, Syracuse University was just too costly.” And so she’s now at the University of Buffalo and doing very well. Bottom line, we’ve got to get these costs under control. And how do we do that? We need to tackle the real root of the issue, which is the staggering amount of $65,000 a year, for example, that Syracuse University charges for people to attend there.
Do you have any plan to deal with the rising costs of housing and food at universities?
JP: My understanding is that you can roll that into loans, if you need those loans, being able to address the debt portion would help. It’s not the perfect solution, but it would help to make this more affordable in the long run. And one other thing we have to look at is kids need to understand what kind of debt load they’re getting into when they chose what college they’re going to. There’s a lot of misinformation out there, and I think the U.S. government frankly could provide some very specific and simple tools on a trusted website that says “Here is the amount that you’re going to owe if you pursue this path.”
TR: To me, the way we can deal with these issues is to put more sunlight and transparency on them. We have to have a short-term, mid-term and long-term plan, and that’s what we have put together with our proposals. So we want to make sure that we’re self-healing our programs today when it comes to things like the Pell Grant, which we support, dual enrollment capabilities … And then we got to talk about allowing kids to take advantage of the interest rates right out there. So supporting refinancing these loans at as low a rate as possible … the debt load is just going through the roof with interest rates that are so high. And then what we have to do, in my opinion, is tap into new resources, not necessarily taxpayer resources. That’s why I have advocated for the endowment bills that we have because we have 90 institutions across the country that have a billion dollars of tax-free deducted and accumulating tax-free income funds that could be, in my opinion, better hopefully directed towards tuition reduction for working families. And then at the end of the day, as we do those reforms making sure that there is transparency, meaning where are the dollars going. And when we see things like the University of Missouri getting a building in a lazy river in the shape of the Playboy Mansion. That, to me, is questionable spending that, as a consumer, young men and women and parents should be aware of to ask the hard questions of where are these dollars going and how are we pursuing the educational pursuit that these non-for profit organizations should be giving at our colleges and universities.
How do you think the American government should respond to climate change and global warming?
JP: I think we should be addressing climate change with seriousness and more direct effort. I’ve been a Navy officer for 22 years. The U.S. Navy is fully aware that climate change is happening and is already taking measures to combat it. We’re worried about the poles melting and having to deal with Russia and China on our northern border with Alaska. We worry about Norfolk, the biggest naval base in the world in Virginia, flooding because of rising sea levels … so the military knows this is happening, and Americans know this is happening. And the reason we’re not working harder on it is because we have people in Congress that are so pretending it doesn’t exist or telling lies on the floor of Congress to protect big oil. This is big problem.
In my jobs plan, I say we should be pushing like heck in the Southern Tier on renewable energy, and as a country, because we need to be building clean technology, using it and selling it around the world. It will be helpful for our entire economy. And the only reason we’re not doing it is because we have members of Congress, like Tom Reed, that are stopping this action.
TR: I think when we take on this issue, I try to make sure that we can all come at it from a common angle. I think we all want a clean environment. We all want to raise our kids and the next generation to have a cleaner environment than what we found it today. And so when you come at it from that perspective, I think you can really take on the issues of an all-of-the-above energy policy, such as what we support and that I have advocated for. We are known as the solar champion on the Republican side in Washington D.C. I just got recognized for our work in regards to alternative and renewable. We are the prime supporters of the Investment Tax Credit, that lets wind and solar, and I’m trying to expand that to even more additional alternative energies to push that all-of-the-above energy policy. But we also have to recognize fossil fuels are going to be part of our energy needs and demands in America. And when you look at this issue, it’s not just a climate or energy issue. It’s a national security issue. We can make ourselves energy secure. We do a lot to make sure that our men and women are not shedding American blood on foreign soil, like we have in the past.
How do you think the government can improve the current status of race relations among the populace?
JP: I’ll just go back to my military experience again, which is, in the military, we don’t care what color someone is. You don’t care what faith they are. You don’t care what political party they’re in. Everyone is on the same team. You point the guns in the same direction, and you work together, and I think it’s exemplary compared to some of the problems we have in the country right now.
I also think we need to make sure we are electing leaders who are not exasperating the problem. We need to be bigger than that. The lowest type of politician preys on these fears and makes the divisions worse for their own political gain, and that is unacceptable, and it’s un-American, and we are much stronger together. So I think we need to make sure we are electing leaders that understand how dangerously damaging that kind of action is.
