PA Gov Watch

On The Road to Harrisburg: Biros’ Candidacy for State Senate is Official

2010-08-12T11:47:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE
MERCER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

Independent State Senate candidate Roberta Biros received verification from the Pennsylvania Department of State this afternoon that the nomination papers that she filed on Thursday, July 29, have gone unchallenged. According to Pennsylvania election law, all challenges to nomination papers were to be filed with the Department of State no later than 5 pm on Monday, August 9. As a result, her name will appear as an independent candidate for State Senate in Pennsylvania’s 50th District on the November 2nd General Election ballot.

To mark the closing of the nomination process, Mrs. Biros today proudly introduced the members of her campaign committee, Citizens to Elect Roberta Biros for State Senate.

Dr. Martha Moore of Sandy Lake serves as Committee Treasurer.

"Dr. Moore is a former CPA and a well-respected medical professional," Mrs.Biros said. "As the primary administrator of the committee, Dr. Moore is the lead for all campaign and committee activities. I am thrilled to have someone of her reputation and character working with me."

Mrs. Biros selected Joe Zentis of Hermitage to be her Committee Chairman.

“Mr. Zentis brings a high level of energy and creative thinking to the team,” Mrs. Biros said. “He is a well-known writer, author, and entrepreneur, and his level of commitment to my Platform of Good Government is unmatched. Mr. Zentis will be involved in campaign strategy, planning, and team building.”

As a hands-on candidate, Roberta will be working shoulder-to-shoulder with Dr. Moore, Mr. Zentis, and her entire team of volunteers during her campaign for State Senate in Pennsylvania’s 50th District. If you are interested in joining Roberta’s campaign team, please contact the campaign committee by email at biros4senate@gmail.com or access the campaign website at http://www.electbiros.com/ for additional information.

.

PA 2010 State Budget Passes Senate and House: An Example of Spending Money that We Don’t Have

2010-07-02T11:34:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

For the first time in his ‘reign’ as Governor, Ed Rendell has a budget that passed through the State House and Senate before the June 30th deadline. Congratulations Governor Rendell! Congratulations, too, to the 37 Senators and 177 Representatives that signed on to that “pile of garbage” that they called a State Budget.

Why is it a pile of garbage? . . . Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Our legislature is REQUIRED BY LAW to pass a balanced budget. The budget that passed the House and Senate yesterday is balanced on federal funds that don’t yet exist and a tax on the extraction of Marcellus Shale natural gas that has yet to be passed. In essence, “the budget stands for nothing” . . . which is appropriate since that is also the case with many of our legislators.

Who is to blame?

The opportunity to STOP the budget was in the Republican controlled Senate. The budget bill passed the State Senate by a vote of 37 to 13. There were only 13 Senators that did the right thing by voting NO to this example of fiscal irresponsibility. What about the Senate leadership? Here are their votes . . . for the record.

REPUBLICANS

YES - Joseph B. Scarnati III (President of the Senate)
YES - Dominic Pileggi (Majority Floor Leader)
YES - Michael Waugh (Majority Caucus Chair)
YES - Robert Robbins (Majority Caucus Secretary)
YES - Jake Corman (Majority Appropriations Committee Chair)
YES - Patrick M. Browne (Majority Caucus Administrator)
YES - Edwin Erickson (Majority Policy Committee Chair)

DEMOCRATS

YES - Roberta Mellow (Minority Floor Leader)
YES - Michael O’Pake (Minority Whip)
YES - Vincent Hughes (Minority Caucus Chair)
YES - Sean Logan (Minority Caucus Secretary)
YES - Jay Costa (Minority Appropriations Committee Chair)
YES - Christine Tartaglione (Minority Caucus Administrator)
YES - Richard Kasunic (Minority Policy Committee Chair)

THIS PROVES that the Senate leadership MUST change . . . one way or another!

The budget bill passed the State House by a vote of 117 to 84. This is not a shock seeing that the House is controlled by Rendell Democrats. What is shocking in this number, however, is that 16 Republicans voted WITH the Rendell Democrats in order to achieve a supermajority which was required to waive a rule requiring 24 hours’ notice before a bill is voted.

If you would like to see how your Senators and Representatives voted, please refer to the voting records below:

June 30 Budget Vote in Senate is HERE
June 30 Budget Vote in House is HERE

What about Northwest PA?

MOST of the legislators from our region in Northwest Pennsylvania agree with my views on the budget, and MOST of them voted against the budget bill yesterday. Specifically . . .

Mercer County Legislators

Representative Michele Brooks (R) - NO
Representative Dick Stevenson (R) - NO
Representative Mark Longietti (D) - YES
Senator Bob Robbins (R) – YES

Crawford County Legislators

Representative John Evans (R) – NO
Representative Brad Roae (R) – NO
Representative Michele Brooks (R) – NO
Senator Bob Robbins (R) – YES

Republican Representatives (and Conservatives) Michele Brooks, Dick Stevenson, John Evans, and Brad Roae all did the RIGHT thing and voted NO to the budget.

Rendell Democrats Bob Robbins and Representative Mark Longietti voted YES to the budget. Representative Mark Longietti did what his caucus told him to do . . . in the end he supported his Governor and his Caucus (right or wrong). Republican Senator Bob Robbins PROVED his allegiance to the Democrats that WROTE HIM IN in the Primary (all 800 of them) and he also supported his fellow Democrat Governor and his new Caucus.

As a Republican LEADER in the Senate, Bob Robbins should be ashamed of himself. Even more important, his CONSTITUENTS should be angry with him. It shows that he was more concerned with getting rid of the “budget problem” in an election year that he was with standing on principles of good government and fiscal responsibility.

In press releases that were sent out last night, Bob Robbins fellow legislators from this area made their thoughts about the budget clear . . .

Representative Michele Brooks stated:

“Although this budget was passed on time – as it should be – it falls short to earn my support. I have many serious concerns about funding allocations and the source of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.”

“Many of us have concerns regarding whether this budget is constitutionally balanced as it relies heavily on $850 million in funding from the federal government, which has not yet been approved by Congress and there are some doubts whether it will be approved. It also has a structural deficit of approximately $3 billion.”

Representative Brad Roae stated:

“State budgets are about priorities,” Roae said. “This budget sets the wrong priorities for Pennsyvlania.”

“This budget literally spends money the state doesn’t have,” Roae said. “This budget is based on the hope of a federal bailout for the state. If the federal government runs up the deficit to pay for this bailout, taxpayers will be paying for it for years to come.”

“This budget doesn’t reflect my priorities and it certainly doesn’t reflect the wishes
of the people I represent,” Roae said. “We needed to reduce spending due to the recession, but the cuts in this budget weren’t applied fairly. This budget sets up huge tax increases or painful spending cuts for next year. I simply could not support a budget that is this irresponsible.”

According to these statements, it seems to me that the conservative legislators that represent our area need help to fight for fiscal responsibility in Harrisburg . . . and they are not getting that from their own Senator. Hmmmmmm.

Where do I stand on the subject?

Anyone that voted FOR this budget made a conscious effort to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers. This is not a VALID budget . . . no matter how you look at it.

It is the responsibility of our legislators to make certain that the state government does not spend beyond its means. If we don’t have the money, we ought not to be spending it. Federal dollars that simply aren’t there should not be considered in the calculations, and tax revenues from Marcellus Shale should NOT be considered in the equations either. IF the tax on Marcellus Shale extraction is pushed through (in October), it will be the worst fiscal decision in Pennsylvania . . . ever!

If I were the Senator in Pennsylvania’s 50th District, I would have voted NO to yesterday’s budget. I would have continued to vote NO until the budget was actually balanced on REAL numbers. More importantly, I would have been pushing for these changes back in February and March . . . when budget negotiations SHOULD have been taking place. Waiting until the 11th hour so that they can push through the equivalent of a legislative joke is shameful.

I usually sign off by stating "as alway, just my opinion". Today it is important that I sign off by stating the following:

This is not just my opinion. It is my official statement.

Roberta Biros
Editor, Mercer County Conservatives

A Message from Mike Kelly: Good Luck with That!

2010-06-23T15:35:00.000-04:00

Yesterday I received an email message from the Mike Kelly campaign. It was an abrupt little message providing contact information for the “new” campaign team (the old contacts were all fired . . . dismissed . . . let go . . . kicked to the curb). The message also provided instructions for publicizing Mike’s latest “letter to the editor”. There was no courteous “hi there” from Mike or his new campaign people . . . just instructions and marching orders.

Here is Mike’s letter in its entirety:

Editor:

Now that the dust has settled, I wanted to write and acknowledge the voters, volunteers, and ther candidates who played a role in the 3rd Congressional district's Primary Election. As you ll know, it was a hotly contested battle for the Republican nomination and I am both humbled and flattered to be moving forward on the General Election ballot. My wife Vicky and I want to thank the other candidates for a spirited campaign, the voters who participated, our tremendous volunteers for all their hard work, and the media outlets for recognizing the importance of the race and giving the candidates the opportunity to share his and her views on the issues that families in western Pennsylvania care most about.

The other five candidates in the Primary deserve our respect and admiration. They are all patriots who have a deep concern for our country's future and they showed their passion by coming forward and getting their names on the ballot. They, like me, worked tirelessly for months to earn the support of voters in all of the district's seven counties. Because of them, I am a better candidate and, it is my hope, that we are a stronger party. To those of you who supported someone other than me during the Primary, I plan on making a similar effort to earn your support moving forward.
What we have learned throughout this process is that there is far more that unites us than separates us.

While I will work tirelessly to unite the Republican Party, our message is an inclusive one that I hope will appeal to people regardless of party affiliation. You don't have to be a Republican or Democrat to oppose deficit spending. You don't have to be a Republican or a Democrat to support policies and initiatives that will lower our unemployment rate in western Pennsylvania. You don't have to be a Republican or Democrat to say "no" to additional Wall Street bailouts and nationalized health care. These are quality-of-life issues that should be party-blind and I will campaign accordingly by reaching-out to like-minded Democrats and Independents throughout the district. This election isn't about party or geography. Instead, it's about the direction of our country. It's about how the policies of this administration and congress have adversely affected western Pennsylvania.

Between now and November I look forward to visiting your communities, hearing your concerns, and building relationships in all seven of the counties that make up our Congressional district. I have a lot of work to do and can assure you that I am up to the task. Together, I am confident that we can get western Pennsylvania, and our country, back on the right track.
Thank you,
Mike Kelly
Republican Candidate for Congress

Now, for my response to Mike’s letter:

First, the email that I received wasn’t even the slightest bit friendly or polite. It was strictly instructions. It was an interesting way to try to get the press onto the Kelly bandwagon . . . reverse psychology of some type I suppose. “Good luck with that”, Mike.

Second, I find it funny that Mike Kelly decided to contact and thank the other five candidates in the race through a letter to the editor. Sort of odd, don’t you think? It would seem that a personal call from Mike would be more appropriate, but I guess that isn’t Mike’s style either. It seems to imply that Mike doesn’t consider the other five (5) candidates OR their supporters to be very important. Again I say, “good luck with that”.

Third, Mike states that he is not trying to unite conservatives, but instead is attempting to unite Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. It would be a great move if I believed it, but it sounds like the words of a politician . . . not a leader or public servant.

He states “it isn’t about party or geography”, but I’d like to disagree. Mike’s priorities should VERY MUCH be about GEOGRAPHY. Since the Primary, Mike has been everywhere BUT northwestern Pennsylvania. In true RINO fashion, Mike’s attention has been spent in Washington DC . . . with no interest in healing the wounds in the 3rd Congressional District that were left after the Primary. Mike is a “DC Guy” now I suppose, but I would warn that he ought not to count those chickens too prematurely (if you know what I mean).

Mike Kelly’s new image as a Phil English Republican is not going to fair well with Republicans, Democrats, or Independents in our cozy little corner of Northwestern Pennsylvania. In case Mike was unaware, Phil English LOST because voters in the 3rd Congressional District were tired of big spending, selfish politicians. I wouldn’t be so quick to harness my horse to the “Phil English” wagon, but that is a choice that Mike needs to make. After all, this election is Mike’s to lose. The only person that might advise Mike Kelly to tie himself to Phil English would be none other than “Phil English” himself, but surely Mike Kelly is smarter than that . . . right?

In closing I say to Mike Kelly and his new team . . . “Good luck with that”.

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

.

Conservative Representation: How do we get there from here?

2010-06-15T11:07:00.000-04:00

For nearly two years I’ve been THE author for Mercer County Conservatives. For those of you that read my writings on a regular basis, you realize that I’m a frustrated conservative that is aggravated by corrupt political leaders in our northwest corner of Pennsylvania. The Mercer County GOP is lead by career politicians who are only concerned with their pensions, perks, and unlimited shopping sprees to Sam’s Club (with campaign donations none-the-less). They protect their positions of power in the way that a mama bear protects her cub . . . but they don’t care much about the big picture (i.e., good government).
If you spend a little time observing politics in our fine county, you find that the greed and corruption is not one-sided. The leaders of the Mercer County GOP and the Mercer County Democrats are so closely tied that they are indistinguishable from one another. How can such a relationship ever achieve conservative representation for our area? Good question.

This year, political pundits have been focused on our NW corner of PA. The high-profile race for a Republican nominee in the 3rd Congressional District (who will eventually run against Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper in November) has brought a much-needed spotlight to our area. We were blessed with six interesting candidates in the race, and conservatives were energized by the prospect of having a candidate that they could really get behind. Unfortunately, in the end, the campaign became more about money and mud slinging than conservative issues. The best and most qualified candidates were left in the shadows while the two candidates with the most money battled it out in nasty TV commercials and glossy mailers.

Like many of my fellow conservatives in the area, I was left disappointed on election night when none of my favorite horses in the race ended up in the winner’s circle. While I’m still determined to see Kathy Dahlkemper unseated in November, some of my conservative friends have walked away angry and kicking the dirt. As observers, we all suffer from various levels of disappointment, but what about the candidates who dedicated themselves to the fight for good government?

It is my pleasure to present to you today an article from the newest contributor to Mercer County Conservatives, Dr. Martha Moore. Dr. Moore is a conservative woman who tossed her hat into the ring for the 3rd Congressional race in early 2010. She had a slow start, but she began to pickup speed and got very comfortable in the race by mid-April. Unfortunately, she peaked too late to get sufficient support across the 3rd District. She did, however, win Mercer County handily (a small victory for conservatives in the area). She was not the overall highest vote getter in the District, but she managed to build a following of dedicated fans during her short race (yes, I became an official member of the Dr. Moore fan club by early May). Now that the Primary is behind us, Dr. Moore has agreed to share her thoughts about the race, as well her opinions regarding politics in general. Dr. Moore shares her opinions about how we might get back on the right track toward conservative representation. Enjoy!

"Hindsight is 20/20" by Dr. Martha Moore

If you are interested in becoming a contributor to Mercer County Conservatives, email me (roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com) and I'll be glad to set you up to share your thoughts in this forum.

.

Doing the 3rd Congressional District Math: Mike Kelly vs. Kathy Dahlkemper

2010-06-02T11:28:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

The Primary Election is now past . . . seemingly long past. The election results are technically still “unofficial”, but we all know what happened. Allow me to summarize briefly . . .

