<figure><figcaption> Sarah Klee Hood / John Mannion</figcaption></figure>

Program transcript:

Grant Reeher: Welcome to the Campbell Conversations. I'm Grant Reeher. One of the most closely watched congressional races in the entire nation in this November’s general election will be that for New York's 22nd district right here in the Syracuse area. The district contains all of Onondaga and Madison counties and portions of Oneida, Cortland and Cayuga counties, including the cities of Syracuse, Utica and Auburn. The district is currently represented by Republican incumbent Brandon Williams, who is in his first term. My guest today are the two Democrats hoping to challenge Williams in November. State Senator John Mannion and DeWitt Town Councilor Sarah Klee Hood. The primary election is June 25th. Now, this is an informal debate or a shared conversation of sorts. We have just under a half an hour and we've got two candidates. So I've asked the candidates to be brief and extremely to the point, and I've let each of them know that I'll interrupt if necessary towards that end. I should also note that I help run a program at Syracuse University for veterans who are interested in pursuing public office and prior to serving on the DeWitt Town Board, Ms. Klee Hood was a participant in that program. Both candidates have appeared on this program previously. Counselor Klee Hood, State Senator Mannion, welcome back to the program, it’s good to have you both on.

Sarah Klee Hood: Thanks, Grant. Delighted to be here.

John Mannion: Thank you, Grant.

GR: So, thanks again for making the time. So, here's my first question and I'll start, Senator Mannion, with you. I've been reading through your previous debates, and I've looked at your websites, and it does seem to me that regarding policy positions, the two of you are very similar, first of all, and secondly, you're pretty standard for the Democratic Party I think at this point. There is support from both of you for expanding a lot of public programs to aid middle earners and lower income earners. But I don't really see anywhere either of you that you'd want to cut back significantly on spending. So in my understanding, if either of you get in and you get your way in Congress, the government's going to get bigger. You've both talked about letting the Trump era tax cuts expire, but that would involve raising some taxes, mostly on higher earners, but not cutting back on programs. So. Senator Mannion, I just want to start, are there any kinds of programs at the federal level that you'd be willing to cut back on or restructure in a way that they would significantly spend less?

JM: I think the first thing that we have to look at, Grant, and thank you for the question, is that you did reference, you know, some of our highest earners. And what we've seen over the course of a couple of generations now is that that rate is really dropped. So I think it's reasonable that folks pay their fair share and that we do make that adjustment. As far as the programs, 100% committed to the maintenance and expansion of Social Security and Medicare. You know, I do think that there are efficiencies in government that we absolutely have to look at and I think that we have to hold these federal departments accountable. You know, budgets are about priorities, so I do think we have to take a hard look at some things. You know, there was certainly a great inflation of the federal budget and therefore our debt during the Trump administration. And I do see in the Biden administration that we have a real investment in our future in manufacturing and in infrastructure. But still, I think we have to look at efficiencies in government and we really have to hold those departments and agencies accountable.

GR: Any specific programs that you can point to, though? That was a very general answer about just sort of taking a broad look, any specific programs that would be on your list?

JM: You know, I think there is support for multiple corporations. There's these grant programs or investment in those, particularly in the large fossil fuel industries that we have to look at. We have to look at minimizing that, cutting that down. And that's something that should have been done a long time ago.

GR: And then one other follow up and I'll move to Councilor Klee Hood. Can you point to something in your voting record in the state legislature where you voted to cut a program?

JM: So what we just saw and what's out there in the media is a program that was going to increase costs on individuals as far as utility costs, and that was called New York Heat Act. I voted against that because it was going to disproportionately raise dollars, you know, the costs of utility rate payers of our customers. So in that regard, I voted no on that. An adjustment was made, and then I voted affirmatively so it wouldn't disproportionately hurt the people that I currently represent. I was sent here to make sure that central New York got their fair share and I believe that I've done that. I'm proud to secure funding for programs that are really making an impact locally.

GR: And so Councilor Klee Hood, the same question, what kinds of programs at the federal level would you be willing to restructure significantly or cut back on?

SKH: Sure. So I think I'm going to fundamentally push back against a lot of the Republican talking points as of late. They are looking to find tax cuts or programmatic cuts to deliver, if you will, in quotes, “for the American people”, which is absolutely they are looking to strip away the fundamentals of the pillars of the US government. As somebody who managed a $25 million federal budget while I was an officer in the US Air Force, I believe that we can definitely scrutinize our defense spending. I recognize that in the global picture, the US has a responsibility to its allies, but I also know from my own personal investment and time managing federal budgets for multiple years there is a lot of area where we can start trimming some of that fat away. Similarly, the fossil fuel industry, whether it is through incentives or through government partnerships, we really need to look at divestment there. And at the end of the day, the 2017 trickle down Trump tax cuts, they are not helping Americans, it's set to expire. We have a real opportunity to capitalize on this in 2025. And Grant, just to put some numbers to your comment, we are starting the tax 2017 tax code that really gave folks that were making $400,000 or more significant tax breaks. I firmly believe that if we start taxing the ultra-rich we can bring back money annually year over year. For example, when our taxes such as the tax program we have now is skewed to the rich and to corporations, we're losing less than $350 billion a year starting in 2017, excuse me, 2027 if we don't modify the programs that we have on the tables now. So at the end of the day we don't need to start significantly reducing how we're funding federal programs. We need to have an equitable tax code that truly is proportionate, regardless of how much money you are making, so that we can start bringing back some of that money. And it's through taxes, but it's not through taxes at the middle class or the working class, it's for the ultra-rich and corporations. Let's close the loopholes. The carry tax interest loophole, which is the most sought after loophole in our federal tax code right now, it's allowing $41 million annually to be evaded from the US, from the US government, meaning that we are missing out on over $41 million annually in tax revenue. So I fundamentally believe that we can get there simply by readjusting how we look at our tax structure. And with that we also have to ensure that we are funding the IRS so they can do their job.

GR: Well, let me ask you then also, can you point to something in your voting record in Dewitt, where you have voted to cut a program?

SKH: Sure. I'm proud to be a local elected official because that means I get to implement federal policy with all of the baggage and none of the budget. It means we have to get very creative at the local level. I'm proud that Dewitt has been able to maintain the tax cap. Last year, we went above it by, I think 1% to maybe 2%, still at less than 5% taxes with an increase very nominal. The point being, though, we don't have a significant budget. So in order to make up that lost revenue to ensure that we have the funds for the police department, the highway department, the rec department, all of the services that folks would expect from their community government, we've been looking at public / private partnerships, which is really where there is an opportunity here. Not only does that bolster the services and programs available to the towns within that representation, but it also helps small businesses get a piece of the pie while also having some skin in the game.

GR: Okay, I want to interrupt here because we're going into sort of a different argument about public / private partnerships but Senator Mannion let me come back to you. Councilor Klee Hood did mention something pretty specific there and what she's willing to look at and pare back and that was defense spending. Do you agree with that or is that something that you think should be hands off in terms of looking for cutting?

JM: I talked about, you know, efficiencies in government and that would certainly include the Department of Defense. But I think we have to be very careful about that,