Representative Michele Brooks is a member of the Pennsylvania
House of Representatives. She was elected to that office in 2006 to Represent
the 17th District. She has offices in Greenville, Meadville, Sandy Lake,
New Wilmington, and Harrisburg.
The internet is a wonderful thing. It has provided us with an
endless database of digital information including articles, photos,
and videos that are accessible with great ease. I found a presentation
on YouTube the other day and it is fascinating. The piece was
produced by Titan Radio News in December of 2008 as a tool to
highlight the long and wonderful career of State Senator Bob Robbins.
In the interview, you get an opportunity to find out exactly how
Senator Robbins found his way into the State Government. I invite
you to listen
to the interview (or click below) and hear (in Senator Robbin’s
own voice) as he admits his “accidental fall into”
government after the political re-districting of the area.
Senator Robbins says “you’d rather be lucky
than good”
To quote Senator Robbins:
“By the time they got done with drawing the new districts
I was setting in the middle of a brand new district that didn’t
have a Representative. So, within 6 months I got to run again,
basically for a house seat. As it worked out as I tell a lot of
people . . . ‘sometimes you’d rather be lucky
than good . . . other times is that you’ve got to be in
the right place at the right time’.”
Never does Senator Robbins say that he deserved the seat in the
House of Representatives because of his dedication to the needs
of the people, and he never stated that he was selected because
he was the best candidate for the job. Instead, Senator Robbins
admits that he was “lucky” and he was “in the
right place at the right time”. If it weren’t so sad,
it would almost be funny.
The Back Door Politics Continue
The most bothersome part of his statement is that it defines
politics of the past in our area. If the “sliding through
the back door” approach to public office seems familiar,
you know your stuff. In 2006 a similar back door approach allowed
Representative Michele Brooks to fall into her spot in the same
district (the 17th) when she was selected to replace former
State Representative Rod Wilt as the Republican nominee. Again,
it was another example of “it was better to be lucky than
good”, and Ms. Brooks seemed to be “in the right
place at the right time”. It makes you wonder if the trend
is as accidental as it appears.
Knowing
what we know about “business as usual in area politics”
and realizing how the good ol’ boys (and girls) prefer
to control “who gets lucky”, it is interesting to
think through the thought process of political strategy in our
area. Let us use this year as an example as we examine a possibility
. . .
Is 2010 another Back Door Deal year?
If the Mercer GOP and their political friends were to use the
“better to be lucky than good” strategy again, what
sort of conservations would they be having in 2010.
As many of you know, at the beginning of 2010 it looked as though
State Senator Robbins and State Representative Brooks would
be running unopposed through the General Election in November.
Unfortunately for the Senator, an Independent candidate* has
stepped up to challenge Senator Robbins and the fate of Representative
Brooks is still unknown. The Senator was probably hoping to
rebound from his close race of 2006 (where he LOST his home
county of Mercer by the way), and was planning on going out
on a high note. At the point that he realized that he will now
have an opponent, and that opponent will most probably expose
all of the ugly truths about the Senator and his past, has the
Senator started to consider ways to avoid an ugly loss? Could
he be looking for ways to slide out on a “high”?
Is it possible that a hand-off is in the works for 2010? Could
Senator Robbins be planning to step down (before the dirt from
his past begins to resurface) and allow Representative Brooks
to step up and access the Senate seat through another backdoor
deal?
This past weekend, Representative Brooks was spotted promoting
herself at a local TEA Party [read the story HERE]
including the distribution of yard signs (of all things), but
Senator Robbins was no where to be seen? Who exactly is Representative
Brooks running against that she feels a need to distribute yard
signs? Why was it so necessary for her to bully her way onto
the stage at Saturday’s event? Who is her opponent this
year? Is it possible that her opponent is going to be an Independent*
that is running for State Senate? Hmmmmm. Wouldn’t that
be interesting?
Is
it possible that Senator Robbins knows that the political climate
in 2010 will make it extremely difficult (if not impossible)
for him to win re-election in November. Is he fearful of going
down in flames . . . and thus tarnishing his long career forever?
Would he prefer to leave on a high note and pass the challenge
onto his young enough and smart enough protégé? Is Representative
Brooks desperate enough to take on the challenge? Is she willing
to take yet another backroom deal in an effort to slide into
higher office?
* - For those of you that are not aware of the details, the
“Independent Candidate” is me, Roberta Biros, political
analyst and editor of Mercer County Conservatives.
Brooks vs. Biros?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall for the conversations
that have already transpired in the past several weeks. Time
will tell, and I can’t wait to see the results. While
“the Independent candidate for State Senate” (Roberta
Biros) had no intention of taking on Representative Brooks head
on, I know that the same “Independent candidate”
has no intention of backing off from the challenge if Ms. Brooks
decides to offer it.
If Representative Brooks takes “the deal”, she will
again demonstrate that she is not part of the solution . . .
but is very clearly part of the problem in area politics. I
look forward to accepting that challenge any day of the week.
It would be the perfect opportunity to prove Robbins and Brooks
wrong and to demonstrate that some of us believe that “It
is better to be good than to be lucky!”.
As always, just my opinion (but if it happens, realize that
you heard it here first).
There was a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party in Meadville Pennsylvania
today. It was cold . . . it was really cold. It was windy . .
. oh heck, it was really windy. The TEA Party DID go on, but it
wasn’t an overwhelming crowd or an overwhelming success.
The event was scheduled to begin at 11am. We arrived at 10am,
but attendees didn’t really start to show up until 10:55am.
The crowd was small at the start, and although it did grow slightly,
I’d estimate that the totals never reached 150.
The speakers were many . . . perhaps too many. Some of the speakers
overstayed their welcome and it impacted the crowd. It was unfortunate.
There were a number of elected officials and candidates that were
patiently waiting for their opportunity to speak, but for most
that opportunity never surfaced. There was ONE elected official
that took the opportunity to step ahead of everyone else, and
it was disturbing.
State Representative Michele Brooks made it clear
that her busy schedule required her to be “at a thing”,
so she jumped ahead of everyone else. She got up to the podium
and promoted herself for a few minutes and then was on her way
out as quickly as possible. Unfortunately for the other elected
officials and candidates who didn’t use their prestige and
clout to bully ahead of the crowd, they were left to wait for
an opportunity to speak . . . and wait they did.
The event was scheduled to run from 11am until 2pm. At 2pm, one
very long-winded speaker finally wound up his presentation and
the crowd began to leave out of disgust. It was at that point
that the candidates who had spent their day at the event realized
that their opportunity to address a crowd was disappearing.
I left shortly after 2pm after discussing the matter with a number
of candidates. It was a shame that candidates that are pressed
for time before a very important Primary were not treated with
any compassion for their situation. They were all playing fair
and they all respected that they were invited guests, but they
were tossed aside unfairly by speakers who were unwilling to yield
the podium and organizers who failed to control time limits.
There were no formal introductions of those present, but I spotted
a number of familiar faces on my own. In the crowd were Daryl
Metcalfe (candidate for Lt. Governor), Jean Craig
Pepper (candidate for Lt. Governor), and Dr.
Martha Moore, Ed Franz, Mike
Kelly, Clayton Grabb, and Paul
Huber (all candidates for the 3rd Congressional District).
I managed to speak with all of them (even if briefly). [Steve
Fisher, the last remaining candidate in the 3rd Congressional
District, did not attend.]
Congressman Thompson (5th Congressional District)
was given the opportunity to address the crowd, and State
Representative Brad Roae was left sitting on the sidelines
waiting his turn (which I never witnessed).
It was a nice event with well-meant intentions.
Congratulations to the Tea Party organizers for putting their
best foot forward . . .
Congratulations to Michele Brooks for once again putting her needs
ahead of those of others . . .
and my sincerest sympathies to those candidates and elected officials
that spent the day in the cold and wet waiting for an opportunity
to connect with voters . . . an opportunity that seemed unattainable
today.
Really? Really! Are you kidding me? WJET-TV in Erie covered the
Meadville TEA Party event and they ONLY ONE that gets an interview
is MICHELE BROOKS. Seriously? Are you kidding me?
This just goes to show that I did not embellish my summary of
the event . . . Representative Michele Brooks was the ONLY ONE
that got to speak . . . on camera and off!
(although they seemed to embellish a bit with their estimate of
"hundreds" of attendees)
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 Michele Brooks (R-17th)
Grade: B (Scored 44 out of 50 = 88%)
The Details of Representative
Michele Brooks’ 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": 5
As a fiscal conservative, Representative Michele Brooks receives
my highest marks. She has received my highest rating on my list
of fiscal
conservative Representatives. This score is a no-brainer.
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: 2
Representative Brooks receives a 2 in this category. Rep. Brooks
is a positive force in her community and in Harrisburg, despite
her limited years in office. She is a “respectable”
and “respected” representative of the people of her
district . . . She has not, however, established herself as a
leader. I’ve discounted her in this category because she
has proven to be a “follower” within County politics.
Rather than taking a lead, she has chosen to take a back seat
to louder voices, and for that lack of strong character I discount
her three points.
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: 4
Michele Brooks is smart. Some would argue that she is not “book
smart”, but I disagree. When challenged, Ms. Brooks proves
that she can get up to speed on any topic quickly. She accumulates
“book smarts” as needed and continues to expand her
intellect in the process. I would give myself a “4”
in General Intellect . . . and I will give Representative Brooks
the same for the same reasons.
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 What Rep. Brooks lacks in the General Intellect category,
she makes up for “in spades” in the capability category.
If I could have given her a 6, I would have. She is more than
capable and her use of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire
provide her with a high mark here.
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
I like Representative Brooks. Unfortunately, it is not only my
opinion that matters in this category. Unfortunately, there are
many (mostly Democrats) that “have a strong dislike”
for Ms. Brooks. For that reason I must discount her one point.
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: 4
Representative Brooks is always responsive to questions, but that
is covered under “Public Service” (below). In the
category of “Transparency and Accountability” I give
her a one point discount. While she generally answers all of my
questions openly, sometimes I need to push to get those answers.
Her first responses are generally guarded, but follow up questions
will usually provide the necessary details.
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: 5 Representative Brooks has responded to every request
that I’ve ever had of her. She has contacted me personally
by phone or email, and she generally does so within a day or two
of my request. She is a public servant . . . through and through.
Desire to Represent “The People” of her 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
Michele Brooks is not stupid. She knows that her constituents
elected her, and she takes her orders directly from them. She
usually votes with her Caucus, but those votes also represent
the very conservative views of the people in the 17th District.
She represents her people well.
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: 5
She may not look it, but Michele Brooks defines “Scrappy”.
She considers going the “extra mile” to be her job,
not a bonus to the people of her District. I don’t see her
ever being UNwilling to roll up her sleeves to get the job done.
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
I made an open invitation to Representative Brooks in 2008 (in
a similar Litmus test). I’ve got a pot of coffee ready and
waiting for her anytime she wants to stop by. For the record,
she has never accepted the offer.
In Closing . . .
Representative Brooks faired well in my unscientific test (although
I’m sure that she would complain that a “B”
grade is unfair). While she falls short in some categories, she
rates high in those areas that determine her ability to do her
job. That job is to represent the people of her district in Harrisburg,
and she has done that well. I find it difficult to harp on Rep.
Brooks too harshly because the truth is that we need more fiscal
conservatives like her in Harrisburg.
Governor Rendell is in a hurry to pass a budget before the June
30th deadline (for the first time in his career as Governor I
might add). That is a GOOD THING.
Unfortunately, the piece of garbage that passed the House today
is a mess. I don’t usually allow legislators to put words
in my mouth, but in this case I’ll make an exception. I’d
like to quote Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th District),
whose official email announcement stated that “this
spending plan is a fiscal train wreck”.
Wow! I wish I had written it myself! In a way, I guess I just
did. It was absolute plagiarism . . . plain and simple but I digress.
Regardless of WHO said it first . . .
Calling the budget a "fiscal train wreck" is some strikingly straight
talk from a Harrisburg insider. In response, I say “It’s
about time”.
