Guest Editorial: A letter to my faint-hearted congresswoman
Republican members of Congress across the country have chosen, in the Trump era, to no longer participate in public town halls. This includes my congresswoman in western New York, U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney.
My public letter to her is not only about her, but also the other cowardly Congress members.
Dear Congresswoman Tenney:
Your face has been a presence recently at citizen town halls across your district. More than a thousand of your constituents have gathered in meeting halls to express their concerns about the chaos unleashed on America by President Trump.
It isn't actually your face. It's a life-size cutout in your absence. That's because, since Trump took office, you have refused one request after another to meet with the people you supposedly represent.
We understand the reason why; it's fear.
You are afraid to meet with veterans who want to know why you talk so much about being their champion and then stay silent while President Trump and Elon Musk take an axe to veterans services.
You say how much you support children, but are afraid to meet with parents and teachers who are concerned about cuts in education.
You won't meet with constituents concerned with cuts in health care or environmental protection. You are afraid to meet with anyone who wants to ask you hard questions.
Last week, you blamed local newspapers for reporting your absence. Your chief of staff scolded one paper, 'You are doing a disservice to your readers and giving local journalism a bad name.'
The problem is not reporters doing their jobs. The problem is your refusal to do yours — to listen to the people you are supposed to represent.
Coward is not a word I use lightly. But when a congresswoman is unwilling to meet with her own constituents in public, that is not only cowardice, it is arrogance.
Here is another word I don't use lightly — concentration camp. I am the grandson of Jews who fled Europe. I understand quite well what that word means.
Last week, as Christians celebrated the peace teachings of Jesus Christ, you marked Holy Week with a taxpayer-funded junket to a concentration camp in El Salvador.
A prison is where governments confine people who have had their day in court, with rules about treatment. A concentration camp is where you throw people who you grab off the street (no legal process required) and leave stockpiled until they die. The only rule is brutality.
The concentration camp that you visited in El Salvador is the same hellhole where Trump is dumping hundreds of people he has labeled as foreign terrorists — no proof needed. One of them is a young father who was living in Maryland. The Trump administration admitted his deportation was 'an administrative error.' The Supreme Court ordered his return. Even Joe Rogan said that shipping him there was wrong.
But you weren't concerned about any of that on your visit. You just wanted to make sure you got your photo taken standing in front of cells of shirtless men with shaven heads, a handy political souvenir.
Here are a few other people who have been caught in Trump's new policy of 'disappearing' off the street. A terrified young woman (a foreign student with a legal visa) was nabbed outside her apartment in Boston. Her sin was publishing a pro-Palestinian opinion article that Trump didn't like. In Florida last week, ICE grabbed a native-born U.S. citizen and tossed him in jail. They kept him there even as his frantic mother presented his U.S. birth certificate in court.
It is not hard to imagine why you don't want to answer any hard questions from your constituents about all that.
You are safely gerrymandered into a lopsided Republican district designed to hand you easy victories every two years. Your concern is not with representing us. What you really care about is how many times you can get on Fox News in a week and keeping President Trump happy.
If that means that veterans, farmers, children, and the elderly suffer cuts that make their lives harder, what do you care?
If innocent people are tossed into brutal foreign cells with no hearing, so what?
You have other things on your mind.
Last week, you boasted about 'a massive fundraising' of more than a million dollars — most of it from wealthy corporations and special interest groups. That is who you really represent, Rep. Claudia Tenney, not us.
There is an expression, 'If you have something to say to me, say it to my face.'