Dahlkemper vs. Marin

In the race for the highly coveted 3rd Congressional District, the top vote getter on the Democrat ticket was Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. She won her race against a not-so-impressive opponent in Mel Marin. Mrs. Dahlkemper ended up with 73.2% of the vote. Most interesting about this race was that Mel Marin managed to have 26.8% of the voters select his name over the current incumbent, which is symbolic of the number of DEMOCRATS that don’t support “their candidate”.

That means that roughly 27% of Democrats preferred to vote for “anyone but Kathy Dahlkemper”.

Kelly vs. Huber, Grabb, Fisher, Franz, and Moore

On the Republican ticket, six candidates battled it out for the nomination. The “unofficial” winner was Mike Kelly. The stunning statistic in this case is that Kelly managed the win with only 28.2% of the vote. That means that roughly 72% of Republicans preferred to vote for “anyone but Mike Kelly”. In the end, Mike Kelly’s actual vote count was only slightly higher than that of the Democrat candidate, Mel Marin. Hmmmm. Sort of makes you stop and think, doesn't it?

What does all of this mean?

When the final votes were tallied, 27% of Democrat votes and 72% of Republican votes are up for grabs in November. That is a huge number and it makes the race a difficult one to call.

I’ll be the first one to say that Kathy Dahlkemper has an enormous uphill battle to win re-election for her second term, but it is only fair to say that Mike Kelly isn’t going to have an easy job ahead of him either. This race IS NOT a gimme!

Mike Kelly has a very difficult task ahead of him. The very heated race for the Republican nomination left “the right” fractured. There were six really great candidates, and the supporters of each of those six campaigns were extremely loyal to “their guy” (or “gal”). In the end there are six different camps that need to be united. If Mike Kelly fails to be a “uniter”, he will also fail to beat Kathy Dahlkemper in November.

Mike Kelly’s campaign became a very public and personal battle with Paul Huber (the #2 vote getter). The negative attacks that transpired will be difficult for Huber supporters to shake off. They will NOT be inspired to get out to vote for Mike Kelly in the General Election without a HUGE effort on Mike Kelly’s part.

Grabb, Fisher, Franz, and Moore supporters were also left feeling empty in the end. Each of these four candidates managed to inspire their conservative supporters in their own ways, and those conservatives will find it difficult to get behind Kelly whole-heartedly. Again, without a very serious effort from Mike Kelly to court conservatives, those conservatives might decide to stick with “the enemy that they know” in Kathy Dahlkemper. This is a very dangerous possibility, and if Kelly isn’t considering it he deserves to lose in November.

Mike Kelly needs to motivate disenfranchised conservatives to support him, and he must also entice disgruntled Democrats to choose him over Kathy Dahlkemper. I realize that it is still early, but so far I’ve seen nothing of Mike Kelly . . . I mean nothing . . . like he disappeared off the face of the Earth!

Mike Kelly needs to act quickly or he risks losing the interest of concerned citizens. If things continue on their current path, Kathy Dahlkemper will be our Congresswoman again in November.

As always, just my opinion.

.

Wrapping Up the Primary with a Bow (and moving towards November)

2010-05-25T06:04:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

First, I must apologize. I have been out of commission for TOOOOO long. It has taken me far too much time to sit down and write this post, but I do have a good excuse . . . I’ve been sick. As many of you know I caught a bad cold a few weeks ago and I lost my voice (my husband hasn’t complained). I then worked the polls in the rain on Election Day and I made things worse. I’ve been sick in bed and I’m only just now getting back on my feet. I’ve been struggling to catch up.

I’ve got a great deal of material to cover so I might as well get started. Without further adieu . . .

Primary Election: 3rd Congressional District Democrat Ticket

Congresswoman Dahlkemper is up for re-election, and it has been my guess that she will have a real job of it this year. Mrs. Dahlkemper was up against Mel Marin of Erie for the Democrat nomination in the Primary. Mr. Marin has a bit of a questionable background (read more HERE) and he was running with a war chest of less than $2000. Some would say that he didn’t have a chance. Surprisingly enough, however, Mr. Marin received roughly 27% of the Democrat vote in the 3rd Congressional District (30% in Erie).

Why is this information important? Well, it illustrates the number of Democrats that were unable to “hold their nose and vote for Kathy Dahlkemper”. 27% of her constituents went to the poll to vote and refused to vote for her. This could be bad news for Mrs. Dahlkemper in November, but time will tell.

Primary Election: 3rd Congressional District Republican Ticket

As many of you know, I’ve followed the 3rd Congressional Republican race in great detail over the past few months. I knew all of the candidates personally and I was anxious (and nervous) to see the final results. In the end, the grassroots candidates were unable to compete with the big money in the race. Paul Huber and Mike Kelly fought out the race with their bank accounts, and a winner was selected. The top vote getter in the race was Mike Kelly of Butler County.

It had been suggested by many that Mr. Kelly was in the pocket of Republican Party insiders, and that was illustrated on Tuesday night. Mr. Kelly was the top vote getter in the final tally of the District in the field of six great candidates. Mr. Kelly will now face a bigger challenge as he tries to find a way to compete with Congresswoman Dahlkemper in November. Once again, time will tell. We’ll be following this race closely.

Six great candidates, but only one winner.

I’ve never been quite so connected to one race with so many great candidates. I can honestly say that any one of the six Republican candidates that ran in the 3rd Congressional District would have been well deserving of the party nomination. Mr. Kelly was the final choice, but I’d like to congratulate Paul Huber, Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, and (last but not least) Dr. Martha Moore for running amazing races. I was proud to have gotten an opportunity to get to know each and every one of them. I suspect that we will see many of these names again in the not so distant future.

Highlights?

It was a tough election, and I hated to see any of the six candidates “not win” (notice that I did not use the term ‘lose’ as there were no losers in this group). I have to admit that the personal highlight of the evening was one very important statistic. Dr. Martha Moore managed to win her home county of Mercer. Mercer Countians came out in a big way for their hometown Doc and gave her their votes by the bushel full. Dr. Moore took over 2600 votes in Mercer County with her next nearest competition over 1000 votes away. Mercer County came out to support their great Doctor and it was well deserved. After having the opportunity to get to know Dr. Moore, I became a real fan.

I have a great respect for ANYONE that is willing to run for public office, but I especially respect women that are willing to do so. Dr. Moore should serve as a role model to other conservative women out there that are saying “Enough is Enough”. She deserves a special applause all her own. Thank you Dr. Moore.

Moving on Toward the General Election

For those of you that follow Mercer County politics, you already realize that some extra excitement has been going on over the past week or so. I wrote about the extracurricular activity last week HERE and HERE. In a nutshell, here is a “blow by blow” and basic timeline of events.

I announced in April that I’d be running as an Independent for State Senate against Bob Robbins.
As a 20-year Republican incumbent, Bob Robbins decided that he may very well lose the General Election to an Independent (that’s me), so he began a VERY AGGRESSIVE campaign to get the Democratic nomination as a write in. This decision was made with County Democrats (read “Bob Lark and Associates”) and Mr. Robbins decided to spend TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars on a full-color postcard / robo-call / yard sign campaign.
When ‘real’ Democrats realized what Bob Robbins was up to they came up with their own write-in campaign in an effort to beat Bob Robbins on Election Day. Art Allen, a Mercer County Democrat, started his own write-in campaign on the Democrat ticket.
When the word got out that a Dem had bravely stepped up to run, Kathy Frederick (a Greenville Democrat) decided to start her own write-in campaign in order to get onto the Democrat ballot against Republican Representative Michele Brooks.
In a panic (and in true Robbins fashion), Michele Brooks had to open up her wallet to start her own write-in campaign against Frederick (also including robo calls) for the DEMOCRAT nomination. Ms. Brooks was also forced to get out and work the polls on Election Day (which was a refreshing sight). Michele Brooks actively running as a Democrat . . . “who would have thunk it”.

In summary, Bob Robbins and Michele Brooks decided that they both wanted to be Republicans AND Democrats this year. Demonstrating ALL THAT IS WRONG IN POLITICS, the dynamic duo has illustrated to the 17th and 50th Districts that they ARE just as bad as everyone has been saying. They have demonstrated that they are, in fact, self-serving politicians that are ONLY concerned with getting re-elected.

The votes are not yet counted and the results of the write-in wars are not yet known, but the funniest part of the story is just now beginning to hit the papers. That portion of the story is the part that includes Mercer County Democrat Chairman Bob Lark.

Last year some thought that my public “dust up” with Bob Lark was a fantasy story. It seemed like “make believe” in a fantasy world of Democrats run amuck. They couldn’t believe that the things that I had been claiming could possibly be true. No one man could be so deranged as to do the things that he does. However, this year Bob Lark has illustrated to ALL of Mercer County exactly what I’ve been claiming. He is a representative of the “Mercer County Incumbent Party” I is more concerned with elevating members of the ‘inner circle’ than the promotion of good government.

Two Democrats (Art Allen and Kathy Frederick) stepped up in an attempt to organize a last-minute write-in campaign against career politicians (Robbins of 20 years and Brooks of the first 4 of 20 years). Rather than embrace the brave souls that were willing to step up to run for office, Bob Lark . . . get this . . . I’m not kidding . . . came out and CRITICIZED THEM BOTH.

Why? What reason could he have for criticizing two willing participants in a political challenge? He was angry that they didn’t go through the standard process of getting petitions signed and running in the Primary. What? Are you kidding me? He is joking, right? For those of you that don’t realize it, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID LAST YEAR and Bob Lark didn’t like that EITHER.

So why is Mr. Lark so upset? I suggest that Mr. Lark is angry for two reasons. He admits that he was aware of Bob Robbins plan to run as a Democrat, and I think that Mr. Lark WANTED Mr. Robbins to win the nomination. He simply didn’t like that I called him out for being a willing participant (and active recruiter). The second reason that Mr. Lark is angry is that Michele Brooks WAS NOT part of that plan of his. He had made a deal with Bob Robbins (and Company) but he had made no such deal with Michele Brooks. After the write-in battle is over Mr. Lark may find himself having to support a Robbins/Brooks ticket and that simply wasn’t part of his original agreement. Unfortunately, Mr. Lark got more than he bargained for and he isn’t happy about it.

If you sit back and you look at the statements that have been made by both Robbins and Lark you have to just scratch your head. You have to stop and wonder, “what is going on here?”. Common-sense thinkers like me are stopping and saying “something doesn’t smell right”. I would suggest that your nose is not playing tricks on you. There is something seriously wrong here and we should all be wondering ‘why’.

In Closing . . .

It is important that I clear the air regarding Mr. Lark. Last year my race for County Treasurer became a game for Mr. Lark and I refuse to be caught up in it again this year. The 2010 Election for State Senate in the 50th District needs to be a focused race between me (an energetic and dedicated independent candidate with a platform for good government) and Bob Robbins (a 20-year incumbent that is running as a Republican AND Democrat who would sell his soul to the Devil if he thought that it would win him re-election).

I look forward to moving towards November with a focus on the issues and policies . . . and NOT politics.

Let the games begin!

Senator Bob Robbins admits that he doesn’t have enough GOP support to win re-election

2010-05-15T22:20:00.002-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

I received a gift in the mail today. As a member of the National Rifle Association (NRA), I received a postcard labeled “Election Alert” (an image is included . . . click to enlarge). This urgent message from the NRA (bright orange to illustrate the “urgency”) stated that Senator Bob Robbins “needs your vote”. It goes on to state “If you are a registered Democrat, please remember to write-in BOB ROBBINS on your ballot.” It further urged again “Be sure to spread the word to your family, friends, and fellow gun owners to write-in BOB ROBBINS on Tuesday, May 18!”

What does this all mean? This means that Senator Bob Robbins, a 20-year incumbent of the Pennsylvania State Senate and a REPUBLICAN is begging Democrats to write him because he needs their nomination in November in order to beat an INDEPENDENT that is running against him. He realizes that he doesn’t have enough support from his own party to beat an unaffiliated challenger and he is begging for help.

The obvious panic that my candidacy has brought upon the Senator and his closest friends is a clear indicator that Bob Robbins knows exactly how much trouble he is in this year. He and his friends are shaken, and their very public reactions have energized my campaign and my supporters. At first my candidacy was just an interesting news story, but it is quickly becoming a very valid threat to a not-so-popular incumbent and career politician.

I’d like to thank Senator Robbins and the National Rifle Association for making my day by reminding me and my supporters that we ARE on the right track.

BLOG POST ADDENDUM

I received some interesting news from my sources, and the post card campaign that I received in the mail is NOT the ONLY effort that Senator Robbins has on the table for garnering Democrat support. Senator Robbins explained at a GOP Committee Meeting last night that he has been in touch with none other than the Mercer County Democrats, Crawford County Democrats, and Lawrence County Democrats in an effort to become one big happy family in his attempt for re-election.

Now I ask you, when do the leaders of the Democrat parties in a Republican Senator’s district go to him to strike a deal? When is another party so desperate as to go to the incumbent of the OPPOSITE party in an effort to get him to come to THEIR side? When has an incumbent of 20 years NEEDED to make deals with those same party leaders in order to hold his seat in office?

Did you all realize that the candidacy of ONE (1) unaffiliated Independent could be such a threat to one man and TWO (2) parties?

This move proves a point that I have been pressing for quite some time. Greedy incumbents, self-serving politicians, and the corrupt parties that control County politics have ONLY ONE (1) GOAL, and that is the support and protection of the “Incumbent Party”. Politics as usual is at work, and lost are the issues of good government, public service, civic duty, and the best interests of the people. These ideals have been replaced with political insiders attempting to control politics, government, and the American way.

I feel sorry for Senator Robbins, Bob Lark, the Mercer County GOP committee and leadership, the Mercer County Democrat committee and leadership, the Crawford County Democrat committee and leadership, and the Lawrence County Democrat committee and leadership for their inability to understand that people are sick and tired of politics as usual and they want a voice in their representation.

Ordinary people don’t want to be bullied by politicians . . . “We the People” don’t want to be bullied anymore!

UPDATE: Senator Bob Robbins continues to shoot himself in the foot

In Bob Robbins’ attempt to win the Democrat nomination as a write-in candidate, he has managed to further alienate voters. In another mailer that was sent out by the Robbins’ campaign, Robbins is pictured with what appears to be an emergency vehicle and an emergency worker. In doing so, Robbins implies that he has the backing and endorsement of firefighters and emergency workers in his district and across Pennsylvania. It seems that Robbins did this without an actual endorsement, however. On the same advertisement it is stated that Robbins is working against a residential property sprinkler mandate. Bob Robbins failed to realize that many emergency workers are FOR that very mandate and his advertisement is misleading (at best) and fraudulent (at worst).

This scan was sent to me by individuals that are angry with Robbins’ misuse of the image, which just goes to show that Robbins has not achieved his goals with this costly mailer.

I’d like to further point out that Robbins and his campaign had to dig deep into the archives to find a photo of him with an emergency worker. A close review of the photo shows that the inspection sticker on the supposed emergency response vehicle is dated 2007. He couldn’t find a recent “photo opportunity” to demonstrate his ties to that particular group.

It is another example of Bob Robbins attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, and it is doing nothing more than demonstrating his panic and fear of losing his re-election bid. Has Bob Robbins managed to shoot himself in BOTH feet?

UPDATE #2: Hold on to your hats . . . ANOTHER write-in candidate is in the works!

