Representative Dick Stevenson is a member of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives. He was elected to that office in 2001 to Represent
the 8th District. He has offices in Grove City, Butler, and Harrisburg.
It is with mixed emotions that I post this event announcement
today. The event is sponsored by the Mercer County GOP and the
details are provided below:
EVENT ANNOUNCEMENT
Meet and Greet of Republican Candidates
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Hempfield Station One
6th Avenue
Greenville, PA
7PM – 9PM
First, the event is a wonderful opportunity for the candidates
that are facing challengers in the Primary (only three weeks away)
to meet, mix, and mingle with the people of Mercer County. I am
completely supportive of that concept, and I have attended more
than my share of similar events in the past six weeks. I will
be attending this event (as I have all of the others in the area)
to document who is there and what they have to say. I do this
to provide information to the voters of the area so that they
are well informed when they go to the polls on May 18th. I also
spend the time and effort in covering these events because NO
ONE ELSE IN THE PRESS WILL. I write about all of the political
activities in the area because we need to STIMILATE INTEREST in
this election in order to generate REAL CHANGE in November.
Unfortunately, there are some that believe that this particular
Meet and Greet may be hijacked by incumbent politicians in an
effort to promote themselves (rather than the candidates that
are struggling to win their respective Primaries). The two-hour
event should be focused candidates for Governor, Lt. Governor,
and Congress (3rd and 4th Districts). IT SHOULD NOT be spent on
incumbents that have no opponents in the Primary or (in some cases)
no opponents in the General Election.
If Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, and Representative
Dick Stevenson show up with the intention of upstaging the Primary
candidates, they should be booted off the stage. (even better,
they should be booted OUT OF OFFICE, but I digress)
I urge all of you to attend the event tomorrow night in order
to educate yourself about the candidates that are competing in
the Primary. I also urge you to watch carefully at “who”
is politicking and “who” is there to simply support
the conservative candidates that are seeking a place on the ballot
in the fall.
I am committed to informing the people of Mercer County, the voters
of northwest Pennsyvania, and the taxpayers of Pennsylvania of
ALL political activities . . . good and bad. I present information
in this forum in an effort to educate and stimulate. You are free
to form your own opinion, but I think it is important that you
have access to ALL of the details.
A Side Note:
I have a funny feeling that some attempt will be made to prevent
me from attending this event. I intend on walking in and documenting
the activities just as I have done since mid-March. I “dare
them” to attempt to stop me.
Senator
Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark
Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson hide and duck from
important questions
Written by Roberta Biros
In a recent radio interview it was noted that I have a “big
thing” with transparency, and that was no exaggeration.
Those that know me also know that I am obsessed with the issue
of transparency in government and public service . . . so much
so that I am now running my second campaign on that very issue
[read HERE].
Yes, this post is long (I know that fellow blogger Fred Mullner
groaned when he saw it), but it includes details from research
that has been going on for well over a month.
Notes from the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference
Last weekend I attended the annual Pennsylvania Leadership Conference
in Harrisburg. The meeting brings together deep thinking conservatives
to discuss topics of concern. Each year there are top issues of
conversation like the budget and fiscal responsibility and there
is always a great deal of conversation about politics and upcoming
elections. This year there was one panel discussion that was worth
the entire cost of admission . . . Beyond Corruption: Transparency,
Accountability & Reform.
The panel was moderated by Chris Freind, Columnist. I scheduled
my day around this particular presentation and Mr. Freind's opening
comments did not disappoint. First, Mr. Freind referred to some
politicians as the “business as usual crowd” and he
made reference to their desire to “hide and duck”
tough and probing questions. However, I was most intrigued when
Mr. Freind referenced the recent BonusGate scandals involving
Vion (and now Orie) [read more HERE].
Mr. Freind pointed out that some political insiders have stated
that some of the investigations are “politically motivated”.
Mr. Freind stated “The question is not whether it is politically
driven . . . the question is ‘is it true’”.
The most amazing part about Mr. Friend's comment is that I spoke
the words aloud with him. These are the exact same things that
I’ve been saying for quite some time and it was refreshing
to hear a panel discussion begin on that note.
The presentation continued on for about an hour and included presentations
by Joe Sterns (Citizens Alliance of PA), Curt Schroder (State
Representative), Lyndsay O’Herrick (Citizen Activist), and
Doug Reichley (State Representative). The details and discussions
were too numerous to mention, but the entire conversation was
invigorating. I left prepared to push harder for transparency
because I knew that I was not alone in my quest.
I left with another specific quote that is worth repeating. This
one was from Lyndsay O’Herrick who stated “Corruption
is the conscious act of sustaining the status quo at the expense
of future generations.” Gosh . . . that’s all really
good stuff!
Corruption vs. Transparency in Mercer County: My Investigation
As most of you know, I’ve spent a great deal of time over
the past year and a half asking questions of our legislators.
Sometimes they answer, and sometimes they don’t. My recent
line of questioning of our state lawmakers has left my phone and
email empty, but I refuse to let this sleeping dog lie . . . it
just isn’t my style. So, allow me to explain what I’ve
been up to for the past several weeks as follows:
On Sunday, March 21, 2010, I sent an email message
to the taxpayer funded email accounts of our four state legislators
(Robbins, Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson). The email message
was titled “"harder" questions regarding the use of your
staff”. The email message was a follow up to the earlier
message regarding my concerns (and the concerns of others) regarding
inappropriate use of legislative staff and resources for campaign
activities. In the message I reiterated a number of questions
that had been published in The Herald. The questions were very
specific and I requested answers in writing by March 31st as a
matter of transparency. ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.
On Monday, April 5, 2010, I sent a letter to
the editor of The Herald regarding their lack of response. That
letter was published on April 9th.
On Tuesday, April 6, 2010, I contacted all four
legislators by fax. This time it was in response to the announced
that State Senator Jane Orie was too be indicted on misuse of
legislative staff for her sister’s campaign in 2009. As
the third ranking Republican in the State Senate (just two notches
above Senator Robbins), the news of her indictment hit unpleasantly
close to the questions that I had asked each of the legislators.
So, I asked the questions again. I stressed that the lack of transparency
regarding this issue created a perception of corruption even if
no actual corruption exists. I further noted that continued failure
to avoid these very direct and specific questions makes many of
us wonder what it is that they are trying to hide? ALL FOUR FAILED
TO RESPOND.
On Tuesday, April 13, 2010, I contacted all four
legislators again by fax. I repeated the same list of questions
and noted the following:
“The questions that I’ve posed are not
out of line. The questions raise valid concerns regarding
the way that taxpayer dollars are used by you and your staff.
As a taxpayer, I ask these questions as a matter of transparency,
and it is your duty to answer the questions as a matter of
accountability and public service. Perhaps transparency, accountability,
and public service are a forgotten duty in government, but
I feel it is my responsibility to encourage these characteristics
from each and every one of our elected officials.”
ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.
On Friday, April 16, 2010, I began calling
the offices of our legislators. First on my list was Senator
Bob Robbins. I called Senator Robbin’s office and explained
that I had sent numerous email messages and faxes to the Senator
and had received no response. I was told that I would need
to schedule an appointment with the Senator and that process
could take 2 to 3 weeks. It was explained to me that Senator
Robbins spends 3 days each and every week in Harrisburg and
he finds it difficult to find time in his schedule to meet
with constituents. I wanted to say “don’t pee
on my leg and tell me it’s raining”, but I contained
myself and asked that someone call me back to schedule an
appointment.
The next call went to the office of Representative Mark Longietti.
I explained who I was and why I was calling. After a few minutes
on hold I was transferred to Representative Longietti. Representative
Longietti stated that he was aware of my attempted communications
and that he considers me to be a “media outlet”
and he chooses not to correspond with my particular “media
outlet”. He stated that he did not wish to contribute
to my blog. I asked if my being a taxpayer provided me the
right to answers, and Representative Longietti simply repeated
his earlier statements. I thanked him for his time. All I
can say is “at least he took my call”.
The third call went to the office of Representative Michele
Brooks. I received an answering machine and left a detailed
message as instructed. I then called again about an hour and
a half later. I explained who I was and why I was calling.
I was put on hold for several minutes. When the phone was
picked up I was told that Representative Brooks was no longer
available for the day and that they would giver her my message
on Monday. Hmmmm. Interesting.
I did not bother to call Representative Dick Stevenson as
I could see that this exercise was becoming a waste of time.
As of today, April 22, 2010, ALL FOUR FAILED
TO RESPOND.
The Probing Questions?
Based on the lack of responses, you would think that the questions
that I was asking were “way outside the box”.
Well, allow me to review them with you here. They came from
a list that was presented in an AP article [read HERE].
The questions that I forwarded were regarding campaign policies
and the tracking of work by their staff; use of their legislative
staff including caucus staff, bonuses, and over-time work;
taxpayer paid mailings; and per-diems (and possible double-dipping
related to those per-diems).
The questions were not beyond the scope of what should be
open topics of conversation . . . unless there is something
to hide.
Why are you pressing this issue so hard?
It is apparent that if we leave the “hen house unguarded”,
the fox and the rooster will worry about no one but themselves.
That is the case with many of those in our current state legislature
. . . and we have four examples of that in Mercer County.
If WE the taxpayers don’t hold our elected officials
accountable, they won’t do it on their own. It is our
responsibility to “keep them honest” (which assumes
that they were honest in the first place, but I digress).
I had a discussion with a colleague over the weekend and he
pointed out how blurry the lines between legislative staff
and campaign staff have become. He noted a recent experience
where he was approached for campaign purposes by a member
of a local legislative staff. His radar went up and he noted
“how can you tell if they are on taxpayer time or free
time?”. Even if it is after hours, how do our legislators
track the time. When we are having a conversation with a legislative
employee, how do we know if WE are paying for the conversation
or not?
Allow me to explain the problem that exists with a photo.
The picture is posted in a public on-line forum at the website
of the Mercer County GOP. They display the photo proudly and
think nothing of the problems that it might illustrate. First,
here is a screen shot of the website (before the details mysteriously
disappear):
Here is a close up of the photo in question along with the published
caption.
While this photo may not mean much to anyone outside of Mercer
County, I’d like to describe why it is so disturbing.
The photo is of State Senator Bob Robbins having a conversation
with Diane Helbig. It is clear that Diane Helbig is campaigning
for Representative Michele Brooks (the blue and fluorescent
logo is hard to miss). However, for those of you that aren’t
aware of the details, Ms. Helbig is also Representative Michele
Brooks “Legislative Assistant” (I hope I got the
exact title right . . . it is usually displayed on an ID tag
that she wears at official events).
So when you look at the picture, do you wonder . . .
“Is Ms. Helbig discussing State business or campaign
business?”
“Is she campaigning or is she filling some official capacity?”
“Is she on unpaid/donated time or is she somehow being
compensated by the taxpayers (either directly or through bonuses
or extra compensation)?”
“Is Ms. Helbig doing this voluntarily or is she pressured
to do this type of work by her employer, Representative Brooks?”
My point in all of this is, why do we even need to ask the questions?
Do our legislators not have enough friends and supporters that
they must use legislative staff to fill their campaign needs?
Can our elected officials not find enough loyal volunteers that
they need to take taxpayer-paid employees to parades and fairs?
If they are so comfortable with situations like the ones pictured
above, what else do they do that might cross the line?
I don’t propose that we babysit our legislators and their
staff. Instead, I demand that they change the laws so that these
sort of questions are unnecessary. I made a proposal in a previous
post and I’d like to repeat it here . . .
The solution is simple. The staff of elected officials
should NOT be involved in partisan political activity of any
kind. PERIOD. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits federal employees
from engaging in partisan political activity. This same concept
should be implemented at every level of government. Legislative
staff (as well as County and Local) should not be permitted
to be involved in any political activity (on taxpayer time or
on their own time). For more information about his concept,
please read the on-line article titled “Politically Uncorrected
: IF MEN WERE ANGELS" which is available for on-line review
HERE.
In Closing . . .
It is obvious that our legislators don't want to have this
conversation with us (the taxpayers), but is it really their
choice?
Wednesday, April 7, 7PM was the tip off for yet another “Meet
the Candidate” night in Sharon. The meeting, which was hosted
by the Pennsylvania Patriots in Action, was a gathering of all
non-incumbent candidates that are vying for the Congressional
Seats in the 3rd and 4th Districts. The event attracted a sizeable
crowd that was a virtual “who’s who” in Mercer
County politics.
The current office holders, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and
Congressman Jason Altmire, were not present but they were still
the main topics of conversation. Interestly enough, Congresswoman
Dahlkemper was represented by a mole in the crowd . . . a member
of her staff from the Hermitage office was hiding in the hall
(and undoubtedly taking notes). The candidates each took the opportunity
to explain why they would be the best choice to replace Dahlkemper
and Altmire, and many of the more heated comments were pointed
directly toward the incumbents (no shock).
I will outline my observations from the event below. PLEASE understand
that I am trying to be as fair and unbiased as is possible, but
this is a BLOG. I will offer my own spin on the events of the
evening and I will interject my personal opinions and summaries
where I see fit. Sorry, but those are the rules.
4th Congressional District
Mary Beth Buchanan and Keith Rothfus were on hand to battle for
the Republican nomination for the 4th District against Altmire.
I’ve met both candidates once before and I enjoyed another
opportunity to hear them speak. I was pleasantly surprised, however,
that an Independent candidate, John Vinsick, also surfaced at
the event. Vinsick of Aliquippa was a highlight of the evening
as he shot from the hip and added a bit of spice to the conversation.
Mary Beth Buchanan is a strong and spirited candidate
who carries herself well in the debate style environment. She
more than held her own and didn’t back down to some obvious
shots that were sent in her direction. She focused on her platform
of limited government, pro-life, and pro-2nd Amendment. She is
extremely intelligent and very likeable. She makes me wish I was
in the 4th Congressional District. For more information about
Ms. Buchanan, you can visit her website at MaryBethBuchanan.org.
Keith Rothfus is an analytical individual with
great ideas. He is a family man with 6 children who is running
on a platform of limited government, lower taxes, repeal of ObamaCare,
and traditional family values. Mr. Rothfus offered one of my favorite
quotes for the evening when he stated that the first legislation
that he would offer would be the “Restoring Edison Light
Bulb Act”. He is a common-sense sort of guy with great ideas.
For more information about Mr. Rothfus, you can visit his website
at http://www.keithpa4.com/.
John Vinsick, the Independent candidate, was
a treasure. His campaign slogan of “the will of the people
must preside over the will of the politician” explains that
his platform is anti-politics and pro-citizen. Mr. Vinsick will
have an uphill battle in collecting the 3,731 signatures that
will be required to get his name on the ballot, but he is optimistic
about the process and he is even more optimistic about his chances
in November. While he received some negative comments from hard-core
Rs in the crowd (for threatening their Party), Mr. Vinsick hit
home with a number of key points that were met with supportive
applause. For more information about Mr. Vinsick, you can visit
his website at http://www.johnvinsickforcongress.com/.
3rd Congressional District
For the 3rd District, Republican candidates Paul Huber, Steve
Fisher, Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Martha Moore were on hand.
Mike Kelly was out of town and was not represented. The order
of the six-minute presentations was based on a draw from a hat,
and the speeches by 3rd and 4th District candidates were mixed
together. Up first for the 3rd District was Clayton Grabb.
Clayton Grabb never fails to inspire me when
he speaks. He is a conservative who is proud of his Tea Party
activities, and his presentations are always geared toward the
more "independent thinking" (that's me). He made a reference that
struck a chord with me when he explained his reason for running
as “If not me, who? If not now, when?” (NOTE: I’ll
be using that quote as my own soon). Mr. Grabb speaks from the
heart and is passionate about his country. For more information
about Mr. Grabb, you can visit his website at http://www.grabbforcongress.com/.
Ed Franz is “just Ed”. Ed has a blue-collar/guy-next-door
quality about him, and the people that support him like for exactly
that reason. His platform is based on social conservatism, fiscal
conservatism, and pro-life stands. He made a good point when he
stated “this election year it’s government versus
the taxpayers”. That simple statement summarized all of
the political dancing that is going on in a few simple words.
Mr. Franz pointed out that he feels that he is the best candidate
to beat Dahlkemper in November because of his labor ties to Erie.
For more information about Mr. Franz, you can visit his website
at http://www.edfranzforcongress.com/.
Paul Huber, a fiscal conservative, took the opportunity
to layout his plans for fiscal reform. He made the point that
“all of the (government) spending is being put on a credit
card”, and he explained his plan for freeing the taxpayers
from that problem. He stressed that he was “born and raised
on a farm and raised on values of honesty and hard work”.
His presentation was analytical, but he manages to deliver his
statistics with a personal touch that gives the distinct impression
that his concerns are heart-felt. He closed his presentation with
a statement that I liked . . . “when people find the courage,
they can change anything” (NOTE: I’ll be using that
quote as my own soon). For more information about Mr. Huber, you
can visit his website at http://www.huberforcongress.com/.
Steve Fisher makes me smile. He is the perfect
blend of intellectual, analytical, and personable. He is detail
and fact oriented, but he connects with people on a personal level
when he speaks. This is even more obvious if you get an opportunity
to talk with Steve one-on-one. Mr. Fisher opened his discussion
with an explanation of why he was running for Congress. He made
reference to a quote “if you don’t want to be a part
of the menu, you better take a seat at the table” (NOTE:
I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). He went on to
explain that his first goal in Congress would be to repeal the
Health Care Bill . . . which met with positive feedback from the
crowd. His experience in the insurance industry gives him a different
perspective on the health care situation and offers a special
value that should not be overlooked. For more information about
Mr. Fisher, you can visit his website at http://www.stevefisherforcongress.com/.
