McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to ask you about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (aka SNAP) and how Trump's recently passed "Big Beautiful Bill" will reduce its funding. 

You voted for Trump's bill so you voted for SNAP's reduction in federal funding.

About 1.9 million Pennsylvanians receive SNAP benefits. That's about 14% of the state's population.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

Proposed changes to SNAP, commonly known as food stamps, in the so-called “big, beautiful bill” tax and spending package championed by President Donald Trump would shift some program costs from the federal government to the state. And based on the proposed plan, and how the program has been funded here in recent years, the state could have to pay hundreds of millions more — as much as a threefold increase, according to some projections. 

And:

Gov. Josh Shapiro has said there is no way for the state to absorb the added costs. He estimated that of the 2 million state residents currently receiving benefits from SNAP, 140,000 would be kicked off the rolls, according to the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services’ (DHS) analysis of the House version of the bill. 

140,000 Pennsylvanians kicked off the SNAP rolls. That's about 7% of the total.

All that just to help pay for Trump's massive tax cuts to the already extremely wealthy.

How will you be explaining this to your constituents, Senator? Will you be explaining how some of them will be even more food insecure just so those few folks who've never had to worry about where their next meal is coming from can have just a little more money at the end of the year?

Will you be explaining your vote to them? 

I'll await your answer, Senator.

Of course, I'll post the Senator's answer here in full. 

UPDATE: I corrected an error an astute reader discovered in first link.

There It Is.

First The Frame:

Rescue crews continued searching Saturday along the swollen Guadalupe River in Central Texas after catastrophic flooding left at least 52 people dead, including 15 children.

Dozens more remain unaccounted for, according to The NY Times, including around 27 girls from a nearly century-old Christian summer camp in Kerr County. Most of the confirmed fatalities occurred in Kerr County, where more than 850 people were evacuated. Four deaths were also reported in Travis County, which includes Austin. Officials warned the death toll is likely to rise as search efforts continue. 

Horrors continue to unfold. 

But then there's this from The New York Times: 

Crucial positions at the local offices of the National Weather Service were unfilled as severe rainfall inundated parts of Central Texas on Friday morning, prompting some experts to question whether staffing shortages made it harder for the forecasting agency to coordinate with local emergency managers as floodwaters rose.

Texas officials appeared to blame the Weather Service for issuing forecasts on Wednesday that underestimated how much rain was coming. But former Weather Service officials said the forecasts were as good as could be expected, given the enormous levels of rainfall and the storm’s unusually abrupt escalation.

The staffing shortages suggested a separate problem, those former officials said — the loss of experienced people who would typically have helped communicate with local authorities in the hours after flash flood warnings were issued overnight. 

An "unusually abrupt escalation" of the storm combined with staffing shortages made this horror story a whole lot more horrible.

Let's set aside climate change as having anything to do with these floods:

Meteorologists said that an atmosphere warmed by human-caused climate change can hold more moisture and allow bad storms to dump more rain, though it’s hard to connect specific storms to a warming planet so soon after they occur.

“In a warming climate we know that the atmosphere has more moisture to give, to hold on to and then to release. But also the thing that we know about climate change is that our rain events are not as uniform as what they used to be,” said Shel Winkley, a meteorologist with Climate Central. “So, you’ll get these big rain events happening in localized areas, tapping into the historic level of moisture in the atmosphere.” 

Because, of course, the science has been officially MAGA-denied by the MAGA-cult and the MAGA cult-leader, Donald J Trump.

But let's look further down the times story. To this:

The amount of rain that fell Friday morning was hard for the Weather Service to anticipate, with reports in some areas of 15 inches over just a few hours, according to Louis W. Uccellini, who was director of the National Weather Service from 2013 until 2022.

“It’s pretty hard to forecast for these kinds of rainfall rates,” Dr. Uccellini said. He said that climate change was making extreme rainfall events more frequent and severe, and that more research was needed so that the Weather Service could better forecast those events.

An equally important question, he added, was how the Weather Service was coordinating with local emergency managers to act on those warnings as they came in. 

And this: 

“You have to have a response mechanism that involves local officials,” Dr. Uccellini said. “It involves a relationship with the emergency management community, at every level.”

But that requires having staff members in those positions, he said. 

And then this: 

That office’s warning coordination meteorologist left on April 30, after taking the early retirement package the Trump administration used to reduce the number of federal employees, according to a person with knowledge of his departure.

Some of the openings may predate the current Trump administration. But at both offices, the vacancy rate is roughly double what it was when Mr. Trump returned to the White House in January, according to Mr. Fahy.

John Sokich, who until January was director of congressional affairs for the National Weather Service, said those unfilled positions made it harder to coordinate with local officials because each Weather Service office works as a team. “Reduced staffing puts that in jeopardy,” he said.

The storm was bad. It was going to be bad no matter who was in The White House. There's a distinct possibility that it was made worse by climate change - and the science investigating that has been denied by the current administration. There's also a more than distinct possibility that however bad the storm was, it's effects were made worse by the current administration's DOGE-style downsizing.

Hate to say it, but Texas is having the day it voted for.

I'm just surprised it happened so soon.  

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

Before proceeding, I'd like to thank you for your most recent response to one of my letters. It is certainly gratifying to know that, especially now, your office takes the time to respond so diligently and so completely to constituent concerns.

Having said that, I'd like to ask you, again, about AG Pam Bondi - since you did vote to confirm her as head of Donald Trump's Department of Justice.

