Things are about to get bleaker for rural hospitals.
The newly enacted federal tax and spending law
calls for some of the deepest cuts to health care spending in U.S.
history, with more than $1 trillion sliced from Medicaid, the public
health insurance program for low-income Americans.
Health
policy experts have sounded the alarm that the massive loss of funding
to individuals and reimbursements to health care systems will decimate
already struggling rural hospitals and nursing facilities.
While the Senate tacked on a $50 billion fund to help alleviate the cuts, KFF reported on some of the limitations of that fund:
It's only a little more than one third of the bills loss of Medicare funding in rural areas
The fund is temporary while many of the cuts in Trump's bill aren't
And so on.
So my first question to you is, how many rural Pennsylvania hospitals are estimated to close due to the bill you signed? And given that, what will be the impact on Pennsylvania's rural communities given that closing hospitals won't change the numbers of people who need them? Presumably people will have to travel farther for health care, more people will be heading to the hospitals that are lucky enough to remain open, increasing the burden (and costs) of those hospitals.
I got another letter from Senator Fetterman yesterday.
This appears to be a new email - in the sense that it's not one he's already sent to me - as he's done before.
Here's the first post-thanks sentence:
To me, this is a
simple issue: every American should be represented by elected officials
looking out for the people, not lining their own pockets.
And then there's this from the next paragraph:
But it isn’t
just about bribes and payouts. I’m committed to putting real teeth into
our anti-corruption and ethics laws. Members of Congress shouldn’t be
able to use the information we’re given as elected officials to get rich
on stock trades or other investments – because we shouldn’t be able to
hold individual stocks at all.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Ethics, insider trading and so on.
And you'll note that I've already written about a response to this blogpost from April 22. In it, I wrote how disappointed I was at his non-response to my concerns and I urged him to try again.
In any case, the match
isn't perfect. In that original post, I ask for a comment on Senator Warren who
asked, on the Senate floor, if President Trump's posting on Truth
Social about it being a great time to buy assets - which he posted hours
before changing course on tariffs - was insider trading info for his supporters.
Senator Fetterman is talking about members of Congress and insider trading. Close but no cigar.
But it's closer than some of Fetterman's responses, don't mistake me.
They still need to do better over there in Fetterman-ville. Real constituents have real questions and deserve real answers - not restatements of generalized policy positions.
The Justice Department this week abruptly
escalated its pressure campaign on Letitia James, New York’s attorney
general and one of President Trump’s longtime adversaries, opening a
civil rights investigation into her office and appointing a special
prosecutor to scrutinize her real estate dealings.
Taken
together, the developments concerning Ms. James mark a stark escalation
of Mr. Trump’s retribution campaign against one of his foremost nemeses
and a remarkable use of Justice Department power to pursue a foe.
The
civil rights investigation, which had not previously been reported, is
examining whether Ms. James’s office violated Mr. Trump’s civil rights
in its successful fraud suit against him, according to three people with
knowledge of the matter.
Tariffs are taxes imposed by one country on goods imported from another country. Tariffs are trade barriers that raise prices, reduce available quantities of goods and services for US businesses and consumers, and create an economic burden on foreign exporters.
Tariffs are taxes imposed by a government on goods and services imported
from other countries. Think of tariff like an extra cost added to
foreign products when they enter the country.
Tariffs are a tax on goods imported into the United States and are
paid for by the U.S. importer. Tariffs are just one of several trade
policy tools available for policymakers to achieve a successful
diplomatic outcome. They are intended to raise the cost of imported
goods, making them less competitive compared with domestically
manufactured products.
When tariffs are enacted, retailers are
forced to choose between raising their prices or relying on already slim
profit margins to absorb the increased cost of inventory.
So Senator let me ask you a simple question: In the end, who pays the tariffs?
Law enforcement officials said that Patrick Joseph White, a 30-year-old
from the suburbs of Atlanta, opened fire on the complex of buildings on
Friday afternoon. He had become fixated with the coronavirus vaccine,
believing that it was the cause of his own physical ailments, officials
said, and he attacked the institution that has been at the center of
rampant conspiracy theories and misinformation about the federal
government’s response to the pandemic.
A Georgia man who had blamed the COVID-19 vaccine for making him
depressed and suicidal has been identified as the shooter who opened
fire late Friday on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention headquarters, killing a police officer.
It's been a while since I blogged about my good friend Wendy Bell.
I have no idea what's she's doing these days (perhaps she's publicly apologized for the massive misinformation, who knows?) but when I was blogging about her, these were among the things I wrote about:
April 20, 2023 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
June 1, 2022 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
April 29, 2022 - Wendy Bell spreads misinformation about the safety of the COVID vaccines.
And so on.
I'm not saying that the CDC shooter ever even heard of Wendy Bell. Not saying that at all. But he certainly believed someone else who spewed the same BS Wendy spewed.
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.
I also pointed out in the next paragraph that Trump was also the guy who
refused to call the National Guard when his mob stormed the Capitol on January
6, 2021.
