Lawler, Conley debate Hudson Valley’s economic challenges

U.S. Rep. Mike Lawler and Democratic challenger Cait Conley offered competing diagnoses of the pressures facing Hudson Valley families and businesses during an Aug. 19 forum hosted by the Dutchess County Regional Chamber of Commerce, even as a closing round revealed significant agreement between the candidates.

Their exchanges covered wages, energy, immigration, emerging technology and health care.

Conley opened by emphasizing her military and national security background. She framed her campaign as a response to dysfunction in Washington.

“Over the last 20 years, while I was fighting and defending this country, politicians in D.C. stopped fighting for us and just started fighting for themselves,” Conley said.

Lawler, who currently represents New York's 17th Congressional District, pointed to his record, including legislation on housing, infrastructure funding and an increase in the cap on the state and local tax deduction, also known as SALT.

"The average Hudson Valley family received a $4,000 tax cut this past April," Lawler said. "No tax on tips. No tax on overtime. No tax on Social Security. Lifting the cap on SALT. That's not tax cuts for billionaires or millionaires."

Both candidates supported an increase in the federal minimum wage, acknowledging the forum host's contention that a lower federal minimum wage puts New York at a competitive disadvantage vs. states with a lower minimum wage.

"Costs are too damn high, and government has to do more to fix it," Conley said. "And I will tell you, tariffs that have driven up the cost of goods across the board are not helping us. They are exacerbating it."

While Lawler agreed that the federal minimum wage should be increased, he said it should be done regionally, similar to the way New York did it. “What works in New York City does not work in Dutchess County,” he said.

He also blamed New York’s "burdensome tax and regulatory regime" for harming small businesses. "New York has the highest tax burden in the country. It has the most burdensome regulations in the country."

Lawler also argued that the way to drive costs down is to increase energy production. He said New York should lift the moratorium on natural gas extraction. He also called for rebuilding and reopening Indian Point.

"Indian Point produced over 2 gigawatts of power for the region. When you shut it down without a plan to replace it, guess what, utility rates go up; it's basic supply and demand."

Lawler said he's working with a bipartisan working group on permitting reform on the federal level to help facilitate energy projects. He also praised Democratic Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer for bringing a nuclear power plant back online.

"Why? Because she recognizes you need cheap, clean, reliable energy if you are going to grow your economy," Lawler said.

Conley called for grid modernization and said that we needed to rein in utility monopolies and tie their profits to performance.

"I believe we need to stop them from passing on unnecessary costs to ratepayers," she said. "Things like private jets, lobbyist payments, political donations." She also opposed creating a "counterterrorism threat" in the Hudson Valley by building another nuclear power plant, particularly on a geographic fault line, and she said building one would take years. Later in the forum, she did express support for nuclear power generally.

On immigration, both candidates supported border security and changes to the legal immigration system. Conley said enforcement should concentrate on violent criminals, cartels, traffickers and terrorists while giving employers a more functional process for obtaining needed workers.

“America is both a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws,” she said.

Meanwhile, Lawler blamed the Biden Administration for allowing more than 11 million people to flood our southern border. He also criticized New York's new "disastrous" policy that prohibits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal authorities. "That is not logical or reasonable and nobody should accept that," he said.

On the flip side, Lawler said he is a co-lead on the Dignity Act, which would give immigrants who have been in the U.S. for 10 to 20 years a legal status to stay in this country for seven years, and they would be ineligible to receive government benefits.

The candidates also addressed artificial intelligence, data centers and the infrastructure required to support them. Conley said federal standards should ensure that communities receive benefits without being left with higher utility costs or environmental damage. “If a data center is built in a way where it’s a net positive for the community, I support it,” she said. “If it’s a net negative, then I do not.”

Health care occupied one portion of the forum. Conley proposed a public option that would let people buy into a Medicare-like plan while preserving private coverage, including employer- and union-sponsored plans.

"If people want to choose Medicare regardless of age, job status or marital status, they can," she said.

Lawler favored competition, prescription-drug reforms and allowing small businesses to pool together for insurance. He rejected a broader single-payer system, citing an estimated $34 trillion price tag for a complete government takeover.

The rapid-fire round showed the candidates agreeing on most of the goals placed before them. Both supported small-business insurance pools, economic-impact reviews for major regulations, legal immigration programs for industries with worker shortages, greater domestic energy production, faster federal permitting, more competition among insurers and a ban on congressional stock trading. Both said small businesses should be offered exemptions from tariffs when comparable products are not available domestically.

In closing, Lawler defended his willingness to break with his party. “When I agree with the president, I’m not afraid to say it,” he said. “And when I disagree with him, I’m not afraid to say it.”

Conley returned to her argument that the political system is failing to produce results.

“This is not about right versus left,” she said. “This is about right versus wrong.”