New NY 23rd

With our budget vote I am standing with the 99 percent who will see a tax break with a compromise on the state and local tax deduction. The hardworking people I’m standing with deserve more money in their paychecks and the good paying jobs that tax reform will bring to our region. –Rep. Tom Reed (facebook, Oct. 26)

(Reed has never offered evidence in support of his claim.)

The trouble with large numbers

The trouble with large numbers is that we can’t grasp them. Tom Reed claims that SALT (State and local tax exemption) benefits only the wealthy. There is some truth in this.

• Low income taxpayers don’t itemize.
• Taxpayers who do itemize pay more in State and local taxes.

But what about very wealthy persons, the rich and super rich? Donald Trump is said to have amassed a fortune of 3 billion in about thirty years. This implies an annual income of about 100 million which is incredible, off the charts.

The Tax Foundation (right leaning) supports Tom’s view that SALT favors the rich. But the data they use covers incomes from 0 to a million–a hundred time less than Trump’s presumed income. Is SALT valuable to the likes of Donald Trump? No way:

• The only tax Trump pays is probably AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax), which is slated for repeal as is the Estate Tax.
• Trump presumably takes advantages of tax loopholes which dwarf SALT.

Reed, like Trump, refuses to release his tax returns. It would embarrass his family, Reed says.

Tax policy is hard. It is blatantly misleading to suggest that SALT benefits the rich without defining “rich” and without considering the many other factors which might make tax policy “fair.”

Republicans continue to squirm over taxes. The latest proposal is to allow property tax deduction but not income tax or sales tax deduction. This is a compromise between Republican factions, rather than some more reasonable compromise. Gary Cohn ( Director of the National Economic Council and chief economic adviser to President Donald Trump) has proposed a gas tax increase, which Tom Reed has hitherto bitterly opposed. Will Reed now change his mind about that?

Personal disclaimer: I never had income in six figures, but I did benefit from SALT.

The articles cited give the right-leaning Tax Foundation’s view, not mine.

https://taxfoundation.org/state-and-local-tax-deduction-primer/

https://taxfoundation.org/five-implications-retaining-property-tax-deduction-federal-tax-reform/

This entry was posted in Political, Reed’s Views, Taxes, Uncategorized and tagged Gary Cohn. Bookmark the permalink.

Yes, ‘n’ how many times can a man turn his head
And pretend that he just doesn’t see?–Bob Dylan

If Nixon goes free, I don’t think anyone should be found guilty of anything.–Statement of a prospective juror circa 1974. The judge warned him about contempt of court, but let him go unpunished.

The current administration seems determined to rerun Watergate. Here is the cast:

• Nixon/Trump
• Agnew/Pence
• Mitchell/Sessions
• Dean/McGahn

(Trump is not Nixon in many ways; unlike Pence, Agnew was a criminal; Mitchell and Dean were conspirators in a way that Sessions and McGahn may not be.)

Here is the plot:

• Crime
• Lies
• Exposure
• Desperate action

President Trump, lying about his actions, ranting about those investigating his crimes, threatening to fire investigators, and suggesting pardons for cronies, echos the unfolding of Watergate.

I don’t remember scandal around the 1968 election. As I remember, Nixon gave two reasons for selecting Agnew as his running mate.

• Agnew made Democrats see red
• No one would wish him ill if Agnew would be his successor

Pence may have been selected for other reasons, but he does meet Nixon’s criteria. As it happened, Agnew was replaced with Gerald Ford before Nixon resigned.

By 1972 Nixon, paranoid and determined to be a two-term president, was up to his neck in crime.

Watergate didn’t reach its conclusion until Republicans saw Nixon as an insufferable liability. We must be near that point now with a criminal conspiracy unraveling, potential for self-serving pardons, another “Saturday Night Massacre” possible, and midterm elections looming.

What’s next for Trump? If the analogy with Watergate holds, we already know how the drama ends.

This entry was posted in Trump and tagged Watergate. Bookmark the permalink.

If you wanted a man to encourage the van,
Or harass the foe from the rear,
Or to storm a redoubt, you had but to shout
For Abdulah Bul Bul Ameer.