Senator McCormick did not address the attempted coup. He does, however, say
this:
With regard to the raids, President Trump campaigned very clearly on the fact that we needed to close our borders, and I supported this, and also repatriate illegal immigrants that had come into our country. Of course, the priority needs to be those that pose a risk to the health and well-being of Americans. So, the drug cartels—we had more than 10 million illegal immigrants come in. It's been documented and, well validated that we had many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of cartels of people on the terrorist watch list. That needs to be the first priority. And then the authorities will work their way down the list, and President Trump's already made some adjustments to that policy to make sure we do that thoughtfully and empathetically, and treat those people with respect, even as we put them back across the border because they entered this country illegally.
The LA riots were an example of something that is completely unacceptable in
our society. Listen, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. The need and the
ability—I fought for this as a soldier—to peacefully protest. But what
happened in LA wasn't peaceful protest. It's the destruction of property.
It's violence against law enforcement. It's a destruction of communities.
It's—it cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in sanctuary cities, and
it cannot be tolerated anywhere in our country.
I think President Trump was absolutely right to deploy the National Guard.
He did that very specifically, not to enforce the immigration law, but to
protect the federal agents and federal properties, that were under risk as a
result of those violent riots in LA.
The only problem with McCormick's answer is what it left out.
Federal agents in tactical gear armed with military-style rifles threw
flash-bang grenades to disperse an angry crowd near downtown Los Angeles on
Friday as they conducted an immigration raid on a clothing wholesaler, the
latest sign of tensions between protesters and law enforcement over raids
carried out at stores, restaurants and court buildings.
The operation was one of at least three immigration sweeps conducted in Los
Angeles on Friday. In another one, federal agents converged at a Home Depot
where day laborers regularly gather in search of work.
The raid at the clothing wholesaler began about 9:15 a.m. in the Fashion
District, less than two miles from Los Angeles City Hall.
Clothing wholesaler? Home Depot?
But the senator said the raids were to protect the country from the drug cartels. He said that ICE's first priority was the drug cartels and people on the terrorist watch list. Perhaps he needs to explain how day laborers gathering at a Home Depot is a threat to the "health and well-being of Americans."
How many of those were picked up in LA's fashion district, were existential threats to the homeland, Senator?
Dave (can I call you Dave?) by failing to tell a more complete story, you're letting anyone who watched your video think that ICE was targeting terrorists or members of South American drug cartels in LA in June. That's is what's known as a lie of omission, Senator.
The violence that triggered the National Guard being called up was done in response to those ICE raids.
Then there's this part of the Senator's response:
Listen, this is a tough issue. The president's been very clear on
it and I support these efforts to deal with the immigration crisis
with a strong commitment to enforcing the law and in doing that in a
way that protects all Americans.
At present, law enforcement authorities from the City and County of Los
Angeles are safeguarding public safety, and, as demonstrated by the robust
law enforcement response yesterday evening to protect federal facilities, local
law enforcement resources are sufficient to maintain order. In dynamic and
fluid situations such as the one in Los Angeles, State and local authorities are the
most appropriate ones to evaluate the need for resources to safeguard life and
property. Indeed, the decision to deploy the National Guard, without
appropriate training or orders, risks seriously escalating the situation.
There is currently no need for the National Guard to be deployed in Los
Angeles, and to do so in this unlawful manner and for such a lengthy period is a
serious breach of state sovereignty that seems intentionally designed to inflame
the situation, while simultaneously depriving the State from deploying these
personnel and resources where they are truly required. Accordingly, we ask that
you immediately rescind your order and return the National Guard to its rightful
control by the State of California, to be deployed as appropriate when
necessary.
There was no need to send the National Guard as the local law enforcement were sufficient to safeguard public safety and federal facilities. So any reason President Trump used as an excuse to send them in is moot.
I thought the GOP was in heartily in favor of states' rights and state sovereignty.
Not anymore, I guess.
=====
My transcript:
A number of you have sent in questions or feedback by email or letter or
phone call regarding the raids by the Immigration Customs and Enforcement
agents across our country on illegal immigration and also the president's
response to the LA riots.
Let me, let me start by saying thank you. Thank you for your feedback. I
appreciate it. I was elected to represent every single Pennsylvanian and so
the way I can do that best is by engaging with you and hearing the questions
that are on your mind and having the best chance possible to give my
response and my answer and listen to your feedback.
With regard to the raids, President Trump campaigned very clearly on the
fact that we needed to close our borders, and I supported this, and also
repatriate illegal immigrants that had come into our country. Of course, the
priority needs to be those that pose a risk to the health and well-being of
Americans. So, the drug cartels—we had more than 10 million illegal
immigrants come in. It's been documented and, well validated that we had
many, many thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of cartels of people on
the terrorist watch list. That needs to be the first priority. And then the
authorities will work their way down the list, and President Trump's already
made some adjustments to that policy to make sure we do that thoughtfully
and empathetically, and treat those people with respect, even as we put them
back across the border because they entered this country illegally.
The LA riots were an example of something that is completely unacceptable in
our society. Listen, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. The need and the
ability—I fought for this as a soldier—to peacefully protest. But what
happened in LA wasn't peaceful protest. It's the destruction of property.
It's violence against law enforcement. It's a destruction of communities.
It's—it cannot be tolerated. It cannot be tolerated in sanctuary cities, and
it cannot be tolerated anywhere in our country.
I think President Trump was absolutely right to deploy the National Guard.