Bloomberg Law reports: 

The Trump administration terminated at least three attorneys Friday who led prosecutions into Jan. 6 Capitol riot defendants, three people familiar with the moves said.

Two supervisors in the Capitol siege section in the Washington US attorney’s office and an assistant US attorney who handled numerous insurrection trials received notices from Attorney General Pam Bondi that their termination was effective immediately, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity to share sensitive personnel matters.

These are the latest disciplinary actions taken against DOJ attorneys who brought criminal charges against the mob storming the Capitol in support of Trump’s bid to overturn the 2020 election results.

NBC is reporting: 

The firings come at a time when the fallout from the Jan. 6 investigation — and Trump’s subsequent mass pardon of even the most violent rioters — continues to loom over employees at both the Justice Department and the FBI. Numerous current and former officials have told NBC News that the targeting of people who worked on the largest investigation in FBI history have had a chilling effect on the Justice Department workforce, and would leave career prosecutors and FBI officials hesitant to pursue cases against any Trump allies for fear of being targeted by the administration.

It's "horrifying" noted one federal law enforcement official. 

Evidently, not only is this Trump's revenge for any DOJ attorney who prosecuted those who broke the law during Trump's attempted coup of January 2021, but it's just as evident that this is a warning for any DOJ official looking to investigate Trump for anything else he may have done or may do in the future.

Meanwhile, The New York Times is reporting: 

A former F.B.I. agent who was charged with encouraging the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, to kill police officers has been named as an adviser to the Justice Department task force that President Trump established to seek retribution against his political enemies. 

And:

Even in a Justice Department that has often been pressed into serving Mr. Trump’s political agenda, the appointment of Mr. Wise to the weaponization task force was a remarkable development. His selection meant that a man who had urged violence against police officers was now responsible for the department’s official effort to exact revenge against those who had tried to hold the rioters accountable.

Senator, you voted to confirm Pam Bondi as AG. Do you agree with anything described here? Is any of it good for the country? Does any of it further the cause of justice? Is this anything other than Trump's weaponization of a department that should be independent?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

McCormick Responds!

Something new - a video message:

And here is a transcript:

A number of you have raised questions about the reconciliation process through letters or emails or phone calls. First, I want to thank you for engaging. Thanks for your questions. Let me try to give you a quick sense of what's going on.

Reconciliation is something that doesn't happen very often. It's only happened for Republicans five times in the last 100 years. The primary thing we're trying to do is deliver on President Trump's promises during the campaign that the American people voted for.

So, the first thing is to make sure that we don't raise taxes – have the highest increase in taxes in the history of our country. If you were a family that made $50,000, if we didn't pass the reconciliation bill, the big, beautiful bill, your taxes would go up by $2,000.

It also funds the border patrol and technology to make sure the terrible flow of fentanyl into our country is stopped. It builds up our defense. It's a very dangerous world right now with what's going on with Russia, Iran, and China around the world. So, it gets funding for next-generation defense.

And it tries to begin to cut the growing deficit. We have $37 trillion of debt and a $2 trillion deficit. We've got to bring that under control. One of the ways it does that is to try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across our government.

In one area in particular, Medicaid, we've seen the highest growth of any program. It's grown by $250 billion dollars a year in the last five years. And so, what the reconciliation bill is going to do is ensure that working-age men without dependents, who the program was never designed for, are required to work or at least volunteer to work in order to get the benefits.

The key is to try to ensure that we can secure the program for the people it's designed for: the most vulnerable among us, people with disabilities, children, and women with dependents. So, there are lots of pieces to it.

Just know that I'm focused very much to make sure that I understand the implications of this for Pennsylvania and fighting for Pennsylvania's interest and delivering on the promises that I made during the campaign.

He's responding to this blog post of only a few days ago.  It's so good to know that his office can respond this quickly to a blog post (keeping in mind that it's evident from the text that he's not just responding to me but to a great many other Pennsylvanians as well).

There's a number of things to point out here - not only what Sen. McCormick says but also (and this is much more important) what Sen. McCormick chooses not to say. 

Like this, for instance: 

And it tries to begin to cut the growing deficit. We have $37 trillion of debt and a $2 trillion deficit. We've got to bring that under control. One of the ways it does that is to try to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse across our government.

In a letter to Representatives Hakeem Jeffries and Brendan Boyle, the Congressional Budget Office wrote that the bill would include:

An increase in the federal deficit of $3.8 trillion attributable to tax changes, including extending provisions of the 2017 tax act, which includes revenues and outlays for refundable credits.

Does our good Senator not know this?  Does he not know that Trump's bill will increase the federal deficit by trillions? Or does he know this and just simply chose not to include it in his message to his constituents? 

How about this:

CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP. By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in they taxes they owe. The distributional effects vary throughout the 10-year projection period as different components of the legislation are phased in and out.

Something else Senator Dave McCormick chose not to tell you. 

He also leaves this part out that there'll be:

$267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP. 

For those who don't know, SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. And according to that link:

SNAP provides food benefits to low-income families to supplement their grocery budget so they can afford the nutritious food essential to health and well-being. 

So how many Pennsylvanians will see a decrease in their SNAP benefits - a decrease implemented in order to shuttle even more money to the already wealthy?

The Senator does not say.

Then there's this from the Kaiser Family Foundation:

The reconciliation package currently making its way through Congress would make significant cuts to federal funding for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), an additional 11.8 million people could be uninsured in 2034 if the version introduced by the Senate is passed. (This is a fast-moving piece of legislation and additional changes could be made, though the reconciliation bill is likely to be put up for a vote before another CBO score can be completed).