I received numerous email messages from Pennsylvania legislators
today. Each one explained that the idea of passing a budget quickly
(and well before the deadline) is a great idea. Every legislator
hopes to have a budget passed before the end of June this year
. . . especially those legislators that have opponents in the
General Election. However, the obvious fiscal irresponsibility
of House Bill 2279 is poor policy. We can all tiptoe around the
fiscal quagmire that IS the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but
all of the icing in the world can’t sweeten this poison
pill that they call a State budget.
Here are a few excerpts from the legislator email messages that
were received in my “In Box”:
Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8th)
“At a time when state revenues have not yet rebounded, Pennsylvania
needs to look to other states and follow their lead to reduce
spending, not increase the state budget by $1.2 billion or 4 percent,”
said Stevenson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee.
“Neighboring states like Maryland, New Jersey and New York
have all taken steps to decrease expenses. They face the same
financial obstacles we do, but they realize their taxpayers cannot
afford a penny more in increased taxes and fees.”
Representative Brad Roae (R-6th)
“I voted ‘no’ because there is too much spending
in the budget bill. Spending has increased by more than $8 billion
since Governor Ed Rendell took office. We cannot afford to spend
more than a billion dollars more than last year’s budget.
Representative Karen Boback (R-117th)
“I am greatly concerned about the overall spending number
of this budget. The 2009-10 budget used all of Pennsylvania’s
reserve accounts, and we are facing another deficit at the end
of the year. To increase spending by $1.2 billion, which is 4
percent growth, is not wise. We should continue to look for ways
to allocate our resources prudently, and we should remain cognizant
that federal stimulus funds we have received for the past two
years will soon run out. This is just not the time to increase
state spending. “
Representative Sam Rohrer (R-128th)
“The current administration has led Pennsylvania down the
path to fiscal insolvency,” Rohrer said. “The budget
approved today by the House is simply a continuation of the fiscally
irresponsible practices of the last eight years. It spends too
much, disregards financial reality and ignores the wishes of Pennsylvanians.”
Representative William Adolf (R-165th)
“While I am pleased to see us debating the budget this early
in the process, I believe the spending plan that was passed today
is taking us in the wrong direction,” Adolph said. “This
budget spends far more than we can afford, and it sets us up for
some major financial problems in the near future.”
Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th)
“I agree that government should be listening to the people
it serves and address the numerous calls to live within its means.
This spending plan is a fiscal train wreck that does not reflect
the priorities of the people who are paying the bills and who
have told us government must operate more efficiently and effectively.
In Closing . . .
HERE
is a link to the budget document, and HERE
is a link to the House Vote (which ended at 107 to 89 . .
. pretty much along party lines).
My father used a saying when I was a kid. I never had a purpose
for it until today. He would say “You can’t make a
silk purse out of a sows ear”. I find that analogy to be
perfect in this situation. House Bill 2279 is a sows ear. It will
be the job of the State Senate to transform it into a silk purse
before June 30th.
Unfortunately, my faith in the ability of the Senate to bend and
twist this sows ear into something attractive is limited. Our
State Senators are concerned about having their names tethered
to another delayed budget. That concern will make them hold their
nose and vote FOR this “train wreck” with hopes of
not drawing attention to themselves. They are crossing their fingers,
closing their eyes, and praying for this election year to blow
over without incident.
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.
The Federal Government seems out of control. There are things
going on in Washington DC right now that make us feel helpless.
There are deals going on inside the beltway that don’t seem
to take the concerns of Pennsylvanians into consideration. It
is partially our fault for having elected Senators and Representatives
that don’t care about us or our needs, but national politics
is sometimes “too big” for some locals to feel attached
to. I’m one of those people. I work hard to retain the ear
of my state legislators (some of them), but when it comes to our
Senators and Representatives in Washington DC, I’m left
with a feeling that they “live in DC now” and they
don’t have a sense of what their constituents in the area
are thinking.
Let us take a look at the key issues on the national news THIS
MORNING. If you tune in to Fox News today, Saturday, March 20,
2010, you will find ONE gigantic story topping the headlines.
That topic is Health Care Reform. Let us talk about that subject
first.
Health Care Reform
Like many of you, I’ve received numerous email messages
and phone calls urging me to contact my Congresswoman (Kathy Dahlkemper)
to urge her to vote Yes OR No for Health Care Reform. If you attempt
to call the Congresswoman’s office, however, you never get
an opportunity to talk to her. In some cases you can’t even
get through to the office because of the high volume of calls.
It is difficult to feel attached to the issue when you can’t
even have an educated debate regarding the topic.
We see that many are making the trip to DC in an effort to protest
one side of the issue or the other, but not everyone has the time
or money to make a trip like that. We are left back at home watching
the discourse from a distance on TV or over the internet.
In the end, we are all left with the feeling that Health Care
Reform will be decided through backroom deals and super secret
payoffs. What WE have to say doesn’t really matter in the
long run.
Closing Guantanamo Bay in
exchange for military tribunals
Another issue that is at the top of the headlines is a possible
“horse trade agreement” headed by Lindsey Graham that
will close Guantanamo Bay in exchange for military tribunals.
It is another example of politicians making backroom deals that
WE have no control over. Lindsey Graham thinks that he can make
a deal, but Eric Holder still stresses that he “believes
in civilian trials”. Lindsey Graham may think that he is
making a “gentlemen’s agreement”, but I would
argue that there is no such thing in Washington DC.
What are our Legislators
doing to protect us from the deals in Washington DC?
Using the two examples above, it is important that Pennsylvanians
understand that they DO have a way to fight back against the deals
in Washington. Our way to protect ourselves against “deal
making” is to count on our State Lawmakers. Here are a few
examples of state legislators that are pushing to protect us from
Washington DC deals:
HR 562 is a House Resolution memorializing the Congress of the
United States in its health care reform decisions to apply the
American Cancer Society's guidelines for breast cancer screening.
Rather than following the USPSTF recommendation against teaching
women breast self-examination and recommendation against routine
mammograms for women 40 to 49, HR 562 requests that Congress apply
the recommendation of the American Cancer Society (suggesting
continued annual screening).
HR 562 may seem silly to some in that it is extremely specific,
but it attempts to send a message to Washington DC regarding a
very specific concern. It illustrates that our only way to combat
the Universal Health Care Reform legislation may be by picking
it apart one item at a time.
HB 2179 is a House Bill with a broader goal. HB2179 is a House
Bill which attempts to amend the PA Constitution by adding the
following clause: "No law or program shall be enacted requiring
citizens of this Commonwealth to participate in a health care
system and no law or program shall:(1) prohibit a person from
or penalize a person for making direct payment to a health care
provider for tendering health care services;(2) prohibit or penalize
the purchase of health care insurance from a privately owned health
care insurance company; or (3) penalize a person, employer or
health care provider for declining to participate in a health
care system.
This bill is specifically designed to protect us from the unconstitutional
elements of the Health Care Reform legislation that is being pushed
through Washington DC.
What do they mean?
These pieces of legislation illustrate that there are elected
representatives in Harrisburg that are actively attempting to
protect Pennsylvanians from the actions of Washington DC. If we
can’t fight DC, we can atleast retain protection from their
poor decisions. In the case of HR 562, we can send clear messages
to to DC regarding a specific issue (breast cancer screening).
In the case of HB 2179, we can attempt to protect ourselves in
the case that our specific messages aren’t heard.
HR 110 is a House Resolution that urges the United States Congress
not to transfer any detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention
camp to Pennsylvania.
HR 622 is a House Resolution memorializing the United States Department
of Justice and United States Attorney General Eric Holder to not
hold the trials for those individuals accused of being the masterminds
behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the citizens
of the United States of America in Pennsylvania.
What do they mean?
These pieces of legislation attempt to send a message to Washington
DC that explain that Pennsylvanians don’t agree with the
direction that DC is going. They make simple statements like “we
don’t want your detainees” and “we don’t
want your 9/11 trials”. We many not have the ability to
control the decisions in DC, but we can send a clear message that
we don’t want to be a part of their actions.
Wrapping it up
These are just a few examples of how Pennsylvanians can have a
voice in Washington DC. While you may not be able to state your
concerns personally to your Senators and Congressmen and women,
you we still have the ability to voice our concerns through your
state lawmakers. While Congresswoman Dahlkemper may not return
my calls, I know that I will receive a response from State Representatives
like Curt Schroeder, Karen Boback, Dan Moul, and Michele Brooks.
You don’t believe me? Well, try it for yourself. I may not
reside in Representative Brooks district (although I am from her
County), but that doesn’t stop her from responding to my
questions. I don’t live anywhere near Curt Schroeder’s
district, but he has responded to my email inquiries personally
(and I might add that he did so more quickly than my own legislators).
Here is some advice. If you find that YOUR legislators aren’t
listening, find ones that do. The legislator that represents my
district (Representative Mark Longietti from the 7th in Mercer
County) is responsive to my questions and he is a nice fella,
but he doesn’t support the issues that are important to
me. As a concerned citizen that actively pushes for government
reform, transparancy, and accountability, I’ve found it
necessary to seek legislators that “think the way that I
think” and that “support the issues that are important
to me”. If you are finding yourself frustrated with your
elected officials, take steps to fix the problem . . .
(1) work to vote out the lawmakers that don’t represent
your values
(2) seek out and support lawmakers that DO represent your values
(where ever they may be)
* NOTE: Representatives Karen Boback, Curt Schroeder,
Dan Moul, and Michele Brooks are all included in the Directory
of Fiscal Conservative Pennsylvania State Legislators. If
you are looking for legislators that support good government,
you might want to start with this list.
BLOG POST
UPDATE:
In case you thought the concept of holding 9/11 trials in PA were
not going to happen, READ
THIS article that explains that Joe Sestak "supports trying
9/11-mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Western Pennsylvania".
According to the article:
On Sunday, Joe Sestak told WPVI ABC News he is “open
to the possibility” and he
will “accept it” if the trial is moved from New
York City to Pennsylvania. He is also adamantly in favor of
holding Mohammed’s trial in a civilian court, where we
will be forced to grant the terrorist generous rights that may
compromise our national security interests.
This is just another reminder that HR 622 (referenced above) needs
to be passed sooner than later!
Today is March 15th. Today is also my 44th birthday. As an annual
tradition, I have the pleasure of posting a selfish little blog
. . . because I am the Editor. My comments today aren’t about
politics (well, not specifically any way). I’ll give the Google
and Yahoo search engines a break today and I won’t mention
any of the typical HOT TOPICS like:
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (soon to be referred
to as former Congresswoman and Millionaire Kathy Dahlkemper)
Senator Bob Robbins (a.k.a. Coconut Bob or Bob
“I never met a payraise I didn’t like” Robbins)
Representative Michele Brooks (a.k.a. “they
can’t stand me but they know they can’t beat me”
Brooks)
Representative Mark Longietti (a.k.a. “I
can make better decisions for my constituents than they can make
for themselves” Longietti)
Representative Dick Stevenson (a.k.a. “don’t
send me email messages” Dick)
Mercer County Commissioners Ken Ammann, Brian Beader, or
John Lechner (a.k.a. Moe, Larry, and Curly)
or Farm Subsidies (and the “greedy and corrupt”
people that take them)
Today’s blog is NOT about those people (but
Google and Yahoo will have a blast sorting out my references to
them today).
Today’s blog is simply a set of two musical references for
your enjoyment. For those of you that have followed this blog over
the past year and a half, you know that I like to toss in musical
references from time to time as a matter of personal therapy. I
share my very personal thoughts with you so that you may gain an
understanding of what makes me tick. Today is one of those “times”.
God is Great, Beer is Good, and People are Crazy
The first is a little ditty that I have really grown to love. I
added it to my iPod a few months back, and I smile every time my
playlist cycles through to it. The song is “God is Great,
Beer is Good, and People are Crazy” by Billy Currington. There
is nothing specific in the lyrics that needs to be highlighted.
Instead, the simple title alone says it all. There are times when
I think back at some of the crazy (and crazed) people that I’ve
met over the past year, and this song simply helps to put it all
in perspective. Sometimes there is no way to explain people or their
behavior. There are situations in life when you just have to say
“people are crazy”.
HERE is
a link to the full video on YouTube if you’d care to indulge.
It's the Climb
Second is a song that I never thought much about until last week.
