| |||||||||||||||
Jason's Thoughts on the Special Investigation
In response to the letter I sent out on June 17, I received the following. While this is clearly a boilerplate response to the Russia investigation which doesn't address my point directly, you at least have to give the congressman points for promptness.
A Nation of Laws, Not Men
Congressman Lewis,
I am greatly concerned, as I'm sure you are as well, about reports that President Trump might fire special investigator Robert Mueller, for no reason other than the fact that he does not want to be investigated.
As an ordinary citizen, I of course have no special knowledge of evidence in possession of either Mr. Mueller or the FBI regarding any of the criminal acts which may have been committed either by Mr. Trump or those who were part of his campaign. What I do know from the news media, however, is most concerning.
We know that Trump's former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, lied about his contacts with the Russian and Turkish governments. It seems likely that his wrongdoing extends deeper than is publicly known, and for this reason, Trump's decision to fire FBI directory James Comey in an effort to shut down the FBI investigation into Flynn appears to be a clear-cut instance of obstruction of justice.
Of course, we now know that Comey and the FBI weren't just investigating Flynn. They are also investigating Mr. Trump's son-in-law and close adviser Jared Kushner, also for previously unknown contacts with Russian agents. They are also investigating Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, for having close ties to two Russian oligarchs, as well as to Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich, and numerous other shady doings. There is also Carter Page, foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, and no doubt other names which have not yet been reported by the media.
Given that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that the Russian government made a targeted effort to swing the presidential election in Trump's favor, there is no question that these multiple individuals with ties to both the Russian government and the Trump campaign deserve closer investigation. Obviously the FBI agrees, as its investigation is ongoing. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agrees, and appointed Robert Mueller as a special investigator for this purpose. And clearly both houses of Congress agree, as four different congressional committees investigate Russian influence in the 2016 election and potential collusion with the Trump campaign.
While we can't know for certain the degree to which Trump was complicit with Russian interference in the election --- if he was at all --- we do know that his efforts to shut down these investigations are not the actions of an innocent man. Moreover, all of his behavior for the past year --- hosting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, his reluctant support for NATO, his refusal to relase his tax returns --- further suggest that he is working to benefit Russian interests, and that he has something to hide.
And whether he does or not, his decision to fire James Comey in an effort to shut down the FBI investigation clearly indicates that Trump believes that he is above the law. If Trump were to follow this up by firing Mueller (or orchestrating his firing, for example by ordering Rod Rosenstein to fire him), it would definitively show that he is willing to repeatedly and unflinchingly abuse his authority to protect both himself and his campaign from accountability. Should that happen, there would be only one prosecutorial body left over which the president has no formal control, and that body, of course, is Congress.
Congressman, I write to you today to urge you to publicly proclaim that if the president abuses his authority a second time by firing Robert Mueller, that you will do everything in your power to see to it that the House of Representatives initiates impeachment proceedings. Partisan politics aside, our democracy cannot tolerate or withstand such blatant abuse of power, and it is your sworn duty as a member of Congress to act as a check on such an abuse. Please let the public and the president know that you will not hesitate to do your duty if these abuses continue.
I am greatly concerned, as I'm sure you are as well, about reports that President Trump might fire special investigator Robert Mueller, for no reason other than the fact that he does not want to be investigated.
As an ordinary citizen, I of course have no special knowledge of evidence in possession of either Mr. Mueller or the FBI regarding any of the criminal acts which may have been committed either by Mr. Trump or those who were part of his campaign. What I do know from the news media, however, is most concerning.
We know that Trump's former National Security Adviser, Michael Flynn, lied about his contacts with the Russian and Turkish governments. It seems likely that his wrongdoing extends deeper than is publicly known, and for this reason, Trump's decision to fire FBI directory James Comey in an effort to shut down the FBI investigation into Flynn appears to be a clear-cut instance of obstruction of justice.
Of course, we now know that Comey and the FBI weren't just investigating Flynn. They are also investigating Mr. Trump's son-in-law and close adviser Jared Kushner, also for previously unknown contacts with Russian agents. They are also investigating Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, for having close ties to two Russian oligarchs, as well as to Ukrainian leader Viktor Yanukovich, and numerous other shady doings. There is also Carter Page, foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign, and no doubt other names which have not yet been reported by the media.