I was alerted this afternoon that Bob Robbins is NOT the only individual that is seeking the write-in nomination on the Democrat ticket for Pennsylvania's 50th Senatorial District. According to the email release below, Art Allen (Robbins opponent in 2006) wants in the race too! Suddenly Democrats are interested in the 50th District? Do you think anyone smells blood?

Dear Fellow Democrat,

About a year ago, I made a very difficult decision. There appeared to be several potential candidates for the 50th State Senate seat, and we all hoped that perhaps someone would be able to build a strong coalition to challenge the long time incumbent, Bob Robbins. So it was with this in mind that I decided to step aside in the primary election.

Now, in 2010, we face an election where a career politician faces no challenger. I personally believe that to be unacceptable.
As many of you know, we were able to mount a very real challenge to this seat in 2006. When all was said and done, the final tally was 41,302 to 35,854.

If you live in the district (all of Mercer and Crawford Counties, as well as parts of Lawrence and Butler Counties) please consider writing me in on the democratic ballot for Senator in the General Assembly on May 18th. With your help, we can again mount a strong challenge to tired politics as usual here in the 50th State Senate
District. Please ask your friends to do the same.

Sincerely and With Deep Thanks,
Art Allen

UPDATE #3: Robbins goes as far as to order Democrat yard signs!

You wouldn't believe it unless you saw it with your own eyes, right? Well, here it is. A Mercer County Conservatives exclusive . . . a photo of the yard signs that Bob Robbins had printed in order to work his way into the heart (and ballot) of Democrats!

Loyal Republicans who have been donating their hard-earned cash to Bob Robbins and his campaign for YEARS can have comfort knowing that he is using those funds to win over Democrats. Priceless.
.

Senator Bob Robbins explains his path to political success: “you’d rather be lucky than good”

2010-05-12T12:57:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

The internet is a wonderful thing. It has provided us with an endless database of digital information including articles, photos, and videos that are accessible with great ease. I found a presentation on YouTube the other day and it is fascinating. The piece was produced by Titan Radio News in December of 2008 as a tool to highlight the long and wonderful career of State Senator Bob Robbins. In the interview, you get an opportunity to find out exactly how Senator Robbins found his way into the State Government. I invite you to listen to the interview (or click below) and hear (in Senator Robbin’s own voice) as he admits his “accidental fall into” government after the political re-districting of the area.

Senator Robbins says “you’d rather be lucky than good”

To quote Senator Robbins:

“By the time they got done with drawing the new districts I was setting in the middle of a brand new district that didn’t have a Representative. So, within 6 months I got to run again, basically for a house seat. As it worked out as I tell a lot of people . . . ‘sometimes you’d rather be lucky than good . . . other times is that you’ve got to be in the right place at the right time’.”

Never does Senator Robbins say that he deserved the seat in the House of Representatives because of his dedication to the needs of the people, and he never stated that he was selected because he was the best candidate for the job. Instead, Senator Robbins admits that he was “lucky” and he was “in the right place at the right time”. If it weren’t so sad, it would almost be funny.

The Back Door Politics Continue

The most bothersome part of his statement is that it defines politics of the past in our area. If the “sliding through the back door” approach to public office seems familiar, you know your stuff. In 2006 a similar back door approach allowed Representative Michele Brooks to fall into her spot in the same district (the 17th) when she was selected to replace former State Representative Rod Wilt as the Republican nominee. Again, it was another example of “it was better to be lucky than good”, and Ms. Brooks seemed to be “in the right place at the right time”. It makes you wonder if the trend is as accidental as it appears.

Knowing what we know about “business as usual in area politics” and realizing how the good ol’ boys (and girls) prefer to control “who gets lucky”, it is interesting to think through the thought process of political strategy in our area. Let us use this year as an example as we examine a possibility . . .

Is 2010 another Back Door Deal year?

If the Mercer GOP and their political friends were to use the “better to be lucky than good” strategy again, what sort of conservations would they be having in 2010.

As many of you know, at the beginning of 2010 it looked as though State Senator Robbins and State Representative Brooks would be running unopposed through the General Election in November. Unfortunately for the Senator, an Independent candidate* has stepped up to challenge Senator Robbins and the fate of Representative Brooks is still unknown. The Senator was probably hoping to rebound from his close race of 2006 (where he LOST his home county of Mercer by the way), and was planning on going out on a high note. At the point that he realized that he will now have an opponent, and that opponent will most probably expose all of the ugly truths about the Senator and his past, has the Senator started to consider ways to avoid an ugly loss? Could he be looking for ways to slide out on a “high”? Is it possible that a hand-off is in the works for 2010? Could Senator Robbins be planning to step down (before the dirt from his past begins to resurface) and allow Representative Brooks to step up and access the Senate seat through another backdoor deal?

This past weekend, Representative Brooks was spotted promoting herself at a local TEA Party [read the story HERE] including the distribution of yard signs (of all things), but Senator Robbins was no where to be seen? Who exactly is Representative Brooks running against that she feels a need to distribute yard signs? Why was it so necessary for her to bully her way onto the stage at Saturday’s event? Who is her opponent this year? Is it possible that her opponent is going to be an Independent* that is running for State Senate? Hmmmmm. Wouldn’t that be interesting?

Is it possible that Senator Robbins knows that the political climate in 2010 will make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) for him to win re-election in November. Is he fearful of going down in flames . . . and thus tarnishing his long career forever? Would he prefer to leave on a high note and pass the challenge onto his young enough and smart enough protégé? Is Representative Brooks desperate enough to take on the challenge? Is she willing to take yet another backroom deal in an effort to slide into higher office?

* - For those of you that are not aware of the details, the “Independent Candidate” is me, Roberta Biros, political analyst and editor of Mercer County Conservatives.

Brooks vs. Biros?

I’d love to be a fly on the wall for the conversations that have already transpired in the past several weeks. Time will tell, and I can’t wait to see the results. While “the Independent candidate for State Senate” (Roberta Biros) had no intention of taking on Representative Brooks head on, I know that the same “Independent candidate” has no intention of backing off from the challenge if Ms. Brooks decides to offer it.

If Representative Brooks takes “the deal”, she will again demonstrate that she is not part of the solution . . . but is very clearly part of the problem in area politics. I look forward to accepting that challenge any day of the week.

It would be the perfect opportunity to prove Robbins and Brooks wrong and to demonstrate that some of us believe that “It is better to be good than to be lucky!”.

As always, just my opinion (but if it happens, realize that you heard it here first).

~Mercer County Conservatives

Sam Rohrer Event: "Breakfast with Sam" May 14th

2010-05-09T16:17:00.000-04:00

EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS

Dear Mercer Countians for Sam Rohrer,

Sam Rohrer Republican Candidate for Governor to be in Mercer on May 14

EVENT: Breakfast with Sam Rohrer

WHEN: Friday, May 14th 8am-10am
(Doors will open at 7:30AM and Sam will arrive at 8AM)

WHERE: BRANDY SPRINGS PARK COMMUNITY CENTER, 300 Park St,
MERCER (get a map HERE)

WHAT: Hot breakfast will be served. Stop by before work and meet and hear Sam Rohrer.

NOTICE:
This event announcement was submitted by the Candidate or by a Candidate representative. The event announcement is being published here as a community service in an effort to give concerned citizens an opportunity to meet the candidates. Candidates and committees are invited to submit announcements to this blog by email to roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com.

.

Butler Tea Party a Success . . . Sour Grapes for Some (and---News Flash--Paul Huber spotted wearing cowboy boots)

2010-05-05T11:10:00.001-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

What a weekend! It was an example of political wrangling at its best (and worst). In the end there were winners and there were losers, and I’m here to report what I saw first hand.

NOTE: I recently had a friend say that they appreciate my style of writing because I manage to cut through all the garbage and get to the basics. That is what I’ve attempted to do in this case. There will be those that think I’ve cut away too much, but I’ve only cut out those things that muddied the waters. If you don’t like what is left, I apologize . . . but . . . as always, it’s just my opinion.

Background Information

A Tea Party was organized in Butler PA. The first sign of the event to “regular people” like you and I were signs that popped up in the Butler area advertising the date, time, and location. It was pointed out to me early on, however, that the simple street address that was included on those signs was actually the address for Kelly Chevrolet and Cadillac on Pittsburgh Road in Butler. It seemed fishy . . . it appeared to be a set up . . . it came across as an event ORGANIZED AND FUNDED by Mike Kelly in an effort to hijack the Tea Party movement.

On Friday evening (late) an email message was sent out by the people at the Clayton Grabb campaign. The message stated that “we the undersigned” have decided to boycott the event and hold our own event on the same day and at the same time as a form of protest against the original event (I paraphrased there, but the actual release can be read HERE).

On Saturday, a message was sent out in response by candidate Steve Fisher. Mr. Fisher made it very clear that he never approved the first letter and he did not approve of the boycott. He had every intention of attending both events, but his first priority was to the Tea Party as he had already given his word and commitment to them (again, I paraphrase, but you can read his release HERE).

I published everything. I then promised that I would attend both events in an effort to see for myself EXACTLY what was going on. I did what I said I would do, and now I’m here to summarize everything for all of you.

My Plan

My husband and I made the hour long trip to Butler on Sunday morning. We arrived at the primary event location (Mike Kelly’s car dealership) at about 11am. We made a brief visit across the street for coffee, donuts, news papers, and a rest room brake before making our way to the Mike Kelly parking lot. I approached a group of event participants (who were all wearing “Freedom Patriots” t-shirts). I openly explained who I was and asked if they would be willing to talk to me about the event and the problems that had surfaced during the past few days. They were happy to do so, and I’ll report my findings below.

At about 1PM, my husband and I took a drive to the secondary event at Alameda Park. There were signs leading into the pavilion area. At that time only Clayton Grabb was on hand. I left my husband with a pad, pencil, and camera so that he could cover the start of the second event. I returned to the primary event location (the Kelly lot) with a camera-equipped Blackberry, a pen, and paper. The goal was to cover both events simultaneously, but I would leave the Tea Party (primary event) AS SOON as the presentations were completed. I would then head over to the second location to take part in that event also.

A plan was in place for full coverage of both events. My husband and I went in our separate directions with clear instructions.

An Overview of the Butler Tea Party event at Mike Kelly’s car dealership (and some background information)

This event was a real Tea Party. The organizers planned a great mix of speakers, presenters, and political analysts and politicians. They had booths representing various groups and charitable organizations, and they were focused on offering an informative program. The organizers admitted that this was their FIRST Tea Party, but they were excited to get involved in the process.

When the organizers first made their decision to have a Tea Party, they attempted to rent a park location. At first they were told that the fee would be $250 for the park rental. They explained that after the park found out that the event would be a Tea Party, the price changed to $1000 per hour for a total of $3000 plus insurance. They couldn’t afford a price anywhere close to $3000, and felt that they could not get a large enough venue to handle a crowd that could reach 2000. Mike Kelly stepped in and offered the use of his lot at no charge. The Freedom Patriots group jumped at the offer. Kelly provided a free (and very spacious) venue and he offered the use of his electrical service. The Freedom Patriots were left to organize the event, invite speakers and vendors, and they were also left with other responsibilities like acquiring portable rest rooms. A deal had been struck.

I estimate that between 250 and 400 people were in attendance, which was pretty good considering the day long threat of rain. It was absolutely a REAL TEA PARTY that was attended by REAL TEA PARTIERS. It was not an advertisement for Mike Kelly and it was NOT focused on the race for the 3rd Congressional District. It was a gathering of concerned citizens discussing issues of history and politics. It was proud patriots taking advantage of their freedom to assemble. It was supported by a handful of candidates that showed integrity by supporting the Tea Party movement. In exchanged they were each given five minutes to speak at the end of the event . . . in the wind and rain.

ABOVE: A photo of the crowd at the Tea Party from the far front corner.

BELOW: A tent was provided for the speakers while they waited for an opportunity
to address the crowd. The three congressional candidates that attended
(Steve Fisher, Mike Kelly, and Martha Moore) sat together.

Congratulations to the Freedom Patriots for their success in their very first Tea Party! It was a difficult task, but you did a great job in pulling it all together. I give them credit for providing the hard work, time, and effort, and I congratulate them for keeping their heads held high even after attacks from naysayers and attempts to derail their event.

An Overview of the candidates that spoke at the Tea Party

The list of speakers (in presentation order) was as follows:

Darryl Metcalfe, candidate for Lt. Governor
Steve Fisher, candidate for 3rd Congressional District
Martha Moore, candidate for 3rd Congressional District
Mary Shaff, representative for the campaign for Jean Craig Pepper for Lt. Governor
Mike Kelly, candidate for 3rd Congressional District

Highlights from the speakers?

Daryl Metcalfe wants to create a “new type of Lt. Governor’s office” in that he wants it to become the “Accountability Office”. A great concept that I really liked.

In a particularly classy move, Steve Fisher thanked Mike Kelly for his involvement in the event and thanked him for the use of the Kelly property for the Tea Party. He then explained that the “Tea Party is not about us (the candidates) . . . it is about YOU (the concerned citizens that attend).” It was a comment that struck a chord with attendees, and it was something that sorely needed to be said.

Martha Moore made a point of explaining to the ladies in the crowd that the day “was a bad hair day” and apologized for her appearance which was a result of rain and wind. It made me laugh as I was experiencing the same “bad hair day” as Dr. Moore (but that is clearly why God invented hats). Dr. Moore continues to make me smile.

Jean Craig Pepper’s representative spoke briefly about Craig Pepper’s campaign and attempted to provide the same humorous flair as Craig Pepper herself. It was a brief but interesting presentation.

Mike Kelly closed the event by reminding everyone that attended that the event was supposed to be about the Tea Party. He stressed . . . “let the record show that on Sunday, May 2nd, 2010, a Tea Party was held in Butler Pennsylvania”. It was a brief speech, and he did not “show boat”. He kept his comments short and sweet because WE ALL were suffering from the wind and rain . . . his brevity was appreciated. It was yet another classy move that I witnessed on this day.

An Overview of the Candidate Forum at Alameda Park (and some background information)

At the conclusion of the closing statements by Mike Kelly (about 4pm), I headed for my car. Due to some limitations in parking spaces, I was blocked in. It took me about 5 twists and turns of my vehicle in an effort to “skootch” out of the parking spot, but I managed to exit the parking lot without doing any damage (whew). I quickly made the ~5 mile trip to the secondary location.

The Candidate Forum (the secondary event) was held in Odd Fellows Gazeob in Alameda Park. I tried to be careful not to “squeal tires” while serpentining the parking lot as the event was already well underway. Upon arrival I quickly parked and headed up into the pavilion. I took a seat beside my husband. I quietly asked him how things were going, and he responded “it’s been very heated”.

ABOVE: A photo of the beginning of the event during the mix and mingle session.

BELOW: Another photo of the mix and mingle session from inside the shelter.

According to my husband, the event began with a mix and mingle session. The presentation portion of the event began at about 3pm. I arrived at about 4:15pm and the “forum” portion of the event was still underway. There appeared to be less than 50 people in the pavilion, although it was apparent there were more attendees earlier (as demonstrated by gaps in the parking spaces in the lot). The format was very casual. The three candidates in attendance (Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Paul Huber) stood at one end of the shelter and answered questions in rotation from attendees that were seated at picnic tables in the center of the shelter. There was no specific format for questions or answers. It was very relaxed and unrestricted. Unfortunately, the lack of structure also lead to lack of self-control from some attendees.

