PAWaterCooler.com

You know the RCA dog Nipper? His cute, little head tilted to one side when he heard sound from the RCA phonograph in years gone by.

Well, my head went “RCA dog” when I attended the Mike Kelly meet-and-greet at Beans on Broad in Grove City, PA. Kelly is one of many GOPers who want to unseat Kathy Dahlkemper in PA-3. When I showed up, many of the party insiders were there. I briefly spoke to Kelly before he was about to give his speech – seemed like a nice guy.

Mercer County GOP Chairman David King stood in front of the group to introduce Kelly. And that’s when it happened – King called Kelly “our” candidate. Really.

I asked him about it afterward, wondering if I missed an announcement about an endorsement. King quickly got defensive and said he must have misspoke since the MerCo GOP has an open primary. Fine. I’m not naive, but people do make mistakes. Explanation accepted.

I then asked him if he was going to the Clayton Grabb event in Hermitage that afternoon. He knew NOTHING about it. It was an incredibly strange admission for the person who is the leader of the county party. I had heard rumors that Kelly was the GOP pick, and when coupled with the “accidental” endorsement, this ignorance of Grabb’s event was quite striking.

Then Grabb’s event came along, which I sadly missed – my class at Duquesne was calling, of course. Fortunately, The Herald showed up to report on it (Matt Snyder was also at the Kelly event). To my “surprise” it seems that Chairman King took Grabb to task when he said that the GOP needed to return to its roots of conservatism. Now, in all fairness, I don’t know how much of the story is embellishment. The encounter might have taken ten seconds. But the substance is what matters.

A participant in several Tea Party events, Grabb promised to bring conservative values back to the Republican Party.

David O. King, Mercer County’s Republican party chair, took issue with that. He said he’s been active locally for 20 years and wasn’t aware their values had changed. He also asked why more Tea Party activists can’t swing by the Republican headquarters in Mercer.

Grabb initially said that Republicans had swung too far toward the center, which King said he “doesn’t believe.”

Several members of the audience, who said they attended Tea Party rallies, took issue with that. They cited the 2008 presidential run of Sen. John McCain and last year’s House race in New York in which party leaders chose liberal Dede Scozzafova as their nominee. Conservative opposition to that choice sunk Scozzafova’s campaign and highlighted the gulf between party leaders and rank-and-file voters.

You see, King said NOTHING when Kelly said basically the same thing. In fact, he was glowing as Kelly spoke. Kelly lampooned the fiscal mess the GOP and the Dems have made.

And BOTH Kelly and Grabb are right. The GOP is a mess. You only have to look at the slobbering support for McCain (a socialist Republican if there ever was one). When you get to the county level, there was support for Arlen “he’s with us when it counts” Specter and continual glowing praise for Phil “I never met pork I didn’t like” English. And then there’s state senator Bob Robbins who gladly catalogs his pork on his own Web site. Most recently, we have seen overwhelming support for Tom “I’m too busy campaigning to do my job” Corbett. Ugh.

Yes, King has a job to do – to show a unified GOP. Personally, such a job would make me sick. I’m conservative first and foremost. The GOP just happens to be the closest political party to match my views. But it has been a pathetic shadow of its former self since 1994. After that, the GOP congress got greedy and sloppy. Bush killed us with his spending and getting TARP I underway. Our Harrisburg contingent (with few exceptions) went spending-silly, including the disgusting payjacking, WAM abuse, and staff bonusgate.

If King isn’t aware that the GOP has steered violently to the left, then perhaps he should step down. And if he can’t appear equal during an “open” primary, then he absolutely needs to step down immediately.

-Rich Talbert

Email Rich Talbert, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

The news was official on December 31st. The former County Nursing home, Woodland Place, has officially been sold and is off the County’s books. The story was worthy of a multi-page write up in The Herald, and the current County Commissioners were reportedly celebratory. I hate to be the party pooper, but I’d like to step back and put the news story into perspective.

First, I’d like to thank Matt Snyder for a well-written and well-rounded article that appeared in the December 30, 2009, issue of The Herald (read the full story HERE). Matt did a great job of talking to all of the parties involved and organizing a neat little historical review. I’ve written many articles about Woodland Place and I know how difficult it is to pull the facts together (read my Woodland Place articles HERE). I only have one complaint about the article, and that is that Matt Snyder is just too darn nice sometimes. I, on the other hand, am not afraid of being a little more critical where I think it is deserved. That is, of course, the purpose of today’s blog post.

In the case of the article in The Herald, there seemed to be lots of back patting of the current Commissioners (or perhaps that was them patting their own backs . . . I’m not absolutely sure), but in my opinion Woodland Place was sold despite the efforts (or lack thereof) of the County Commissioners. My own experiences gave me the impression that the County Commissioners weren’t losing any sleep over finding a buyer for the failed nursing home. Instead, my perception (and the perception of others) has been that the Commissioners were sitting by waiting for someone to find a solution to the problem in hopes that they could take credit for it. Allow me to explain . . .

The article in The Herald stated that the current commissioners all ran for office in 2007 on the platform of cleaning up the mess that was Woodland Place. That part of the story is absolutely true. It was then implied that “once the commissioners were all on the same page”, they were able to work hard together to find a new buyer. This is the portion of the story that I have issues with (and I’ll come back to those issues in just a minute).

The Herald also mentions that the buyer of Woodland Place was brought to the commissioners by State Representative Michele Brooks. That tidbit of information is also factual. What the article doesn’t mention, however, is that the Commissioners weren’t falling over themselves to look for or court the potential manager / buyer. My sources within the Mercer County political scene tell me that the commissioners were somewhat unresponsive and actually ignored the original queries posed by John Hughes of South Western Alpha. It was only through contact with the office of Representative Michele Brooks that Hughes was able to get the attention of the Commissioners office. So I ask, should the commissioners get credit for the deal or were they simply taken along for the ride (kicking and screaming, perhaps)?

Some people might find the suggestion odd, but I do not. I was contacted by an interested party just last January under similar circumstances. An organization from eastern Pennsylvania contacted me by email asking if I could put them in touch with the people responsible for a possible deal regarding Woodland Place. They were interested in discussing the possible purchase of Woodland Place but their queries were going unanswered. I provided names, email addresses, and phone numbers of the three County Commissioners. Several weeks later I was contacted again by the same individual. This time the complaint was that none of the commissioners were returning calls or email messages. The contact asked if I could get involved to assist. I contacted the commissioners again by email but I never received a response.

How many other “potential buyers” were out there? How many “interested parties” were turned away or discouraged because Commissioners Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader weren’t doing their job? How many “opportunities” knocked but received no answer because Ammann, Lechner, and Beader ignored calls, letters, and email messages?

At that time, the ‘story’ was that the commissioners were already attempting to strike a deal with Hughes, and they weren’t interested in pursuing new offers. As a taxpayer in Mercer County I found the lack of interest from the Commissioners’ Office to be insulting. Even if a deal was in the works, it would have been to the benefit of Mercer County taxpayers for ALL offers to be put on the table. After all, a little competition could have gone a long way to sweeten the deal for taxpayers. Unfortunately, that never happened.