He did that very specifically, not to enforce the immigration law, but to
protect the federal agents and federal properties, that were under risk as a
result of those violent riots in LA.
Listen, this is a tough issue. The president's been very clear on it and I support these efforts to deal with the immigration crisis with a strong commitment to enforcing the law and in doing that in a way that protects all Americans.
Another Friday without a letter to Senator Fetterman but with a discussion of the letters from Senator Fetterman.
On August 5, I sent a link to this blog post to the Senator's office.
While it's snark quotient wasn't that high, it's SQ wasn't zero, either. I simply pointed out that in the space of just under a dozen minutes I received two identical emails from the Senator's office.
That was August 5. The next day - August 6 - in the space of just under twenty minutes, I received fully six emails from Fetterman's office.
The first two (received at 10:41AM and 10:48AM) both begin with this:
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.
And continue identically. It's the same email sent twice.
One minute later, at 10:49AM, I received an email that begins thusly:
Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.
As your
senator, I’ve been clear about my views on immigration. I’m
unapologetically pro-immigration because I know that it’s what makes our
country great, and I know that so much of our country was built on the
backs, and by the hands, of immigrants.
It was followed at 10:50AM, and twice at 10:58AM by the same letter.
Six emails but only two sets of texts and none of them even remotely addressing the questions I raised to the Senator.
I wasn't asking about immigration, I was asking for a comment about Kristi Noem. I wasn't asking about Civil Rights, I was asking for a comment about Pam Bondi. He voted to confirm both.
Shouldn't our elected representatives be responsive to our questions and concerns?
I got not one but two emails from US Senator John Fetterman yesterday.
Two.
The first arrived at 1:22PM and the second at 1:33PM - eleven minutes later.
After the usual "Thank you for reaching out to my office..." next paragraph of the first letter reads:
As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and
defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect
our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally,
to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so
much more. These are values and protections that make America the great
country it is.
Same thing with the second letter - the one that arrived eleven minutes after the first:
As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and
defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect
our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally,
to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so
much more. These are values and protections that make America the great
country it is.
I was responding to a letter from Senator Fetterman. The second paragraph reads:
As Americans, we are committed to following our constitution and
defending the freedom it guarantees all of us. Our civil rights protect
our freedom to think for ourselves, to speak out, to be treated equally,
to love who we love, to vote for the government of our choice, and so
much more. These are values and protections that make America the great
country it is.
The same letter.
And the purpose of that blog post was to point out how on April 5, I got the same letter from Fetterman's office.
So I've received the same letter four times.
And absolutely none of them specifically address any of the questions I've asked.
The U.S. added 258,000 fewer jobs in May and June than the Labor
Department first reported, according to federal data released Friday.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) issued stunning revisions to its
reports on May and June employment growth in an overall dismal July
jobs report, drastically changing the picture of the U.S. economy.
The U.S. only added 19,000 jobs in May compared to an initial report
of 144,000, and only 14,000 in June after an initial report of 147,000,
according to the BLS. Those two paltry totals, plus a July jobs gain of
73,000, means the U.S. added just 106,000 jobs over the past three
months.
And President Trump responded to the bad news badly. From The New York Times:
President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on
Friday, saying without evidence that the data were “rigged” and that he
was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official
responsible for pulling together the numbers each month.
And:
The president fired Dr. McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly
jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward
revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely
interpreted the report as evidence that Mr. Trump’s policies were
beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted
in a subsequent post that the country was “doing GREAT!”
The president defended his actions, saying it was the right thing to do.
CNN posted an article describing the data BLS collects and how it constructs its monthly report if you want to see how supremely difficult it would be to "rig" the numbers.
So here are my questions. Is the president right? Do you agree that the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics was, in fact, rigged in order to embarrass Trump and the GOP? And, if this is all the case, just how were the numbers falsified?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, whatever answer I get from the Senator, I'll post it here.
Thank you so much for reaching out to my office about the economy. I appreciate hearing from you.
I’m working hard to deliver an economy that truly works for every
Pennsylvanian. Pennsylvania families are currently being squeezed from
all sides while companies rake in massive profits and the White House
causes chaos with it's indiscriminate trade war. In the 119th Congress, I
will continue to push for policies that bring down costs for
Pennsylvanians and help local economies thrive.
I will also fight for a fairer tax code that cuts taxes for working
Pennsylvanians and small businesses while ensuring the wealthiest
Americans and big corporations finally pay their fair share.
Deficit-busting tax cuts for big corporations and the ultra-wealthy do
nothing for middle class earners and will add to inflation. I was proud
to support the bipartisan Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024
last congress, and I will continue the fight for working families and
small businesses no matter who is in the White House. The tax code
should also encourage small businesses and manufacturers to invest here
in the U.S., which is why I cosponsored the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act in my first full month as a senator.
Alleviating financial pressures on our seniors is also a critical part
of strengthening our economy. I will work to protect hard-earned
pensions and Social Security benefits–because American seniors should be
able to retire with dignity, and no partisan games should get in the
way of that. I was proud to vote for the bipartisan SocialSecurity Fairness Act,
which was signed into law last year. This law restored full Social
Security benefits to millions of teachers, firefighters, police
officers, and other public servants who had their benefits arbitrarily
reduced.
