Newsletter improvement requested regarding candidate voting records

Dear AARP,

Two years ago you published candidate interviews that greatly misled readers. Candidates will say what they think voters want to hear. I believe you are partially responsible for the election of the worst and most divisive president of all time.
Now you are doing the same thing with the John James interview. Instead, why don't you publish voting records and facts, like...
As a Congressman, James voted for HR1 that gave the largest benefits to the wealthy and will cut hundreds of thousands from the Medicaid Health Care and SNAP benefits they need to survive.
 
How about...James repeatedly voted against reining in Trump's war with Iran and did not enforce the Constitution that says such wars must be decided by Congress.
 
How about that?
 
SOCIAL SECURITY — benefits weren't cut, but finances were affected.
H.R. 1 did not reduce scheduled Social Security benefit payments.
There is also a less-publicized consequence: the Social Security Administration's actuaries report that H.R. 1 reduces income-tax revenue flowing into the Social Security trust funds. SSA says the law therefore has a negative financial effect on the Social Security trust funds over both the short and long term. Social Security Administration
So the most precise description is:
H.R. 1 did not cut Social Security benefits, and it reduced taxes for many seniors, but it also reduced future revenue going into the Social Security trust funds.
TAXES — large reductions, with the biggest dollar gains at the top
H.R. 1 permanently extended most of the 2017 tax provisions that otherwise would have expired and made numerous additional tax changes.
CBO now projects that the law will reduce federal revenues by about $4.9 trillion during 2026–2035; more than 80% of that revenue reduction stems from permanently extending most provisions of the 2017 tax law. Congressional Budget Office
CBO's distributional analysis finds that households across much of the income distribution benefit, but the effects are quite different at the top and bottom:

Income group- Average annual change in household resources
Lowest 10%–$1,214
2nd 10%–$392
Middle 10%+$797
8th 10%+$2,213
9th 10%+$3,208
Highest 10%+$13,622

The bottom losses largely reflect reductions in Medicaid, SNAP and other transfers, while tax reductions drive much of the increase in resources elsewhere in the distribution. CBO estimates that the highest-income 10% receive 63.9% of the law's net increase in household resources in its combined distributional analysis. Congressional Budget Office

FEDERAL DEFICIT & DEBT
Despite the spending reductions, CBO estimated H.R. 1 would:
Reduce direct spending: ~$1.1 trillion
Reduce federal revenue: ~$4.5 trillion
Increase primary deficits: ~$3.4 trillion over 2025–2034. Congressional Budget Office

When CBO subsequently included the additional cost of servicing the resulting federal debt, it estimated another $718 billion in debt-service costs, bringing the law's cumulative deficit effect to approximately $4.1 trillion over 2025–2034. Congressional Budget Office

Bottom line on John James's vote

Rep. John James voted for H.R. 1, which extended and expanded tax reductions, made substantial changes reducing projected federal Medicaid spending, changed SNAP and other programs, and is projected by CBO to increase federal deficits substantially. The law did not directly cut scheduled Social Security benefits, but Social Security's actuaries say its tax provisions reduce revenue to the Social Security trust funds. CBO estimates the law's Medicaid provisions will increase the uninsured population by 7.5 million in 2034. CBO's distributional analysis finds losses for the lowest-income households on average and increasingly larger dollar gains toward the top of the income distribution. Congressman John James

Primary sources: House Clerk — John James/H.R. 1 final vote · CBO — Final H.R. 1 budget estimate · CBO — Medicaid analysis · CBO — Household distribution analysis · Social Security Administration — 2026 Trustees analysis

I would appreciate AARP reporting facts and voting records, rather than deceptive rhetoric.

Thank you,

Kate Dahlstrom