Senator Bob Robbins is a member of the Pennsylvania State
Senate. He was elected to that office in 1990 to Represent the 50th District.
He has offices in Greenville, Meadvillle, 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).
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.
Senator Bob Robbins (R-50th) Grade: F (Scored 20 out of 50 = 40%)
The Details of Senator Robbins
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": 0
If you take a close look at the voting record
of Bob Robbins over the 20 years that he has been in office, you
will be hard pressed to categorize his record as “fiscal
conservative”. Senator Robbins voted himself a pay raise
in 2005, which breaks one of the key rules for fiscal conservatism.
Finally, a review of Senator Robbins’ record on the Liberty
Index (libertyindex.com) shows that Senator Robbins has struggled
with grades ranging from a D to an F when examining his record.
Leadership: Leadership is defined at
the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to
inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal
interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they
left me with. Score for Leadership: 3
Senator Robbins scores moderately in the Leadership category.
He has managed to lead the Mercer County GOP as a group for years,
but some would say that he has done so forcibly. Those that followed
have not always done so by choice, but some have been forced to
follow due to fear of being “thrown off the island”.
Senator Robbins tends to lead more like a “King” than
a “General”. He takes his power for granted and uses
it at his whim. He does not lead by inspiring others.
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 f or General Intellect: 2
I met the Senator for the first time in the summer of 2006. I
didn’t know who he was and had no idea that he was an elected
official until he told me so. My first impression of him was that
he was just “a guy” that showed up for a free dinner
at a local event. My husband and I actually referred to him as
“hobo Bob” as we saw him as a bit of a “Box
Car Willie” character . . . not a State Senator. His intellect
or intellectual capabilities have never impressed me.
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: 4 The Senator has managed to do well for himself in his
political “career”. He has done so through sheer determination,
drive, and effort. I’ll give him high points for that.
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: 3
I’m trying to be fair on this one. I, personally don’t
like the Senator for a number of reasons, but the people that
do like him are quite loyal. I, therefore, have given him a split
vote to be nice.
Transparency and Accountability: This is an important category for
me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them
thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have
been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing
to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to
those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate
and provide specific answers in response to the questions that
were asked.
Score for Transparency and Accountability: 0 I have contacted Senator Robbins more times than I can
count. He only responded once by letter. His response, however,
did not answer the questions that I asked. To firm up this score,
Senator Robbins has a history of hiding from the press too. He
would prefer to not draw attention to himself for fear of being
recognized as a career politician who is only concerned about
himself.
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: 0 Senator Robbins is not the type of guy to go the “extra
mile” for his constituents. He might help out his political
friends and partners in crime, but he makes no attempt to bridge
the gap between Harrisburg and Mercer County.
Desire to Represent “The People” of his District: This is a very important element
of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and
their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern
for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically
focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at
a broader base of constituents?
Score for Desire to Represent: 3
Senator Robbins is concerned about the people of the district
only in as far as he is concerned about them re-electing him.
Technically, therefore, he is concerned about representing them
(so he they won’t fire him).
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
I would certainly describe Senator Robbins as Scrappy. He will
roll up his sleeves to help his political friends. I’ve
seen that first hand. Mr. Robbins receives high ratings here.
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: 0 No thank you. I have no interest in sharing a cup of
Joe with the Senator, and I would assure you that the feeling
is mutual.
In Closing . . .
It is no surprise that Senator Bob Robbins (a.k.a. Coconut Bob)
came in with a rating of only 40%. That is a Grade of “F”
in any book. So, I’ll ask AGAIN . . .
Why will no one step up to run against this man and force him
to prove his value to the people of the 50th District?
Why is he squeaking by with a mediocre record of public service
and a less than mediocre voting record in Harrisburg?
Are people that complacent with “business as usual”
in Harrisburg? OR is everyone just afraid to take on the head
of the Republican Party in Mercer County?
As I’ve said numerous times in previous blog posts, there
are only 826* signatures required (by August 2nd) to get onto
the ballot as an Independent candidate against Bob Robbins [*
- it should be noted that a recent call to the Pennsylvania Department
of State clarified that the number is actually 827 signatures].
The cost to file nomination papers is only $100, and a list of
registered voters is available (also from the Department of State)
for a minimal fee of $20. All of the necessary paperwork is sitting
on my desk right now, and the list of registered voters is due
to arrive in a few days. Is anyone is interested in taking on
the challenge?
If Bob Robbins were forced to actually RUN for his office, he
might realize who it is that makes his “career” possible.
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.
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.
People are shaped by their experiences. We’ve all suffered
various trials, tribulations, and celebrations during our visit
on this Earth and those life lessons have made us all unique.
In the world of politics, the same applies. People are shaped
by their experiences and we are all unique. Unfortunately, in
the present two-party system, we are all forced to try to fit
into one of two predetermined molds. More often than not, people
are finding that they don’t really fit under either column
A nor B. There are many of us that have tried, but we find that
our square pegs simply don’t fit into any of the round holes
that are available.
It is that dilemma of Choice A vs. Choice B that has motivated
me to make a final and very important political decision. First,
allow me to quote a letter to the editor of The
Herald that was published today.
Democrats vs. Republicans
I’m writing in response to the recent letter submitted
by Larry Murphy of Hermitage. Mr. Murphy publicly outlined his
reasons for leaving the GOP to join the Libertarian Party.
Last year I went through a similar conflict. I was disappointed
with the GOP, and I moved to the Democrat Party. I thought the
“bigger tent” would be more accepting of differing
political philosophies. I always believed in the two-party system,
and if I did not agree with one party, it only made sense to
move to the other.
Unfortunately, both parties are riddled with problems and demons
that make them equally unattractive. As the saying goes, “the
grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence”.
In Mercer County, it is impossible to distinguish the two parties
(Democrat and Republican) from one and other. Both committees
are run by political insiders that are only interested in promoting
“closed door politics”. Outsiders are not welcome
to the table, and great efforts are made to block attempts at
entry. County politics and government are essentially run by
ONE party . . . the Mercer County Incumbent Party.
Like many, I find myself an independent thinker that is more
interested in “good government” and “honest
public service” than I am with party platforms. I believe
in term limits, open primaries, transparency, accountability,
and fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, these priorities are
not part of the platform of either major party (let alone “the
Mercer County Incumbent Party”).
I have, therefore, decided to change my political party affiliation
to the ONLY honest political party in existence . . . the “NO
PARTY” (not to be confused with “the party of NO”).
On March 4th, I submitted my voter registration with a party
change to “No Affiliation”. I am now a true independent
with no specific allegiance . . . other than my allegiance to
the United States of America.
If you are tired of choices A and B, I invite you to join “choice
C” and become an Independent (which also happens to be
the fastest growing voting block in the nation).
Roberta Biros
Delaware Township
Yes, I've made the ultimate move of political independence.
I've abandoned both parties in search of honest leadership and
public servants that are committed to transparency, accountability,
and fiscal responsibility . . . regardless of party affiliation.
On a Personal Note:
I’d like to be the first to congratulate a few people.
I’d like to congratulate Chairman Bob Lark and Chairman
Dave King for their undying support of the Mercer County Incumbent
Party. I’m sure that they are both “tickled pink”
by this announcement today.
I’d also like to congratulate the loyal members of
the Mercer County Incumbent Party for their hard work in shaping
Mercer County politics into what it is today. The most outstanding
and obvious members of this group are Bob and Cindy Robbins,
Ginny and Walter Richardson, Ken Ammann, Brian Beader, Bob and
Debbie Kochems. They will all be celebrating this as a victory
(of that I am certain).
While I am no longer a member of one of the two major parties,
I do not plan on disappearing from the political scene. I will
remain a vocal proponent of good government in Mercer County
and throughout Pennsylvania. I will remain a concerned citizen
with a goal of fiscal responsibility and honest public service.
I will do this with NO specific affiliation to a political party
or label.
In Closing
In my blog post titled 2010
Petitions are IN: A Political Summary (published on 3/10/2010),
I explained the process through which third party candidates
can run for public office. In that same article I stated the
following:
"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"
While running as a third-party or non-affiliated candidate
is very difficult, I encourage the MANY voters in Mercer County
that fall under that category to consider running for office.
If you are willing to work HARDER to prove your commitment to
good government, running as an Independent may be the perfect
choice for you.
According to the statistics of the Mercer County Election Bureau
(posted HERE),
there are over 9,000 registered voters in Mercer County that
have chosen to NOT classify themselves as a Republican or a
Democrat. There are 9,000 of us that have chosen “Choice
C”, and those numbers are growing.
Today I am filled with a new hope and a revitalized optimism.
I have a new sense of freedom and independence in knowing that
my square peg may have found a perfectly matched square hole.
In closing, I leave you with these two quotes of inspiration.
"He who is not courageous enough to take risks will
accomplish nothing in life." ~Muhammad Ali
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it
comes dressed in overalls and
looks like work." ~Thomas Edison
This is a reminder that there are some of us that are willing
to work harder and take risks in an effort to achieve greatness.
As always, just my opinion.
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).
Tuesday, March 9th was the last day to file nomination petitions
in Pennsylvania. Individuals wishing to run as a major party candidate
needed to gather a pre-determined number of signatures in order
for their names to appear on the Primary Ballot in May for their
respective parties. There are several state-wide and regional
races of note, and the candidates in those races are numerous.
All of the petitions that were filed are listed HERE
for your review.
U.S. Senator
In the race for US Senator, three Democrats will fight for Arlen
Specter’s seat.
SPECTER, ARLEN
SESTAK, JOE
VODVARKA, JOSEPH
In the Republican race for US Senator, two Republicans will battle
it out for the opportunity to take Arlen Specter’s seat.
TOOMEY, PAT
LUKSIK, PEG
Details:
The candidates in the race for US Senator were required to gather
2000 signatures on their petitions, and they needed to submit
a $200.00 filing fee for the privilege of running for office.
My Comments:
We are all looking forward to seeing Arlen Specter lose. At this
point it is a matter of whether he loses in the Primary or in
the General Election. I wish I had a preference, but I do not.
Anytime will be a good time to see Arlen Specter retire.
Pennsylvania Governor
In the race for Governor, four Democrats are taking on the challenge
to fill Ed Rendell’s very capable shoes (that was a joke,
of course).
WAGNER, JACK
ONORATO, DAN
HOEFFEL, JOSEPH
WILLIAMS, ANTHONY HARDY
On the Republican side, there are two options for the Republican
Gubernatorial candidate.
CORBETT, TOM
ROHRER, SAMUEL
Details:
The candidates that wished to run for the office of Governor of
Pennsylvania were required to gather 2000 signatures and pay a
$200.00 filing fee. The 2000 signatures needed to include at least
100 signatures from each of at least 10 counties.
My Comments:
I have favorites from both the Republican and Democrat tickets
in this race. For the Democrats, I have a special respect and
admiration for Jack Wagner. I like Jack and I feel that he would
make a fine Governor. In the Republican column, I am a fan of
Sam Rohrer. In 2009, I published my own “Directory
of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was
based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally
conservative events. Representative Rohrer faired very well in
my unscientific poll, and, therefore, tops my list of preferred
candidates.
Representative in Congress,
3rd District
To focus more closely on the Northwest Region of Pennsylvania,
I’d like to discuss the race for Representative in Congress
in the 3rd District.
On the Democrat ticket, current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy
Dahlkemper has an opponent.
DAHLKEMPER, KATHY
MARIN, MEL
On the Republican ticket, six candidates have stepped up to send
Mrs. Dahlkemper back home to Erie.
FRANZ, ED
KELLY, MIKE
HUBER, PAUL
GRABB, CLAYTON
FISHER, STEVEN
MOORE, MARTHA
Details:
Candidates running for the much coveted position of Representative
in Congress needed to collect 1000 signatures and pay a $150.00
filing fee.
My Comments:
First, I’m very excited to see that Mrs. Dahlkemper has
a Democrat opponent. I wish Mel Marin the best of luck.
The field of six Republicans is interesting. I’m impressed
by two of the Republican candidates. Steven Fisher seems very
intelligent and hard-working. I had a brief email conversation
with him last week regarding the recent problems within Mrs. Dahlkemper’s
office (read the full story HERE,
and I will publish details regarding Mr. Fisher’s comments
within the next week). Mr. Fisher was quick to personally respond
to my query, and I respect that in any one that is seeking a position
in public service. I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting
with candidate Ed Franz. Mr. Franz was kind enough to devote time
to a personal discussion with me at a meet and greet earlier this
week. Mr. Franz is also a hard worker, and he seems to have the
best interests of the people of the 3rd District in the correct
perspective. Candidates Kelly, Huber, Grabb, and Moore have not
responded to my personal queries. I, therefore, cannot offer a
positive testimonial regarding their ability to serve the people
of my congressional district.
2010 Election in Mercer
County decided by Petitions
As a resident and concerned citizen of Mercer County, I always
attempt to focus on the races that directly impact our local area.
Unfortunately, it appears that ALL of the races for Senator and
Representatives in the General Assembly have already been determined.
Senator in the General Assembly, 50th
Incumbent Senator Bob Robbins (R) was simply required to receive
500 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee is re-election.
At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer
County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based
on 500 signatures and $100).
