Gloves Come Off In M.V. Congress Debate
The four Democratic candidates seeking to win the new Sixth Congressional District seat in central Queens sparred with one another during an energetic debate co-sponsored by the Times Newsweekly, the New York Daily News and the Juniper Park Civic Association (JPCA) last Thursday night, June 14, in Middle Village.
City Council Member Elizabeth Crowley, Assemblyman Rory Lancman, Assemblywoman Grace Meng and physician Robert Mittman answered questions on various topics from reporters, audience members and each other before a standingroom only crowd at Our Lady of Hope School auditorium.
There were moments throughout the session in which some of the candidates- Crowley and Lancman, in particular-took jabs at one another over statements and policy positions made along the campaign trail. In an animated defense of his candidacy, Mittman blasted his three opponents as “career politicians,” at one point challenging them to sign a paper pledge regarding support of Congressional term limits.
Moderated by the Daily News’ Lisa Colangelo, the debate was divided into four parts: during the first two, the candidates were quizzed by a panel of reporters consisting of Sam Goldman of the Times Newsweekly, Azi Paybarah of Capital New York, CeFaan Kim of NY1 News and Joe Anuta of the Times-Ledger Newspapers. The third round was devoted to questions from the public as read by Colangelo, and the final round involved questions from each candidate directed to one of their opponents.
Audience members, for the most part, applauded the answers by all four candidates but jeered certain responses to a question regarding a proposal to require voters to present photo identification at their polling places on election days. Mittman was also heckled by the crowd when he gave a vague response to a question from Meng about which candidate he would support were he not running.
The fate of the four candidates will be decided by voters in the new Sixth Congressional District-which includes parts of Ridgewood, Glendale, Maspeth, Middle Village, Elmhurst, Forest Hills, Rego Park, Kew Gardens and eastern Queens neighborhoods-through a primary vote this Tuesday, June 26. The winner will face the presumed Republican nominee, City Council Member Daniel Halloran of Bayside, in the November general election.
For voting information, see the story on Page 2.
Sparks fly in the first round
Each of the reporters asked a question to two of the four candidates. Leading off was Paybarah, who asked Lancman and Crowley about what they would do to ensure the long-term viability of Social Se- curity, Medicare and Medicaid.
The issue had become something of a lightning rod between the two candidates and Meng, as prior to the debate, the three traded shots at one another through other debates, mailings and press releases as to their ideas for sustaining the programs.
Noting that Social Security is currently projected to be unable to completely fulfill its obligations in 20 years time, Lancman-a Hillcrestbased legislator who has served in the Assembly for 3 1/2 years- charged that a “very simple solution” is to waive the FICA tax exemption for those earning annual incomes of $110,000 and higher.
“I think that our seniors today, our seniors in the future, deserve more than three-quarters of the benefits that they are owed. They deserve 100 percent,” Lancman said. “If we simply lift the exemption … we will fully fund Social Security for the next 75 years without reducing benefits, without increasing the age eligibility, ensuring that me, you, my three children will have Social Security to the end.”
Crowley-the Glendale-based legislator who been in office since 2009-argued that “Lancman’s plan is a bad plan,” claiming that any tax increase would halt the nation’s ongoing economic recovery.
“The solvency of Social Security is not apart from the strength of the economy,” she said. “Right now, we’re coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. Since so many Americans are not working right now, those Americans are not paying into Social Security. My plan is the strengthen the economy and get people back to work, not to raise taxes on middle class families and businesses.”
Crowley and Lancman later went at each other a second time when asked by Goldman about their suggestions to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for improving the flow of freight traffic into and out of New York City. The two argued after Lancman took issue with Crowley’s statement that “the Port Authority is better than state agencies such as the MTA,” pointing out that “the MTA is not a state agency, but an independent authority.”
As to the question itself, Crowley stated that she opposed previous plans by the Port Authority for the Cross Harbor Tunnel and Lancman said he would not support any plan which would prove disruptive to the community.
The candidates also touched upon air and noise pollution problems experienced by residents living near local freight rail lines: Crowley said she would introduce a federal bill to mandate that all freight locomotives are “clean and efficient,” and Lancman said he has “already written” proposed Congressional legislation which would require freight rail operations (such as loading and coupling of cars) to be contained within rail yards and not along tracks leading into them.