How many of those losing coverage will be Pennsylvanians - coverage lost to cover the cost of greater tax decreases for the already wealthy?

The Senator does not say. 

He does say he's "focused" and "fighting for Pennsylvania's interests" which evidently means the interests of those constituents of his that don't need health insurance or, you know, food assistance. 

He's also lying about the deficit. 

 

Fetterman "Answers"

Note: I received two responses today - one from each Pennsylvania Senator.

This is John Fetterman's:

 And here is the text:

Thank you so much for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you. 

I believe that Pennsylvanians deserve a strong voice in Washington, so hearing from constituents like you about these critical issues is essential to my work. I’m here in D.C. fighting for solutions that deliver real results for Pennsylvanians and every corner of our commonwealth. As long as I’m your senator, that’s what I’ll always do. 

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts. Please do not hesitate to reach out in the future about other issues of importance to you. If I can be of assistance, or if you’d like to learn more about my work on behalf of Pennsylvanians and our commonwealth, I encourage you to visit my website, https://www.fetterman.senate.gov/.

If you've been following my letters to Senator Fetterman, I've asked him a number of questions about Secretary Noem and the Department of Homeland Security and AG Bondi and the Department of Justice - since he voted to confirm each of them.

For instance, there is this letter about US Senator Alex Padilla being handcuffed and forced to the ground after asking a question of Sec Noem at a public press conference.

Or this letter about AG Bondi's possible ethics violations. 

Or this letter outlining how Sec Noem stated that habeas corpus was "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights." 

Which is more or less exactly wrong. 

He could have answered any of those letters. Or any of the others.

But instead, he wrote three paragraphs of mostly nothing.

Pennsylvanians deserve better. Especially now. 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

This is about President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill now making its way through Congress.

If signed into law, how many of your constituents will loose their healthcare coverage?

NPR reports:

Under the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — budget legislation that would achieve some of President Donald Trump's priorities, such as extending tax cuts mainly benefiting the wealthy — some 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance by 2034, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office based on a House version of the budget bill. 

Senator, how many of those estimated 10.9 million are your Pennsylvania constituents?

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates about 400,000 Pennsylvanians have opted to have health insurance from the Affordable Care Act. How many of those will lose their insurance, Senator?

They also estimate about 2.4 million are on Medicare. How many of those will lose coverage, Senator?

Additionally, in a letter to Senators Wyden and Sanders members of the Yale School of Public Health and Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, state that as many as 51,000 deaths would result due to the reductions in Medicare and the Affordable Care Act brought about by Donald Trump's Big Beautiful Bill. How many of those will be your constituents, Senator?

Roll Call reported:

The House-passed reconciliation bill would most benefit high earners and reduce financial resources available to the lowest-income households, the Congressional Budget Office said in a distributional analysis of the measure Thursday.

The nonpartisan agency said it estimates that over the fiscal 2026 through 2034 period, after-tax income and federal benefits “would decrease for households toward the bottom of the income distribution, whereas resources would increase for households in the middle and top of the income distribution.”

In other words:

Higher-income households would benefit the most by receiving a larger tax cut because they earn more money. The agency said the lowest 10 percent of earners would see a $1,600 or 3.9 percent reduction in their available income and benefits per year, adjusted for inflation, mainly due to cuts in Medicaid and SNAP.

How many of your constituents will have to lose their medical benefits (or their lives) just to order to pay for this upward distribution of wealth, Senator?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, I'll post here whatever response I get. 

Wait, What?

H/T to Talking Points Memo on this.

Regarding Iran's "response" to President Trump's B-2 attack. 

Trump posted this on this on social media:

I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured... 

But look carefully at this from Ronald Reagan's favorite news source, The Washington Times: 

President Trump said Iranian leaders cleared their plan with the U.S. to fire retaliatory strikes against an American airbase in Qatar, and even requested a specific time to attack.

“They said, ’We’re going to shoot them. Is one o’clock OK?’ I said it’s fine. And everybody was emptied off the base so they couldn’t get hurt, except for the gunners,” Mr. Trump said at a press conference in the Netherlands, where he is attending a NATO summit.

Monday’s Iranian attack on Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. military installation in the region, was repelled by missile defense batteries, and there were no casualties, the Pentagon said.

TPM found a transcript to confirm:

You saw that, where 14 missiles were shot at us the other day.

And uh, they were very nice. They gave us warning. They said we're going to shoot them. Is 1:00, OK? I said it's fine. And everybody was emptied off the base so they couldn't get hurt except for the gunners. They call them the gunners. And uh, out of 14 high end missiles that were shot at the base in Qatar, all 14, as you know, were shot down by our equipment.

Trump gave the OK for a foreign country to attack an American airbase. 

Or at the very least he said he did. 

Let that sink in.

When You Know, You Know

 

As a reminder:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

This is another question about Secretary Noem's Department of Homeland Security - I ask because it's such a threat to our democracy and you voted to confirm her.

CNN is reporting: 

President Donald Trump announced his appointments to an advisory council inside the Department of Homeland Security on Tuesday, with a list that includes a right-wing news commentator, former lawmakers, Trump’s former attorney Rudy Giuliani and a top former campaign adviser.

The announcement by Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem says the council, established first in 2002, will provide “real-time, real-world and independent advice on homeland security operations.”