Based on my experiences and those reported to me by others, it seems that the commissioners were simply waiting for the right deal to “fall into their lap”. It gives the appearance that the commissioners wanted a solution with as little effort as possible . . . and that is exactly what they got. Unfortunately, that is also what Mercer County taxpayers have been asked to settle for. Why? . . . because Commissioners Ken Ammann, John Lechner, and Brian Beader were only willing to do the absolute minimum.

Was the final deal for Woodland Place the best deal for Mercer Countians? We will really never know. The people of Mercer County were simply treated like mushrooms . . . kept in the dark and fed “manure” (yes, I just edited myself there). If there was a better deal out there, none of us will ever know about it, and I would expect that the Commissioners weren’t looking for it either.

On another stream of consciousness, I’d like to discuss a different issue and concern. Commissioners make quite a deal of them “all being on the same page” and “presenting a united front”. I guess this is supposed to be a way to criticize past Commissioners, but I find the argument silly (at best) and misleading (at worst).

I’m of the opinion that maybe our three commissioners all being on the same page isn’t the best for us, the taxpayers. Government was originally established with a set of checks and balances in place. This prevented corruption and protected “we, the people”. Diversity promotes discussion, argument, and new ideas. The “three commissioners” (a.k.a., Moe, Larry, and Curly) all want to just sit comfortably in the courthouse and share in chuckles and back patting (nyuck, nyuck, nyuck). They figure that discord makes waves and waves make for difficult (and expensive) re-elections. Unfortunately, while they are celebrating the “Mercer County Good Ol’ Boys Club” the taxpayers of Mercer County will continue to be handed tax increases and excuses from “the team”.

I’d love to see one of the “three commissioners” stand up for something . . . anything! Rather than rubber stamping each other, the “three commissioners” should be double checking each other.

So I say to Ammann, Lechner, and Beader (Moe, Larry, and Curly) . . . “grow a pair (or ‘find a pair’) . . . if you can’t, let me know and I’ll lend you mine.”

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

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.

~Mercer County Conservatives

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Representative Michele Brooks organizes a delegation from the I-80 corridor to visit Washington DC on Thursday, December 17, 2009

Written by Roberta Biros

The possible tolling of I-80 has been an issue in Pennsylvania for too long now. Attempts by the Turnpike Commission to push through an application with the Federal Highway Commission has been denied, but the Rendell administration seems to think that that one more try with a more “friendly administration” in Washington is worth another shot.

The argument is a simple one. Those that support the tolling of Interstate 80 argue that the proposed tolling was originally part of planned funding for statewide transportation costs, and that funding is still needed. To that argument, the federal government has stated that revenue from the tolling of I-80 can only be used to maintain the same I-80. It is for that reason that the application has been denied. It seems like this should have been a “done deal” back in 2008, but those that support the tolling of the highway keep beating the same dead horse in hopes that the leadership in Washington will eventually see things through a new set of rose colored glasses.

Understanding the Two Sides of the Coin

The battle over the tolling of Interstate 80 has become a simple conflict between the urban areas of Pennsylvania and the rural areas along the I-80 corridor in the northern tier of the Commonwealth. Perhaps it has become a matter of David vs. Goliath, but those of us along the I-80 corridor haven’t given up hope.

To understand both sides of the argument, I would suggest that you watch the two videos supplied below. The first video offers the “against tolling” argument which is offered by State Representative Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE]. The second offers the “for tolling” argument, and it is offered by State Representative Ron Miller (R-York) [watch the full video on YouTube HERE].

Summary of Representative Matt Gabler’s Video

Like most of the legislators that represent districts along the I-80 corridor, Representative Gabler is concerned about how tolls on Interstate 80 will affect his constituents. He is, however, also concerned about recent controversies that have brought the credibility of the Turnpike Commission into question.

His first concern is a recent analysis performed by Provident Capital Advisors. The Louisiana based group was contracted by the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to provide an analysis of the tolling scheme for the Interstate. It seems, however, that Provident Capital may have been part of a shady deal. They were hired for the task although they had never before been involved in a valuation analysis of highways in the past. Their experiences have been in health care, prisons, and juvenile detention facilities, but nothing was mentioned about highways or toll roads. It made some (including Representative Gabler) wonder if the company was simply hired as a political favor in order for the turnpike commission to get the results that they wanted.

The second problem occurred recently when the House Republican Policy Committee held a hearing on the I-80 tolling proposal. According to Rep. Gabler:

“What is really disappointing is that the policy committee had invited both the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation as well as the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission to come testify. We have concerns about the plan and we have for a long time, and we think it would have been a great opportunity for them to fill in some of the holes that we think exist in the plan. They initially acted like they were going to come, and at the last minute they said ‘no we aren’t going to come.’ We were not able to hear any sort of reassurance that this plan does not have the holes we think we have in it. I’m very disappointed that they weren’t willing to be transparent with the taxpayers of the state that are going to be left holding the bag on this plan.”

During the interview, Rep. Gabler makes a particularly interesting point. Supporters of the tolling of I-80 argue that Pennsylvania shouldn’t be giving tractor trailers a free ride across the state. When asked the question, Rep. Gabler points out the following:

“There are a number of laws out there pertaining to heavy use vehicles such as tractor trailers. They are required to keep a mileage log, they are required to keep track of how many miles they run on what road in what state, and then they have to remit a payment mile-by-mile to the State of Pennsylvania for all 312 miles that they run across Interstate 80. A toll would take place on top of that. They would continue to pay their heavy use fees and they would continue to then additionally start paying tolls.”

Summary of Representative Ron Miller’s Video

As a supporter of the tolling of I-80, Representative Miller has a little different point of view. Unlike those Representatives in the I-80 corridor, Rep. Miller is not concerned about the negative impact of the tolling on local economies. He sees I-80 as a source of funding, but doesn’t acknowledge that tolling would impact ANY Pennsylvanians in a negative way. When addressing the exact same question as Rep. Gabler regarding some drivers getting a free ride across Pennsylvania, Rep. Miller says “they have a valid point”.

The Issues of Concern for Mercer County

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17-Mercer, Crawford, Lawrence Counties) recently participated in a roundtable discussion / radio address where she outlined the issues regarding the tolling of I-80 and highlighted the concerns of the people of Mercer County and other taxpayers along the I-80 corridor.

The roundtable discussion included David Taylor (Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association), Kevin Shivers (Pennsylvania Chapter of the National Association of Independent Businesses), along with Representative Michele Brooks. You can listen to the full 30 minute radio address HERE.

Rep. Brooks first explained:

“What we’re concerned about, first and foremost, is the tolling of I-80, but also how Act 44 came into fruition. This piece of legislation was railroaded through the House of Representatives and the Senate during a late budget without any appropriate public vetting. That is an illustration of what is partially wrong with government today. They push things through that effect everyday people and everyday jobs without any type of public vetting or transparency. That is our first concern. Our second concern is the economic impact of tolling this road. And third, we are not aware of any interstate in the history of the United States that has not been originally constructed as a toll road that has been successfully converted to a toll road.”