Martha Moore continues to amaze me. As a country
doctor from Stoneboro, she is not the typical candidate. She is
outmatched in many ways by her fellow Republicans on the ticket,
but she continues to show up . . . she continues to express her
patriotism . . . she continues to quote Reagan . . . and she is
beginning to gather a following. I had a great seat in the very
back of the room and I was able to gauge the reactions of the
crowd to each of the speakers. Dr. Moore got lots of nods and
“I like her” comments from many of the women in the
crowd. She began her comments with a simple quote that explained
why she was running for office. She said “three words .
. . enough is enough”. She is a concerned patriot that is
running for office in an effort to stress the issues that are
important to her. I give her credit for her courage and commitment.
For more information about Dr. Moore, you can visit her website
at http://www.moore4congress.com/.
Mike Kelly was unable to attend the event and
there was no spokesperson available to speak on his behalf. For
more information about Mr. Kelly, you can visit his website at
http://www.mikekellyforcongress.com/.
In Closing . . .
I’d like to extend thanks to the Pennsylvania Patriots in
Action for organizing the event. It was informational, but it
also gives concerned citizens the opportunity to look into the
eyes of the candidates to get a personal perspective of who they
are.
I’ve been to several events, and I suppose that might seem
unusual to some people. However, it is important to get to know
the people that may soon be representing you. I make an effort
to go to as many events by elected officials and candidates as
possible. I do so to gain an understanding of them, and I do so
in an effort to share information with those people that can’t
be there themselves. I hope that my brief summaries give you a
feel for the individuals, but I also hope that it encourages you
to take a look for yourself.
I will begin publishing event announcements (as they are given
to me) for all of the candidates listed above. If you are a candidate
(or work for a candidate) and you would like your event posted
here, email me (roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com)
with the details and I’ll do what I can.
I’ve been waiting to publish my results from the Mercer
Conservatives Index regarding the candidates from the 3rd
Congressional District. I’ve been continuing to gather information
and my final scores have been in flux. I’ve already published
my results for Congresswoman
Dahlkemper (F) as well as the four state legistlators that
represent Mercer County [Senator
Robbins (F), Representative
Brooks (B), Representative
Longietti (C), and Representative
Stevenson (D)]. It is my intention to put the finishing touches
on my summaries by the end of this coming weekend. Please be patient
and keep an eye on this site for the final publication.
For those of you that are interested in a different political
angle on the event, I suggest that you read the write up that
was published in The Herald by Matt Snyder HERE.
It was announced by WTAE Channel 4 News today that Senator Jane
Orie was arrested today on charges that she allowed state funded
staff and office resources to be used for campaign activities.
You can read the full story on the WTAE website HERE.
The charges were brought by Allegheny County District Attorney
Stephen Zappala, and some are screaming "Foul". The accusation
is that Zappala (a Democrat) is bringing the charges against the
Senator because she is a Republican. Some say, therefore, that
the charges are simply politically driven.
For goodness sake, people . . . can’t we all grow up.
The Bigger Picture
In light of the charges against Orie as well as the recent guilty
verdict against former State Representative Mike Veon, I'd like
for us all to step back and wonder if there is a bigger problem
here.
Is it possible . . . is there some remote chance . . . it there
some odd circumstance where politicians might just break the law
because they think they can get away with it?
Robbins, Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson Dodge Questions
I've been engaged in a battle with our state legislators in Mercer
County recently regarding this very issue and I’m becoming
deeply concerned. Back in March I began a letter/email writing
campaign to our state legislators (Senator Bob Robbins, Representative
Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative
Dick Stevenson). The conversation began after it was found that
a staff member of Congresswoman Dahlkemper had published a nasty
comment on my blog from a taxpayer funded computer during business
hours. Since that time I’ve been repeatedly asking our legislators
where they stand on the use of taxpayer funded staff and resources
for personal/campaign purposes. They’ve dodged my questions
repeatedly. I’ve asked the same questions in 3 or 4 different
ways, but the responses are always the same . . . silence.
You would think that ‘honest politicians’ (oxymoron
alert!) would jump at the opportunity to set the record straight
about their own personal records. Sensible people would think
that hard-working public servants would have a desire to be totally
transparent in order to prove that Veon and Orie are exceptions
to the rule, right?
Apparently those sensible thoughts are ridiculous. Instead, elected
officials are running to their caucus legal teams and finding
out exactly how deep they can hide to escape prying eyes and questions.
What is the result? Well, the general rule seems to be “if
you don’t NEED to answer questions, don’t”.
For those legislators that are lucky enough to have no political
challengers this year, they can hide in silence and hope that
the storm blows over. Unfortunately, that is currently the case
for every single state lawmaker that represents Mercer County.
Lack of Challengers Makes for Lack of Tranparency
Twenty-year incumbent Senator Bob Robbins, ten-year incumbent
Representative Dick Stevenson, and relative new-comers Representative
Michele Brooks and Representative Mark Longietti (who both began
their first terms in 2007) are all running for re-election this
year without challengers from their opposing parties. With no
pressure to answer hard questions, all four of these lawmakers
have chosen the “path of least resistance” by simply
shutting up and hiding. They are hopeful that I will eventually
disappear (i.e. become uninterested, suffer head trauma and lose
my memory, move, die, etc.), and they’d like for me to do
it quickly.
A Fine Line Between Legal and Illegal
The issue of using legislative staff members for campaign purposes
is a sensitive and tricky topic. Technically, lawmakers can use
their staff as long as those individuals do so on their own time
and voluntarily. Unfortunately, in many cases staff members were
not hired because of their amazing qualifications. Nope. In many
instances, legislative staffers were hired because they were long
time friends (or friends of friends) of the elected officials
for whom they work. For that reason lines become blurred. It becomes
difficult to draw a clean line between legislative work and campaign
work. It all gets jumbled together into a big melting pot and
it is hard to know the difference between legitimate work and
illegal campaign activity. I believe that this may be the case
with more than one of the lawmakers that represent Mercer County.
I’ve seen lots of things over the past few years. I’ve
experienced situations that were questionable and I can direct
you to photos that document equally confusing behavior. Rather
than relying on politicians to “do the right thing”,
maybe we should make the rules more straight-forward. A possible
answer is available from my Platform
for Good Government (see more about this below).
Solution: Draw a Thicker Line
The solution is simple. The staff of elected officials should
NOT be involved in partisan political activity of any kind. PERIOD.
The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits federal employees from engaging
in partisan political activity. This same concept should be implemented
at every level of government. Legislative staff (as well as County
and Local) should not be permitted to be involved in any political
activity (on taxpayer time or on their own time). For more information
about his concept, please read the on-line article titled “Politically
Uncorrected : IF MEN WERE ANGELS" which is available for on-line
review HERE.
In this example, legislation would prevent legislators from mixing
paid staff with campaign staff. HOWEVER, legislation needs to
be authored by and passed by LEGISLATORS! Sort of like the fox
watching the chicken coop, don’t you think? If legislators
aren’t honest enough to draw the lines without a law, how
could they possibly be interested in drawing a line officially
WITH legislation?
And therein lies the problem. This is the vicious circle of government.
How do we fix it? I’m glad you asked!
Platform for Good Government
Those of you that know me realize that I’m passionate about
the concept of “good government”. It is my opinion
that our county, state, and federal governments could use a good
“scrubbing behind the ears”. Government needs to be
reformed from the inside out, and it needs to begin with a changing
of the guard. “Out with the Old and In with the New”
is a perfect slogan for what needs to happen. We need to replace
dusty old politicians with fresh new public servants that (above
all else) have a desire for “good government”.
How do we find those people? There are plenty of good, honest
people out there that would qualify. Unfortunately, those people
don’t attempt to run for office because it is too darn hard.
Politics is set up in such a way as to discourage good and honest
people from getting involved, and incumbents keep it that way.
Here in Mercer County we have the “Mercer County Incumbent
Party” that controls politics. They are a team of very dedicated
Republicans and Democrats who work closely together to protect
the inner circle (and keep out any chance of “good government”
or “public servants”). The parties are not the answer.
Instead, the movement needs to be grassroots in nature. Much like
the Tea Parties are rallying concerned citizens, those same citizens
need to step up and challenge the status quo.
It isn’t easy, and I say that from experience. However,
once you realize what to expect, it becomes less threatening.
I did it once (in 2009), and I’m determined to do it again
. . . maybe sooner than later.
To set ourselves apart from “politicians”, we need
to establish our own platform that goes against the “bad
government” that we are trying to reform. For that reason
I’ve established my own Platform
for Good Government. The Platform is based on a list of specifics
that I’ve found to be very wrong with “business as
usual” in Mercer, Harrisburg, and Washington DC. It is my
wish list of problems that need to be fixed, and it will be my
main topics of conversation with elected officials and candidates
that are running for office. If elected officials or candidates
disagree with items on the platform, then they are part of the
problem (and they need to go).
I don’t suggest that my Platform
for Good Government is THE only answer. I am only suggesting
that we should all take the time to prioritize our issues of concern.
Take a few minutes to draft a platform of your own and stick by
it. Make a list of the issues that are important to you, prioritize
the list, and use the list to determine who is the most qualified
to represent you as a public servant.
Yes, I’m a blogger. Yes, I’m admittedly opinionated
when it comes to politics, political issues, and issues of good
government. I am, however, also an analyst. I enjoy parsing data,
analyzing it at a very basic level, and then making summaries
based on the results of my research. Sometimes all of these interests
overlap. The Mercer Conservatives Index is an example of that.
The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred
to as “The Index”) will use a basic grading system
to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc.
I will begin my analysis by examining legislators that represent
Mercer County in Harrisburg and in Washington DC. I will then
continue the analysis over the next 7 – 10 days as I examine
all of our incumbent lawmakers and the candidates that are challenging
them in the Primary and General Elections. This analysis will
include Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and the six candidates
that are challenging her from the Republican Party.
I’ll warn you now that you may not all agree with my grading
system. You also may not agree with my conclusions. Unfortunately,
it is MY index and it reflects my findings. If you’d care
to start your own index, I invite you to do so. This project is,
after all, an attempt to generate interest in our legislators
and in candidates running for public office. It is intended to
spark conversation and debate. It is not intended to serve as
an endorsement of any public official or candidate.
The Grading System
Each candidate (as well as the incumbents) are graded on a set
of 10-11 categories (depending on their current elected status).
For each category, the candidate will receive a score based on
the information that I’ve collected (through my personal
exchanges with each of the individuals). The score assigned will
be a number from 0 to 5 with 0 being the lowest score . . . and
5 being the highest. The scores for each candidate will be tallied
and a total score will be provided. That total score will then
be converted into a letter Grade (A, B, C, D, F) based the common
grading scale below:
Grade A = 90-100%
Grade B = 80-89%
Grade C = 70-79%
Grade D = 60-69%
Grade F = 0-59%
Analysis Categories
Below is a brief description of each category and how the score
for that category was determined.
Record
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s
proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative
standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and
their public position on specific issues. For candidates for office,
this score is based on their published stand on issues and their
professional resume.
Leadership
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others
and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score
is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and
the impressions that they left me with.
General Intellect
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform
details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level
of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.
Capability
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into
account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will
they be able to step up to the position for which they have been
or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work,
commitment, and desire.
Likeability
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression
of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that
others may view them.
Electability (applied to candidates in current
races only)
Electability is defined as the candidates ability to win the election
in November. This takes into account the individual against whom
they will be running.
Transparency and Accountability
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate
based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given
to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information
and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low
points are given to those candidates that have failed in their
ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response
to the questions that were asked.
Public Service
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability.
Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record
of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness
to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High
marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone,
email, social networking, and personal meetings.
Desire to Represent “The People” of their
District
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions
with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate
is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District.
Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the
District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?
Scrappy Factor
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates
each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes,
I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether
or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their
sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are
they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that
is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility
so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.
Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives
Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would
I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?”
My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress
me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or
gal next door”. . . not just a politician.
Who will be evaluated?
Initially, grades will be assigned for the state legislators that
represent Mercer County. Evaluations for Senator Bob Robbins,
Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti,
and Representative Dick Stevenson will be published first (and
in that order). Their evaluations will provide an example of how
my grading process works.
Next will be my evaluation of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper.
Lastly, I will provide an evaluation for each of the candidates
that are running for Congress in the 3rd District against Congresswoman
Dahlkemper. Those individuals (and the order in which I will publish
my findings) are:
Clayton Grabb
Steve Fisher
Mike Kelly
Paul Huber
Ed Franz
Dr. Martha Moore
Detailed evaluations will be published through my blog and on
my standard website for historical purposes. I will publish one
blog post for each individual to provide an equal promotional
platform for every official and candidate that is involved in
the analysis.
Below are the results for the State Legislators that represent
Mercer County. An individual article was published for each as
follows:
The
“Mercer
Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The
Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and
rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale
of fiscal conservatism and public service.
Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8th) Grade: C (Scored 32 out of 50 = 64%)
The Details of Representative
Stevenson's Grade
Record: For elected officials, this
score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected
candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely
based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific
issues.
Score for "Record": 3
Representative Dick Stevenson is pretty conservative.
He generally votes for issues of sound fiscal policy. I would
have given him a 4, but he does not stand out on my list of Fiscal
Conservative Representatives. He receives a bit of a deduction
in that area.
Leadership: Leadership is defined at
the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to
inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal
interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they
left me with. Score for Leadership: 3
Rep. Stevenson is a positive force in his community and in Harrisburg.
He is a “respectable” and “respected”
leader to some. I’ve discounted him in this category because
he has proven to be a “follower” within County politics
(like Representative Michele Brooks). Rather than taking a lead
(and stepping up to a higher office), he has taken a back seat
to louder voices.
General Intellect: Based
on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details,
General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence.
“How Smart” does the person seem.
Score for General Intellect: 5
Based on what I know from experience, what I’ve read, and
what I’ve witnessed through video and audio feeds, Representative
Stevenson is a smart guy. I have no complaints.
Capability: Capability differs from
General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of
the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up
to the position for which they have been or will be elected using
a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?
Score for Capability: 5 Representative Stevenson has proved that he is a capable
Representative
Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression
of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that
others may view them.
Score for Likeability: 4
Dick is a nice guy. He is not overwhelmingly friendly, which explains
my discount of one point. He is, however, friendly whenever you
meet him. Everyone that I talk to agrees.
Transparency and Accountability: This is an important category for
me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them
thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have
been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing
to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to
those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate
and provide specific answers in response to the questions that
were asked.
Score for Transparency and Accountability: 0 Representative Stevenson does not answer questions. Instead
he claims that all questions are “political”. His
refusal to answer gives him a score of 0.
Public Service: Public Service is somewhat
tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically
rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests.
It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the
extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given
for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking,
and personal meetings.
Score for Public Service: 2 Representative Stevenson’s low score is based on
his unwillingness to respond to constituent inquires. I’ve
provided him with 2 points, however, as it seems that he address
issues directly to people other than myself. He makes himself
accessible at public gatherings (even if very briefly). He deserves
higher than a zero, but not much higher.
Desire to Represent “The People” of his District: This is a very important element
of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and
their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern
for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically
focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at
a broader base of constituents?
Score for Desire to Represent: 5
I get the impression that Dick works hard for the people of his
District. Of ALL of the Districts, I’m probably the most
disconnected from the 8th, so I’m not a particularly good
judge. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
Scrappy Factor: I made this one up. Scrappy is hard
to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness”
(yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether
or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their
sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are
they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that
is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility
so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.
Score for Scrappy Factor: 0
Dick Stevenson isn’t “Scrappy”. I think he does
what he needs to do to get his job done, but I don’t see
him as “going the extra mile”.
Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test: During the 2008 General
Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This
score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to
sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?”
My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress
me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or
gal next door”. . . not just a politician.
Score for the Litmus Test: 5 Dick is a good guy, and I’d have coffee with him
any time.
In Closing . . .
For a conservative legislator, Rep. Dick Stevenson falls short
in my unscientific analysis due to his history of hiding from
questions . . . ducking queries . . . and ignoring communications.
By refusing to communicate, he demonstrates a complete lack of
transparency and accountability and he ignores his responsibilities
as a public servant.
I'll start PART TWO of this story in the same way that I started
PART ONE . . .
Politics are funny. Wait. STRIKE THAT. Let me start again.
Politicians are funny.
The Basis of The Story
The original "story" is related to an opinion
post that I published on March 1. The opinion snowballed into
a bigger issue when a congressional employee submitted a nasty
comment to my post. I contacted Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
regarding her thoughts on the problem that occurred, and I contacted
state legislators to get their opinions on the same issue.
In PART
ONE of this two part story, I outlined the responses from
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and her opponents on the Republican
ticket in the Congressional race in the 3rd District. In this
Part Two of two parts, I'd like to review the State angle on this
issue.
In the case of the State Legislators that represent Mercer County,
I realized that this particular “political hot potato”
was a bit too hot for any of them to touch. For that reason, I
decided to reframe my specific questions to them in an effort
to find their individual legislative opinions regarding a more
general topic. To that end, I sent them a follow up email stating
the following:
As I am sure you are aware, the Pennsylvania Attorney General,
Tom Corbett, is currently involved in a public corruption
investigation. The charges that have been brought against
members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly are very serious
and specific. While the problem that was outlined in my correspondence
(regarding Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s staff) does not
rise to that level, the basic questions that I ask are important
in understanding your perception of “good government”
as an elected official representing Mercer County. As a matter
of discussion, I’d like to take a direct quote from
the Pennsylvania State Grand Jury presentment (which can be
downloaded HERE):
"Numerous past and present members of Representative DeWeese's
legislative staff from his district offices testified before
the Grand Jury. These staffers described the type of work
that should be performed by legislative district office employees.