Representative in the General Assembly, 7th
Incumbent Representative Mark Longietti (D) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
Representative in the General Assembly, 8th
Incumbent Representative Dick Stevenson (R) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
Are you seeing the trend here? Well, it wouldn’t be complete
unless . . . yes . . .
Representative in the General Assembly, 17th
Incumbent Representative Michele Brooks (R) was simply required
to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee
re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent.
The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide
(based on 300 signatures and $100).
But does it stop there? Oh Gosh NO.
Member of the Democrat State Committee (43rd)
Mark Longietti (State Rep.) and Liz Fair (Mercer County Prothonotary)
will again both run against no other candidates for the two seats.
100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the two of them
to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent
Party wins this election by a landslide.
Member of the Republican State Committee (43rd)
Cindy Robbins (wife of State Senator, and chairwoman of the Mercer
County Incumbent Party), Walter Richardson (husband of Mercer
County Treasurer, and husband of the co-chairwoman of the Mercer
County Incumbent Party), and Scott Boyd (newcomer and Tea Party
organizer) will all run together with no other challengers for
the three seats. 100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows
the three of them to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer
County Incumbent Party wins two seats and will do everything that
they can to discourage all activity by Scott Boyd.
My Comments:
Once again, no one in Mercer County (with the exception of
Scott Boyd) wants to step up to challenge the Mercer County
Incumbent Party. Democrats are watching the backs of Republicans,
and Republicans are watching the backs of Democrats. In the
end, the incumbents run unopposed and everything remains business
as usual in Mercer County.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is NOT TOO
LATE to challenge the incumbents. If you have the nerve, it
is possible to run against Senator Bob Robbins and Representatives
Stevenson, Longietti, and Brooks. “How?”, you ask.
Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates
can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties
need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time,
interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures
in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated
by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for
an elected candidate at the last election within the district”.
Those numbers are computed below:
To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party
candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x
.02).
To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates
must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).
To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates
must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).
To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates
must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).
Races of Note from
a Conservative Perspective
As I referenced earlier in this article, in 2009 I published
my own “Directory
of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list
was based on the participation of the legislators in specific
fiscally conservative events. The full list can be viewed HERE.
I decided to take a look at the list to see how our conservative
legislators are doing in their respective races this year. Of
the legislators that are on the list, the following are considered
the MOST FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE by my rankings. I’ve also
noted the status of their political races this year:
Bradley Roae (6th) – running unopposed
in November
Daryl Metcalfe (12th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November, but Rep. Metcalfe is also running for
the office of Lt. Governor
Michele Brooks (17th)* -- running unopposed
in November
Mike Turzai (28th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Thomas Creighton (37th)* -- will have a Republican
opponent in the Primary.
Scott Hutchinson (64th)* -- running unopposed
in November
Kathy Rapp (65th)* -- running unopposed in
November
Jerry Stern (80th)* -- running unopposed in
November
Rob Kauffman (89th) – running unopposed
in November
Todd Rock (90th) ) – running unopposed
in November
Dan Moul (91st)* )* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Stanley Saylor (94th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Rosemarie Swanger (102nd) -- will have a Republican
opponent in the Primary.
Karen Boback (117th) -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Samuel Rohrer (128th) – running for the
office of Governor of Pennsylvania.
Jim Cox (129th) – running unopposed in
November
Paul Clymer (145th) -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
Bob Mensch (147th) – running for the
office of State Senator.
Curt Schroder (155th)* -- will have a Democrat
opponent in November.
* - an asterisk designates that the individual received my highest
rating for fiscal conservative legislators in 2009.
In Closing
So, there you have it . . . a summary of the interesting races
in 2010 as of today, Wednesday, March 10, 2010. As we all know,
however, the dynamics of these races could change on a dime
in the coming days, weeks, and months.
I’ve always made it clear that I support fiscally conservative
candidates. The list above is a summary of “who needs
your help” this year. I intend on offering my assistance
to any fiscally conservative candidate that is willing to accept
my help (regardless of the location of their voting district).
I’ve also made my thoughts regarding the importance of
running for public office very clear. Competition and opposition
during an election is healthy. It draws attention to the importance
of elected office, and it forces our elected officials to defend
their territory. I give credit to all of the candidates that
have taken the step to run in 2010, and I encourage concerned
citizens to get involved in the process. If ANYONE in Mercer
County is interested in running as a third party candidate for
any of the legislative positions outlined above, feel free to
contact me at roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com.
I am willing to offer assistance, guidance, and support in your
endeavor.
The Mercer County Conservatives website was modified slightly last year.
The changes were made for two reasons. The first reason is that I was
devoting my energy toward my political campaign and removed portions
of the site that required time-consuming maintenance. Second, I modified
the site in an effort to diffuse some of the rhetoric that was surfacing
from both sides of the aisle in local politics. Many articles were temporarily
suspended from public viewing, and the “comment” feature
was turned off to prevent ugly arguments. My political campaign last
year triggered lots of emotions from Republicans and Democrats alike,
and I couldn’t keep up with the constant arguing between politicians
while also managing my own campaign for public office. I toned things
down a bit in an effort to get through the campaign with my sanity intact.
Now that the campaign is squarely behind me, I’ve taken a look
at Mercer County Conservatives and have decided to once again let out
all of the stops. The changes are numerous, but here is a brief overview:
Our standard website at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/
has been re-initialized and re-tooled. The purpose of the site is to
provide some structure to our blog and to make our content available
to people and search engines in a simple HTML format. You can continue
to access our blog through the mercerconservatives.blogspot.com
address, but as an alternative you can access the blog through our
standard web page at http://www.mercerconservatives.com/.
It is an easier address to remember and it serves as a jump off point
for our many activities.
Site Update #1: Most Popular Topics
The MercerConservatives.com site now offers an exciting summary area
which provides easy access to our most popular topics. According to
our web statistics, we receive the most traffic from individuals searching
on the following topics through the standard search engines (Google,
Yahoo, other). I’ve provided a brief opinion of why each topic
is of interest.
The single most popular search query that points people to our many
websites is the name of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. The Congresswoman’s
personality creates quite a bit of curiosity amongst the electorate.
While on the exterior Mrs. Dahlkemper carries herself in a distinguished
manner, when you get an opportunity to talk to her she comes off more
like a wet blanket than a U.S. Congressperson.
Congresswoman Dahlkemper is an anomaly to the educated politico. She
is neither Republican nor Democrat. She is neither conservative nor
liberal. She is neither “Blue Dog” nor Progressive. She
attempts to be all things to all people, and yet manages to stand for
nothing (I will expand upon this topic with a full blog post later this
week). People are intrigued by her in much the same way that we ponder
the age old question of “why do tornados always manage to find
a trailer park to destroy”. Those in “the know” wonder
about Mrs. Dahlkemper and they seek information in one of the few places
that it is available . . . the internet. The internet is still one of
the few places where freedom of speech is exercised on a daily basis.
It is no wonder that she is our #1 topic of interest (nationwide, statewide,
and countywide).
People seek information regarding State Representative Michele Brooks
from our site for numerous reasons. On the state-wide front, there are
fiscal conservatives that watch the activities of Ms. Brooks and others
in hopes of someday turning around the budgetary problems of the Commonwealth.
Ms. Brooks has become an important member of a fiscal conservative movement
in Harrisburg that is watched closely by many groups that support good
government. Rep. Brooks also draws web traffic from her numerous enemies
on the left who are just waiting for her to trip and fall in the public
arena.
Running unopposed this year, Rep. Brooks finds herself in the cat-bird
seat (a comfortable position that is also shared by Reps. Stevenson
and Longietti and Senator Robbins). Unfortunately for her, the uncontrollable
tendency to put friends, supporters, and concerned citizens on the backburner
until she decides that needs them again may be a mistake in the long
run. The “incumbent attitude” may eventually leave some
former supporters with a sense that she is no different than the rest.
For now, however, Rep. Brooks is at the top of her game, and she gets
the web traffic that proves it.
I’m quite sure that the reason people come to our site in search
of information regarding “our fine Senator” is that we are
the only place on the internet that validates that “Coconut Bob”
is, in fact, still alive and kicking. His inability to understand technology
leaves his web presence well below zero. He rarely if ever publishes
information about his accomplishments on the web. It may be because
he doesn’t think it is important . . . or it is probably because
he has no accomplishments to publicize. Yes, he still holds office,
but only because he has made the position look so uninteresting that
no one else wants it. State Senator "Coconut Bob" Robbins holds spot
#3 in our most popular blog topics.
In the top of the pack of search queries, we find "Roberta Biros". Yep,
that’s me.
While I’m currently nothing more than a concerned citizen, I draw
attention from all corners of the state and county. While it is not
unusual to receive daily visits to our sites from Mercer Countians looking
for information about me and my very public opinions, I find it amazing
when folks from Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh are typing
my name into Google to learn more about me and my blog topics. Perhaps
I should consider more activities statewide in the future?
These two topics rate almost equal in web search queries. Searches regarding
Commissioners John Lechner, Ken Ammann, and Brian Beader (a.k.a. Moe,
Larry, and Curly) are frequent throughout Mercer County. It is no doubt
that the reason for the frequent searches is the disgust and dissatisfaction
that many Mercer Countians have with our three stooges. The common link
to Farm Subsidies is interesting as this issue of corruption is only
tied to one of our fine Commissioners (Mr. Ammann), but many people
in Mercer County and across the state link the two topics together.
I find that very interesting.
Rounding out the bottom of our most popular web queries are Representative
Longietti and Representative Dick Stevenson. These two legislators receive
an almost equal number of queries on a monthly basis. Both legislators
fail to stand out in any positive way. They generally follow partisan
straight-party politics, and they leave many political enthusiasts in
the state looking for more substance. Unfortunately, it is an impossible
task as these legislators are an unexciting as watching paint dry. Web
visitors may be looking for more, but I simply don’t have anything
to offer as both are simply politicians whose main concern is their
own political well-being.
Site Update #2: Comments are Back ON
MercerConservatives.com
has always been about sharing ideas and talking about current issues.
The center of the conversation was our blog “comment” feature.
Last year (during my campaign) I suspended “comments” as
I simply didn’t have the time to moderate or respond to the many
conversations that were going on. Now that we are back on track, I’ve
re-initialized comments on the site so that we can get back to discussing
the business of Mercer County politics. In making the change, I’ve
also made available all of our past on-line conversations regarding
farm subsidies, past County corruption and scandals, and examples of
poor character in local politics. All of that information is back on-line
and available for your review. Enjoy!
Site Update #3: The Gloves are Off
As a last update to MercerConservatives.com,
I’ve given up on all attempts to “fit in” politically.
I will no longer try to fit my square peg into any round holes that
have been created in Mercer County. Instead, I will open up the flood
gates and talk about EVERY ISSUE without any need to hold back or stifle
my more controversial opinions. Everyone is an open target, and I will
direct my comments (both good and bad) equally in all directions.
So there you have it. Our goals of providing the Mercer County electorate
with information about good government, fiscal responsibility, and worthy
public servants are back on track and ready to roll. Our comments and
commentary will be unfiltered . . . non-partisan . . . and honest. We
will share our opinions and we invite you to join in the conversation.
Welcome to the official unveiling of Mercer County Conservatives
2.0!
State
Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti respond to query .
. . Senator Robbins and Representative Stevenson do not
Written by Roberta Biros
You all know how much I enjoy musical references, and today I’d
like to refer to a great classic by one of my favorite artists . . .
Meatloaf. Today’s musical reference is “Two Out of Three
Ain’t Bad”. In our case, I have to modify the reference
to be “Two Out of Four Ain’t Bad”.
What on earth am I referring to?
In general, the issue is COLAs . . . cost of living adjustments. Our
state legislators typically receive an automatic cost of living adjustment
on December 1st of each year . . . a gift provided by Act 51 legislation
which went into effect in 1995. In December of 2008, the annual COLA
was a 2.8% increase in the salaries of legislators, judges, and the
Governor. Many of you may recall that last year the issue of pay raises
was front page news. At that time, our legislators were quick to talk
to local papers in an effort to get some free press, but only SOME of
those same legislators were open to discussing the issue with Mercer
County’s own political blogger (that’s me). In December
of 2008, the legislators representing Mercer County all pledged to ‘give
back’ their pay raises. I applauded them all for it. [you can
read all of my posts about COLAs HERE]
In mid-November of 2009, it looked as though there would be another
automatic pay raise on December 1st. I published a blog about the issue
on December 1st and I contacted the legislators representing Mercer
County about the issue [read the post HERE].
I was contacted by Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th) that morning.
Rep. Longietti explained that the official word from Harrisburg was
that there would be NO raise for legislators in 2009-2010. One question
still remained, however . . . what did our legislators intend on doing
with the 2.8% increase from last year?
Well it has been a month since I sent my original query to Senator Bob
Robbins (R-50), Representative Michele Brooks (R-17), Representative
Mark Longietti (D-7), and Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8). This
year (just like last) I only received responses from SOME of the legislators
that represent Mercer County. This year, only half of our legislators
were interested in discussing the issue regarding their annual raise
with an interested constituent. I suppose you could say that “two
out of four ain’t bad”.