Regarding the economic impact on the local economy, Rep. Brooks states:

“It’s going to hurt our manufacturing, its going to hurt our small businesses, its going to hurt our family farms. Along the I-80 corridor there are real families and there is going to be real job loss. It is going to hurt our agricultural industry and our family farms.”

When asked the question “is this a problem of revenue when it comes to funding for our roads, bridges, and highways or is this an issue of spending?,” Representative Brooks responded:

“It’s an issue of spending.”

She went on to explain:

“Infrastructure is critically important to our businesses and our residents, but so are their jobs. If we are going to decimate an economy in order to build roads, have we really gained anything?”

To point out an issue of irony, Representative Brooks said:

“(We are) at a time when the federal government has spent hundreds of billions of dollars attempting to spur the economy, yet a decision by the federal government to toll I-80 would contradict that goal. This decision would have a devastating impact on our local economy.”

Specifically regarding the impact on jobs and the economy, Representative Brooks offers a few examples.

“I’m going to mention Hodge Foundry located in Greenville, Pennsylvania. 30% of their business is large wind turbines. If the tolling of I-80 goes through it will increase their transportation costs nearly 50%.” She adds, “we are not at a point in our economy where you can increase costs, so you’re going to lay off employees or you’ll reduce benefits to make up that additional money.”

Additionally, she explains:

“(We) have a local granary. It will cost him an additional $50,000 to $70,000 for transportation of grain. That’s going to effect food costs. That’s one local granary. It is going to impact our small family owned businesses as well as our manufacturers.”

Regarding the fact that this is the second attempt to toll I-80, Representative Brooks is concerned that this has simply turned into an issue of “politics” rather than good government. In response to other comments made during the roundtable discussion, Rep. Brooks stated:

“Under the Bush Administration (I-80 tolling) was rejected, but there have been several comments made by the Governor and the Turnpike Commission that they feel the current administration is a ‘friendly administration’ toward this application. That is politics at its worst. There should be no politics played in this decision. There are strict guidelines on why this application should be approved and that is what should be followed.”

It is the “politics” of the situation that has Rep. Brooks particularly concerned. In response to the controversies related to Provident Capital Advisors (the vendor that was hired to do the valuation analysis), Representative Brooks states “(in our letter to the highway administration we pointed out) that this is too significant of a decision that effects way too many lives . . . this decision can’t be made on questionable information from an entity that has no transportation related background at all.”

In an effort to get past the “politics”, Rep. Brooks has organization a delegation to take the concerns regarding the tolling of I-80 directly to Washington DC. She stated:

“One of our goals in visiting Washington and talking with the Federal Highway Administration is to give an accurate portrayal of the hardships that the tolling will have on real families and real farmers . . . the jobs and the businesses.”

As a criticism of government officials who have turned a deaf ear to the concerns of the people of the I-80 corridor, Representative Brooks said “It is ironic that some in government think that they have the answers . . . business owners, employees, residents, and farmers are saying ‘Stop, this is going to hurt us’ . . . yet there are some in government that just continue to railroad things through and think they know best . . . instead of the very people that we are elected to represent.”

Representative Brooks has worked with Congressman Thompson’s office and Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s office to arrange a meeting with a delegation from the State of Pennsylvania that will include State House Members and State Senators. According to a recent update from Representative Brooks, the meeting has been scheduled for Thursday, December 17th.

To close her participation in the radio address, Representative Brooks explained her goals for the Washington trip as follows:

“We have to make sure that the Federal Highway Administration has a very clear and concise portrayal of what happened. (They need to understand) how this legislation was railroaded through, (and) how there is outrage among the public if this does goes through. We are also going to point out that the merits of the application have not changed from prior rejections, and (we will explain) why we don’t feel that those merits have changed. We are also going to talk about how it (will) have a devastating impact on our local economies.”

In preparation for the Washington visit, Representative Brooks will be collecting the results of an on-line petition that was presented on her website. She encourages concerned citizens to visit the on-line petition to sign against the tolling of I-80. The on-line petition is available HERE.

An Interesting Twist: Do we need to dissolve the Turnpike Commission?

This week Representative Mike Vereb introduced a bill that proposes the complete elimination of the Turnpike Commission. The bill would assign all operation of the Turnpike Commission to PennDOT. State Represenatives Matt Gabler (R-Elk/Clearfield) and Dick Stevenson (R-8-Mercer/Butler) were co-sponsors of the bill.

In a YouTube video [view the full video HERE], Representative Stevenson says:

“The waste, fraud, and abuse that we’ve seen in the Turnpike Administration for years now is something that must be addressed, and when we have the turnpike commission now trying to take over I-80, that fills many of us with great concern. This is an organization which has not shown a great history or a great ability to run the road in a manageable or efficient style. Why would we let them now takeover another major highway across Pennsylvania.”

In support of the proposed bill, Representative Kathy Rapp (R-Warren/Forest/McKean) also made comments. In her YouTube video [view the full video HERE], Rep. Rapp said:

“We no longer need the Turnpike Commission. Penndot is very capable and much more responsible. . . more responsible with the taxpayer dollars. The Turnpike Commission just overspent 80 million dollars on an exchange in Montgomery County. It’s time to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars. One way that we can do that is to dissolve the Turnpike Commission (which this bill does) and have Penndot be responsible for the transportation and the roads in the State of Pennsylvania.”

I’m not absolutely certain that dissolving the Turnpike Commission is the answer, but it is an interesting idea. Right now I say “one step at a time”. I’d prefer to see the proposed tolling of I-80 stopped first. After that, I’d be glad to entertain the idea of dissolving as many useless government entities as possible . . . including the Turnpike Commission.

As always, just my opinion. ~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

.

Email Roberta Biros, Join the other 2 commenters or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

BLOG POST UPDATE–CORRECTION:

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.

As always, just my opinion.

Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

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.

As always, just my opinion.

Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

My own experiences have shown that people are really ticked off at the Pennsylvania State Government right now. The lack of a “proper budget” is causing problems for individuals, families, and businesses and people are speaking up. While attending local fairs and during door-to-door visits, comments from Mercer County residents regarding our Governor and State Legislature have been less than flattering.

My experiences were backed up this week by the recent publication of results from a Franklin and Marshall College Poll which shows that public opinion for Pennsylvania State Government is at an all time low [read the full publication of the poll HERE].

According to the poll:

Currently only one in three (33%) state residents believes the state is headed in the right direction, and only a quarter (27%) of registered adults believes the quality of state government in Pennsylvania is excellent or good.

While the overall opinion of State Government is very poor, people are seemingly at a loss on who to blame. Again, according to poll results,

Governor Rendell’s favorability ratings are the lowest they have been since taking office in 2003, as are his job performance ratings. At this point, fewer than three in ten (29%) registered adults in the state say the governor is doing an excellent or good job. As poorly as the governor fares, ratings for the state legislature are even lower — not a single respondent rated the legislature’s performance as excellent. More than three in four (78%) registered adults believe the state legislature is doing a fair or poor job.