The list includes right-wing political commentator Mark Levin, as well as Giuliani, who helped lead efforts to try and overturn the 2020 election results and was later sued for defamation by two Georgia election workers; a lawsuit he lost before a jury in Washington, DC. 

Didn't Rudy Giuliani lose $148 million in that defamation suit connected to Trump's 2020 election lies?

And wasn't he also  disbarred for telling those lies?

The answer to both questions is, of course, yes. 

CNN also reports:

The appointments also include Corey Lewandowski, a Trump campaign leader in 2016 who is currently a chief adviser to Noem. 

And wasn't Lewandowski removed from a MAGA PAC for (allegedly) sexually harrassing a Trump donor named Trashelle Odom?

Again, the answer is yes. 

Specifically, harassing this way: 

“On the evening of September 26 in Las Vegas, Nevada, I attended a dinner to support a charity and spend time with wonderful friends,” Odom said in a statement to POLITICO. “He repeatedly touched me inappropriately, said vile and disgusting things to me, stalked me, and made me feel violated and fearful,” she said, referring to Lewandowski.  

Giuliani and Lewandowski appointed to an advisory council? 

How is any of that a good idea? And do you still support Noem's appointment to head DHS?

I'll await your answer, Senator.

As always, I'll post here with whatever response I get from the Senator. 

So, Which Is It?

Hours after unilaterally bombing Iran, President Donald J. Trump said this:

Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.

Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

Like most everything the orange vulgarity says, it turns out that this isn't quite true. 

From The New York Times: 

A preliminary classified U.S. report says the American bombing of three nuclear sites in Iran set back the country’s nuclear program by only a few months, according to officials familiar with the findings.

The strikes sealed off the entrances to two of the facilities but did not collapse their underground buildings, the officials said the early findings concluded.

And CNN:

The US military strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities last weekend did not destroy the core components of the country’s nuclear program and likely only set it back by months, according to an early US intelligence assessment that was described by seven people briefed on it.

The assessment, which has not been previously reported, was produced by the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm. It is based on a battle damage assessment conducted by US Central Command in the aftermath of the US strikes, one of the sources said.

But The Dear Leader said "obliterated" as in "completely and totally"! 

More from the Times:

Officials cautioned that the five-page classified report was only an initial assessment, and that others would follow as more information was collected and as Iran examined the three sites. One official said that the reports people in the administration had been shown were “mixed” but that more assessments were yet to be done.

But the Defense Intelligence Agency report indicates that the sites were not damaged as much as some administration officials had hoped, and that Iran retains control of almost all of its nuclear material, meaning if it decides to make a nuclear weapon it might still be able to do so relatively quickly.

So, not so obliterated, I guess.

Of course the administration disagreed with the DIA:

President Trump pushed back Wednesday on the findings of a preliminary classified U.S. report, insisting again that Iran’s nuclear program was obliterated despite the early intelligence suggesting U.S. strikes had set the program back only by a few months.

The Trump administration has rebuked the media for reporting on that early assessment from the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, which officials said found that U.S. strikes had sealed off entrances to two of three nuclear sites but not collapsed their underground buildings.

But again this administration is not known for its excessive transparency or honesty.

We report. You decide. 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

About Iran, Reuters reported:

"It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!" Trump wrote on his social media platform.

 

Trump's post came after officials in his administration, including U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, stressed they were not working to overthrow Iran's government.

 

"This mission was not and has not been about regime change," Hegseth told reporters at the Pentagon, calling the mission "a precision operation" targeting Iran's nuclear program.

 

Vance, in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press with Kristen Welker," said "our view has been very clear that we don't want a regime change."

So which is it? 

And PBS reported:

Tulsi Gabbard left no doubt when she testified to Congress about Iran’s nuclear program earlier this year.

The country was not building a nuclear weapon, the national intelligence director told lawmakers, and its supreme leader had not reauthorized the dormant program even though it had enriched uranium to higher levels.

But President Donald Trump dismissed the assessment of U.S. spy agencies during an overnight flight back to Washington as he cut short his trip to the Group of Seven summit to focus on the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran.

“I don’t care what she said,” Trump told reporters. In his view, Iran was “very close” to having a nuclear bomb.

So, which is it? 

President Trump just sent B-2 bombers halfway across the world (in what might be an illegal violation of either the War Powers Act or the Constitution itself) and yet the administration can't get its story straight.

And given that The War Powers Act begins with this:

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. 

Shouldn't Congress have been notified of this attack?  Or is the War Powers Act just another law that President Trump can ignore?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

Bloomberg is reporting: 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem directed the Federal Emergency Management Agency to prepare a memo on how to abolish itself and create a re-branded, radically smaller disaster response organization, according to a copy of the document reviewed by Bloomberg News.

As recently as last week, President Donald Trump and Noem said they wanted to wind down FEMA but offered few details publicly. The March 25 memo offers insight into how the administration has weighed which of its current functions to cut. Technically, only Congress can eliminate the agency.

Um. You voted to confirm Kristi Noem as DHS Secretary, right? Let's move on:

Titled “Abolishing FEMA,” the memo was addressed from then-acting FEMA head Cameron Hamilton to his bosses at the Department of Homeland Security and outlines a number of functions that “should be drastically reformed, transferred to another agency, or abolished in their entirety,” possibly as soon as late 2025. Potential changes included eliminating long-term housing assistance for disaster survivors, halting enrollments in the National Flood Insurance Program and providing smaller amounts of aid for fewer incidents — moves that by design would dramatically limit the federal government’s role in disaster response.