Did you ever hear a song a hundred times and never really think
much of it . . . but then one day you hear the lyrics and they are
different some how? It is as though words and music suddenly BECAME
something that they never were before. I heard this song on the
radio just last week, and it wasn’t until about half way through
that I actually listened to the words. It was at that moment I saw
the meaning in the song and how it applied to me. The song is “It’s
the Climb” by Miley Cyrus. Allow me to quote the specific
portion of the lyrics that made me stop and think:
There's always gonna be another mountain
I'm always gonna wanna make it move
Always gonna be a uphill battle
Sometimes I'm gonna have to lose
Ain't about how fast I get there
Ain't about what's waiting on the other side
It's the climb
The words “There’s always gonna be another mountain,
I’m always gonna wanna make it move” applies to me specifically
because when I run into a mountain I don’t try to find a way
around it. I’d rather move the whole darn thing. In politics,
that has made me quite the hot potato in Mercer County, but I pride
myself on my determination and my unique ability to think outside
of the box. I'm a bit of a renegade in that way.
The words “Always gonna be an uphill battle, Sometimes I’m
gonna have to lose” were the words that got my attention and
made me take pause. In the political scene I have lost,
but it is important to understand that doing so was simply an inevitable
part of the big picture. In much the same thought as "what does
not kill us makes us stronger", the concept of embracing "being
a loser" makes us better people . . . and I like that.
Lastly, the words “Ain’t about how fast I get there,
Ain’t about what’s waiting on the other side, It’s
the climb” again applies to me in a special way. I’ve
decided that what I’m doing in my small realm of political
activism is a long journey. I may never make it to the other side,
but from this moment on I’m going to enjoy "the climb". "My
Climb" may, in fact, be my very special mission.
“Enjoy the Climb” is now my new anthem. I’ll use
it often to remind myself that winning or losing isn’t what
matters. It is more important than that . . . I do what I do because
it is bigger than just me.
Cool, huh?
HERE is
a link to the video on YouTube if you’d care to take a minute
to hear the full song.
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!
Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) would like to
let residents know that forms for the state’s Property Tax/Rent
Rebate program for 2009 are now available and offers assistance
to residents in completing the rebate forms.
Eligible participants can receive a rebate of up to $650 based
on their rent or property taxes paid in 2009. The program benefits
eligible Pennsylvanians who are 65 years or older, widows and widowers
50 years or older, and those 18 years or older with permanent disabilities.
Eligibility income limits for homeowners and renters are set
at the following levels, excluding 50 percent of Social Security,
Supplemental Security Income, and Railroad Retirement Tier 1 benefits:
$0 to $8,000, maximum $650 rebate (Homeowners and renters)
$8,001 to $15,000, maximum $500 rebate (Homeowners and renters)
$15,001 to $18,000, maximum $300 rebate (Homeowners only)
$18,001 to $35,000, maximum $250 rebate (Homeowners only)
The Property Tax/Rent Rebate program is one of many initiatives
supported by the Pennsylvania Lottery, which dedicates its proceeds
to support programs for older Pennsylvanians. Since the program
began in 1971, more than $4 billion has been paid to qualified applicants.
Residents are reminded to provide all the necessary income, property
tax or rental information required to process claims quickly and
accurately. Applications are due by June 30.
Property Tax/Rent Rebate claim forms are available by contacting
Brooks’ office at (724) 588-8911 or (800) 457-2040 or by visiting
her Web site at RepMicheleBrooks.com.
Rep. Michele Brooks
17th District Pennsylvania House of Representatives
To honor and respect the memory of the heroic passengers and crew members
killed aboard United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County on Sept.
11, 2001, and to protect the safety and well being of Pennsylvania residents,
Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) is sponsoring a resolution
urging the U.S. Attorney General to remove Pennsylvania as a possible
location for the upcoming trial of the terrorists.
“We owe the brave men and women aboard that flight
our eternal gratitude and respect for their bravery and patriotism
shown in their final hours,” Brooks said. “These people
were true American heroes, and to consider Pennsylvania as a location
for the trial is dishonorable at best.”
The resolution, which Brooks expects to formally introduce in the
House in the coming days, requests the U.S. Department of Justice
and Attorney General Eric Holder eliminate Pennsylvania from consideration
as an alternative location for the trials of the Sept. 11, 2001, masterminds.
The criminals are slated to go on trial in New York City; however,
the Obama administration has since announced that alternative locations
are being considered. The decision on an alternative location is being
left up to Attorney General Holder.
Since this announcement, the federal court in the Western District
of Pennsylvania – which includes all of Pennsylvania –
has been mentioned as an alternative.
“The military should be handling these trials as
the risks are too great to our homeland security. Although the federal
government is now pledging $200 million to help pay for security
costs, there is no indication that this amount will cover all of
the necessary expenses which must be undertaken to ensure the safety
and peace of mind of the citizens of Pennsylvania,” Brooks
added.
Rep. Michele Brooks
17th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(724) 588-8911
(800) 457-2040
(814) 337-8132
(717) 783-5008
Member Site: RepMicheleBrooks.com
Caucus Site: PAHouseGOP.com
I was accessing Google Maps the other day in an effort to find directions
to a high school basketball tournament. After generating my driving
directions I noted that Google also provided photographs of various
points along the designated route. This included a photo representing
the starting point of my trip . . . my home.
I clicked on the icon to view the image and I was surprised to be
provided with a photograph of my house. I was then equally shocked
to notice that the photo included another interesting detail . .
. political signs in my yard. How funny!
Upon closer examination, I was delighted to see that the signs were
from the 2008 General Election. While the image may be meaningless
to some, it has provided me with immeasurable entertainment. My
“trained eye” can clearly see three (3) political signs
in my yard. My special attention to detail can also see that two
(2) of the signs were for McCain/Palin (or, as Chairman Bob Lark
would say, Palin/McCain) and one (1) of the signs was for State
Representative Michele Brooks. While some folks might not spot such
details, the Google image triggered a photographic memory in my
brain and managed to provide me with total recollection. I can see
it all so clearly . . . two McCain/Palin signs (one at each end
of the property) and one bright, fluorescent Brooks sign smack dab
in the very center. I recall the sight with absolutely clarity .
. . I also recall mowing around the signs for nearly two months
that fall (I’m not sure which I recall more vividly).
First, I should explain for those of you that aren’t familiar
with my background . . . back in fall of 2008 I was a Republican.
As a Republican I openly supported the Republican Party and its
candidates. It was not until early 2009 that I changed my party
affiliation to Democrat. Considering the background information,
it would not have been unusual for these particular signs to be
displayed in my yard. My first thought after examining the photo,
however, was how excited Bob Lark (Chairman of the Mercer County
Democrat Committee) and others would be to see the sight. I know
how much it bothered the Chairman that I was a conservative Republican
that supported conservative candidates, but then I remembered that
I am the only political figure who was held to this higher and stricter
set of guidelines regarding “party” support. I’ve
provided multiple photos from different angles below for your enjoyment
(yes, these photos are all publicly available through Google Maps
. . . disturbing, isn’t it?).
I’ve had discussions and ‘friendly disagreements’
with friends and foe in both parties regarding political yard signs.
Some people see the placement of signs in their yards as “a
responsibility to their party” . . . some people see the placement
of signs in their yards as “a responsibility to long-time
political friends” (if there is such a thing), others feel
NO responsibility to their “party” but only loyalty
to the “good ol’ boys club” of which they are
a part. . . and still others (like myself) see political yard signs
as a freedom of self expression. I’ve displayed political
signs in my yard for MANY years. I have always hand selected which
signs would be displayed in my yard (and which would not).
I only accept a sign if I am willing to accept the duty of caring
for and maintaining it. It is a responsibility, after all. I only
display signs for individuals that I support, and in most cases
I have met the candidate personally and I am educated about that
candidate’s qualifications so that I can discuss those qualifications
with others who might be interested. When I ran my own campaign,
my signs were ONLY in the yards of individuals that either met me
or my husband personally. Every person with a Biros sign in their
yard knew who I was, knew why I was running for office, knew why
I was the most qualified candidate, and they had every intention
of voting for me on Election Day (which obviously translates into
the fact that I was about 6000 yard signs short in the 2008 General
Election!).
After a tough campaign last year, I was left feeling a little disgruntled
with some political acquaintances regarding the ‘yard sign
issue’. There were those that couldn’t put my sign in
their yard for obvious “party” differences, there were
those that ONLY displayed my opponent’s sign because of “party”
similarities, and there were those that ONLY displayed my opponent’s
sign as a way to show me how much they hated me. This year I will
have some very important decisions to make in that area. I am still
a conservative and I am still a Democrat so the choices available
to me are vast (or drastically limited depending on how you look
at it). I must select wisely. I just hope that my yard signs are
documented again by Google in 2010 as the sight might be very interesting.
I’m looking forward to it, and perhaps I’ll be writing
about it sometime in the no-so-distant future.
The news was official on December 31st. The former County Nursing home,
Woodland Place, has officially been sold and is off the County’s
books. The story was worthy of a multi-page write up in The
Herald, and the current County Commissioners were reportedly celebratory.
I hate to be the party pooper, but I’d like to step back and put
the news story into perspective.
First, I’d like to thank Matt Snyder for a well-written and well-rounded
article that appeared in the December 30, 2009, issue of The
Herald (read the full story HERE).
Matt did a great job of talking to all of the parties involved and organizing
a neat little historical review. I’ve written many articles about
Woodland Place and I know how difficult it is to pull the facts together
(read my Woodland Place articles HERE).
I only have one complaint about the article, and that is that Matt Snyder
is just too darn nice sometimes. I, on the other hand, am not afraid
of being a little more critical where I think it is deserved. That is,
of course, the purpose of today’s blog post.
In the case of the article in The
Herald, there seemed to be lots of back patting of the current Commissioners
(or perhaps that was them patting their own backs . . . I’m not
absolutely sure), but in my opinion Woodland Place was sold despite
the efforts (or lack thereof) of the County Commissioners. My own experiences
gave me the impression that the County Commissioners weren’t losing
any sleep over finding a buyer for the failed nursing home. Instead,
my perception (and the perception of others) has been that the Commissioners
were sitting by waiting for someone to find a solution to the problem
in hopes that they could take credit for it. Allow me to explain . .
.
The article in The Herald
stated that the current commissioners all ran for office in 2007 on
the platform of cleaning up the mess that was Woodland Place. That part
of the story is absolutely true. It was then implied that “once
the commissioners were all on the same page”, they were able to
work hard together to find a new buyer. This is the portion of the story
that I have issues with (and I’ll come back to those issues in
just a minute).
The Herald also mentions that the buyer of Woodland Place was brought
to the commissioners by State Representative Michele Brooks. That tidbit
of information is also factual. What the article doesn’t mention,
however, is that the Commissioners weren’t falling over themselves
to look for or court the potential manager / buyer. My sources within
the Mercer County political scene tell me that the commissioners were
somewhat unresponsive and actually ignored the original queries posed
by John Hughes of South Western Alpha. It was only through contact with
the office of Representative Michele Brooks that Hughes was able to
get the attention of the Commissioners office. So I ask, should the
commissioners get credit for the deal or were they simply taken along
for the ride (kicking and screaming, perhaps)?
Some people might find the suggestion odd, but I do not. I was contacted
by an interested party just last January under similar circumstances.
An organization from eastern Pennsylvania contacted me by email asking
if I could put them in touch with the people responsible for a possible
deal regarding Woodland Place. They were interested in discussing the
possible purchase of Woodland Place but their queries were going unanswered.
I provided names, email addresses, and phone numbers of the three County
Commissioners. Several weeks later I was contacted again by the same
individual. This time the complaint was that none of the commissioners
were returning calls or email messages. The contact asked if I could
get involved to assist. I contacted the commissioners again by email
but I never received a response.
How many other “potential buyers” were out there? How many
“interested parties” were turned away or discouraged because
Commissioners Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader weren’t
doing their job? How many “opportunities” knocked but received
no answer because Ammann, Lechner, and Beader ignored calls, letters,
and email messages?