The results of the poll show the overall frustration of people throughout the state. They don’t really know (or care) about how we got here, they just want the problem fixed. I, on the other hand, have a very strong opinion about where to lay the blame, so I’d like to restate my opinion from last week [read the full story HERE] as follows:

I’ve been personally talking to many voters in Mercer County lately. Many have brought up their concerns regarding the budget. Many are also under the misunderstanding that our State Representatives are to be blamed for this mess. I’ve had folks specifically blaming State Representative Mark Longietti and State Representative Michele Brooks for the stalemate in Harrisburg, and specifically saying that neither one should receive support for re-election because of it. Now hold on just a minute—-I’d like to point out that individual Representatives are not responsible for the problems that are occurring with the budget standstill at this point. Beginning in May, the budget was controlled by a handful of legislators in the Appropriations Committee. Most recently, the budget has been in the hands of the six legislative leaders that make up the conference committee. State Representatives are working independently to come up with ideas and possible solutions, but the responsibility sits firmly in the laps of the Appropriations Committee, the conference committee, and the Governor. State Reps like Mark Longietti and Michele Brooks haven’t even had an opportunity to vote on a final budget yet. They are simply hostages in these negotiations like the rest of us. Let’s wait until after the General Assembly has voted on a final budget before we start pointing fingers and blaming our legislators . . . that is if we EVER get the opportunity to see a “final budget”.

In Closing . . .

I’ve had lots of people lately tell me that “The Governor is not to blame for this mess”. The comments generally come from fellow Democrats who feel that they need to defend the Governor and his actions. My response to these comments is always the same. I, personally, feel that the Governor is doing a horrible disservice to ALL elected officials right now. His lack of leadership on this matter is destroying Republicans AND Democrats alike. 2010 will be a big election year for our legislature. The longer the budget impasse drags on, the more difficult the “road to re-election” will be for every incumbent State Senator and State Representative. The Governor doesn’t care because his career in Harrisburg is at an end. Rather than trying to help his own party by trying to smooth things over, the Governor is ONLY concerned about his own “legacy”. His “legacy” may eventually be that he was able to single-handedly unseat HUNDREDS of legislators (including Democrats) through his lack of leadership.

As always, just my opinion.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

For the endless number of citizens that depend on the flow of State funds to stay afloat, the most recent news out of Harrisburg is less than optimistic. When we last checked, the budget negotiation process was held up in the six person conference committee. Three Democrats and three Republicans were being “locked up together” and assigned the task of hammering out the details of a balanced budget. For weeks we have waited for some glimmer of hope, but we have been repeatedly disappointed. Yesterday, talks broke down once again, and this time the Democrats are accusing the Republicans of playing “political games”.

HELLO? From what I’ve observed, the citizens of Pennsylvania have seen nothing BUT “political games” since February when the budget was introduced by the Governor. We didn’t see a budget proposal from the Republican-led Senate until May. When it was received by the Democrat-controlled House, it was sent to the House Appropriations Committee where it SAT until the budget deadline had nearly come and passed. Senate Bill 850 was then eventually “passed” by the House for the soul purpose of allowing the Governor to eliminate all funding other than funding for State Employees and funding for the Governor’s own Executive Branch. Hmmm. Sure sounds like politics to me?

Since the beginning of this battle, Democrats have stood firmly for increased spending paid for by increased taxes, and Republicans have stood for less spending with no tax increases. My research has found that overwhelmingly individual taxpayers agree that tax increases ARE NOT the answer, but in a ridiculous “political” twist this week, Democrats are now implying that the GOP opposition to tax increases is motivated only by “big business” (natural gas and cigarette interests). Huh? Are you kidding me? What’s next? What old trick will the parties pull out of their “political handbooks”?

During the past few weeks, it looked as though there might be some small granule of hope when fiscal conservative Democrats agreed to sit down with fiscal conservatives from the GOP to work on a non-partisan and fiscally responsible “compromise budget”. It was all well and good until the “so called” Blue Dogs were pulled in by their leashes by their Party. The Blue Dogs were sent to the corner for a little “time out”, and fiscal conservatives from the right were left without the numbers and support to make a difference. [As a side note, if you can’t support a fiscally conservative budget, you aren’t a “fiscal conservative” and not a “Blue Dog” . . . so please don’t “soil the name” . . . just my opinion.]

Now here we sit . . . eight weeks have passed since the June 30th deadline and our leaders in Harrisburg are no further along than they were in February. The latest news reports state that the Democrats and Republicans are ONLY $500 million dollars apart. ONLY? FIVE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS? That is a HALF A BILLION to you and me. That seems like a WORLD of difference from where I stand.

I’ve been asked many times over the last few weeks what I think about the budget negotiations. I’ve been asked, “How long do you think this will go on?”

Well, folks, I’m sorry to say that I am not hopeful at this point. It is my opinion that we are potentially weeks or months away from any sort of agreement. I would bet that the “best case” scenario might be a finalized budget by late September. On the “worst case” side, I would say that Thanksgiving and Christmas are a possibility. Maybe we all need to send our “letters to Santa” a little earlier this year in hopes of getting some help from a jolly old man in a red suit (I wonder if Governor Rendell owns a “red suit”?).

One More Thing . . .

I’ve been personally talking to many voters in Mercer County lately. Many have brought up their concerns regarding the budget. Many are also under the misunderstanding that our State Representatives are to be blamed for this mess. I’ve had folks specifically blaming State Representative Mark Longietti and State Representative Michele Brooks for the stalemate in Harrisburg, and specifically saying that neither one should receive support for re-election because of it. Now hold on just a minute—-I’d like to point out that individual Representatives are not responsible for the problems that are occurring with the budget standstill at this point. Beginning in May, the budget was controlled by a handful of legislators in the Appropriations Committee. Most recently, the budget has been in the hands of the six legislative leaders that make up the conference committee. State Representatives are working independently to come up with ideas and possible solutions, but the responsibility sits firmly in the laps of the Appropriations Committee, the conference committee, and the Governor. State Reps like Mark Longietti and Michele Brooks haven’t even had an opportunity to vote on a final budget yet. They are simply hostages in these negotiations like the rest of us. Let’s wait until after the General Assembly has voted on a final budget before we start pointing fingers and blaming our legislators . . . that is if we EVER get the opportunity to see a “final budget”.

As always, just my opinion.

Email Roberta Biros, Join the other 3 commenters or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

I login regularly to watch the Pennsylvania House Sessions ‘live’ HERE. I was watching this past Tuesday (August 4th) as Senate Bill 850 (a.k.a. “the state budget”) was scheduled for final vote. I listened as one speaker after another stood up to discuss their stand on the budget fiasco. When I heard Rep. Mike Turzai (R-28th) stand up to speak, I took a few minutes to watch and listen. As a fiscal conservative, I’m always interested to hear what Rep. Turzai has to add to any conversation regarding fiscal issues. Unfortunately, on that day, I was a bit annoyed with Rep. Turzai. I’ve waited patiently for the speech to be posted to YouTube so that I could share it with you and provide my commentary. Today is that day.