This
legitimate work was primarily in the field of constituent
services. The district office employees would assist people
with forms, issues and concerns arising out of constituent
interactions with state agencies.
Staff members would also assist constituents with questons
about state employment. Additionally, staffers discussed and
noted the concerns of constituents about legislation and legislative
concerns. These would be forwarded to Harrisburg staff for
any required attention and response. All of the district office
staffers who testified before the Grand Jury stated that they
knew the difference between legitimate legislative work and
improper campaign work. They all stated that their work was
never limited to the aforementioned appropriate legislative
work.
Representative DeWeese's legislative staff and campaign staff
were virtually one in the same. Michael Manzo detailed for
the grand jury how DeWeese had no campaign apparatus beyond
his legislative staff. Practically every aspect of his campaign,
whether fundraising, mailers, advertisements, signs, or door
to door canvassing, was performed by legislative employees.
The core group in this effort was the staffers in DeWeese's
district offices. "
In the statement above, the types of “legitimate”
work that should be handled by staffers is clear. Based on
those statements, please answer the following additional
questions regarding the incident of March 2nd that was outlined
in my original
email message:
Do you believe that the “comment” that
was posted to a public forum by a federal employee falls under
the category of “legitimate work”?
Do you believe that there is room for any “grey area”
when determining “legitimate work” of government
employees?
Additionally, please respond to the following questions regarding
the general concept of staffers mixing legitimate work and
campaign work:
Should paid staff members be involved in campaigning
at all (even on their personal time)?
In an effort to avoid the perception of impropriety, would
you support legislation that would draw a firm line between
legislative staff and campaign staff?
I emailed these follow-up statements and questions to Mercer County’s
legislators on Tuesday, March 16. Below are the responses that
I received (and those that I did not).
Representative Mark Longietti
I've never been disappointed by Mark Longietti’s level of
energy or commitment to his constituents. He always responds to
my queries . . . even if to say “I don’t want to respond
to your query”. In this case, Representative Longietti called
me from his personal (and privately funded) cell phone . . . a
point that he stressed. First, he wanted to make it clear that
I should not “assume any response based on his non-response
to my query”. Rep Longietti then went on to explain that
it is “hard to define what is political and what is not”,
and in this particular instance it is his feeling that “this
is part of a political discourse” and that in exercising
his “best judgment” he chooses to “not use legislative
resources to respond” to my query. He asked that I “respect
his judgment in this matter”.
I explained that because he is an elected official in my district,
I felt it his responsibility to respond to issues of legislative
opinion. Specifically regarding the last questions posed, I asked
his “legislative opinion” (not “political”
opinion) regarding these specific questions. He refused to respond.
Rep. Longietti and I have had discussions regarding this matter
in the past, and we argue the details each time. It is always
an intelligent and heated debate. I asked Representative Longietti
that since ANYTHING can fall under the category of “political”,
did he feel that using the label of “political” as
a guise to hide behind was unfair to his constituents. Again,
he refused to answer and asked that I simply respect his right
to not respond.
Once again, I respect Representative Longietti for getting back
to me quickly and respectfully. I do not, however, support hiding
behind words. He says potato and I say potahto . . . he says the
question is "political" and I say a question is "policy". We will
always disagree on this issue. He clearly senses the “hot
potato”, and he reacted by backing into CYA mode. Unfortunately,
that is just what politicians do. Representative Longietti is
very much a “politician” . . . and a very good one
at that. He is, however, also a pretty good guy. I’ll give
him a pass on this one. He always has a right to refuse to answer
a question, but I will continue to reserve the right to argue
with him about it.
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Michele Brooks is a hard-working public servant
that burns the candle at both ends without complaint. The people
of Mercer County can count on Ms. Brooks to respond to their inquiries
. . . even if they do not reside in the 17th District (I am proof
of that). Representative Brooks contacted me by phone (also using
her personal cell). Like Representative Longietti, she made it
very clear that she would not comment on the issues specifically
related to Congresswoman Dahlkemper. Aware of the hot potato aspect,
she felt it was “inappropriate to comment”.
When I specifically asked about Ms. Brooks legislative opinion
regarding “legitimate work” and possible legislative
reform in that arena, Representative Brooks provided a brief explanation.
She stated that she has “supported reform legislation”
in all areas. She explained that while many of the problems that
are currently under investigation by the Attorney General took
place before she was elected in 2006, many changes have already
occurred to prevent potential problems in the future. While she
made it clear that things are much better than they were, she
also stressed that she would support further reforms in that area
if they were to be presented. Representative Brooks has proven
her stand as a "dedicated reformer" by her actions in Harrisburg
over the past three years (which is why she is one of only ten
members of our "PAGovWatch
Honor Roll").
Regarding the rules that are already in place regarding legislative
staff, Representative Brooks made a general statement that the
members of her staff adhere to all rules regarding their positions.
I respect Representative Brooks for always responding to my questions
and concerns. While she passed on the “hot potato”
question related to Congresswoman Dahlkemper, she still showed
“testicular fortitude” when responding to issues of
legislative reform and good government (two areas in which Representative
Brooks is both familiar and particularly active). Of the four
state legislators that represent Mercer County, I find it funny
that the ONLY woman in the pack is also the ONLY one in the whole
lot of them with any “testicular fortitude”. The irony
makes me giggle.
Representative Dick Stevenson
and Senator Bob Robbins
As two of the original writers of the CYA code, Representative
Stevenson and Senator Robbins did what they always do. They ignored
my inquiry. In their case, it had nothing to do with a “hot
potato”. For them it was easier than that. For Rep. Stevenson
and Sen. Robbins it is simply a matter of ignoring their constituents
consistently at every turn. Explain to me again why no one runs
against these two? Neither one has any sort of “fortitude”
. . . testicular, intestinal, or otherwise.
In Closing . . .
My experiences of the past few years have proven to me that I
am not alone in my opinion of "what makes for a good public servant".
There was a great letter to the editor in The
Herald on Friday, March 20. In it a reference was made to
our "so-called representatives". The individual wrote:
"We believe they are called public servants. We think
each one should look up
the definition of a servant."
I've talked about the issue at great length with MANY MANY people
in Mercer County, and my findings are always the same. As taxpayer
. . . voters . . . concerned citizens, we all long for elected
representatives with GUTS. I've used the terms "intestinal fortitude"
and "testicular fortitude" interchangeably to represent this illusive
characteristic. Is it so much to ask a person in office (or running
for office) to stand for SOMETHING? Is it so ridiculous to think
that people who are holding or seeking office should be required
to clearly state an opinion when asked?
Trying to get a straight answer out of some of these people is
like "pushing a rope". Should it really be that hard? Have the
concepts of public service, transparency, and accountability been
replaced with the "CYA Code" and "the game of political hot potato"?
Sometimes I wonder, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that
I am not alone in my concerns.
To that, I offer you (again) the following STATISTICS
FOR REFERENCE:
The following is a quote from my article titled 2010
Petitions are IN: A Political Summary (published on 3/10/2010).
It makes reference to the legislative offices that are open for
election this year.
Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates
can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties
need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time,
interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures
in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated
by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an
elected candidate at the last election within the district”.
Those numbers are computed below:
To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party candidates
must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).
To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party
candidates must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941
x .02).
To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party
candidates must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389
x .02).
To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party
candidates must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844
x .02).
Summary Thoughts:
All you need is 826 signatures by August to run against Senator
Bob Robbins? That would actually be pretty easy for anyone that's
done that sort of thing before . Do you know anyone that fits
the description?
They would, of course, need to be registered as "non-affiliated"
or as a member of a third-party. Do you know anyone that fits
the description?
They would also need to be dedicated to the concepts of good government
and government reform . . . not to mention the fact that they
would need to have a tireless desire to hold our elected officials
accountable for their actions. Do you know anyone that fits the
description?
I contact our legislators regularly as I feel that it is the responsibility
of "we the people" to hold our elected officials to the highest
standard. Last week I sent the above list of questions regarding
"legitimate legislative use" to the legislators representing Mercer
County. Although I received some responses (2 out of 4 responded),
my questions were not well received by any of those elected officials.
I am not the only one in the State of Pennsylvania (or Mercer
County) that is concerned about the inappropriate use of legislative
staff. There was an interesting AP article (that was also published
in The Herald on 3/21) which proves that. The article (read the
full text HERE)
provides a list of questions that we should ALL be asking of EVERY
LEGISLATOR in Pennsylvania. I've sent the list of questions to
those legislators representing Mercer County, and I will publish
their responses if they decide to submit them.
Tuesday, March 9th was the last day to file nomination petitions
in Pennsylvania. Individuals wishing to run as a major party candidate
needed to gather a pre-determined number of signatures in order
for their names to appear on the Primary Ballot in May for their
respective parties. There are several state-wide and regional races
of note, and the candidates in those races are numerous. All of
the petitions that were filed are listed HERE
for your review.
U.S. Senator
In the race for US Senator, three Democrats will fight for Arlen
Specter’s seat.
SPECTER, ARLEN
SESTAK, JOE
VODVARKA, JOSEPH
In the Republican race for US Senator, two Republicans will battle
it out for the opportunity to take Arlen Specter’s seat.
TOOMEY, PAT
LUKSIK, PEG
Details:
The candidates in the race for US Senator were required to gather
2000 signatures on their petitions, and they needed to submit a
$200.00 filing fee for the privilege of running for office.
My Comments:
We are all looking forward to seeing Arlen Specter lose. At this
point it is a matter of whether he loses in the Primary or in the
General Election. I wish I had a preference, but I do not. Anytime
will be a good time to see Arlen Specter retire.
Pennsylvania Governor
In the race for Governor, four Democrats are taking on the challenge
to fill Ed Rendell’s very capable shoes (that was a joke,
of course).
WAGNER, JACK
ONORATO, DAN
HOEFFEL, JOSEPH
WILLIAMS, ANTHONY HARDY
On the Republican side, there are two options for the Republican
Gubernatorial candidate.
CORBETT, TOM
ROHRER, SAMUEL
Details:
The candidates that wished to run for the office of Governor of
Pennsylvania were required to gather 2000 signatures and pay a $200.00
filing fee. The 2000 signatures needed to include at least 100 signatures
from each of at least 10 counties.
My Comments:
I have favorites from both the Republican and Democrat tickets in
this race. For the Democrats, I have a special respect and admiration
for Jack Wagner. I like Jack and I feel that he would make a fine
Governor. In the Republican column, I am a fan of Sam Rohrer. In
2009, I published my own “Directory
of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was
based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally
conservative events. Representative Rohrer faired very well in my
unscientific poll, and, therefore, tops my list of preferred candidates.
Representative in Congress,
3rd District
To focus more closely on the Northwest Region of Pennsylvania, I’d
like to discuss the race for Representative in Congress in the 3rd
District.
On the Democrat ticket, current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
has an opponent.
DAHLKEMPER, KATHY
MARIN, MEL
On the Republican ticket, six candidates have stepped up to send
Mrs. Dahlkemper back home to Erie.
FRANZ, ED
KELLY, MIKE
HUBER, PAUL
GRABB, CLAYTON
FISHER, STEVEN
MOORE, MARTHA
Details:
Candidates running for the much coveted position of Representative
in Congress needed to collect 1000 signatures and pay a $150.00
filing fee.
My Comments:
First, I’m very excited to see that Mrs. Dahlkemper has a
Democrat opponent. I wish Mel Marin the best of luck.
The field of six Republicans is interesting. I’m impressed
by two of the Republican candidates. Steven Fisher seems very intelligent
and hard-working. I had a brief email conversation with him last
week regarding the recent problems within Mrs. Dahlkemper’s
office (read the full story HERE,
and I will publish details regarding Mr. Fisher’s comments
within the next week). Mr. Fisher was quick to personally respond
to my query, and I respect that in any one that is seeking a position
in public service. I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting with
candidate Ed Franz. Mr. Franz was kind enough to devote time to
a personal discussion with me at a meet and greet earlier this week.
Mr. Franz is also a hard worker, and he seems to have the best interests
of the people of the 3rd District in the correct perspective. Candidates
Kelly, Huber, Grabb, and Moore have not responded to my personal
queries. I, therefore, cannot offer a positive testimonial regarding
their ability to serve the people of my congressional district.
2010 Election in Mercer
County decided by Petitions
As a resident and concerned citizen of Mercer County, I always attempt
to focus on the races that directly impact our local area. Unfortunately,
it appears that ALL of the races for Senator and Representatives
in the General Assembly have already been determined.
Senator in the General Assembly, 50th
Incumbent Senator Bob Robbins (R) was simply required to receive
500 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee is re-election.
At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer
County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based
on 500 signatures and $100).
Representative in the General Assembly, 7th
Incumbent Representative Mark Longietti (D) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
Representative in the General Assembly, 8th
Incumbent Representative Dick Stevenson (R) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
Are you seeing the trend here? Well, it wouldn’t be complete
unless . . . yes . . .
Representative in the General Assembly, 17th
Incumbent Representative Michele Brooks (R) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
But does it stop there? Oh Gosh NO.
Member of the Democrat State Committee (43rd)
Mark Longietti (State Rep.) and Liz Fair (Mercer County Prothonotary)
will again both run against no other candidates for the two seats.
100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the two of them
to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent
Party wins this election by a landslide.
Member of the Republican State Committee (43rd)
Cindy Robbins (wife of State Senator, and chairwoman of the Mercer
County Incumbent Party), Walter Richardson (husband of Mercer County
Treasurer, and husband of the co-chairwoman of the Mercer County
Incumbent Party), and Scott Boyd (newcomer and Tea Party organizer)
will all run together with no other challengers for the three seats.
100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the three of them
to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent
Party wins two seats and will do everything that they can to discourage
all activity by Scott Boyd.
My Comments:
Once again, no one in Mercer County (with the exception of Scott
Boyd) wants to step up to challenge the Mercer County Incumbent
Party. Democrats are watching the backs of Republicans, and Republicans
are watching the backs of Democrats. In the end, the incumbents
run unopposed and everything remains business as usual in Mercer
County.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is NOT TOO LATE
to challenge the incumbents. If you have the nerve, it is possible
to run against Senator Bob Robbins and Representatives Stevenson,
Longietti, and Brooks. “How?”, you ask.
Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates
can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties
need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time,
interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures
in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated
by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an
elected candidate at the last election within the district”.
Those numbers are computed below:
To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party
candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).
To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates
must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).
To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates
must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).
To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates
must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).
Races of Note from a
Conservative Perspective
As I referenced earlier in this article, in 2009 I published my
own “Directory
of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was
based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally
conservative events. The full list can be viewed HERE.
I decided to take a look at the list to see how our conservative
legislators are doing in their respective races this year. Of
the legislators that are on the list, the following are considered
the MOST FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE by my rankings. I’ve also
noted the status of their political races this year:
Bradley Roae (6th) – running unopposed
in November
Daryl Metcalfe (12th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November, but Rep. Metcalfe is also running for the
office of Lt. Governor
Michele Brooks (17th)* -- running unopposed in
November
Mike Turzai (28th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent
in November.
Thomas Creighton (37th)* -- will have a Republican
opponent in the Primary.
Scott Hutchinson (64th)* -- running unopposed
in November
Kathy Rapp (65th)* -- running unopposed in November
Jerry Stern (80th)* -- running unopposed in November
Rob Kauffman (89th) – running unopposed
in November
Todd Rock (90th) ) – running unopposed
in November
Dan Moul (91st)* )* -- will have a Democrat opponent
in November.
Stanley Saylor (94th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Rosemarie Swanger (102nd) -- will have a Republican
opponent in the Primary.
Karen Boback (117th) -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Samuel Rohrer (128th) – running for the
office of Governor of Pennsylvania.
Jim Cox (129th) – running unopposed in
November
Paul Clymer (145th) -- will have a Democrat opponent
in November.
Bob Mensch (147th) – running for the office
of State Senator.
Curt Schroder (155th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
* - an asterisk designates that the individual received my highest
rating for fiscal conservative legislators in 2009.
In Closing
So, there you have it . . . a summary of the interesting races
in 2010 as of today, Wednesday, March 10, 2010. As we all know,
however, the dynamics of these races could change on a dime in
the coming days, weeks, and months.
I’ve always made it clear that I support fiscally conservative
candidates. The list above is a summary of “who needs your
help” this year. I intend on offering my assistance to any
fiscally conservative candidate that is willing to accept my help
(regardless of the location of their voting district).
I’ve also made my thoughts regarding the importance of running
for public office very clear. Competition and opposition during
an election is healthy. It draws attention to the importance of
elected office, and it forces our elected officials to defend
their territory. I give credit to all of the candidates that have
taken the step to run in 2010, and I encourage concerned citizens
to get involved in the process. If ANYONE in Mercer County is
interested in running as a third party candidate for any of the
legislative positions outlined above, feel free to contact me
at roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com.
I am willing to offer assistance, guidance, and support in your
endeavor.
The Mercer County Conservatives website was modified slightly last year.
The changes were made for two reasons. The first reason is that I was
devoting my energy toward my political campaign and removed portions
of the site that required time-consuming maintenance. Second, I modified
the site in an effort to diffuse some of the rhetoric that was surfacing
from both sides of the aisle in local politics. Many articles were temporarily
suspended from public viewing, and the “comment” feature
was turned off to prevent ugly arguments. My political campaign last
year triggered lots of emotions from Republicans and Democrats alike,
and I couldn’t keep up with the constant arguing between politicians
while also managing my own campaign for public office. I toned things
down a bit in an effort to get through the campaign with my sanity intact.