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/.
There's a problem, however as I don't know which blog questions he's answering.
Here's my tally for my Fetterman letters. Indexed by topic:
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.)
rejected Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s claim of a “genocide” in Gaza
and also called the Georgia Republican “crazy pants.”
“Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene referred to what’s happening as effectively a genocide. I mean, Republicans seem to start —” a reporter with Scripps News said when talking to Fetterman in a clip posted to the social platform X Wednesday.
“I [honestly] don’t care what crazy pants thinks,” Fetterman replied. “And why is that news and her views on that right now?”
“It’s not a genocide, you know, that’s just not the case. And she’s
entitled to her opinion, but I’m entitled to not really care what her
views on that is,” he added later.
Of course I completely agree, Senator, with your characterization of Representative Greene as "crazy pants" but I have to ask you about your characterization of Gaza.
Amnesty International, in December of 2024 concluded:
Amnesty International’s research has found sufficient basis to
conclude that Israel has committed and is continuing to commit genocide
against Palestinians in the occupied Gaza Strip, the organization said
in a landmark new report published today.
The report, ‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza, documents
how, during its military offensive launched in the wake of the deadly
Hamas-led attacks in southern Israel on 7 October 2023, Israel has
unleashed hell and destruction on Palestinians in Gaza brazenly,
continuously and with total impunity.
Two leading human rights organisations based in Israel,
B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights, say Israel is committing
genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the country’s western allies
have a legal and moral duty to stop it.
In reports published on Monday, the two groups said Israel had targeted civilians in Gaza
only because of their identity as Palestinians over nearly two years of
war, causing severe and in some cases irreparable damage to Palestinian
society.
After reviewing the facts established by independent human rights
monitors, journalists, and United Nations agencies, we conclude that
Israel’s actions in and regarding Gaza since October 7, 2023, violate
the Genocide Convention. Specifically, Israel has committed genocidal
acts of killing, causing serious harm to, and inflicting conditions of
life calculated to bring about the physical destruction of Palestinians
in Gaza, a protected group that forms a substantial part of the
Palestinian people.
Given all the death and destruction and famine visited on Gaza by Israel, if this isn't genocide, then what is it? How do you justify it? Or defend it?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll post here whatever you send as a response.
I got a new letter from the office of US Senator Dave McCormick recently.
Here is the text:
Thank you for contacting me and sharing your thoughts on issues
important to you. Your feedback is important to me as we work together
to shape policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country.
As the 54th U.S. Senator elected from Pennsylvania, I am honored to
represent more than 13 million of our fellow citizens. I am committed to
working with my Senate colleagues to reduce the cost of living, secure
the border, unleash our nation’s energy resources, restore American
strength on the global stage, and protect the American Dream for future
generations. To do my job, I rely on input from constituents.
Since I was sworn in, I have worked diligently to respond to all the letters and calls from my constituents.
In addition, I host regular telephone town halls, where constituents
can hear directly from me and ask questions. My next tele-town hall is
scheduled for July 30 at 7:00 PM. You can click here
to reserve your spot.
Whenever the Senate is not in session, I prioritize being in
Pennsylvania to meet with community leaders, tour small businesses, and
engage with constituents. My team is also out in the field every day
talking to Pennsylvanians.
To visit or connect with one of my seven Pennsylvania-based offices
or to stay updated on future town halls, please visit my website at www.mccormick.senate.gov
. It is a privilege to serve our great Commonwealth in the United
States Senate. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments.
Obviously, he's not responding to a particular blogpost/letter of mine. He's just advertising his next "telephone town hall" as you can see in his 4th paragraph.
Be sure to click the link to "reserve your spot."
And that the thing with these telephone town halls. My understanding is that the questions are screened before the host hears them. It's not like a real town hall where constituents show up and wait on line at a microphone to ask the host a question.
There's simply no way of knowing whether your question will be screened out during the meeting.
It's not as valuable as a face to face discussion. Don't think it will ever be.
It's not a real discussion of the issues. It's a PR stunt.
I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you
to answer a question or two.
Recently the DOJ interviewed Ghislaine Maxwell, now imprisoned on charges of sex trafficking, regarding what she knew about the financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Critics have cried foul that the DOJ official interviewing Maxwell was
Blanche, rather than a non-political prosecutor who has been involved in
the case who would have much more expertise. Not only is Blanche a top
political appointee of Trump’s; he’s also his formal personal lawyer.
“The conflict of interest is glaring,” Senate Minority
Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said Thursday on X. “It stinks of high
corruption.”
What’s more, Blanche appeared on a podcast last year with [Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar] Markus andlabeled him a “friend.”
At
the meeting, [Blanche] will have to walk a careful line, balancing his current
responsibility to pursue the public good by getting what he can out of
Ms. Maxwell against his erstwhile responsibility to defend Mr. Trump
against any possibly embarrassing information that she might eventually
provide.
Legal
ethics experts said that Mr. Blanche was likely not affected by a
formal conflict of interest by negotiating with Ms. Maxwell as both a
top official of the Justice Department and the former lawyer of someone
who, in theory, could be implicated by her statements. Still, they said,
his involvement in the talks created a murky situation rife with
potential pitfalls and complexities.
