We lost 17,000 acres of corn worth over six million dollars in one county alone from the flooding caused by Tropical Storm Irene in my upstate New York Congressional District. New York State has over one billion dollars worth of damage, and the storm could have costs above ten billion dollars. As if that weren’t enough, families lost homes, businesses were washed away and tragically, individuals lost their lives in this storm.

Despite all the destruction and devastation, the strength and resilience of my fellow New York neighbors, family and friends is still apparent. We are beginning to stand back on our feet, brush ourselves off, dry our belongings out and get back to work.

And we think our government should do the same.

I was heartened to join so many last week to give a first-hand tour of the impact of the storm caused in the communities I represent; including Secretary Napolitano, Administrator Fugate, Secretary Vilsack, Governor Cuomo, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Schumer and Congressman Gibson – just to name a few.

These tours helped us determine the depth and extent of the destruction. They also shed valuable insight – our local communities and state simply do not have the resources they need to address the cost of this storm on their own. They need the federal government’s help.

Not surprisingly, some in Washington, DC are playing politics, even now. They say Congress must make difficult budget cuts elsewhere before we can provide emergency relief. I say enough is enough. Time is of the essence. And in a letter to Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor that I co-signed, we wrote:

“It would be irresponsible and heartless for this body to delay recovery projects while Members fight over cuts. Congress must put the needs of American disaster victims above its budget squabbles.”

We have a Super Committee delivering trillions in deficit reduction in a matter of months, yet several have proposed to delay aid in order to reopen the budget debate that disappointed and disgusted the American people for too many months this summer. All while our neighbors spend nights on donated cots with donated blankets waiting to return to homes they fled for fear of death; while families in my hometown and across our region watch their homes crumble; while farmers remain separated from their cows because they can’t provide them feed or safe drinking water. All because the government they paid taxes to thinks helping them in their time of need might be a little too costly right now.

When a part of our nation gets knocked down, we come together to help pick it up again. No questions asked. That’s the American way, and I would expect every single member of Congress to support that sentiment with their words, their actions, and their votes.

A comprehensive emergency relief bill, or supplemental, must pass Congress quickly and without delay. The people in my district have already suffered through one tragedy. They do not deserve to face another tragedy at the hands of Congress.

Without Social Security, nearly half of Americans age 65 and older would live in poverty. And yet, the very foundation of Social Security is under silent attack.

About 160 million Americans contribute to Social Security through payroll taxes. In New York State alone, Social Security provides over $42 billion in benefits each year to one in every six residents — over 3.1 million people. That is equivalent to 4 percent of the state’s annual GDP in Social Security benefits alone.

In the congressional district that I represent, Social Security benefits total $1.68 billion to over 128,000 people. Nearly one in five people — including senior citizens, disabled and children – rely on this vital program.

A Pew Research Center poll conducted February 2-7, 2011 with a margin of error of 3.5 percent found that 84 percent of Americans want to keep Social Security the same or increase it. Despite overwhelming support for Social Security, Republicans in Washington, D.C. have threatened to dismantle it entirely.

First, the Irresponsible Republican Spending Bill for the remainder of this year strips $1.7 billion away from what Social Security actually needs to continue operating. The bill was passed in the dead of night at 4:40 a.m. on Saturday, Feb. 19, 2011 by a vote of 235-189 in the House. These extreme cuts were included and will lead to furloughs of Social Security Administration workers for a month. So what?

This would lead to unanswered phones, closed doors and the halting of the claims process at field offices. In New York, that means 31,250 applications for Social Security could not be processed, 64,955 babies wouldn’t be assigned Social Security numbers and over 440,000 seniors would hear nothing but a dial tone and see an empty building if they tried to get help. The economy would lose millions of dollars. Never in the history of Social Security has there been a backlog of retirement and survivors’ benefit applications. We are painfully close to the first.

Second, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has proposed privatizing Social Security in his budget plan, the Ryan Roadmap. As the leading budgetary voice in the House, this view flies in the face of public opinion. In the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, Social Security did not lose a penny. And yet, Chairman Ryan is altogether willing to risk everything – stability, security and the sole source of income for so many of our nation’s seniors – to allow Wall Street investors to play Russian Roulette with our hard earned tax dollars.

The median Social Security benefit received by a retired worker in New York is a modest $14,700 annually. However, without this income, poverty rate among the elderly would nearly quadruple. Perhaps that is why President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was so adamant about protecting Social Security. He said, “We put those pay roll contributions there so as to give the contributors a legal, moral, and political right to collect their pensions and their unemployment benefits. With those taxes in there, no damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

It is undeniable that small businesses are the engine of our economy, and in these difficult times there is no better way to promote immediate growth than to facilitate their success and foster greater entrepreneurship. But small businesses often struggle to afford the cost of providing health benefits to their employees.  Only 45 percent of small businesses can afford to provide health insurance and their costs keep going up – since 2000 costs have increased by 129 percent.  Sixty percent of the nation’s uninsured – 28 million people – are small business owners, workers, or their families.