HERE is a link to Rep. Turzai’s speech.

First, I completely agree that the ‘game playing’ in Harrisburg over the 2009-2010 budget is aggravating at best. I completely agree that if the House was going to pass SB850 anyway, they should have done so back in May. I agree completely with Rep. Turzai on that issue. Where my agreement turns during the speech is when Rep. Turzai decided to go straight for partisan politics when he talked about the Blue Dog Democrats.

As a Blue Dog (a fiscal conservative Democrat), I find that we get criticized from both sides of the aisle. Democrats are annoyed that we call ourselves “conservative”, and Republicans think we are trying to steal their brand. It is a constant uphill battle. It is for that reason that I respect individuals that stand up and proudly proclaim that they are “Blue Dogs”. Most recently, I’ve praised Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper for officially signing onto fiscal conservatism. She will be criticized by some for it, but she is brave in that she is attempting to satisfy the best of both worlds by standing somewhere in the middle.

When Rep. Turzai referred to the Blue Dogs as “lap dogs”, I lost respect for him. Partisan politics is the reason for the budget crisis in Harrisburg, and the ONLY way that any agreement will ever be reached is if some folks are willing to come to the center to push up their sleeves and hammer out the details. The Blue Dogs are standing up in Harrisburg and in Washington to do just that. They are concerned about high taxes and uncontrolled spending, and they are trying to work with both sides to protect the taxpayers. Rather than lashing out at the Blue Dogs, Representative Turzai and other fiscal conservative Republicans should be working WITH the Blue Dogs to come up with a valid and balanced budget. Instead, Rep. Turzai is drawing a line in the sand because he is afraid that the Blue Dogs are trying to steal the fiscal conservative label. UGH!!

I’ve been curious about who some of these Blue Dogs are in Harrisburg. My question was answered earlier this week when I received an email announcement from a conservative group. The purpose of the announcement, of course, was to criticize the Blue Dogs. I, however, was glad that I was finally supplied with the names of those State Representatives that now consider themselves Blue Dogs. The list (as I received it) is provided below:

Rep. Bryan Barbin
Rep. Frank Burns
Rep. James E. Casorio
Rep. Frank Dermody
Rep. John T. Galloway
Rep. Jaret Gibbons
Rep. Neal Goodman
Rep. Gary Haluska
Rep. Michael K. Hanna
Rep. R. Ted Harhai
Rep. Tom Houghton
Rep. David R. Kessler
Rep. William C. Kortz II
Rep. Bryan R. Lentz
Rep. David K. Levdansky
Rep. Mark Longietti
Rep. Rick Mirabito
Rep. Kevin Murphy
Rep. John E. Pallone
Rep. Joseph A. Petrarca
Rep. Harry Readshaw
Rep. John P. Sabatina Jr.
Rep. Chris Sainato
Rep. Steve Santarsiero
Rep. Tim Seip
Rep. Timothy J. Solobay
Rep. Don Walko
Rep. Jesse White

I’d like to point out that I have not verified this list with any other source. The list was published by Elizabeth Bryan of the Commonwealth Foundation, and I trust that it is correct. There were many names on the list that I personally recognize. I’d like to point out, however, one Mercer County “highlight” . . . that is the name of Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th). If the list is accurate, I’d like to be one of the first to welcome Representative Longietti to life on the ‘dark side’ as a Blue Dog Democrat. Representative Longietti and I have shared many conversations regarding fiscal issues, and I’m pleased to see that he is willing to take this brave step and officially state that he does not support higher taxes.

If the information is accurate, State Representative Longietti, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, and Congressman Jason Altmire (all three representing portions of Mercer County) all now join me as Blue Dogs . . . and I publicly applaud them all.

I’d also like to take this opportunity to remind Republicans, however, that it would serve them well to ‘make nice’ with the Blue Dogs. Perhaps it is time to attempt to reach across the aisle in order to finally work for “the good of the people”. It will only be by setting aside partisan politics that real progress can be made. If the fiscally conservative Republicans continue to back away (further to the right), they may find themselves ‘out the door’ in the not-to-distant future.

As always, just my opinion.
Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

(I know, the title is a shameless pun on my favorite food group, but I just couldn’t resist.)

While it seems like nothing is happening in Harrisburg in regards to the budget, there may be more going on than meets the eye. Based on information from various sources, I wanted to share ‘the latest scoop’ with all of you . . .

Earlier this week, a conference committee was assembled to hammer out the details of the State Budget. Multiple sources have told me, however, that things are not going very well in that venue. Both sides appear to be digging in for a long and private battle. Although the House calendar was originally set up for this week, State Representatives were sent home for the week to ‘sit and wait’ (although they remain ‘on call’ should a vote be required). While both sides (Democrats and Republicans) are trying to put a shiny face on the on-going debate, honest personal opinions of lawmakers are seemingly less optimistic.

Public (official) comments by Mercer County Representatives seem to be all over the board. YouTube video releases from Representative Dick Stevenson and Representative Michele Brooks make simple and basic comments regarding the budget negotiations, but they provide few details about the process itself.

Representative Dick Stevenson simply stands firm on his opinions about no increase in the Personal Income Tax (PIT). WATCH VIDEO HERE

Representative Michele Brooks supports the stand of conservative conference committee members. WATCH VIDEO HERE.

Representative Kathy Rapp, on the other hand, tries to ’sound’ optimistic, but it doesn’t take a body language expert to realize that she may not completely believe what she is saying. WATCH VIDEO HERE.

A YouTube video released by Representative Jim Cox today talks about a new ‘openness and transparency’ in the process, but taxpayers are not yet on the receiving end of that outpouring of information. WATCH VIDEO HERE.

Newspaper reports earlier this week stated that Governor Rendell might be looking for ways to push through some sort of funding for State Workers’ salaries that would get us through the impasse, but the latest news explains that the Governor may simply encourage House Democrats to approve the Senate Budget early next week so that he (the Governor) can simply trim down the Senate Budget through line-item-veto capabilities. (read the full story HERE). It all makes me just a little nervous because it seems like we are all being set up for some sort of ‘magic trick’ or something. It seems very odd that the Governor would now (and very suddenly) consider the Senate Budget Bill that has been available since early May. It makes you wonder why he has waited almost three months to consider such a move.

Although I’d much rather see a good solid budget worked out and agreed to by both sides, Pennsylvania lawmakers may be in a bit of a twist if something isn’t done soon. State Workers are going unpaid, and taxpayers are getting angry and frustrated. The inability of lawmakers to come together for the common good of the commonwealth has state residents scratching their heads and wondering . . . “what are they getting paid for?”

So . . . while the news regarding budget negotiations is sparse, you better believe that there is a whole lot of game playing going on right now that we are simply not completely aware of.