If you need a man like the mythical Abdulah, you might shout for Jared Kushner, currently senior adviser to US President Donald Trump. Reportedly, Kushner is supposed to be able to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict in the morning and reorganize the Federal Government to run efficiently in the afternoon. He can do it if anyone can.

Yet there are some things that trouble even Jared Kushner, for example:

• Filling out a security form accurately is a challenge. Kushner has yet to be approved for a permanent security clearance.
• Kushner has trouble remembering what he did about important matters when questioned.

Kushner reportedly is a quick study, walking into government meetings, possibly contributing a brief remark, then slipping out when bored. It is astonishing that a person with so many grave responsibilities would have difficulty remembering.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/360826-kushner-working-with-temporary-security-clearance-in-the-white-house

This entry was posted in Political and tagged Jared Kushner, nepotism. Bookmark the permalink.

The article was written by Cath Kestler, activist and resident of Silver Creek, NY

The Science March held on Earth Day provided us with an actual picture of the participating masses filled with an untiring enthusiasm in unity for the need to save our planet, for there is no planet B; we only have one chance and that time is now because time will run out for we are very close to that line in the sand.

Those who are passionate about science exude a quest to understand the universe and science; it is ever-changing and evolving as I type this column.  I remember watching Bill Nye the Science Guy in his lab coat and bowties with my daughters back in the 90’s thoroughly enjoying the looks on their faces filled with amazement as he explained science in a fun way that made them eager to learn more.

Today, Bill Nye is like a rock star to those kids that are passionate about science and he is always willing to engage in conversations with our younger generations and has never turned down an opportunity to pose for a “selfie” to satisfy his fans.

My mentor as I was growing up was my eighth grade science teacher, Mrs. Burch who ignited my passion for science and my thirst to drink up all the knowledge I could find at that age.  I drove my mother crazy with all of my questions and I was frequently at the library in search of the answers.  I hope some of you out there advocate our young generation to seek the answers and develop a deep love for science.

During the March on Saturday in DC as well as other marches happening in conjunction were filled with scientists, doctors, educators and activists all with science related goals in mind.  It was reported that some 500 to in the government 600 other satellite marches took place to put the focus on varying scientific concerns depending on where the march took place.

Some of the goals in which the spotlight needed to shine upon were for funding for science education; promoting open outreach to further promote education and supporting diversity in different scientific fields.  Though the scientists reached out to state and local politicians to participate, only the Democrats responded to the call.

According to Laurie Krug, an associate professor in the Department of Molecular Genetics & Microbiology at SUNY Stoney Brook who marched Saturday in NYC stated in Live Science that “Scientists are going to be more active, we tend to be passive so that we are seen as non-partisan.  We need to keep STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) field strong to keep young people interested in research.”

A website has been introduced that has advocacy news and tools to help scientists get connected to the political process.  There are mountains of information that scientists need to be better at opening up and communicating the information we need—not everyone is science minded.  Get some information: https://www.forceforscience.org/

This March was born and motivated by Trump who disparaged climate change as a hoax and voiced suspicions of the safety of vaccines.  Cabinet members were appointed to head up departments that are skeptical if not outright hostile to the sciences.  In an administration that relies on polls, a recent poll stated that the majority of the citizens trust and depend on scientists and their works.

Recent budget cuts hit the sciences straight to the bone.  The National Institutes of Health which is already cut to the quick will be further cut by 18 percent.  We are on the verge of life-saving breakthroughs in a lot of areas in medicine and diseases.

The Environmental Protection Agency headed up by Scott Pruitt (who is an open science denier) and has sued this agency 20 times will see a 31% cut to funding and a quarter (25%) of the EPA’s 15,000 employees will lose their jobs.  Bringing back polluted rivers, streams and lakes, not to mention rolling back regulations on dumping toxic waste and breathing in smog…I remember the 70’s and don’t want to go back there.

According to Denis Hayes an organizer from the first Earth Day in the 1970 stated in the NY Times, “You have a clear enemy,” he said.  “You’ve got a president who along with his vice president, his cabinet and his party leadership in both houses of Congress have a strong anti-environment agenda.  He’s basically trying to roll back everything we’ve tried to do in the last half-century.”

