Pat Toomey sends out bulk emails a couple times a month. Most content is spent recognizing a good deed from a fellow Pennsylvanian or summarizing a new bill that seems reasonable. I don’t follow him very closely and certainly don’t love the guy, but the emails generally portray him as a competent public servant.
His latest email was garbage. He complains, blames, and offers no solutions. He makes bold proclamations in the absence of evidence. We cannot allow statements like this stand without deeper evaluation. We must require more from our political discourse. I’m not mad at Mr. Toomey, in fact, this is just a symptom of a systemic issue. The remedy is not to blame our officials, because we are eating it up. We love the provocative tweets and bold proclamations, but progress requires more. We need to wrestle with the problems, align on our objectives, and assign someone accountable to those objectives.
There was a time long ago that someone had to pick out every single letter of every single word and put it on a press to be printed. They had to buy the paper and hope it was constructed well enough to be worth the time and expense. Now our world is flooded in words, a currency experiencing exponential devaluation, the only remedy is to choose ours wisely and require more in our discourse.
I have copied the email below and added my comments in red.
Since President Obama announced his dangerous nuclear deal (why is it dangerous?) with the Islamic Republic of Iran (everyone knows Iran, it says Iran on the map, was it necessary to insert “Islamic Republic”?) last year, I have been an outspoken critic of it – speaking on the Senate floor, highlighting concerns at committee hearings, and speaking out publicly to raise awareness of how this flawed agreement (how is it flawed?) with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism poses a major security risk (not convinced by your statement that Iran is world’s greatest state sponsor, in fact, this study suggests Iraq is far more dangerous – http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-global-terrorism-index-countries-most-affected-by-terrorist-attacks.html ). Many Pennsylvanians and a bipartisan majority of Senators oppose the deal, which ultimately paves the path for the Iranian regime to get a nuclear weapon (I don’t know much about this bill, but I know that a fundamental principle of the bill is that this agreement does not allow for Iran to have a nuclear weapon).
To make matters even worse, it looks like the Obama Administration is now doubling down on its irresponsible policy toward the Iranian regime (Again, the first paragraph alluded to the Obama Administration policy being irresponsible, but failed to offer any evidence). The Administration is rewarding Iran with $8.6 million in taxpayer dollars through the purchase of its heavy water (responsible disposal of nuclear waste seems like a good thing for humanity, perhaps this is creating American jobs, maybe Iran would have dumped the stuff in the ocean otherwise), and U.S. officials are actively encouraging European banks to do business with Iran (To me, it seems plausible that a country interwoven into the global fabric would have more citizens seeking stability. For example, if I had business that was selling tons of water pumps in Africa, I would not want conflict in Africa as that could disrupt my business. Plus, I am encouraged that America is asking other countries to step in vs America exclusively trying to burden themselves with this task.) – neither of which is required by the president’s nuclear deal. Last week, I challenged the Obama Administration’s reckless pursuit to re-integrate Iran into the global economy at a Senate Banking Committee hearing.
Under the flawed nuclear deal, the president relieved economic sanctions on Iran – giving them a cash infusion of more than $100 billion that can now fund terrorism around the globe (again, I didn’t read the bill, but doubt it says, “America is giving you a cash infusion so you can now fund terrorism around the globe”). As if that wasn’t outrageous enough, the Obama Administration has now decided to also help prop up the Iranian economy, including giving the Iranian regime millions in U.S. taxpayer dollars. (If your objective is to stabilize Iran or lessen your fear of them behaving irrationally, I think propping up their economy may indeed be a logical strategy vs a collapsed economy with a bunch of disillusioned unemployed citizens who have yet to see anything positive from their global neighbors. However, Mr. Toomey has not really stated his solution or his objective, other than saying he thinks the Obama Administration is “dangerous, reckless, irresponsible, outrageous, flawed”).
I will continue to stand up to the Obama Administration on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania because we cannot let Iran fund terrorism on our watch. You can watch my remarks at last week’s Senate Banking Committee hearing here.
We are the people, we are allowed to ask more, require more, and as long as we’re all aligned on reasonable objectives, it doesn’t need to be confrontational or disrespectful. We can ask reasonable questions to make sure we come up with the best solutions.