At that time, the ‘story’ was that the commissioners were
already attempting to strike a deal with Hughes, and they weren’t
interested in pursuing new offers. As a taxpayer in Mercer County I
found the lack of interest from the Commissioners’ Office to be
insulting. Even if a deal was in the works, it would have been to the
benefit of Mercer County taxpayers for ALL offers to be put on the table.
After all, a little competition could have gone a long way to sweeten
the deal for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that never happened.
Based on my experiences and those reported to me by others, it seems
that the commissioners were simply waiting for the right deal to “fall
into their lap”. It gives the appearance that the commissioners
wanted a solution with as little effort as possible . . . and that is
exactly what they got. Unfortunately, that is also what Mercer County
taxpayers have been asked to settle for. Why? . . . because Commissioners
Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader were only willing to do the
absolute minimum.
Was the final deal for Woodland Place the best deal for Mercer Countians?
We will really never know. The people of Mercer County were simply treated
like mushrooms . . . kept in the dark and fed “manure” (yes,
I just edited myself there). If there was a better deal out there, none
of us will ever know about it, and I would expect that the Commissioners
weren’t looking for it either.
On another stream of consciousness, I’d like to discuss a different
issue and concern. Commissioners make quite a deal of them “all
being on the same page” and “presenting a united front”.
I guess this is supposed to be a way to criticize past Commissioners,
but I find the argument silly (at best) and misleading (at worst).
I’m of the opinion that maybe our three commissioners all being
on the same page isn’t the best for us, the taxpayers. Government
was originally established with a set of checks and balances in place.
This prevented corruption and protected “we, the people”.
Diversity promotes discussion, argument, and new ideas. The “three
commissioners” (a.k.a., Moe, Larry, and Curly) all want to just
sit comfortably in the courthouse and share in chuckles and back patting
(nyuck, nyuck, nyuck). They figure that discord makes waves and waves
make for difficult (and expensive) re-elections. Unfortunately, while
they are celebrating the “Mercer County Good Ol’ Boys Club”
the taxpayers of Mercer County will continue to be handed tax increases
and excuses from “the team”.
I’d love to see one of the “three commissioners” stand
up for something . . . anything! Rather than rubber stamping each other,
the “three commissioners” should be double checking each
other.
So I say to Ammann, Lechner, and Beader (Moe, Larry, and Curly)
. . . “grow a pair (or 'find a pair') . . . if you can’t,
let me know and I’ll lend you mine."
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.
Representative Michele Brooks (R-17) sent an email announcement yesterday
morning stating that she would be hosting three town hall meetings in
December. The meetings were scheduled for December 1, 2, and 3 from
7pm until 8pm. The announcement provided very short notice to its recipients,
but it was an interesting announcement none the less. Why? Well, allow
me to explain!
Most interesting is the fact that Representative Michele Brooks is the
ONLY legislator that represents any portion of Mercer County that schedules
town hall meetings on a regular basis. I am on the email lists of Sen.
Bob Robbins, Rep. Dick Stevenson, Rep. Mark Longietti, and Rep. Michele
Brooks, and Rep. Brooks seems to be the only one that regularly meets
with her constituents in an open forum. For the record, I would be more
than happy to attend and summarize any and all meetings of other Mercer
County legislators, but there haven't been any that I am aware of.
Also of interest to me were the locations of Rep. Brooks’ meetings.
You may recall that back in May Rep. Brooks held two town hall meetings
(read my summary of those meetings HERE).
At that time I criticized that both meetings were scheduled for the
northwest corner of her district (in Espyville in Crawford County and
Greenville in Mercer County). It was my opinion that Rep. Brooks was
staying close to her home town of Jamestown and ignoring the rest of
her district because she wanted to remain in her “comfort zone”.
This month, however, the three meetings were stretched across the vast
expanse of the 17th District as follows:
Dec. 1 – Coolspring Township Building, 852 North Perry Highway,
Mercer.
Dec. 2 – Cochranton Firehall, 113 Adams St., Cochranton.
Dec. 3 – Washington Township Building, 1413 George Washington
Road, Volant.
The careful planning of these meetings is clearly an attempt to cover
a much larger piece of real estate, and I give her credit for that.
Insert well deserved applause HERE.
I already had previous engagements for December 2nd and 3rd, so I decided
to attend the December 1 meeting. Besides, the Coolspring Township location
was only a few minutes from my home in Delaware Township. I covered
one of her May meetings pretty thoroughly [READ
HERE], but I was curious to see if the content matter changed 6
months later.
The meeting was scheduled to begin at 7pm. Unlike the meeting in May,
I managed to arrive at this meeting on time and was able to experience
the excitement from start to finish. There were between 15 and 20 attendees.
Rep. Brooks did not have a planned discussion thread. Instead, she opened
the floor to open comments from the attendees and she fielded any and
all questions that were tossed her way.
The discussion topics varied, but the following issues were all discussed
at some level:
I-80 Tolling
Health Care Reform
2009-2010 PA State Budget
Fair Funding
Police Services
Alternative Energy
PA Agricultural Caucus
Fire Departments
Term Limits
Building Codes
Regulations re: Outdoor Wood Stoves
Guantanamo Bay Prisoners
Below is a more detailed overview of some of the more interesting (and,
perhaps, controversial) topics:
I-80 Tolling
Although many people think that the issue of the tolling of I-80 is
long over, the truth is that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has
resubmitted an application for enacting tolls on the interstate to the
Federal Highway Administration. The two prior applications were rejected,
but the Turnpike Commission’s attempts continue. This was the
first topic that was brought up by attendees of the meeting, and Representative
Brooks was anxious to discuss the topic in detail. As per Rep. Brooks:
“I am spearheading an effort with Congressman Thompson
(R-PA 5) and Congresswoman Dahlkemper (D-PA 3) to coordinate a meeting
with the Secretary of the Highway Administration. We want to arrange
for a delegation to travel to Washington to meet with Secretary LaHood.”
Rep. Brooks made it clear that the goal of the meeting would be to turn
down tolling on I-80, but she feels that it is important to make sure
that the information used to make the decision is accurate. Rep. Brooks
sited various examples of misinformation regarding recent studies and
comments regarding “over exaggeration regarding the potential
economic hardships for the area”, and she wants to make sure that
accurate data is presented from the stand point of trucking, goods and
services, and agriculture.
Rep. Brooks pointed out that “while this is a Federal decision,
we have rallied to point out the deficiencies in the application that
the Turnpike Commission has submitted . . . they have spent millions
of dollars getting their story out and we need to make sure that our
story is also heard”.
Rep. Brooks also stated “the merits of application have not changed
… and we want to make certain that decisions are made on the merit
of the application and not on the politics . . . Washington politics
should not be involved in this decision”. Rep Brooks stated “there
is too much at stake to do otherwise”.
After a long and detailed discussion of the topic, Representative Brooks
stated regarding the tolling of I-80, “We aren’t going down
without a fight”.
[What is my opinion? I’m glad to see that Representative
Brooks is taking a pro-active roll in the fight against the tolling
of I-80. It would be easy to simply say “this is a federal issue
and it is out of my hands”, but, instead, she is taking extra
steps to rally Congressmen and women and take the fight to Washington
DC. I’d like to see more ACTION like this from our state legislators.
Bravo!]
Health Care Reform
The next topic that was brought up by attendees was that of Health Care
Reform. Representative Brooks was very clear to point out that the topic
of Health Care Reform is a federal issue, but she was willing to discuss
the topic from the prospective of opinion only. While she shared some
of her thoughts about the current health care legislation being considered
by the federal government, she was equally careful to remain unbiased.
While those in attendance were clearly “party friendly”,
she made a point to not offend the few Democrats in the room (there
were two that I counted . . . including myself).
As a general opinion, Rep. Brooks stated “I’m very concerned
about the costs of this plan, but I also wish that the quality of our
health care would enter into the discussion.”
Regarding the current health care bill, Rep. Brooks noted “I was
raised that you try to do things right the first time. Thousands of
pages take months to digest and understand I’m afraid that they
are trying to push through a fix too quickly. Don’t we want it
done right?”
Representative Brooks further explained that she had participated in
a public hearing in the spring at Edinboro University where she heard
testimony from physicians from Canada and Australia. She outlined numerous
examples of problems with the single-payer systems in those countries.
Rep. Brooks made every attempt to share information as well as her personal
opinions regarding health care reform. She shared personal stories and
experiences regarding problems with health insurance (and a lack thereof),
but she reminded the attendees again “I’m not involved on
the federal level but those are my concerns”.
In closing, Rep. Brooks stated “if this (health care bill) goes
through, elected officials should be forced to have to go on the plan
too”.
[What is my opinion? Oddly enough (and hold onto your
hats here), I agree with Representative Brooks. While she was very careful
to make her statements regarding health care reform very general, she
hit on very important points. I feel very strongly that we need health
care reform, but I am very nervous about the current Bill that is working
its way through Washington. I’d like to see the focus turn toward
torte reform, accessibility across state lines, and extended availability
of Medicare (for a fee based on a sliding scale). Unfortunately, the
current health care bill doesn’t look anything like that. I think
the current option is too big, too expensive, and too complicated to
be a viable option.]
Term Limits
I saved my favorite topic for last, but it also happened to be the last
topic brought up by the attendees . . . TERM LIMITS. When the question
“do you support term limits?” was asked, I nearly fell off
my chair and I literally laughed out loud. After a pause (that seemed
to last a lifetime), Rep. Brooks explained that she feels that terms
limits already exist as “term limits are decided in at the voters
box”. [Hmmm . . . Ouch!]
She further went on to explain that “if you don’t like the
job that someone is doing you can vote them out”. If voters feel
that the person is still doing a good job after years of service, they
will vote them back in. [Again Hmmmm . . . and Double Ouch!]
In an effort to try to hang her hat somewhere in the middle, Rep. Brooks
stated “there is something to be said for wisdom, and something
to be said for new blood”. Unfortunately, however, I get a sense
that Rep. Brooks appears to lean away from the "new blood" and toward
the “wisdom”. [Ugh! and Triple Ouch!]
In summary, Representative Brooks is clearly against the idea of term
limits. After receiving a few groans from the attendees (mostly from
a frustrated “new blood” that was seated in the front row),
Rep. Brooks asked for a show of hands from those that supported term
limits. Unfortunately, I missed the results of the simple poll as I
was attempting to type notes on my laptop while also extending my hand
as high as I could reach.
[What is my opinion? As someone who ran a race against
a 16-year incumbent with a campaign slogan like “the office
of county treasurer should be a public service . . . not a career”
. . . and with a campaign promise to NOT seek re-election after 2 terms
in office, what do YOU think my opinion is?
Regardless of the fact that the topic hits a little close too home for
me, the subject was of special interest to me personally for two reasons.
The first is an issue of how politics affects those that are involved
in it. Glenn Beck made a statement back in February. I wrote about it
back then [read HERE],
but I’d like to present the quote again now . . .
“I have a new theory. I don’t think I’ll
take any more applies from the barrel. I’m gonna start pickin’
them from the tree. I’m gonna start listening to the freshman
class because you guys, hopefully, haven’t been corrupted yet!”
It was a general statement that theorized that once “new blood”
is elected, it doesn’t take long for them to “become”
one of the “good ol’ boys (or girls)”. It is interesting
that Rep. Brooks (after only 1.5 terms in state office) has already
fallen into the typical style of a “politician”. I’m
not sure if she has hopes of protecting her own VERY LONG career in
office or if she is defending the VERY LONG careers of her friends and
colleagues. I would be curious to know if her perception was the same
not so many years ago?
The second point that I found personally interesting is that my stand
that is firmly "FOR TERM LIMITS" places me safely “to the right”
of Rep. Brooks. That was a place that I didn’t think I’d
find myself in right now, so I have to take a minute to savor it.]
My Summary and Closing Comments
The meeting was both interesting and entertaining. The attendees had
very intelligent questions and shared in some thoughtful discussion.
Representative Brooks has a VERY LOYAL following, and they take the
time to show up for her town hall meetings. Her supporters don’t
simply respect her as a qualified representative of the 17th district
(which they clearly do), but they personally “adore her”.
They respect her as “Representative Michele Brooks”, but
they seem to protect her more like a daughter . . . a sister . . . or
a close and trusted friend.