Now that the campaign is squarely behind me, I’ve taken a look
at Mercer County Conservatives and have decided to once again let out
all of the stops. The changes are numerous, but here is a brief overview:
Our standard website at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/
has been re-initialized and re-tooled. The purpose of the site is to
provide some structure to our blog and to make our content available
to people and search engines in a simple HTML format. You can continue
to access our blog through the mercerconservatives.blogspot.com
address, but as an alternative you can access the blog through our
standard web page at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/.
It is an easier address to remember and it serves as a jump off point
for our many activities.
Site Update #1: Most Popular Topics
The MercerConservatives.com site now offers an exciting summary area
which provides easy access to our most popular topics. According to
our web statistics, we receive the most traffic from individuals searching
on the following topics through the standard search engines (Google,
Yahoo, other). I’ve provided a brief opinion of why each topic
is of interest.
The single most popular search query that points people to our many
websites is the name of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. The Congresswoman’s
personality creates quite a bit of curiosity amongst the electorate.
While on the exterior Mrs. Dahlkemper carries herself in a distinguished
manner, when you get an opportunity to talk to her she comes off more
like a wet blanket than a U.S. Congressperson.
Congresswoman Dahlkemper is an anomaly to the educated politico. She
is neither Republican nor Democrat. She is neither conservative nor
liberal. She is neither “Blue Dog” nor Progressive. She
attempts to be all things to all people, and yet manages to stand for
nothing (I will expand upon this topic with a full blog post later this
week). People are intrigued by her in much the same way that we ponder
the age old question of “why do tornados always manage to find
a trailer park to destroy”. Those in “the know” wonder
about Mrs. Dahlkemper and they seek information in one of the few places
that it is available . . . the internet. The internet is still one of
the few places where freedom of speech is exercised on a daily basis.
It is no wonder that she is our #1 topic of interest (nationwide, statewide,
and countywide).
People seek information regarding State Representative Michele Brooks
from our site for numerous reasons. On the state-wide front, there are
fiscal conservatives that watch the activities of Ms. Brooks and others
in hopes of someday turning around the budgetary problems of the Commonwealth.
Ms. Brooks has become an important member of a fiscal conservative movement
in Harrisburg that is watched closely by many groups that support good
government. Rep. Brooks also draws web traffic from her numerous enemies
on the left who are just waiting for her to trip and fall in the public
arena.
Running unopposed this year, Rep. Brooks finds herself in the cat-bird
seat (a comfortable position that is also shared by Reps. Stevenson
and Longietti and Senator Robbins). Unfortunately for her, the uncontrollable
tendency to put friends, supporters, and concerned citizens on the backburner
until she decides that needs them again may be a mistake in the long
run. The “incumbent attitude” may eventually leave some
former supporters with a sense that she is no different than the rest.
For now, however, Rep. Brooks is at the top of her game, and she gets
the web traffic that proves it.
I’m quite sure that the reason people come to our site in search
of information regarding “our fine Senator” is that we are
the only place on the internet that validates that “Coconut Bob”
is, in fact, still alive and kicking. His inability to understand technology
leaves his web presence well below zero. He rarely if ever publishes
information about his accomplishments on the web. It may be because
he doesn’t think it is important . . . or it is probably because
he has no accomplishments to publicize. Yes, he still holds office,
but only because he has made the position look so uninteresting that
no one else wants it. State Senator "Coconut Bob" Robbins holds spot
#3 in our most popular blog topics.
In the top of the pack of search queries, we find "Roberta Biros". Yep,
that’s me.
While I’m currently nothing more than a concerned citizen, I draw
attention from all corners of the state and county. While it is not
unusual to receive daily visits to our sites from Mercer Countians looking
for information about me and my very public opinions, I find it amazing
when folks from Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh are typing
my name into Google to learn more about me and my blog topics. Perhaps
I should consider more activities statewide in the future?
These two topics rate almost equal in web search queries. Searches regarding
Commissioners John Lechner, Ken Ammann, and Brian Beader (a.k.a. Moe,
Larry, and Curly) are frequent throughout Mercer County. It is no doubt
that the reason for the frequent searches is the disgust and dissatisfaction
that many Mercer Countians have with our three stooges. The common link
to Farm Subsidies is interesting as this issue of corruption is only
tied to one of our fine Commissioners (Mr. Ammann), but many people
in Mercer County and across the state link the two topics together.
I find that very interesting.
Rounding out the bottom of our most popular web queries are Representative
Longietti and Representative Dick Stevenson. These two legislators receive
an almost equal number of queries on a monthly basis. Both legislators
fail to stand out in any positive way. They generally follow partisan
straight-party politics, and they leave many political enthusiasts in
the state looking for more substance. Unfortunately, it is an impossible
task as these legislators are an unexciting as watching paint dry. Web
visitors may be looking for more, but I simply don’t have anything
to offer as both are simply politicians whose main concern is their
own political well-being.
Site Update #2: Comments are Back ON
MercerConservatives.com
has always been about sharing ideas and talking about current issues.
The center of the conversation was our blog “comment” feature.
Last year (during my campaign) I suspended “comments” as
I simply didn’t have the time to moderate or respond to the many
conversations that were going on. Now that we are back on track, I’ve
re-initialized comments on the site so that we can get back to discussing
the business of Mercer County politics. In making the change, I’ve
also made available all of our past on-line conversations regarding
farm subsidies, past County corruption and scandals, and examples of
poor character in local politics. All of that information is back on-line
and available for your review. Enjoy!
Site Update #3: The Gloves are Off
As a last update to MercerConservatives.com,
I’ve given up on all attempts to “fit in” politically.
I will no longer try to fit my square peg into any round holes that
have been created in Mercer County. Instead, I will open up the flood
gates and talk about EVERY ISSUE without any need to hold back or stifle
my more controversial opinions. Everyone is an open target, and I will
direct my comments (both good and bad) equally in all directions.
So there you have it. Our goals of providing the Mercer County electorate
with information about good government, fiscal responsibility, and worthy
public servants are back on track and ready to roll. Our comments and
commentary will be unfiltered . . . non-partisan . . . and honest. We
will share our opinions and we invite you to join in the conversation.
Welcome to the official unveiling of Mercer County Conservatives
2.0!
State
Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti respond to query .
. . Senator Robbins and Representative Stevenson do not
Written by Roberta Biros
You all know how much I enjoy musical references, and today I’d
like to refer to a great classic by one of my favorite artists . . .
Meatloaf. Today’s musical reference is “Two Out of Three
Ain’t Bad”. In our case, I have to modify the reference
to be “Two Out of Four Ain’t Bad”.
What on earth am I referring to?
In general, the issue is COLAs . . . cost of living adjustments. Our
state legislators typically receive an automatic cost of living adjustment
on December 1st of each year . . . a gift provided by Act 51 legislation
which went into effect in 1995. In December of 2008, the annual COLA
was a 2.8% increase in the salaries of legislators, judges, and the
Governor. Many of you may recall that last year the issue of pay raises
was front page news. At that time, our legislators were quick to talk
to local papers in an effort to get some free press, but only SOME of
those same legislators were open to discussing the issue with Mercer
County’s own political blogger (that’s me). In December
of 2008, the legislators representing Mercer County all pledged to ‘give
back’ their pay raises. I applauded them all for it. [you can
read all of my posts about COLAs HERE]
In mid-November of 2009, it looked as though there would be another
automatic pay raise on December 1st. I published a blog about the issue
on December 1st and I contacted the legislators representing Mercer
County about the issue [read the post HERE].
I was contacted by Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th) that morning.
Rep. Longietti explained that the official word from Harrisburg was
that there would be NO raise for legislators in 2009-2010. One question
still remained, however . . . what did our legislators intend on doing
with the 2.8% increase from last year?
Well it has been a month since I sent my original query to Senator Bob
Robbins (R-50), Representative Michele Brooks (R-17), Representative
Mark Longietti (D-7), and Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8). This
year (just like last) I only received responses from SOME of the legislators
that represent Mercer County. This year, only half of our legislators
were interested in discussing the issue regarding their annual raise
with an interested constituent. I suppose you could say that “two
out of four ain’t bad”.
I’m a bit confused, though. With people clamoring for a constitutional
convention in Pennsylvania in an effort to cut back our state legislature
(read HERE
and HERE
and HERE
and HERE)
and voters (and ‘Tea Baggers’) seemingly annoyed with lazy
incumbents and ‘business as usual’ in Harrisburg, you’d
think that our legislators would be interested in staying in touch with
interested voters. It appears, however, that if they aren’t getting
press in a prestigious newspaper like The Herald (yes, that was tongue
in cheek), then they simply aren’t interested in sharing their
thoughts.
Let’s talk about the responses . . . or lack thereof.
WHO RESPONDED? (and how quickly):
Representative Mark Longietti (responded in 15 minutes)
I sent email messages to Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele
Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson.
Within 15 minutes of sending my original email message, I received a
phone call from Representative Mark Longietti. He was in his car on
his way to Harrisburg and he decided to devote part of his drive time
to a conversation with me regarding COLAs.
Representative Longietti explained first that there would be no COLA
in 2009-2010, but he also explained that the 2008-2009 COLA that was
received last year will still be included in his check in 2009-2010.
Last year (when asked the same question), Representative Longietti explained
that he would be donating the amount of his raise to a local charity.
This year, Representative Longietti still intends on donating the amount
of the 2008-2009 raise to a charity. This year his specific charity
is again his local church where he has made a donation (with a specific
earmark for the use of funds).
Representative Longietti and I also discussed the process of receiving
automatic cost of living adjustments. Representative Longietti and I
had a similar discussion last year at this time, and we both realize
that we are on opposite ends of the issue as far as our personal opinions.
Representative Longietti feels that a COLA is an earned increase and
is well deserved. He feels that a cost of living increase simply makes
him “whole” as it raises his pay automatically each year
to adjust with the increases in the cost of living. Unfortunately, having
worked in the private sector for my entire adult life, I don’t
agree with the concept. I’ve worked for many different companies
during many very difficult times in our economy, and there were quite
a few years where I received no such raise regardless of the increase
in the cost of living. Raises were based on performance (primarily),
and the company’s ability to provide a raise (as a secondary consideration).
I, therefore, don’t agree with anything that is assigned “automatically”.
Representative Longietti and I have long agreed to disagree on this
particular issue, but the conversation was interesting and entertaining.
I thanked him for his time and I thanked him for taking the time to
call me amidst his busy schedule.
Representative Michele Brooks (responded in one day)
On December 2nd (one day after receiving my email message), I received
an email response from Representative Michele Brooks. She stated that
she would be giving me a call to discuss the matter of COLAs personally
as soon as time permitted. During our phone conversation, Representative
Brooks pointed out that in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 she returned
her COLA to the State Treasury as a direct one-time payment. Although
she will not be receiving a raise in 2009-2010, she still intends on
‘giving back’ her raise from 2008-2009. This year, however,
she intends on donating the raise to a local charity. Rather than handing
the money back to the State Treasury (like last year), Representative
Brooks would like to see “100% of the funds make a difference
in the local community”. Although she did not name the charity
specifically (and I didn't ask), Representative Brooks was pleased that
raise could help a local group directly.
THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVES MARK
LONGIETTI AND MICHELE BROOKS
First, a much deserved APPLAUSE! My opinion on COLA give backs is the
same as it was 12 months ago. I don’t care how the money is returned,
but giving the money back to ‘the people’ is the most important
issue and it should be applauded because it is COMPLETELY voluntary
on the part of our legislators. In my opinion, both Representatives
Longietti and Brooks EARNED their raises (unlike some of our State Legislators
. . . or the Governor). It is their money and they can do with it what
they wish. The fact that they are willing to give those raises back
to people and organizations in Mercer County that NEED the help is honorable.
I would also like to thank Representatives Longietti and Brooks for
responding to my inquiry . . . and VERY quickly I might add. It is refreshing
to see that there are legislators representing Mercer County that try
to make a difference (even when it isn’t front page news). While
“Mercer Conservatives” may be seen as the “opinions
of one blogger” in the eyes of some, this blog is representative
of the voices of many conservatives and independents who support good
government, transparency, and refreshing reform in Harrisburg and Mercer
County. I am always willing to share "good news about good government"
with my friends throughout Mercer County and across Pennsylvania.
WHO RESPONDED . . . BUT DIDN’T
RESPOND?
Representative Dick Stevenson
Last year, Representative Stevenson explained to the local press that
he would be returning his raise to the Pennsylvania Treasury. What happened
this year?
Two days after receiving my email message, Representative Dick Stevenson
sent me a response to my original email query. His email message read
as follows:
Ms. Biros:
As I indicated previously, and as I have confirmed with our caucus
ethics counsel after he reviewed your message, I am prohibited from
responding to political emails from this taxpayer funded email account.
If your would like to discuss these or any other issues, my home phone
number is 724-XXX-XXXX.
Why are we suddenly so formal? Representatives Longietti and Brooks
(a.k.a. Mark and Michele) simply call me "Roberta", and that is generally
my preference. "Ms. Biros" is my mother-in-laws name, and it is so
'old fashioned'. It seems perfectly used, however, if you intended
to set the tone for me to be scolded.
As many of you already know, Representative Stevenson has a history
of sending these types of messages. Last year he sent a similar message
by snail mail on his House of Representatives letterhead [READ THE
FULL STORY HERE],
and the comments received statewide criticisms. Just like last time,
I was annoyed with the response. I sent an email message back to Representative
Stevenson as follows:
First, all of the questions that I posed to you are regarding
policies and legislative issues. The questions are specifically related
to your record, your plans for representing Mercer County, and your
legislative activities. If every email that is sent to you regarding
policies and legislative issues is considered to be “political”;
and you are, therefore, prohibited from responding, then what exactly
is the purpose of your “taxpayer funded email account”?
Secondly, I provided sufficient contact information that you could
have responded to my query in any other form other than email if you
were interested. I invited you to respond to my message by email,
phone, mail, or personal visit. Instead, you took the time ONLY to
tell me that you can’t answer my question unless I call you.
While you could technically say that Representative Stevenson responded
to my email message, I would clearly disagree. His only purpose of
writing was to tell me to “go away and don’t come back”.
He never responded to my questions regarding COLAs . . . he just said
“I won’t talk to you”. I, therefore, classify Representative
Stevenson’s response as a “non-response”.
WHO DID NOT RESPOND . . . PERIOD?
Senator Bob Robbins
Last year Senator Robbins took advantage of the local papers to publicize
the fact that he was returning his raise. He did not respond to MY
inquiry regarding COLAs until mid-January. At that time he sent a
letter. Unfortunately, his written response had nothing to do with
my original questions [read the full story HERE].
What is the fine Senator up to this year?
I’m sure this will shock many of my regular readers, but Senator
Bob Robbins once again failed to respond to my inquiry in any way,
shape, or form. Senator Robbins generally doesn’t like to talk
to “the press”, so the chance of him responding to a little
ol’ blogger like me is about nil. Unfortunately for our fine
Senator, Mr. Robbins fails to realize that this blogger is also a
VOTER with many FRIENDS (Republican, Democrat, and Independent) THAT
VOTE. His repeated lack of responses (now and in the past) have been
noted in my little brain . . . and in the brains of my friends. I’m
a bit like an elephant . . . I never forget! (No GOP pun intended)
What does it all mean?
The good news for Mercer Countians is that we have
hard-working legislators who care about the community, the taxpayers,
and our best interests. Those legislators are willing to communicate
with ALL OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS regardless of ‘Party’ and
without the promise of ‘front page billing’. Those legislators
are Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti.
The bad news for Mercer Countians is that we have
an equal number of legislators who aren’t willing to communicate
. . . aren’t willing to answer questions . . . and, apparently,
don’t feel that the opinions of voters and taxpayers are important.
Those legislators are unwilling to take the time to discuss policy
unless they have a promise of publication on the front page above
the fold. Those legislators are Senator Bob Robbins and Representative
Dick Stevenson.
What’s Next, Roberta?
Gosh. I sure am glad you asked!
That was the story about COLAs. It was a short story, but an interesting
one nonetheless. It is also a wonderful start to a New Year. It sets
the stage for some interesting debate and some entertaining analyses.
It is, however, just the beginning. In the next few weeks I will be
publishing a number of stories regarding Mercer County’s legislators
(and other elected officials). As a Mercer County EXCLUSIVE, I will
be publishing the First Annual Edition of the Mercer Conservatives
Index. The Mercer Conservatives Index will grade each of our elected
officials on their accomplishments, service, and their ability to
represent Mercer Countians. You might be surprised to see how Mercer
County’s politicians stack up against each other . . . apples
to apples.
As always, just my opinion.
Representative
Michele Brooks organizes a delegation from the I-80 corridor to visit
Washington DC on Thursday, December 17, 2009
Written by Roberta Biros
The possible tolling of I-80 has been an issue in Pennsylvania for too
long now. Attempts by the Turnpike Commission to push through an application
with the Federal Highway Commission has been denied, but the Rendell
administration seems to think that that one more try with a more “friendly
administration” in Washington is worth another shot.
The argument is a simple one. Those that support the tolling of Interstate
80 argue that the proposed tolling was originally part of planned funding
for statewide transportation costs, and that funding is still needed.
To that argument, the federal government has stated that revenue from
the tolling of I-80 can only be used to maintain the same I-80. It is
for that reason that the application has been denied. It seems like
this should have been a “done deal” back in 2008, but those
that support the tolling of the highway keep beating the same dead horse
in hopes that the leadership in Washington will eventually see things
through a new set of rose colored glasses.
Understanding the Two Sides of
the Coin
The battle over the tolling of Interstate 80 has become a simple conflict
between the urban areas of Pennsylvania and the rural areas along the
I-80 corridor in the northern tier of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it has
become a matter of David vs. Goliath, but those of us along the I-80
corridor haven’t given up hope.
To understand both sides of the argument, I would suggest that you watch
the two videos supplied below. The first video offers the “against
tolling” argument which is offered by State Representative Matt
Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE].