That is the latest ‘scoop’ as I see it.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Join the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

I’ve had the pleasure of talking politics with lots of people over the past few weeks. My attendance at last week’s Jefferson Township Fair along with the time that I spent in Farrell at the Slovak and Italian Homes Ethnic Food Festival gave me an opportunity to discuss important and pressing issues with local taxpayers. I’d like to share some of the issues that were discussed and debated.

The Status of the Pennsylvania State Budget

While there were many topics that were on the table, the one issue that remains on the tip of everyone’s tongue is the State budget. There were many local folks that were confused to see State Legislators at the weekend events. Most people expected that our lawmakers would still be in Harrisburg working to come to some sort of compromise on the budget. Instead, they were back home in Mercer County enjoying summer festivities. I realized that the budget was out of the control of the House, but it was my understanding the Senate leaders were to be working over the weekend to move the budget process further. I thought I should do a little research in order to clarify the questions.

When I last addressed the issue of the budget, the House had rejected the State Senate’s last draft of a budget and it was being sent back to the Senate. The plan was that a bipartisan Conference Committee would be assigned on Monday to tackle the project. Governor Rendell, however, stated last week that he felt that work could be done over the weekend before the Committee was even assigned. It seems that the Governor was mistaken. According to KYW News Radio 1060 (read HERE),

“Last Thursday, Governor Rendell expressed optimism that negotiations could produce a budget agreement even before the conference committee met. But later that same day, the majority leader of the GOP-controlled Senate said there was no rational basis for such optimism. And in fact, the majority leader’s spokesman says while there were some informal budget discussions over the weekend, there were no breakthroughs. “

It seems that the optimism that was painted on this part of the budget process was simply like ‘putting lipstick on a pig’. The establishment of a Conference Committee may move the budget process forward, but it will not be moving with any particular amount of speed . . . and that is unfortunate.

State Employees Remain Unpaid During Impasse

Another topic that almost everyone agrees on is that shameful use of State Workers as a pawn in budget negotiations. State Employees are currently continuing to work, but they will not receive their paychecks until a budget is passed. The Governor has been using the workers as a threat during budget talks, but no move was ever made through the Governer’s office to insure that workers would continue to get paid. I reported back in mid-May about legislation that was on the table to prevent this exact problem (read HERE). Specifically, House Bill 913 was submitted in March of this year as an effort to insure that State Workers would continue to be paid during a budget impasse. Two State Representatives from Mercer County (Representative Dick Stevenson and Representative Michele Brooks) were part of the group that introduced the bill on March 12. Unfortunately, the bill has been sitting in committee ever since.

Now that State Employees are officially not receiving paychecks, the real problems for the State are just around the corner. According to the Associated Press (read HERE),

“On Friday, the U.S. Department of Labor said it had begun investigating whether Pennsylvania has violated its employees’ rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act by ordering them to work without regular pay. The department received more than 1,500 calls, a spokeswoman said.”

The threat of a Federal Labor Department investigation now has the Governor squirming. So much so, that the Governor is now looking for a ‘quick fix’ like an ‘interim budget’ that would fill the gap until final budget negotiations are completed. According to the same article by the Associated Press,

“Gov. Ed Rendell said Monday that he will look for a way to speed money to pay for Pennsylvania’s state government operations so that tens of thousands of employees don’t miss more paydays during an entrenched budget impasse. Rendell said he decided to pursue an interim budget that is whittled down to the essentials after informal talks over the weekend with Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Delaware, made it clear that any agreement on an approximately $28 billion budget still is far away. “

It seems like the Governor should have focused on this potential problem months ago, but, instead, he was holding on to his big bargaining chip. Again, this is an unfortunate situation no matter how you look at it.

Keystone Exams

Another issue on people’s lists of concerns are the Keystone Exams. Governor Rendell has been trying to push through these graduation exams since the end of the fiscal year, but concerned and responsible lawmakers have been trying to put a stop to it. The exams are EXTREMELY expensive (a seven-year contract totaling $201 MILLION), and their effectiveness is questionable. Senator Jane Orie authored Senate Bill 281 that was designed to STOP the Keystone Exams, and it was referred to the House Education Committee in June . . . where it stalled.

It seems that a bipartisan group of lawmakers are going to attempt to drag the legislation out of committee this week through a Discharge Resolution. A Discharge Resolution is a tool that can be used by the House to force legislation out of committee. We last saw it used in mid-June in an effort to move the Budget forward (read HERE for details). A Discharge Resolution requires 25 signatures from House Members, and I suspect the list of names may be similar to those that signed onto DR1 and DR2 in June (read the list HERE).

With the current state of the economy, local taxpayers are concerned about projects with large price tags, and the Keystone Exams qualify in that regard. Taxpayers simply aren’t willing to pay.

Health Care Reform

Another important issue of discussion last week was that of Health Care Reform. While the President is currently pushing for some sort of “Universal” plan that would cover all Americans, people are discussing the various possibilities amongst themselves, and it is a rather ‘healthy debate’ (no pun intended).

The majority of people that I talked to agree that SOMETHING needs to be done to provide health insurance for those that don’t have it. Unfortunately, no one is exactly sure what the best solution would be. Surprisingly enough, this is the same problem that lawmakers in Washington are running into. The problem is SO big, that a quick fix doesn’t seem possible. For that reason, most people that I talked to simply felt that this was an issue that deserved more time and debate. Rather than pushing through some sort of legislation now, most taxpayers feel that more time should be taken to hammer out the details and examine the big picture.

The President has hopes of passing something through sooner, but I think that most Americans would prefer to take our time to do this right. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Gun Rights: Concealed Weapons Amendment

The final issue that was brought up numerous times last week was the recent amendment that was voted on in the U.S. Senate regarding the Concealed Weapons Law (specifically referred to as Senate Amendment 1618 to Senate Bill 1390). The amendment would have required each of the 48 states that currently allow concealed firearms to honor permits issued in other states. The issue was overwhelming supported by those of us that firmly support the Second Amendment, but it was hotly debated by those that wish to limit gun rights.

The issue was brought to vote on Wednesday, July 22, 2009. It needed 60 votes to pass the Senate. It only received 58 votes (with a final vote count of 58 to 39). Three Senators did not vote (Byrd, Kennedy, and Mikulski). Pennsylvania Senators Casey and Spector split their votes (Casey was FOR the amendment, and Spector was AGAINST it).

The issue of Gun Rights is an important one in Mercer County. With a strong base of sportsmen in the area, the issue was supported by Republicans and Democrats alike.

In Closing . . .

While I had the opportunity to discuss MANY issues with local taxpayers, these were the ones that were brought up most often. I wanted to share the details with all of you so that you, too, have a sense of the conversations that are going on. I thank all of the folks that took the time to talk to me. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversations, and I look forward to many more opportunities in the coming weeks and months.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

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?

As always, just my opinion.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

It was a long day for lawmakers in the Harrisburg yesterday. The 2009-2010 budget battle continues, but there seems to be good news for taxpayers.