Clearly small businesses need help.  The Affordable Care Act, our nation’s health care reform law, provides the needed relief to small businesses.  The law provides small businesses with $40 billion in new tax breaks known as the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit.  The Small Business Health Care Tax Credit is available for the 2010 tax year and is aimed at leveling the playing field and making health insurance more affordable for small businesses.  If a business has fewer than 25 employees, has average annual wages below $50,000, and pays at least 50 percent of the employees’ health coverage, that business could receive a tax credit covering up to 35 percent of their health care costs.  The tax credit would grow to 50 percent in 2014.

This tax credit would help a small computer repair shop with 12 employees, average wages of $35,000, and annual health care costs of $90,000 get a tax credit worth $14,700 for 2010 and one worth $21,000 in 2014.  Another example would be a diner with 40 part-time employees, which is the equivalent of 20 full-time workers.  If the diner had average wages of $25,000 for every full-time equivalent worker and health care costs of $240,000, that diner would be eligible for a 2010 tax credit of $28,000 and a 2014 tax credit of $40,000.

Republicans in Congress want this tax credit repealed.  Never mind that it is working – around the country more and more businesses are buying health insurance for their employees because of this credit.  Never mind that repeal would mean a tax hike on small businesses.  And never mind that those small business owners, employees, and their families would remain uninsured if this tax credit and other Affordable Care Act measures are repealed.

Small businesses create 60-80 percent of new jobs every year. By strengthening the financial position of small businesses and extending tax relief, it will be possible to grow small businesses and put Americans back to work.  I strongly oppose repealing health care reform for many reason, not least of which is because of what it does for our nation’s small businesses.

It’s no secret that for young adults, health insurance coverage is often not a top priority.  It’s usually because for young adults, health insurance is hard to get.  It can be too expensive to buy on the individual market.  Many times it is not offered as a benefit for many entry-level jobs that are usually filled by young adults.  But the facts are clear:  47 percent of young people have gone without health insurance at some point in the last year; only half of employed young people have insurance options through their jobs; and 2 out of every 3 young adults go without needed care because of the price.

Health care reform gave young adults a whole new insurance option – to choice to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until their 27^th birthday.  Republicans in Congress are moving to repeal the health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, and with it this section allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plan.  These young adults, many of whom recently graduated from school and are looking for employment in today’s challenging economy, would now be forced to get coverage on their own, or just go without.

Last year, 1.2 million young adults were able to gain coverage by joining their parent’s plans.  In the next few years, up to 2.4 million young adults are estimated to gain coverage through this provision – 1.8 million of whom would otherwise be uninsured.  Under repeal, these young adults would instead be left to fend for themselves.

I have heard from my constituents on this issue.  They want to have the peace of mind that their adult children have health insurance coverage, and I strongly oppose repeal for this reason, among others.  One mother wrote to me thankful that her 23 year old daughter, who has a number of health issues and is searching for a job, who is now covered under her mother’s health insurance plan.  She wrote, “I thank President Obama and the Democratic congress that passed health care legislation EVERYDAY for the gift of health they have given my child.”  And that is why I will continue to fight efforts to repeal this landmark reform.

# # #

Hello Everyone –

I wanted to share the e-newsletter I sent out today. You can subscribe to receive my e-newsletters by visiting my website and entering your email address in the box on the right-hand side of the home page. You can also join a discussion of this topic on my Facebook page by clicking here.

A few weeks ago I wrote to you discussing the tax rate debate currently pending in Washington, DC. As you know, that debate and those negotiations are ongoing. I am committed to providing tax cuts for the middle class, growing the economy and creating jobs. I will also fight to extend unemployment benefits for the millions of people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. What I am against is extending a bonus tax cut for the wealthy by borrowing money from China – they don’t need it and we can’t afford it. The simple truth is that tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires do not create jobs or stimulate the economy. More importantly – I am hearing from so many of you that you are opposed to it. I will continue to advocate strongly for a plan that works best for the middle class, creates jobs, and provides a lifeline for millions of unemployed Americans.
However, I write again today to discuss the importance of social security and specifically to address the cost of living adjustment, or COLA.
As you may be aware, the Social Security Administration (SSA) recently announced that there will not be a COLA for 2011.  This marks the second year in a row that seniors have not seen a COLA, and also the first time in Social Security’s history that two consecutive years have passed without a COLA.
I believe seniors deserve a COLA in 2011, regardless of what the SSA has announced.  Prices are continually rising and increased expenses disproportionately affect seniors on fixed incomes.  That is why I am a cosponsor of H.R. 5987, the Seniors Protection Act.  This bill would provide 54 million seniors with a one-time $250 payment to offset the lack of a COLA.  The House of Representatives took up the Seniors Protection Act just last week and I was proud to vote for its passage.  However, almost every Republican in the House of Representatives voted against this measure, and it therefore failed to move forward.
Furthermore, I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of elected officials in Congress to protect Social Security and the seniors who depend on its benefits.  However, Republicans in Congress have announced plans to fundamentally change Social Security by cutting benefits, raising the retirement age, and gambling the funds in the stock market.
As long as I serve you in Congress, I will continue to vote to protect Social Security and the seniors that depend on it. Finally, if an elderly family member, friend or neighbor of yours is not on my email list, please take a moment to share this information with them. An honest exchange of information and details of the social security trust fund is the only way to ensure its continued integrity and solvency.