The second offers the “for tolling” argument, and it is
offered by State Representative Ron Miller (R-York) [watch the full
video on YouTube HERE].
Summary of Representative Matt Gabler’s Video
Like most of the legislators that represent districts along the I-80
corridor, Representative Gabler is concerned about how tolls on Interstate
80 will affect his constituents. He is, however, also concerned about
recent controversies that have brought the credibility of the Turnpike
Commission into question.
His first concern is a recent analysis performed by Provident Capital
Advisors. The Louisiana based group was contracted by the Pennsylvania
Turnpike Commission to provide an analysis of the tolling scheme for
the Interstate. It seems, however, that Provident Capital may have been
part of a shady deal. They were hired for the task although they had
never before been involved in a valuation analysis of highways in the
past. Their experiences have been in health care, prisons, and juvenile
detention facilities, but nothing was mentioned about highways or toll
roads. It made some (including Representative Gabler) wonder if the
company was simply hired as a political favor in order for the turnpike
commission to get the results that they wanted.
The second problem occurred recently when the House Republican Policy
Committee held a hearing on the I-80 tolling proposal. According to
Rep. Gabler:
“What is really disappointing is that the policy committee
had invited both the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as
well as the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commission to come testify. We have concerns about the plan and we
have for a long time, and we think it would have been a great opportunity
for them to fill in some of the holes that we think exist in the plan.
They initially acted like they were going to come, and at the last
minute they said ‘no we aren’t going to come.’ We
were not able to hear any sort of reassurance that this plan does
not have the holes we think we have in it. I’m very disappointed
that they weren’t willing to be transparent with the taxpayers
of the state that are going to be left holding the bag on this plan.”
During the interview, Rep. Gabler makes a particularly interesting point.
Supporters of the tolling of I-80 argue that Pennsylvania shouldn’t
be giving tractor trailers a free ride across the state. When asked
the question, Rep. Gabler points out the following:
“There are a number of laws out there pertaining to
heavy use vehicles such as tractor trailers. They are required to
keep a mileage log, they are required to keep track of how many miles
they run on what road in what state, and then they have to remit a
payment mile-by-mile to the State of Pennsylvania for all 312 miles
that they run across Interstate 80. A toll would take place on top
of that. They would continue to pay their heavy use fees and they
would continue to then additionally start paying tolls.”
Summary of Representative Ron Miller’s Video
As a supporter of the tolling of I-80, Representative Miller has a little
different point of view. Unlike those Representatives in the I-80 corridor,
Rep. Miller is not concerned about the negative impact of the tolling
on local economies. He sees I-80 as a source of funding, but doesn’t
acknowledge that tolling would impact ANY Pennsylvanians in a negative
way. When addressing the exact same question as Rep. Gabler regarding
some drivers getting a free ride across Pennsylvania, Rep. Miller says
“they have a valid point”.
The Issues of Concern for Mercer
County
Representative Michele Brooks (R-17-Mercer, Crawford, Lawrence Counties)
recently participated in a roundtable discussion / radio address where
she outlined the issues regarding the tolling of I-80 and highlighted
the concerns of the people of Mercer County and other taxpayers along
the I-80 corridor.
The roundtable discussion included David Taylor (Pennsylvania Manufacturers
Association), Kevin Shivers (Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association
of Independent Businesses), along with Representative Michele Brooks.
You can listen to the full 30 minute radio address HERE.
Rep. Brooks first explained:
“What we’re concerned about, first and foremost,
is the tolling of I-80, but also how Act 44 came into fruition. This
piece of legislation was railroaded through the House of Representatives
and the Senate during a late budget without any appropriate public
vetting. That is an illustration of what is partially wrong with government
today. They push things through that effect everyday people and everyday
jobs without any type of public vetting or transparency. That is our
first concern. Our second concern is the economic impact of tolling
this road. And third, we are not aware of any interstate in the history
of the United States that has not been originally constructed as a
toll road that has been successfully converted to a toll road.”
Regarding the economic impact on the local economy, Rep. Brooks states:
“It’s going to hurt our manufacturing, its going
to hurt our small businesses, its going to hurt our family farms.
Along the I-80 corridor there are real families and there is going
to be real job loss. It is going to hurt our agricultural industry
and our family farms.”
When asked the question “is this a problem of revenue when it
comes to funding for our roads, bridges, and highways or is this an
issue of spending?,” Representative Brooks responded:
“It’s an issue of spending.”
She went on to explain:
“Infrastructure is critically important to our businesses
and our residents, but so are their jobs. If we are going to decimate
an economy in order to build roads, have we really gained anything?”
To point out an issue of irony, Representative Brooks said:
“(We are) at a time when the federal government has
spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to spur the economy,
yet a decision by the federal government to toll I-80 would contradict
that goal. This decision would have a devastating impact on our local
economy.”
Specifically regarding the impact on jobs and the economy, Representative
Brooks offers a few examples.
“I’m going to mention Hodge Foundry located
in Greenville, Pennsylvania. 30% of their business is large wind turbines.
If the tolling of I-80 goes through it will increase their transportation
costs nearly 50%.” She adds, “we are not at a point in
our economy where you can increase costs, so you’re going to
lay off employees or you’ll reduce benefits to make up that
additional money.”
Additionally, she explains:
“(We) have a local granary. It will cost him an additional
$50,000 to $70,000 for transportation of grain. That’s going
to effect food costs. That’s one local granary. It is going
to impact our small family owned businesses as well as our manufacturers.”
Regarding the fact that this is the second attempt to toll I-80, Representative
Brooks is concerned that this has simply turned into an issue of “politics”
rather than good government. In response to other comments made during
the roundtable discussion, Rep. Brooks stated:
“Under the Bush Administration (I-80 tolling) was
rejected, but there have been several comments made by the Governor
and the Turnpike Commission that they feel the current administration
is a ‘friendly administration’ toward this application.
That is politics at its worst. There should be no politics played
in this decision. There are strict guidelines on why this application
should be approved and that is what should be followed.”
It is the “politics” of the situation that has Rep. Brooks
particularly concerned. In response to the controversies related to
Provident Capital Advisors (the vendor that was hired to do the valuation
analysis), Representative Brooks states “(in our letter to the
highway administration we pointed out) that this is too significant
of a decision that effects way too many lives . . . this decision can’t
be made on questionable information from an entity that has no transportation
related background at all.”
In an effort to get past the “politics”, Rep. Brooks has
organization a delegation to take the concerns regarding the tolling
of I-80 directly to Washington DC. She stated:
“One of our goals in visiting Washington and talking
with the Federal Highway Administration is to give an accurate portrayal
of the hardships that the tolling will have on real families and real
farmers . . . the jobs and the businesses.”
As a criticism of government officials who have turned a deaf ear to
the concerns of the people of the I-80 corridor, Representative Brooks
said “It is ironic that some in government think that they have
the answers . . . business owners, employees, residents, and farmers
are saying ‘Stop, this is going to hurt us’ . . . yet there
are some in government that just continue to railroad things through
and think they know best . . . instead of the very people that we are
elected to represent."
Representative Brooks has worked with Congressman Thompson’s office
and Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s office to arrange a meeting with
a delegation from the State of Pennsylvania that will include State
House Members and State Senators. According to a recent update from
Representative Brooks, the meeting has been scheduled for Thursday,
December 17th.
To close her participation in the radio address, Representative Brooks
explained her goals for the Washington trip as follows:
“We have to make sure that the Federal Highway Administration
has a very clear and concise portrayal of what happened. (They need
to understand) how this legislation was railroaded through, (and)
how there is outrage among the public if this does goes through. We
are also going to point out that the merits of the application have
not changed from prior rejections, and (we will explain) why we don’t
feel that those merits have changed. We are also going to talk about
how it (will) have a devastating impact on our local economies.”
In preparation for the Washington visit, Representative Brooks will
be collecting the results of an on-line petition that was presented
on her website. She encourages concerned citizens to visit the on-line
petition to sign against the tolling of I-80. The on-line petition is
available HERE.
An Interesting Twist: Do we need
to dissolve the Turnpike Commission?
This week Representative Mike Vereb introduced a bill that proposes
the complete elimination of the Turnpike Commission. The bill would
assign all operation of the Turnpike Commission to PennDOT. State Represenatives
Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) and Dick Stevenson (R-8-Mercer/Butler)
were co-sponsors of the bill.
In a YouTube video [view the full video HERE],
Representative Stevenson says:
“The waste, fraud, and abuse that we’ve seen
in the Turnpike Administration for years now is something that must
be addressed, and when we have the turnpike commission now trying
to take over I-80, that fills many of us with great concern. This
is an organization which has not shown a great history or a great
ability to run the road in a manageable or efficient style. Why would
we let them now takeover another major highway across Pennsylvania.”
In support of the proposed bill, Representative Kathy Rapp (R-Warren/Forest/McKean)
also made comments. In her YouTube video [view the full video HERE],
Rep. Rapp said:
“We no longer need the Turnpike Commission. Penndot
is very capable and much more responsible. . . more responsible with
the taxpayer dollars. The Turnpike Commission just overspent 80 million
dollars on an exchange in Montgomery County. It’s time to be
more responsible with taxpayer dollars. One way that we can do that
is to dissolve the Turnpike Commission (which this bill does) and
have Penndot be responsible for the transportation and the roads in
the State of Pennsylvania.”
I’m not absolutely certain that dissolving the Turnpike Commission
is the answer, but it is an interesting idea. Right now I say “one
step at a time”. I’d prefer to see the proposed tolling
of I-80 stopped first. After that, I’d be glad to entertain the
idea of dissolving as many useless government entities as possible .
. . including the Turnpike Commission.
After contacting my local legislators I received a phone call from Representative
Mark Longietti. Rep. Longietti first clarified that there will be NO
COLA this year for legislators. The final calculation was made in mid-November,
and that calculation determined that there would be NO increase this
year. This information was contrary to the details that I had received
in mid-November. PLEASE TAKE THIS INFORMATION INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN
READING THIS BLOG POST. The issue still remains, however, regarding
the pay raise that was automatically applied last year and how to handle
possible pay increases in the future. [END NOTE]
Today is December 1, 2009. Today is also the day that Pennsylvania Legislators,
Judges, and the Governor receive an automatic increase in their salary.
Nice huh?
Background
In 1995, Pennsylvania legislators passed a law (ACT 51) that established
cost of living increases (referred to as COLAs) for themselves and other
state officials, including the governor and judges. On December 1st
of every year since 1995, lawmakers and other officials in Pennsylvania
have received the benefit of an automatic pay raise based on the Consumer
Price Index (CPI).
It is my understanding that some “upstanding” legislators
have voluntarily given back their pay raises back in previous years
because they felt it was “the right thing to do”, but the
topic of “COLA givebacks” was never so publicized as it
was last year at this time. I first wrote about the issue in mid-December
in 2008 in my blog post titled “Michele
Brooks Gives Back Legislative Pay Raise, but Can More Be Done To Really
Save Money in Harrisburg?“, I then wrote about the topic multiple
times throughout the spring and summer in an effort to generate support
for a repeal of the COLA legislation. All of my posts regarding COLAs
can be read HERE.
Where Did Mercer County Legislators Stand on COLAs in 2008?
I corresponded with all of the Legislators that represent Mercer County
numerous times last year. Here is where they stood on the issues of
Legislative COLAs.
Senator Bob Robbins (R-50)
Did he give his 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?
Yes.
Did he support the repeal of the COLAs?
I received a letter from Senator Robbins last January. In it he explained
the issues that he would be concentrating on in 2009, but the repeal
of legislative COLAs was not on the list. It should be pointed out that
he never states that he is AGAINST the COLAs (or against their repeal)
. . . he simply never stated that he would support their repeal.
Representative Mark Longietti (D-7)
Did he give his 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?
No. Instead, he had donated his raise for that period to the Joshua’s
Haven City Mission in Sharon.
Did he support the repeal of the COLAs?
No. I spoke to Rep. Longietti regarding the issue of COLAs and COLA
repeal by phone and we communicated by email. As per Mr. Longietti's
email response from January of 2008,
"I respect your view regarding the COLA, but I do not think that repealing
it is good public policy. "
Mr. Longietti further stated,
"If the COLA is repealed, you will eventually see bills
introduced to provide for a large pay increase. That is the wrong
approach. Further, you will subject the whole process to deal making."
Mr. Longietti went on to state numerous examples where cost of living
increases are implemented and he closed with,
"I work hard as a legislator, and I know that I earn my
keep, and an increase to keep pace with inflation is as justified
for this position as it is for other workers and for Social Security
recipients. So, we may part company on this issue, but we respect
each other’s point of view."
[I will refer to Representative Longietti’s comments again later
in this post]
Rep. Dick Stevenson (R-8)
Did he give his 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?
Yes.
Did he support the repeal of the COLAs?
Yes.
Although I never discussed the issue with Rep. Stevenson personally,
I followed his record on the issue. Representative Stevenson signed
on to House Bill 62 in January of 2009. House Bill 62 (read the full
text of the Bill HERE)
was a bill that was intended to offer a long term plan for the handling
of legislative COLAs. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a very good bill.
I wrote a blog outlining the details of all COLA repeal Bills HERE
(if you are interested).
Rep. Michele Brooks (R-17)
Did she give her 2008-2009 COLA back to the State?
Yes.
Did she support the repeal of the COLAs?
Yes.
I discussed the issues of COLAs and COLA repeal with Rep. Brooks on
numerous occasions both by phone and by email. Rep. Brooks signed on
to House Bill 633 in February of 2008. House Bill 633 (read the full
text of the Bill HERE)
rewrote the handling of legislator raises. I wrote about the details
of HB 633 (and others) at length HERE
(if you are interested).
Were Legislative COLAs Repealed in 2009?
Heck No!
It is true that there were numerous Bills offered by Legislators in
an attempt to repeal COLAs, but NONE of those Bills ever made it out
of committee. This is a VERY COMMON PROBLEM with Bills authored in the
PA legislature. In my blog posted titled “So
Much Legislation, So Little Time”, I explained that roughly
95% of all Bills that are presented in Harrisburg “die”
in Committee. COLA Repeal Bills all fell into the 95% group in 2009.
That hasn’t prevented legislators from continuing to try. As recently
as mid-November, new legislation was being authored in Harrisburg. On
November 16, Rep. Marguerite Quinn (R-Bucks) introduced House Bill 2097
which attempted to suspend the December 1 pay raises. In her official
press release (read HERE),
Rep. Quinn states:
“We have an unemployment rate approaching 9 percent
in Pennsylvania, and many people who still have jobs have taken pay
cuts,” said Quinn. “It is common sense to suspend the
COLA for legislators during these tough economic times. How can we
accept a pay increase during a year when we have cut so much from
the budget and so many others must do with less or with nothing at
all?”
Even more interesting, though, Rep. Quinn makes a great point when she
states:
“If Pennsylvania’s elderly citizens are expected
to go without a Social Security COLA this year, then lawmakers should
be expected to do the same”
The statement regarding Social Security COLAs is an important one. According
to the Social Security Administration website (read the full press release
HERE):
With consumer prices down over the past year, monthly Social
Security and supplemental Security Income benefits for more than 57
million Americans will not automatically increase in 2010. This will
be the first year without an automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA)
since they went into effect in 1975.
Why is this so important? Well, individuals who have defended the continued
use of COLAs for legislators have specifically pointed out that the
raises are “deserved” just like the COLAs that are applied
to Social Security. Remember . . . According to Representative Mark
Longietti,
"I work hard as a legislator, and I know that I earn my
keep, and an increase to keep pace with inflation is as justified
for this position as it is for other workers and for Social Security
recipients."
As the economy gets worse, the term “automatic raises”
or “raises" (in general) are going to become obsolete. Legislators
may feel that their raises are still “well deserved”,
but the truth is that many of their constituents are lucky to just
have a job or steady income at this point. Businesses are cutting
back, individuals are cutting back, and it’s time for our legislators
to feel the pain too.
Where Do We Go From Here?
So here we are again . . . back at the beginning. As of today Legislators,
the Governor, and Judges will receive an automatic pay raise. It seemed
inappropriate last year, but this year “inappropriate”
just doesn’t seem harsh enough. Maybe the term WRONG
or even CRIMINAL would better describe the situation?
Last year I took an enormous amount of time and effort to contact
those legislators that represent Mercer County in an effort to urge
all of them to not only give back their COLAs, but to urge them to
support legislation that would end the COLAs once and for all. I will
begin my efforts again. This morning I sent email messages to Senator
Bob Robbins, Representative Dick Stevenson, Representative Mark Longietti,
and Representative Michele Brooks. In it I’ve asked if each
of them will again “give back” their annual pay raise.
I have also asked that all of them support efforts to repeal COLAs
through legislative action. My full messages is outlined below:
Senator Bob Robbins
Representative Mark Longietti
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Dick Stevenson
Good Morning,
Today is December 1st. Today, cost of living adjustments (COLAs)
were applied to your annual salaries automatically. Last year I
spent a great amount of time and effort in following up with each
of you regarding your “give back” of last year’s
raises as well as urging each of you to support a repeal of Act
51 to prevent the continuation of the COLAs again this year. Some
of you voluntarily gave your raises back to the state through a
direct payment to the Treasury, and others donated your raises to
a
local charity. I thanked each of you directly for those actions.
I also asked each of you to support a repeal of Act 51 through numerous
legislative efforts. Some of you signed on to legislation that attempted
to repeal or alter Act 51, others chose to concentrate on other
projects, and yet others felt that Act 51 was fine “as is”
because annual pay raises are deserved “as it is for other
workers and for Social Security recipients”.