Given that 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agree that the Russian government made a targeted effort to swing the presidential election in Trump's favor, there is no question that these multiple individuals with ties to both the Russian government and the Trump campaign deserve closer investigation. Obviously the FBI agrees, as its investigation is ongoing. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agrees, and appointed Robert Mueller as a special investigator for this purpose. And clearly both houses of Congress agree, as four different congressional committees investigate Russian influence in the 2016 election and potential collusion with the Trump campaign.
While we can't know for certain the degree to which Trump was complicit with Russian interference in the election --- if he was at all --- we do know that his efforts to shut down these investigations are not the actions of an innocent man. Moreover, all of his behavior for the past year --- hosting Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, his reluctant support for NATO, his refusal to relase his tax returns --- further suggest that he is working to benefit Russian interests, and that he has something to hide.
And whether he does or not, his decision to fire James Comey in an effort to shut down the FBI investigation clearly indicates that Trump believes that he is above the law. If Trump were to follow this up by firing Mueller (or orchestrating his firing, for example by ordering Rod Rosenstein to fire him), it would definitively show that he is willing to repeatedly and unflinchingly abuse his authority to protect both himself and his campaign from accountability. Should that happen, there would be only one prosecutorial body left over which the president has no formal control, and that body, of course, is Congress.
Congressman, I write to you today to urge you to publicly proclaim that if the president abuses his authority a second time by firing Robert Mueller, that you will do everything in your power to see to it that the House of Representatives initiates impeachment proceedings. Partisan politics aside, our democracy cannot tolerate or withstand such blatant abuse of power, and it is your sworn duty as a member of Congress to act as a check on such an abuse. Please let the public and the president know that you will not hesitate to do your duty if these abuses continue.
Regarding Your Letter of March 29, 2017
Congressman Lewis,
Thank you for your letter of March 29, 2017, in response to my concerns about the American Health Care Act (H.R. 1628). I was a bit surprised to receive your letter 5 days after Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the legislation from consideration, but it's good to know where you stand.
You state your belief that "The Affordable Care Act is collapsing under its own weight," and while I agree that it has its warts, none of your suggestions appear to improve upon it.
Let's start with your mention of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which of course are in wide use today. While HSAs are better than nothing, they amount to nothing more than a tax break, and a fairly modest one at that. For families facing a severe health crisis, such as cancer, an HSA amounts to setting aside pre-tax dollars you don't have to pay for health care you can't afford --- even for middle-income families.
Unfortunately, this appears to be the best of your suggestions. Your promise of tax credits "that anyone can use to purchase insurance anywhere in the country" seems to strongly indicate that you support the policy which Republicans call "selling insurance across state lines", but which in reality would mean a race to the bottom. Insurers would operate from the states with minimal requirements for coverage, thus cherry-picking the healthiest consumers from around the country and causing insurance rates to skyrocket for everyone else.
Of course, under the ACA, that can't happen, thanks to the ACA mandate that all insurance plans cover 10 Essential Health Benefits --- but you also say you want to strip that mandate in the name of "choice", thus guaranteeing a race to the bottom. Presumably your principle of "choice" means you would also eliminate the ACA's mandate requiring that individuals buy insurance. As you must know, eliminating this mandate would result in a mass exodus of young, healthy consumers from the individual market, meaning that insurers would maintain their profits by jacking up premiums on the older, sicker consumers who remain --- or they would exit the individual insurance market completely. How do either of these outcomes result in greater "choice"?
Considering your support for these flawed policies, which seem to benefit no one but the insurance industry, it's hard to take seriously your commitment to "ensuring that the most vulnerable among us do not slip through cracks as we work to reform the health care system." This statement seems to be at odds with your support for the AHCA, which would roll back the Medicaid expansion of the ACA. In fact, of the 26 million people projected to lose health coverage --- by the Trump White House's own estimates! --- 17 million would be Medicaid recipients. Your dogged support for this legislation in the face of 17% popular support, and even as the Republican caucus imposed their version of "martial law" to get it passed before members had a chance to read it, strongly indicates that your primary concern is to toe the party line and support your president, rather than the well-being of the most vulnerable among us.