I have one question for President George W. Bush and the Republican leadership in Congress. Where are the jobs?

With inspirational titles promising economic growth and job creation, the 2001 and 2003 tax cut packages were a bill of goods, sold to us on the premise that our nation’s highest earners should get a bigger tax cut than the rest of us because they create more jobs. But, even before the financial meltdown of 2008, these measures failed, at a cost of trillions to the taxpayer. From 2001 to 2007, the period immediately following the tax cuts and preceding our current recession, the economy grew at a paltry pace of 2.39 percent per year. This was the slowest period of growth since World War II. Slower, by a significant margin, than the growth rate of 3.21 percent in the 1970s, when two massive energy crises, a stock market crash, and record unemployment brought our economy to its knees.

The Bush tax cuts failed to bring the growth they promised. Our jobless recession continued for more than a year after the first round of cuts, and our eventual – and short-lived – rebound was no more significant than it would have been without the cuts. By comparison, our strong economic recovery overseen by President Clinton after the dip in the early 1990s happened quicker and on a much greater scale without giving a kickback to millionaires and billionaires.

I went back and read the Congressional Record from that first 2001 debate, which was about balancing the budget, growing the economy, and bolstering the middle class. Unfortunately, we are still striving for these noble goals today because our predecessors failed to deliver.

President Bush started his Administration with a $128 billion surplus and a $3.4 trillion debt. He left the White House with a deficit more than ten times that ($1.3 trillion) and a debt that had more than doubled ($8 trillion).

As for the middle class, 66 percent of all growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top one percent of Americans. According to Republicans, this massive relief to our highest earners should have trickled down to the rest of us through small business growth and job creation. The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade, and in that time, the rate of jobs created by start-up businesses fell.

Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the U.S. rose by 16 percent, reaching 7.8 million in 2009. Meanwhile, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps. Approximately 21 percent of children live below the poverty line. And the top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income. Americans are falling out of the middle class, not into it. And they deserve relief. I absolute support extending the Bush tax cuts for those who work the hardest and invest the most in our economy – the real drivers of American growth, the middle class.

Let’s restore sanity and fairness to the tax cut conversation. We simply cannot afford to hand over the bank vault to our nation’s millionaires and billionaires while the middle class picks up spare change.

As in 2001 and 2003, we will soon have a Republican Speaker of the House. As an engineer, I believe that the problems we face today have solutions, and I am committed to working with any leader who presents a reasonable way forward. But the rhetoric I’m hearing from the other side of the aisle doesn’t match the math.

For example, while the middle class tax relief offers a person earning $50,000 per year a tax cut of about $1,000, Bush’s tax plan for the wealthy gives a person earning $1,000,000 a yearly tax cut of over $100,000. That means a millionaire will see a cut that amounts to 10 percent of his salary while a middle class worker will see relief that amounts to just 2%.  The middle class is unquestionably the driving force of the American economy and the American spirit. Giving our wealthiest citizens – who amount to about 2% of the American population in both Republican AND Democratic districts – a dramatically higher tax cut than the rest of us is unfair, un-American and disingenuous to a priority concern of the American public, our national debt.

Taking a look at three influential Republican leaders and incomes in their home districts, a different story emerges. On average, only 1.7 percent of their constituents make over $200,000 per year – the minimum annual earnings to qualify for the special high-income tax cut package Republicans support. These leaders, like every other member of Congress, swore an oath to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” to which they were elected – to fairly represent their constituents in Washington. Not the few thousand who make more than $200,000 per year, but the entire 340,000 filers in their districts, who demand fairness in our tax code.

If there was one message I heard loud and clear this November it was that we simply cannot afford to continue business as usual in Washington, D.C.

We must take a serious look at our debt and how we are spending public dollars and collecting taxes. Our middle class has been ignored for far too long in this country, and tax cuts are just one piece of the puzzle.

We can and will rise together, with careful planning and smart policy. In the debate over extending tax cuts, the choice is clear: I stand with the 98.1 percent of my district in the middle class. I hope my colleagues will review their own district numbers and do the same. After all, a thoughtful government deserves nothing less.