Of the <50 people in attendance, it is our estimation that 90+% were friends, family, and firm supporters of either Grabb, Franz, or Huber. The shelter was not filled with “undecided voters that were trying to learn about the candidates”. Instead it was our impression that the crowd was an assembly of very firm supporters of one of the candidates in attendance. The event, therefore, became a catalyst for unfriendly and (at times) unruly banter between attendees and candidates. It amounted to candidates and their respective camps arguing with one another.

That was the case until shortly after my arrival. A few minutes after I got to the event, Dr. Martha Moore’s car entered the parking lot. Dr. Moore, who also attended the primary event, made the trip to the secondary event. As she pulled into the parking lot the criticisms had already begun. As she approached the pavilion, candidate Ed Franz chose to throw some fuel on the fire by “joking” that they should now conclude the event (before Dr. Moore reached the shelter). Upon entry, Dr. Moore was offered the opportunity to speak and her arrival was met with booos and yelling.

I yelled from the back of the pavilion “come on now . . . give her a chance to speak”, but my words were ignored (as I was sort of considered the enemy at this point too). None of the original three candidates (Grabb, Franz, or Huber) stepped forward to stop the nonsense. They let it go.

The line of questioning to Dr. Moore was regarding her decision to attend the first event. They questioned her about the “fake Tea Party” and the “fake Tea Partiers”. At one point (out of frustration), Dr. Moore said “why don’t you ask Roberta . . . she was there”. I felt so bad for the beating that she was taking. It was unfair, but it was not MY place to step in to help her. The individuals who should have helped her stood silent.

At about 4:45, it was announced that time was almost up. It was suggested that the forum again break down into a mix and mingle session so that those in attendance could have the opportunity to talk with Dr. Moore. Again the crowd erupted and an attendee stood up and yelled “if she wanted to talk to us she could have been here before . . .but instead she went to the other event”. More yelling ensued.

I’ve been to a number of political events in the past two years. I can only compare the behavior in this event to ONE. It was a DEMOCRAT event in March of 2009 where a crowd of angry Democrats attempted to shout down a conservative candidate (who also happened to be a Democrat). I wrote briefly about that experience HERE. However, that event didn’t come any where near the hostility that could be felt in the Odd Fellows Gazebo on Sunday afternoon.

I’m sure there will be people that attended the event at Alameda Park that will complain about these comments and they’ll try to say how wonderful the event was. I suppose that if you are on the side that is “throwing stones”, you have a different perspective. I, on the other hand, have NEVER supported beating up on the little guy. It sickens me to see an innocent individual and candidate (like Dr. Martha Moore) verbally attacked while a group of three men (who are also candidates) stood by with their hands in their pockets and watched.

I challenge ANYONE to refute the fact that one of those men/candidates shouldn’t have stepped forward to say “please treat Dr. Moore with respect as she has taken the time to join us today, and we thank her for being here”. They did not, and I lost respect for each and every one of them at that moment. The truth is, they were all still “angry” with Dr. Moore and saw her as the enemy. Why? . . . Because she dared to attend a TEA PARTY.

The Butler Fiasco was caused by one problem compounding another

There were lots of fingers to be pointed if you want to “blame” someone for the problems that occurred on Sunday. The Freedom Patriots did not fully understand the political toes that were being stepped on, and Mike Kelly didn’t make a point of explaining that the choice to use his car lot might appear biased. Mike Kelly took advantage of the situation, and it was a brilliant move on his part. He was able to show that he was charitable and he managed to get his name tied to a potentially high-profile event. If Clayton Grabb, Paul Huber, or Ed Franz could have held an event for 400+ people in their back yards, they would have also jumped at the opportunity (and don’t EVEN try to tell me otherwise).

It was the responsibility of the Tea Party organizers to refuse Kelly’s offer, but they were not politically savvy enough to realize the mistake that they had made. They didn’t see the event as a “forum for the 3rd Congressional Candidates”. They were concerned with holding a Tea Party and they didn’t understand the complicated political undertones that were involved.

Unfortunately, the other candidates (Huber, Moore, and Franz led by Grabb) began a campaign against the TEA PARTY organizers. Rather than doing their homework and taking the time to discuss the problem with the Freedom Patriots, they took it upon themselves to be the judge and jury. They made a VERY BOLD MOVE and took a stand to boycott the Tea Party. Their biggest mistake, however, was in hastily drafting an “official notice” without first crossing their T’s and dotting their I’s. They authored a “we the undersigned” letter without realizing that that type of document is intended to be drafted as a group. Instead, the letter was drafted by a few without getting the sign off of the other candidates for which they were speaking. That is a HUGE error. PERIOD. They “signed” the names of candidates, but did so without their full and explicit written authorization. It was a bold move, but it was a mistake.

Lastly, intelligent people learn from history. So, I’d like to offer a reference to the Nixon years and Watergate . . . “It’s not the crime, it’s the cover up”.

If you make a mistake, just stand up and say “crap, I made a huge mistake”. Don’t compound the original mistake by explaining . . . blaming other people . . . pointing fingers . . . and throwing more people under the bus. Just say “I made a mistake and I apologize for it”.

Winners and Losers?

In the end, there were winners. The biggest winners were the Freedom Patriots who pulled off an excellent Tea Party and I congratulate them. The other winners were Mike Kelly, Steve Fisher, and Dr. Martha Moore, who managed to demonstrate that the people are more important than the candidates. The Tea Party event was not about any of them, and they were happy to take a back seat to the “real” event.

The losers? You know what I’m going to say, and I won’t apologize for it.

The losers were Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Paul Huber. They made the Tea Party event about politics rather than about people gathering to celebrate freedom. They tried to put their own candidacies above the ideals of the Tea Party movement. Most importantly, they made this about anger and fighting. When given the opportunity to stand up and try to calm the waters (by defending Dr. Moore, for instance) they chose to take a back seat and watch.

This was just one event, and it was simply one more opportunity for concerned citizens to compare the candidates that are competing for the Republican nomination for the 3rd Congressional Seat. There is still time for these individuals to stand up to right the wrongs, and there is still time for others to crash and burn. This one day (Sunday, May 2nd) will not decide the election, but it is just another opportunity to see how these candidates work under stress.

The Highlight? Paul Huber's Boots!

Lastly, I’d like to make reference to my subtitle of this blog post. The header photo is a picture of Paul Huber’s cowboy boots. I’ve always seen Paul dressed like a business man, and I LOVED seeing him dress down a bit for an event. I laughed when I saw it because it was so darn “cool”, and I told him that it would be the headline. There were many witnesses to my promise, and I always keep my promises.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

I-80 Tolling: Continuing to Beat the Dead Horse

2010-04-30T16:45:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Please pinch me. Grab a little chunk of flesh on my forearm and pinch it REALLY HARD. Do what ever you can to wake me from this horrible nightmare? Tell me that it is all a dream and that "no one actually shot JR".

What am I referring to? Well, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, some brilliant bureaucrat in Pittsburgh (Joseph Kirk, executive director of the Mon Valley Progress Council) wants to submit the I-80 tolling plan to the Federal Highway Administration ONE MORE TIME . . . for good measure . . . read the full story HERE.

Stupid politicians in Harrisburg are still struggling with the hole that was left in the budget when the I-80 tolling project was turned down last month [READ HERE], and they are considering EVERYTHING that could possibly raise money. According to the article, "Legislators are suggesting other solutions: tolling Interstate 79 or Interstate 95, legalizing video gambling machines, enabling private companies to lease highways and charge tolls, contracting out highway maintenance, or raising the wholesale gas tax."

I'm sorry, but has anyone considered the possibility of CUTTING SPENDING as a way to make ends meet? NOOOOOOOOOOO. Instead, let's just keep putting through a proposal to toll I-80 and THEN continue to write the money into the budget (as though it is already approved). All this so that we can move along in an effort to quickly pass a useless, garbage budget before things ramp up for the November election.

In the words of Mike Kelly (candidate for Congress), "I'm sorry if I come off as ANGRY, but I am ANGRY". State legislators need to sit their rear ends down in Harrisburg and start cutting meat out of this budget and it better start soon. I'm not talking any whimpy thin sliced pork chops kind of meat . . . I'm talkin' big old thick porterhouse steaks kinds of meat . . . if you know what I mean.

Give it up already. I-80 is NOT an option. Find some other dead horse to beat for a while.

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer County Conservatives

3rd Congressional Candidates Debate the Issues Again: Who will be the one to send Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper packing?

2010-04-28T14:51:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Last night I attended another formal debate of the 3rd Congressional District Republican Candidates. The event was sponsored by Allegheny College and was held at Quigley Hall on the Allegheny College Campus. It was another standing-room-only event as it was a rare opportunity for the people of the 3rd Congressional District to determine which candidate can best represent them when we send Kathy Dahlkemper home in November.

All six candidates were in attendance. In order on the stage from left to right were Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, Paul Huber, Mike Kelly, and Martha Moore.

The last formal debate was held a month ago on March 25th in Grove City (read about it HERE). It may have only been 4 weeks ago, but it seems like a lifetime. The last four weeks have been packed with events, get-togethers, meet-n-greets, fundraisers, and tea parties for all six of the Republican candidates . . . and the bloggers that follow them. The grueling schedule is beginning to take its toll on everyone involved, but it hasn’t dampened our determination to push through to November.

At the debate that was held a month ago, we met six candidates that were fresh, unpolished, and unique. Four weeks later, the six candidates are beginning to meld into one and other. The have all had an opportunity to tweak their presentations, and some are actually stealing each others quotes (i.e, I believe it was Ed Franz that stole Martha Moore’s “enough is enough” quote last night and it made me laugh).

I documented the entire evening, but you all know that I’m not one to simply provide a laundry list of the evening’s events. No, I’d prefer to paint you an abstract portrait of the highlights and lowlights of the night.

Highlights?

Anyone that attended last night’s event would agree hands down that the “star” of the evening was Dr. Martha Moore. At the debate in Grove City, Dr. Moore was noticeably nervous and she struggled at times to find the words to properly describe her stand on issues. That was simply not the case last night as Dr. Moore has found a comfortable place in just shooting straight from the hip. “Like what?”, you ask. Allow me to provide a few sound bites:

When discussing why she was running for office, Dr. Moore stated “Because I don’t want to be nauseated every time that I hear the President of the United States speak.”

She made a reference to a patient that recently visited her office who has over $90K in outstanding medical bills. She stated “Call Kathy Dahlkemper (and ask her to pay your bill)”.

When referring to the recent health care reform bill she stated “that stupid bill they passed . . . just stupid”.

The most precious references that Dr. Moore made were during her closing statements where she literally brought down the house. For instance . . . “When I go to Washington, I’m going to say NO a lot. They are going to say that I’m from the party of no’, but I’m the party of ‘STOP THIS’”.

I applaud Martha Moore for offering us “Martha Moore Unplugged” last night. She brought a level of straight talk and humor to an otherwise serious and sometimes lifeless event. I’ve said it before and I’ll take this opportunity to say it again. I really respect Dr. Moore for standing up as a concerned citizen and becoming involved in this race. I still don’t believe that she is necessarily the best choice to become our next Congresswoman, but I appreciate the perspective that she brings to the table. She says the things that many of us are thinking . . . but we’ve never actually said out loud, and because she is a candidate she is able to inject those thoughts directly into the formal debate conversation.

Her participation in last night’s event was “priceless”.

Interesting Notes on Each Candidate

I’d like to point out some interesting statements from each of the candidates presented in the order of the seating arrangement on the stage from left to right.

Steve Fisher

Steve Fisher continues to illustrate that he is the perfect mix of grassroots candidate and qualified representative. He presents himself as a “Statesman” and not a politician. He is polished in all the right places, but he remains human (and appropriately ‘unpolished’) in the way that he connects with the people of this area. He is sincere, honest, and approachable but also projects an unmatched level of confidence and professionalism.

On issues of the budget, Mr. Fisher pointed out that we need to make decisions that are “good for us”. He pointed out that too much attention goes to how our budgetary decisions will affect China and Japan and that we need to concentrate on how those decisions will affect us first.” He suggested that we reestablish an impartial review of the federal government and possible inefficiencies through an investigation similar to the Grace Commission (that was established during the Reagan administration).

In response to issues of our military and his willingness to respond to a strike against the United States, Mr. Fisher first stated that he is concerned “about how thin our military is stretched” and whether they are receiving the support that they need. He also pointed out that we need to “forget political correctness”.

In his closing comments, Mr. Fisher made a great statement worth noting. He said “I am not a politician. I plan on serving a maximum of three terms and coming back to the area to work in the insurance industry . . . if there is an insurance industry to come back to”.

Ed Franz

Ed Franz positions himself as the man who can “represent the average taxpayer in Washington DC”. He pointed out that “inside the beltway politicians have concentrated on healthcare legislation and not the health of this nation”.

Mr. Franz made reference to the “800 lb gorilla in the back of the room”. Some may have thought he was referring to one blogger that was seated in the last row of the auditorium, but he was referring to “the national debt”. Mr. Franz wants to be the voice in the debate that represents the average taxpayer.

Regarding budget deficits, Mr. Franz made his stand clear when he stated “We need to get out of deficit spending. We need to get out of financing bills and legislation that we cannot afford.” It was a short statement, but it hit at the heart of the problem.

In a humorus moment of the evening, Mr. Franz was discussing his thoughts on the strength of the military and his stand on responding to a strike on the US. To quote “If we are attacked we should hunt them down.” He then went on to discuss a reference to a movie . . . “Patton”, and he stated “Wasn’t that the way a war should be fought.” The reference sent chuckles across the crowd.

Clayton Grabb

Clayton Grabb continues to prove that he is the anti-politician. His concerns are not for “the Party” but for “the People”. He started by explaining why he decided to run for office. He stated “I believe our constitution is under attack”. He then went on to explain “I got tired of holding my nose to go and vote in the past. My Republican Party has left us down before. We need someone that will go to DC and stand up for the people and tell it like it is.” It is statements like these that explain why Mr. Grabb is not embraced by the Republican Party, but is, instead, embraced by people who have experienced the same frustrations . . . which are many.

He continued to separate him self from politicians by saying “(we need to elect people to) do the people’s work and then go home . . . we need a citizen legislator that does not want to be there.” (emphasizing that once they get there they get too comfortable)

When it comes to budgetary issues, Mr. Grabb offers common sense solutions to that too. He stated “How about we cut all government hiring. The government is the only sector of our economy that is growing right now. . . . we cannot continue to grow our government . . . the more (people) that depend on government the harder it will be for people like us to get in there and stop it.”

Regarding issues of the military, Mr. Grabb stated “We need to pull the politicians out (of the decision making process) and let the military do what it needs to do. We need to do what is necessary to be the biggest baddest dog on the block.”

Paul Huber

Paul Huber remains firm on his position as the businessman with the experience needed to represent us in Washington DC. In his opening statement his first words were “I’m a life long social and fiscal conservative”. I mention this because it raised a few eyebrows in the crowd as some people have questioned the fact that Mr. Huber only became a Republican last year.

Mr. Huber did, however, manage to present a very conservative stand on fiscal issues including his statement on budgetary issues as “I’m proposing that we go to 2009 levels of spending and that includes legislative salaries as well. It is a step in the right direction that sends the right message to the financial markets and the American people that we are serious about this.” Mr. Huber’s ideas for tackling economic problems are aggressive and bold and I like that.