Your constituents have a good deal to say to your face right now, even if it has to be your cardboard cutout.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says Decision on Marijuana Classification Coming in Weeks
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said Monday he is considering whether to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug and would decide in 'the next few weeks.' Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Three Deaths Reported as NYC Legionnaires' Outbreak Spreads Chicago Schools' Bond Penalty Widens as $734 Million Gap Looms To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' Trump told reporters that he had discussed the issue with many people and found deep divisions, with some proponents of changing the drug's status stressing its medical benefits while opponents said the move posed a risk to children. 'I've heard great things having to do with medical, and I've had bad things having to do with just about everything else but medical,' Trump said. 'And, you know, for pain and various things, I've heard some pretty good things, but for other things, I've heard some pretty bad things.' Trump told attendees at a fundraiser in New Jersey earlier this month that he was considering the change, the Wall Street Journal reported. The federal government currently classifies marijuana under Schedule I, which is for drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse. Reclassifying the drug could make it easier to buy and sell cannabis. Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist The Game Starts at 8. The Robbery Starts at 8:01 Klarna Cashed In on 'Buy Now, Pay Later.' Now It Wants to Be a Bank The Pizza Oven Startup With a Plan to Own Every Piece of the Pie It's Only a Matter of Time Until Americans Pay for Trump's Tariffs ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Forbes
25 minutes ago
- Forbes
What's Next For The IRS After Commissioner Billy Long's Departure
IRS Commissioner Billy Long has been removed from office less than two months after Congress approved his appointment to the position. With the interim appointment of Scott Bessent, the IRS Commissioner has now seen seven different leaders in 2025. This constant turnover highlights the persistent turmoil that the agency has experienced over the past several years. This article summarizes the turmoil and sheds light on what we can expect from the IRS in the years to come. The Underfunding Of the IRS According to the Congressional Budget Office, the IRS's funding has steadily declined over recent times. In their 2020 report, the CBO highlights that both the funding provided to the IRS and the number of employees employed by the IRS peaked in 2010. For the most part, the IRS's budget had remained steady over this time, with time value of money considerations resulting in budget declines when measured in real dollars. The CBO specifically estimates a 29% decline in real resources for the IRS over these 10 years. President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 sought to rectify this shortfall. This legislation allocated $79.4 billion to the IRS to enhance enforcement, operations support, business systems modernization, and taxpayer services, according to the Tax Policy Center. This increased funding had a counterintuitive effect on the deficit as the CBO estimated it would have yielded $186 billion in additional revenues over the next 10 years. Put differently, most spending increases contribute to an increase in the deficit. However, because the gap between what taxpayers should pay and what they actually pay is large enough, the CBO estimated that the increase in funding to the IRS would pay for itself several times over, as taxpayers would pay their fair share. However, many aspects of this funding have since been rescinded through the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 ($1.4 billion) and the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 ($20.2 billion). To date, only a small portion of the originally allocated $79.4 billion has been spent, according to the U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, which suggests that the IRS spent a mere $13.8 billion as of March 31, 2025. Former Commissioner Billy Long And His Stance On Funding The IRS While Trump selected Long as his nominee to be IRS Commissioner back in 2024, it was not until June 16 that the Senate approved him. During this time, numerous acting IRS Commissioners filled in and took on the role. However, that did not stop people from learning more about this potential nominee and his potential impact on the IRS. For instance, following Trump's nomination of Long, an extended microscope was placed on Long's track record regarding taxes and his vocalized support (or lack thereof) for the IRS. For instance, ProPublica cited his tax experience as exceptionally limited, pointing out that his only qualification centers around being a Certified Tax & Business Advisor, which ProPublica denounces as a dubious and frivolous designation. Other investigations have highlighted Long's track record of attempting to abolish the IRS during his time as a Representative for the state of Missouri, according to Forbes. Notably, this was not a one-time occurrence as Long co-sponsored bills to repeal the income taxes and abolish the IRS in 2011, 2013, 2015, and 2017. For these reasons, Long's confirmation was among the most contentious of Trump's second term, as he was only confirmed along party lines by a vote of 53-44. However, the controversy did not stop there. According to Forbes, in his short term, which lasted a mere 53 days, he vocalized support for starting the tax filing season much later than usual, which immediately raised alarms and led the National Association of Enrolled Agents to issue a statement suggesting that this stance was unlikely to come to fruition. Whether it be his unusual stances going into the position or while serving as IRS commissioner, Long was not long for the role. The Future Of The IRS After Commissioner Long's Firing Following Long's departure, Scott Bessent will now fill in as Acting IRS Commissioner. Bessent currently serves as the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, meaning that he is unlikely to be permanently in this role. In turn, Trump will seek an IRS Commissioner to serve in a more permanent capacity, and this person will likely be the eighth leader of the IRS in 2025 alone. Given this expected upcoming change, the IRS appears to be at a crossroads. On the one hand, the IRS continues to receive and spend funds as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. In fact, even after the rescinded funds, a total of $57.8 billion is allocated to the agency, with $44 billion remaining. According to the Tax Policy Center, the IRS plans to spend these funds with the hope of modernizing its systems to enforce tax laws. On the other hand, Trump appears to continuously question the integrity and usefulness of the IRS by threatening to dismantle the agency, according to the New York Post, or by proposing and enacting substantial layoffs and exodus of IRS employees and agents, according to Forbes. The Wall Street Journal has even reported that Trump views the IRS as a political agency that has been weaponized to attack opponents. Should these viewpoints persist, it is possible that the GOP will continue to disorient the agency through various channels. For instance, Congress may pass more bills rescinding additional pieces of the $79.4 billion in funding provided under the Inflation Reduction Act. Conversely, Trump may continue to appoint underqualified individuals to serve as IRS Commissioner, which can be particularly impactful if these individuals share his views on defunding the IRS. Lastly, Trump's regime can continue to incentivize and drive away IRS agents and personnel from working for the agency. This diminished workforce would ultimately result in it being less effective in enforcing tax laws, thereby undermining the IRS's importance. Regardless of which path persists, the IRS's future is more dismal under the current administration, and the removal of Commissioner Long from his role is another chapter in what appears to be an exercise of control over the agency.