Below is a legislator announcement from Representative Brad Roae (R-6th) outlining the basics:

Roae Issues Statement on State Budget Negotiations

Rep. Brad Roae (R-Crawford) issued the following statement in reaction to the announcement by House Democratic leadership that floor sessions are cancelled until Monday:

“The Democrats just canceled session for Friday, Saturday, and Sunday,” Roae said. “Monday is now the next possible day that we can vote on the budget.

“Today the Democratic leadership realized that almost all of the House Republicans and about 20 “Blue Dog” Democrats will not vote to increase the Personal Income Tax, as a result, the chances for passing a Personal Income Tax increase have been dealt a severe blow.

“Pennsylvania currently has the 11th highest tax burden in the nation. The people of Crawford County cannot afford an increase in the Personal Income Tax.

“The Republicans are prepared to vote on a responsible budget plan that has no Personal Income Tax increase, will protect the people and will support the core functions of government.

“Only the committee chair of the majority party can bring a bill up for a vote at a committee meeting.

“There are 104 Democrats and 99 Republicans in the state House, so the Democratic chair of the House Appropriations Committee, Rep. Dwight Evans (D-Philadelphia), is the only person who can release the budget for a vote.

“I am here representing the people of my district. I wish the Democrats would let us conduct session so we can get on with the people’s business.”

Rep. Brad Roae
6th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(814) 827-6054
(717) 787-2353
(717) 787-3407
Member Site: RepRoae.com
Caucus Site: PAHouseGOP.com

As per the PA House GOP website, Republican Leader Sam Smith announces that the governor’s tax hike proposal is dead [view the video HERE]

Rep. Brooks says “We Have Made Huge Strides On Budget Goals “

As per the PA House GOP website, Rep. Michele Brooks expresses excitement that the governor’s tax increase proposal has been taken off the table of budget discussions. [view the video HERE]

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

Some interesting things happened in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives this week, and it is a topic well worth discussing. While it won’t be anything that you’ll read in your local paper or see on the news, it is IMPORTANT STUFF . . . and like most IMPORTANT STUFF, it is often overlooked . . . but not by me.

Senate Bill 850 (the “2009/2010 State Budget”) passed the Pennsylvania State Senate on May 6, 2009. It was referred to the House Appropriations Committee on May 7, 2009. A month-and-a-half later, the status of SB850 has not changed. It is still under the control of the House Appropriations Committee, with no hope of seeing the light of day any time soon.

On May 4, 2009, Representative Dwight Evans (D) introduced House Bill 1416 (the “2009/2010 State Budget”). On that day, HB 1416 was also referred to the House Appropriations Committee. Again, a month-and-a-half later, the status of HB 1416 has not changed. It is also still under the control of the House Appropriations Committee, with no hope of seeing the light of day any time soon.

Our Legislators are SUPPOSED to be working to finalize the 2009-2010 budget in Harrisburg, but they have yet to get an opportunity to VOTE on a budget. Why? Because everything is currently being held up in the Appropriations Committee.

This week, responsible lawmakers in Harrisburg decided to do something about the problem. They implemented the use of House Rule 53, “Discharge of Committees”, by submitting two Discharge Resolutions (DR1 and DR2) on June 25, 2009. According to House Rule 53:

A member may present to the Chief Clerk a resolution in writing to discharge a committee from the consideration of a bill or resolution which has been referred to it 15 legislative days prior thereto (but only one motion may be presented for each bill or resolution). The discharge resolution shall be placed in the custody of the Chief Clerk, who shall arrange some convenient place for the signature of the members. A signature may be withdrawn by a member in writing at any time before the discharge resolution is entered in the Journal. When 25 members of the House shall have signed the resolution, it shall be entered in the Journal and the title of the bill or resolution and the name of the committee to be discharged shall be printed on the calendar.

Any member who has signed a discharge resolution which has been on the calendar at least one legislative day prior thereto and seeks recognition, shall be recognized for the purpose of calling up the discharge resolution and the House shall proceed to its consideration without intervening motion except one motion to adjourn; however, no discharge resolution shall be considered during the last six legislative days of any session of the House. A majority vote of all the members elected to the House shall be required to agree to a resolution to discharge a committee. When any perfected discharge resolution has been acted upon by the House and defeated it shall not be in order to entertain during the same session of the House any other discharge resolution from that committee of said measure, or from any other committee of any other bill or resolution substantially the same, relating in substance to or dealing with the same subject matter.

The Discharge Resolutions have been added to the House Calendar and will allow the Members of the House to ultimately determine whether SB850 or HB1416 will finally be discharged from the Appropriations Committee. DR 1 and DR 2 will be voted on, and if either or both receive a majority vote from the House, they will eventually be discharged (and released) from the Appropriations Committee so that they can finally move to the House floor for a vote.

It is a shame that these sorts of rules are necessary, but a budget will never reach the floor of the House for a vote if we are simply left to wait for the Appropriations Committee to do it on their own (seeing that they’ve had both HB850 and HB1416 for over 6 weeks with no results).

Who are the legislators that have signed onto these Discharge Resolutions? Well, each Discharge Resolution required 25 signatures. The names for both resolutions were the same with the exception of the last name on each. The Representatives that signed were:

Representative Mario Civera
Representative Sam Smith
Representative Mike Turzai**
Representative Merle Phillips
Representative Sandra Major*
Representative Jerry Stern**
Representative Stan Saylor**
Representative Matt Gabler*
Representative Donna Oberlander*
Representative Thomas Creighton**
Representative Daryl Metcalfe**
Representative David Millard
Representative Dan Moul**
Representative Tina Pickett*
Representative Scott Hutchison**
Representative Martin Causer
Representative Carl Metzgar*
Representative Julie Harhart
Representative Douglas Reichley
Representative Michele Brooks**
Representative Timothy Hennessey*
Representative Sheryl Delozier
Representative Kathy Rapp**
Representative Curt Schroder**
Representative Robert Godshall (DR 1 only)
Representative William Adolf (DR 2 only)

Fiscal Conservative Legislators:

* indicates that this Representative is included in my “List of Fiscal Conservative Legislators” as they have demonstrated fiscal responsibility on select issues in the past.

“PA Gov Watch Honor Roll” Legislators:

** indicates that this Representative is included in my “PA Gov Watch Honor Roll” (which is a subset of the “List of Fiscal Conservative Legislators”). This list includes legislators that have voted consistently with issues of fiscal responsibility. The list currently only includes 10 fine Legislators as listed below:

Representative Mike Turzai (R-28)
Representative Jerry Stern (R-80)
Representative Stan Saylor (R-94)
Representative Thomas Creighton (R-37)
Representative Daryl Metcalfe (R-12)
Representative Dan Moul (R-91)
Representative Scott Hutchison (R-64)
Representative Michele Brooks (R-17)
Representative Kathy Rapp (R-65)
Representative Curt Schroder (R-155)

Where is the Mercer County Connection?