Regarding job creation in our area, Mr. Huber offered a great explanation of the problem as “government doesn’t create jobs . . . they create an environment where jobs are destroyed or they can create an environment where free enterprise can create jobs”. Mr. Huber continues to offer the prospective of a business person, and he is quite clear on his vision of how that prospective is desperately needed in Washington DC.

Mike Kelly

Mike Kelly also offers the business owner angle, and he is quite direct in his approach. Unlike Huber (who is polished and refined), Mike Kelly offers similar ideas but with an extra “edge”. When explaining “why” he was running he simply stated “because none of us ran before.” He further explained that “We were all responsible people sitting back and didn’t have time to get involved . . . We forfeited our future . . . it is time to get people like ‘us’ into office.”

Regarding the issue of term limits, Mr. Kelly made his stand clear when he stated “people are sitting too long in the same spot and they aren’t held accountable.”

In response to a question regarding budget deficits and the President’s plan to freeze discretionary spending, Mr. Kelly boldly stated “I have a problem listening to anything that Obama says and taking it seriously.” Again in referencing the President he said “We’ve got a 3 yr old running the highest powered locomotive on earth.”

Mr. Kelly’s most important point of the evening was his repeated reference to “it’s the spending, stupid”. He continues to press the common-sense idea that spending needs to be addressed before this nation can move forward on anything. I agree.

Mr. Kelly did attempt to address recent comments that he “comes across as angry”. He explained that people might get that impression because “he is angry”. He explained that he is angry about the problems that we are facing in this country and he is serious about fixing them.

As a side note . . . After the debate I did ask Mr. Kelly that the next time he wants to quote me directly I only ask that he give me a public shout out. This is, of course, a reference to the fact that my written statements regarding Mr. Kelly were the catalyst to the conversations about his “anger”. Mike and I laughed about it and I reassured him that “I think he is just a big teddy bear”.

Martha Moore

Aside from the comments that I’ve already made regarding Dr. Moore, there were other points that did not go unnoticed. Regarding finding solutions to fiscal issues, she stated “don’t look to the Government to fix problems that the Government created”. It isn’t just a great quote . . . it is the truth.

Regarding budgetary issues and a proposed freeze on discretionary spending, Dr. Moore stated “a miniscule part of the budget is what he is freezing . . . then he passes a bill that will cost 2.4 trillion dollars . . . they said 1.4 trillion but they lied.” She then went on to explain “We are going to have to tackle the big items.” As a possible solution, she suggested that “we need to audit the federal government”, and I completely agree.

One key difference between the candidates?

After almost two months of following these candidates from event to event I was surprised last night when an issue surfaced which drew a very definitive line of distinction between them. That issue was regarding campaign financing and specifically the Supreme Court ruling on “Citizens United v. FEC”.

The issue has multiple facets that generated great conversation. The first is an issue regarding the First Amendment and free speech, and the second issue is that of campaign financing and the idea of “deep pockets buying elections”.

All of the candidates were in agreement on the issue of free speech (no shock there), but there were additional comments made by some that highlighted a serious problem regarding political campaigns in general.

Mike Kelly felt that the ruling helped to “even the playing field”. He explained that “corporations shouldn’t be pouring this much money into elections, but when you look at how the Democrats raise money you need to level the playing field.”

In drastic contrast, Steve Fisher was clearly against the concept of corporations funding elections. He stated “We spend far too much on elections already. I don’t think that corporations should be allowed to spend money to buy votes and buy elections.” He further explained “there is big difference between dollars between many candidates, but to take corporate money and throw it in there is unfair”. As a grassroots candidate, Fisher has experienced first had how deep pockets and large bank accounts can make the election process a particularly uneven playing field.

Ed Franz agreed with the Supreme Court ruling but emphasized that “we need to watch what special interests are financing which candidates . . . the voters need to keep an eye (on the process)”.

Clayton Grabb also agreed with the Supreme Court ruling and supported his comments by saying that “corporations ARE you and I”. However, as another grassroots candidate, he was quick to point out that “Campaigns should not cost what they cost!” [I say “Amen” to that.] He further went on to explain exactly how “big money comes in and they buy the Primary”. In closing he reminded everyone that the “grassroots people are the ones that need to be represented”.

Paul Huber agreed with the Supreme Court ruling, and he seemed to have no problem with the concept of corporations funding elections.

This specific debate drew very clear lines for me. 2010 is an election year that offers very stark contrasts. It is a year that pits “deep pockets” against “grassroots Average Joe’s” (as in the race for the 3rd Congressional District). It is a year that battles “endorsed candidates” against “unendorsed candidates” (read an example HERE). It is a year that will put unaffiliated Independents up against 20-year entrenched incumbents (read an example HERE).

In summary, 2010 is the year of David vs. Goliath.

In the race for the 3rd Congressional District, David is represented by Steve Fisher, Ed Franz, Clayton Grabb, and Martha Moore. Goliath is represented by Paul Huber and Mike Kelly. The Primary on May 18th will settle the debate and the battle once and for all.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

Sam Rohrer, Candidate for Governor, visited Mercer County

2010-04-28T10:25:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Saturday, April 24 was a busy day for concerned citizens in Mercer County. The day kicked off with the Mercer County TEA Party at the courthouse at 10am (read more about the Mercer County TEA Party HERE) and it ended up with a personal visit from Sam Rohrer, candidate for Governor at 4pm. Sam Rohrer is, himself, a fellow Tea Partier, so the tie in between the two events was a brilliant idea and a great way to carry over the energy from one event to the next. Bravo!

The day may have been busy for us but it was especially action packed for candidate Rohrer. He was scheduled to arrive at Brandy Springs Park outside of downtown Mercer shortly after 4pm, but his arrival was delayed due to his extremely cramped schedule. The event organizers had planned for a festive welcome for Mr. Rohrer and event attendees as is illustrated by the ‘welcoming committee” at Brandy Springs Park (see photo below).

Even though our time with Sam was limited, he made the most of it. After a brief introduction, Sam devoted only a short time to his opening remarks. Instead, he preferred to spend his time answering direct questions from attendees. I appreciated the change of focus as it allowed us to discuss the issues that were important to those of us attending rather than hearing a pre-packaged campaign speech. The focus became the constituents and not the candidate. It was very ‘un-politician’ like.

There was time for about five questions to which Mr. Rohrer provided detailed answers. Question topics were nullification, elimination of property taxes, gun rights and the fire arms database, jobs, and sin taxes. I know that Sam Rohrer is a fiscal conservative legislator and I had heard that he was a strict Constitutionalist, but there is no substitute for ‘hearing it from the horses mouth’ and I was not disappointed.

Sam Rohrer provided answers that were absolutely spot-on. His vision for Pennsylvania was clear and unwavering. He made decisive statements like “I will not sign a tax increase bill in order to balance the budget . . . and I will not borrow”. He believes that “the tax dollars that come to Harrisburg are private property”, which supports the idea that taxpayers should control the government and not politicians and special interests.

This was a rare opportunity for Mercer Countians to have direct interaction with a Gubernatorial candidate. Attendance was less than 100, but those that were chose to attend were genuinely interested and concerned about Pennsylvania’s future. There were a few exceptions of course. Mercer County GOP Committee Chairman, Dave King, was on hand to welcome Mr. Rohrer to Mercer County. Dr. King’s attendance was surprising knowing what the GOP establishment thinks of ‘non-endorsed’ candidates. It should be noted that no other Republican state legislators chose to welcome Mr. Rohrer to Mercer County. Senator Robbins, Representative Brooks and Representative Stevenson did not feel that the event was worth their time. Shame on them . . . but do they ever show up to an event where they would be overshadowed?

I had an interesting conversation with Dr. King while we were waiting for the event to begin, and it is worth mentioning. I made a simple statement to Dr. King that “Sam Rohrer is a good guy”. Dr. King felt it necessary to correct me by stating “he is a good REPUBLICAN”. I responded with “no, he is a good CONSERVATIVE . . . not all Republicans are good Conservatives . . . and not all good Conservatives are Republicans”. We then went on to discuss very briefly the problem that not all “conservatives” are embraced by the Republican Party and Dr. King stressed that the problem seemed like an isolated incident involving only ONE individual . . . me. Well, Dr. King, I seem to meet more and more people like me every day. Perhaps Dr. King should have attended the Tea Party earlier in the day where he could have talked to hundreds of people just like me . . . but he did not.

Unfortunately for you, Dr. King, 2010 is the year that conservatives are going to stand up to the GOP establishment and make a statement. Endorsed candidates are no longer a ‘shoe in’, and many of us are seeing endorsements as the ‘kiss of death’ for a candidate as it ties them to the ‘elephant in the room’ . . . the self-serving GOP establishment. It is time that Dr. King wake up and realize that Tea Partiers, Independents, and disgruntled Republicans have become a force to recon with, and if the GOP doesn’t soon recognize that it will eventually go the way of the Dodo bird . . . perhaps sooner than later.

In closing, I’d like to thank Sam Rohrer for taking the time to stop in and visit good ol’ Mercer County. I’d also like to thank the event organizers for taking the time and effort to make certain the Mercer County is not a forgotten county in this election. Sam Rohrer’s interest in our area helps to put us on the map.

.

Transparency vs. Corruption: An Investigation in Search of a Rat

2010-04-23T15:37:00.000-04:00

Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson hide and duck from important questions

Written by Roberta Biros

In a recent radio interview it was noted that I have a “big thing” with transparency, and that was no exaggeration. Those that know me also know that I am obsessed with the issue of transparency in government and public service . . . so much so that I am now running my second campaign on that very issue [read HERE].

Yes, this post is long (I know that fellow blogger Fred Mullner groaned when he saw it), but it includes details from research that has been going on for well over a month.

Notes from the Pennsylvania Leadership Conference

Last weekend I attended the annual Pennsylvania Leadership Conference in Harrisburg. The meeting brings together deep thinking conservatives to discuss topics of concern. Each year there are top issues of conversation like the budget and fiscal responsibility and there is always a great deal of conversation about politics and upcoming elections. This year there was one panel discussion that was worth the entire cost of admission . . . Beyond Corruption: Transparency, Accountability & Reform.

The panel was moderated by Chris Freind, Columnist. I scheduled my day around this particular presentation and Mr. Freind's opening comments did not disappoint. First, Mr. Freind referred to some politicians as the “business as usual crowd” and he made reference to their desire to “hide and duck” tough and probing questions. However, I was most intrigued when Mr. Freind referenced the recent BonusGate scandals involving Vion (and now Orie) [read more HERE]. Mr. Freind pointed out that some political insiders have stated that some of the investigations are “politically motivated”. Mr. Freind stated “The question is not whether it is politically driven . . . the question is ‘is it true’”. The most amazing part about Mr. Friend's comment is that I spoke the words aloud with him. These are the exact same things that I’ve been saying for quite some time and it was refreshing to hear a panel discussion begin on that note.

The presentation continued on for about an hour and included presentations by Joe Sterns (Citizens Alliance of PA), Curt Schroder (State Representative), Lyndsay O’Herrick (Citizen Activist), and Doug Reichley (State Representative). The details and discussions were too numerous to mention, but the entire conversation was invigorating. I left prepared to push harder for transparency because I knew that I was not alone in my quest.

I left with another specific quote that is worth repeating. This one was from Lyndsay O’Herrick who stated “Corruption is the conscious act of sustaining the status quo at the expense of future generations.” Gosh . . . that’s all really good stuff!

Corruption vs. Transparency in Mercer County: My Investigation

As most of you know, I’ve spent a great deal of time over the past year and a half asking questions of our legislators. Sometimes they answer, and sometimes they don’t. My recent line of questioning of our state lawmakers has left my phone and email empty, but I refuse to let this sleeping dog lie . . . it just isn’t my style. So, allow me to explain what I’ve been up to for the past several weeks as follows:

On Sunday, March 21, 2010, I sent an email message to the taxpayer funded email accounts of our four state legislators (Robbins, Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson). The email message was titled “"harder" questions regarding the use of your staff”. The email message was a follow up to the earlier message regarding my concerns (and the concerns of others) regarding inappropriate use of legislative staff and resources for campaign activities. In the message I reiterated a number of questions that had been published in The Herald. The questions were very specific and I requested answers in writing by March 31st as a matter of transparency. ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

On Monday, April 5, 2010, I sent a letter to the editor of The Herald regarding their lack of response. That letter was published on April 9th.

On Tuesday, April 6, 2010, I contacted all four legislators by fax. This time it was in response to the announced that State Senator Jane Orie was too be indicted on misuse of legislative staff for her sister’s campaign in 2009. As the third ranking Republican in the State Senate (just two notches above Senator Robbins), the news of her indictment hit unpleasantly close to the questions that I had asked each of the legislators. So, I asked the questions again. I stressed that the lack of transparency regarding this issue created a perception of corruption even if no actual corruption exists. I further noted that continued failure to avoid these very direct and specific questions makes many of us wonder what it is that they are trying to hide? ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

On Tuesday, April 13, 2010, I contacted all four legislators again by fax. I repeated the same list of questions and noted the following:

“The questions that I’ve posed are not out of line. The questions raise valid concerns regarding the way that taxpayer dollars are used by you and your staff. As a taxpayer, I ask these questions as a matter of transparency, and it is your duty to answer the questions as a matter of accountability and public service. Perhaps transparency, accountability, and public service are a forgotten duty in government, but I feel it is my responsibility to encourage these characteristics from each and every one of our elected officials.”

ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

On Friday, April 16, 2010, I began calling the offices of our legislators. First on my list was Senator Bob Robbins. I called Senator Robbin’s office and explained that I had sent numerous email messages and faxes to the Senator and had received no response. I was told that I would need to schedule an appointment with the Senator and that process could take 2 to 3 weeks. It was explained to me that Senator Robbins spends 3 days each and every week in Harrisburg and he finds it difficult to find time in his schedule to meet with constituents. I wanted to say “don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining”, but I contained myself and asked that someone call me back to schedule an appointment.

The next call went to the office of Representative Mark Longietti. I explained who I was and why I was calling. After a few minutes on hold I was transferred to Representative Longietti. Representative Longietti stated that he was aware of my attempted communications and that he considers me to be a “media outlet” and he chooses not to correspond with my particular “media outlet”. He stated that he did not wish to contribute to my blog. I asked if my being a taxpayer provided me the right to answers, and Representative Longietti simply repeated his earlier statements. I thanked him for his time. All I can say is “at least he took my call”.

The third call went to the office of Representative Michele Brooks. I received an answering machine and left a detailed message as instructed. I then called again about an hour and a half later. I explained who I was and why I was calling. I was put on hold for several minutes. When the phone was picked up I was told that Representative Brooks was no longer available for the day and that they would giver her my message on Monday. Hmmmm. Interesting.

I did not bother to call Representative Dick Stevenson as I could see that this exercise was becoming a waste of time.

As of today, April 22, 2010, ALL FOUR FAILED TO RESPOND.

The Probing Questions?

Based on the lack of responses, you would think that the questions that I was asking were “way outside the box”. Well, allow me to review them with you here. They came from a list that was presented in an AP article [read HERE]. The questions that I forwarded were regarding campaign policies and the tracking of work by their staff; use of their legislative staff including caucus staff, bonuses, and over-time work; taxpayer paid mailings; and per-diems (and possible double-dipping related to those per-diems).