Let’s be clear, we can no longer afford a government that dismisses or denies science.  The People’s March for Science is scheduled for April 29^th in DC and I’m sure there will be sister marches to coincide with this march as well—if you missed the march on Earth Day, consider making a sign and letting your voices be heard this Saturday.  Hope to see some of you there.

Science is vitally important.  Where would we be without science?  It is used in absolutely every aspect in the lives we live…

This entry was posted in Environmental and tagged Bil Nye, Earth Day, EPA. Bookmark the permalink.

All major Social Security reforms were the product of Democrats and Republicans joining together to improve this landmark program.–Rep. Tom Reed (email, 9/21/19)

Social Security is based on non-partisan compromise; it is a very conservative retirement insurance program. Compromise was possible because legislators shared a common goal–workable retirement insurance for most Americans.

Reed claims:

However, the Democrat Social Security Plan (H.R. 860) would raise taxes on hardworking people while a Congressional Budget Office report released last week says the plan will only achieve solvency for another nine years – not permanent solvency as advertised. (email)

Reed is wrong. The CBO report he cites doesn’t say what he says it does.

As shown in Table 1, CBO and JCT estimate that over the current baseline projection period (2020 to 2029), enactment of H.R. 860 would:

• Increase Social Security outlays by $386 billion;
• Increase federal revenues by $911 billion, the net effect of a decrease in on-budget revenues of $719 billion and an increase in off-budget revenues of $1.629 trillion; and
• Reduce the federal deficit by $525 billion (excluding any effects on direct spending for programs other than Social Security).

The discussion of on-budget and off-budget is confusing; there is more detail in the report. The CBO report continues:

In the long term, H.R. 860 would increase Social Security revenues more than it would increase benefits, nearly closing the funding shortfall that is currently projected. Under the bill, the 75-year summarized value of revenues would increase by 1.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and the 75-year summarized value of outlays would increase by 0.3 percent of GDP, CBO estimates. The net effect of those changes would be to reduce the Social Security system’s 75-year actuarial deficit from 1.5 percent of GDP under current law to 0.1 percent under the bill (see Table 2).

This doesn’t sound bad. The report continues

At the end of the 75-year period in 2093, CBO projects, under H.R. 860, spending would increase by 0.4 percent of GDP and revenues would increase by 2.2 percent of GDP, compared with the amounts projected under current law. This would significantly reduce but not eliminate the annual gap between Social Security’s costs and its revenues. Under H.R. 860, that annual gap would be widening by the end of the 75-year period and would continue to widen thereafter, causing the program’s financial shortfall to increase in subsequent years.

The report notes that projections far into the future are uncertain. With this in mind 75 years of sustainability sounds rather good. Here is the section that Tom Reed misconstrues:

Under H.R. 860, the newly established Social Security Trust Fund would be exhausted in calendar year 2041. Under current law, CBO projects, the existing Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds will be exhausted in calendar year 2032 and fiscal year 2028, respectively. If their balances were combined, the OASDI trust funds would be exhausted in calendar year 2032. (Following common analytical conventions, CBO often considers the two trust funds as combined.)

Tom quotes predictions for current law which the CBO report says will be a concern in nine years, as if they applied to the proposed law: H.R. 860.

Is Tom, uninformed, careless, or disingenuous. What do readers think?

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/55627

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/860

Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA)

The trade bills this week were considered under a Rule that prohibited any amendments.  Unlike the Senate, which at least had the opportunity to improve and amend the bill put forward, the House was not allowed to offer a single amendment. Under this Rule, the House considered a motion related to Title II of H.R. 1314 renewing Trade Adjustment Assistance Programs, which are intended to help workers who lose their employment as a result of increased trade. Some sectors of the economy are more significantly impacted than others. These programs have been providing education, training, and other assistance for years. Unfortunately, this legislation just doesn’t go far enough to assist impacted workers. Public sector employees, for example, whose jobs might be outsourced are not eligible to receive any assistance through these programs.  Furthermore, in a cynical political maneuver, this proposal was tied to Fast Track (see below).  If this passed, Fast Track would pass.  In effect defeating TAA was the only way to stop Fast Track. I voted NO. The motion FAILED to pass.  Under the Rule, because the House did not pass the motion, the overall bill, including Fast Track, fails unless the vote on TAA is reversed.

