McCormick Responds!

This time it's an email - not a video message:

(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. 

But is that true? 

Well, there's this from PBS.

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.

He should. They both should. 

This is what the Constitution says: 

[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.

 

 

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 letter is about DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Texas.

Reuters reported: 

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.

But then there's this, Senator, from CNN:

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. 

McCormick Responds!

I guess this signals a shift in how the Senator's office responds. No biggie. It just adds a little time to my responses.

Just like this response from exactly a week ago, I was sent a video link. It was sent July 8.

And here's a transcript:

A number of you have sent in emails or sent letters or made phone calls expressing your concern or at least your questions about President Trump's recent actions in Iran and the fear that America would be pulled into another forever war.

So first of all, I want to thank you for engaging, expressing your concerns, your opinions, and your questions. You know, I was elected to represent every single Pennsylvanian and it really helps me do my job to be in constant touch with you and to be able to hear what's on your mind.

Here's my perspective on this: I was actually a soldier who had boots on the ground in Iraq, in Saudi Arabia and Iraq in the first Gulf War. I never imagined there'd be a day where the Iranian regime, the leader of terrorism around the world that had threatened the possibility of a nuclear weapon to destroy Israel and to destroy the United States—what Iran called the Great Satan—Iran that had supported all these terrorist proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Iran that had killed thousands of Americans in Lebanon, in Iraq, in Syria—that Iran would ultimately have been weakened by the unbelievable attacks by the Israeli military and also the nuclear capacity really dramatically diminished and eliminated by the strength and the attack that took place.

Only the United States could have done what President Trump did with that very focused B2 attacks on the Iranian facilities.

I'm in 100% support of that.

And it's very different from the forever wars, the 20 years—which, listen, I share with a lot of Americans the deep skepticism of getting involved again in the Middle East and the risk to American lives and treasure. Pennsylvania suffered that more than anybody.

But what President Trump did here, I think, was incredibly wise and courageous. First of all, he offered Iran every opportunity for a peaceful resolution. He made it clear we have to have the dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the elimination of that enrichment capability. He made it clear that if that action didn't come through peace, it would come through action. And that action would be targeted just on eliminating that nuclear capability on the part of Iran, not a war against the Iranian people. And he made it clear that he wasn't seeking regime change, that he was trying to avoid the threat – talk about America First - the threat to Americans of Iran having nuclear weapons with its desire to destroy the West and America in particular.

So I think that mission was executed with incredible competence, incredible strength, and clarity, and really resets the table. It's a new chessboard in the Middle East that I hope and think will offer opportunity for peace.

This doesn't mean the risk from Iran is gone. We've got to be vigilant on our bases. We've got to be vigilant at home against the risk of a terrorist attack. But we're in an entirely different world than we were just a few short days ago because of the leadership and the wisdom of the Trump administration, the incredible bravery and effectiveness of the Israeli military, our closest ally in the Middle East. So we've made huge progress and I think these actions are going to keep us out of a forever war, not get us in one.

He's responding to this blog post from June 23.  As with that response, keep in mind not only what Sen. McCormick says but also (and this is much more important) what Sen. McCormick has chosen not to say.  

In that blog post, I asked about the dissonance between how Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and then how President Trump himself said it is, adding, "I don't care what she said."

I asked which one is true.

I also asked, given the War Powers Act, whether the Congress should have been involved in (or at least notified of) the decision to bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran. 

The Senator doesn't specifically answer the Trump/Gabbard question but from the transcript, he obviously sides with Trump. He said:

He made it clear we have to have the dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the elimination of that enrichment capability. 

He's also 100% supports Trump's decision to bomb the nuclear facilities.  

A little more on this later. 

And the Senator doesn't address my question about the War Powers Act at all.

As a reminder, the text of the act includes:

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.

And:

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. [Emphasis added.]

None of which actually took place here. 

So it's safe to suppose that it's yet another law that Trump ignore with no accountability from his allies in Congress.

Oh, and Senator McCormick is simply wrong about regime change. He said: 

And [President Trump] made it clear that he wasn't seeking regime change...

And yet Reuters reported (as I pointed out in my original posting):

U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday raised the question of regime change in Iran following U.S. strikes against key military sites over the weekend, as senior officials in his administration warned Tehran against retaliation.

 

"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. 

Sen. McCormick got it wrong. Even if Trump back pedaled on regime change, none of it was "clear."

In any event, this whole discussion side steps the fact that in 2018, Trump withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

For reference, let's look at how, in 2015, CNN reported on some of the previsions of the plan:

Iran's centrifuges will only enrich uranium to 3.67% -- enough for civil use to power parts of the country, but not enough to build a nuclear bomb. That agreement lasts 15 years. And Tehran has agreed not to build any new uranium enrichment facilities over that period as well. The 3.67% is a major decline, and it follows Iran's move to water down its stockpile of 20% enriched uranium last year. In addition, Iran will reduce its current stockpile of 10,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium to 300 kilograms for 15 years.

And:

Iran's Fordow nuclear reactor would stop enriching uranium for at least 15 years. It will not have fissile material at the facility, but it will be able to keep 1,000 centrifuges there. Fordo, one of the country's biggest reactors, is buried more than 200 feet under the side of a mountain and was hidden from the international community until the U.S. revealed it in 2009. 

And so on. 

Trump withdrew from the plan, calling it "one-sided" for some reason.

It's not difficult to see what that led to afterwards.

From The Council on Foreign Relations: 

In response to the other parties’ actions, which Tehran claimed amounted to breaches of the deal, Iran started exceeding agreed-upon limits to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium in 2019, and began enriching uranium to higher concentrations (though still far short of the purity required for weapons). It also began developing new centrifuges to accelerate uranium enrichment; resuming heavy water production at its Arak facility; and enriching uranium [PDF] at Fordow, which rendered the isotopes produced there unusable for medical purposes.

And:

In 2020, Iran took more steps away from its nuclear pledges, following a series of attacks on its interests. In January, after the United States’ targeted killing of top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, Iran announced that it would no longer limit its uranium enrichment. In October, it began constructing a centrifuge production center at Natanz to replace one that was destroyed months earlier in an attack it blamed on Israel. And in November, in response to the assassination of a prominent nuclear scientist, which it also attributed to Israel, Iran’s parliament passed a law that led to a substantial boost in uranium enrichment at Fordow.

Tehran has increasingly limited the IAEA’s ability to inspect its facilities since Washington withdrew from the nuclear deal, though it pledged in March 2023 to boost cooperation with the agency. The commitment came months after IAEA inspectors detected uranium particles enriched to 83.7 percent at Fordow, prompting international concern.

And so on. 

However much Iran was increasing its nuclear programs after 2018, those increases were due - in no small part - to Trump administration actions removing restrictions on those programs.

Trump - again, in no small part - created the situation in Iran that he felt he had to fix with B2 bombers - all side stepping the War Powers Act. 

And when Senator McCormick says:

He made it clear we have to have the dismantlement of nuclear weapons and the elimination of that enrichment capability.

And yet failed to point out that Trump actually stopped the Obama-era plan that was doing exactly that, he failed to fully inform his constituents.

Doncha think? 

So what was the point of the video email? 

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.