Those in Mercer County will be glad to know that Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th-Mercer, Crawford, Lawrence) is included in this list of responsible legislators that signed on to both Discharge Resolutions. It should also be noted that Representative Brooks is one of the only 10 legislators that is included on the “PA Gov Watch Honor Roll” as she has been on the side of “good government” with each of the issues that we have tracked to date.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

There is much to learn from history. All of the difficulties that we face as a nation now are not much different than those that have been since this Nation was founded. Our Country is currently in a fiscal crisis, and we are trying to invent new ways out of it. Rather than looking for new ideas, it is often helpful to learn from history instead.

At this moment, legislators in Harrisburg are drawing lines in the sand in preparation for the 2009-2010 budget battle. Many Democrats are hard set on raising taxes (either the Personal Income Tax, the Sales Tax, or some “new” tax) in an effort to balance the budget, and many Republicans are determined to prevent increased taxes and instead prefer to cut spending to make ends meet. While most of the stories that you read are based on Democrats vs. Republicans, that summary is actually unfair. This is not an issue of “party” . . . it is an issue of fiscal philosophy where ideals can easily cross party borders.

I am a fiscal conservative. I support fiscally conservative issues, legislation, and legislators. I am, however, also a Democrat. I’ve been criticized by Democrats for not being “Democrat enough”, and I’ve been criticized by Republicans for not being “conservative enough”. As a fiscal conservative, however, I share the same fiscal philosophy as other Democrats (believe it or not). Most notably, the Blue Dog Democrats are a growing caucus of fiscal conservatives that share many of my concerns. Fiscal conservatism is not “owned” by the Republican Party. Instead, it is “shared” by all fiscal conservatives. When you look back at history, the MOST fiscally conservative President in the history of the United States was Andrew Jackson, a Democrat.

There are issues that we all like and dislike about past and current political leaders. There will always be philosophies with which we agree and disagree across party lines and within our own parties. In the case of Jacksonian Democracy, there are many philosophies with which I completely agree. For instance, Jackson believed in Laissez-faire economics, which is the concept that the Government should NOT intervene in economic issues and it should not be involved in the “funding or regulation of schools, hospitals, industry, agriculture, and social welfare programs” (as per a definition in WikiPedia HERE). As an illustration of his commitment to fiscal conservatism, Jackson was the ONLY President to have paid off the national debt. Jackson was a Democrat, but there are many Democrats today that would disagree with his fiscal philosophies.

I think it is important for the issues in Harrisburg over the coming weeks to stop being about Democrats vs. Republicans. Instead, the state budget needs to be looked at from the prospective of “what is best for the people of Pennsylvania”. I personally feel that we should “Starve the Beast” and force government to live within its means so that “We the People” can keep more of our own hard-earned money. The question is . . . what do our legislators think?

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

SIDE BAR:

As an additional personal note, it is worth noting that I also agree with Andrew Jackson’s strong belief that “long tenure in the civil service was corrupting, so civil servants should be rotated out of office at regular intervals” (as per a definition in WikiPedia HERE). On this issue, there are MANY Republicans and Democrats that would strongly disagree with Jackson. Those that disagree with the philosphy are usually those that are ‘corrupted civil servants’ . . . Democrats and Republicans alike.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Join the discussion or Share This...

In a recent interview on CNN, Congressman Mike Pence (R-Indiana) stated the following in reference to government run health care.

“I keep hearing the word competion.”

“The government competes with the private sector the way that an alligator competes with a duck”.

Hmmmm. “Food” for thought I suppose (pun intended).

You can view the full video (including the issues of Iran and health care) HERE.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

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

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

I had an opportunity to talk with State Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th) at a recent event. Rep. Longietti was kind enough to take a few minutes to speak with me regarding matters in Harrisburg.

According to Representative Longietti, he will be heading out to Harrisburg on Sunday, June 21, 2009, for a MARATHON SESSION in the House. It is the intention for legislators to stay in Harrisburg until the 2009-2010 State Budget is finalized. As per Rep. Longietti,

“We will stay until it’s finished. We’ll be there on weekends too. I don’t know how long it will be, but I could be out there for a month if necessary.”

Representative Longietti commented that the process may be long and drawn out because both sides seem to have dug in for a long battle. Rep. Longietti and I agree that the final budget will probably end up somewhere in the middle of the two versions with some level of cost cutting paired with some sort of tax increase, but the final version is probably several weeks away.

.

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...

Written by Roberta Biros

Today’s editorial in The Herald mirrors my sentiments and I think it is worth discussing.

In late May, I published a piece titled “Pennsylvania Budget Cuts Trickle Down to Counties”. In it, I explained how budget cuts at the State level will inevitably trickle down to already struggling counties like Mercer. County leaders need to take this into account when attempting to balance their own strained budgets. At the time, I made a specific recommendation that County leaders need to lead by example and take voluntary pay cuts (through a donation of a portion of their salary back to the County’s general fund). By making this good will gesture, they would make it clear that they are willing to take tough cuts to make ends meet. I specifically proposed the following:

If Mercer County Commissioners are really serious, they should lead by example. I propose that the elected officials in Mercer County should take an immediate and voluntary 10% pay cut. Just like many State Legislators voluntarily returned their pay raises to the State, County Officials should voluntarily return 10% of their salary to the County through a give-back to the County’s general fund. If it is necessary to implement layoffs or shutdowns in the courthouse, perhaps the Commissioners should suggest a Countywide four-day work week for County employees. The County Officials could again lead by example by refunding an additional 20% of their salaries too. I’m talking about all County Elected Officials here . . . Commissioners, Controller, Recorder of Deeds, Prothonotary, and . . . yes . . . Treasurer.

The financial problems of the state and counties are serious. Serious problems call for serious measures. County leaders shouldn’t just sit back and blame their problems on the State Legislature. Instead, they should control their own ‘houses’ by operating within their own budgets. There are no cuts that should be off the table, and every opportunity for saving should be considered. Cut backs in benefits and labor contracts should be ‘on the table’, but it is important for elected officials to suck it up too. Self imposed cuts from County leaders would serve as a good-will gesture to labor unions (not to mention to the taxpayers of Mercer County).

On Thursday of this week, The Herald reported that the negotiations between Mercer County Commissioners and the unions failed to bring about any cost savings. As per the story in The Herald:

Mercer County’s plan to scale back personnel costs during a rough-and-tumble budget year hit a snag Wednesday when workers said “no” to dropping one day from every two-week pay period. [click HERE to read the full story]

As a follow-up to Thursday’s story, The Herald published an opinion piece today titled “Can county employees cut costs without losing pay?” In it, The Herald backs my opinion when they state:

We can’t help but wonder if the union votes would have been different if
commissioners and row officers had first made some personal sacrifices. [click HERE
to read the full story]

My Opinion?

The County Commissioners and other County Officials showed unreasonable arrogance by walking into negotiations with county-employee unions without first making drastic cutbacks and sacrifices of their own. Leadership should start at the TOP, and County leaders should set an example of their own. In this case, however, I think we have a situation of the “fish rotting from the head down” instead.

As always, just my opinion.
Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Email Roberta Biros, Start the discussion or Share This...