The questions were not beyond the scope of what should be open topics of conversation . . . unless there is something to hide.

Why are you pressing this issue so hard?

It is apparent that if we leave the “hen house unguarded”, the fox and the rooster will worry about no one but themselves. That is the case with many of those in our current state legislature . . . and we have four examples of that in Mercer County. If WE the taxpayers don’t hold our elected officials accountable, they won’t do it on their own. It is our responsibility to “keep them honest” (which assumes that they were honest in the first place, but I digress).

I had a discussion with a colleague over the weekend and he pointed out how blurry the lines between legislative staff and campaign staff have become. He noted a recent experience where he was approached for campaign purposes by a member of a local legislative staff. His radar went up and he noted “how can you tell if they are on taxpayer time or free time?”. Even if it is after hours, how do our legislators track the time. When we are having a conversation with a legislative employee, how do we know if WE are paying for the conversation or not?

Allow me to explain the problem that exists with a photo. The picture is posted in a public on-line forum at the website of the Mercer County GOP. They display the photo proudly and think nothing of the problems that it might illustrate. First, here is a screen shot of the website (before the details mysteriously disappear):

Here is a close up of the photo in question along with the published caption.

While this photo may not mean much to anyone outside of Mercer County, I’d like to describe why it is so disturbing. The photo is of State Senator Bob Robbins having a conversation with Diane Helbig. It is clear that Diane Helbig is campaigning for Representative Michele Brooks (the blue and fluorescent logo is hard to miss). However, for those of you that aren’t aware of the details, Ms. Helbig is also Representative Michele Brooks “Legislative Assistant” (I hope I got the exact title right . . . it is usually displayed on an ID tag that she wears at official events).

So when you look at the picture, do you wonder . . .

“Is Ms. Helbig discussing State business or campaign business?”

“Is she campaigning or is she filling some official capacity?”

“Is she on unpaid/donated time or is she somehow being compensated by the taxpayers (either directly or through bonuses or extra compensation)?”

“Is Ms. Helbig doing this voluntarily or is she pressured to do this type of work by her employer, Representative Brooks?”

My point in all of this is, why do we even need to ask the questions? Do our legislators not have enough friends and supporters that they must use legislative staff to fill their campaign needs? Can our elected officials not find enough loyal volunteers that they need to take taxpayer-paid employees to parades and fairs? If they are so comfortable with situations like the ones pictured above, what else do they do that might cross the line?

I don’t propose that we babysit our legislators and their staff. Instead, I demand that they change the laws so that these sort of questions are unnecessary. I made a proposal in a previous post and I’d like to repeat it here . . .

The solution is simple. The staff of elected officials should NOT be involved in partisan political activity of any kind. PERIOD. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity. This same concept should be implemented at every level of government. Legislative staff (as well as County and Local) should not be permitted to be involved in any political activity (on taxpayer time or on their own time). For more information about his concept, please read the on-line article titled “Politically Uncorrected : IF MEN WERE ANGELS" which is available for on-line review HERE.

In Closing . . .

It is obvious that our legislators don't want to have this conversation with us (the taxpayers), but is it really their choice?

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer County Conservatives

PRESS RELEASE: Roberta Biros to challenge Bob Robbins for PA State Senate (50th)

2010-04-19T10:18:00.000-04:00

PRESS RELEASE

Roberta Biros of Delaware Township, Mercer County, Pennsylvania announced today that she will challenge current incumbent Senator Bob Robbins in the 2010 race for Senator in the General Assembly in the 50th District. In order to appear on the ballot in November of 2010, Ms. Biros, an unaffiliated independent, will need to gather a total of 827 signatures from registered voters in the 50th District (Mercer County, Crawford County, and parts of Butler and Lawrence Counties). These signatures must be presented in the form of nomination papers which will need to be filed with the Secretary of the Commonwealth in Harrisburg no later than August 2, 2010.

Ms. Biros, a small business owner, describes herself as a concerned citizen. She has been actively involved in issues of political and legislative activism through her blog, Mercer County Conservatives. Ms. Biros has published her Platform for Good Government on her campaign website at ElectBiros.com. In it she stresses her platform priorities and concerns as public service; transparency and accountability; fiscal responsibility; and limited government.

Ms. Biros stated, “Voters need a choice in every election, and 2010 is more important than ever. Taxpayers have had enough of career politicians who are more concerned with their careers than with the constituents in their district. As a firm supporter of term limits, it is my opinion that it is time for Senator Robbins to move on. Instead, Senator Robbins has concentrated his efforts on voting for pay raises for politicians, protecting cost of living adjustments for lawmakers, and hiding from his constituents and the press. The time has come for taxpayers to stand up to self-serving politicians and let them know that they work for us.”

Ms. Biros stresses that “as a high-ranking leader in the State Senate, Mr. Robbins should be working to correct the problems in Pennsylvania. Instead, Mr. Robbins has only been concerned with bringing ‘pork’ back to the District as a tool for re-election. Unfortunately, ‘pork’ is part of the problem. We need a fiscal conservative in the State Senate that will work to cut spending, decrease the tax burden on individuals and small businesses, and turn the State government around. I am that person. I feel it is my responsibility to offer the voters of the 50th district an independent voice in Harrisburg.”

When asked about the challenges of gaining access to the November ballot, Ms. Biros stated “I’m confident that we will gather far more signatures than are required. We already began the process of gathering signatures and our sampling of constituents has been very positive. Concerned citizens realize that the only way to fix the problem in Harrisburg is to purge the General Assembly of dead weight . . . and Senator Robbins is a perfect example of that dead weight.” She added “we realize that our campaign will meet with immediate challenges from political insiders in the District and we anticipate that our nomination papers will be challenged in August, but we are confident that we will be successful in pushing past the corrupt circle of political incumbents and their legal teams. We are motivated and the people of the 50th district are motivated. We will not be prevented from our right to a fair election. 2010 will be the year that the people of Pennsylvania and the United States of America make a statement and take their country back. A move to fresh ideas and a fresh face in the 50th district will be an important part of that movement.”

Ms. Biros will begin the task of collecting signatures this week and she anticipates that her message, which reaches across all party lines, will resonate with the people of the area during the petition process and well into November.

Link to official Press Release.

Mercer Conservatives Index: The 3rd Congressional District Candidates Get Their Grades

2010-04-13T08:52:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

On March 29th I published the first in a series of several grades for lawmakers. The grading system is called the Mercer Conservatives Index (the Index) and it is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.

In the first set of grades that were determined, I compared all of the state lawmakers that represent Mercer County. Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Dick Stevenson, and Representative Mark Longietti were all graded in 10 categories and final results and grades were published for each.

Below are the results for the State Legislators that represent Mercer County. An individual article was published for each as follows:

Senator Bob Robbins
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Mark Longietti
Representative Dick Stevenson

The 3rd Congressional District -- Candidates and Incumbent

I’ve been busy compiling a comparison for the 2010 race for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District. The race will put current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper against one of 6 Republican challengers. In an effort to provide guidance to my readers, I’ve graded all of the individuals involved in this race. I first graded Mrs. Dahlkemper (read HERE). She received a flat out F. I’ve since compared the 6 Republican candidates that want to challenge Mrs. Dahlkemper in the fall.

The summary results of my analysis are listed below:

Here is an overview of my findings:

#1 Steve Fisher

After analyzing all of the candidates in all categories and tallying the results, my findings show that Steve Fisher was the highest rated candidate in my comparison. The totals for the top three vote getters were very close. Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, and Paul Huber rated VERY high in all categories. Steve Fisher ended up at the top of the pile because of his perfect grades in the area of Transparency, Accountability, and Public Service. In my analysis of the candidates, Steve Fisher was the ONLY candidate that responded to my initial query immediately.

My original query went out by email on 3/4/2010 at 1:24pm. At 1:34pm Mr. Fisher emailed me personally to touch base. At 3:07pm on that same day, Mr. Fisher provided full written answers to all of my questions and provided me the OK to publish those responses in my blog. He was thorough, he was expedient, and he was charming in the process. He answered my questions completely and IN WRITING (which is unheard of by most politicians). Most importantly, the answers to his questions made me want him to be my Congressman.

If I were a registered Republican, I would vote for him in the Primary. Unfortunately, as an Independent my vote doesn’t count in the Primary, so I’ll need to wait until November to cast my vote for Steve Fisher.

#2 Clayton Grabb

Clayton Grabb is a very strong candidate and he was #2 in my ranking. He scored lower than Steve Fisher only in the areas of Transparency and Public Service. Clayton Grabb did answer my questions when I asked him personally, and his answers were spot on. He did not, however, respond to my original written query and he never answered in writing. I had no choice but to score Steve Fisher higher due to this significant difference.

Clayton Grabb has many wonderful qualities, and I would be proud to support him against Congresswoman Dahlkemper should he win the Primary in May.

#3 Paul Huber

Paul Huber is a very intelligent and strong candidate. Only 4 points from the top score, Mr. Huber scored well across the board, but he was simply not as transparent and responsive as Steve Fisher. Mr. Huber is extremely smart, but he lacks a scrappy-ness (yes that is made up) that some voters are looking for right now. I fear that Mr. Huber may appear too “low-energy” to some people on a first impression. If you get an opportunity to talk to him personally, he is a great guy, but first impressions mean a lot.

Paul Huber is a strong and qualified candidate, and I would be proud to support him against Congresswoman Dahlkemper should he win the Primary in May.

#4 Mike Kelly

Mike Kelly ended up only a few points off of Paul Huber. While scoring very high in most categories, I am concerned about Kelly’s tough-guy image. He appears too rough and mean at times. I realize that we might need someone like that in Washington DC right now, but I’m not sure that many voters can embrace him. Additionally, Kelly scored lower than Fisher, Grabb, and Huber due to his inability to answer some questions completely. His score of a 3 in Transparency hurt his overall score.

#5 Ed Franz

I really like Ed Franz. He is a nice guy, and I could see sitting down to have a beer with him. The problem is that I don’t drink. Ed’s charm is that he is a blue-collar guy with really good intentions. While I admire his desire to “serve”, I can’t see him as my Congressman. It is my opinion that Ed Franz overshot his mark in this race. He would have been a wonderful pick for State Representative or State Senator, as those positions require that you really be involved with the locals. In a state position, you are involved with more hands-on work with your constituents, and Ed would have been perfect in that arena. He could go into a crowd of folks in Greenville and charm everyone in the room. Unfortunately, Ed didn’t want to go against the grain and challenge the current incumbents from his own party. Senator Robbins and Representative Brooks would have had their hands full with Mr. Franz. Unfortunately, in the race for Congress, Mr. Franz is outmatched by some of his opponents. I’m sorry Ed.

#6 Martha Moore

Dr. Moore seems like a very passionate individual. She is a patriot and she loves Ronald Reagan (so I have to like her). Unfortunately, Martha Moore has way too much competition in this race. If no Republican’s had stepped forward to run against Mrs. Dahlkemper, I think Martha Moore would have had a great chance of beating Kathy in November, but the fact is that there are a number of very qualified candidates to choose from . . . Martha Moore is lost in the dust.

In Closing . . .

I’ve tried to be fair in my anaylsis, and I’ve adapted my numbers in each category as I’ve had additional time to talk to the candidates in more detail. In general, I feel that the race in the 3rd Congressional District is down to three primary candidates. Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, and Paul Huber are all very strong candidates. Each one is very different in personality, and each offers a different style that is very appealing. If I can summarize,

Steve Fisher is both friendly and compassionate. He has the ability to summarize information and make decisions quickly and with great ease. He is a quick thinker . . . he is a smart thinker . . . but he is not overly analytical or disconnected from who he is or who he will represent. He is a natural.

Clayton Grabb is very passionate, and his passion is contagious. I’ve used his quotes more than a half-a-dozen times over the past week alone. [I’ll be wear out his “If not me, who? If not now, when?” reference quickly.] His involvement in this race will put the power of the Tea Party to the test, and it will be an interesting experiment.

Paul Huber is the sharpest knife in the drawer. He has proven his analytical abilities and he has demonstrated his commitment to the race. He is somewhat sterile, but this might appeal to some voters. He lacks some of the passion that Fisher and Grabb demonstrate, but he is driven and focused on beating Congresswoman Dahlkemper in November.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

.

Candidates from the 3rd and 4th Congressional Districts Line Up for Inspection

2010-04-09T10:25:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Wednesday, April 7, 7PM was the tip off for yet another “Meet the Candidate” night in Sharon. The meeting, which was hosted by the Pennsylvania Patriots in Action, was a gathering of all non-incumbent candidates that are vying for the Congressional Seats in the 3rd and 4th Districts. The event attracted a sizeable crowd that was a virtual “who’s who” in Mercer County politics.

The current office holders, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and Congressman Jason Altmire, were not present but they were still the main topics of conversation. Interestly enough, Congresswoman Dahlkemper was represented by a mole in the crowd . . . a member of her staff from the Hermitage office was hiding in the hall (and undoubtedly taking notes). The candidates each took the opportunity to explain why they would be the best choice to replace Dahlkemper and Altmire, and many of the more heated comments were pointed directly toward the incumbents (no shock).

I will outline my observations from the event below. PLEASE understand that I am trying to be as fair and unbiased as is possible, but this is a BLOG. I will offer my own spin on the events of the evening and I will interject my personal opinions and summaries where I see fit. Sorry, but those are the rules.

4th Congressional District

Mary Beth Buchanan and Keith Rothfus were on hand to battle for the Republican nomination for the 4th District against Altmire. I’ve met both candidates once before and I enjoyed another opportunity to hear them speak. I was pleasantly surprised, however, that an Independent candidate, John Vinsick, also surfaced at the event. Vinsick of Aliquippa was a highlight of the evening as he shot from the hip and added a bit of spice to the conversation.

Mary Beth Buchanan is a strong and spirited candidate who carries herself well in the debate style environment. She more than held her own and didn’t back down to some obvious shots that were sent in her direction. She focused on her platform of limited government, pro-life, and pro-2nd Amendment. She is extremely intelligent and very likeable. She makes me wish I was in the 4th Congressional District. For more information about Ms. Buchanan, you can visit her website at MaryBethBuchanan.org.

Keith Rothfus is an analytical individual with great ideas. He is a family man with 6 children who is running on a platform of limited government, lower taxes, repeal of ObamaCare, and traditional family values. Mr. Rothfus offered one of my favorite quotes for the evening when he stated that the first legislation that he would offer would be the “Restoring Edison Light Bulb Act”. He is a common-sense sort of guy with great ideas. For more information about Mr. Rothfus, you can visit his website at http://www.keithpa4.com/.

John Vinsick, the Independent candidate, was a treasure. His campaign slogan of “the will of the people must preside over the will of the politician” explains that his platform is anti-politics and pro-citizen. Mr. Vinsick will have an uphill battle in collecting the 3,731 signatures that will be required to get his name on the ballot, but he is optimistic about the process and he is even more optimistic about his chances in November. While he received some negative comments from hard-core Rs in the crowd (for threatening their Party), Mr. Vinsick hit home with a number of key points that were met with supportive applause. For more information about Mr. Vinsick, you can visit his website at http://www.johnvinsickforcongress.com/.