As for problems with the ACA, it's worth noting that 2017 is the first year that premium prices rose above those projected by the CBO back in 2009, and that a substantial portion of the price increase was offset by subsidies. And as noted above, your suggestions for fixing this problem only promise to drastically worsen the problem. An obvious and simple solution is to increase the subsidies available under ACA. But I suggest that we think big.
The United States already has an established and tremendously successful program of single-payer health care, called Medicare. In the coming weeks, Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch plan to introduce legislation to Congress which will expand Medicare to cover all Americans. This bill would address all of your concerns (no premiums to pay, available to everyone in the country, protects the most vulnerable) and mine (universal coverage, no race to the bottom). The key sticking point, of course, is the cost --- but surely the cost to the taxpayer in the form of a tax increase would be cancelled out somewhat by the complete elimination of a health care premium.
As this legislation has yet to be introduced, it's impossible to know all the details. But it does seem like a promising way forward, and I hope you will join with me in supporting it.
Thank you for your letter of March 29, 2017, in response to my concerns about the American Health Care Act (H.R. 1628). I was a bit surprised to receive your letter 5 days after Speaker Paul Ryan pulled the legislation from consideration, but it's good to know where you stand.
You state your belief that "The Affordable Care Act is collapsing under its own weight," and while I agree that it has its warts, none of your suggestions appear to improve upon it.
Let's start with your mention of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which of course are in wide use today. While HSAs are better than nothing, they amount to nothing more than a tax break, and a fairly modest one at that. For families facing a severe health crisis, such as cancer, an HSA amounts to setting aside pre-tax dollars you don't have to pay for health care you can't afford --- even for middle-income families.
Unfortunately, this appears to be the best of your suggestions. Your promise of tax credits "that anyone can use to purchase insurance anywhere in the country" seems to strongly indicate that you support the policy which Republicans call "selling insurance across state lines", but which in reality would mean a race to the bottom. Insurers would operate from the states with minimal requirements for coverage, thus cherry-picking the healthiest consumers from around the country and causing insurance rates to skyrocket for everyone else.
Of course, under the ACA, that can't happen, thanks to the ACA mandate that all insurance plans cover 10 Essential Health Benefits --- but you also say you want to strip that mandate in the name of "choice", thus guaranteeing a race to the bottom. Presumably your principle of "choice" means you would also eliminate the ACA's mandate requiring that individuals buy insurance. As you must know, eliminating this mandate would result in a mass exodus of young, healthy consumers from the individual market, meaning that insurers would maintain their profits by jacking up premiums on the older, sicker consumers who remain --- or they would exit the individual insurance market completely. How do either of these outcomes result in greater "choice"?
Considering your support for these flawed policies, which seem to benefit no one but the insurance industry, it's hard to take seriously your commitment to "ensuring that the most vulnerable among us do not slip through cracks as we work to reform the health care system." This statement seems to be at odds with your support for the AHCA, which would roll back the Medicaid expansion of the ACA. In fact, of the 26 million people projected to lose health coverage --- by the Trump White House's own estimates! --- 17 million would be Medicaid recipients. Your dogged support for this legislation in the face of 17% popular support, and even as the Republican caucus imposed their version of "martial law" to get it passed before members had a chance to read it, strongly indicates that your primary concern is to toe the party line and support your president, rather than the well-being of the most vulnerable among us.
As for problems with the ACA, it's worth noting that 2017 is the first year that premium prices rose above those projected by the CBO back in 2009, and that a substantial portion of the price increase was offset by subsidies. And as noted above, your suggestions for fixing this problem only promise to drastically worsen the problem. An obvious and simple solution is to increase the subsidies available under ACA. But I suggest that we think big.
The United States already has an established and tremendously successful program of single-payer health care, called Medicare. In the coming weeks, Senator Bernie Sanders and Rep. Peter Welch plan to introduce legislation to Congress which will expand Medicare to cover all Americans. This bill would address all of your concerns (no premiums to pay, available to everyone in the country, protects the most vulnerable) and mine (universal coverage, no race to the bottom). The key sticking point, of course, is the cost --- but surely the cost to the taxpayer in the form of a tax increase would be cancelled out somewhat by the complete elimination of a health care premium.
As this legislation has yet to be introduced, it's impossible to know all the details. But it does seem like a promising way forward, and I hope you will join with me in supporting it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)