I’m a bit confused, though. With people clamoring for a constitutional
convention in Pennsylvania in an effort to cut back our state legislature
(read HERE
and HERE
and HERE
and HERE)
and voters (and ‘Tea Baggers’) seemingly annoyed with lazy
incumbents and ‘business as usual’ in Harrisburg, you’d
think that our legislators would be interested in staying in touch with
interested voters. It appears, however, that if they aren’t getting
press in a prestigious newspaper like The Herald (yes, that was tongue
in cheek), then they simply aren’t interested in sharing their
thoughts.
Let’s talk about the responses . . . or lack thereof.
WHO RESPONDED? (and how quickly):
Representative Mark Longietti (responded in 15 minutes)
I sent email messages to Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele
Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson.
Within 15 minutes of sending my original email message, I received a
phone call from Representative Mark Longietti. He was in his car on
his way to Harrisburg and he decided to devote part of his drive time
to a conversation with me regarding COLAs.
Representative Longietti explained first that there would be no COLA
in 2009-2010, but he also explained that the 2008-2009 COLA that was
received last year will still be included in his check in 2009-2010.
Last year (when asked the same question), Representative Longietti explained
that he would be donating the amount of his raise to a local charity.
This year, Representative Longietti still intends on donating the amount
of the 2008-2009 raise to a charity. This year his specific charity
is again his local church where he has made a donation (with a specific
earmark for the use of funds).
Representative Longietti and I also discussed the process of receiving
automatic cost of living adjustments. Representative Longietti and I
had a similar discussion last year at this time, and we both realize
that we are on opposite ends of the issue as far as our personal opinions.
Representative Longietti feels that a COLA is an earned increase and
is well deserved. He feels that a cost of living increase simply makes
him “whole” as it raises his pay automatically each year
to adjust with the increases in the cost of living. Unfortunately, having
worked in the private sector for my entire adult life, I don’t
agree with the concept. I’ve worked for many different companies
during many very difficult times in our economy, and there were quite
a few years where I received no such raise regardless of the increase
in the cost of living. Raises were based on performance (primarily),
and the company’s ability to provide a raise (as a secondary consideration).
I, therefore, don’t agree with anything that is assigned “automatically”.
Representative Longietti and I have long agreed to disagree on this
particular issue, but the conversation was interesting and entertaining.
I thanked him for his time and I thanked him for taking the time to
call me amidst his busy schedule.
Representative Michele Brooks (responded in one day)
On December 2nd (one day after receiving my email message), I received
an email response from Representative Michele Brooks. She stated that
she would be giving me a call to discuss the matter of COLAs personally
as soon as time permitted. During our phone conversation, Representative
Brooks pointed out that in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 she returned
her COLA to the State Treasury as a direct one-time payment. Although
she will not be receiving a raise in 2009-2010, she still intends on
‘giving back’ her raise from 2008-2009. This year, however,
she intends on donating the raise to a local charity. Rather than handing
the money back to the State Treasury (like last year), Representative
Brooks would like to see “100% of the funds make a difference
in the local community”. Although she did not name the charity
specifically (and I didn't ask), Representative Brooks was pleased that
raise could help a local group directly.
THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVES MARK
LONGIETTI AND MICHELE BROOKS
First, a much deserved APPLAUSE! My opinion on COLA give backs is the
same as it was 12 months ago. I don’t care how the money is returned,
but giving the money back to ‘the people’ is the most important
issue and it should be applauded because it is COMPLETELY voluntary
on the part of our legislators. In my opinion, both Representatives
Longietti and Brooks EARNED their raises (unlike some of our State Legislators
. . . or the Governor). It is their money and they can do with it what
they wish. The fact that they are willing to give those raises back
to people and organizations in Mercer County that NEED the help is honorable.
I would also like to thank Representatives Longietti and Brooks for
responding to my inquiry . . . and VERY quickly I might add. It is refreshing
to see that there are legislators representing Mercer County that try
to make a difference (even when it isn’t front page news). While
“Mercer Conservatives” may be seen as the “opinions
of one blogger” in the eyes of some, this blog is representative
of the voices of many conservatives and independents who support good
government, transparency, and refreshing reform in Harrisburg and Mercer
County. I am always willing to share "good news about good government"
with my friends throughout Mercer County and across Pennsylvania.
WHO RESPONDED . . . BUT DIDN’T
RESPOND?
Representative Dick Stevenson
Last year, Representative Stevenson explained to the local press that
he would be returning his raise to the Pennsylvania Treasury. What happened
this year?
Two days after receiving my email message, Representative Dick Stevenson
sent me a response to my original email query. His email message read
as follows:
Ms. Biros:
As I indicated previously, and as I have confirmed with our caucus
ethics counsel after he reviewed your message, I am prohibited from
responding to political emails from this taxpayer funded email account.
If your would like to discuss these or any other issues, my home phone
number is 724-XXX-XXXX.
Why are we suddenly so formal? Representatives Longietti and Brooks
(a.k.a. Mark and Michele) simply call me "Roberta", and that is generally
my preference. "Ms. Biros" is my mother-in-laws name, and it is so
'old fashioned'. It seems perfectly used, however, if you intended
to set the tone for me to be scolded.
As many of you already know, Representative Stevenson has a history
of sending these types of messages. Last year he sent a similar message
by snail mail on his House of Representatives letterhead [READ THE
FULL STORY HERE],
and the comments received statewide criticisms. Just like last time,
I was annoyed with the response. I sent an email message back to Representative
Stevenson as follows:
First, all of the questions that I posed to you are regarding
policies and legislative issues. The questions are specifically related
to your record, your plans for representing Mercer County, and your
legislative activities. If every email that is sent to you regarding
policies and legislative issues is considered to be “political”;
and you are, therefore, prohibited from responding, then what exactly
is the purpose of your “taxpayer funded email account”?
Secondly, I provided sufficient contact information that you could
have responded to my query in any other form other than email if you
were interested. I invited you to respond to my message by email,
phone, mail, or personal visit. Instead, you took the time ONLY to
tell me that you can’t answer my question unless I call you.
While you could technically say that Representative Stevenson responded
to my email message, I would clearly disagree. His only purpose of
writing was to tell me to “go away and don’t come back”.
He never responded to my questions regarding COLAs . . . he just said
“I won’t talk to you”. I, therefore, classify Representative
Stevenson’s response as a “non-response”.
WHO DID NOT RESPOND . . . PERIOD?
Senator Bob Robbins
Last year Senator Robbins took advantage of the local papers to publicize
the fact that he was returning his raise. He did not respond to MY
inquiry regarding COLAs until mid-January. At that time he sent a
letter. Unfortunately, his written response had nothing to do with
my original questions [read the full story HERE].
What is the fine Senator up to this year?
I’m sure this will shock many of my regular readers, but Senator
Bob Robbins once again failed to respond to my inquiry in any way,
shape, or form. Senator Robbins generally doesn’t like to talk
to “the press”, so the chance of him responding to a little
ol’ blogger like me is about nil. Unfortunately for our fine
Senator, Mr. Robbins fails to realize that this blogger is also a
VOTER with many FRIENDS (Republican, Democrat, and Independent) THAT
VOTE. His repeated lack of responses (now and in the past) have been
noted in my little brain . . . and in the brains of my friends. I’m
a bit like an elephant . . . I never forget! (No GOP pun intended)
What does it all mean?
The good news for Mercer Countians is that we have
hard-working legislators who care about the community, the taxpayers,
and our best interests. Those legislators are willing to communicate
with ALL OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS regardless of ‘Party’ and
without the promise of ‘front page billing’. Those legislators
are Representatives Michele Brooks and Mark Longietti.
The bad news for Mercer Countians is that we have
an equal number of legislators who aren’t willing to communicate
. . . aren’t willing to answer questions . . . and, apparently,
don’t feel that the opinions of voters and taxpayers are important.
Those legislators are unwilling to take the time to discuss policy
unless they have a promise of publication on the front page above
the fold. Those legislators are Senator Bob Robbins and Representative
Dick Stevenson.
What’s Next, Roberta?
Gosh. I sure am glad you asked!
That was the story about COLAs. It was a short story, but an interesting
one nonetheless. It is also a wonderful start to a New Year. It sets
the stage for some interesting debate and some entertaining analyses.
It is, however, just the beginning. In the next few weeks I will be
publishing a number of stories regarding Mercer County’s legislators
(and other elected officials). As a Mercer County EXCLUSIVE, I will
be publishing the First Annual Edition of the Mercer Conservatives
Index. The Mercer Conservatives Index will grade each of our elected
officials on their accomplishments, service, and their ability to
represent Mercer Countians. You might be surprised to see how Mercer
County’s politicians stack up against each other . . . apples
to apples.
As always, just my opinion.
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.
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?
As a ‘political outsider’, I find it amusing to watch ‘politicians’.
Some would say that I am now a ‘politician’, but I would
respectfully disagree. While it is true that I am running for political
office, I am far from a ‘politician’ . . . and I plan on
keeping it that way.
‘Politicians’ are quite different from ‘real people’
in that they ‘say what needs to be said’ and they ‘do
only what is asked of them’ with the sole purpose of getting elected.
‘Lifetime politicians’ are the worst in that they haven’t
had a genuine action or reaction in so long that they forget that there
is such a thing. As a ‘real person’, my actions and reactions
are based on facts, data, opinions, and sometimes emotions. Right or
wrong, I have firm opinions about most issues. Those opinions don’t
come from a reaction to popular opinion polls . . . they come from an
analysis of information and an understanding of the issues involved.
There is a difference.
I recently did an experiment, and I wanted to share my findings with
all of you, my loyal readers. As the ‘non-politician’ candidate
in the race for Mercer County Treasurer, I’ve been running my
campaign in an unconventional manner. I have no “political insiders”
to offer guidance, so we make our decisions based on gut instinct. Sometimes
we make the right decision, and sometimes not . . . but we adapt quickly
and move ahead without hesitation. I’ve decided to try some things
just to see what would happen, and the results were rather amusing.
The Experiment
I live in Delaware Grove, a small village in the center of Delaware
Township located just outside of Fredonia. Last week, Fredonia held
“Old Home Week” in the downtown square. Being so closely
located to downtown Fredonia, we’ve always considered “Old
Home Week” to be ‘our fair’. While folks attend the
fair from all over Mercer County, the people that are ‘regulars’
at the fair are locals like ourselves. We had every intention of participating
in the parade (as we have with all of the parades in the County), but
we also volunteered with the local Volunteer Fire Department to help
in the food booth all week. We were looking forward to spending time
with the locals. In anticipation of the additional traffic during “Old
Home Week”, I erected a billboard in my yard advertising my campaign.
I figured that it might be a good idea to take advantage of the ‘bump’
in traffic in an effort to increase name recognition. I also decided
to scatter yard signs around the downtown area. I hit the key intersections
several days prior to the fair, and I intended on removing the signs
at the conclusion of the fair. No one ‘advised’ us to do
any of these things, we just did it because it seemed to make sense.
I thought nothing more of it.
We erected our billboard and put up yard signs in the downtown area
on Sunday, August 2nd. The fair kicked off with the parade on Tuesday,
August 4th. We attended the fair each and every night. It was during
our short drive to the fair on Friday night, August 7th, that I saw
my first glimpse of Newton’s Third Law. For those of you that
are not familiar with Newton’s Third Law of Motion, it simply
states that "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
While driving into town on Friday evening, I saw that my opponent had
found an individual that was willing to erect a yard sign on their property
entering town. They also drove through town and placed signs in all
of the same locations that I had selected. I laughed.
The Results of the Experiment
It is amazing that a politician of 16 years needed to ‘react’
to my tactics rather than coming up with a strategy of her own. Very
funny. My husband and I discussed it and we found it very amusing.
More of the Same
This morning, I experienced another similar scenario. Last week I published
a blog post that stated that Representative Mark Longietti had recently
joined the “Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling” (read HERE).
He made his announcement on August 3rd, and I published it on August
4th. Today I found out that Senator Bob Robbins . . . in a ‘reaction’
to Mark Longietti . . . also announced that he had joined the “Alliance
to Stop I-80 Tolling” (read HERE)
on August 4th.
Newton’s Third Law
Newton’s Third Law ("To every action there is an equal and opposite
reaction") does not only relate to motion. It seems that it also describes
politics. It seems that ‘politicians’ simply ‘react’.
They don’t make a decision because it is the ‘right thing
to do’ or ‘it just makes sense’, instead they simply
sway in whichever direction the wind is blowing. It is unfortunate.
There was a time when I thought that ‘politicians’ were
leaders. After years of experience, I have learned what many already
knew . . . ‘politicians’ are followers. They don’t
dare to think outside of the box because with original thought comes
risk . . . the risk of losing their career positions.
In Closing
I’d like to add that my statements aren’t meant to be directed
at ALL “elected officials”, as I don’t feel that all
“elected officials” are also “politicians”.
These statements are directed at those career politicians that are simply
hanging onto their livelihood by the tips of their fingers. I’m
not the only one who sees the problem, and time will eventually correct
‘the problem’.
There are LEADERS and there are FOLLOWERS, and it is about time that
elected officials become the leaders. To quote Thomas Paine, “Lead,
Follow, or Get Out of the Way”. To Senator Robbins (and to ‘my
opponent’), I’d like to suggest the later.
Harrisburg, PA August 4, 2009 – Today, State Senator Robert D.