At the end of the meeting one of the attendees made a statement regarding
Representative Brooks as follows “of all of the legislators, you
are one of the best communicators”. He then went on to point out
the value of her email communications, website, and town hall meetings.
In response, Representative Brooks said “we work for you, and
I don’t ever want to loose site of that”. She continued
with “we chose to live here and we chose to raise our family here
. . . I believe this area will be strong again and you are the solution
. . . your ideas and feedback are very important”.
What more can I say?
Representative Brooks will hold two more meetings as outlined below.
I urge you to attend. It is a great opportunity to hear what she has
to say and to challenge her with your own questions and comments.
Dec. 2 – Cochranton Firehall, 113 Adams St., Cochranton (7pm-8pm)
Dec. 3 – Washington Township Building, 1413 George Washington
Road, Volant (7pm-8pm)
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.
What will the political
fate be for Con. Kathy Dahlkemper, Sen. Bob Robbins, Rep. Mark Longietti,
or Rep. Michele Brooks in 2010?
Written
by Roberta Biros
With the 2009 political season comfortably behind us, it’s time
to take a look at the political landscape for 2010. There will be plenty
written about the “big races” in Pennsylvania like the one
to replace Governor Rendell or the one to tackle Senator Specter, but
I’d like to focus on the races that will impact good ol’
Mercer County.
This is my first state-wide blog post in a while, so please bear with
me as I get back into my comfort zone. While much of what I’m
about to convey will anger many, I’m simply stating a series of
facts and political opinions based on the information that is currently
available as well as a wealth of first hand knowledge that I've gathered
from personal experiences. I feel expertly qualified to comment on the
political issues of both parties as I've experienced them all "up close
and personal". My thoughts are honest and are being offered for the
purpose of debate and conversation. I’d welcome friendly on the
matter through my personal email at Roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com.
Upon close review of the 2009 general election results in Mercer County,
one thing is absolutely clear. When the Mercer County PA GOP gets motivated
(in this case for the sake of self preservation) they can be an angry
and resourceful little mob. Similarly, when the chips are down, the
Mercer County Democrat Party is a ship without a rudder (some might
say a ‘sinking ship without a rudder’ but I’ll leave
that to the opinion of others). The political climate and outlook for
Democrats in Mercer County is poor, but the Mercer GOP still has the
same fundamental problems as one year ago . . . self-serving leadership.
Who Will the Players Be?
When determining the possible political confrontations of 2010, it is
important to determine “who in their right mind would want to
run for public office?” You would think that the political committees,
alliances, and clubs in Mercer County would be thankful for candidates
that are willing to sacrifice time, money, and energy on a campaign,
but that is simply not the case. The Mercer GOP is still only concerned
about its long standing “hierarchy”; and the leadership
of the Democrat committee is more concerned about the Florida Recounts
of 2000, Swift Boat Ads of 2004, and the “infamous Republican
flyer” of 2007. Neither party is concerned about building a future
for their party. Instead, Republicans and Democrats are concerned about
protecting the same old Republicans and Democrats.
My own experiences in running for office were met with threats and personal
assaults from the right, and attempts to remove my name from the party
slate card from the left. It seems that after I was named the Democrat
nominee in the Primary the Democrat Committee leadership made every
attempt to have my name removed from the party slate card. This is,
of course, according to Commissioner Ken Ammann who claims to have been
my ‘knight in shining armor’ as the only defender of my
candidacy. The story is an interesting one with a seemingly strange
twist, but who am I to argue.
The truth is that the leadership in both parties complain about references
to “greed and corruption”, but when their feet are held
to the fire those are the only traits that seem to stand out. The voices
that are concerned about ‘good government’ and ‘honest
public servants’ are drowned out by the Good Ol’ Boys (and
Girls) in both parties. Who in their right mind would step into this
back biting battle by choice?
I’m not quite sure who all of the players will be in 2010, but
I have a pretty good idea on where the interesting races will be and
why. Now here comes the fun part . . .
Race #1: Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper
vs. an Unnamed Republican
Probable Result: Unnamed Republican will probably win
Why?: The 2009 election proved that the Mercer GOP
can be motivated. When you threaten to cut off the head of a snake,
the snake doesn’t like it much. In their attempt to protect themselves
the Mercer GOP made some interesting friends . . . and perhaps some
interesting deals. Leading up to election day, the Mercer GOP received
slate cards for distribution throughout Mercer County that were paid
for the by PA State GOP (I have a copy in case anyone would like to
see one for themselves). It is interesting that a county race would
receive assistance from the state level, but remember that the 2009
race for County Treasurer was VERY important to the Mercer GOP (and
not so important to the Mercer Democrats). It was a direct threat to
the core leadership of the Mercer Republicans and they needed to get
support from every available source. I am guessing that the motivation
of the Mercer GOP will not stop at the win in the County Treasurer’s
race. I would suspect that the Mercer GOP and the current Treasurer
(and her friends) have ‘committed’ themselves to assisting
the PA State GOP in the next “important battle”. That would
be the take back of “Phil English’s” old seat in the
3rd Congressional District. I’m not sure who their candidate will
be, but that currently unnamed candidate will probably win handily.
If Democrats fail to show up (like they did in 2009), any Republican
candidate will have an easy task in beating Congresswoman Dahlkemper.
To make matters worse, short sighted members of the Democrat Executive
Committee actively aided the incumbent Republican Mercer County Treasurer
to retain her seat and, therefore, bolster the Mercer GOP. Mercer County
District Attorney Robert Kochems ( a Democrat) showed his support for
the REPUBLICAN incumbent for the Treasurer’s Office with no less
than three signs on his business property near downtown Mercer. [as
a side note . . . DA Kochems was recently referred to publicly as “a
prick” . . . not my words, but the words of his wife Deb Little
Kochems at a recent meeting of the Northwest Democrat Alliance . . .
I nearly fell off my chair but was glad to see that Ms. Kochems and
I finally see eye-to-eye on something] By supporting the Republican
incumbent (and secretary and “darling” of the Mercer GOP),
District Attorney Kochems directly aided in the future demise of Congresswoman
Dahlkemper (his wife’s employer). Rather than the Congresswoman
having a ‘friend’ in the County Courthouse (like a fellow
“blue dog Democrat”), she will have a pitbull who owes some
political payback. Mrs. Richardson owes her old friend, Phil English,
as well as her rich friends at the PA State GOP, and she has the people
and resources lined up to do it . . . and (ironically enough) the Mercer
County Democrat Committee helped her get there. There are many of you
that will become angered by these statements, but I challenge anyone
in the political arena to correct my facts.
I wonder . . . has State Senator Bob Robbins considered making a move
to the much coveted U.S. Congress seat? He may be so pumped up after
the 2009 election results that he ‘thinks’ that he has the
political clout to win the seat. If so, it would be a blessing for Congresswoman
Dahlkemper as Coconut Bob may be the ONLY Republican opponent that she
could beat.
[FYI: I’ve read that Republican hopefuls Steve Fisher and Brian
Lasher have already stepped up to battle Mrs. Dahlkemper . . . who will
be next?]
Race #2: State Senator Bob Robbins vs.
ANY Conservative Republican
Results: ANY Conservative Republican wins by a landslide
Why?: While Republicans managed to rally their troops
in the 2009 general election, they may still have a difficult time in
re-electing their top henchman, Senator Bob Robbins. Robbins thinks
that people forget about his late night pay raise of 2006 or his coconut-gate
comments of 2008. The truth is, however, that the people that remember
those blemishes the most are Republicans. It is, therefore, my opinion
that Senator Robbins would have the hardest time winning his own Primary.
While the Mercer GOP proved that they can get out the vote much better
in a battle of Democrats vs. Republicans, Senator Robbins might have
a hard time convincing members of his own Party to select him over any
brave conservative that would be willing to take him on in the Primary.
Believe me when I say . . . if such a person exists, they would need
to be pretty tough skinned to survive the personal beating that they
will take in the process. The GOP leadership will not take the battle
sitting down, and they won’t hesitate to use any dirty trick in
the book to retain their power. Is there a true Conservative in Mercer
County willing to take on Mr. Robbins in his own back yard?
Race #3: Mark Longietti vs. an unnamed
Republican or Independent
Result: Win or Lose, the Unnamed Republican or Independent
will do serious “damage”
Why?: Rep. Mark Longietti feels safe and secure in
his seat as State Representative representing the Valley. Unfortunately,
a quick glance at the results of the 2009 general election should be
a frightening wake up call for Mr. Longietti. If he is faced with a
Republican or Independent challenger, he could be in for a long and
expensive campaign . . . the races in Hermitage and Sharon in 2009 should
be proof of that. While he might still manage to retain his seat against
a challenger, he will suffer significant damage in the process. The
damage may be in the form of “political” damage to his image
as an “untouchable”, but it may also be in the form of financial
damage. Representative Longietti would be forced, for the first time,
to dip into his sizeable bank roll in an effort to keep pace the with
Mercer GOP machine in Mercer County. If the GOP manages to motivate
their base (and if the Mercer Democrats continue to suppress theirs),
Mr. Longietti will be in serious trouble. 2010 might be the time for
Republicans (or Independents) to strike while the iron is hot. Rep.
Longietti should be on his best behavior, and he had better hope that
other races don’t bring out the Republican votes in full force.
Race #4: Michele Brooks vs. Anyone (Republican,
Democrat, or Independent)
Result: Brooks will win, but at a significant cost
to all involved
Why?: A handful of Mercer County Democrats want to
take down Michele Brooks in the worst way. They will continue to try,
but I would guess that they will continue to be unsuccessful. In 2008,
the strategy seemed to be to find a candidate . . . any candidate .
. . that was willing to take on the “smart enough and charming
enough” Michele Brooks. The candidate that was selected was a
really nice guy . . . but a weak candidate (at best). Unfortunately
for him, he was willing to spend the time and money to try to wear Brooks
down on behalf of others. In the past year, a number of individuals
have been approached to do the same thing in 2010 (oh yes, present company
included). Anyone that takes the bait would be a fool.
While Democrats take great satisfaction in trying to wear Brooks down,
they are just playing a game with her and other people’s money.
I suspect that the truth may finally come out this year if Brooks’
true nemesis gets up enough guts and backing to run against her. That
nemesis would be Commissioner Ken Ammann. Commissioner Ammann can’t
stand Michele Brooks for a number of reasons (one being that she was
involved with his firing from the position of County’s Chief Clerk
in 2005), and his uncontrollable hate will continue to push him until
he finally attempts to take her head on.
Mr. Ammann, a Democrat, intends on going after Ms. Brooks in her own
arena . . . as a fiscal conservative. While the idea is laughable, Mr.
Ammann seriously thinks that he can take down a Republican in the very
conservative 17th District with a “D” beside his name. I’m
sorry, Ken, but in the current political climate it simply isn’t
going to happen. If Mr. Ammenn decides to hold off his attack on Brooks,
I’m certain that they will find some sacrificial lamb that is
willing to risk their own money on the venture in an effort to do financial
damage to Brooks for 2012.
My advice? (although you didn't ask for it)
I dare Ken Ammann to do it . . . and I’ll bet my last cent (and
his) that he will lose. To make the situation more interesting, Mr.
Ammann will be betting his political future on that one race. As I see
it, if he ends up with a big “L” (for loser) beside his
name at the end of a nasty battle in 2010, he will be an easy target
to be taken down in the 2011 race for County Commissioner.
As far as my advice to other potential targets, I’d run away from
this race as fast as my feet would carry me. There are far softer targets
to go after in Mercer County, and attempting to tackle Representative
Michele Brooks in an effort to settle someone else’s score is
a recipe for disaster. I say . . . “save your money” -or-
go invest it at a local casino . . . but don't throw it away on this
race.
Race #5:
Dick Stevenson vs. no one
Result: Stevenson will win again
Why?: As I said last year, "In 2010, if Dick Stevenson
chooses to run for re-election, I suspect that he will have any easy
race. He ran unopposed in 2008, and I see this as a possibility again
in 2010." Representative Dick Stevenson's seat in the 8th District simply
doesn't get much attention in Mercer County, but there is always a possibility
of an opponent surfacing from the more prominent Butler County.
