Questions For Tom Reed

  1. How can Republicans who supported 33 Benghazi hearings costing over $7 million call themselves patriots if they oppose even 1 investigation by an independent special prosecutor into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians and whether the Russians control the White House? (Hat tip to Peter Daou for this question)
  2. The State Department recently lost six top career people with a combined 150 years of institutional experience. At least four of these people were fired abruptly. One or two may have been planned retirements. The Trump Administration proposed  37 percent cuts in the budgets of the State Department and the U.S. Agency for Professional Development to help pay for an increase in our military budget by $54 billion.  Why should we have such drastic cuts which will undermine our diplomacy, isolate us from potential allies, and make us more likely to stumble into unnecessary wars? 

  3. The EPA's Office of Science and Technology just dropped the word "Science" from its mission statement.  "Before January 30 of this year, the website said its standards were "science-based," meaning they were based on what peer-reviewed science recommended as safe levels of pollutants for drinking, swimming, or fishing. Since January 30, though, the reference to "science-based" standards was replaced by "economically and technologically achievable standards" to address water pollution."  It is bad enough that Trump has gagged the EPA and other government agencies from even discussing man-made climate change. Trump has also indicated that he wants to roll back rules that would keep our water clean. And Congress has already gutted a rule that would protect our water from coal mining. How many Flint Michigans will the American people have to suffer?

  4. The Standard and Poor's Rating Agency estimates 6 to 10 million Americans will lose their health care coverage under the Republican replacement for ObamaCare.  Joe Antos, a scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institution estimates 10 to 15 million Americans would lose their insurance under the Republican replacement in the coming decade. Why are Congressional Republicans so hell-bent on replacing Obamacare and shoving their replacement down our throats before its implications can be thoroughly evaluated and discussed? We haven't even had a chance to get an estimate from the Congressional Budget Office of the replacement plan's impact. Why are you in such a hurry to get this done before there is a deliberate and informed debate about the plan's plusses and minuses? Are you afraid your plan won't look so good after we get a chance to look at its warts? And why would anyone even THINK of repealing Obamacare before you have a suitable replacement? You wouldn't remove a flat tire from a car before you had a better tire available to replace it. Even Republican Senator Tom Cotton says you should go slower and wait for a budget estimate before trying to push this through.

 

 

 

  1. You repeatedly chastised President Obama and John Plumb during the campaign for being soft on Russia and not taking a tougher stance on its invasion of Ukraine. The original Republican party platform called for helping Ukraine by providing it with lethal weapons. The Trump campaign was interested in making one revision in the platform, and one revision only. It wanted the call to arm Ukraine removed from the platform and, lo and behold, it was removed from the platform. J.D. Gordon, a national security adviser to Trump's campaign, is now taking credit for that platform change.  And he said he did this because Donald Trump wanted the platform change. Why did you decide to support someone who is so soft on Russia?
  2. Congressman Bill Pascrell wanted to invoke a section of the tax code that would have forced the Treasury Department to turn Donald Trump's taxes over to the Ways and Means Committee for inspection. He wanted to take a look at Trump's businesses to see if Trump's continued ownership violated the Constitution's Emolument's Clause. I'm sure he was also interested in seeing what economic ties, if any, Trump had to Russian oligarchs. If Pascrell found evidence of illegal activity then he would have asked the Committee to submit the tax returns into the Congressional record to make it public. You and your fellow Republicans voted to squash this effort to keep Trump's taxes hidden. You said you had to do this because you would be opening a Pandora's box if you invoked this section of the tax code to bring Trump's taxes before Congress. You suggested that if Congress could make Trump's taxes public, there would be nothing to protect the rest of us taxpayers from Congressional abuse. But this law has been invoked twice before. It was used in 1974 to look at President Nixon's taxes during Watergate.  And in 2014 the Ways and Means Committee made confidential taxpayer information public when it was investigating  abuse by an Obama Administration official for improperly delaying and scrutinizing requests for tax exempt status by conservative organizations. The law was invoked two times under extraordinary circumstances without opening up a Pandora's box. What makes you think invoking it to see Trump's tax returns will be different? If you are really terrified that this law will be abused, have you and your fellow Republicans tried to repeal it? If not, why not?