Robbins (R-50) reiterated his opposition to tolling Interstate 80 and
officially announced joining the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling.
"I voted against Act 44 when it came before the Senate and I remain
strongly opposed to it for a number of reasons. This proposal carries
numerous financial, administrative and quality of life issues that would
impact citizens and could be another blow to our weakened state and
local economies." Senator Robbins continued, "A study conducted in Mercer
County estimated that tolling will increase costs for its businesses
by $8 million annually. Also, consider the adverse effect tolling will
have on all other sectors of the economy including agriculture. For
instance, dairy farmers are bound by prices set by the federal government,
so passing increased production costs onto consumers is not a viable
option."
"With the Turnpike Commission planning to resubmit its tolling application
to new leadership at the Federal Highway Administration, we are grateful
Senator Robbins has joined our ranks to prevent this unfair and ill-conceived
plan. We commend Senator Robbins for his position that tolls on I-80
will have a devastating economic impact for generations to come," stated
Ed Edwards, Alliance Co-Founder and President of the Columbia Montour
Chamber of Commerce.
"Less than a year from July, 2010, we are at a critical time to adopt
an alternative transportation funding solution. Our efforts are strengthened
with Senator Robbins’s support. We’re grateful to have him
as part of the Alliance," added Vince Matteo, Alliance Co-Founder and
President of the Williamsport-Lycoming Chamber of Commerce.
Established in early 2008, the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling has been
leading the fight to keep Interstate 80 toll-free and prevent the implementation
of Act 44. The Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling is comprised of Chambers
of Commerce, businesses, elected officials and other organizations and
citizens that are working to stop the tolling of I-80.
For more information on the Alliance to Stop I-80 Tolling, contact Ed
Edwards at 570.784.2522, or visit the Alliance on the web at www.noi80tolls.com
Robbins, Roae announce PENNVEST financing
Meadville Water Authority to receive $4.82 million
The Meadville Area Water Authority will receive $4.82 million in state
financing to help cover the costs of a major water project, according
to State Senator Bob Robbins (R-50) and State Representative Brad Roae
(R-6).
The Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST) today
approved the low-interest loan for the project, which involves the installation
of more than 7,600 feet of water mains and fire hydrants.
“This project will correct a serious problem facing the Meadville
Water Authority,” Senator Robbins said. “The new water mains
will ultimately replace an existing main that is exposed and located
in an area that makes it almost impossible to repair. If that main were
to leak, it could cause serious flooding problems for the city and particularly
the Allegheny College campus.”
“This upgrade will address problems with unaccounted for water
losses and security and environmental concerns regarding the existing
exposed pipe,” said Representative Roae. “This project is
essential to maintain a safe and reliable water system for the Meadville
community.”
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?
We’ve been hearing it for months now . . . Pennsylvania Legislators
have been trying to scare people into WANTING tax increases. It has
been one threat after another. Today in The
Herald there is a summary from Representative Joe Markosek that
batches all of the threats in one easy to read paragraph:
“Rep. Joe Markosek, D-Allegheny, said public support
for the senate Republican bill may shrink once people understand that
nursing homes would close, state troopers’ ranks would be cut
and property taxes would rise as local governments and school districts
are forced to shoulder more of the load on their own.”
VERY SCARY . . . especially to seniors who think that their nursing
homes will close . . . and residents in crime ridden areas that are
fearful of fewer police. These are shameful scare tactics. Before you
take these legislators at their word, we all need to sit back and parse
out everything that is being said. What does it all really mean?
Closing of State Parks
When they talk about “closing State Parks”, simply ask yourself
. . . “how exactly do you close a State Park?” How do they
close Pymatuning? How do they close Goddard? Will Pymatuning not exist
without the State? Will it disappear? Will it simply evaporate? What
about Goddard? When you ask a legislator a straight forward question
like “how do you close a State Park”, it is necessary for
them to give specifics like “facilities within the parks would
close”. Well, folks, have you taken a drive around Pymatuning
lately? There are restroom facilities that are closed now, and everyone
is getting by just fine. Do you know what people do when they find that
a restroom is closed? They go and find one that is open.
If simple cut backs were made across the board in all State Parks, there
would be no need to “close” any of them. State Parks would
still have a $94Million budget available, and that SHOULD be plenty
to go around. We are simply asking that they ALL tighten their belts
a little.
Cut Backs on State Police
When they talk about State Troopers’ ranks being cut, I ask myself
“does that mean that the troopers that are left will be forced
to actually chase down ‘bad guys’ now? Maybe there would
be fewer Troopers left sitting in a speed traps on I-79 or I-80, and
instead they will be able to reschedule their time elsewhere. Hmmm.
(I realize that i'm over simplifying here, so don't bother writing to
tell me so . . . I'm just saying that maybe everyone can cut costs somewhere)
Property Taxes Will Increase
Lastly, when they say that “property taxes would rise as local
governments and school districts are forced to shoulder more of the
load”, I say “WONDERFUL”. Perhaps that is exactly
as it should be!
Rather than trying to budget our county and school district expenses
through Harrisburg, let’s control our LOCAL budgets LOCALLY. If
spending cuts at the state level trickle down to the Counties (read
more HERE),
at least then WE have some control over how the money is spent (or not
spent). Mercer County Commissioners are already planning ahead for the
proposed cuts, and THEY are now responsible for finding a solution.
WE in Mercer County can decided whether WE will pay more in taxes or
whether WE will cut costs in this County. How? . . . by beating on the
doors of our County Commissioners . . . by calling the Courthouse and
demanding that our local elected officials do MORE to control spending
(read more HERE).
IF (and that’s a BIG “IF”) it is decided that a tax
increase is necessary, at least we will know that OUR TAXES are going
to support expenses in OUR COUNTY. If the tax increases are made at
the State level, I guarantee that OUR TAX MONEY will be going to bail
out cash strapped cities like Philadelphia or Pittsburgh. We will see
very little of that money coming back to good ol’ Mercer County.
I say "let's put the financial responsibilities close to home where
we can keep a closer eye on things".
In Summary
When you sit down and think about it, everything that we hear from Harrisburg
that is intended to SCARE us INTO a tax increase actually isn’t
so bad.
Trimming of the budgets of the state parks wouldn’t be as bad
as they make it seem . . . cut backs within the State Police might help
them to re-prioritize . . . and Counties being responsible for their
own budges would probably be the BEST solution in the long run.
Times are tough, and there isn’t a household in this Country that
isn’t feeling the pinch right now. It is time for Government to
understand that there comes a day when THEY need to feel the pinch too,
and that day is today.
Make sure that YOUR legislator knows that YOU can’t afford higher
taxes . . . PERIOD.
For those of you in Mercer County, the contact information for your
legislators is posted below:
Hon. Robert D. Robbins
337 Capitol Building
Senate Box 203050
Harrisburg, PA 17120-3050
(717) 787-1322Email: rrobbins@pasen.gov
Hon. Michele Brooks
153B East Wing
PO Box 202017
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2017
(717) 783-5008
Fax: (717) 705-1948Email: mbrooks@pahousegop.com
Hon. Mark Longietti
103 Irvis Office Building
PO Box 202007
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2007
(717) 772-4035
Fax: (717) 780-4785Email: MLongietti@pahouse.net
Hon. Richard R. Stevenson
155B East Wing
PO Box 202008
Harrisburg, PA 17120-2008
(717) 783-6438
Fax: (717) 705-1949
Email: rstevens@pahousegop.com
I honestly can't tell you the last time I received an automated email
newsletter from the office of Senator Bob Robbins. It is a FREE medium,
so Senator Robbins has no interest in it (although his latest pet legislation
will force all Pennsylvanians to use on-line methods to research "legal
notices").
I was pleasantly surprised to find one such newsletter in my inbox yesterday
afternoon. Unfortunately, Senator Robbins’ office still doesn’t
get the idea of actually including important information in the text
of the email message itself. Instead you are forced to click through
to his website for details. A minor point but aggravating none-the-less.
Upon clicking through to the Senator’s website, I found the following
statement from our fine Senator regarding the proposed increase in the
Personal Income Tax. It read as follows:
"I have several very serious concerns about the Governor's proposed
16
percent increase in Pennsylvania's Personal Income Tax. Imposing a
broad-based
tax increase to fund increased spending is not, in my opinion, the
best strategy
for state government, especially considering the current economic
climate in
Pennsylvania and particularly in the Northwestern Region.
"This 16.3% increase in the PIT would have a direct negative impact
on a
majority of Pennsylvania's families and small businesses. Many are
already
struggling to make ends meet and as we've seen in the past these types
of tax
increases almost inevitably result in job losses and negatively impact
the local
economy.
"The Governor and the Legislature must control state spending and
keep it
in line with revenues. We simply cannot afford to increase programs
and
discretionary spending during hard economic times."
I find it interesting that Senator Robbins failed to mention that
he would completely support a tax increase
if it meant a pay raise for him and his colleagues. I suppose he thinks
that there is some sort of charge by the word for on-line announcements
. . . so he decided to leave that extra sentence out of his comments.
One can only speculate.
ONE INTERESTING SIDE NOTE:
I took an extra minute to peruse Senator
Robbins’ website. As a public service, he provides copies
of his press releases back through 2004. I did a quick check, and
I found that in November
of 2005 Senator Robbins published two press releases stressing
that he voted to repeal the ‘infamous’ middle-of-the-night
pay raise. I notice, however, that there was never one mention
of the fact that he had originally VOTED FOR that
same middle-of-the-night raise in July of that year.
For those of you that are not from the area, the Linesville Spillway
("The Place Where the Ducks Walk on the Fishes' Backs") is a great
family destination. Approximately 300,000 visitors come each year
to feed the fish and view the wildlife in this area. Located two miles
south of Lineville on the Hartstown Road [click HERE
to download a map in PDF format], the Spillway and concession area
are generally open weekends mid-April to Memorial Day then seven days
per week through Labor Day and weekends again in September. According
to Wikipedia,
“the Spillway is locally billed as ‘Pennsylvania's second
most popular tourist attraction, after the Liberty Bell’ and
the logo of the Linesville Volunteer Fire Department is, in fact,
a duck standing on the back of a fish.”
I first visited the Linesville Spillway while on a vacation with my
husband in the summer of 1988. He explained that the Spillway was
a must see attraction, and he recalled numerous trips during his childhood.
I found the fish feeding attraction to be fun and memorable. I took
pictures (they are buried somewhere) and I bought a postcard or two
as souvenirs. I never imagined that 20 years later I’d live
just a short drive away.
When we moved to the area in January of 2006, Pymatuning Lake, the
Linesville Spillway, and Conneaut Lake Park were on our list of “hot
spots” to revisit with regularly. Conneaut Lake Park has been
inactive for the past few years, and we were excited to finally revisit
there last week (read the full story HERE).
While we were out, we decided to make the full tour and we stopped
at the Spillway in Linesville.
For starters, the facility looked great! (see photo below)
The scenery is wonderful, but attraction of the spillway and the excitement
of feeding the carp makes the visit entertaining every time. (refer
to pictures below)
The Linesville Spillway has been the center of some controversy in the
past year or so. In 2008, the Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources (DCNR) proposed a controversial ban on the feeding of bread
in an effort to keep the spillway clean and to discourage overabundance
of geese at the spillway. The DCNR sought to require the use of fish
pellet food rather than bread, and the suggestion was met with a public
outcry from the locals. Representative Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence),
Representative John Evans (R-Erie/Crawford) and Senator Bob Robbins
(R-Mercer) called a public meeting in Linesville last September to give
the public an opportunity to voice their opinions. More than 350 turned
out to oppose the proposed ban.
Last fall, the DCNR put the proposed ban on hold for a year (until January
2010) to re-evaluate its proposal, but in February of 2009 they reversed
the ban and noted that the feeding of bread to the fish will be allowed
beyond January 2010. [read more on the issue HERE
and HERE]
After all of the community and political activity of last year, I was
anxious to see if there were any interesting signs of change at the
Spillway this spring. First, I notice that they were careful to supply
an abundance of special trash receptacles at the spillway to accommodate
all of the bread bags. Unfortunately, on our visit (Memorial Day weekend,
Saturday, May 23, 2009), all of the receptacles nearest the spillway
were overflowing with bags. It was undoubtedly the busiest day so far
in 2009, so I understand that it may take some time for the staff to
get into full swing. I also noticed that the fish seemed a bit overfed
too. With the season having just kicked in, it appeared that the enormous
volume of bread entering the spillway was a shock to the fish (and the
geese). The photo below illustrates that there were areas where bread
(and debris) just laid on the water with “no interested takers”.
In Summary and in Closing
The Linesville Spillway at Pymatuning Lake is still a “must
see attraction” in Crawford County. The facility is beautiful,
so be sure to bring a camera. The experience is great for folks with
small children, as the memories are something that will last a lifetime
(just as they have with my husband). It is an attraction for young
and old alike.
And remember . . . on your way home be sure to stop by Hunger Busters
in Jamestown for a soft-serve cone . . . I always do!
[BTW, if it seems like I’m looking for a discount in exchange
for all of the free advertising, you might just be right! ; ) ]
Representative Michele Brooks and Senator Bob Robbins received a mention
in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
this weekend, but the folks in the “big city” don’t
seem impressed with our local legislators . . . and they don’t
even know them!