TR: I think it all starts from making sure there is always an open dialogue and that there is mutual respect between everyone when we engage in these conversations. And that is, kind of is, what I learned being the youngest of 12, and having 11 older brothers and sisters. Mom taught us early, you know, that you’re not always going to agree, but you’re always going to respect each other because we’re all in this together. And so I would hope that we would see more rhetoric coming from the White House, from our leaders in Washington D.C., myself included, that talk about respecting all lives, including black lives, including blue lives, including your friends and neighbors, and making sure that when we deal with this issue, we recognize the concern we hear the concerns that are raised, and if there is discriminatory action taking place, then we unite and call that out. We fight that. That is something that is ingrained in each and everyone of us as Americans. We fight for what is just. From my perspective, we can go a long way to making sure that we are creating a culture and an environment where that conversation occurs without violence, without physical confrontation, but rather, it occurs by calling it out for what it is, just plain wrong.
What is your stance on net neutrality?
JP: Broadly speaking, we can’t have a system where a small business is at a huge disadvantage to a large business on the internet because they can’t afford to buy off a contract with their internet provider, and they get squeezed off. We have to find a way to make sure we have a fair access to the marketplace.
TR: When we talk about the internet, I’m very sensitive to government overreach and making sure that government is not in any way restricting the freedoms that we hold near and dear in America. When it comes to net neutrality, making sure that the internet is as open and free as possible, and making sure that we always call on those who would advocate for big government more control to make sure that we respect the Constitution. We respect Due Process protections we have as American citizens and that we always come at it from that issue. So we don’t support any type of internet takeover by the government.
What is your stance on LGBTQ+ issues, specifically on homosexual marriage and trans rights?
JP: Broad question. I will just say if you pick up a gun and point it in the right direction, then I’m for you. The military has both transgender men and women, and it has gay men and women. And I just don’t care. If you’re American and doing your fair share, then I support the rights of all Americans to be free.
TR: Well it’s not just a position that I’ve talked about, it’s a position that we’ve taken action as. We were one of 14 Republicans that stood up and joined Sean Patrick Maloney in regards to an amendment on the floor of the house just a couple months ago. We stood and said, ‘if there’s discriminatory intent, then we’re not going to stand for discrimination.’ And that was the LGBT amendments … they’re known as the Maloney Amendment in Washington. So we’re supportive of allowing people to live their lives and to not be the subject of discrimination.
What are some of the solutions you believe the government should take to address growing income inequality?
JP: Income inequality is a huge problem, and one of the huge problems you have … in the long- term level, the problem you have members of Congress that keep rigging the system for Wall Street and corporations and very wealthy. And when I say rigging the system, they keep finding ways for those groups to save more and more money to put more and more money in their pocket at the expense of the rest of us. And so more and more money accumulates at the top. Trickle down has been proven to be utterly baloney. And so I think we need to have people in Congress that are actually looking out for real people and real Americans, that would be a good start. The second thing would be to get rid of this Citizens United ruling. Corporations are not people. They have far too much political sway, and that helps rig the system against us. And you should know Tom Reed, our current member of Congress, has taken $1.7 million from special interest, Wall Street and lobbyist in the last two years alone, so that’s who he’s working for. And when you’re working for them, we’re the ones that get left behind.
TR: Well I think obviously that is why jobs is number one in regards to so many issues. And making sure that we have an opportunity for everyone. And that everyone has an opportunity to succeed or fail based upon his or her merit. And if we can create a culture and an economy that is open and fair for each and every individual, I think we can go a long way … As you see the economy recover under President Obama, it’s kind of this stagnant recovery with one percent growth. And you also see the easy monetary policy coming out of the Federal Reserve, in kind of that quantitative easing approach to dealing with these issues. That really has gone a long way to benefit the top one percent, in particular, Wall Street. We don’t think that’s long term sustainable, and it’s reckless policy. That will, at some point in time, come to roast, if you will. And so what we want to do is make sure the foundation of the economy is strong. I firmly believe it can be based on U.S. manufacturing. We’re making goods in America again to sell them around the world. And we have a lot of ideas in order to create that environment. We’re right at the cusp of manufacturing coming back. So I see a vibrant, strong foundational economy based on the private sector being the primary tool to make sure that income inequality is addressed. As opposed to the philosophy that I think my opponent subscribes to and many in the Democratic Party subscribe to, it’s this government force redistribution of wealth. To me, that is a lot of government power, a lot of government control that is picking winners and losers at the whim of government bureaucrats. To me, I would rather have the power rest in the individual to be able to grow themselves out of this inequality situation.