I urge each of you to review the issue of legislative COLAs once
again. Are
automatic pay raises for legislators, judges, and the governor fair
when so many Pennsylvanians are taking pay cuts, struggling to make
ends meet, or even worse . . . out of work? Are pay increases for
“public servants” really fair when the majority of those
you “serve” (including senior citizens) are forced to
do without? Is it really right for lawmakers to put themselves above
the people that they were elected to serve?
I am sure that you are all aware that each and every one of you
is up for re-election in 2010. I am sure that you also understand
that everything that you do this year will be under a microscope.
Some of you may see this as a problem or an inconvenience, but I
would hope that some of you see this as an opportunity to shine
and to showcase your commitment to the people of the area. Show
your constituents in Mercer County that you are committed to “serving”
rather than “being served”. Put aside partisan politics
and make this an issue of good government and concern for fiscal
responsibility.
My Questions For You:
I would like to know your personal plan for doing away with “automatic
pay raises for some while others are forced to live with less”.
Do you intend on refusing your COLA this year (as well as the carry-over
raise from last year)?
Are you willing to work to see to it that this is not an issue again
next year?
What are you willing to do . . . specifically?
I, personally, cannot and will not support any candidate that puts
themselves above the people that they serve, and I sincerely believe
that most voters would agree. So where exactly do you stand?
Roberta Biros
Taxpayer in Mercer County
Taxpayer in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Concerned Citizen
I urge each and every one of you to write your legislators, call
your legislators, email your legislators and ask them to give back
their December 1 pay raise and ask them to support the permanent repeal
of future automatic pay raises.
If we yell loud enough and long enough, maybe someone will finally
stop and listen.
BLOG POST UPDATE--FEEDBACK:
December 1, 2009, 10:30am:
The first legislator to contact me was Representative Mark Longietti
(D-7). As I stated earlier, Reprsentative Longietti clarified that
there is NO COLA this year for legislators. Rep. Longietti and I then
discussed the issue of COLAs at great length. First, Representative
Longietti has already decided that he will donate his LAST YEAR's
pay raise (which will be received automatically again this year) to
his local church (with a specific earmark regarding its usage). In
regards to a repeal or rework of Act 51 and COLAs in general, Representative
Longietti and I still disagree on how raises should be applied to
lawmakers. We, again, agree to disagree. I thank Representative Longietti
for his time and quick response.
Lynn Saternow of the Sharon Herald is something else. Back in the spring
Lynn made the precious statement “Who in their right mind would
vote for Roberta Biros for county treasurer”. It was an entertaining
editorial considering the Herald claims that they are unbiased in their
comments. I have a sense of humor and made the best of the comments.
I’ve even joked with Lynn personally about it. No hard feelings,
right? I figured that Lynn just had a momentary lapse of judgment.
Last weekend I had the realization that Lynn didn’t just have
a lapse of judgment several months ago . . . no, I think that Lynn may
just be plain stupid (sorry Lynn).
On Saturday, Lynn had an editorial titled “Palin’s book
sparks satire and a stab at state politicos” (READ
HERE). In it he suggested that Mercer County voters should “fire”
State Senator Bob Robbins, State Representative Dick Stevenson, State
Representative Michele Brooks, and State Representative Mark Longietti
due to the inability of the General Assembly to pass a State Budget.
Lynn was so busy bloviating that he completely lost track of the facts.
Painting with such a broad brush is just wrong, so I’d like to
fill in the details for all of you . . . my loyal readers.
First, if he’d do his homework, Lynn would know that there is
a hierarchy of blame for our lack of a budget. The finger pointing should
start at the top and work its way down. Governor Rendell is at the top
of the pyramid, the Republican leadership in the Senate comes up second,
and the Democrat leadership in the House pulls up the rear. Are SOME
of the names that Lynn mentioned worthy of blame? Sure. Should all of
our legislators be fired? . . . that is simply ridiculous. Allow me
to explain how each of our legislators is involved in the budget process.
Senator Bob Robbins
Senator Robbins is the Senate Republican Caucus Secretary.
In the hierarchy of the Senate majority, he is #7. He is a supposed
to be a high-ranking official. Is he ineffective? Yes. Has he been in
too long? Yes. He keeps a low profile in hopes of squeaking through
another re-election in 2010 after nearly being kicked to the curb in
2006 after his involvement in the “pay raise” fiasco. Senator
Robbin’s days are numbered, and his inability to step up as a
leader in Harrisburg is proof of that.
Senator Robbins HAS power, but he hasn’t used it to LEAD during
the budget crisis. Does he deserve to be ‘fired’ because
of his lack of action in the budget negotiations? I think so, but that
is just my personal opinion.
Representative Dick Stevenson
While Rep. Stevenson is simply a member of the rank and file in the
House of Representatives, he has a direct relationship with the budget
fiasco in that he is on the Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations
Committee controlled the budget since May of this year, and they can
easily be blamed for our lack of a budget now. Rep. Stevenson’s
power in the committee is limited as the Republican Party is in the
minority in the House and it should be noted that he is not part of
the leadership in the committee. He has had a front row seat to the
excitement (or lack thereof) in the budget battle, but he is not necessarily
to blame.
Does he deserve to be ‘fired’ because of his lack of action
in the budget negotiations? Although he has a front row seat, I don’t
think Rep. Stevenson holds blame in this situation. He may be a bit
ineffective, but he doesn’t deserve to be fired because of it.
Representatives Mark Longietti and Michele Brooks
Reps. Longietti and Brooks are simply members of the rank and file in
the state legislature. They have been waiting all summer for a budget
to vote on, and they have been as disappointed as we are. They are both
young, focused, and driven to appropriately represent their constituents.
They will both become more effective as they work their way up in the
ranks.
Do they deserve to be ‘fired” because of their lack of action
in the budget negotiations? Not by a long shot. While Lynn shows an
obvious lack of originality by throwing a shot at Michele Brooks, he
demonstrates some level of insanity by taking on Mark Longietti. Lynn
is not the first person to criticize the “love/hate” relationship
that some have with Rep. Brooks; but Rep. Longietti has no problem with
the “love/love” relationships that he has with his constituents.
To openly state that Rep. Longietti needs to be fired falls under the
category of “fightin’ words”. I can only compare it
to spray-painting the words “egg my house” on your garage
door a few days before Halloween.
Perhaps Lynn’s only purpose in writing his weekly columns is to
annoy the readers in the valley. He demonstrated that this spring, and
he is reinforcing his commitment with his latest rant. If that is the
case . . . keep up the good work. You are doing a fine job, Lynn.
In Closing . . .
According to the press (and press releases from ‘some’ legislators),
the budget process may be moving forward.
EXAMPLE ONE: On October 6, Senator Bob Robbins
posted a press release to his website (although he did not send
out an email message to his constituents) stating “Senate
Sends Responsible Budget Package to House” [READ
HERE].
EXAMPLE TWO: Similarly, Rep. Mark Longietti published
a press release on his website (again no email) stating that he
had “voted to approve the budget” [READ HERE
and HERE].
EXAMPLE THREE: Today, The Herald printed a small
story titled Pa. Lawmakers Could Get Budget Today. It was
a short story, but the title summarized the content and the view
from the Governor's Office.
OTHER EXAMPLES?: Unfortunately, Representatives
Michele Brooks and Dick Stevenson have made not official announcements
by email or through their websites regarding the current status
of the budget battle.
While the legislator announcements and newspaper “snippets”
are useful, I’d prefer to do a little research on my own.
A quick review of PennsylvaniaVotes.org shows that a budget DID
pass the Pennsylvania House of Representatives on Wednesday, October
7th, but it passed strictly along a party-line vote . . . again.
There may be a budget moving along, but it is not one that looks
potentially non-partisan. CLICK
HERE to see the details of the October 7th budget vote. I have
a bad feeling . . . and I truthfully HOPE THAT I’M WRONG .
. . but I predict that they can paint a shiny smiley face on this,
but the budget problems in Harrisburg may be far from over.
(I know, the title is a shameless pun on my favorite food group,
but I just couldn’t resist.)
While it seems like nothing is happening in Harrisburg in regards to
the budget, there may be more going on than meets the eye. Based on
information from various sources, I wanted to share ‘the latest
scoop’ with all of you . . .
Earlier this week, a conference committee was assembled to hammer out
the details of the State Budget. Multiple sources have told me, however,
that things are not going very well in that venue. Both sides appear
to be digging in for a long and private battle. Although the House calendar
was originally set up for this week, State Representatives were sent
home for the week to ‘sit and wait’ (although they remain
‘on call’ should a vote be required). While both sides (Democrats
and Republicans) are trying to put a shiny face on the on-going debate,
honest personal opinions of lawmakers are seemingly less optimistic.
Public (official) comments by Mercer County Representatives seem to
be all over the board. YouTube video releases from Representative Dick
Stevenson and Representative Michele Brooks make simple and basic comments
regarding the budget negotiations, but they provide few details about
the process itself.
Representative Dick Stevenson simply stands firm on his opinions about
no increase in the Personal Income Tax (PIT).
Representative Michele Brooks supports the stand of conservative conference
committee members.
Representative Kathy Rapp, on the other hand, tries to 'sound' optimistic,
but it doesn't take a body language expert to realize that she may not
completely believe what she is saying.
A YouTube video released by Representative Jim Cox today talks about
a new ‘openness and transparency’ in the process, but taxpayers
are not yet on the receiving end of that outpouring of information (see
the video HERE
or below).
Newspaper reports earlier this week stated that Governor Rendell might
be looking for ways to push through some sort of funding for State Workers’
salaries that would get us through the impasse, but the latest news
explains that the Governor may simply encourage House Democrats to approve
the Senate Budget early next week so that he (the Governor) can simply
trim down the Senate Budget through line-item-veto capabilities. (read
the full story HERE).
It all makes me just a little nervous because it seems like we are all
being set up for some sort of ‘magic trick’ or something.
It seems very odd that the Governor would now (and very suddenly) consider
the Senate Budget Bill that has been available since early May. It makes
you wonder why he has waited almost three months to consider such a
move.
Although I’d much rather see a good solid budget worked out and
agreed to by both sides, Pennsylvania lawmakers may be in a bit of a
twist if something isn’t done soon. State Workers are going unpaid,
and taxpayers are getting angry and frustrated. The inability of lawmakers
to come together for the common good of the commonwealth has state residents
scratching their heads and wondering . . . “what are they getting
paid for?”
So . . . while the news regarding budget negotiations is sparse, you
better believe that there is a whole lot of game playing going on right
now that we are simply not completely aware of.
I’ve had the pleasure of talking politics with lots of people
over the past few weeks. My attendance at last week’s Jefferson
Township Fair along with the time that I spent in Farrell at the Slovak
and Italian Homes Ethnic Food Festival gave me an opportunity to discuss
important and pressing issues with local taxpayers. I’d like to
share some of the issues that were discussed and debated.
The Status of the Pennsylvania State Budget
While there were many topics that were on the table, the one issue that
remains on the tip of everyone’s tongue is the State budget. There
were many local folks that were confused to see State Legislators at
the weekend events. Most people expected that our lawmakers would still
be in Harrisburg working to come to some sort of compromise on the budget.
Instead, they were back home in Mercer County enjoying summer festivities.
I realized that the budget was out of the control of the House, but
it was my understanding the Senate leaders were to be working over the
weekend to move the budget process further. I thought I should do a
little research in order to clarify the questions.
When I last addressed the issue of the budget, the House had rejected
the State Senate’s last draft of a budget and it was being sent
back to the Senate. The plan was that a bipartisan Conference Committee
would be assigned on Monday to tackle the project. Governor Rendell,
however, stated last week that he felt that work could be done over
the weekend before the Committee was even assigned. It seems that the
Governor was mistaken. According to KYW News Radio 1060 (read HERE),
"Last Thursday, Governor Rendell expressed optimism that
negotiations could produce a budget agreement even before the conference
committee met. But later that same day, the majority leader of the
GOP-controlled Senate said there was no rational basis for such optimism.
And in fact, the majority leader’s spokesman says while there
were some informal budget discussions over the weekend, there were
no breakthroughs. "
It seems that the optimism that was painted on this part of the budget
process was simply like ‘putting lipstick on a pig’. The
establishment of a Conference Committee may move the budget process
forward, but it will not be moving with any particular amount of speed
. . . and that is unfortunate.
State Employees Remain Unpaid During Impasse
Another topic that almost everyone agrees on is that shameful use of
State Workers as a pawn in budget negotiations. State Employees are
currently continuing to work, but they will not receive their paychecks
until a budget is passed. The Governor has been using the workers as
a threat during budget talks, but no move was ever made through the
Governer’s office to insure that workers would continue to get
paid. I reported back in mid-May about legislation that was on the table
to prevent this exact problem (read HERE).
Specifically, House Bill 913 was submitted in March of this year as
an effort to insure that State Workers would continue to be paid during
a budget impasse. Two State Representatives from Mercer County (Representative
Dick Stevenson and Representative Michele Brooks) were part of the group
that introduced the bill on March 12. Unfortunately, the bill has been
sitting in committee ever since.
Now that State Employees are officially not receiving paychecks, the
real problems for the State are just around the corner. According to
the Associated Press (read HERE),
"On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor said it had begun
investigating whether Pennsylvania has violated its employees' rights
under the Fair Labor Standards Act by ordering them to work without
regular pay. The department received more than 1,500 calls, a spokeswoman
said."
The threat of a Federal Labor Department investigation now has the Governor
squirming. So much so, that the Governor is now looking for a ‘quick
fix’ like an ‘interim budget’ that would fill the
gap until final budget negotiations are completed. According to the
same article by the Associated Press,
"Gov. Ed Rendell said Monday that he will look for a way
to speed money to pay for Pennsylvania's state government operations
so that tens of thousands of employees don't miss more paydays during
an entrenched budget impasse. Rendell said he decided to pursue an
interim budget that is whittled down to the essentials after informal
talks over the weekend with Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi,
R-Delaware, made it clear that any agreement on an approximately $28
billion budget still is far away. "
It seems like the Governor should have focused on this potential problem
months ago, but, instead, he was holding on to his big bargaining chip.
Again, this is an unfortunate situation no matter how you look at it.
Keystone Exams
Another issue on people’s lists of concerns are the Keystone Exams.
Governor Rendell has been trying to push through these graduation exams
since the end of the fiscal year, but concerned and responsible lawmakers
have been trying to put a stop to it. The exams are EXTREMELY expensive
(a seven-year contract totaling $201 MILLION), and their effectiveness
is questionable. Senator Jane Orie authored Senate Bill 281 that was
designed to STOP the Keystone Exams, and it was referred to the House
Education Committee in June . . . where it stalled.
It seems that a bipartisan group of lawmakers are going to attempt to
drag the legislation out of committee this week through a Discharge
Resolution. A Discharge Resolution is a tool that can be used by the
House to force legislation out of committee. We last saw it used in
mid-June in an effort to move the Budget forward (read HERE
for details). A Discharge Resolution requires 25 signatures from House
Members, and I suspect the list of names may be similar to those that
signed onto DR1 and DR2 in June (read the list HERE).
With the current state of the economy, local taxpayers are concerned
about projects with large price tags, and the Keystone Exams qualify
in that regard. Taxpayers simply aren’t willing to pay.
Health Care Reform
Another important issue of discussion last week was that of Health Care
Reform. While the President is currently pushing for some sort of “Universal”
plan that would cover all Americans, people are discussing the various
possibilities amongst themselves, and it is a rather ‘healthy
debate’ (no pun intended).
The majority of people that I talked to agree that SOMETHING needs to
be done to provide health insurance for those that don’t have
it. Unfortunately, no one is exactly sure what the best solution would
be. Surprisingly enough, this is the same problem that lawmakers in
Washington are running into. The problem is SO big, that a quick fix
doesn’t seem possible. For that reason, most people that I talked
to simply felt that this was an issue that deserved more time and debate.
Rather than pushing through some sort of legislation now, most taxpayers
feel that more time should be taken to hammer out the details and examine
the big picture.
The President has hopes of passing something through sooner, but I think
that most Americans would prefer to take our time to do this right.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Gun Rights: Concealed Weapons Amendment
The final issue that was brought up numerous times last week was the
recent amendment that was voted on in the U.S. Senate regarding the
Concealed Weapons Law (specifically referred to as Senate
Amendment 1618 to Senate
Bill 1390). The amendment would have required each of the 48 states
that currently allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other
states. The issue was overwhelming supported by those of us that firmly
support the Second Amendment, but it was hotly debated by those that
wish to limit gun rights.
The issue was brought to vote on Wednesday, July 22, 2009. It needed
60 votes to pass the Senate. It only received 58 votes (with a final
vote count of 58 to 39). Three Senators did not vote (Byrd, Kennedy,
and Mikulski). Pennsylvania Senators Casey and Spector split their votes
(Casey was FOR the amendment, and Spector was AGAINST it).
The issue of Gun Rights is an important one in Mercer County. With a
strong base of sportsmen in the area, the issue was supported by Republicans
and Democrats alike.
In Closing . . .
While I had the opportunity to discuss MANY issues with local taxpayers,
these were the ones that were brought up most often. I wanted to share
the details with all of you so that you, too, have a sense of the conversations
that are going on. I thank all of the folks that took the time to talk
to me. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversations, and I look forward to
many more opportunities in the coming weeks and months.
Representative
Michele Brooks, Representative Dick Stevenson, and Representative Mark
Longietti respond to budget questions, and Senator Bob Robbins may be
on the hot seat
Written by Roberta Biros
I’ve been following the negotiations related to the Pennsylvania
Budget very closely. As a fiscal conservative I am completely against
tax increases to fund growing government programs. Instead, it is my
opinion that government (at all levels) should be forced to “live
within its means”. That being said, when times are tough, difficult
and painful cuts need to be made to limit spending to match income.