Is any of this a good idea, Senator? 

Then there's this:

The memo, meanwhile, outlines numerous ways to drive down federal disaster spending, largely by canceling long-running initiatives, revoking financial assistance altogether in some cases and pushing more disaster oversight and funding onto state and local governments. Many of these proposals appeared in the Heritage Foundation-led Project 2025 report — though its authors recommended keeping FEMA intact. Disaster experts, including ex-FEMA officials, say the plans would overwhelm state budgets and lead to longer recoveries, especially if carried out on a fast timeline.

Good idea? Bad idea? Do you support any of this, Senator Fetterman? And if not, when will you be making a public comment on it?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever response I get here. 

Alot of Americans Are Going To Die

From The New York Times:

In 13 years at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Fiona Havers crafted guidance for contending with Zika virus, helped China respond to outbreaks of bird flu and guided safe burial practices for Ebola deaths in Liberia.

More recently, she was a senior adviser on vaccine policy, leading a team that produced data on hospitalizations related to Covid-19 and respiratory syncytial virus. To the select group of scientists, federal officials and advocates who study who should get immunizations and when, Dr. Havers is well known, an embodiment of the C.D.C.’s intensive data-gathering operations.

On Monday, Dr. Havers resigned, saying she could no longer continue while the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., dismantled the careful processes that help formulate vaccination standards in the United States.

You can find a list of her papers here. 

Including this one, which has as it's conclusion:

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study of US adults hospitalized with COVID-19, unvaccinated adults were more likely to be hospitalized compared with vaccinated adults; hospitalization rates were lowest in those who had received a booster dose. Hospitalized vaccinated persons were older and more likely to have 3 or more underlying medical conditions and be long-term care facility residents compared with hospitalized unvaccinated persons. The study results suggest that clinicians and public health practitioners should continue to promote vaccination with all recommended doses for eligible persons. [Bolding in original.] 

Back to The Times:

“If it isn’t stopped, and some of this isn’t reversed, like, immediately, a lot of Americans are going to die as a result of vaccine-preventable diseases,” she said in an interview with The New York Times, the first since her resignation.

But hey, if this is one of the reasons you voted for the current regime and you get sick from some vaccine-preventable disease, congratulations. You're having the day you voted for.

The problem is, of course, that in the event you do get sick you could be passing on your preventable disease to someone whose immune system is suppressed and can't be vaccinated. You could be making someone else very sick.

Again congratulations. This is on you.

Let's not forget this science: 

Conclusions and relevance: In this cross-sectional study, an association was observed between political party affiliation and excess deaths in Ohio and Florida after COVID-19 vaccines were available to all adults. These findings suggest that differences in vaccination attitudes and reported uptake between Republican and Democratic voters may have been factors in the severity and trajectory of the pandemic in the US. [Bolding in original.] 

Good for you. 

 

McCormicck Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to ask you about what occurred immediately before US Senator Alex Padilla was forcibly removed from Secretary Kristi Noem's press conference.

The AP reported: 

Video shows a Secret Service agent on Noem’s security detail grabbing the California senator by his jacket and shoving him from the room as he tried to speak up during the DHS secretary’s event. Padilla interrupted the news conference after Noem delivered a particularly pointed line, saying federal authorities were not going away but planned to stay and increase operations to “liberate” the city from its “socialist” leadership.

Time has a little more:

The confrontation came shortly after Noem made a forceful declaration of the federal government's intentions in the city. “We are continuing to sustain and increase our operations in this city, we are not going away. We are staying here to liberate this city from the socialist and burdensome leadership that this governor and this mayor have placed into this city,” Noem said during the press conference.

Setting aside the assault on your Senate colleague, do you think that this is an appropriate use of the US military?  The removal of a duly elected mayor (and governor?) in order to enforce a political agenda?

Even if the threat does include the removal of either elected official from office, the main threat remains: the military will stay in LA in order to enforce this administration's political agenda - an agenda not supported by the people of the City of Los Angeles or of the State of California.

Is this OK with you, Senator?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever response I get. 

No Kings - Pittsburgh, Yesterday

First the frame, from WESA:

With President Donald Trump poised to preside over a massive military parade this weekend, activists in Pittsburgh and around the country took to the streets themselves in a nationwide protest billed as "No Kings Day." Some 1,800 demonstrations are slated to take place nationwide, several in southwestern Pennsylvania alone, in an effort to oppose the authoritarian impulse organizers say the military display — and Trump’s own polices — represents.

Many of those demonstrators came with American flags, dozens of which were visible as a protest outside Pittsburgh's City-County Building got underway around lunchtime. Also in evidence were signs with a wide range of messages. They included such mottos as "Hate Will Not Make Us Great," "Poverty is a Policy Choice," and — in a message with a distinctly Pittsburgh accent — "No Crahn For A Clahn."

Take a look:

I was at the demonstration at The City County Building:

Huge crowd - I was dressed for a light rain but when the sun broke through the clouds, the air was hot and sticky and I had to tie the arms of my light rain raincoat in a knot and wear it like a sash.

Anyway, when the demonstration at that end of Grant Street was done, we marched to the other end:

There was lots of demonstration chanting going on during the march:

• Show me what democracy looks like! THIS is what democracy looks like!
• Hey, hey! Ho ho, Donald Trump has got to go!
• Trump's a jagoff!
• Fuck John Fetterman! 

Someone really should let Fetterman's office know that hundreds of people chanted that last one during the Anti-Trump march on Grant Street. I first heard it after the section of the march I was in passed by a guy holding up a "Where's Fetterman?" sign.