3rd Congressional District

For the 3rd District, Republican candidates Paul Huber, Steve Fisher, Clayton Grabb, Ed Franz, and Martha Moore were on hand. Mike Kelly was out of town and was not represented. The order of the six-minute presentations was based on a draw from a hat, and the speeches by 3rd and 4th District candidates were mixed together. Up first for the 3rd District was Clayton Grabb.

Clayton Grabb never fails to inspire me when he speaks. He is a conservative who is proud of his Tea Party activities, and his presentations are always geared toward the more "independent thinking" (that's me). He made a reference that struck a chord with me when he explained his reason for running as “If not me, who? If not now, when?” (NOTE: I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). Mr. Grabb speaks from the heart and is passionate about his country. For more information about Mr. Grabb, you can visit his website at http://www.grabbforcongress.com/.

Ed Franz is “just Ed”. Ed has a blue-collar/guy-next-door quality about him, and the people that support him like for exactly that reason. His platform is based on social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and pro-life stands. He made a good point when he stated “this election year it’s government versus the taxpayers”. That simple statement summarized all of the political dancing that is going on in a few simple words. Mr. Franz pointed out that he feels that he is the best candidate to beat Dahlkemper in November because of his labor ties to Erie. For more information about Mr. Franz, you can visit his website at http://www.edfranzforcongress.com/.

Paul Huber, a fiscal conservative, took the opportunity to layout his plans for fiscal reform. He made the point that “all of the (government) spending is being put on a credit card”, and he explained his plan for freeing the taxpayers from that problem. He stressed that he was “born and raised on a farm and raised on values of honesty and hard work”. His presentation was analytical, but he manages to deliver his statistics with a personal touch that gives the distinct impression that his concerns are heart-felt. He closed his presentation with a statement that I liked . . . “when people find the courage, they can change anything” (NOTE: I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). For more information about Mr. Huber, you can visit his website at http://www.huberforcongress.com/.

Steve Fisher makes me smile. He is the perfect blend of intellectual, analytical, and personable. He is detail and fact oriented, but he connects with people on a personal level when he speaks. This is even more obvious if you get an opportunity to talk with Steve one-on-one. Mr. Fisher opened his discussion with an explanation of why he was running for Congress. He made reference to a quote “if you don’t want to be a part of the menu, you better take a seat at the table” (NOTE: I’ll be using that quote as my own soon). He went on to explain that his first goal in Congress would be to repeal the Health Care Bill . . . which met with positive feedback from the crowd. His experience in the insurance industry gives him a different perspective on the health care situation and offers a special value that should not be overlooked. For more information about Mr. Fisher, you can visit his website at http://www.stevefisherforcongress.com/.

Martha Moore continues to amaze me. As a country doctor from Stoneboro, she is not the typical candidate. She is outmatched in many ways by her fellow Republicans on the ticket, but she continues to show up . . . she continues to express her patriotism . . . she continues to quote Reagan . . . and she is beginning to gather a following. I had a great seat in the very back of the room and I was able to gauge the reactions of the crowd to each of the speakers. Dr. Moore got lots of nods and “I like her” comments from many of the women in the crowd. She began her comments with a simple quote that explained why she was running for office. She said “three words . . . enough is enough”. She is a concerned patriot that is running for office in an effort to stress the issues that are important to her. I give her credit for her courage and commitment. For more information about Dr. Moore, you can visit her website at http://www.moore4congress.com/.

Mike Kelly was unable to attend the event and there was no spokesperson available to speak on his behalf. For more information about Mr. Kelly, you can visit his website at http://www.mikekellyforcongress.com/.

In Closing . . .

I’d like to extend thanks to the Pennsylvania Patriots in Action for organizing the event. It was informational, but it also gives concerned citizens the opportunity to look into the eyes of the candidates to get a personal perspective of who they are.

I’ve been to several events, and I suppose that might seem unusual to some people. However, it is important to get to know the people that may soon be representing you. I make an effort to go to as many events by elected officials and candidates as possible. I do so to gain an understanding of them, and I do so in an effort to share information with those people that can’t be there themselves. I hope that my brief summaries give you a feel for the individuals, but I also hope that it encourages you to take a look for yourself.

I will begin publishing event announcements (as they are given to me) for all of the candidates listed above. If you are a candidate (or work for a candidate) and you would like your event posted here, email me with the details and I’ll do what I can.

I’ve been waiting to publish my results from the Mercer Conservatives Index regarding the candidates from the 3rd Congressional District. I’ve been continuing to gather information and my final scores have been in flux. I’ve already published my results for Congresswoman Dahlkemper (F) as well as the four state legistlators that represent Mercer County [Senator Robbins (F), Representative Brooks (B), Representative Longietti (C), and Representative Stevenson (D)]. It is my intention to put the finishing touches on my summaries by the end of this coming weekend. Please be patient and keep an eye on this site for the final publication.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

.

PA State Senator Jane Orie Arrested: Who else might be guilty of illegal activity?

2010-04-08T10:11:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

It was announced by WTAE Channel 4 News today that Senator Jane Orie was arrested today on charges that she allowed state funded staff and office resources to be used for campaign activities. You can read the full story on the WTAE website HERE.

The charges were brought by Allegheny County District Attorney Stephen Zappala, and some are screaming "Foul". The accusation is that Zappala (a Democrat) is bringing the charges against the Senator because she is a Republican. Some say, therefore, that the charges are simply politically driven.

For goodness sake, people . . . can’t we all grow up.

The Bigger Picture

In light of the charges against Orie as well as the recent guilty verdict against former State Representative Mike Veon, I'd like for us all to step back and wonder if there is a bigger problem here.

Is it possible . . . is there some remote chance . . . it there some odd circumstance where politicians might just break the law because they think they can get away with it?

Robbins, Brooks, Longietti, and Stevenson Dodge Questions

I've been engaged in a battle with our state legislators in Mercer County recently regarding this very issue and I’m becoming deeply concerned. Back in March I began a letter/email writing campaign to our state legislators (Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson). The conversation began after it was found that a staff member of Congresswoman Dahlkemper had published a nasty comment on my blog from a taxpayer funded computer during business hours. Since that time I’ve been repeatedly asking our legislators where they stand on the use of taxpayer funded staff and resources for personal/campaign purposes. They’ve dodged my questions repeatedly. I’ve asked the same questions in 3 or 4 different ways, but the responses are always the same . . . silence.

You would think that ‘honest politicians’ (oxymoron alert!) would jump at the opportunity to set the record straight about their own personal records. Sensible people would think that hard-working public servants would have a desire to be totally transparent in order to prove that Veon and Orie are exceptions to the rule, right?

Apparently those sensible thoughts are ridiculous. Instead, elected officials are running to their caucus legal teams and finding out exactly how deep they can hide to escape prying eyes and questions. What is the result? Well, the general rule seems to be “if you don’t NEED to answer questions, don’t”. For those legislators that are lucky enough to have no political challengers this year, they can hide in silence and hope that the storm blows over. Unfortunately, that is currently the case for every single state lawmaker that represents Mercer County.

Lack of Challengers Makes for Lack of Tranparency

Twenty-year incumbent Senator Bob Robbins, ten-year incumbent Representative Dick Stevenson, and relative new-comers Representative Michele Brooks and Representative Mark Longietti (who both began their first terms in 2007) are all running for re-election this year without challengers from their opposing parties. With no pressure to answer hard questions, all four of these lawmakers have chosen the “path of least resistance” by simply shutting up and hiding. They are hopeful that I will eventually disappear (i.e. become uninterested, suffer head trauma and lose my memory, move, die, etc.), and they’d like for me to do it quickly.

A Fine Line Between Legal and Illegal

The issue of using legislative staff members for campaign purposes is a sensitive and tricky topic. Technically, lawmakers can use their staff as long as those individuals do so on their own time and voluntarily. Unfortunately, in many cases staff members were not hired because of their amazing qualifications. Nope. In many instances, legislative staffers were hired because they were long time friends (or friends of friends) of the elected officials for whom they work. For that reason lines become blurred. It becomes difficult to draw a clean line between legislative work and campaign work. It all gets jumbled together into a big melting pot and it is hard to know the difference between legitimate work and illegal campaign activity. I believe that this may be the case with more than one of the lawmakers that represent Mercer County.

I’ve seen lots of things over the past few years. I’ve experienced situations that were questionable and I can direct you to photos that document equally confusing behavior. Rather than relying on politicians to “do the right thing”, maybe we should make the rules more straight-forward. A possible answer is available from my Platform for Good Government (see more about this below).

Solution: Draw a Thicker Line

The solution is simple. The staff of elected officials should NOT be involved in partisan political activity of any kind. PERIOD. The Hatch Act of 1939 prohibits federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity. This same concept should be implemented at every level of government. Legislative staff (as well as County and Local) should not be permitted to be involved in any political activity (on taxpayer time or on their own time). For more information about his concept, please read the on-line article titled “Politically Uncorrected : IF MEN WERE ANGELS" which is available for on-line review HERE.

In this example, legislation would prevent legislators from mixing paid staff with campaign staff. HOWEVER, legislation needs to be authored by and passed by LEGISLATORS! Sort of like the fox watching the chicken coop, don’t you think? If legislators aren’t honest enough to draw the lines without a law, how could they possibly be interested in drawing a line officially WITH legislation?

And therein lies the problem. This is the vicious circle of government. How do we fix it? I’m glad you asked!

Platform for Good Government

Those of you that know me realize that I’m passionate about the concept of “good government”. It is my opinion that our county, state, and federal governments could use a good “scrubbing behind the ears”. Government needs to be reformed from the inside out, and it needs to begin with a changing of the guard. “Out with the Old and In with the New” is a perfect slogan for what needs to happen. We need to replace dusty old politicians with fresh new public servants that (above all else) have a desire for “good government”.

How do we find those people? There are plenty of good, honest people out there that would qualify. Unfortunately, those people don’t attempt to run for office because it is too darn hard. Politics is set up in such a way as to discourage good and honest people from getting involved, and incumbents keep it that way. Here in Mercer County we have the “Mercer County Incumbent Party” that controls politics. They are a team of very dedicated Republicans and Democrats who work closely together to protect the inner circle (and keep out any chance of “good government” or “public servants”). The parties are not the answer. Instead, the movement needs to be grassroots in nature. Much like the Tea Parties are rallying concerned citizens, those same citizens need to step up and challenge the status quo.

It isn’t easy, and I say that from experience. However, once you realize what to expect, it becomes less threatening. I did it once (in 2009), and I’m determined to do it again . . . maybe sooner than later.

To set ourselves apart from “politicians”, we need to establish our own platform that goes against the “bad government” that we are trying to reform. For that reason I’ve established my own Platform for Good Government. The Platform is based on a list of specifics that I’ve found to be very wrong with “business as usual” in Mercer, Harrisburg, and Washington DC. It is my wish list of problems that need to be fixed, and it will be my main topics of conversation with elected officials and candidates that are running for office. If elected officials or candidates disagree with items on the platform, then they are part of the problem (and they need to go).

I don’t suggest that my Platform for Good Government is THE only answer. I am only suggesting that we should all take the time to prioritize our issues of concern. Take a few minutes to draft a platform of your own and stick by it. Make a list of the issues that are important to you, prioritize the list, and use the list to determine who is the most qualified to represent you as a public servant.

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

I-80 Tolling Killed by Feds?

2010-04-07T07:40:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

According to an article in the Patriot News (and passed along by GrassrootsPA.com), the U.S. Department of Transportation MAY be in the process of rejecting Pennsylvania's application to toll Interstate 80. While the announcement is not yet official, it looks as though the Federal Highway Administration will be rejecting the application because it "violates the language in a federal transportation law that would require money from I-80 tolls to be used only for that roadway."

Y E S ! ! ! !

For those of us along the I-80 corridor, this is welcomed news. The news is not so welcomed by Governor Rendell and House Democrats, though. The 2010-2011 budget (which passed the House in March along mostly party lines) is based on some amount of income from I-80 tolling. It is a process that is referred to (in technical terms) as "counting your chickens before they're hatched" . . . a process that seems to be a new concept to Governor Rendell.

We will wait for the official announcement (and the Governor's response) in the next day or so, but we are hopeful that this "through the grapevine" tidbit is concrete.

As always, just my opinion.

Gov. Rendell’s take on State’s Rights and Health Care

2010-03-30T10:22:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Regardless of who wins the General Election in November, we can all look forward to Ed Rendell’s reign as Governor ending at the end of 2010. Can I hear an Amen!

Let’s be honest. Governor Rendell is nothing short of a Socialist. Please realize that “Socialist” isn’t a term that I’ve ever used in this blog to describe ANYONE. The term was only used once, and it was used by the Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee (Bob Lark) to describe ME (for a good laugh and some insight on my political background on this topic read HERE), but I’ve never used it to describe anyone else. So understand that I don’t make this remark light-heartedly. I make the statement today in direct response to an interview that Governor Rendell had on Fox News this morning, March 29, 2010.

The topic of the interview on Fox and Friends was “Is it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate that people buy insurance?” Governor Rendell’s response was as follows (and I quote):

“There is no legal question. These lawsuits are frivolous. There is no legal
merit. It’s just grandstanding by Attorney Generals. Why would you want to take
the immediate short-term benefits away from your citizens.”

Governor Rendell went on to explain that this is just a political game being played by the Attorney Generals across the country and in his own state.

If I could talk to Governor Rendell directly I would say . . . “No legal merit? What about the laws that are defined in the single most important document of law in the Country.” I would ask . . . “have you ever heard of the Constitution?” I would probably need to be more specific and expand on my question with . . . “have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?” While you would think that the Governor would be familiar with the Bill of Rights, you really can’t “assume” anything in this case. If I could talk to Governor Rendell I would offer him a pocket edition of the Constitution for reference.

What the Governor fails to understand is that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of our state lawmakers to defend the rights of their constituents in our state. Failure to do so would be a breach of their “contract” with us as our elected officials. His only argument against the constitution is a reference to “short-term benefits”. “Short-term benefits” is the only carrot he could find for his stick. In an attempt to lure people away from the Constitution, Governor Rendell is offering “short-term benefits”.

I am hopeful that after this storm blows through, the Constitution survives . . . intact. Not for the “short-term benefits”, but for the long-term freedom of the people of the United States.

.

3rd Congressional District Candidates Face Off

2010-03-27T12:19:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Energy levels were high as the crowd squeezed into the Schict Auditorium at Grove City College on Thursday night. The event was a candidate debate hosted by the Grove City College Republicans. The forum made it possible for concerned citizens to compare the six Republican candidates that are vying for the 3rd Congressional seat against Congresswoman Dahlkemper in 2010.

At the start of the presentation the room was cramped. Co-moderator, Michael Coulter, announced that additional seating for the event was available in pour-over rooms that had a live feed of the event. The high attendance was a testament to the fact that this is a VERY IMPORTANT election. Interest is high and that is always a good thing. The stage was set for a heated debate.

The format of the debate was simple. There were a few questions from the moderators that were directed to all candidates. Additionally, each candidate was given the opportunity to direct a question to another in the group. The decision of who would question whom was decided by a draw from a hat.

In the end, the forum allowed each candidate to enjoy a high point or two . . . some experienced more high points than others. Below is a quick breakdown of those highlights (and maybe a “low light” or two). My analysis would be incomplete if I didn’t also provide my opinions, which are scattered in for flavor.

The Candidates

Seated from left to right on the stage were Dr. Marta Moore, Steve Fisher, Paul Huber, Ed Franz, Mike Kelly, and Clayton Grabb.