In Closing
Well, that's all folks. Those were my official predictions for 2010
politics in Mercer County. Let’s just see how things begin to
take shape in the coming weeks as people and politicians (they are two
separate things after all) begin to jockey for position.
According to my web statistics, there are lots of people that are looking
for me to post some sort of reaction to the 2009 General Election in
Mercer County. As usual, I’ll be glad to provide you with some
interesting reading on the topic. I apologize in advance, however, as
this blog post is rather long. I've been biting my tongue for a while
now, so I found that once I got started I had a great deal to say. Enjoy!
INTRODUCTION
A week ago I had the pleasure (or, perhaps, displeasure) of overhearing
a very loud and very obnoxious conversation at a local restaurant. I
had just attended the pre-election County Democrat Committee Meeting
in Hickory and we decided to stop for a dinner break. It was after 9pm
and we were sitting in a not-so-crowded Eat-n-Park enjoying burgers
and fries when we overheard a conversation regarding none other than
“Roberta Biros”. That’s right . . . we were sitting
quietly enjoying our late dinners when I heard a conversation that was
transpiring on the opposite end of the restaurant. It was a long, loud,
and very descriptive discussion about me and my husband. The conversation
included things like “they (referring to my husband and I) are
the MOST insincere people I have ever met”. I don’t need
to go into all of the rotten things that were said about us, but my
favorite statement was “I can’t wait to read her blog on
the 4th, 5th, or 6th after she loses and she tries to blame everyone
for the loss but herself . . . if she loses there is no one to blame
but her”. Much to my shock and dismay, the monolog was coming
from the mouth of the Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee,
Bob Lark.
Well, Mr. Lark, I’d never want to disappoint you so today I offer
you my comments on the 2009 General Election.
GENERAL ELECTION RESULTS
First, let us talk about the results of the 2009 election as they pertain
to Mercer County.
County Treasurer:
When I last checked (this afternoon), the unofficial results of the
race for County Treasurer were as follows:
Yes, Mr. Lark, I lost. Who do I blame for my loss? Well, me of course.
Why? Because, Mr. Lark, no one else was involved or interested in my
campaign BUT me, my husband, and a very small group of family and very
good friends. I managed our group and I am, therefore, ultimately responsible
for EVERY DECISION that was made during the 2009 election year. I have
no one to blame but myself. I lost, and I lost big. My message of good
government and good ideas failed to strike a chord, and I was way out
played by the incumbent and her band of dedicated ‘friends’.
I’ll repeat what I said on Tuesday night after the results were
published on-line . . . “I suck”.
Statewide Races:
In Mercer County, in the races for Justice of the Supreme Court, Judge
of the Superior Court, and Judge of the Commonwealth Court, REPUBLICANS
won overwhelmingly in every single race. It is true that these results
were mirrored across much of Pennsylvania, but very notably here in
Mercer despite the overwhelming Democrat majority of voters.
Countywide Races (other than Treasurer):
For the office of County Controller, Tom Amundsen WON. He did so, however,
ONLY because he had no opponent. A close look at Mr. Amundsen’s
numbers (11,868) show that even without an opponent he received fewer
votes than Mrs. Richardson in a similar countywide race. If Mr. Amundsen
had been faced with a Republican opponent I would venture to guess that
he would have lost . . . soundly . . . regardless of who that opponent
would have been.
For the office of Jury Commissioner, Maury Keaveny (who is an absolute
joy to be around) received fewer votes than his Republican counter-part,
Edna Gibson (also a wonderful person).
In summary, the REPUBLICANS swept ALL statewide and countywide races
in Mercer County even though the Democrats have an overwhelming lead
in registered voters by 7,956 (according to Bob Lark’s records).
WHO IS TO BLAME?
While I take full responsibility for my loss in my race, I wonder who
is to blame for the REPUBLICAN SWEEP across the board in Mercer County?
Based on the election results, one could conclude that Republicans showed
up to vote in MUCH higher numbers than Democrats (this is a conclusion
based on the review of numbers presented on the Mercer County elections
site . . . although specific turnout ‘by party’ was not
readily available). If one were to point a finger of blame for an apparent
under-vote by registered Democrats, who would the finger point to? Would
we blame the Republican Party for working long and hard hours to motivate
voters through a “get out the vote” phone campaign? Would
we blame the Republican Party for pushing to support their entire slate
of candidates INCLUDING (and most importantly) their candidate for County
Treasurer? Logic would tell us that the Republican Party and its leadership
would not be to blame for the overwhelming losses of the Democrat Party.
It seems that logic would conclude that the Democrat Party would be
responsible for the overwhelming losses by the Democrat Party. That
said, only one name is at the top of the list of prominent Democrats
who could have done something about the issue. That one name is “Bob
Lark, Chairman”.
Are there others that could be blamed? Perhaps. My experience has shown
me that speeches by elected officials rallying for a “Democrat
Sweep” don’t do much good without efforts to back their
words. Representative Mark Longietti, for instance, was quick to wave
the Party flag at the annual banquet, but he outright refused my specific
request for a letter to assist in my “get out the vote”
efforts. My open concerns about a planned suppression of Democrat votes
(which was a reported plan that had been in the works since at least
early September) were ignored and even criticized. My complaints were
treated as though they were a joke. Do people like soon-to-be former
Mayor of Greenville, Dick Miller, find humor in my concerns now? Do
people like Linda and Bill Judson see any humor in the lack of support
that they received from Mercer County Democrat voters? Additionally,
to add insult to injury, there were members of the Mercer County Democrat
Executive Committee that sent mixed signals by displaying Republican
signs at their homes and business properties because they had no interest
in supporting the party as a whole. Could these other individuals be
partially to blame? It would make for an interesting discussion I suppose,
but rather than focusing on the problems within the Democrat party,
Bob Lark has been busy at his typewriter for the past month sending
me daily correspondence (and in his own words, “nasty letters”).
If he had taken some of that time and energy and devoted it to the good
of the party, perhaps the results in Mercer County would have been different.
While the 2009 election may be over, the problems still remain. The
Democrat Party lacks leadership in Mercer County, and fellow Democrat
candidates for the 2010 election season should be very, very concerned.
Those of you that think you can simply win re-election without a major
effort by the party as a whole may be sorely disappointed next November.
CLOWNS TO THE LEFT OF ME, JOKERS
TO THE RIGHT
Back in March I wrote a blog post regarding the problems with politics
in Mercer County. I recently re-discovered the post and thought that
part of it was worth republishing now as it was sooooooooo spot on.
In reference to a meeting of the Democratic Women of Mercer County I
had the following comments:
Lesson Number One . . . my musical references in this blog leave
a lasting memory. One individual even quoted my “clowns to
the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am stuck in the middle
with you” reference. Unfortunately, the person that made the
reference stopped reading that particular blog post at the end of
the musical reference because he didn’t seem to understand
the basic reasoning behind the post itself. That’s OK, I still
liked the “shout out” (although unintentional).
Lesson Number Two . . . I’ve finally determined the “hot
button” issues that seem to bother people of both political
parties, and I’ve compiled a simple reference list based on
my recent and past experiences.
Republicans get upset (and complain to me) when I blog
about . . . Farm Subsidies, Coconut Gate, Campaign Finances, COLAs,
or anything positive regarding Representative Michele Brooks
Democrats get upset (and complain to me) when I blog about
. . . Unions, Obama, Representative Mark Longietti, COLAs, or
anything positive regarding Representative Michele Brooks
The third and most important lesson that I learned is regarding
universal problem in politics . . . politicians seem to all be tied
together regardless of Party. You would think that the Democratic
Party would be glad to have someone willing to step up and run for
office . . . to fill a much needed void that has gone unaddressed
in the race for County Treasurer for 16 years. That is what you
would “think”. Unfortunately, it seems that some of
the leadership in the Democratic Party are perfectly content with
things just the way they are, and they don't appreciate anyone shaking
things up.
At first I found this to be confusing, but I think I finally understand
the odd foundation on which the behavior is based. It seems that
many of our elected officials at the County level all travel within
the same tight little circles. The members of the “circles”
have a need to protect each other in order to protect themselves.
Democratic insiders, Republican insiders, and insiders that have
switched between parties are all looking out for each other. Very
clear alliances exist, and people from outside of the “circles”
are actively beaten back with a stick. The standard tactics are
to attempt to belittle and intimidate in order to make outsiders
feel that their quest is both ridiculous and impossible. The last
thing that any of them want is for a concerned citizen to enter
into “their arena” with the sole purpose of making things
better and serving the public needs. Why? Because it would make
them all look bad.
FIND OUT WHO YOUR FRIENDS ARE
As a quick note, I've been in touch will ALL of my friends and family
over the past three days. Many months ago I wrote a blog post with a
musical reference to the song by Tracy Lawrence titled “Find Out
Who Your Friends Are”. I'd like to make a similar reference now.
The events of this week have made it super simple for me to find out
who my friends are. First, I just had to look around the room on Tuesday
Night as the people who really cared about me and my family were here
at my home office to watch the results with us as a team. Those that
couldn’t be with us on Tuesday night contacted me by email and
phone on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Today. I know EXACTLY who
my friends are as they have all been right here with me either physically
or via email and phone.
Mrs. Richardson was the winner on Tuesday night. She is also clear about
who her friends are as she published a photo of them all from her election
night party. It was good to see that she was surrounded by her friends
like the Robbins, the Brooks, and the Lechners. I have to give credit
to the Republican Party of Mercer County for getting out the vote and
pulling together for a complete Republican sweep. [CLICK
HERE to view their celebration photo in case you missed it.]
For those of you that worked so hard for me during the campaign and
on Election Day, and to those of you that have been so supportive and
such good friends, I THANK GOD FOR YOU!
SO, WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?
I’ve been asked numerous times this week what I plan on doing
now as we move forward. I’ll admit that the past few days have
been spent trying to tie up loose ends (like attempting to pick up hundreds
of signs from across the county), and I’m really just trying to
catch my breath. I’m trying to sort through emotions that I’ve
never experienced before and I’ve been working to wrap my head
around everything.
I have a level of disappointment right now that is unmatched. Simple
ideas that I’ve always lived by like “you can conquer anything
with hard work and determination” have been proved to be untrue.
Encouraging sayings like “Bad Things Happen When Good People Do
Nothing” seem all twisted and stupid. The truth is “Bad
Things Happen When Good People Try To Do Something”. My desire
to be a public servant and to work for the people of the area to make
things better have been squashed by a bunch of self-serving politicians
who are more concerned about “winning” than serving the
people.
Am I sour? I can say with all honesty that I am disappointed and discouraged.
Does my journey end here? Hmmmm. Now that question is a little more
difficult to answer. For the short term I will continue to do what I’ve
been doing for quite some time now . . . reporting issues of political
importance through this forum. I will be writing about things like Farm
Subsidies, Woodland Place, self-serving legislators, inappropriate and
politically biased behavior from public officials, and anything else
that I find to be disturbing. I will give credit where credit is due,
but I will not go easy on ANYONE. I have NO political or personal biases
now as I’ve found that I have NO friends in the political arena.
I will, therefore, be providing a clear and unbiased view of Mercer
County politics. My perspective as a fiscal conservative Democrat will
help me to sniff out rotten policies and politicians on both sides of
the fence.
Welcome to “Mercer County Conservatives Version 2.0”!
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.
The state budget compromise appears to be moving forward in Harrisburg,
but not all legislators are on board with the direction the new spending
plan is taking. Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Mercer & Crawford) said she
is glad to see some progress on the budget by has concerns about how
this proposal may affect Pennsylvania’s economy. Mike Davies Reports
Click on the Video Clips below to hear what other conservative legislators
have to say about the issue. There are statements posted by Representative
Turzai, Representative Reichley, and Representative Rapp.
COMMENTS FROM REPRESENTATIVE TURZAI
[or CLICK HERE
to view the video from Rep. Turzai]
COMMENTS FROM REPRESENTATIVE REICHLEY:
[or CLICK HERE
to view the video from Rep. Reichley]
To help end the budget impasse, Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence)
is joining with her colleagues in proposing a rarely used legislative
procedure that would convene a special session of the House of Representatives
that would meet every day until a budget is passed.
