Toomey must act as an impartial juror

As I’m sure Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., is well aware, the Constitution requires all senators to act as impartial jurors in a presidential impeachment trial. Nothing that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has publicly proposed about the impeachment process is remotely impartial. He has clearly indicated that his intention is to guarantee a “not guilty” verdict.

I wish to state that if Mr. Toomey votes in favor of the impeachment process as proposed — in particular forbidding the presentation of important witnesses and documents — I will consider that Mr. Toomey has violated his oath of office. WILLIAM D. GHRIST III

Highland Park

Support wealth tax

This might surprise you, but back in 1999, Donald Trump proposed the passage of a onetime “net worth tax.” His proposal would tax 14.25% of the net worth of individuals and trusts worth $10 million or more. By Mr. Trump’s estimates, the tax could have generated $5.7 trillion.

He wanted the funds to pay off the entire national debt. The remainder would then be placed into the Social Security trust fund to help keep it solvent.

This is not a proposal that conservative Republicans would ever back.

But it is an idea that I love, and so should all liberal/progressive Democrats, as well many moderates, centrists and independents. The idea is almost Robin Hood in nature: Take from the super rich and distribute it to help everyone else.

So why are Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Tom Steyer the only national Democrats who support any version of this plan?

It is the only way to pay for the new social programs that people like Alexandria OcasioCortez have proposed. It is the only way to raise enough money to help people.

Why has the wealth tax not gained greater traction among the Democratic Party? Is it because it was Mr. Trump’s idea? STEWART B. EPSTEIN

Rochester, N.Y.

The writer is a retired professor who taught at Slippery Rock University, the University of Pennsylvania and West Virginia University.

UPMC scheme?

I am writing in response to the Dec. 27 article “Appeals Court: Suit Against UPMC Can Proceed.”

These three whistleblowers — Anna Mitina and physicians J. William Bookwalter and Robert J. Sclabassi — have presented a prima facie case for a Stark Act violation. However, the question still remains: Do they have the legs to win a guilty verdict? I wouldn’t be so sure. As pointed out in the decision, once the 12 neurosurgeons in question passed their quota, they were being compensated at a bonus rate exceeding that by which Medicare reimbursed UPMC.

As a first-year law student, it’s possible to infer that UPMC structured its compensation scheme with full knowledge that it would be receiving fraudulent referrals to make up for the loss it would be incurring.

However, UPMC defends its actions by claiming that these high salaries are merely a reflection of genuine bargaining with their employees. While some might argue this doesn’t exonerate them from all suspicion, I wouldn’t be so quick to discredit their defense.

It seems equally reasonable that UPMC conducted these negotiations with the expectation that its neurosurgeons would earn far less bonus work credits than they ended up earning. This theory is plausible considering two of the neurosurgeons in question doubled their output in just a few years.

Without further proof, it is likely that the court will consider this sudden increase unforeseeable by UPMC and void of ill intent.

RONALD SESSA Oakland