Rep. Reed voted AYE as expected.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll361.xml

Note: Immediately after TAA failed, the Speaker made a motion to reconsider the vote next week.  His hope is to switch enough votes so TAA passes, thus allowing Fast Track to move forward to the President’s desk.

“Fast Track”/Trade Promotion Authority (TPA)

Even though the TAA portion failed, the House still voted on the TPA portion.  As you may know, Congress will soon consider two trade agreements. Historically, Congress has had the authority to agree, reject, or amend any proposed trade agreements submitted for ratification. If amended, the President was then required to re-negotiate the agreements to incorporate the changes made.

The Obama Administration, like past Presidents, requested Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), more commonly known as “Fast Track”.  I do not support TPA because it significantly limits the voice of the legislative branch. By approving TPA, Congress agrees to give up its right to amend the trade agreement and instead simply takes an up or down vote on it. In this case, the House voted to grant TPA before any trade agreement was even finalized. 

I think it is unwise for any Member of Congress to surrender our constitutional responsibilities without knowing exactly why this step is necessary and what specifically Congress is agreeing to. I voted NO. The motion for TPA passed, though the overall bill failed, and the entire vote is recorded below:

Rep. Reed voted AYE as expected.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll362.xml

This entry was posted in Congress, Economics, Political, Reed’s Views and tagged TAA, TPA, TPP, trade. Bookmark the permalink.

Some believe this.

The only difference between death and taxes is that death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.– Will Rogers

Defending the Indefensible

Tom’s October 24th facebook posts dealt with taxation. Most comments were hostile to Tom’s post, many comments were irrelevant, but these, apparently posted by supporters, illustrate minority views.

1.  get’em Tom!!
2. How about only the folks who actually pay taxes are the only ones who vote . Then see what happens and who gets our votes!
3. Great job Tom!
4.  The real solution for NY is to reign (sic) in state spending and lower our property taxes, too. That’s the trickle down we need to make this private economy boom. Congressman Reed is elected to a different legislature.
5.  Thank you, Tom, for the great job you are doing!
6. Yeah, they can’t have us tax slaves keeping too much of our money.
7. Congressman Reed, are you reading the uncompromising vitriol of those you’d compromise the goals of the constituency who voted you in with? How about standing firm, and letting the opposition compromise their own objectives?
8. NY is the shittiest at tax relief. Everyone blows too much smoke and won’t keep Cuomo from waist (sic) fraud and abuse!
9. Congressman Reed, I agree but we don’t have to prove they are hypocrites…they already have proved it over and over.
10. Chuckie and Andie are against this taking away the state and local tax deductions because it will effect the rich in NYC thus cutting into their campaign donations. It actually benefits the middle and lower income in N.Y.
11. Get it done for us please don’t listen to the haters they only care about themselves. They think they know your job why the sit at home on our money. I believe in you.
12.  Well spoken Tom. How unfortunate that your page is populated by so many politically ‘blinded’ Democrats who vote for the same ol’, same ol’ every time, oblivious to the subterfuge being played about them by their party. They feel obligated to spout their ignorance here for all to see. The Democrats protect their big business interests behind their backs while telling their constituents lies to their faces – Schumer and Cuomo are two of the worst in NY. There are plenty of us who see the truth of the matter, however, and that is why you are elected, and not some Schumer/Clinton sycophant . Keep up the good work!
13. Fun experiment: YouTube the Trump Tax Plan when people are told it’s Bernie’s. Lefties love it. They’re simply dogmatically opposed to anything coming from the right wing.
14. Why don’t you call for Soros arrest for non payment of back taxes and Sharpton for same and both for supporting domestic terrorism and arresting illegals and their families for covering up and hiding illegals! Enforce the laws!!! Demand it!
15. Lowering your taxes won’t “kill” you. It may kill off a few unnecessary State and Federal jobs and make the rest more efficient.
16. “Right to work”? Where is that written? Constitution? Declaration of Independence? Bible? Rolling Stone? (Maybe).

Number 16 puzzles me: “Right to work” is a anti-union slogan associated with conservatives and Republicans. Tom Reed can’t fairly be accused of opposing that. What was that person thinking; was the objection to anything said to be a “right?”

Tom posted three times on taxes on October 24th garnering hundreds of comments, mostly hostile. Tom’s strategy is repetition–a good way to hammer home a point.

