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.