“This
ought to be handled by someone who is disinterested in the results
because if they are not, then they can’t be trusted to do what’s in the
public’s interest,” said Bruce Green, who teaches legal ethics at
Fordham Law School in New York. “The problem with Blanche is that he is
likely not disinterested not only because he used to be Trump’s lawyer,
but because Trump put him in his high office in the Justice Department.”
Does any of this concern you, Senator? Wouldn't it all be solved by releasing all the Epstein files?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, whatever answer I get from the Senator (more likely, his office) I'll post here.
[UPDATED to include a link and to identify Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus.]
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 Gaza. First let me say that the events of October 7, 2023 were horrific and that the State of Israel has every right to defend itself.
More than 100 aid agencies and rights
groups, including Save the Children and Doctors Without Borders, warned
on Wednesday that “mass starvation” was spreading across Gaza, adding to
calls for Israel to lift restrictions on humanitarian aid to the
besieged enclave.
The joint statement
is the latest attempt to draw attention to a growing hunger crisis in
Gaza. It was released after the European Union and at least 28 governments,
including Israeli allies like Britain, France and Canada, on Monday
condemned the “drip feeding of aid” and said that civilian suffering had
“reached new depths.”
Doctors Without Borders in Gaza has reported
a “sharp and unprecedented rise in acute malnutrition.” Adults
frequently collapse from hunger, the aid groups said in their statement,
adding that stockpiles of food and other supplies warehoused outside
the territory were being prevented from reaching people in need.
[K]ey facts are clear. Hamas committed a
series of war crimes in the attacks it launched on 7 October, killing
1,200 people, mainly Israeli civilians. Hamas took 251 hostages, of
which perhaps 20 who are still being held inside Gaza are believed to be
alive.
And there is clear evidence that Israel has committed a series of war crimes since then.
Israel's
list includes the starvation of Gaza's civilians, the failure to
protect them during military operations in which Israeli forces killed
tens of thousands of innocents, and the wanton destruction of entire
towns in a manner that is not proportionate to the military risk Israel
faces.
Senator, do you think that Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza in its response to the attacks of October 2023? What should be done about the mass starvation there?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll post here whatever response I get.
With another email. I guess the video messages are not his usual MO.
Oh, well, it was fun while it lasted.
Anyway, this is what was in the letter:
Dear David,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts regarding budget
reconciliation. Your feedback is essential as we work together to shape
policies that benefit Pennsylvania and our country.
On July 4, 2025, President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful
Bill Act (OBBB), a budget reconciliation bill focused on tax policy,
national security, and energy production. The bill makes permanent key
provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), including the
lowering individual tax rates, an enhanced and doubled Child Tax Credit,
and the increased standard deduction claimed by more than 90 percent of
taxpayers. It also eliminates taxes on tips and overtime pay for
millions of workers, eliminates taxes on auto loan interest for new cars
made in the United States, provides a $6,000 bonus exemption for
seniors, and strengthens the employer-provided childcare tax credit. In
addition, the bill includes a number of other measures aimed at
delivering tax relief for families and small businesses.
The OBBB also includes investments in border security, resources for
state and local law enforcement, modernization of the U.S. industrial
base, improvements to service members’ quality of life, and domestic
energy development.
I supported this bill because it delivers meaningful tax relief to
millions of Pennsylvania families and prevents what would have been the
largest tax increase in American history—over $4 trillion. It fulfills
key promises that both President Trump and I have made to secure our
border, strengthen our national defense, unleash American energy, and
lower costs for consumers. I believe these provisions will make a real
difference for working families and small businesses across the
Commonwealth.
It is an honor and a privilege to serve our great Commonwealth in the
United States Senate. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments
on this important matter. I am always grateful to hear from my
constituents.
Given the contents, it's safe to assume that Senator McCormick is responding to this blog post from June 30.
In that letter, I asked about how many of the estimated 10.9 million people who would lose their health insurance and how many of the estimated 2.4 million people who would loose medicare were from Pennsylvania. It's also been estimated that as many as 51,000 people would die due to the One Big Beautiful Bill.
I asked the Senator:
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?
Senator Dave McCormick answered none of these questions.
He did say that the bill "delivers meaningful tax relief to
millions of Pennsylvania families and prevents what would have been the
largest tax increase in American history" when in reality, as the Congressional Budget Office said:
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.
So this is a "response" of sorts. If you wanna accept gaslighting as a response.
I am a resident of Pennsylvania and a constituent of yours and I'd like you
to answer a question or two.
Senator, like all the other Republicans in the Senate, you voted for the
recent "rescission" bill that, among some other things, will revoke about a
billion dollars from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Public television and radio stations play an integral role in our
nation’s emergency alert system. Public media’s infrastructure provides
the broadest nationwide communications platform in the country, and its
national-local organization allows public media entities to distribute
national, state, and regional emergency alerts and provide encrypted,
geo-targeted alerts to local communities in times of need.