The article in the Post Gazette was reported a recent meeting that was
held by Representative Michele Brooks regarding the closing of the marina
at Goddard State Park. This is an issue that has been 'floating' around
my desk for a few weeks now (no boating pun intended), and the Post
Gazette story brought the topic to my attention again.
I received an email message a few weeks ago from a concerned citizen
regarding the marina at Lake Wilhelm. The docks are empty, and the individual
stated concerns about budget cuts causing the closure of State Parks
like Lake Wilhelm / Goddard. He asked that I write a story about the
problem in an effort to give it some attention. I reviewed the issue
briefly, and had full intention of taking a visit to take pictures and
report the condition of the marina and park. I also did some research
regarding the possible closure issue. My initial findings were that
House Democrats have been threatening park closures (offering no specifics)
as a response to the Senate Republicans’ proposed budget cuts.
I’ve heard many mentions of various "cost cutting threats" and
"political games" going on from both sides of the House in an effort
to posture for budget negotiations. I’ve been trying to parse
out the details and simply haven’t had the time to do the necessary
research (after all, this is just a hobby for me and not a vocation
. . . I usually leave the research stuff up to The
Herald).
Today’s article in the Post Gazette [READ
HERE] explains that Representative Michele Brooks held a meeting
on May 15th at McKeever Environmental Learning Center in Sandy Lake.
The meeting was attended by roughly 50 slip holders, State. Sen. Bob
Robbins, Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) officials
and a representative of the governor's northwest office. The article
stated that Representative Brooks held the forum in order for slip holders
to “blow off steam”. In this statement, the author (John
Hayes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) implies that maybe the meeting didn’t
have much of a valuable purpose (or outcome).
The article went on to explain that the marina is vacant for the 2009
season because the marina lease agreement had not been renewed. The
previous lease holder claims that he was “forced out”, and
the DCNR insists that the former lease holder chose to not renew the
lease and no one bid on a new contract. The article closed with a less
than stellar impression of the final outcome. In the words of the Post
Gazette, “The meeting ended without resolution, with politicians
promising to take boaters complaints to Harrisburg.”
Hmmm. I suppose the folks at the Post Gazette expected more from our
"politicians" other than promises?
As a side note, it is unfortunate that no email notice was sent out
regarding the May 15th meeting. Had more people known about the gathering
(newspapers, bloggers, etc.), the issue may have received more coverage
. . . but then again, maybe that was the idea.
BLOG POST UPDATE:
Like clockwork, The Herald followed
our story with some additional details. CLICK
HERE to read more.
.
On April 30, 2009, I reported “Tolling
of I-80 Still an Open Issue”. At that time I reminded Pennsylvanians
that the application to toll Interstate 80 was simply rejected by
the by the Federal Highway Administration and that the Turnpike Commission
and PA Department of Transportation were open to resubmitting an application
again in the future. There was nothing in place to stop it. Some concerned
lawmakers in Harrisburg introduced House Resolution 197 in an attempt
to cease further application submissions, but the resolution still
sits in the House Transportation Committee.
On May 14, 2009, I attempted to bring attention to the fact that commercial
interests were clearly interested in pushing forward with the I-80
tolling project in my article titled “Commercial
Interests Have Much To Gain With Tolling of I-80”. I anticipated
that businesses would have the wherewithal and stamina to push the
tolling forward through their friendly Harrisburg contacts, and I
was afraid that lawmakers may have lost interest in the project (since
it isn’t an election year).
Today the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
published an article titled “State
may resubmit plan for tolls on I-80”. In it we are told
that officials from the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission intend on
beginning meetings with the Federal Highway Administration as soon
as June regarding the I-80 tolling issue.
In the Post Gazette article [read HERE],
Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Philadelphia) is quoted as saying “We
are giving out-of-state traffic a free ride through Pennsylvania”.
Unfortunately, Representative Boyle obviously doesn’t realize
that there are plenty of taxpayers here in Pennsylvania that actually
use I-80 on their daily commutes too. He is apparently not interested
in how the tolling of I-80 might affect communities along the I-80
corridor. If Representative Boyle isn’t interested, can you
tell me who is?
I urge lawmakers to push for House Resolution 197 in an effort to
stop re-application for the tolling of I-80 before it is too late.
Once the process has begun, the power will be out of the hands of
the legislature and firmly in the hands of the Turnpike Commission,
Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway Administration,
and the various commercial interests that have much to gain if the
tolling of I-80 goes through.
I also urge taxpayers to contact the Representatives that introduced
House Resolution 197 (HUTCHISON, GABLER, OBERLANDER, MILLARD, FAIRCHILD,
BELFANTI, BOBACK, BROOKS, CAUSER, EVERETT, HANNA, HARHART, HARRIS,
MAJOR, METCALFE, MOUL, MUSTIO, PEIFER, PHILLIPS, PICKETT, RAPP, ROAE,
ROHRER, SCAVELLO, SMITH, SONNEY, STEVENSON, TALLMAN, TRUE, TRUZAI
AND VULAKOVICH). Perhaps they can help to bring much needed attention
to this issue.
Lastly, I urge Mercer County residents to contact our state lawmakers
in effort to get their attention regarding this issue. Their contact
information is posted below:
REMEMBER: These are our elected
officials. It is their job to focus on the issues that are important
to us. Be sure to make your voice heard. Call them, fax them, write
them a letter, or even email them a copy of this post to let them
know that you are concerned.
Representative Metcalfe is a State Representative, but he is also
a taxpayer. He shows genuine concern regarding fiscal issues and he
backed that up by promoting the Pennsylvania State Capitol Taxpayers’
Protest (StateCapitolProtest.com).
According to the protest website
Protest will begin at 9:00am and will last through the day until
4:30pm.
Pennsylvania taxpayers will enter the State Capitol Building from
Third Street and Commonwealth Avenue entrances. They will advance
to their respective representative or senator's office and remain
there the entire day to send a message to big government that THIS
DAY we will no longer stand for increased taxes and irresponsible
spending funded by WE the taxpayers! If their office is filled find
another legislator's office that isn't! Fill the Rotundas and then
the halls!
Legislators have a planned calendar for June 9, 2009 . . . Let
them know that YOU, their employer, are demanding they listen and
act on what you have to say!
Join us for a peaceful taxpayer's protest in the fight for our
freedom!
I find the concept very cool. This isn’t a sign waving protest
on the steps of the Capitol in Harrisburg. No, this is a peaceful
protest where concerned citizens simply go to the offices of their
State Legislators and State Senators and SIT. Just take up space and
get the attention of our elected officials. Very interesting indeed!
If you are sick and tired of being sick and tired, but you want a
way to look your Legislators in the eye and let them know that you
are dissatisfied, this is a great opportunity. For more details, go
to the Taxpayers' Protest website at http://www.statecapitolprotest.com/.
If you are interested in attending, here are the office locations
of the Legislators from Mercer County:
Senator Bob Robbins
Room 337 Capitol Building
Representative Michele Brooks 153B East Wing
Representative Mark Longietti
103 Irvis Office Building
I watched for the past two weeks as discussions were taking place
in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. The topic of conversation
was House Bill 67. I reported in a previous blog post [READ
HERE] that House Bill 67 passed the House, but I was going to
postpone publication of my opinions about the Bill until after gathering
feedback from my local Legislators.
I sent a polite email to the three State Representatives that represent
Mercer County (Rep. Michele Brooks, Rep. Mark Longietti, and Rep.
Dick Stevenson). Unfortunately, I suspect that my name has been moved
to the “no call list”, which is usually reserved for troublemakers
and general “PIA”. Rather than wait, I’m advancing
to Plan B.
Instead of outlining House Bill 67 from a neutral prospective and
allowing all voices to be heard, I’m just going to give you
my opinions . . . as it will probably be more entertaining that way
any how. Here it goes!
House Bill 67 has been referred to by two nick-names: “The Cell
Phone Bill” and “The Teen Driving Bill”. Both nick-names
are partially correct. As a general description, House Bill 67 sets
new rules for “Junior Drivers” (drivers under the age
of 18), as well as specific rules and penalties for the use of “interactive
wireless communication devices”. You can read the full text
of House Bill 67 HERE
if you are interested.
First, let me tackle the easy part of my opinion . . . the part that
examines the portions of House Bill 67 that I like.
[this space left blank intentionally]
Now that I got that out of the way, let me move on to the parts of
House Bill 67 that I didn’t like:
Item #1:
There is a new clause added that states that “Junior Drivers
may not a vehicle with more than one passenger under 18 years of age.”
When I was a kid (a few decades ago), I would have never gone ANYWHERE
if I weren’t able to ride with my friends that had licenses
and cars. As a member of my high school Girls’ Golf team, my
teammates and I (all five of us) went everywhere together for four
years. If we couldn’t have all gone in one car, we never would
have gotten to practice after school. Believe me when I say that I
understand the reasoning behind allowing only one passenger in the
car with a young driver, but my friends and I did it as teens and
we all survived. Just because there were five of us packed in a car
didn’t make us ‘bad kids’ and it didn’t make
us irresponsible. It is my experience that you can pack 15 ‘good
kids’ in a car and there will be no problems . . . it only takes
one ‘bad kid’ in a car to make trouble. Don’t you
think it is time that we leave parenting to PARENTS rather than to
the State Legislature?
Item #2:
There are new rules regarding the test for driver's license and
junior driver's license. I’ll admit that it has been a LONG
TIME since I tested for my junior license, but I don’t understand
the new clause that requires parents to sign a form stating that their
kids have “completed 65 hours of practical driving experience,
including no less than ten hours of nighttime driving and five hours
of inclement weather driving”. My parents made the decision
of when I was ready to take my drivers exam, and it had nothing to
do with the number of hours that I had behind the wheel. It had everything
to do with how prepared I was to drive on my own. Once again, don’t
you think it is time that we leave parenting to PARENTS rather than
to the State Legislature?
Item #3:
There is a new restriction stating that “No driver with a
learners' permit or junior driver's license shall drive a motor vehicle
on a highway or trafficway in this Commonwealth while using an interactive
wireless communications device.” Again, I understand the reasoning
behind the law, but don’t you think it is time that we leave
parenting to PARENTS rather than to the State Legislature? The Legislature’s
next move will be to determine who can and who can’t own or
operate ‘an interactive wireless communications device’.
Good Lord.
Item #4:
House Bill 67 outlines that if a driver is convicted of ‘careless
driving’ the State can now tack on additional fines for being
“distracted”. Distractions include an interactive wireless
communications device; an electronic, electrical or mechanical device;
a personal grooming device; food; drink; and any printed material.
When I read this I can see the scenario in my head . . . I’m
spotted by a Trooper on I-79 . . . he sees me swerve but doesn’t
know why . . . he pulls me over for “careless driving”
. . . he sees a newspaper on my passenger seat, my Blackberry in the
center console, and a 16 oz. Fat-Free Cappuccino in my drink holder
. . . I’m charged with “careless driving” plus ‘extras’
for all of the ‘distractions’ in my vehicle.
Why doesn’t the Legislature just outlaw cup holders in passenger
vehicles? Why don’t we require a license to own a Blackberry?
Why doesn’t Senator Robbins just try to put the newspapers out
of business in order to eliminate the distraction? (oops, I forgot,
the last one is a reality--READ
HERE) Honestly, where does this silliness stop?
Item #5:
This is the item that ticks me off the most. House Bill 67 specifies
that “no person shall drive a motor vehicle equipped with any
image display device, video receiving equipment, including a receiver,
a video monitor or a television or video screen capable of displaying
a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment
or business applications or similar equipment which is located in
the motor vehicle at any point forward of the back of the driver's
seat”. Why does it tick me off? Allow me to explain . . .
My husband and I live in Mercer County. We are originally from Westmoreland
and Allegheny Counties. We travel home often to visit family. The
drive is 90 minutes each way. When we go to visit, I drive the first
half of the trip and my husband drives home. During the drive home
I always pack my laptop so that I can use the 90 minutes of ride time
to work. According to House Bill 67, I would be breaking the law .
. . technically, my husband would be breaking the law by operating
the vehicle while I was using my laptop. The only work around would
be that I now need to sit in the back seat to be “legal”.
Does anyone else see the stupidity here?
We’ve successfully traveled this way HUNDREDS of times. We’ve
never so much as broken the speed limit (ok, just a little) . . .
but we’ve never caused a problem . . . we’ve never been
reckless . . . we’ve never been distracted. He drives and I
work . . . but Pennsylvania Lawmakers want to make the practice illegal?
Aren’t there ‘real bad guys’ out there that need
to be stopped from breaking the law? Are our State Troopers so bored
that they need new reasons to harass regular law-abiding taxpayers?
Can’t they just focus on the drunk drivers, excessive speeders,
and aggressive drivers on the highway? Do they really need to have
a reason to go after two over-worked 40-somethings that are trying
to make good use of their travel time?
In Closing:
Need I go on? House Bill 67 is a perfect example of the government
run amuck. As a firm believer in smaller government and more freedom,
I find House Bill 67 insulting. As a taxpayer in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, I find the passage of House Bill 67 disturbing. Perhaps
George Orwell should be required reading for all Legislators. ‘Big
Brother’ wasn’t just in 1984 . . . ‘Big
Brother’ is alive and well in 2009.