I prescribe to this type of responsible spending in my own business
and household, and I expect the same from our elected officials with
regard to the spending of ‘our money’.
A key issue in this year’s budget negotiations is the matter of
a potential increase in the personal income tax (referred to as PIT).
Those that support an increase in the PIT argue that costs have risen
so taxes need to rise to adjust. Those that are against an increase
(like myself) argue that as a percentage based tax the PIT automatically
adjusts to the income of the taxpayers every year, and it is the job
of elected officials to adjust spending appropriately. I’ve been
vocal about my opinions about a possible tax increase. If you ask any
of the state legislators representing Mercer County, they will tell
you that I’ve contacted them enough times that they know where
I stand on the issue. I believe that it is our responsibility as taxpayers
to provide our legislators with clear instructions on ‘how we
want to be represented’, and I am not alone in my dedication to
that task.
On Friday morning of last week (July 17th), I sent an email message
to the three State Representatives that cover the Mercer County area—Representative
Michele Brooks (R-17th), Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th), and
Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8th). My question was a simple one
as follows:
I have a very straight-forward question for you regarding
the 2009-2010 State Budget, and I'm hoping that you or your staff
could provide an answer. I realize that the budget issue is a complicated
one, but I'm interested in the general feedback that your office has
received from residents / taxpayers regarding the issue of TAX HIKES
vs. COST CUTTING.
QUESTION: Would you say that residents "supported the idea of paying
higher taxes" or would you say that residents "preferred to cut costs
and reduce funding for some programs"? Additionally, can you provide
a specific numeric ratio of those opinions based on the calls, letters,
and email messages that your office has fielded over the past several
weeks?
I received responses from all three legislators on Friday.
The first response came from Representative Michele Brooks
within about a half-hour of my original query. Representative Brooks
stated that her constituents overwhelmingly said they cannot afford
a tax increase and government must start living within its means just
as they do. Her office received hundreds of contacts against a PIT
tax increase, while only a handful of her constituents stated that
they supported an increase.
The second response came later in the day from Representative
Dick Stevenson. Representative Stevenson stated that the
feedback from his office was similar to that of Representative Brooks.
The majority of the contacts were opposed to any increase in taxes
and his constituents supported reductions in government spending.
The third and final response came from Representative Mark
Longietti. Representative Longietti received quite a bit
of feedback in his office as well. Based on his statements, the ‘majority’
of the contacts “neither want taxes raised nor services and
programs that they support cut”.
For the record, the Pennsylvania House voted through a proposed budget
over the period of Thursday and Friday last week. The House Republican
version of the budget (which included across the board cuts and no
increase in the personal income tax) was voted down on party lines.
The House Democrat version of the budget (which included spending
that will eventually require some sort of tax increase) was passed
. . . along party lines. Representatives Brooks and Stevenson supported
the Republican version of the budget, and they did so in line with
the feedback from their constituents. Representative Longietti supported
the Democrat version of the budget. He explained that “since
our form of government is a representative democracy, and I have been
blessed to have been elected to this position, I will continue to
listen to the feedback that I receive, consider it along with the
other information that I gather, and exercise my best judgment as
to what is best for the people of my legislative district and Pennsylvania
as a whole. That, I believe, is what I was elected to do.”
Upon passing the House on Friday, House Bill 1416 (the House Democrat
version of the 2009-2010 Pennsylvania State Budget) was sent to the
State Senate.
Now things will get interesting. The Pennsylvania State Senate is
controlled by the Republicans (30-20), but history has shown us that
those numbers don’t necessarily mean anything. There was a great
AP story published today (read it on KDKA’s site HERE)
that reminds us about some recent past history in the Pennsylvania
Senate.
The story looks back to December of 2003 when “14 Republican
state senators voted with Democrats to pave the way for an increase
in Pennsylvania's personal income tax”. At that time, Pennsylvania
taxpayers did not support a tax increase either, but 14 bold Republican
state senators voted for the increase anyway, and most of them eventually
paid the price for their mistake. That move (along with the infamous
‘middle-of-the-night’ legislative pay raises that were
approved and rescinded in 2005) forced 8 of those 14 Senators out
of office in 2006.
After reading the story, my question was “Who are the remaining
6 Republicans that SHOULD HAVE been fired in 2006, but still remain
in office?” I did some research, and I found the answer (read
the original vote record from 2003 HERE).
The following Republican Senators who voted FOR the 2003 tax increase
are still in office and are now part of the Republican Majority in
the Pennsylvania Senate that will be responsible for the 2009-2010
Budget:
Senator Edwin Erickson (26th)
Senator Jeffrey Piccola (15th)
Senator Dominic Pileggi (9th)
Senator Robert Robbins (50th)
Senator Robert Tomlinson (6th)
Senator Mary Jo White (21st)
I find the list of particular interest because it includes the name
of the honorable senator that represents Mercer County, Robert “Bob”
Robbins. Will Senator Robbins represent his constituents by standing
firm against an increase in taxes? I’ve contacted Senator Robbins
a number of times (along with the three State Representatives listed
above), but I have never received as much as one response from him
or his office. I cannot, therefore, provide any information on where
Senator Robbins stands on this issue.
Fiscal conservatives across the state will be watching the continued
budget negotiations very closely. We will be keeping a particularly
close eye on the Senators listed above. They managed to squeak by
and keep their jobs in 2006, but with 2010 re-elections just around
the corner, will they be so lucky again?
Today was the same as most days. My husband and I got up early
. . . had a light breakfast . . . and headed out to our office to
concentrate on our work for the day. While we work we either listen
to the radio (I like listening to Joe Biro on WPIC 790AM), listen
to the TV (if anything interesting is on), or we listen to the broadcast
of House
Live from the PA House of Representatives. This week being as
important as it is, I've been tuned into House Live when the House
is in session as I'm waiting for something to happen regarding the
Pennsylvania State Budget.
Unfortunately, the House has been in recess often during the past
several weeks, but when they are in session, the Live Feed is actually
very interesting. This afternoon, it looks as though some serious
debate will finally begin regarding the budget that was finally 'taken
away' from the House Appropriations Committee. Opening comments were
made by the House Appropriations Committee Minority Chairman, Mario
Civera, and House Appropriations Committee Majority Chairman, Dwight
Evans. The comments were interesting seeing that these two gentlemen
have been slinging mud back and forth at each other for the past several
weeks. At a recent fair, a woman described the conversations as "polite
name calling", which I found appropriate.
After the initial opening remarks (at about 1:15pm), Representative
Dick Stevenson (R-8, representating Mercer and Butler Counties) addressed
the House with some supportive remarks regarding Representative Civera's
Amendment to the Budget. As a member of the Appropriations Committee,
Representative Stevenson has been deeply involved in the budget process,
although I admit that I haven't heard much from Representative Stevenson
in the way of press releases or public comments (other than those
that I've already published).
It appears as though today's activities will be limited to grandstanding
by both sides of the aisle while taxpaying Pennsylvanians turn blue
while they are holding their breath for a budget to be passed. While
the House is devoted to speeches this afternoon, we are all hopeful
that both sides will come together to actually pass a budget (rather
than just talking about it).
If you are interested in watching the process as it occurs, be
sure to log onto the House
Live Feed. As taxpayers, it is important for us all to understand
the issues that are being debated so that we know how and why the
decisions are made in Harrisburg. While you are watching, be sure
to cross your fingers in hope of a finalized budget sometime soon.
(While you are at it, add an extra wish for no tax increases!)
We’ve been hearing it for months now . . . Pennsylvania Legislators
have been trying to scare people into WANTING tax increases. It has
been one threat after another. Today in The
Herald there is a summary from Representative Joe Markosek that
batches all of the threats in one easy to read paragraph:
“Rep. Joe Markosek, D-Allegheny, said public support
for the senate Republican bill may shrink once people understand that
nursing homes would close, state troopers’ ranks would be cut
and property taxes would rise as local governments and school districts
are forced to shoulder more of the load on their own.”
VERY SCARY . . . especially to seniors who think that their nursing
homes will close . . . and residents in crime ridden areas that are
fearful of fewer police. These are shameful scare tactics. Before you
take these legislators at their word, we all need to sit back and parse
out everything that is being said. What does it all really mean?
Closing of State Parks
When they talk about “closing State Parks”, simply ask yourself
. . . “how exactly do you close a State Park?” How do they
close Pymatuning? How do they close Goddard? Will Pymatuning not exist
without the State? Will it disappear? Will it simply evaporate? What
about Goddard? When you ask a legislator a straight forward question
like “how do you close a State Park”, it is necessary for
them to give specifics like “facilities within the parks would
close”. Well, folks, have you taken a drive around Pymatuning
lately? There are restroom facilities that are closed now, and everyone
is getting by just fine. Do you know what people do when they find that
a restroom is closed? They go and find one that is open.
If simple cut backs were made across the board in all State Parks, there
would be no need to “close” any of them. State Parks would
still have a $94Million budget available, and that SHOULD be plenty
to go around. We are simply asking that they ALL tighten their belts
a little.
Cut Backs on State Police
When they talk about State Troopers’ ranks being cut, I ask myself
“does that mean that the troopers that are left will be forced
to actually chase down ‘bad guys’ now? Maybe there would
be fewer Troopers left sitting in a speed traps on I-79 or I-80, and
instead they will be able to reschedule their time elsewhere. Hmmm.
(I realize that i'm over simplifying here, so don't bother writing to
tell me so . . . I'm just saying that maybe everyone can cut costs somewhere)
Property Taxes Will Increase
Lastly, when they say that “property taxes would rise as local
governments and school districts are forced to shoulder more of the
load”, I say “WONDERFUL”. Perhaps that is exactly
as it should be!
Rather than trying to budget our county and school district expenses
through Harrisburg, let’s control our LOCAL budgets LOCALLY. If
spending cuts at the state level trickle down to the Counties (read
more HERE),
at least then WE have some control over how the money is spent (or not
spent). Mercer County Commissioners are already planning ahead for the
proposed cuts, and THEY are now responsible for finding a solution.
WE in Mercer County can decided whether WE will pay more in taxes or
whether WE will cut costs in this County. How? . . . by beating on the
doors of our County Commissioners . . . by calling the Courthouse and
demanding that our local elected officials do MORE to control spending
(read more HERE).
IF (and that’s a BIG “IF”) it is decided that a tax
increase is necessary, at least we will know that OUR TAXES are going
to support expenses in OUR COUNTY. If the tax increases are made at
the State level, I guarantee that OUR TAX MONEY will be going to bail
out cash strapped cities like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. We will see
very little of that money coming back to good ol’ Mercer County.
I say "let's put the financial responsibilities close to home where
we can keep a closer eye on things".
In Summary
When you sit down and think about it, everything that we hear from Harrisburg
that is intended to SCARE us INTO a tax increase actually isn’t
so bad.
Trimming of the budgets of the state parks wouldn’t be as bad
as they make it seem . . . cut backs within the State Police might help
them to re-prioritize . . . and Counties being responsible for their
own budges would probably be the BEST solution in the long run.
Times are tough, and there isn’t a household in this Country that
isn’t feeling the pinch right now. It is time for Government to
understand that there comes a day when THEY need to feel the pinch too,
and that day is today.
Make sure that YOUR legislator knows that YOU can’t afford higher
taxes . . . PERIOD.
For those of you in Mercer County, the contact information for your
legislators is posted below:
Hon. Robert D. Robbins
337 Capitol Building
Senate Box 203050
Harrisburg, PA 17120-3050
(717) 787-1322Email: rrobbins@pasen.gov
Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948Email: mbrooks@pahousegop.com
Hon. Mark Longietti
103 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202007
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2007
(717) 772-4035
Fax: (717) 780-4785Email: MLongietti@pahouse.net
Hon. Richard R. Stevenson
155B East Wing
PO Box 202008
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2008
(717) 783-6438
Fax: (717) 705-1949
Email: rstevens@pahousegop.com
It has been a year since the tolling of I-80 was front page news. Recently
the issue has surfaced again, but has anything really changed? I've
taken a few minutes to gather some old opinions from last year. We might
as well just re-date these comments, because the same arguments still
hold true today. NOTHING has changed . . . yet we are forced to re-fight
the same battles over and over again?
Hmmmm.
Representative Dick Stevenson: Tolling I-80 Harms Many Interests
Representative Michele Brooks: Tolling I-80 Bad Public Policy
Representative Scott Hutchinson: Placing Tolls on I-80 Bad for Business
Interests
Representative Karen Boback: I-80 Tolling Bad for Pennsylvania
Representative David Millard: Tolling I-80 Would Be Disastrous
In a recent YouTube video release, Representative Dick Stevenson explains
why a tax increase at this time is wrong for the people of Pennsylvania.
"A tax increase at this time would be devastating for Pennsylvania
in my view.
The whole country is struggling at this time of economic hardship
and for us to
impose a tax increase on the people of Pennsylvania would cause only
more
hardship and difficulty for the folks we represent."
Like many counties in the state of Pennsylvania, Mercer County
is in a real bind. According to an article in The Herald [READ
HERE], only $22 million of the County’s $67 million budget
is paid with County taxes. The rest of the budget is supported with
pass-through funds from the State that are intended to cover many
State mandates. Counties are REQUIRED to provide these mandated
services. In turn, the State “promises” to pay for some
(but not all) of these mandates. The State continues to require
more services from the Counties, but they aren’t holding up
their end of the bargain.
There are “funded” and there are “unfunded”
or “under-funded” mandates. An Unfunded mandate (and
“under-funded” mandate) is a statute or regulation that
requires a political subdivision to perform certain actions, yet
provides no money (or partial money) for fulfilling the requirements.
In the end, local taxpayers end up footing the bill for the cost
to comply with state laws. In the case of funded mandates, the state
funds all of the costs for the required services, but history has
shown the state doesn’t always pay its bills.
One example that was sited in The Herald is in the case of Children
and Youth Services. Mercer County will receive “more than
$400,000 less than expected and the County will have to make up
the difference”. In this case, Mercer County is required to
provide the services, but the State will be not be holding up its
end of the bargain by providing the supporting funds.
The examples of funded and under-funded mandates are numerous, but
I’d like to site one example that is a particular favorite
of mine . . .
Prior to 2006, Mercer County budgeted and paid for a “part-time”
District Attorney (at a cost of about $75,000 annually). In 2006,
the State mandated that all Counties have a “full-time”
District Attorney in place. At the time of the mandate, the State
agreed to pay for 65% of the cost of the District Attorney salary.
Based on 2006 salaries, the amount to be received from the State
by Mercer County was about $98,205. In a discussion that I had with
County Commissioner John Lechner back in December, the County has
not been receiving those monies as promised. Commissioner Lechner
went as far as to say that County Commissioners across the State
were considering legal action to recoup the unpaid funds from the
State.
The problem of unfunded (and under-funded) mandates is HUGE . .
. especially at the County level. This problem is finally receiving
attention from lawmakers in Harrisburg. State Rep. Mike Peifer (R-Pike
County) has introduced legislation to put a stop to unfunded mandates.
Rep. Peifer even uses the cost of his County’s DA as an example
of the problem. In an article in the Pocono News [READ
HERE], other examples of unfunded mandates include:
The payment of prevailing wage to construction workers on many
public projects, and as a result of litigation in recent years,
maintenance workers as well.
Stormwater management regulations.
The state recycling law that requires certain municipalities
to implement and maintain recycling programs.
A requirement that legal notices and advertisements be published
in “newspapers of general circulation.”
The proposed legislation [House Bill 1377 – read the full
text of the bill HERE]
amends the Pennsylvania State Constitution to prohibit
state mandates. To quote the Bill directly:
The General Assembly shall not enact any law that will
result in an increase in costs to a county, city, borough, incorporated
town, township, school district or vocational school district unless
the General Assembly provides an appropriation in an amount at least
equal to the amount necessary to pay in full any additional costs
of compliance on the part of the county, city, borough, incorporated
town, township, school district or vocational school district.
While the legislation is absolutely necessary,
it has an uphill battle on its way to passage. It seems that any
legislation amending the State Constitution must be passed in two
consecutive legislative sessions and then approved by the voters
of the Commonwealth. At present, HB 1377 has been referred to the
House STATE GOVERNMENT Committee.
House Bill 1377 has 49 co-sponors. They are Peifer, Boyd, Baker,
Barrar, Bear, Brooks, Christiana, Creighton, Cutler, Dally, Denlinger,
Everett, Fleck, Gabler, Geist, Goodman, Grell, Grove, Harhart, Hornaman,
Hutchinson, Kauffman, M. Keller, Major, Marshall, Marsico, Mensch,
Millard, Miller, Milne, Moul, Mustio, Oberlander, Pickett, Pyle,
Reed, Reichley, Roae, Rock, Rohrer, Scavello, Siptroth, Stern, Stevenson,
Swanter, Tallman, True, Vulakovich and Watson.
Mercer County Connection:
House Bill 1377 has the initial support and attention of Mercer
County Legislators Michele Brooks and Dick Stevenson. Pictured below
at the Capitol press conference (from left): Reps. Mike Fleck (R-Huntingdon/Blair/Mifflin);
Mike Peifer (R-Monroe/Pike/Wayne), at podium; Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence);
Dick Stevenson (R-Mercer/Butler); and Mario Scavello (R-Monroe).
House Bill 1377 gets "two thumbs up" in my book. Unfortunately, I'm
not sure if it will have the support that it requires to pass through
all of the legislative hurdles that lie ahead. I'll keep my fingers
crossed, though.
As per a Radio Feed from the House
Republican Caucus:
Legislation that will help retailers clear out their inventory of non-fire
safe cigarettes was approved today in the Pennsylvania House. Rep. Dick
Stevenson (R-Mercer/Butler), author of the proposal, said the legislation
helps retailers to recoup their expenses and ensures state government
will not lose valuable tax revenues in this challenging economic climate.