This entry was posted in Reed’s Views, Taxes. Bookmark the permalink.

An overflow crowd of more than 30 filled the small Board Room at Rep. Tom Reed’s Town Hall Meting in Barrington (Yates) Saturday. Most were non-republicans. For many this was their first Town Hall experience.

Medicare dominated the discussion. The uncertainty of the path our new congress is going take Medicare fueled the concerns. Rep. Reed didn’t help us feel comfortable about our future.

He started out by explaining that  there are two battles in changing Medicare—1) The Insurance Companies and 2) the high cost of health care. The way to win the Insurance Companies battle, or  the way for the government reduces its payments to the insurance companies, is to issue vouchers (the GOP calls them “premium support payments”) to Medicare recipients. Then we would choose which  insurance plan is best for us, and, if we are able to, add money to the voucher to attain the coverage we really need.  Reed did not attempt to explain how the amount of the voucher would be determined.

Please realize that the “government money” that goes to Medicare is the 1.45% deducted from our salaries from our first teenage jobs to any work we do after we retire. What this Congress is really concerned about is the matching funds our employers pay. That is what they want to reduce.

Rep. Reed chose his words carefully when he spoke on lowering the cost of health care. He briefly mentioned that the most expensive health care happens near the end of life. He the went on to try to find “common ground” that we could all agree on. He began to list “waste, fraud, and malpractice law suits.” That statement sparked a lively discussion on “frivolous” lawsuits. Reed also pointed to different ways to reduce the reimbursements to physicians and hospitals. He gave no real details, but told us that congressional members are looking into ways to reduce that funding. How will that affect our local hospitals?

A member of the audience who lost a brother a year ago to cancer, and whose mother is presently being treated for cancer, lead the discussion on the emotional drainage and the high cost of Stage 4 Cancer. She was very concerned that the vouchers would not cover the needed treatment. Reed responded that there would have to be a plan made early in her treatment to determine the path her physician will take when the patient (family member) enters the final stage.  To some audience members that part of the discussion reminded us of the Death Panels that the GOP used as a scare technique in 2010’s anti-Obamacare campaign.

Rep. Reed foresees that Congress will act on Medicare in March, 2017. As you can see from the table below almost half of the residents of our Congressional District are on Medicare. They need to be made aware of the changes the congress plans to make before it is done deal.

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/eedata_sc/2013/ny.html#table6

To find the population for each county I googled the county name for example, “Yates County NY population“. (After you google Yates County, you can substitute any county you would like.)’]= The results provided an interactive graph which will show the County’s population from 1970 to the present.

For a more detailed article on the proposed Medicare changes follow this link.

The article is a Press Release from “John Plumb for Congress”.

First, Tom Reed voted to defund the Department of Homeland Security. Then, Tom Reed disparaged a veteran in the district.

Now, Tom Reed is “against banning gun sales to people on no-fly, terror watch lists.”

In a recent interview on the topic of homeland security, Reed said that keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists “misses the point.”

Reed is talking about a bipartisan effort, led by New York Republican Congressman Peter King, to close the dangerous loophole that currently allows suspected terrorists to purchase guns and explosives.

“As someone who answered the call to protect and defend this country, it is completely beyond comprehension why Congressman Tom Reed would oppose keeping guns out of the hands of suspected terrorists,” said Chautauqua County Democratic Committee chair and Vietnam-era veteran Norman P. Green. “This is such a no-brainer issue, and it raises serious questions about Tom Reed putting politics ahead of protecting the homeland and keeping Americans safe.”

