×

Rep. Reed Is Master Of The Tight-Rope

It is not uncommon for elected officials, particularly in Congress, to have a “shtick.” With 434 colleagues fighting for legislative victories and press attention, it can be very useful to market themselves as a certain type of legislator and represent that brand in public. Some are completely authentic, others completely phony. The proof is in the voting record.

Congressman Tom Reed fancies himself someone above the partisan fray. He can often be seen on television remarking on his noble aspirations to cut partisan gridlock and “get things done.” He is a master in the art of political tight-roping. It is easy, however, to say one is working on behalf of their constituents with tweets, press releases, and interviews to gain credit for his professed independence. It is much harder to actually cast the tough votes that might be contrary to his political interests.

During the government shutdown Congressman Reed righteously lamented the political dysfunction that caused it and spoke publicly of his desire to find a solution for the American people. Yet, he refused to vote in favor of funding the government when given a chance. Ironically, he even voted against funding the Department of Homeland Security, the agency in charge of handling immigration.

The self-styled bi-partisan problem solver has voted with his party and The President 96 percent of time. That doesn’t sound like reaching across the aisle to me.

His most recent vote against House Bill HR1 is the most telling yet. It was a huge missed opportunity to show he really does work for his voters. Instead, he put on full display his intention to serve as a rubber stamp for his party.

HR1 was a Democratic electoral reform bill that would among other things: make Election Day a federal holiday, require presidential and vice presidential candidates to reveal 10 years of their tax returns, expand cybersecurity for our electoral systems and ban foreign nationals from lobbying candidates (hard to believe that was legal in the first place.)

What better way to show concern for American democracy and public engagement than supporting a bill that would increase access to the ballot, protect elections from hostile foreign powers, and increase our security to prevent fraud and corruption?

Nope. The alleged compromiser of NY-23 sided against these fundamental, common sense reforms. How could it be?

Easy: high voter turnout typically favors Democratic candidates. If a whole lot of working people are more likely to vote with Election Day off, he might be in trouble. Requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates to release tax returns is an obvious way to increase transparency which everyone since Nixon did until Trump refused. The President has been cavalier in his refusal to disclose his finances for fear it might expose his shady business dealings of the last several decades. Accordingly, Representative Reed could not be caught dead voting for this provision as it would certainly anger the President behind whom he so obediently follows.

What is more, Mr. Reed receives a lot of money from the real estate, insurance and pharmaceutical industries–much of it through PACs–large money lobbying organizations with lax disclosure requirements. We wouldn’t expect Congresspeople to vote in favor of regulating the groups who pay for their television ads, would we?

The bill nevertheless passed in the House but alas, it is sure to be stalled in the Senate by majority leader Mitch McConnell who is similarly servile toward Donald Trump.

Americans shouldn’t be expected to research every bill to know if their Congressperson is telling them the truth. If Mr. Reed is simply going to follow in line behind all the other Republicans and President Trump on 96 percent of the votes than he should say so proudly and tell us why. Instead, he presents himself as a non-partisan dealmaker in public while his legislative record is precisely the opposite.

Derek Smith is a Frewsburg native.

Newsletter

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *
   

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.62/week.

Subscribe Today