Where was Senator John Fetterman, anyway?

I don't know but wherever he was, by virtue of this tweet he completely missed (or was actively avoiding) the point of the "No Kings" demonstrations:

This parade is comprised of our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers—the very best of us.

Regardless of your politics, it’s appropriate to celebrate the 250 years of sacrifice, dedication and service. 🇺🇸 https://t.co/YghyZkK2JS

— U.S. Senator John Fetterman (@SenFettermanPA) June 14, 2025

Yes, it's appropriate to celebrate those things - no one is saying otherwise. But Senator, do you really think that was what was going on during the thousands of demonstrations across the country yesterday?

If you do, you missed the point, if you don't, you're avoiding the reason for all that First Amendment exercising.  Which is it?

Where is your "no kings" tweet?

And Senator, did you know you were booed in Philadelphia yesterday?

From Mediaite (with video from C-Span):

“Now, this is not a rally for one party,” Leah Greenberg, the cofounder of the progressive nonprofit Indivisible told the “No Kings” crowd. “We’ve got Democrats here today. We’ve got Republicans and independents here today. We are looking to the leaders who will fight for us because even today, there are folks among the Democratic Party who think we should roll over and play dead. Anyone seen John Fetterman here today?”

The mere mention of the senator’s name elicited a loud round of boos. 

That can't be good. 

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to ask you again about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, given that you voted to confirm her appointment to head of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Reuters reported:

Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla was shoved, forced to the ground and handcuffed by security after attempting to ask a question at a press conference on Thursday held by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about immigration raids.

 

"I am Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary," Padilla said during the press conference in Los Angeles, where Noem was discussing protests in the city over President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown.

 

"Hands off," Padilla, 52, said to security agents before he was ushered out of the room.  

It was then that her security forced to the ground and handcuffed a sitting member of the United States Senate.

The AP reported:

Padilla interrupted the news conference after Noem delivered a particularly pointed line, saying federal authorities were not going away but planned to stay and increase operations to “liberate” the city from its “socialist” leadership.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary,” he shouted in a halting voice.

So the plan is to stay in LA after the protests in order to "liberate" the city from "socialism?" 

In your response on X, you said you were said to see what happened to your colleague and that he deserved better. You also said that:

We collectively must turn the temperature down and find a better way forward for our nation.

Would that include The Administration lying and blaming Sen. Padilla for his being handcuffed? How about Secretary Noem's statement about the plans to use the military to enforce The Administration's political agenda?

And regarding your "both sides" solution, what should the left be doing to turn down the temperature in light of all that? 

Any comment on your vote to confirm Kristi Noem as head of DHS? Do you now regret it or are you still fine with it? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

I'll be dropping a copy of this letter in the mail soon and, as always, I'll post verbatim whatever response I get. 

That "Rally" At Fort Bragg

Here's an interesting take from Military.com:

It was supposed to be a routine appearance, a visit from the commander in chief to rally the troops, boost morale and celebrate the Army's 250th-birthday week, which culminates with a Washington, D.C., parade slated for Saturday.

Instead, what unfolded Tuesday at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, bore little resemblance to the customary visit from a president and defense secretary. There, President Donald Trump unleashed a speech laced with partisan invective, goading jeers from a crowd of soldiers positioned behind his podium -- blurring the long-standing and sacrosanct line between the military and partisan politics.

As Trump viciously attacked his perceived political foes, he whipped up boos from the gathered troops directed at California leaders, including Gov. Gavin Newsom -- amid the president's controversial move to deploy the National Guard and Marines against protesters in Los Angeles -- as well as former President Joe Biden and the press. The soldiers roared with laughter and applauded Trump's diatribe in a shocking and rare public display of troops taking part in naked political partisanship.

Yea. But isn't this against the rules? Active duty personnel participating in an overtly political event?

Seems like it is. From a DOD FAQ on the subject: 

Q1. What rules and regulations govern political activities by members of the Armed
Forces?

A1. Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1344.10 lays out the rules and policy concerning political activities by members of the Armed Forces.

Q2. What is DoD policy regarding participation in political activity by members of the
Armed Forces?

A2. It is DoD policy to encourage members of the Armed Forces to carry out the obligations of citizenship such as voting. However, active duty members are specifically prohibited from engaging in partisan political activity, and all members of the Armed Forces should always avoid actions that could reasonably be perceived as implying DoD sponsorship, approval, or endorsement of partisan political activity.

And if there is any doubt, let's look go back to the article:

"We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean and safe again," he proclaimed to soldiers, adding that Newsom and L.A. Mayor Karen Bass are "incompetent" and falsely said they're aiding "insurrectionists" while goading troops into booing them.

"I bet none of those soldiers booing even know the mayor's name or could identify them in a lineup; they're nonexistent in the chain of command," an 82nd Airborne noncommissioned officer told Military.com. "So, any opinion they could possibly have can only be attributed to expressing a political view while in uniform."

And: 

Internal 82nd Airborne Division communications reviewed by Military.com reveal a tightly orchestrated effort to curate the optics of Trump's recent visit, including handpicking soldiers for the audience based on political leanings and physical appearance. The troops ultimately selected to be behind Trump and visible to the cameras were almost exclusively male.

One unit-level message bluntly said "no fat soldiers."

"If soldiers have political views that are in opposition to the current administration and they don't want to be in the audience then they need to speak with their leadership and get swapped out," another note to troops said.