“Due to the inability of the joint House-Senate conference committee
to reach a budget agreement, we need to look at all the options that
exist in an effort to move a spending plan forward,” Brooks
said. “I am disappointed that the budget impasse remains a deadlocked
conversation over whether to limit government spending or raise taxes.
I share the frustration faced by my constituents and Pennsylvania
residents and understand that we need to reach a fiscally responsible
budget.”
Brooks pointed out that the governor vetoed the funding, even though
in some cases it matched the exact dollar amount he requested. In
other cases, the line item may not have matched what he wanted but
it would have provided temporary funding until a final budget would
be negotiated and adopted.
The procedure unveiled Thursday, called the Committee of the Whole,
allows members of the House to convene and openly discuss a particular
topic in an effort to come to a compromise. In this case, members
would debate a general appropriations act for 2009-10. If a majority
of members agree to any particular proposal, it would then be recommended
the House consider it in legislative session, where it could be voted.
“The Committee of the Whole approach is another way my colleagues
and I are trying to break this impasse,” Brooks explained. “It
is past time to put the great people of Pennsylvania before partisan
politics. It is time to bring every budget proposal to the House floor
for a vote and to give every member a voice in providing a balanced
and fiscally responsible budget that reflects the challenging times
we are in.”
Brooks said the budget proposals she and her colleagues have put forth
respond to all the people who have said for years that government
needs to live within its means.
“We understand that the money in these budgets is your money,
paid by the hard-working people of Pennsylvania. You demand that your
government make the same difficult choices that your families have
to make when there are shortfalls in your budgets,” she said.
“Overwhelmingly, across this state, people have said they cannot
afford to send more of their money to Harrisburg. It is with this
in mind that we are working to strike a bipartisan and balanced approach
to Pennsylvania’s budget. We have proposed funding core government
services but curtailing state spending.
“It is unfortunate that those who seek to do business as usual
and spend beyond their means are the very ones who have created this
crisis for so many. They continue to believe the only way government
can operate is to ask taxpayers for more of their hard-earned money
instead of government tightening its belt, prioritizing spending,
becoming more efficient and eliminating welfare fraud and abuse,”
Brooks said.
She further explained that the people who cling to overspending and
over borrowing continue to underestimate Pennsylvanians and fail to
realize the devastating impact a type of tax increase would have on
families, jobs and communities.
“Let us be clear. We do care about our children, and this is
why we will not mortgage their future by placing more and more debt
upon them,” she said. “I am hopeful this new approach
will help show that the rank-and-file members are serious about getting
a budget done.”
The procedure is being introduced in the House as a temporary rule
by Rep. Craig Dally (R-Northampton) and was announced at a Capitol
press conference in Harrisburg Thursday afternoon.
My own experiences have shown that people are really ticked off at the
Pennsylvania State Government right now. The lack of a “proper
budget” is causing problems for individuals, families, and businesses
and people are speaking up. While attending local fairs and during door-to-door
visits, comments from Mercer County residents regarding our Governor
and State Legislature have been less than flattering.
My experiences were backed up this week by the recent publication of
results from a Franklin and Marshall College Poll which shows that public
opinion for Pennsylvania State Government is at an all time low [read
the full publication of the poll HERE].
According to the poll:
Currently only one in three (33%) state residents believes
the state is headed in the right direction, and only a quarter (27%)
of registered adults believes the quality of state government in Pennsylvania
is excellent or good.
While the overall opinion of State Government is very poor, people are
seemingly at a loss on who to blame. Again, according to poll results,
Governor Rendell’s favorability ratings are the lowest
they have been since taking office in 2003, as are his job performance
ratings. At this point, fewer than three in ten (29%) registered adults
in the state say the governor is doing an excellent or good job. As
poorly as the governor fares, ratings for the state legislature are
even lower — not a single respondent rated the legislature’s
performance as excellent. More than three in four (78%) registered
adults believe the state legislature is doing a fair or poor job.
The results of the poll show the overall frustration of people throughout
the state. They don’t really know (or care) about how we got here,
they just want the problem fixed. I, on the other hand, have a very
strong opinion about where to lay the blame, so I’d like to restate
my opinion from last week [read the full story HERE]
as follows:
I’ve been personally talking to many voters in Mercer
County lately. Many have brought up their concerns regarding the budget.
Many are also under the misunderstanding that our State Representatives
are to be blamed for this mess. I’ve had folks specifically
blaming State Representative Mark Longietti and State Representative
Michele Brooks for the stalemate in Harrisburg, and specifically saying
that neither one should receive support for re-election because of
it. Now hold on just a minute----I’d like to point out that
individual Representatives are not responsible for the problems that
are occurring with the budget standstill at this point. Beginning
in May, the budget was controlled by a handful of legislators in the
Appropriations Committee. Most recently, the budget has been in the
hands of the six legislative leaders that make up the conference committee.
State Representatives are working independently to come up with ideas
and possible solutions, but the responsibility sits firmly in the
laps of the Appropriations Committee, the conference committee, and
the Governor. State Reps like Mark Longietti and Michele Brooks haven’t
even had an opportunity to vote on a final budget yet. They are simply
hostages in these negotiations like the rest of us. Let’s wait
until after the General Assembly has voted on a final budget before
we start pointing fingers and blaming our legislators . . . that is
if we EVER get the opportunity to see a "final budget".
In Closing . . .
I’ve had lots of people lately tell me that “The Governor
is not to blame for this mess”. The comments generally come from
fellow Democrats who feel that they need to defend the Governor and
his actions. My response to these comments is always the same. I, personally,
feel that the Governor is doing a horrible disservice to ALL elected
officials right now. His lack of leadership on this matter is destroying
Republicans AND Democrats alike. 2010 will be a big election year for
our legislature. The longer the budget impasse drags on, the more difficult
the “road to re-election” will be for every incumbent State
Senator and State Representative. The Governor doesn’t care because
his career in Harrisburg is at an end. Rather than trying to help his
own party by trying to smooth things over, the Governor is ONLY concerned
about his own “legacy”. His “legacy” may eventually
be that he was able to single-handedly unseat HUNDREDS of legislators
(including Democrats) through his lack of leadership.
[You can read the COMMENTS from the reprint of this article
on PAWaterCooler.com HERE]
For the endless number of citizens that depend on the flow of State
funds to stay afloat, the most recent news out of Harrisburg is less
than optimistic. When we last checked, the budget negotiation process
was held up in the six person conference committee. Three Democrats
and three Republicans were being “locked up together” and
assigned the task of hammering out the details of a balanced budget.
For weeks we have waited for some glimmer of hope, but we have been
repeatedly disappointed. Yesterday, talks broke down once again, and
this time the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of playing “political
games”.
HELLO? From what I’ve observed, the citizens of Pennsylvania have
seen nothing BUT “political games” since February when the
budget was introduced by the Governor. We didn’t see a budget
proposal from the Republican-led Senate until May. When it was received
by the Democrat-controlled House, it was sent to the House Appropriations
Committee where it SAT until the budget deadline had nearly come and
passed. Senate Bill 850 was then eventually “passed” by
the House for the soul purpose of allowing the Governor to eliminate
all funding other than funding for State Employees and funding for the
Governor’s own Executive Branch. Hmmm. Sure sounds like politics
to me?
Since the beginning of this battle, Democrats have stood firmly for
increased spending paid for by increased taxes, and Republicans have
stood for less spending with no tax increases. My research has found
that overwhelmingly individual taxpayers agree that tax increases ARE
NOT the answer, but in a ridiculous “political” twist this
week, Democrats are now implying that the GOP opposition to tax increases
is motivated only by “big business” (natural gas and cigarette
interests). Huh? Are you kidding me? What’s next? What old trick
will the parties pull out of their “political handbooks”?
During the past few weeks, it looked as though there might be some small
granule of hope when fiscal conservative Democrats agreed to sit down
with fiscal conservatives from the GOP to work on a non-partisan and
fiscally responsible “compromise budget”. It was all well
and good until the “so called” Blue Dogs were pulled in
by their leashes by their Party. The Blue Dogs were sent to the corner
for a little “time out”, and fiscal conservatives from the
right were left without the numbers and support to make a difference.
[As a side note, if you can’t support a fiscally conservative
budget, you aren’t a “fiscal conservative” and not
a “Blue Dog” . . . so please don’t “soil the
name” . . . just my opinion.]
Now here we sit . . . eight weeks have passed since the June 30th deadline
and our leaders in Harrisburg are no further along than they were in
February. The latest news reports state that the Democrats and Republicans
are ONLY $500 million dollars apart. ONLY? FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS?
That is a HALF A BILLION to you and me. That seems like a WORLD of difference
from where I stand.
I’ve been asked many times over the last few weeks what I think
about the budget negotiations. I’ve been asked, “How long
do you think this will go on?”
Well, folks, I’m sorry to say that I am not hopeful at this point.
It is my opinion that we are potentially weeks or months away from any
sort of agreement. I would bet that the “best case” scenario
might be a finalized budget by late September. On the “worst case”
side, I would say that Thanksgiving and Christmas are a possibility.
Maybe we all need to send our “letters to Santa” a little
earlier this year in hopes of getting some help from a jolly old man
in a red suit (I wonder if Governor Rendell owns a “red suit”?).
One More Thing . . .
I’ve been personally talking to many voters in Mercer County lately.
Many have brought up their concerns regarding the budget. Many are also
under the misunderstanding that our State Representatives are to be
blamed for this mess. I’ve had folks specifically blaming State
Representative Mark Longietti and State Representative Michele Brooks
for the stalemate in Harrisburg, and specifically saying that neither
one should receive support for re-election because of it. Now hold on
just a minute----I’d like to point out that individual Representatives
are not responsible for the problems that are occurring with the budget
standstill at this point. Beginning in May, the budget was controlled
by a handful of legislators in the Appropriations Committee. Most recently,
the budget has been in the hands of the six legislative leaders that
make up the conference committee. State Representatives are working
independently to come up with ideas and possible solutions, but the
responsibility sits firmly in the laps of the Appropriations Committee,
the conference committee, and the Governor. State Reps like Mark Longietti
and Michele Brooks haven’t even had an opportunity to vote on
a final budget yet. They are simply hostages in these negotiations like
the rest of us. Let’s wait until after the General Assembly has
voted on a final budget before we start pointing fingers and blaming
our legislators . . . that is if we EVER get the opportunity to see
a "final budget".
In calling for swift action to end the state’s budget impasse,
Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) today announced her
support for a budget compromise proposal. This is the third such proposal
that fiscal conservatives have advanced in their ongoing efforts to
enact a final budget for the 2009-10 fiscal year. This proposal is
balanced without tax increases or new taxes.
“This budget just isn’t about a state spending plan,”
said Brooks. “This budget affects every resident and business
throughout the Commonwealth. It’s also about government finally
living within its means, prioritizing spending, eliminating fraud
and inefficiencies, as well as planning for our future. State government
cannot spend and borrow its way to prosperity. California tried this
approach, which put them into an IOU status. That is why we have worked
hard to put together a fiscally responsible compromise so that we
can end this impasse.
“Some in Harrisburg need to realize this isn’t state government’s
money. It is the everyday working persons’ money. Overwhelmingly,
the people who are paying the bills have said they can’t afford
to take more away from their families’ budgets through increased
taxes,” she continued. “We can only spend the revenues
we have, and we cannot ask the taxpayers for any more of their hard-earned
money. This budget plan respects those taxpayers and reflects the
fiscal reality we face.”
The new budget bill, House Bill 1943, is a compromise previously drafted
by fiscal conservatives on both sides of the aisle that funds core
government services but curtails state spending to a level of $27.5
billion. The bill contains no new taxes or increases and uses a variety
of different revenue sources.
Brooks also expressed her disappointment in the administration and
its efforts to extend the impasse to create a crisis for school districts,
local governments, human service providers and others. “The
administration’s focus is to further this crisis as long as
possible in order to gain support for a broad-based tax increase,
which is now moving toward an increase in the state’s sales
tax. The administration continues to underestimate Pennsylvanians
and fails to realize the devastating impacts any type of tax increase
would have on their families, their livelihoods, their local businesses
and their communities.