And:
The Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS), managed by NPR, receives a
national Emergency Alert System feed directly from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency ( FEMA) to send Presidential emergency alerts to
local public radio stations. NPR/PRSS is also named as a resource in at
least 20 states’ emergency plans, with many public radio stations
serving as Primary Entry Point (PEP) stations. The PRSS network includes
almost 400 stations, serving more than 1,200 local public radio
stations, supporting secure, reliable communications without relying on
the Internet, which may not be reliable during emergencies.
Are you at all concerned that the cuts in CPB funding will adversely effect public safety? And if so, what are you doing in Pennsylvania to alleviate this situation?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll repost whatever response I get here in full.
Senator John Fetterman responded yesterday with this (I'll post a pdf of the letter at the bottom of this blog post::
Thank you for reaching out to my office. I appreciate hearing from you.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created with a
critical task in mind – helping the nation to prepare, respond, and
recover from major disasters. When tragedy strikes, FEMA coordinates and
funds efforts to keep Pennsylvanians and folks across the country safe,
lending them a hand as they rebuild their communities.
Helping American communities prepare for, and recover from, natural
disasters should not be a partisan issue. Historically, congress has
come together on a bipartisan basis to make sure funding is available
for hazard mitigation and rebuilding efforts. Sadly, this Administration
has adopted the recommendations of Project 2025 and President Trump has
stated that he wants to “wean” states off of FEMA assistance. These
cuts are already hurting Pennsylvanians. Earlier this year, near my home
in Allegheny County, FEMA cancelled a flood prevention grant in
Bridgeville that was awarded after a fatal storm devastated the
community in 2018.
Let me be clear: disaster relief is a bipartisan issue. Red and blue
communities are impacted by catastrophes equally. As a member of the
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, I am
committed to doing everything I can to ensure that FEMA and other
federal partners involved in disaster mitigation and recovery have the
resources they need to continue to deliver for Pennsylvania and the
nation.
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/.
Nice to know that he appreciates hearing from me and that I should "not hesitate to reach out in the future about other issues of importance
to" me. I'll definitely keep doing that, Senator. Definitely.
Anyway, as his letter mentions FEMA but not the date of any specific letter of mine, it has to be responding to one of these two letters:
June 20, 2025
- when I asked about DHS Secretary Noem's plans on to abolish FEMA and
how many of the proposals were outlined in the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 report.
July 11, 2025 -
when I asked about DHS Secretary Noem's disconnect between complaining
about how slow FEMA reacts and how her own actions slowed down FEMA's
actions after the devastating flooding in Texas.
Considering that the Senator's letter to me also mentions Project 2025 nobutt Texas, it's safe to assume he's responding to the former rather than the latter.
So how well does he do?
In that blog post after describing how Noem asked FEMA for a memo on how to dismantle itself, I asked:
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?
You can see his answer in the third and fourth paragraphs of his letter. Specifically:
Sadly, this Administration
has adopted the recommendations of Project 2025 and President Trump has
stated that he wants to “wean” states off of FEMA assistance. These
cuts are already hurting Pennsylvanians.
And so on.
While not going as far as I would like, he's definitely in the "this is a bad idea" column. Good for him.
However, as there's also no mention of DHS Secretary Noem in his letter that means there's also place for the Senator to comment on the memo Noem asked for (or his vote to confirm her in that office, for that matter).
And that was kinda the point of my blog post.
It was certainly better than this "response" but still not enough.
U.S.
Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday fired several more Justice
Department employees who worked for Special Counsel Jack Smith to
investigate President Donald Trump's retention of classified records and
efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to five people
familiar with the matter.
About 20 lawyers, support staff and U.S. Marshals who worked on Smith's probe were terminated, according to one of the sources.
And:
Fourteen attorneys
who worked on Smith's team were fired on January 27 because of work on
cases against Trump, becoming some of the department's earliest
employees who were dismissed. Department leadership told those attorneys
in termination letters that they could not be trusted to carry out
Trump's agenda because of their work on Smith's probe.
Including the people fired on Friday, at least 37 people who worked on Smith's team have been terminated since Trump took office on January 20.
The
Justice Department in recent months has also fired people who handled
casework involving defendants who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6,
2021, in an attempt to block Congress from certifying President Joe
Biden's 2020 election win.
You voted to confirm her as AG, did you think she would be doing any of this when you voted for her?
Do you think any of this is good for the country?
Any comment at all about AG Pam Bondi?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll post here whatever response I get.
The president does not have the power to create or rewrite legislation —
that is Congress’s job. He is not authorized to dispense with or suspend the
law. British kings made this practice familiar to the Framers of the
Constitution, who deliberately chose to deny such a power to the president.
Yet while history books are filled with disputes between the president and
Congress over the scope of their powers, today we are in an era of
unparalleled presidential overreach. President Obama openly flouts his duty
to faithfully enforce the law — with the battle cry that “we can’t wait” for
Congress to act.
To determine if modern presidents have become too powerful, let’s start by
referring to the Constitution. Article II charges the president with the
duty to carry out the law — to “take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.” Contrary to what some more ambitious presidents would have us
believe, this was meant to constrain the executive’s power. It’s a duty that
includes complying with statutory mandates, enforcing laws and regulations
(including prosecuting lawbreakers) and defending the validity of laws in
court.
And so on.
And now:
Tell me, oh great protectors of democracy at Heritage, where in the Constitution does it say that the President has the authority to rescind anyone's citizenship? And to rescind simply because that president doesn't like what someone says?