They were screened for their political beliefs. And they expressed those beliefs while in uniform.

But hey, look what I found when they asked the Pentagon for a comment:

"Believe me, no one needs to be encouraged to boo the media," Sean Parnell, a top Pentagon spokesperson, said in a statement to Military.com. "Look no further than this query, which is nothing more than a disgraceful attempt to ruin the lives of young soldiers." 

That's right. That's our old buddy Sean Parnell.

In that blogpost I found this at The Washington Post:

[Sean] Parnell is in a tough primary battle for the nomination for an open seat in the U.S. Senate, a race crucial to Republicans’ hopes to take back the chamber.

A few years ago, the former Army captain was ordered by law enforcement to leave his home and give up his guns. He is in the process of a divorce as he runs for the Senate, and we’ve learned that Parnell’s wife had called 911 in relation to a domestic dispute and filed two protection-from-abuse orders against him that were lifted after a few days.

That's the guy who Pete Hegseth chose to be Pentagon Spokesman.

Oh, the joys of having an old blog... 

 

 

Deep Shit

Republicans and the Right have always claimed to be in favor of "small government." Their biggest argument for the Second Amendment of our Constitution has been that people need their guns in case government gets out of hand. And yet, we see that they have absolutely no problem with the President of the United States sending in not only the National Guard against a state's governor's wishes, but actual Marines into a state to stop protests by citizens. Protests, mind you, that only cover a few square blocks and that the police of that city were handling and did not request or need help dealing with.

Moreover, not a few, have expressed the desire for troops to actually kill the protesters. They actually revel in the thought of this. 

I have to say that I'm not surprised at this. Most now look back in horror at the shootings at Kent State. However, I was in 5th grade when Kent State happened and was going to school in Westmoreland County, which if you don't know, is in what is called The T in Pennsylvania, which is a red part of the state. I remember when we discussed the shootings in class, I was horrified to find out that the majority of my classmates expressed the belief that if the students were shot then they must have been doing something wrong. I am sure they got this from what they had heard their parents saying. 

In other words, not much has changed in their attitudes. 

But, we have to realize that a whole lot has changed in our political environment. 

For example, if Trump did a Watergate now, would he even be impeached over it? Trump's list of crimes as president make Nixon look like a novice in comparison. 

And now, we know that we couldn't, say, count on The Washington Post to hold him to account, nor much of the other mainstream media. Oh sure, there might be some headlines for a day or two, but there would be five or six other scandals that would quickly take its place. 

Worse still, perhaps the majority of Americans don't even trust the media anymore. And, Nixon did not have a Fox News pumping out propaganda in his favor on a 24/7 basis. He also didn't have media which were completely cowered by his threats.

And that I believe is Trump's biggest sin: Convincing the American public that they can't believe objective facts. Facts don't exist anymore. Anything can be "fake news." 

Vaccines? They're poison. Immigrants? There's 20 million of them who came into this country in the past four years and they're all murderers and rapists and gang members. A president who can sell meme coins and accept a $200 million golden airplane from a foreign country? This has nothing to do with grift.

We also now have social media and AI. Social media provides a place for the worst ideas to fester and amplify and for people to gather. We didn't have the richest man in the world egging it all on back then and algorithms pushing it all further. We didn't have AI providing even the most design and visually challenged Joe Schmo a way to create endless visually appealing propaganda. Propaganda that apparently the average person can't even tell is not real. We didn't even have endless video and photographs at everyone's fingertips where they can push visuals from years ago claiming that it happened today.

And on top of this, Nixon did not have a Supreme Court who said that anything he did while President was basically legal.

We are in deep shit, people.

All I know is that everyone who still cares about democracy must fight back in any way that they can. 

Protest? Yes! Call and write your representatives? Yes! Document the lies on social media? Yes! Hold the media to account? Yes! Talk to your friends and relatives? Yes! Use your privilege to stand up for those who can't? Yes, yes, yes!

Do whatever is in your power. Do whatever you can or we will be lost forever.

Um...No Kings

From The New York Times:

President Trump said on Tuesday that protesters who assembled during a military parade he planned in Washington on Saturday for the Army’s 250th birthday would be met with “very big force” — a dark warning that made no distinction between peaceful demonstrations and violent confrontations.

In remarks from the Oval Office before he left for North Carolina, where he was scheduled to participate in events at Fort Bragg related to the anniversary, Mr. Trump boasted about the “amazing day” he planned before saying that any demonstrators would be dealt with harshly.

“For those people that want to protest, they’re going to be met with very big force,” Mr. Trump said. “And I haven’t even heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.” [Emphasis added.]

And from The Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [Emphasis added.]

No Kings. 

Feel free to join. 

 

 

 

 

 

McCormick Monday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I was going to ask you about President Trump's plan to commandeer the Army's 250th birthday celebration to spend millions on a birthday parade for himself but other events took over.

Instead, this is about his commandeering the California National Guard in Los Angeles. 

This morning, The New York Times reported: 

Gov. Gavin Newsom of California accused President Trump on Sunday of fomenting trouble in Los Angeles by calling in the National Guard. “Local law enforcement didn’t need help,” Newsom said in a post on X, formerly Twitter. “Trump sent troops anyway — to manufacture chaos and violence,” Newsom said. “Now things are destabilized and we need to send in more law enforcement just to clean up Trump’s mess.”

Elsewhere, there was this analysis from the Times:

It is the fight President Trump had been waiting for, a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his political agenda.

