Columnist Jay Fleitman: James Comey brouhaha ridiculous

By JAY FLEITMAN

Published: 06-12-2017 8:05 PM

The breathlessly anticipated testimony of former FBI director James Comey came and went last week.

He confirmed that President Donald Trump was never under any investigation, but he felt the need to call Trump a liar because of the president’s characterization of Comey as being unpopular to the rank and file in the FBI. Comey was also “uneasy” because the President “hoped” that Comey would let up on the discredited Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security adviser who Trump had just fired for having lied to Vice President Mike Pence about a conversation he had had with the Russian ambassador.

Democratic leaders and talking heads on the news are all atwitter over Comey’s claim that the president said to him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” Does anyone really believe that this is the worst thing any President has said to law enforcement, or for that matter to other powerful government agencies (like the IRS, remember Lois Lerner)?

When President Obama’s attorney general, Loretta Lynch, met privately with Bill Clinton on the tarmac during the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton, and then directed Comey not to refer to the investigation as an “investigation” but as a “matter,” could anyone imagine that this happened without the direction of Obama?

All of this Comey brouhaha is ridiculous, and I don’t care about it. In truth, I really didn’t care about this even before he came to testify.

It has been clear all along that the crusade to prove the Trump team colluded with the Russians has been nonsense. It is political theater and warfare of subversion against a political opponent. It is also clear that when the “anti-Trump resistance” recognized that the Russian collusion scenario wasn’t going to pan out, that another line of attack was needed. Democratic leaders threw out the obstruction of justice story hoping that this handful of spaghetti would stick to the refrigerator.

I believe that the grassroots citizenry that has subscribed to this belief system has done so because they are appalled that this rube Donald Trump won the presidency over their more enlightened candidate. I think that the Nancy Pelosis and Chuck Schumers of Washington are shrewder than this. The sound and fury of these investigations and innuendos against Trump’s administration has created an uneasy electorate, making it harder for the Republicans to pass the agenda that Trump endorsed during his campaign.

As I mentioned above, I really don’t care about any of this other than that it paralyzes the government.

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Smith students occupy admin building, demand divestment from weapons manufacturers
Valley Art Supplies finds right mix by adding bar to longtime Easthampton business
Three candidates in running for Amherst superintendent
Area property deed transfers, March 28
Champions of change: NHS Student Union advocates for students before administrators, School Committee
Taking a stand by sitting-in: Smith College students continue to occupy College Hall

I do care about health care reform and tax reform. I care about infrastructure repair and the dangers lurking in our international relations. More than any other political issue, I care about the national debt.

The national debt is on the threshold of 20 trillion dollars, or over $60,000 per citizen and over $160,000 per taxpayer. The national debt is an economic burden we leave for our children and grandchildren to pay, and is a drag on their future economic opportunities and a threat to their national political well-being. I believe it is inexcusable that we as a nation do not have the political will to address this issue and that our politicians instead play their games. Congress is soon to vote on another raising of the national debt ceiling.

It would be great to have a simpler and more comprehensive tax code, and if a lower corporate tax rate increases economic activity in the U.S. and creates more job opportunities, that’s fine. I would love to have my taxes decreased, but would be willing to forgo any reduction in federal taxes if I could be assured that the money would go toward paying down the national debt.

The most politically contentious part of health care reform is on how to deal with the huge increase in Medicaid enrollment that occurred as part of the Obamacare legislation. There are currently about 75 million Medicaid enrollees, or almost one in four Americans. Medicaid is taxpayer-funded, and yes, I am bothered by the fact that these benefits are being paid for by those other than the recipients, particularly if those paying for this expansion are our children and grandchildren. Perhaps the expansion of the Medicaid rolls made sense in the teeth of the Great Recession of 2008, but a reevaluation of Medicaid as part of health care reform should not be such a hyper-partisan issue.

All forms of government spending need to be examined with an eye to reducing the debt burden on the upcoming generations. Military spending should not be immune, especially considering that the U.S. spends more on its military than the next seven nations combined. It is very much in this context that President Trump castigated our NATO allies for not shouldering their financial responsibilities for funding NATO. The U.S. taxpayers, and future taxpayers, currently cover over 70 percent of the cost of NATO, while wealthy countries including Germany, France and Italy do not contribute at agreed-upon levels.

Trump was derided for showing poor manners in bringing up this subject during his recent trip to Europe. Perhaps there are times when bluntness is a virtue.

Jay Fleitman, MD, of Northampton, writes a column published the first Tuesday of the month. He can be reached at opinion@gazettenet.com.

]]>