P.S. to Representatives Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson --
I'd still welcome your comments if you'd be willing to share.
At 12:15pm today I received the first of MANY email messages regarding
today’s announcement from Senator Arlen Specter [READ
DETAILS HERE].
As soon as I received the email message I read it out loud to my husband
. . . “SPECTER TO SWITCH PARTIES”. My husband’s reaction
was “What a Jack Ass”. My response to my husband was . .
. “Hey, is that your reaction every time someone switches their
Party to try to win an election?”
After the LONG and UNCOMFORTABLE silence . . . we discussed
it further.
My husband and I have never been fans of Senator Specter. We’ve
never considered him a conservative and were always amazed when die-hard
GOPers would support him . . . blindly. We looked forward to seeing
him lose in his own Primary in 2010. Unfortunately, Senator Specter
has taken away all of the fun by prolonging his demise until the General
Election . . . maybe.
To go back to my husband’s first reaction, some might say (and
have said) that anyone that switches Parties in an attempt to win an
elected office might fairly be referred to as a “Jack Ass”.
Perhaps they would be right. Having been in the situation myself once
(not so very long ago), I can say that I was called lots of names when
I decided to change Parties . . . although the only person that openly
referred to me as a Jack Ass was me (it was about a week and a half
ago, but it had nothing to do with my Party Change . . . it had more
to do with my poor choices of friends).
There is a significant difference between my decision to change Parties
and the decision of Senator Specter, though. Senator Specter is one
of those “life-time politicians” who has (and will) do absolutely
anything to keep his elected position. He would sell his own family
members into prostitution if he thought he would get a jump in his poll
numbers. He has been a Republican since 1966 . . . I was born in 1966
so I know exactly how long ago that was. After all those years, he had
no qualm about leaving his Party to attempt to win yet another term
as a plump and well-cared for Senator. The Party change had nothing
to do with his voting record . . . if politicians really cared about
that State Senator Bob Robbins would have changed his Party years ago.
It has nothing to do with voting record . . . it has nothing to do with
core beliefs and values . . . it has everything to do with money, backing,
support, and more money. That is what life-time politicians care about
more than anything . . . money.
I, on the other hand, made a decision to change Parties in an attempt
to retire an incumbent life-time politician. I had no vision of a long
career as County Treasurer. Instead, I wanted to move into the Courthouse
and make changes quickly and painlessly. My intention was to complete
the major technological updates within one term, but I was willing to
stay for two terms (no more) if the people of the County felt that I
was worthy of the honor. I wanted to serve the County and the Community,
and then move on to the next project that would be of the greatest benefit
to the taxpayers.
These are two very different scenarios, in my opinion.
I wonder if Senator Specter will be welcomed with open arms by the Democratic
Party? I wonder if the Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee
is dusting off his typewriter as I write this post? I wonder if he has
already made a trip to Barnes and Noble for another copy of “How
to Win Friends and Influence People” as a welcome gift for Senator
Specter. I wonder if the current Mercer County GOP and the “group
of disgruntled Republicans” in Mercer County will throw up their
hands and say “it’s a travesty!” I wonder if the “old
regime” local Republicans will scheme about how to conspire with
the local Democrats to block Specter’s attempts at re-election.
If I were to place a bet, I would probably say that Senator Specter
will receive a warm reception from the Democrats. He will also probably
receive loving embraces from the “old regime” Republicans.
Why? The answer is simple . . . Senator Specter is one of the “good
ol’ boys” and he will be welcomed by both sides of the aisle.
Everything will be like “butterflies and rainbows” for Senator
Specter from his long-time friends (Republicans and Democrats alike).
Unfortunately, Senator Specter (and his fans) have under-estimated the
anger that is building up in those that are NOT part of the “good
ol’ boys” club. Conservatives have been waiting patiently
for Specter’s announcement. They’ve been waiting for Specter
to make his move. Why? . . . so that Toomey can walk through the Primary
and eventually give Specter a run for his money in the General Election
(where the decision should be made).
I’m glad Senator Specter switched. I’d rather see the fight
be taken to November of 2010 so that EVERYONE can be involved in the
process.
2010 is already looking to be very interesting . . .
In State-wide Pennsylvania elections we’ll have Specter vs. Toomey
to look forward to.
In County State-Level races we’ll undoubtedly have . . .
Senator Bob Robbins vs. ANY ONE (please!)
Representative Mark Longetti vs. NO ONE (because they'd lose)
Representative Dick Stevenson vs. NO ONE (because no one cares)
Representative Michele Brooks vs. any one of a number of "Brooks
Haters" (there are so many to choose from it is hard to make a prediction
at this point . . . although I have heard directly from at least
one Democrat who intends on putting his name in the hat . . . and,
oddly enough, he asked for my help on his campaign)
2010 will be an interesting Election year, indeed.
On April 1, I wrote a blog post titled “Opening
the Lines of Communication and Pushing for Good Legislation”.
In it I explained that I had authored and sent an email message to 34
State Legislators regarding the on-going need to repeal the Cost of
Living Increases and my support for House
Bill 633. The message was sent to the 6 Legislators that introduced
House Bill 633, and the 28 members of the “House Rules”
Committee that are currently “sitting on” said Bill.
I received my first response from Representative Michele Brooks (R-Mercer).
Rep. Brooks is one of the Legislators that introduced House Bill 633.
She responded via email within an hour of sending my message on Wednesday,
April 1, 2009. Rep. Brooks shared details regarding the reason that
House Bill 633 was sent to Rules Committee rather than State Government
Committee like the other three House Bills. The details are interesting
and I’ll share them later in this story.
I received my second response from Representative Brad Roae (R-Crawford).
Rep. Roae is the main author of House Bill 633). He responded via email
on Wednesday, April 8, 2009. Rep. Roae was kind enough to provide me
with an update on the status of HB633 (which I’ll outline below),
and he also provided some additional details regarding Legislative contacts
that might be of assistance as well as recent press releases regarding
the issue.
I’d like to thank Representatives Michele Brooks and Brad Roae
for their attention to this matter. Of the 34 Legislators that were
contacted, Reps. Brooks and Roae were the only ones that took the time
to respond. You would think that answering questions from concerned
citizens would be high on the list of priorities of ALL Legislators,
but that is simply not the case. To be fair, the State Legislature is
currently on Easter/Passover break until April 20th. It is refreshing,
however, to see that “some Legislators” are still hard at
work during this “break”. I’ve been in my office EVERY
day this month . . . how about you?
According to my review of details provided by Representative Brooks,
the House has a really odd way of handling Bills that are introduced.
According to the “Office of the Speaker”, there are 25 committees
in the House and there is easily some overlap among them. It was determined
that the other COLA Bills that were introduced fell under the auspices
of Rules, State Government, Appropriations and Finance. House Bill 633
deals solely with the legislature and was referred to Rules. While all
of the Bills “could have” gone to Appropriations or Finance,
“the Speaker chose instead Rules and State Government Committees,
respectively.”
So even through all four of the House Bills were regarding the same
issue (repeal of COLAs), the Speaker just “decided” to send
them in different directions. It is as though they play a game of “Eeny,
meeny, miny, moe” when divvying out Bills to Committees. You’d
think it would be more common-sense oriented than that . . . but it
is not. It is all just “luck of the draw”, and House Bill
633 drew a short straw.
According to information provided by Representative Roae, House Bill
633 is still sitting in Rules Committee. He has promised to continue
to push the issue of COLA repeal and he provided an additional list
of contacts that might need a “tickle” to help move things
along.
Mercer County Conservatives isn’t alone on this story, though.
This week, the story was revived in the Pennsylvania press. There were
two stories published on April 7, 2009. One was in the Erie Times News
[READ
HERE] and the second was published in the Patriot News [READ
HERE].
The story from the Erie Times [READ
HERE] talks about those local Legislators who "have" and "have not"
returned their pay raise since December of 2008, and it also mentions
Rep. Roae’s House Bill 633. The article does a half-hearted* job
(* - I was going to a use a different phrase here, but I thought it
might be inappropirate) of describing HB633, but at least it does give
a little attention to the issue. The story from the Patriot News [READ
HERE] states that THREE bills have been introduced regarding the
repeal of COLAs. Again, I’m glad to see that these Bills are getting
some attention in the press, but the fact is that there are actually
a total of 5 House and Senate Bills under consideration at present.
If anyone would care to read the complete facts, please refer to my
blog post titled “Legislator
Pay Raise Update” for an outline of all 5 bills along with
summaries and links to the text of each Bill.
While these recent stories lack sufficient detail for “this reader”,
it is good to know that the concern over Legislative pay raises and
Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) has not completely disappeared. The
most encouraging information that I read in the referenced news stories
was a quote from Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-Delaware)
regarding the possibility of the COLA repeal becoming a part of the
2009-2010 budget negotiations. Senator Pileggi stated,
“If it’s something that we end up doing as part of the budget
. . . it might end up being more logical to make it for the next fiscal
year”.
I, personally, would LOVE to see some fiscal conservatives stand up
during budget negotiations and TRY to trim expenses wherever and whenever
possible. We all know that a budget will eventually pass . . . we might
as well do everything that can be done to trim it down as far as possible
before that happens.
I will continue to do what I can do, and I encourage you all to do the
same. As I pointed out in a previous blog post [READ
HERE], proposed Legislation has a “slim to none” chance
of every being passed . . . a dismal 5% chance based on my quick calculations.
It takes extra effort from concerned citizens and concerned lawmakers
(when they aren't on "break") in order for any Legislation to even be
discussed . . . let alone passed. There is no time for laziness or complacency
as an activist or as a public servant.
In the article in the Patriot News [READ
HERE] it is again confirmed that Legislators representing Mercer
County have returned their pay raises. Representative Mark Longietti
is not mentioned because his pay raise was returned in the form of
a contribution to a local charity. Rep. Michele Brooks, Rep. Dick
Stevenson, and Sen. Bob Robbins are listed as having returned their
pay raises to the State Treasury. Senator Robbins is specifically
listed as “Sen. Robert Robbins, D-Mercer” . . . which
I found to be rather funny. It seems that even the Patriot News has
heard that Senator Robbins is closely tied to local Democrats . .
. so much so that they have decided to represent him as a member of
that Party. Allow me to be the first to officially welcome you to
the Democrat Party, Senator Robbins!
I’m known for my numerous musical references and my many movie
references. Today I will use both. First, I’ll make my movie reference.
Last night my husband and I were watching the Denzel Washington movie
“Remember the Titans”. "Remember the Titans" is a football
film . . . a film genre that both my husband and I enjoy. In the film,
there was a great quote that I found to be particularly timely for me
personally. The character of “Coach Boone” was reacting
to acts of intimidation and he stated:
I don’t scratch my head unless it itches.
I don’t dance unless I hear some music.
I will not be intimidated. That’s just the way it is.
I heard the quote and said “Wow . . . that was a great quote”.
My husband knew that in “code” that meant to pause the DVR
and rewind so that I could write it down. I did, and now I’m repeating
it here. I now consider these to be MY words.
Second, my music reference comes from C&C Music Factory . . . “Things
That Make You Go Hmmmm”. I put some additional thought into the
“infamous letter” that I received on Friday [READ
HERE]. As you ALL know by now, I am an analyst. As an analyst, I’m
distracted and disturbed by loose ends. In my post regarding the “infamous
letter” I pointed out an interesting fact that some of the information
included in the letter “would have ONLY been known and supplied
by key members of the Republican Party”. I also pointed out that
“Mr. Lark was careful to include those Republican Friends as “Xerox
Copy” recipients”. This issue has sparked some private email
conversations during the past 24 hours, so I feel that it is worth further
investigation. This is a loose end, and I’d like to analyze it
now.
I’d like to parse out the details of the long list of “Xerox
Copy” recipients to try to determine why each name was included
and how they tie into the bigger picture. Here is the complete list
of the 19 “xc” recipients:
Roberta Biros
Irma Brenneman
Michele Brooks
Michael Coulter
Edna Gibson
Natalie Kennedy
David King
Helen Kirk
John Lechner
Amy McCamey
Rhonda McClelland
William McConnell, Jr.
Harold McQuistion
Virginia Richardson
Jo-Anne Riedmuller
Robert Robbins
Matthew Snyder
Richard Stevenson
Elva Ward
The list is in alphabetical order. For easier review, I’ll reorganize
the list below in order to group the names together by “associations”:
GROUP ONE:
Roberta Biros
GROUP ONE DESCRIPTION:
This is “Me”. I am the key focus of the letter. I’m
glad, I suppose, that Mr. Lark was kind enough to include me as an “xc”
recipient.
GROUP TWO:
Amy McCamey
Jo-Anne Riedmuller
Elva Ward
Helen Kirk
GROUP TWO DESCRIPTION:
These are people directly mentioned in the letter. Amy McCamey, Jo-Anne
Riedmuller, and Elva Ward were called out in “the letter”
because Mr. Lark perceives that they have “assisted” my
campaign in some way. Ms. McCamey and Ms. Riedmuller wrote letters to
the editor regarding issues discussed in this blog. Ms. McCamey and
Ms. Riedmuller have been following my blog for quite some time. Ms.
Ward (a VERY spunky and energetic senior citizen) assisted me by circulating
petitions on my behalf. Helen Kirk was mentioned in the letter as she
is the mother of Elva Ward.