In bypassing the authority of Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, to call in the National Guard to quell protests in the Los Angeles area over his administration’s efforts to deport more migrants, Mr. Trump is now pushing the boundaries of presidential authority and stoking criticism that he is inflaming the situation for political gain.

Local and state authorities had not sought help in dealing with the scattered protests that erupted after an immigration raid on Friday in the garment district. But Mr. Trump and his top aides leaned into the confrontation with California leaders on Sunday, portraying the demonstrations as an existential threat to the country — setting in motion an aggressive federal response that in turn sparked new protests across the city.

California Governor Gavin Newsom issued this statement: 

In case you missed it, last night, President Trump – disregarding Governor Newsom – federalized California National Guard troops in Los Angeles at a time when there were no unmet law enforcement needs. In fact, local law enforcement efforts successfully de-escalated the situation in Los Angeles County prior to any of Trump’s commandeered troops being deployed on the ground. {Emphases added.]

And this from the guy who refused to immediately call for the National Guard to help out law enforcement on January 6, 2021.

So my question: Were the President's actions appropriate or was it an opportunity to forward his political agenda?

Last time I checked the First Amendment was still in place - and of course anyone breaking the law must be held accountable in order to protect the rule of law.

On the other hand, Trump pardoned all those convicted for attacking the Capitol on January 6.

Your thoughts? 

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll publish your response here. In full. 

Plus Ça Change - And So On

Well, this happened this week:

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) said in a since-deleted social media post on Friday it was “deeply troubling” that a Sikh man, whom she initially misidentified as Muslim, led a prayer on the floor of the House.

Miller wrote on X that the man, Giani Surinder Singh, “should never have been allowed” to lead the prayer and called for Congress to uphold the “truth” that “America was founded as a Christian nation.”

Miller’s original post incorrectly identified Singh as Muslim. She subsequently corrected the post before deleting it entirely.

Singh was invited to lead the prayer, a regular tradition ahead of House sessions being called to order, by Rep. Jeff Van Drew (R-N.J.).

And:

Haris Tarin, vice president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, condemned Miller’s “Islamaphobia” and called on her to apologize while pushing back on Miller’s belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation.

“We were intentionally founded as a nation of all faiths,” Tarin told POLITICO. “Apparently she must have forgotten about the First Amendment in this country.”

And so on.

This sounded familiar to I took a dive into this blogs archives and found this:

The AP reported that today, the first time, a Hindu clergyman gave the opening prayer in the US Senate.

Rajan Zed, from the Indian Association of Northern Nevada, was obviously not a Christian and some Christians in the gallery were obviously not happy about that. 

Some details I reported then: 

Before he had a chance to speak, a Christian in the gallery piously intoned:

Lord Jesus, forgive us father for allowing a prayer of the wicked, which is an abomination in your sight!

According to TPMCafe:

Senator Bob Casey (D-PA), serving as the presiding officer for the morning, immediately ordered them taken away — though they continued to yell at the Hindu cleric as they were headed out the door, shouting out phrases such as, "No Lord but Jesus Christ!" and "There's only one true God!"

You can hear the protestor continue:

This is an abomination! We shall have no other Gods before You. You are the one true God.

Check the date on my blog post: 07/12/2007. (My God! Have I been blogging for that long?)

That's 17 years, 10 months and a little over 3 weeks ago. That's the age of one unruly High School junior.

As I blogged back then:

Maybe Hitchens is right: Religion Poisons Everything. Or maybe this is closer:

Americans United for Separation of Church and Stat's Executive Director Barry W. Lynn said that the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

See? There's a reason for the separation of Church and State. 

See? 

[Note: All the links from my 2007 blogpost are broken. It was a long time ago.]

Fetterman Friday

Another in an ongoing series.

Dear Senator;

I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you to answer a question or two.

I'd like to turn, again, to AG Pam Bondi - given that you voted to confirm her as head of the Justice Department.

The Miami Herald is reporting: 

During her Senate confirmation hearing for U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi tip-toed around whether she would stand up to President Donald Trump’s pressure on the Justice Department, promising only in a broad sense that “politics has to be taken out of this system.” 

Since her confirmation in February, Bondi has earned the praise of conservative Republicans for loyally following Trump’s agenda while drawing the wrath of critics on the Democratic spectrum who say she has politicized the Justice Department on issues ranging from illegal immigration to public corruption. 

Now, a liberal- and moderate-leaning coalition of about 70 law professors, attorneys and former Florida Supreme Court justices is attacking Bondi’s record in an ethics complaint filed on Thursday with the Florida Bar. They accuse Bondi of violating her ethical duties as U.S. Attorney General, saying she has committed “serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”

Specifically:

According to the Florida Bar complaint, Bondi’s “principal ethical violation arises from her perversion of the concept of ‘zealous advocacy’ into an overriding campaign, individually and through Messrs. Blanche, Bove and Martin, to coerce and intimidate the lawyers they supervise into violating their ethical obligations.” 

In each of the three examples, Bondi and her senior team “ordered Department lawyers to do things those lawyers were ethically forbidden from doing, under threat of suspension or termination—or fired them for not having done so,” the complaint says.

In her confirmation hearings, The Herald adds, Bondi also refused "to say that Trump lost the 2020 election."

And yet you voted to confirm her.

Any comments on any of this?  Do you think AG Pam Bondi is guilty of any of the ethics violations outlined in that complaint?

I'll await your answer, Senator. 

As always, I'll post whatever response I get from Senator Fetterman