The bill now goes to the state Senate for consideration.
LEGISLATOR
ANNOUNCMENT as received from Representative Michele Brooks and Representative
Brad Roae
Several local lawmakers – including Reps. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence),
Dick Stevenson (R-Mercer/Butler), Brad Roae (R-Crawford) and Scott Hutchinson
(R-Venango/Butler) – are encouraging residents to renew their
fight against a plan to toll Interstate 80 as state officials are beginning
discussions to resubmit their proposal to the federal government.
Just this week, Secretary of Transportation Allen Biehler, who was recently
named as chairman of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, said both
PennDOT and the commission plan to meet with the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) to review the failed application from last year in hopes of resubmitting
it. Last September when the revised application was denied, the FHWA
said the turnpike commission’s application did not meet requirements
of a federal pilot program that would have made the tolling possible.
The subject was raised Tuesday at a hearing of the House Democrat Policy
Committee, where testimony was only offered by Biehler and other top
officials from the Turnpike Commission. The committee neglected to include
residents, businesses and organizations that would be directly impacted.
“At a time when we are working toward rebuilding and strengthening
our economy, there are plans moving forward that would destroy it,”
Brooks said. “As billions of taxpayers’ dollars in federal
stimulus funding are coming to Pennsylvania, including hundreds of millions
for highway projects, I am disappointed that the Turnpike Commission
would continue to advocate for a plan that is contrary to stimulating
our economy by placing yet another financial burden on our local taxpayers.”
With a new administration in Washington, local lawmakers are not surprised
talk is resurfacing on resubmitting the application. However, they are
concerned that such a tolling policy would be contrary to all of the
economic recovery efforts advanced by President Barack Obama.
“Tolling I-80 would not only be devastating to our businesses
and residents, but it also places a heavier financial burden on local
municipalities that must address problems caused by traffic diverting
from the highway,” Stevenson said. “Ultimately, local taxpayers
are the ones shouldering this burden on multiple levels, not out-of-state
trucking companies and tourists that the plan’s proponents would
have people believe. Due to the change in our economy since the application
was submitted, I urge the Turnpike Commission to listen to the people
and businesses that will be directly impacted by this decision before
resubmitting its application.”
“Tolling Interstate 80 is nothing more than a tax increase on
local residents and businesses,” Roae said. “In light of
our current economic situation, Iurge taxpayers, business owners and
motorists to join us in fighting this new tax.”
“The recent history of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has
been plagued with questionable actions and it would be irresponsible
to allow the tolling of Interstate 80 to take place under anyone’s
watch, especially theirs,” Hutchinson said. “The responsibility
of our Commonwealth’s roadways should not be in the hands of a
dysfunctional commission and I ask the people of Pennsylvania to take
a stand and advocate for not tolling I-80.”
The lawmakers are encouraging residents, travelers, businesses,
organizations and others to contact their federal representatives and
voice their opposition to tolling I-80, as the federal government will
make the final decision on whether or not to toll the highway. Those
representatives include Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, along with
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Erie) and Congressmen Jason Altmire
(D-Aliquippa) and Glenn Thompson (R-Bellefonte). They can be
reached through the following contact information:
Sen. Arlen Specter, 711 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
20510. Phone: (202) 224-4254. Web site: http://specter.senate.gov/.
His regional office in Erie, located in Suite B-120 of the Federal Building
at 17 South Park Row, can be called at (814) 453-3010.
Sen. Bob Casey Jr., B-40 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510.
Phone: (202) 224-6324. Web site: http://casey.senate.gov/.
His regional office in Erie, located in Suite B-150 of the Federal Building
at 17 South Park Row, can be reached by calling (814) 874-5080.
Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, 516 Cannon House Office Building, Washington,
DC 20515. Phone: (202) 225-5406. Web site: http://dahlkemper.house.gov/.
Her full-time local office is at 208 E. Bayfront Parkway Suite 102,
Erie, PA 16507. Phone: 877-528-4948.
Rep. Jason Altmire, 1409 Longworth House Office Building, Washington
DC 20515. Phone: (202) 225-2565. Web site: http://altmire.house.gov/.
His regional, full-time office is at 2110 McLean Street, Aliquippa,
PA 15001. Phone is (724) 378-0928.
Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson, 124 Cannon House Office Building,
Washington DC 20515. Phone: (202) 225-5121. Web site: http://casey.senate.gov/.
His local office is located at 127 West Spring Street, Suite C, Titusville,
PA 16354. Phone: (814) 827-3985.
Since the application was first submitted in 2007, local lawmakers have
sent numerous letters and spoken with federal officials on how tolling
I-80 does not meet standards set by federal law.
Rep. Michele Brooks
17th District
(724) 588-8911
Rep. Dick Stevenson
8th District
(724) 458-4911
Rep. Brad Roae
6th District
(814) 827-6054
Rep. Scott Hutchinson
64th District
(814) 677-6363
BLOG POST UPDATE:
Representative Mark Longietti released an announcement regarding I-80
tolling too, and I thought I should include a link to it here for easy
reference. Read his full release HERE.
On April 30, 2009, I reported “Tolling
of I-80 Still an Open Issue”. At that time I reminded Pennsylvanians
that the application to toll Interstate 80 was simply rejected by
the by the Federal Highway Administration and that the Turnpike Commission
and PA Department of Transportation were open to resubmitting an application
again in the future. There was nothing in place to stop it. Some concerned
lawmakers in Harrisburg introduced House Resolution 197 in an attempt
to cease further application submissions, but the resolution still
sits in the House Transportation Committee.
On May 14, 2009, I attempted to bring attention to the fact that commercial
interests were clearly interested in pushing forward with the I-80
tolling project in my article titled “Commercial
Interests Have Much To Gain With Tolling of I-80”. I anticipated
that businesses would have the wherewithal and stamina to push the
tolling forward through their friendly Harrisburg contacts, and I
was afraid that lawmakers may have lost interest in the project (since
it isn’t an election year).
Today the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
published an article titled “State
may resubmit plan for tolls on I-80”. In it we are told
that officials from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission intend on
beginning meetings with the Federal Highway Administration as soon
as June regarding the I-80 tolling issue.
In the Post Gazette article [read HERE],
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Philadelphia) is quoted as saying “We
are giving out-of-state traffic a free ride through Pennsylvania”.
Unfortunately, Representative Boyle obviously doesn’t realize
that there are plenty of taxpayers here in Pennsylvania that actually
use I-80 on their daily commutes too. He is apparently not interested
in how the tolling of I-80 might affect communities along the I-80
corridor. If Representative Boyle isn’t interested, can you
tell me who is?
I urge lawmakers to push for House Resolution 197 in an effort to
stop re-application for the tolling of I-80 before it is too late.
Once the process has begun, the power will be out of the hands of
the legislature and firmly in the hands of the Turnpike Commission,
Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration,
and the various commercial interests that have much to gain if the
tolling of I-80 goes through.
I also urge taxpayers to contact the Representatives that introduced
House Resolution 197 (HUTCHISON, GABLER, OBERLANDER, MILLARD, FAIRCHILD,
BELFANTI, BOBACK, BROOKS, CAUSER, EVERETT, HANNA, HARHART, HARRIS,
MAJOR, METCALFE, MOUL, MUSTIO, PEIFER, PHILLIPS, PICKETT, RAPP, ROAE,
ROHRER, SCAVELLO, SMITH, SONNEY, STEVENSON, TALLMAN, TRUE, TRUZAI
AND VULAKOVICH). Perhaps they can help to bring much needed attention
to this issue.
Lastly, I urge Mercer County residents to contact our state lawmakers
in effort to get their attention regarding this issue. Their contact
information is posted below:
REMEMBER: These are our elected
officials. It is their job to focus on the issues that are important
to us. Be sure to make your voice heard. Call them, fax them, write
them a letter, or even email them a copy of this post to let them
know that you are concerned.
Representative Metcalfe is a State Representative, but he is also
a taxpayer. He shows genuine concern regarding fiscal issues and he
backed that up by promoting the Pennsylvania State Capitol Taxpayers’
Protest (StateCapitolProtest.com).
According to the protest website
Protest will begin at 9:00am and will last through the day until
4:30pm.
Pennsylvania taxpayers will enter the State Capitol Building from
Third Street and Commonwealth Avenue entrances. They will advance
to their respective representative or senator's office and remain
there the entire day to send a message to big government that THIS
DAY we will no longer stand for increased taxes and irresponsible
spending funded by WE the taxpayers! If their office is filled find
another legislator's office that isn't! Fill the Rotundas and then
the halls!
Legislators have a planned calendar for June 9, 2009 . . . Let
them know that YOU, their employer, are demanding they listen and
act on what you have to say!
Join us for a peaceful taxpayer's protest in the fight for our
freedom!
I find the concept very cool. This isn’t a sign waving protest
on the steps of the Capitol in Harrisburg. No, this is a peaceful
protest where concerned citizens simply go to the offices of their
State Legislators and State Senators and SIT. Just take up space and
get the attention of our elected officials. Very interesting indeed!
If you are sick and tired of being sick and tired, but you want a
way to look your Legislators in the eye and let them know that you
are dissatisfied, this is a great opportunity. For more details, go
to the Taxpayers' Protest website at http://www.statecapitolprotest.com/.
If you are interested in attending, here are the office locations
of the Legislators from Mercer County:
Senator Bob Robbins
Room 337 Capitol Building
Representative Michele Brooks 153B East Wing
Representative Mark Longietti
103 Irvis Office Building
On April 30 I wrote a post titled Tolling
of I-80 Still an Open Issue. In it, I explained that although
many of us thought that the prospect of tolling I-80 had ended back
in 2008, the issue is still open. According to the details, the tolling
of I-80 was not really stopped by politicians and efforts by Legislators.
Instead, Pennsylvania’s application was simply turned down by
the Federal Highway Administration [read the details HERE].
The issue did not ‘go away’ at all. The application was
simply rejected. The PA Department of Transportation and Turnpike
Commission have the ability to reapply at any point again in the future.
At the end of March, a group of Legislators put together a Resolution
(HR 197) which attempts to put an end to the ‘possibility’
of the Turnpike Commission reapplying for the tolling of I-80 at some
point in the future. The Resolution was introduced by Representative
Hutchison (R-64) and was supported by Representative Michele Brooks
(R-17) and Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8) of Mercer County as
well as Rep. Brad Roae (R-6) of neighboring Crawford County.
After an unsuccessful attempt to push the resolution through as part
of HB 67 at the end of April, HR 197 sits in the House Transportation
Committee. My theory is that Legislators are not motivated to push
for the legislation as they may be holding off in order to get a big
bump in voter support in an election year . . . 2010. It is my guess,
therefore, that the resolution will sit until about June of next year
when State Representatives are looking to get re-elected.
Although our Legislature may not be motivated to get rid of the possibility
of tolling I-80, you can’t say the same for commercial interests.
While it isn’t something that most of us think much about, there
is lots of money to be made (outside of Harrisburg) if the tolling
of I-80 goes through. One such example is the firm of McCormick Taylor,
an engineering and planning company located in Philadelphia. According
to the company website [view HERE],
McCormick Taylor is advertising themselves as the Pennsylvania Turnpike
Commissions management consultant for the I-80 tolling project. They
even have a web page devoted to the project HERE.
While our Legislators are sitting on their laurels, you can bet your
bottom dollar that businesses are motivated and looking for every
opportunity to make money on this project. I'm certain that backroom
deals have already been struck, and companies and executives are counting
their profits . . . for a project that isn’t supposed to happen.
I’m concerned that the commercial interests related to the tolling
of I-80 may have been working the phones and shaking hands with plenty
of lawmakers in Harrisburg since last year. I suspect that they will
do anything in their power to see to it that the project for tolling
I-80 moves forward. Realize that I support free enterprise and I want
companies to make money. However, in the case of tolling I-80, the
interests of the citizens and the communities and business that will
be effected need to be taken into consideration too. That is SUPPOSED
to be the responsibility of our Legislators. Unfortunately, they are
only busy looking out for their own best interests (re-election) .
. . not the interests of the people who put them into office.
On April 30, 2009, I sent an email message to the State House of Representatives
email accounts of Representatives Michele Brooks, Mark Longietti, and
Dick Stevenson [read the original email message HERE].
The message was CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY of a legislative nature. On
May 4 and May 6 I received written responses from Representatives Stevenson
and Longietti, respectively, stating that email queries from me are
not welcome due to the 'political nature of my blog'.
I found it amazing (as well as professionally offensive) that elected
officials representing Mercer County would refuse to answer my questions
simply because I have a blog. Today, however, my faith in the system
has been partially restored.
This afternoon I received a letter from Representative Michele Brooks.
At first I was hesitant to open it as I figured that it was going to
be more of the same . . . complaints about my questions and restrictions
on my freedom to ask questions. I braced myself for the worst.
I was pleasantly surprised to find that rather than chastise me about
the ‘political nature of my blog’, Representative Brooks
took the time to simply answer the question that I had posed regarding
House Bill 67. The full text of the letter can be viewed through a link
to the PDF (above right). In her letter (in response to my email asking
for his opinion on HB67), Representative Brooks states:
Frankly, I agree with some portions of the legislation.
However, my biggest fear with legislation like this is that we create
a bigger problem than what we are trying to fix. One of the consequences
of this bill, as it is written, will dramatically mandate the increase
of inexperienced drivers on our roadways, as well as provide transportation
challenges for residents in rural Pennsylvania.
Imagine it . . . a letter from a Legislator simply answering my question
and not bothering to tell me to ‘go away and quit asking questions’.
Was that so difficult? Should this be so rare?
It seems to me that our Legislators should be able to answer (without
much difficulty) simple questions regarding their opinions on votes
that they cast. They should be ready, willing, and able educate the
electorate about the choices that they make. Whether or not I agree
with her final vote (or her reasoning for voting in that way), I respect
Representative Brooks for taking the time to explain her actions as
a Legislator.
For the sake of fairness and comparison, I’ve provided links
to copies of all three of the letters from Brooks, Longietti, and
Stevenson for comparison. Feel free to read all three and make a decision
for yourself.
Letter from Representative Michele Brooks [CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW PDF]:
Letter from Representative Mark Longietti [CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW PDF]:
Letter from Representative Dick Stevenson [CLICK IMAGE TO VIEW PDF]:
I would like to thank Representative Brooks for taking the time to
answer my question.
What follows is an email message that was sent this morning in response
to recent letters from Representatives Dick Stevenson and Mark Longietti.
The letters stated that email questions are not welcome to their State
email accounts because of the 'political nature' of my blog. The email
message was sent to Representative Dick Stevenson, Representative Mark
Longietti, and Representative Michele Brooks along with carbon copies
to the local and Statewide news outlets (in-print newspapers, on-line
newspapers, radio, blogs, and blog portals) and leaders of the House
Democrats and House Republicans.
The content below is full and unedited:
SUBJECT: Questions Regarding Legislative Issues
TO:
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Mark Longietti
Representative Dick Stevenson
On April 30, 2009, I sent an email message to your State House of Representatives
email accounts. The message was CLEARLY and SPECIFICALLY of a legislative
nature. On May 4 and May 6 I received written responses from Representatives
Stevenson and Longietti, respectively, stating that email queries from
me are not welcome due to the 'political nature of my blog'.
I would like to remind you all that it is my right as a taxpayer in
these United States to ask ANY type of question of my elected officials
that I feel to be appropriate, but most especially as it relates to
legislative issues. As a taxpayer in Mercer County, my rights are fully
supported to expect transparency and accountability from the elected
officials that represent my County of residence.
I realize that upon receipt of a query, you, as Legislators, have every
right to ignore my requests based on 'any prejudice' that you choose
(be it my sex, my race, my age, my profession, my political party, or
my hobbies), but please realize that you cannot STOP my right to ask
the questions.
I've shared your responses with other concerned citizens in the Commonwealth
through my blog posts titled State
Representative Dick Stevenson Feels That Bloggers Shouldn't Ask Questions
and Democratic
and Republican Caucuses Join Ranks to Shut Out Bloggers (read
HERE
and HERE).
Both stories grew legs and were eventually shared State-wide. The feedback
that I received was very interesting. My favorite response was posted
in an on-line forum and it read "If these letters are real, then the
legislators should explain why some people should be treated like second
class citizens simply because they utilize the internet."
While you (with the apparent support of the Democratic and Republican
Leadership and Caucuses) may feel that your stand is completely justified
and acceptable, it is important that you understand that the voters
of Pennsylvania do not necessarily agree.
I will continue to submit queries of a legislative nature to your State-funded
email accounts, as it is my right to do so. You also have every right
to ignore my messages. Realize, however, that I ultimately intend on
exercising my right to free speech by sharing the details of your uncooperative
behavior with my fellow citizens.
A SIDE NOTE: While it is apparently of no interest to any of you, House
Bill 67 (the subject of my original query) is a polarizing issue and
deserves further discussion and explanation. Within Mercer County alone
there were two drastically different opinions published regarding the
topic. These opinions will be read by thousands of 'concerned citizens'
right here in Mercer County as well as across the Commonwealth. Perhaps
it would be to your benefit to care about the opinions of your constituents
and the people that you are supposed to represent.
Roberta Biros
Delaware Township
Mercer County, Pennsylvania, USA
cc:
The Herald
The Record Argus
Penn-Live
News Talk 790 WPIC
Allen Media
GrassrootsPA.com
PAWaterCooler.com
BlogNetNews.com
Representative Todd Eachus (sent via on-line contact form)
Representative H. William DeWeese (sent via on-line contact form)
Representative Samuel H. Smith
Representative Mike Turzai
Written
by Roberta Biros
State
Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti respond to query .
. . Senator Robbins and Representative Stevenson do not