GROUP THREE:
Natalie Kennedy
Matthew Snyder
GROUP THREE DESCRIPTION:
These are representatives of the press. Natalie Kennedy from the Record
Argus, and Matt Snyder from the Sharon Herald.
GROUP FOUR:
Edna Gibson
John Lechner
Rhonda McClelland
William McConnell, Jr.
Virginia Richardson
David King
GROUP FOUR DESCRIPTION:
These individuals are Republicans from the “Mercer County Officials
Listing”. Unfortunately, this group leaves me with some unanswered
questions. IF this is a list from the “Mercer County Officials
Listing”, why are some Republican names missing? My review of
the data shows that six (6) Republican names ARE included, but four
(4) Republican names ARE NOT included. How did Mr. Lark make his choices
and why? Hmmm?
GROUP FIVE:
Irma Brenneman
Harold McQuistion
GROUP FIVE DESCRIPTION:
I don’t know these individuals, and I don’t believe that
I’ve ever met either. I specifically asked Mr. Lark about who
they are and how they are related to “the letter”. He stated
that I should know them as they are important leaders in the Republican
Party and they were very involved in the McCain campaign. I explained
that I was not involved in the McCain campaign, and he told me that
I SHOULD know these individuals. Hmmm?
GROUP SIX:
Michael Coulter
GROUP SIX DESCRIPTION:
I don’t know Michael Coulter. Mr. Lark did not explain Mr. Coulter’s
inclusion on this list. I did some research regarding Mr. Coulter and
found that Mr. Coulter is simply another individual with which Mr. Lark
has an axe to grind. According to my research, Mr. Lark complained to
the Sharon Herald in October of 2008 regarding Mr. Coulter’s involvement
in a scheduled debate. According to the Herald,
Lark accused Coulter of involvement with a Republican mailer
sent to 4,000 county Democrats attacking Democratic county commissioner
candidates several days prior to the 2007 election, too late for a
Democratic response. He also said Coulter is a partisan, and that
in a Grove City debate he hosted, a reception afterwards was for Republicans
only.
Pardon my language, but this DAMN “infamous mailer” keeps
getting mentioned, and I’m confused. What exactly was the “infamous
mailer”? How, exactly, am I related to this “infamous mailer”?
Why do Bob Lark’s frustrations with the “infamous mailer”
have anything to do with me? Hmmmm??
GROUP SEVEN:
Michele Brooks
Robert Robbins
Richard Stevenson
GROUP SEVEN DESCRIPTION:
I find this group of “xc” recipients to be particularly
confusing. Every other member of the “xc” list has some
local/county tie to this discussion of county politics (sort of). Yet,
Mr. Lark includes Representative Brooks, Senator Robbins, and Representative
Stevenson . . . STATE Legislators. What exactly is their involvement
in this? Why is it necessary for the Chairman of the Democratic Party
to have discussions with State Legislators regarding a County race?
Hmmmmm?
SUMMARY OF GROUPS:
Back to my original concern, I have a loose end in this story as some
information from the letter appears to have come from a prominent Republican
source or sources. Based on the analysis of each group above, I’m
left with a few major question marks in Groups 4 through 7.
Based on those “question marks”, I’ve compiled a list
of the individuals from Groups 4 through 7 that have either had any
association with me on political issues, had any knowledge of the issues
referenced in the letter, or who have something to gain or loose in
the race for County Treasurer. Those names are:
John Lechner
I spoke with Mr. Lechner regarding Woodland Place in December of 2008.
I have no other ties to this gentleman and I don’t know him personally.
Virginia Richardson
She is the current County Treasurer and Treasurer of the Mercer GOP.
She is the 16-year incumbent opponent in the race with which I am involved.
I have talked with her personally a few times in the past.
David King
He is the Chairman of the Mercer County Republican Committee. I’ve
only talked to Mr. King twice. The first meeting was specifically regarding
issues of the Republican Party. Our second meeting was a very heated
discussion regarding his complaints about my candidacy for County Treasurer
(and my challenge of Ms. Richardson's long-held position).
Michele Brooks
She is a State Representative representing portions of Mercer County.
I met her initially in September of 2008 during her re-election campaign.
I have had numerous discussions and email correspondence with her regarding
legislative matters.
Robert Robbins
He is a State Senator representing Mercer County with which I have had
brief correspondence regarding legislative matters. I personally met
Mr. Robbins once at a public gathering. My husband and had dinner with
him at the gathering, but I would bet he has no recollection of it.
As I understand it, he is a STRONG supporter of my opponent and has
spoken on her behalf at recent public events.
Richard Stevenson
He is a State Representative representing a small portion of Mercer
County. I have had minimal email correspondence with him and his office
regarding legislative matters. I’ve been at events with Mr. Stevenson
but I’ve never spoken to him personally.
All of these names make me go Hmmmmm.
Are one or more of these individuals the “source” of the
Republican information referenced in Mr. Lark’s letter?
Do one or more of these individuals have personal and professional ties
to Mr. Lark?
Do one or more of these individuals have a reason to assist Mr. Lark
with his characters assassinations of me and my supporters?
Do one or more of these individuals have something to loose or gain
in the race for Mercer County Treasurer?
Did I leave any names off of this summary list?
Have I included names on the list that don’t deserve to be there?
Would any of you like to join in on the conversation? You can either
use the “Comment” feature and post using your own name or
as Anonymous . . . or you can email me directly and your contact with
me will be kept completely private.
This issue (and the issue of the “infamous letter”) is all
part of a bigger story and a bigger problem in Mercer County. In Mr.
Lark’s letter of April 2nd, he called out three individuals who
were simply using their rights offered by the First Amendment or who
were fulfilling a civic duty. These individuals have been unfairly challenged
by Mr. Lark’s letter. I will not submit concerned citizens to
personal assaults like the one perpetrated by Mr. Lark. If you contact
me, our association will be kept private for your protection from the
Democratic and Republican “machines” of Mercer County.
Mr. Lark's letter makes it clear that the leadership of the Republican
and Democratic Parties in Mercer County seem to be closely associated
with one another, and they ALL seem to have something to gain in keeping
ALL incumbents in office. They are ALL willing to do whatever it takes
to protect themselves, and they don't care who they take down in the
process. It makes you wonder why ANY concerned citizen would support
ANY of THEM.
Mr. Lark’s letter is an attempt to intimidate me and anyone that
has the nerve to support me or my campaign. As a final response, I offer
you my quote from the movie reference from the beginning of this post
. . .
I don’t scratch my head unless it itches.
I don’t dance unless I hear some music.
I will not be intimidated. That’s just the way it is.
Like many of you in Mercer County, I received mail from Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper this week. If you received it you would remember it
well . . . an "at your service" bell with the congressional logo . .
. matte finish . . . full-color foldout . . . a first-class mailer.
It was a very slick informational brochure outlining the Congresswoman’s
responsibilities and contact information. It was a very professionally
prepared and attractive marketing piece . . . without a doubt. As a
first impression, it looked “very expensive”. The most interesting
part of the piece was the simple line of text that read “This
mailing was prepared, published and mailed at taxpayer expense.”
Well, with that “new information”, I had to take a second
look. Since I paid for it, I’d like to see exactly what my much
needed tax dollars were used for (this is where the analyst in me takes
over . . . I apologize in advance). A close examination of the data
contained in the brochure showed that about 45% of the content was very
attractive graphics with absolutely no useful content whatsoever. 18%
of the content was a reply post card that could be used to contact the
Congresswoman. 18% of the content was used for the address area of the
mailer and contact information for the Congresswoman. The balance of
the space (roughly 19%) was dedicated to the many useful tasks that
the Congresswoman can assist me with . . . Social Security benefits,
Veterans’ benefits, Tax issues (I wonder if Congresswoman Dahlkemper
could talk to the Mercer County DA for me about a question he had about
my taxes?), Congressional Internship opportunities, Purchasing a U.S.
flag that has flown over the Capitol, Arranging for tours of the Capitol
&White House, and Presidential birthday greetings for seniors over
80. There was no mention, however, about “legislation”,
but I suppose that would have been an afterthought. Based on my analysis,
the very sleek (and very expensive) little brochure only devoted 37%
of the space to semi-useful information and contact details. The brochure
used 63% of its space to useless fluff and self promotion and 0% was
reserved to discuss LEGISLATION.
I realize that some of you will say . . . “Don’t pick on
Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper . . . it isn’t fair”. Well,
I agree. The Congresswoman is not the first elected official to spend
tax payer dollars for self-promotion and fluff, most politicians do
it . . . some more than others. The Congresswoman is still "new" and
testing the waters. I'm not picking . . . I'm just using her as an example
of a bigger problem.
Promotional tools are part of every elected officials budget. Some elected
officials use advertising space for self-promotion, and some of them
use the space to “inform”. As the watchdogs of our elected
officials, we need to keep a close eye on the decisions that they make.
I’m all about “good government” and careful fiscal
decisions. In my opinion, spending taxpayer dollars as though they are
“campaign contributions” is NOT good government. Mailers
like the one discussed above are only one example. There are others
. . .
As many of you already know, I’ve spent some time at local trade
shows and business expositions lately. I understand why people that
are running for office set up a booth at these shows to “meet
people”. The booths are paid for as a campaign expense using personal
funds or campaign donations. I have no problem with this. I do, however,
have a problem with current elected officials purchasing a both at these
shows under the guise of “public service”. Allow me to site
an example or two (or three).
State Senator and State Representative “Information Booth”
When I visited the Greenville Business Expo, I found a booth shared
by Senator Bob Robbins and Representative Michele Brooks. From what
I could tell, the booth was an “information booth” paid
for by the offices of Senator Robbins and Representative Brooks (i.e.,
“taxpayer dollars”), although I admit that this is unverified.
The idea of a booth that gives you an opportunity to speak with a State
Legislator actually seemed like a good idea to me. Unfortunately, there
were no Legislators in the booth. Huh????
I like the idea of having a booth that allows normal Joe or Jane taxpayer
to meet or talk to their elected State Legislator, but isn’t the
purpose diminished if there is no Legislator in the booth to meet? A
quick perusal of the booth showed what seemed to be tourist information
(which can be picked up at a visitor center like the one on Rt. 322
or along Rt. 80) and various freebies, but no Senator or State Representative.
I was at the show for about two and a half hours, and the booth was
never visited by Senator Robbins or Representative Brooks as far as
I could tell. I did catch a glimpse of Representative Brooks making
her rounds to other booths at the show (so she was at least there and
available for some period of time), but I never did see any sign of
our fine Senator.
My question is, did we as tax payers pay for the booth at the show so
that office staff could give out free maps and so Senator Robbins and
Representative Brooks could self promote? Was this cost effective and
good use of taxpayer dollars?
Mercer County Treasurer “Information Booth”
The Greenville Business Expo was interesting. The current Mercer County
Treasurer purchased a booth to promote the office of “County Treasurer”.
From what I could tell, the booth was an “information booth”
paid for by the office of the County Treasurer (i.e., “taxpayer
dollars”), although . . . once more . . . I admit that this is
unverified.
Again I say “Huh??? “ What was the purpose of the booth
you ask? I only stopped for a very brief visit (I did not hang around
for long for obvious reasons), but the focus of the booth seemed to
be “dog licenses”. Now understand that this is not the only
booth that the Treasurer’s offices has purchased using tax payer
dollars (as she had a booth at the recent Home Show in Hickory too).
I’d love to see a cost analysis of such an endeavor. Is this type
of promotion of a public office really necessary? Do the County Commissioners,
Prothonotary, Record of Deeds, and Controller purchase booths to promote
their offices? To be fair, I will say that the booth was at least manned
by the County Treasurer herself (rather than office staff), but was
this a good use of tax dollars?
State Senator and State Representative “Campaign Booths”
As one last example I’d like to discuss booths that were set up
at the Grove City Trade Show at the end of February. Senator Bob Robbins
and State Representative Dick Stevenson had what appeared to be “Campaign
Booths”. These booths were for the obvious promotion of the Senator
and State Representative. I assume, also, that these booths were paid
for by campaign donations (again, I have no proof). I explained earlier
that I have no problem with this type of booth as it “is what
it is” . . . obvious self-promotion at the expense of the campaign
supporters. I only bring up the example here because unlike the “Information
Booth” at the Greenville Business Expo, these booths were manned
by Senator Bob Robbins (and his wife) and State Representative Dick
Stevenson (and his wife). I find it interesting that when the booth
is used for self-promotion, the parties involved devote their day to
it (along with their spouses), but when the booth is used for “information
and public service”, there are no elected officials to be found.
My point? Pay attention to the small print. The small line on Congresswoman
Kathy Dahlkemper’s brochure read “This mailing was prepared,
published and mailed at taxpayer expense.” When you see these
words, think about how your taxpayer dollars were used. Did you receive
an informational newsletter packed with valuable information about issues
that pertain to the people of Mercer County? OR, is it just a glossy
marketing piece designed to promote a politician at the taxpayer’s
expense. When you see a booth at a trade show or a fair, ask . . . “who
paid for this booth”? If it was paid for by taxpayer funds, think
about whether YOU would spend your money that way.
Remember . . . “taxpayer dollars” are OUR dollars, and we
should have some say in how they are spent, and we should have the right
to complain when our money is spent poorly.