Meng and Mittman were asked by Anuta how they would be able to fund infrastructure improvements in Queens. Meng-an assemblywoman from Flushing who has been in office for 3 1/2 years-stated that she would work to secure a place on the House Transportation Committee and lobby for funding to spur job creation locally.
“What we need to do is immediately provide whatever service we can to grow our jobs and the economy,” she said. “There were good projects that we got in Queens, but these projects didn’t have enough local community input. … Some of the projects that I would propose is that right now, there is no public transportation to and from LaGuardia Airport. … That’s just one idea that we should possibly look into to bring immediate jobs to Queens and to New York City and to ensure a better mass transit system.”
Mittman, who described himself as a “family doctor/allergist” from Bayside, stated that he would work to set up various programs to “make sure no more jobs leave.” One idea he offered were provisions to private and parochial schools to install solar panels on the roofs of their buildings.
“Five hospitals in Queens, three in this district,” he added. “That’s a basic issue that we have to address. … Instead of giving millions of millions of dollars to one company, go to the schools and say to them, ‘We’ll give you 75 percent toward the cost of solar panels in this school.’ What does that do? It cuts down the cost of energy. It teaches the kids about solar energy and how it works. You have local installers who are going to put the solar energy up.”
Both candidates were in agreement when asked by Kim if they opposed the creation of a marine waste transfer plant in College Point, in close proximity to LaGuardia Airport. Meng and Mittman stated that the plant’s presence would attract the same kind of birds which have been known to pose a serious danger to flights arriving and departing from LaGuardia’s runways.
Taxes, policing and hospitals
In the second round of the debate, each reporter asked a question of a single candidate, and the others had an opportunity to offer a rebuttal if they wished.
Questioned by Anuta about potentially increasing capital gains taxes as part of balancing the budget, Lancman stated that the federal tax system should be reformed in order for workers of almost all income levels pay the same tax rate. He noted that the present system “honors wealth, not work,” and that Congress should follow the method by which New York State balanced its own budget this year: through a “millionaire’s tax” on the wealthy, spending cuts and government reorganization.
Paybarah asked Crowley for her position regarding the NYPD’s “stopand frisk” policy, which has come under fire in recent months from civil rights groups who claim that the tactic amounts to racial profiling. The Council member stated that she believed police officers “should have the right to stop and frisk with reasonable suspicion,” adding that while she doesn’t “want anyone’s civil rights to be violated … I want to live in a city that’s safe.”
Meng was asked by Kim if she agreed with Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s recent decision to suspend New York State’s participation in the federal “Secure Communities” program, which expedites the deportation of illegal aliens who have serious criminal records and are considered a threat to society. The assemblywoman agreed with Cuomo’s stance that the program drew resources away from the state’s law enforcement agents, adding that more police units “should be on the streets.”
Mittman took the opportunity to slam his three opponents, blaming them for purportedly failing to make up for the reduction of the NYPD’s staff since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
“We have 6,000 less police officers after 9/11. Explain that to me. It was under their watch,” he said. “They’re sending out mailers about 4,048 robberies in Queens. What have they done? Politics as usual.”
Goldman then asked Mittman about his ideas for keeping hospitals in Queens financially viable and in operation. The physician responded that he would advocate for federal funding to open “at least” emergency care centers and the creation of a program in which the federal government would fund up to 80 percent of a resident physician’s medical school expenses if they agree to work between five and 10 years in providing healthcare in low-income areas.
The audience gets their say
For many, the most contentious part of the debate came in the third round, the audience question-andanswer session. On behalf of a resident, Colangelo asked the four candidates if they would support federal legislation to require voters to present a photo ID card at their polling place-and to explain their position if they did not favor such a rule.
Meng and Lancman voiced their disapproval of the plan, drawing jeers from the crowd. Meng argued that the requirement would only serve to scare away voters at a time when voter participation is low.
“We are in a state when in our country and state, the number of people who vote is abominably low,” she said. “Do I believe the process could be improved? Yes. But I don’t necessarily believe a voter ID is required.”