Here, I'll start you off:
To determine if modern presidents have become too powerful, let’s start by
referring to the Constitution. Article II charges the president with the
duty to carry out the law — to “take care that the laws be faithfully
executed..."
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 Jeffrey Epstein.
This past weekend, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social about "the Epstein files" asserting (without evidence) that they were written by, "Obama, Crooked Hillary, Comey, Brennan, and the Losers and Criminals of the Biden Administration."
Do you believe that is true?
And he asserts twice that the 2020 election was "rigged and stolen."
Do you believe that is true?
Note: Just to be clear, I'm not asking you to confirm or deny that he asserted it, but what he asserted, that the 2020 election was rigged. Do you believe that?
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi on Friday said the
Jeffrey Epstein client list is "sitting on my desk right now" and she is
reviewing the JFK and MLK files as well after President Donald Trump's earlier directives.
"It's
sitting on my desk right now to review," Bondi told 'America Reports'
host John Roberts on Friday. "That's been a directive by President
Trump."
And yet the Department of Justice issued a statement that read, in part:
This systematic review revealed no incriminating “client list.” There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions. We did not uncover evidence that could predicate an investigation against uncharged third parties.
Which do you think is true? That there was a client list on AG Bondi's desk or that it never existed?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll repost verbatim whatever the response I get.
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.
Two days after catastrophic floods roared
through Central Texas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not
answer nearly two-thirds of calls to its disaster assistance line,
according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.
The
lack of responsiveness happened because the agency had fired hundreds
of contractors at call centers, according to a person briefed on the
matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss
internal matters.
The agency laid off
the contractors on July 5 after their contracts expired and were not
extended, according to the documents and the person briefed on the
matter. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, who has instituted
a new requirement that she personally approve expenses over $100,000,
did not renew the contracts until Thursday, five days after the
contracts expired. FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
The Times has some details:
On July 5, as floodwaters were starting
to recede, FEMA received 3,027 calls from disaster survivors and
answered 3,018, or roughly 99.7 percent, the documents show. Contractors
with four call center companies answered the vast majority of the
calls.
That evening, however, Ms. Noem
did not renew the contracts with the four companies and hundreds of
contractors were fired, according to the documents and the person
briefed on the matter.
The next day,
July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls and answered 846, or roughly 35.8
percent, according to the documents. And on Monday, July 7, the agency
fielded 16,419 calls and answered 2,613, or around 15.9 percent, the
documents show.
Red-State MAGA Texans should be so proud of themselves for voting for Trump right now.
(Note: I'll load the text at the end of this blog post.)
Senator McCormick is evidently responding to
this letter of mine, dated May 12, 2025.
It's about Qatar's "gift" of a plane that President Donald Trump wants to
refit as a "new" Air Force One.
So, after quoting the Constitution's "Emolument" clause, I asked the Senator:
Wouldn't that "gift" of a $300-400 million jet be, more or less, a gross
violation of the Constitution's emolument clause?
I realize that recently President Trump said that he "didn't know" whether
he had an uphold the Constitution (even though he took an oath to do exactly
that in January) but shouldn't he be upholding it?
Isn't the gift from Qatar just one big bribe? Don't we deserve better?
As with any of these "letters to a Senator" blog posts, it's important to note
not only what the Senator says vs what he does not say.
I asked him if the gift didn't violate the emolument clause and all he had to
say was this:
On May 21, U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth formally accepted a Boeing
747 jetliner from Qatar in accordance with federal regulations.
Kathleen Clark, Washington University in St. Louis School of Law, says:
This appears to be an illegal, unconstitutional payoff from a foreign
government to the president at a scale we actually have never seen, on the
order of $400 million.
Adding:
Our founders put into our Constitution a prohibition on government officials,
including the president, accepting payments, gifts from foreign governments.
They didn't want our government officials to have tainted — to be tainted by
this kind of conflict of interest. And that's why the Constitution includes
this Emoluments Clause and says that the president and others cannot accept
such gifts, unless Congress specifically authorizes it.
The fact that it's done out in the open, she says, in no way diminishes the
corruption. She even says Trump is laundering the gift through the Department
of Defense - as he'll get the jet for his library once his term is over.
So the legality of the gift is not so clean as Pennsylvania's junior senator
would like us to believe.
And that's all he really says about the legality of the gift, though he does offer a
glancing shot at a quid pro quo with this:
As a businessman, I understand there is no such thing as a free lunch,
and the Qatari jet is no exception.
I am concerned this foreign plane lacks the critical capabilities, such as
the ability to refuel in midair or carry advanced technological equipment,
needed for the President to command the U.S. military from the air.
Furthermore, the Qatari jet could pose substantial espionage and surveillance
risks. It is also worth noting that the Qatari government, which gifted the
plane to the United States, has, on some issues, been an important partner in
the region while at the same time providing considerable support to Hamas and
Hezbollah. [Emphasis added.]
Let me tangent for a moment on that "no such thing as a free lunch" part. Back
in 2024,
WHYY reported:
In 1974, in an effort to preserve farmland in the commonwealth, the
Pennsylvania state legislature passed Act 319, creating the Clean and Green
program. The program provided tax breaks to farms and farmers whose tax bills
may have become too onerous to keep operating.