It has been a little while since I last wrote about the status of the
Repeal
of COLAs. I was able to find and print out all of the proposed House
and Senate Bills regarding this issue today, and I’m now prepared
to provide my commentary on each.
As of today, March, 9, 2009, there are five proposed Bills on record
in the Pennsylvania State General Assembly amending the act of September
30, 1983 (P.L.160, No.39). I’ve printed and reviewed all five
Bills. I am providing my own brief summary of each below. I'm also including
a list of all Legislators involved in the introduction of each bill
along with their District Number and party affiliation. No party bias
here!
House Bill No. 62 [READ
HERE]
Date: JANUARY 26, 2009
This bill establishes a commission to study the salaries of members
of the General Assembly, as well as all officials of the executive and
judicial branches of State government. The commission members would
be selected from registered eligible voters from each legislative district
. . . would hold a four-year term with a limit of two terms . . . would
be required to attend meetings . . . and would not be permitted to engage
in any “ex parte communication” with any public officials.
Roberta’s Comments:
Wow. What a piece of garbage this bill is. First, the idea of creating
a “commission” becomes ridiculous and blown out of proportion.
Additionally, we are going to “assign” people to the commission?
They aren’t going to run for the office or even want the office
. . . we are just going to pick them from the list of eligible voters?
We are then going to assign these people (who weren’t interested)
to a four-year term and limit them to two terms (even though our legislators
aren’t limited to two terms)? We then set requirements and attendance
rules to a responsibility that is completely voluntary and in which
the selected parties were not even interested? Finally, we state that
they aren’t allowed to engage in “ex parte communication”
with any public officials? No, that is not too much to ask! You must
be kidding me!
I label this one as FUBAR.
House Bill No. 113
[READ
HERE]
Date: JANUARY 30, 2009
Introduced by PERRY (R-92), CUTLER (R-100), GROVE (R-196), KAUFFMAN
(R-89), MILLER (R-93), MOUL (R-91), MUSTIO (R-44), SCAVELLO (R-176),
SWANGER (R-102), VULAKOVICH (R-30) AND WATSON (R-144)
Roberta’s Summary:
This bill simply states that no cost of living adjustment will occur
if “revenues collected by the Commonwealth as of October 1 of
each year meet or exceed projections for the first quarter of the fiscal
year according to the final revenue estimates signed by the Governor”.
Roberta’s Comments:
Here is another one that I don’t like. I understand that the purpose
of the Bill is to make certain that raises are not applied if the “money
isn’t there”, but is that the best they could do? If the
money is there “take it” . . . if it isn’t, “wait
until next year”?
This bill was poorly thought out and poorly presented. I don’t
like it.
Senate Bill No. 244
[READ
HERE]
Date: MARCH 5, 2009
Introduced by PILEGGI (R-9)
Roberta’s Summary:
This bill simply suspends the annual cost of living adjustment immediately.
The act expires, however, on November 30, 2009.
Roberta’s Comments:
Simple and to the point. It suspends the automatic cost of living adjustments
immediately. Unfortunately, having the suspension expire on November
30, 2009 sort of eliminates the whole idea, doesn’t it? So we’d
need to go through this again next year? Yuck.
House Bill No. 228
[READ
HERE]
Date: FEBRUARY 3, 2009
Introduced by McILVAINE SMITH (D-156), CARROLL (D-118), CONKLIN (D-77),
CREIGHTON (R-37), FLECK (R-81), KORTZ (D-38), MURT (R-152), MUSTIO (R-44),
QUINN (R-143), ROAE (R-6), REESE (R-59), SHAPIRO (D-153), K. SMITH (D-112),
SWANGER (R-102) AND YUDICHAK (D-119)
Roberta’s Summary:
This bill basically ends the cost of living adjustments as of November
30, 2009.
Roberta’s Comments:
Again, Simple and to the point. It does what I had originally wanted
done . . . it eliminates the automatic cost of living adjustments. I
like it . . . but why wait until November of 2009? If this is our only
choice . . . I’d take it and I wouldn't complain.
House Bill No. 633
[READ
HERE]
Date: February 26, 2009
Introduced by ROAE (R-6), BROOKS (R-17), CALTAGIRONE (D-127), MURT (R-152),
ROCK (R-90) AND THOMAS (D-181)
Roberta’s Summary:
First, this bill lowers the “additional compensation” received
by lawmakers and officers of the House and Senate. The additional compensation
received by officers like Majority Leader, Minority Leader, Majority
Caucus Chairman, Minority Caucus Chairman, etc. are nearly cut in half.
Additionally, the Bill states that salaries “may” increase,
but “only by act of General Assembly enacted prior to the date
on which nomination petitions are permitted by law to be circulated
for election to the office of member of the General Assembly and provided
that such act is not effective until December of the next legislative
session”. This basically means that salaries are set at the time
an individual runs for office.
As a final safeguard, a “Salary frozen during term” stipulation
was added that states that “no member of the General Assembly
shall receive an increase in salary during the term for which the member
is elected”.
Roberta’s Comments:
I like it. It is more than I imagined, and I appreciate the thought
that was put into it. The idea of cutting the “additional compensation”
in half is wonderful “icing on this cake”. The concept of
assigning a salary at the time someone runs for office (with no raises
during their term) is something that should be adopted for all elected
positions nationwide. It takes the issue of “raises” out
of the game, and allows legislators to worry about legislating and serving
their constituents (rather than serving themselves).
At the point raises are discussed, they salary adjustments would be
for the next term . . . if they get elected! Brilliant.
A Review of the Mercer County Prospective:
I’ve received complaints that I only focus on Mercer County legislators
(three of which are Republicans, with only one Democrat). I suppose
some people think that I unfairly discuss Republicans 3/4 of the time
because they hold 3/4 of the positions. Well, this is MY blog, and it
was originally designed to have a Mercer County prospective . . . so
. . . too bad! Please realize, however, that I generally pick on the
Republicans 3/4 of the time too. Fair?
To review the Mercer County angle . . .
Sen. Bob Robbins' (R) name is not mentioned . . . no shock. As per the
letter received from Mr. Robbins in January, he had no intention of
putting time or effort into such a Bill.
Rep. Mark Longietti is not mentioned . . . again, no shock. Mr. Longietti
clearly stated in an email conversation with this author that he did
not support a repeal of the COLAs. Mr. Longietti kept his promise. Mr.
Longietti and I agree to disagree.
Rep. Dick Stevenson is mentioned in House Bill No. 62 above. Unfortunately,
Mr. Stevenson chose to back the crappiest bill of the five that were
introduced.
Rep. Michele Brooks is mentioned in House Bill No. 633. Ms. Brooks stated
in early January that she would support the “right” COLA
Repeal legislation, and she kept her promise.
In Closing . . .
I now have a steady readership of both Democrat and Republican friends.
I challenge you all to review the Bills above and compare them. If you
agree with my opinions, let me know. If you disagree, feel free to contact
me with specifics of where you think I’ve “gone wrong”.
I apologize for taking so long to get back on-line, but I’ve been
pretty busy for the past few days. As many of you know, I officially
changed my Political Party affiliation last week [READ
DETAILS HERE]. My new experiences as a Democrat have been quite
interesting and exhilarating. My experience has made it very clear to
me how the Republicans lost so horribly in 2008. The Democratic Party
actually has their act together . . . they are organized . . . they
are friendly . . . and they are open to anyone that has a desire to
get involved. One email to a contact within the Party in Mercer County
caused an immediate chain of events. I’ve since spoken with Party
leaders and representatives by phone and email, and I’ve been
invited to a number of meetings of sub-groups within the Party. I’ve
experienced nothing but “open doors” and friendly encouragement.
I realize, however, that I’ve been a little quiet on the “blog
front”, so this small installment will let you all know that I’m
“still kickin’”.
On February 2nd, I published a post titled “My
Final Word on the PA State Legislator COLA “Give Back”:
Stick a Fork in Me – I’m Done!”. Unfortunately,
it seems that it won’t be my “final word” after all.
I received multiple comments to the post [READ
HERE]. The most recent comment came on February 12. What was the
question? Well, the reader asked “What proof is there
that Senator Robbins and Representative Brooks actually gave the money
back - their word?”. I’d like to respond to that
question in full now.
First, as far as Senator Robbins, the information regarding his pay
raise “give back” was published by WGAL
and referenced on our blog HERE.
In that case, I was simply taking WGAL’s word for it.
As far as Rep. Michele Brooks, the information that I published came
from Representative Brooks directly by phone. Did I simply take her
word for it? Well, to be completely honest with you . . . Yes. Ms. Brooks
has never provided me with a reason to distrust her, and I believe in
taking a person at their word. I'm one of those few people left in this
world that still takes people at their word and does business on a hand
shake unless I have a reason not to.
I did, however, have every intention of following up on the details
of the "give backs" through a little “research project”.
After speaking to Representative Brooks on Friday, February 6, I placed
a call to the Pennsylvania State Treasury. My goal was to gather the
specific details regarding the pay raise “give backs” for
Senator Robbins, Representative Brooks, and Representative Stevenson
(Representative Longietti was not included in the query as his “give
back” was given to charity rather than the State Treasury).
The call was humorous. It was a typical call to any government office
. . . I was transferred numerous times, and I was eventually transferred
to the voice mail of an “unnamed individual”. I left a message
on Friday afternoon, February 6, stating that I was wanting to know
if the pay raises for the Legislators representing Mercer County had,
in fact, been returned. I also asked when they were returned and how
much had been returned. I did not receive a return phone call until
Tuesday, February 10th. At that time I was told that all inquiries for
information needed to go through the “Right-to-Know Officer”.
I was directed to the Treasury website and was provided the phone number
of the Right to Know Officer, Geraldine Williams. I took the information
and set it aside with every intention of filing the necessary request.
On February 12, the Sharon Herald published an article titled “Lawmakers
return money; U.S. rep may do likewise”. In it, the Herald
verified the information that I had already previously published, and
they stated that the State had confirmed the "give back" data as well.
The State would not, however, verify the amounts that were returned.
I have to admit that the Herald story did take the wind out of my sails,
but I’m glad that they finally caught up with the rest of us.
What the experience has shown me is something very valuable, though.
The “Right-to-Know” policy is actually going to have the
opposite impact of its original purpose. The original idea of “Right-to-Know”
was to increase transparency. Unfortunately, it has actually added an
additional layer of hoops for concerned citizens to jump through when
seeking the truth. Lawmakers can now hide behind the “Right-to-Know”
shield and put off inquiries (in hopes that they will eventually go
away). Lawmakers that wanted a way to hide have found themselves a very
handy tool that will be used often. Fortunately, there are still Lawmakers
out there that are willing to do business the “old fashioned way”
. . . through honest discussion.
Representative Michele Brooks wasn't required to answer my questions,
and she wasn't required to answer the questions of the Sharon Herald.
She could have simply referred us to the “Right-to-Know Officer”.
She didn’t.
I try to call things as I see them . . . in this case, it is my opinion
that more government officials need to be honest, accountable, and transparent
on their own. At the moment I see someone “hide” behind
“Right-to-Know”, I'll immediately know there is a problem.
As always, just my opinion.
A SIDE NOTE REGARDING THE REPEAL
OF ACT 51 COLAs:
I received notification from the Michele Brooks office that she has,
in fact, signed on to legislation that will Repeal the Act 51 COLAs.
Details regarding the legislation (House Bill #, etc.) are not yet available,
but I will keep track of this issue as it moves forward. I'd like to
thank the office for keeping me posted regarding this issue.
I’ve been fielding questions and comments about this issue since
it was originally announced in early December. On December 12, 2008,
I repeated information that was published in the Sharon
Herald regarding the “promise” of State Legislators
to give back their automatic Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) that
went into effect on December 1, 2008. In response to constant queries,
I’ve continued to follow the trail of the “promises”
of each of our four State Legislators (Senator Bob Robbins, Representative
Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative
Dick Stevenson).
Earlier this week, I published a blog post titled COLA
UPDATE: Who HAS and Who HAS NOT Returned Their Raise? In it, I
re-published a list of Lawmakers who had officially returned their
pay raises as of Monday, February 2, 2009. In that post, it was verified
that COLAs had been returned by Senator Robbins (to State Treasury),
Representative Longietti (to a charity), and Representative Dick Stevenson
(to State Treasury). I would like to UPDATE the story with new data.
I spoke with Representative Michele Brooks today by phone. I asked
specifically if she had returned her COLA to the Pennsylvania State
Treasury as promised. Representative Brooks stated that she had hand-delivered
her COLA to the State Treasury this past week while in Harrisburg.
She asked that I not publicize the “give back” as it was
not her intention to gain publicity from the action. I explained,
however, that I hoped to simply put an end to the repeated questions
received by this office. She agreed . . . with some gentle persuasion.
I hope this puts this issue to rest . . . "Stick a Fork in Me 'Cause
I'm Done".
With this final detail in place, I can now clearly state that all
of the State Legislators representing Mercer County that have “promised”
to return their raises have, in fact, done so.
Lastly, I’d like to state that I have received numerous comments
regarding this issue and others . . . some have been publicly posted
to this blog. I have rejected comments that made outrageous allegations
regarding any of our elected officials, and I’
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