“I don’t want to see voter fraud. The instances of voter fraud in this country are so rare as to be almost non-existent,” Lancman added. “Every time there’s a congressional hearing, the people who advocate for these voter ID laws have been unable to come up with any proof of systematic fraud. Listen, we are the same people. We come from the same neighborhood. … For you and I, the idea that it’s hard to get a photo ID is strange to us. But let me tell you, for many people in this country, they don’t know the process. They don’t know what to do, they don’t have the money and they don’t have the wearwithall.”
Crowley and Mittman, on the other hand, both expressed favor of the proposal for the sake of ballot security.
“There’s been instances of voter fraud where people who are registered and don’t really exist, and there have been elections that have been decided by just a handful of votes,” Crowley added. “So we have to make sure that the people who come down are the people who are registered and rightfully able to vote.”
Mittman also pointed to the recent SAT scandal on Long Island-in which people were paid by other students to take the college entrance exam on their behalf-as a reason why photo identification proofs are necessary for elections.
The four candidates were also asked what they would do if they were asked to vote to “reject, abstain or [along] the party line” on a bill on short notice without having a chance to read the legislation first. Meng and Mittman said they would reject the bill, while Crowley stated that she would abstain from voting.
“Well, I’d read the bill,” Lancman responded. “I’ve written a lot of bills. I can read it.”
Questioning each other
The final round of the debate allowed each of the candidates to quiz one of their opponents and to offer rebuttals to the questions.
The highlight of the round came when Meng asked Mittman-who had called her, Crowley and Lancman “career politicians” in previous debates and candidates forums-to not only explain what he can bring to government, but also which of the three candidates he would support if he were not running.
“I do believe they’re career politicians,” he told the crowd, observing that the federal legislature was originally designed to have “ordinary people” serve for brief periods of time. Taking that point one step further, Mittman pulled out and signed a pledge to support the creation of Congressional term limits and challenged his three opponents to follow suit; none of them did.
Pressed by Meng and the audience to provide an answer to the second part of her question, Mittman stated “if you vote for any on them, you’re getting the same thing.”
Lancman asked Meng about her recent statement to WABC-TV that she would have voted on a bill to revoke federal funding for the NYPD due to protests regarding its stop-andfrisk policy and a counter-terrorism surveillance program which operated in New Jersey.
“I have the utmost respect for our men and women who protect our state and city day in and day out,” Meng said. “I think that right now, there are cases throughout the city … where people are being targeted, people are being stopped, simply because and only because of what they look like or where they come from. … No one should ever be targeted because of the way they look or where they came from.”
In their rebuttals, Crowley and Mittman objected to the proposed bill.
“I would never de-fund the NYPD,” Crowley said, adding that in supporting the bill, “the entire Democratic delegation of New York City … cared more about being politically correct than the people of the City of New York, and that’s wrong.”
“If there is a problem with racial profiling, then bring it up to court system and go after them [there],” Mittman added.
Turning to economics, Mittman questioned Crowley about what role she believed the Federal Reserve should play in the American economy. Crowley replied that the central bank should continue its work to protect interest rates, adding that she would, if elected, focus on eliminating corporate loopholes and providing tax breaks for small businesses.
In his rebuttal, Lancman stated that he would work to increase monitoring of the Federal Reserve and to reform Wall Street. He noted that in the four years since the economic crisis of 2008, the Federal Reserve and Congress have done little to prevent similar problems which precipitated the “Wall Street meltdown” from reoccurring.
Finally, Crowley asked Meng and Lancman-whom she claimed signed the pledge by the New York Uprising reform group in 2010 to support legislative redistricting by an independent panel-to “defend your vote” on the final redistricting plan earlier, conceived by a joint legislative committee, earlier this year.
Meng stated that while she did sign the New York Uprising pledge, she voted for the committee plan since “the process was more inclusive.” Lancman, who stated that he did not sign the pledge (“My only pledge is to you, the constituents,” he said), added that he has always supported independent redistricting.
The next Juniper Park Civic Association meeting is scheduled to take place on Thursday night, Sept. 20, at 7:45 p.m. at Our Lady of Hope School, located at the corner of Eliot Avenue and 71st Street in Middle Village. For more information, call 1- 718-651-5865.