What do you think should be done with the minimum wage?
JP: So let’s just talk about what we have in New York right now. So the federal minimum wage is $7.25. New York’s minimum wage is $9, and it’s slowly ramping up in the [New York] city up to $15 by 2020, in Upstate 12.50. So I actually think that’s an important thing to recognize that more urban areas a higher wage makes a little bit more sense than it does in rural areas, so it’s a good split there. I do firmly believe that minimum wage is too low if people on minimum wage trying to make a living and can’t get by then they’re just relying on social services that cost all of us money anyways, right. So you just have to make sure two things. One, raise it slow enough that it doesn’t have adverse economic effects. If you were to raise the minimum wage by $2/hr right now in western New York people would just lose jobs left and right … you can’t do that. But if you go slowly and do some protections, you’ll be alright. And the second thing is New York is doing this, but that’s not as helpful as if all states do this because New York could find itself in a disadvantage, especially in the Southern Tier, for instance to Pennsylvania. Because if Pennsylvania is $5 or $4 or $3 less than an hour, then why would you have your job in New York when you could in Pennsylvania.
TR: As we deal with the minimum wage, of course I would love to see us start talking about it the way that I actually do look at it, as a starting wage. I don’t want people to be limited by a minimum wage. I believe in it being discussed as a starting wage to lead to more opportunity. But I’ve always had the approach of allowing communities more flexibility. Allowing the government that’s closer to people, because I believe that’s the government that governs best, to make these determinations and to adjust the regional, or state or local economies that may be different. Perfect example: what a dollar will buy in New York City is much different than what a dollar will buy on the campus of SUNY Fredonia. To me, recognizing that difference has to be fundamental as we have this conversation of where to raise minimum wage, how to grow or to increase it needs to be more of a local determination.
Which one of your policy stances, regarding what we talked about with college affordability, do you feel differentiates you from your opponent the most?
JP: Tom Reed’s proposal is pandering, and it doesn’t help solve the problems for most students. He’s got some idea about going after really successful universities. That doesn’t do a single thing for a student at Fredonia or Bonaventure or at Buffalo or at Alfred or at any other college. It doesn’t have that level of success. It’s a nice pandering talking point for him, but it’s actually not a solution. So I’m trying to find things that actually might help as opposed to just being a good talking point in a press release. And I think tackling college debt isn’t just a problem for the individual student, it’s a problem for the whole family. Parent’s have struggled with, right, how are you going to help pay this off? And you can have this problem where frankly after two kids can we afford the debt load for two kids. So I think trying to find a way for our students to feel comfortable that they can go to college and pay that debt off without having to worry or take the job that they want is a nice step that can be accomplished.
TR: As I hear John Plumb talking about the issue, I see it rooted primarily in taxpayer funded trying to bridge that gross cost with the net cost. I really am about holding the colleges and universities accountable so that the dollars that are going through their coffers in a tax-free basis, making sure that the dollar is being spent wisely and it’s going towards getting young men and women an education and a good quality education that leads to a job. But I’m about deploying market pressure [and] human nature as the real power to bring these costs under control. As opposed to trying to promise that college is going to be free because we all know at the end of the day it’s not free, people are going to pay for it. And people that are going to pay for it are hard-working American taxpayers, and I think they’ve been taxed way too much. So I think that’s the fundamental approach between the two approaches. Now I am open, as I’ve said, to supporting programs that can help individuals access college things like the Pell Grant things like dual enrollment, but is not going to be the long-term solution. We have to get the cost curve going in the right direction and take on that gross cost that the colleges are charging now.
If you were an animal, which one would you be and why?
JP: I’m just going to say an eagle. Partially because they can fly, and that’s awesome, and partially because I think they’re really cool.
TR: I have three dogs. My wife and I and my family have always been dog people … I would just say a nice English setter or a beagle. We have an English setter and a beagle and a jack russell chihuahua. I love them. I think they’re great creatures, and you can’t have a better friend sometimes than a good loving dog. I’d be a dog just because you bring a smile to people’s face, and you also can go lay down in the corner in front of a fire and get comfortable and take a long nap and get snacks from your master.