Voted Against Bill To Fund Department Of Homeland Security. On March 3, 2015, Reed voted against a bill to fund the Department of Homeland Security. “The House of Representatives passed a bill on Tuesday funding the Department of Homeland Security through the end of September, effectively ending a congressional standoff that nearly shut the department down at the end of last week. The bill, identical to a measure that cleared the Senate last Friday, passed by a margin of 257 to 167, with 75 Republicans and 182 Democrats voting in favor.” [HR 240, Vote #109, 3/03/15; CBS, 3/03/15]

The Rest of the Story was a radio program hosted by Paul Harvey. Paul Harvey understood that the rest of the story is often vital to understanding the news. Journalists I. F. Stone and Molly Ivens also often reported the rest … Continue reading

Posted in Campaigning, Congress, Political, Veterans Tagged H.R. 7637, I. F. Stone, Molly Ivens, Paul Harvey, Rep. Claudia Tenney, Rep. Tom Reed, The rest of the story, Veterans First Act

The New NY 23rd has shown examples where Rep. Tom Reed actions in our district does not match his voting record in Washington. Most recently (August 28) it was pointed out in “A look at Rep. Reed’s Proposed Bills” which summarized … Continue reading

Posted in Veterans Tagged Reed’s Veteran Votes, VA Clinics

‘ Rep. Tom Reed has been attacking his opponent, John Plumb for claiming to be a resident of the NY 23rd Congressional District. The Reed campaign discovered a loan document, called “Second Home Rider” that Plumb signed when he bought his … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Congress, Constituents, Constitution, Defense, Reed’s Views, Veterans Tagged John Plumb’s background, National Security Council, Pell Grants, Reed’s Votes

The following is a press release from John Plumb for Congress committee and the map was paid of by the Friends of John Plumb. JAMESTOWN, NY- Commander John Plumb, a 4th generation Western New Yorker and Navy Veteran running for … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Congress, Constituents, Defense, Reed’s Views, Veterans Tagged /;’, anti-Veterans, cheap political attacks, Locations Plumb has served, Plumb’s commitment, Plumb’s military service, Reed is out of touch, Reed is unfit to represent, Washington Politics

Today’s (Sunday, April 17) Finger Lakes Times “Insight” section’s top of the page headline announces, “Group to Reed…your endorsement of Donald Trump raises many significant questions”. The article is an Open Letter to Rep. Tom Reed. The group, Tools for … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Ethics, gay rights, Immigration, pro-life/pro-choice, Racism, Reed’s Views, Rights, Seniors, Veterans Tagged anti-immigrant, homophobic, Racism, Reed’s Values, Social Change, Trump’s Leadership Team

News release from John Plumb’s Campaign for to represent the NY23rd Congressional District JAMESTOWN—Fourth generation Western New Yorker, Navy Reserve Commander, and Democratic candidate for Congress John Plumb today responded to news of a Washington, DC meeting between GOP Presidential … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Defense, Dept of Defense, Ethics, Reed’s Views, Veterans, War Tagged Reed & Trump, Torture, Trump’s Rhetoric

Written by Deb Meeker: Congressman Reed’s town Hall in Newfield, NY started promptly at 8:30, with twenty-five to thirty people present; I (Deb) have added some parenthetical observations of my own, which I hope will help to clarify the things. I … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Congress, Environmental, fracking, Health Care, Hydrofracking/Gas& Oil Industry, NYS Government, Political, Reed’s Views, Town Hall Meeting, Veterans Tagged Deb Meeker, Newfield, Obamacare

  Congress Tom Reed will be hold a series of Town Hall Meetings on Saturday, February 20. He has not announced his schedule, yet, but the Town of Starkey (Yates) Clerk let the secret out when she announced that he … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Constituents, Rights, Shutdown, Veterans Tagged Homeland Security, Planned Parenthood, Refugees, Rep. Reed flip-flopping, Town Hall Meetings

Finger Lakes Times (Geneva) columnist Peter Mitchell asked  “If we’re not a great country now, when were we great, and what will take to get is back there?” in this week’s column titled “The ‘Make America Great’ Myth”. First Mitchell identified four … Continue reading

Posted in Constituents, Economics, gay rights, Sequester/Fiscal Cliff, Shutdown, Veterans Tagged do-nothing congress, inflation rate, Making America Great Again, Social Issues, Stock Market, Unemployment

On his January political postcard, mailed at public expense, Tom makes the following claims of accomplishment Rami bill passed and funded. Temporary tax loopholes made permanent “No Child Left Behind” replaced with “Every Student Succeeds Act.” Supports making entry more … Continue reading

Posted in 2016, Congress, Constituents, Defense, Economics, Education, Environmental, Gun Violence, Health Care, Immigration, Political, Taxes, Terrorism, Veterans, War Tagged franked political mailings, Obamacare, Planned Parenthood