“I am hopeful that our compromise budget plan will be passed
and enacted, but in the event that does not occur as soon as I would
like, I have authored House Resolution 444 that would provide funding
to counties by overriding the administration’s veto which eliminated
payments to counties,” she said. “This override must be
initiated as a safety net to our counties and residents. Without a
veto override for this specific line item, many counties will soon
run out of money.”
As the old saying goes, “Time Flies When You’re Having Fun”!
I’ve been particularly busy lately. With time passing faster than
I can track, I’ve fallen behind in my blogging ‘responsibilities’.
Unfortunately, “somethings gotta give” and attention to
my blog seems to be at the top of the list of things to suffer. I apologize.
I’ve had every intention of sharing some interesting commentaries
with you, but I just haven’t had the time to sit down and write.
I decided today to take the time. While I can’t devote the time
and effort that I’d like in writing detailed blog posts, I wanted
to entertain you all with several blog "shorts” that outline numerous
topics of interest that have come across my desk in the past few weeks.
Enjoy!
Walking
in the Candidate’s Shoes (or should that be ‘Shoe’)
As an update to a series from earlier this year, I thought I should
provide some details about the status of my campaign for the office
of Mercer County Treasurer.
The campaign is in full swing, and it has definitely been consuming
our time. There is so much to do and so little time to do it!
We have tons of work that we do every day in planning and preparing
for the final run to November 3rd, and then we have the events that
fill our ‘social’ time. Since the beginning of July, we’ve
participated in numerous County parades and events including the Mercer
Grange Fair, Jefferson Township Fair, and Sheakleyville Fair. We spent
the week of August 4 – 8 volunteering our time with the fine folks
of the Fredonia Fire Department during Fredonia Old Home Week, and just
this past weekend I had the pleasure of lending a hand at a benefit
buffet in Greenville.
It has all been great fun and very fulfilling. Like usual, though, I
may have overdone it a bit. In my enthusiasm, I managed to aggravate
an old injury in my foot and I’ve been forced to wear a walking
cast for the past few weeks. It looks worse that it actually is, and
I can’t wait to get rid of it. I have to admit, though, that it
hasn’t slowed me down much. Technically, since this candidate
is actually only walking around in ONE SHOE now-a-days, I’ve adapted
the title of this ‘blog short’ appropriately.
Next week begins the last string of fairs (Transfer, Stoneboro, and
Jamestown), and we are looking forward to it. I'm hopeful that I'll
be able to tackle the next string of fairs with "both feet", but only
time will tell.
At the completion of the Jamestown Fair, the real fun will begin as
we press forward to Election Day.
Skipping
the Election Process (an Update)
Back on May 29th I wrote a blog post titled “Let’s
Just Skip the Election Process and Let Judges and the Governor Appoint
Government Officials”. In it I criticized Mercer County Judge
Francis Fornelli for pushing forward to have recent winners from the
May Primary appointed to open magisterial positions. Judge Fornelli
argued that because the candidates had won both the Democrat and Republican
nominations, they should just be appointed to their positions early
in an effort to help out sitting judges that had been filling in for
the vacancies. At the time, my argument was that the election was far
from over, and I felt that appointing the judges early would give them
an unfair advantage over any possible independent challengers in the
fall.
After publishing my post, I received a comment criticizing my short-sightedness
(read the comment HERE).
In the comment submitted by “Anonymous” it was stated that
“it only makes logical sense to appoint those who will likely
be elected to begin a new term in January”.
Well folks, my prediction from May has finally come full circle.
In the race for District Justice in the Greenville Area (District 3-3),
the winner of the Primary (Brian Arthur) will now have an independent
challenger (Edward Bardella, Sr.). As I explained in my original criticism
of Judge Fornelli’s plan, now that Brian Arthur was already been
appointed and sworn in to the office earlier in the summer, he now has
an unfair advantage as an “incumbent”. Mr. Bardella steps
into the race with an obvious disadvantage as an Independent candidate,
but now his odds of winning have been made even worse because Brian
Arthur was handed an unfair advantage by Judge Fornelli.
Does it all seem completely fair now?
Pennsylvania
State Budget Impasse Update
A few weeks ago, the PA House finally passed a budget. Unfortunately,
they did so with the intention of pushing the budget along to the Governor
to be ‘cut into pieces’ with the option of line item veto.
As the plan outlined, the Governor scratched out all spending in the
budget with the exception of funding to pay State workers and funding
for the Governor’s office. Everything else would need to be funded
through a final and complete budget at some later date.
Well, have you all wondered what has been happening on this front? Me
too. I have logged in daily to House
Live to see what is happening in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives.
What have I witnessed? Nothing. Why? Because according to the House
Committee Calendar (published on-line HERE),
the House hasn’t had a “voting” day since early August.
Every day has been marked as a “non-voting” day since the
House last convened back on August 5th.
Here we are on August 18th with no fully functional State Budget in
place, and our elected officials aren’t even bothering to put
their heads together and discuss it? Hmmmm. Makes you wonder, doesn’t
it?
My
Pet Peeve Makes Front Page News
I laughed this morning when I read my copy of the Sharon
Herald. A little known story that I have much interest in made it
to the front page today. The story titled “Foot bridge project
stalls” (read the full story HERE),
outlines a problem that has been dragging on for quite some time. I
was glad to see it finally getting some much needed attention.
I visit Jamestown often. On numerous occasions I’ve published
that I’m a regular at the “Hunger Buster” hot dog
and ice cream stand in the heart of Jamestown. When we visit the Hunger
Buster for a soft-serve cone, we always follow up our tasty treat with
a lap around Jamestown for exercise (in an attempt to take away the
guilt of yet another ice cream cone). Unfortunately, our walks have
been altered all summer due to a construction project that has been
dragging on all summer. There are four foot bridges in downtown (on
Jackson St and on Rt. 58) that have been under construction for far
too long.
The story in today’s Herald explains that the approaching start
of school and the kick off of the Jamestown fair have borough officials
concerned. Unfortunately, their hands are tied as the project is being
held up in Harrisburg. In the words of Borough Council President, William
“Doug” McElhaney, “we have no stick to beat the horse
with here”.
So, what are concerned citizens to do? McElhaney urges residents to
contact the borough’s elected state officials to help move the
project along. Those individuals would be State Senator Bob Robbins
(R-50th) from Salem Township, and State Representative Michele Brooks
(R-17th), who happens to live in the heart of Jamestown.
I would like to take this opportunity to officially invite Senator Bob
Robbins and Representative Michele Brooks to join me for a Hunger Buster
ice cream some evening . . . my treat! Perhaps then they could take
a short walk with me to witness the problem first hand. Any takers?
(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?
Written by Roberta Biros
with Legislator Announcements from Representative Mark Longietti and
Representative Michele Brooks
According to Representative Mark Longietti and Representative Michele
Brooks, some much needed funding will be flowing into Mercer County.
Representative Longietti released an announcement on Tuesday, July 14th,
and Representative Michele Brooks made her announcement on Wednesday,
July 15th. Both make Mercer County residents aware of the fact that
grants from the Commonwealth Financing Authority will be coming to Mercer
County municipalities for water and sewer projects.
As per the announcement from Representative Mark Longietti:
HARRISBURG, July 14 – State Rep.
Mark Longietti announced today that three Mercer County municipalities
will receive a total of $10.46 million in grants for water and sewer
projects through the Commonwealth Financing Authority.
"I am pleased our local communities were able to obtain funding to
protect water sources and the health of their local residents," said
Longietti, D-Mercer. "Even during these tough economic times, the
state must continue to invest in projects that benefit our communities."
The projects receiving H2O PA program grants are:
· The City of Sharon Sanitary Authority will receive $9 million
to expand its wastewater treatment plant and build an additional interceptor
and siphon barrel. The authority, under a state Department of Environmental
Protection decree, is
building a new treatment plant at a cost of about $30 million. The
authority already received a $15 million Pennsylvania Infrastructure
Investment Authority loan, but had to finance the rest of the project
through bonds, causing rates to go up to levels that some people could
not afford. "It is my hope this grant will help ease the problems
caused by higher sewer rates in Sharon," Longietti said.
· Hermitage Municipal Authority will receive $1 million to increase
the capacity of its regional wastewater treatment plant. One of the
upgrades will be to the sludge
processing system, which will be replaced with one that meets the
needs of the 7.7 million-gallons-per-day flow, as well as provide
a system that will use methane gas to fuel an onsite generator and
provide power to the treatment plant. The authority had been under
a DEP order to build a new treatment plant.
· Sharpsville will receive $461,425 for water system improvements
that include
replacing a water line.
The Commonwealth Financing Authority administers and finances projects
included in the H2O PA program. It also oversees other programs that
use targeted state investment to attract private capital for economic
development in all regions of the state.
The H2O PA Act, established by the General Assembly in July 2008,
provides grants to municipalities or municipal authorities to assist
with the construction of drinking water, sanitary sewer and storm
sewer projects.
As per the announcement from Representative Michele Brooks:
Jefferson Township in Mercer County will be able to expand
sewer service and upgrade its operations thanks to a state grant funded
through the PA H20 Program and the Commonwealth Financing Authority,
said Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence).
“I am pleased the township was awarded this funding, as Jefferson
Township has been identified by the Mercer County Comprehensive Plan
as an area targeted for growth,” Brooks said. “This grant
will enable the township to upgrade its infrastructure to meet current
and future demands.”
The local grant will enable the township to provide sewerage service
to nearly 220 homes and businesses. Specifically, the project will
address the elimination of malfunctioning on-lot sewage disposal systems
and permit future non-residential development within the project area.
The township will receive nearly $1.7 million from the authority as
part of Act 63 of 2008, which created the PA H20 program. This program
was created a referendum vote last year.
You can visit the websites of both Representative Longietti and Representative
Brooks through the links below:
It was a long day for lawmakers in the Harrisburg yesterday. The 2009-2010
budget battle continues, but there seems to be good news for taxpayers.
Below is a legislator announcement from Representative Brad Roae (R-6th)
outlining the basics:
Roae Issues Statement on State Budget Negotiations
Rep. Brad Roae (R-Crawford) issued the following statement in reaction
to the announcement by House Democratic leadership that floor sessions
are cancelled until Monday:
“The Democrats just canceled session for Friday, Saturday,
and Sunday,” Roae said. “Monday is now the next possible
day that we can vote on the budget.
“Today the Democratic leadership realized that almost all
of the House Republicans and about 20 “Blue Dog” Democrats
will not vote to increase the Personal Income Tax, as a result,
the chances for passing a Personal Income Tax increase have been
dealt a severe blow.
“Pennsylvania currently has the 11th highest tax burden in
the nation. The people of Crawford County cannot afford an increase
in the Personal Income Tax.
“The Republicans are prepared to vote on a responsible budget
plan that has no Personal Income Tax increase, will protect the
people and will support the core functions of government.
“Only the committee chair of the majority party can bring
a bill up for a vote at a committee meeting.
"There are 104 Democrats and 99 Republicans in the state House,
so the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep.
Dwight Evans (D-Philadelphia), is the only person who can release
the budget for a vote.
“I am here representing the people of my district. I wish
the Democrats would let us conduct session so we can get on with
the people’s business.”
Rep. Brad Roae
6th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(814) 827-6054
(717) 787-2353
(717) 787-3407
Member Site: RepRoae.com
Caucus Site: PAHouseGOP.com
The Back Door Politics Continue
Knowing
what we know about “business as usual in area politics”
and realizing how the good ol’ boys (and girls) prefer
to control “who gets lucky”, it is interesting to
think through the thought process of political strategy in our
area. Let us use this year as an example as we examine a possibility
. . .
Is
it possible that Senator Robbins knows that the political climate
in 2010 will make it extremely difficult (if not impossible)
for him to win re-election in November. Is he fearful of going
down in flames . . . and thus tarnishing his long career forever?
Would he prefer to leave on a high note and pass the challenge
onto his young enough and smart enough protégé? Is Representative
Brooks desperate enough to take on the challenge? Is she willing
to take yet another backroom deal in an effort to slide into
higher office?
State
Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti respond to query .
. . Senator Robbins and Representative Stevenson do not