And:
However, a number of wealthy individuals — who do not engage in commercial
farming — also benefit from the tax break while not serving the program’s
originally intended purpose. In 2018,
the Morning Call
found that the program cut property taxes for “millionaires living in country
estates, and golf courses, quarries, and other non-agricultural
business.”
And:
According to Clean and Green records, one of those wealthy property owners
benefiting from the program is Republican
nominee for U.S. Senate, David McCormick, who owns hundreds of acres in Hemlock Township in Columbia County.
Although McCormick has said multiple times he is “not a farmer,” he has been availing himself of that tax relief for what he calls his “family farm,” Frosty Valley Farms, which was listed as Frosty Valley Farms, LLC in 2018.
And so it goes.
Anyway, McCormick spends more time criticizing Boeing for being behind schedule than he does about the actual legality of the gift.
And he never addresses whether Trump should be upholding the Constitution.
[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall,
without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument,
Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or
foreign State.
Happy Weekend!
The text of Senator McCormick's letter:
Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding President Donald Trump’s
decision to accept a Boeing 747 aircraft from Qatar to serve as Air Force
One. Your feedback is essential as we work together to shape policies that
benefit Pennsylvania and our country.
On May 21, U.S. Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth formally accepted a
Boeing 747 jetliner from Qatar in accordance with federal regulations. The
U.S. Air Force is now preparing to award a contract to upgrade the aircraft,
with the goal of enabling it to serve as Air Force One by the end of 2025.
Once upgraded, this aircraft will complement the two Boeing 747 jets that
have served as Air Force One since the George H.W. Bush Administration.
In 2018, Boeing won a $3.9 billion contract to build two new Air Force One
aircrafts. However, the first of these planes will not be ready until 2029.
As a result, the Trump Administration intends for the Qatari jet to serve as
an interim presidential plane until the new aircraft is delivered.
I am disappointed that Boeing has not fulfilled its contractual obligations.
The company is now five years behind schedule and billions of dollars over
budget. I also agree the current presidential planes are outdated, and the
President of the United States needs the most secure and sophisticated
aircrafts available. At the same time, it will cost at least $400 million to
retrofit the Qatari jet with the necessary defense and communications
systems.
As a businessman, I understand there is no such thing as a free lunch, and
the Qatari jet is no exception. I am concerned this foreign plane lacks the
critical capabilities, such as the ability to refuel in midair or carry
advanced technological equipment, needed for the President to command the
U.S. military from the air. Furthermore, the Qatari jet could pose
substantial espionage and surveillance risks. It is also worth noting that
the Qatari government, which gifted the plane to the United States, has, on
some issues, been an important partner in the region while at the same time
providing considerable support to Hamas and Hezbollah.
For all these reasons, I intend to work with my Senate colleagues to
scrutinize this deal to ensure it does not pose any security threats to the
United States and explore ways to expedite the delivery of the Boeing-made
planes.
It is an honor and a privilege to serve our great Commonwealth in the United
States Senate. I appreciate having the benefit of your comments on this
important matter. I am always grateful to hear from my constituents.
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called on Wednesday for the
Federal Emergency Management Agency to be eliminated in its current
form, even as the disaster-relief agency deployed specialists and
supplies to Texas to help respond to devastating floods.
And:
Speaking
at a meeting of a government review council looking at ways to reform
FEMA, Noem noted that the agency had provided resources, including
search and recovery personnel, to aid state and local officials in Texas
leading the response.
But
Noem, who chairs the council, also took the opportunity to blast FEMA
for what she called numerous past failures. She said the agency moves
too slowly and ties up state and local officials in bureaucracy.
As monstrous floodwaters surged across central Texas late
last week, officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency leapt
into action, preparing to deploy critical search and rescue teams and
life-saving resources, like they have in countless past disasters.
But almost instantly, FEMA ran into bureaucratic obstacles, four officials inside the agency told CNN.
As CNN has previously reported,
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — whose department oversees
FEMA — recently enacted a sweeping rule aimed at cutting spending: Every
contract and grant over $100,000 now requires her personal sign-off
before any funds can be released.
And:
For example, as central Texas towns were submerged in rising
waters, FEMA officials realized they couldn’t pre-position Urban Search
and Rescue crews from a network of teams stationed regionally across
the country.
In the past, FEMA would have swiftly staged these teams,
which are specifically trained for situations including catastrophic
floods, closer to a disaster zone in anticipation of urgent requests,
multiple agency sources told CNN.
But even as Texas rescue crews raced to save lives, FEMA
officials realized they needed Noem’s approval before sending those
additional assets. Noem didn’t authorize FEMA’s deployment of Urban
Search and Rescue teams until Monday, more than 72 hours after the
flooding began, multiple sources told CNN.
So as Noem is criticizing FEMA for moving too slowly because of its bureaucracy, her own actions delayed FEMA from mobilizing its resources in response to the flooding in Texas.
You voted to confirm Kristi Noem as Secretary of DHS. Do you have any comment on any of this?
I'll await your answer, Senator.
As always, I'll post in full whatever response I get from the Senator's office.