UPI
25 minutes ago
- UPI
3 reasons Republicans' redistricting power grab might backfire
Texas state Democratic representatives, shown at a rally in Washington, previously left the state in 2021 to try to prevent the state's Republicans from reaching a quorum and passing new voting restrictions legislation. File Photo by Michael Reynolds/EPA The gerrymandering drama in Texas -- and beyond -- has continued to unfold after Democratic state legislators fled the state. The Democrats want to prevent the Republican-controlled government from enacting a mid-decade gerrymander aimed at giving Republicans several more seats in Congress. The Texas GOP move was pushed by President Donald Trump, who's aiming to ensure he has a GOP-controlled Congress to work with after the 2026 midterm elections. Other Republican states such as Missouri and Ohio may also follow the Texas playbook; and Democratic states such as California and Illinois seem open to responding in kind. But there are a few factors that make this process more complicated than just grabbing a few House seats. They may even make Republicans regret their hardball gerrymandering tactics, if the party ends up with districts that political scientists like me call "dummymandered." Democrats can finally fight back Unlike at the federal level, where Democrats are almost completely shut out of power, Republicans are already facing potentially consequential retaliation for their gerrymandering attempts from Democratic leaders in other states. Democrats in California, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, are pushing for a special election later this year, in which the voters could vote on new congressional maps in that state, aiming to balance out Democrats' losses in Texas. If successful, these changes would take effect prior to next year's midterm elections. Other large Democratic-controlled states, such as Illinois and New York -- led by Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Gov. Kathy Hochul, respectively -- have also indicated openness to enacting their own new gerrymanders to pick up seats on the Democratic side. New York and California both currently use nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw their boundaries. But Hochul recently said she is "sick and tired of being pushed around" while other states refuse to adopt redistricting reforms and gerrymander to their full advantage. Hochul said she'd even be open to amending the state constitution to eliminate the nonpartisan redistricting commission. It's unclear whether these blue states will be successful in their efforts to fight fire with fire; but in the meantime, governors like Hochul and Pritzker have welcomed the protesting Democratic legislators from Texas, in many cases arranging for their housing during their self-imposed exile. Dummymandering Another possible problem for either party looking to gain some seats in this process stems from greediness. In responding to Democrats' continued absence from Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott threatened even more drastic gerrymanders. "If they don't start showing up, I may start expanding," Abbott said. "We may make it six or seven or eight new seats we're going to be adding on the Republican side." But Abbott might think twice about this strategy. Parties that gerrymander their states' districts are drawing lines to maximize their own advantage, either in state legislatures or, in this case, congressional delegations. When parties gerrymander districts, they don't usually try to make them all as lopsided as possible for their own side. Instead, they try to make as many districts as possible that they are likely to win. They do this by spreading groups of supportive voters across several districts so they can help the party win more of these districts. But sometimes the effort backfires: In trying to maximize their seats, a party spreads its voters too thin and fails to make some districts safe enough. These vulnerable districts can then flip to the other party in future elections, and the opposing party ends up winning more seats than expected. This phenomenon, commonly referred to as "dummymandering," has happened before. It even happened in Texas, where Republicans lost a large handful of poorly drawn state legislative districts in the Dallas suburbs in 2018, a strong year for Democrats nationwide. With Democrats poised for a strong 2026 midterm election against an unpopular president, this is a lesson Republicans might need to pay attention to. There's not much left to gerrymander One of the main reasons dummymandering happens is that there has been so much gerrymandering that there are few remaining districts competitive enough for a controlling party to pick off for themselves. This important development has unfolded for two big reasons. First, in terms of gerrymandering, the low-hanging fruit is already picked over. States controlled by either Democrats or Republicans have already undertaken pretty egregious gerrymanders during previous regular redistricting processes, particularly following the 2010 and 2020 censuses. Republicans have generally been more adept at the process, particularly in maximizing their seat shares in relatively competitive states such as Wisconsin and North Carolina that they happen to control. But Democrats have also been successful in states such as Maryland, where only one Republican serves out of nine seats, despite the party winning 35% of the presidential vote in 2024. In Massachusetts, where Democrats hold all eight seats, Republicans won 37% of the presidential vote in 2024. There's also the fact that over the past half-century, "gerrymanderable" territory has become more difficult to find regardless of how you draw the boundaries. That's because the voting electorate is more geographically sorted between the parties. This means that Democratic and Republican voters are segregated from each other geographically, with Democrats tending toward big cities and suburbs, and Republicans occupying rural areas. As a result, it's become less geographically possible than ever to draw reasonable-looking districts that split up the other party's voters in order to diminish the opponents' ability to elect one of their own. Regardless of how far either party is willing to go, today's clash over Texas redistricting represents largely uncharted territory. Mid-decade redistricting does sometimes happen, either at the hands of legislatures or the courts, but not usually in such a brazen fashion. And this time, the Texas attempt could spark chaos and a race to the bottom, where every state picks up the challenge and tries to rewrite their electoral maps - not in the usual once-a-decade manner, but whenever they're unsatisfied with the odds in the next election. Charlie Hunt is an associate professor of political science at Boise State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