Opening Remarks and Sound Bites

Each candidate was given the opportunity to introduce themselves. Below are some of the interesting sound bites from each.

Dr. Martha Moore:

“Why do I want to run for congress? Three words . . . enough is enough.”

Steve Fisher:

“People in Washington are not paying attention to what the citizens want. The difference is in listening to what is being said.”

“I’ll be as visible for you in Washington as I am in this district during this campaign.”

Paul Huber:

**While I have no specific sound bite for Mr. Huber, he overviewed his numerous qualifications and outlined his business background. **

Ed Franz:

“I think that Washington has been tone deaf to the 3rd District and the citizens of Pennsylvania.”
“Kathy Dahlkemper and the rest of the Democrats including Barack Obama aren’t concentrating on putting Americans back to work.”

Mike Kelly:

“I know what it takes to run a business. Wouldn’t it be nice if the people that run the Country knew how to run a business?”

Clayton Grabb:

“We The People”. Three simple words. Three powerful words. Three words that are divinely inspired.”

“They (in Washington) are our servants. They are no different than you or I. That is why I’m running.”

Highlights (or lowlights) for each Candidate:

Based on everything that was said throughout the evening, I’ve selected a few interesting remarks that summarizes the performance of each candidate.

Dr. Martha Moore:

The first question to all candidates asked when they would be willing to compromise on issues. Dr. Moore (who seems to have a quote for everything) referred to the quote “In issues of style, go with the stream . . . in issues of principle stand like a rock”. That was a pretty cool response.

Another highlight from Dr. Moore was not in her responses but in the question that she offered Paul Huber. Dr. Moore finally asked the question that everyone has been tip-toeing around. She asked “You started as a Democrat but now you sound like a Reagan Republican. Are you going to get to Washington and turn into a Democrat again?” It was a great question and it needed to be asked. Unfortunately, the response ended up being one of Paul Huber’s highlights (see below).

Steve Fisher

One of the highlights of the evening for Steve Fisher was his response to a question regarding what government program he would reduce and/or eliminate. Unlike some of the candidates, Steve Fisher made the bold statement that he would “reduce Welfare”. Bravo! Mr. Fisher, however, refused to commit to one program that he would eliminate. Like most of the candidates, he explained the he would need to look at all of the programs in more detail before he could make a determination like that.

Another highlight for Steve Fisher was in his question from Mike Kelly. In may have been a softball question on Kelly’s part, but he asked what suggestions Fisher could make to fix the Health Care problem from the private level. Fisher is an insurance professional and handled the question expertly. He has a firm grasp of the Health Care issue, and the question from Kelly gave him an opportunity to show that off.

A final highlight from Fisher came in his closing remarks. The question (to all candidates) was “Why do you feel that you are the most electable candidate over Dahlkemper?” Fisher’s response was “I think Kathy Dahlkemper is vulnerable.” He explained that he is drastically different from Mrs. Dahlkemper because, in his words, “I’m going to listen to what the people are looking for.” Fisher’s response stated the obvious . . . Kathy Dahlkemper ISN’T listening. Fisher positioned himself as the candidate that will do the people’s business.

Paul Huber

One highlight for Paul Huber was his suggestion of what Federal programs should be reduced or eliminated. He agreed with Steve Fisher’s choice (welfare). Mr. Huber also picked out the program of Agricultural Subsidies. Many of you may know that this is an area of specific interest to me. I’ve written about Farm Subsidies in the past, and I’m against them. While he didn’t take the opportunity to discuss the matter on Thursday night, he did describe his concerns in more detail last Sunday. At that time he explained that he was raised on a farm and still farms to this day. He explained that in all that time “he has never accepted subsidies”. This pushes on a point that I’ve debated for quite sometime. It is often the case that subsidies don’t actually go to people that need them. Instead, they simply go to people that know how to use the system. I found this interesting and I like his stand on it.

The second highlight for Mr. Huber came in his response to a question from Dr. Moore. As stated above, Dr. Moore questioned Huber’s recent change to the Republican Party. I find this issue of particular interest because I’ve seen a similar argument in my own political background. Paul Huber had a wonderful response that struck a chord with me. He stated “labels belong on jars . . . not on people”. I thought that was particularly well said. Mr. Huber then went on to explain his conservative beliefs and background.

A lowlight moment for Mr. Huber was in his question to Ed Franz. Mr. Huber’s question was “What would you do regarding tax policy, regulatory policies, and employment policy that would help manufacturers get people back work?” It is my opinion that Mr. Huber comes off as an intellectual elitist. His question was asked in such a way that it seemed as though he was intending to belittle Ed Franz in some way. Ed Franz’s initial response was one of his highlights (see below).

Ed Franz

As mentioned above, the question from Paul Huber to Ed Franz came off in a bad way. After Huber asked his question, Ed Franz simply paused and said “well, thanks for that question Paul”. There was a hint of sarcasm in his voice and it was noticed by all attendees. The response received chuckles across the room. It was a very funny and light-hearted moment.

Another highlight in the evening for Franz was his response to a question regarding how he would “compromise” in Washington. Ed Franz went in a perfect direction when he stated “The death tax needs repealed. A compromise is to lower it. As long as the compromise helps, I’m okay with it. Where I won’t compromise is in deficit spending.” This simple statement managed to position Franz as a fiscal conservative. In my opinion, Franz needs to concentrate on this issue in order to pull himself away from the pack as a focused fiscal conservative.

The final highlight from Ed Franz came from his response regarding his electability against Kathy Dahlkemper. Franz made the bold move to state “(Kathy Dahlkemper) ran on the issue of Pro-Life. 14 months later she proved that she is not a friend of the unborn . . . she voted for a bill that will pay for tax funded abortion. We can’t afford to send fakes to Washington.” Wow. Those sound like fighin’ words to me. He took a bold stand, and I applaud him for his direct attack at the Congresswoman. It was refreshing.

Mike Kelly

A highlight for Mike Kelly came in his response to a question from Steve Fisher. The question was regarding the GM bailout. Fisher asked Kelly, a GM Dealer, how he would have voted on the government bailout. Kelly said “If you can’t make it on your own, how do you expect to make it on someone’s back?” He went on to say “I would have voted No. Your tax dollars should not have gone to keep a company alive that couldn’t make it on their own.” Those have been my thoughts regarding the bailouts, and it was nice to hear them clearly stated by one of the candidates. Mike gets extra credit for that one.

Kelly’s final highlight was, unfortunately, also a lowlight for him. During the closing question regarding his electability against Dahlkemper, Kelly started by explaining that “we’ve all had it with politicians”. He continued with “don’t blame the government. . . blame the people that we have sent to Washington” and he used great sound bites like “Say what you mean and mean what you say”. Unfortunately, as he was presenting his worthy sentiments, his voice was rising and he took on a very mean and angry tone. I realize that this might be part of Mike Kelly’s “schtick”, but he left me (and others in the room) with a sense that he is just a very angry man. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate ending to his performance. In an argument about why he is the best person to defeat Dahlkemper in November he managed to demonstrate why he may not fair well against her when it comes time to take her on face-to-face.

Clayton Grabb

Clayton Grabb had numerous highlights throughout the evening. Mr. Grabb seems very sincere and he genuinely speaks from his heart. While he may not be the most polished “politician” of the group, that is exactly what makes him appeal to the “anti-government/anti-incumbent” crowd.

One specific highlight from the evening was Grabb’s response to the question about which Federal programs should be eliminated or reduced. Grabb is the ONLY candidate that provided an example of a program that he would eliminate. Grabb stated “Eliminate the Department of Energy. We need energy independence and that department is not getting it done.” In a question that was ducked by many, Grabb stood out with his bold comment. Grabb also commented that there should be a “freeze on all government hiring”. I say “Amen” to that.

A second highlight came for Grabb in his use of humor. When discussing ways to improve health care, Grabb made the reference “You can’t have a night watching TV without seeing a caveman or a gecko.” This was an obvious reference to the fact that insurance companies have plenty of money for advertising. As a follow up he stated “Open up the markets and let there be competition”. His use of a bit of humor was a great way to bring attention on the issue. It was a light-hearted moment.

The most memorable highlight for Clayton Grabb was in his closing statements regarding his electability against Dahlkemper. Realize, first, that his comments followed those of Mike Kelly, which were very angry and loud. After a brief silence Grabb first stated “I know in my heart that I’m going to win the Primary in May and I feel confident that I’m going to beat Kathy Dahlkemper in November.” Clayton Grabb has the ability to inject emotion in his words, and it is moving. He then went on to make a statement referencing his military background and the explanation of what occurs when there is a “breach in the wall”. He used the same words last night as he did at a similar forum last Sunday, but it is a REALLY GOOD speech. I won’t even attempt to quote it here as it simply wouldn’t do it justice. Let me simply say that if you haven’t heard Clayton Grabb speak you should make it a point to make it to one of his upcoming functions.

In Closing . . .

Those were the notable highlights and lowlights of the evening . . . from my perspective, of course. I’m sure that everyone in the room left with different impressions of the events of the evening, but that is what makes this Country so great. One thing that we can all agree on is that formal debates like this one are an important part of the political process. It was encouraging to see so much interest from the community. I can only hope that everyone went home more informed than when they arrived.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

Spend, Spend, Spend: PA Budget Passed in the House

2010-03-24T20:24:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Governor Rendell is in a hurry to pass a budget before the June 30th deadline (for the first time in his career as Governor I might add). That is a GOOD THING.

Unfortunately, the piece of garbage that passed the House today is a mess. I don’t usually allow legislators to put words in my mouth, but in this case I’ll make an exception. I’d like to quote Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th District), whose official email announcement stated that “this spending plan is a fiscal train wreck”.

Wow! I wish I had written it myself! In a way, I guess I just did. It was absolute plagiarism . . . plain and simple but I digress. Regardless of WHO said it first . . .

Calling the budget a "fiscal train wreck" is some strikingly straight talk from a Harrisburg insider. In response, I say “It’s about time”.

I received numerous email messages from Pennsylvania legislators today. Each one explained that the idea of passing a budget quickly (and well before the deadline) is a great idea. Every legislator hopes to have a budget passed before the end of June this year . . . especially those legislators that have opponents in the General Election. However, the obvious fiscal irresponsibility of House Bill 2279 is poor policy. We can all tiptoe around the fiscal quagmire that IS the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but all of the icing in the world can’t sweeten this poison pill that they call a State budget.

Here are a few excerpts from the legislator email messages that were received in my “In Box”:

Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8th)

“At a time when state revenues have not yet rebounded, Pennsylvania needs to look to other states and follow their lead to reduce spending, not increase the state budget by $1.2 billion or 4 percent,” said Stevenson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. “Neighboring states like Maryland, New Jersey and New York have all taken steps to decrease expenses. They face the same financial obstacles we do, but they realize their taxpayers cannot afford a penny more in increased taxes and fees.”

Representative Brad Roae (R-6th)

“I voted ‘no’ because there is too much spending in the budget bill. Spending has increased by more than $8 billion since Governor Ed Rendell took office. We cannot afford to spend more than a billion dollars more than last year’s budget.

Representative Karen Boback (R-117th)

“I am greatly concerned about the overall spending number of this budget. The 2009-10 budget used all of Pennsylvania’s reserve accounts, and we are facing another deficit at the end of the year. To increase spending by $1.2 billion, which is 4 percent growth, is not wise. We should continue to look for ways to allocate our resources prudently, and we should remain cognizant that federal stimulus funds we have received for the past two years will soon run out. This is just not the time to increase state spending. “

Representative Sam Rohrer (R-128th)

“The current administration has led Pennsylvania down the path to fiscal insolvency,” Rohrer said. “The budget approved today by the House is simply a continuation of the fiscally irresponsible practices of the last eight years. It spends too much, disregards financial reality and ignores the wishes of Pennsylvanians.”

Representative William Adolf (R-165th)

“While I am pleased to see us debating the budget this early in the process, I believe the spending plan that was passed today is taking us in the wrong direction,” Adolph said. “This budget spends far more than we can afford, and it sets us up for some major financial problems in the near future.”

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th)

“I agree that government should be listening to the people it serves and address the numerous calls to live within its means. This spending plan is a fiscal train wreck that does not reflect the priorities of the people who are paying the bills and who have told us government must operate more efficiently and effectively.

In Closing . . .

HERE is a link to the budget document, and HERE is a link to the House Vote (which ended at 107 to 89 . . . pretty much along party lines).

My father used a saying when I was a kid. I never had a purpose for it until today. He would say “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear”. I find that analogy to be perfect in this situation. House Bill 2279 is a sows ear. It will be the job of the State Senate to transform it into a silk purse before June 30th.

Unfortunately, my faith in the ability of the Senate to bend and twist this sows ear into something attractive is limited. Our State Senators are concerned about having their names tethered to another delayed budget. That concern will make them hold their nose and vote FOR this “train wreck” with hopes of not drawing attention to themselves. They are crossing their fingers, closing their eyes, and praying for this election year to blow over without incident.

Time will soon tell.

Congressional Candidate Debate in the 3rd District (Thursday, March 25): Comparing Apples-to-Apples

2010-03-24T15:45:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

For those of us concerned citizens that reside in the 3rd Congressional District, the upcoming debate of the Republican Congressional Candidates is a MUST SEE. The details were published by my friends at The Herald HERE. Here are the specifics:

Date:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Time:

7PM

Where:

Grove City College, Schict Auditorium of the Hall of Arts and Letters

Why:

This meeting with give the six candidates that are trying to de-thrown Congresswoman Dahlkemper the opportunity to pit themselves against each other. It will provide us with the ability to compare apples-to-apples in this very heated race. We need to get to the details, and this debate MIGHT just do that.

Who will be there?

Attendees will include concerned citizens like myself. I urge you all to attend.

The six candidates that are running in the May Primary on the Republican ticket are . . .

Steven M. Fisher, 52, Cochranton, a health insurance salesman.
Ed Franz, 48, a Conneautville hourly worker at General Electric Corp. in Erie.
Mike Kelly, 61, a Butler car dealership owner.
Clayton Grabb, 47, a Butler pharmaceutical salesman.
Dr. Martha Moore, 52, a Sandy Lake family practitioner.
Paul Huber, 65, a Meadville businessman.

In Closing

I've had an opportunity to speak with all of the candidates personally. I have had at-length discussions with three . . . Steven Fisher, Mike Kelly, and Ed Franz. I like all three. Fisher, Kelly, and Franz all have "a backbone" and "a clear and fiscal conservative vision" for the people of the 3rd Congressional District. Most importantly, these three all get points in the "likeability" column.

Clayton Grabb seems to be a stand up guy. I like his "independence from Party" stand, and I think his military background is a bonus. He also gets points in the "likeability" column.

Dr. Martha Moore and Paul Huber leave me empty.

For additional details regarding these candidates, please review my article titled "Anyone for a game of political hot potato (Part One)?: Misuse of Legislative Resources ".

I will attend the event, and I will report the highlights back to you in this forum.

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

Politically Uncorrected : IF MEN WERE ANGELS

2010-03-23T21:52:00.001-04:00

By G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young

Finally! The cat is out of the bag. The jig is up.

By convicting former number two-Democrat and house leader Mike Veon of 14 Bonusgate related charges, a Dauphin County jury has confirmed Harrisburg’s worst kept secret: for decades legislative employees, using public resources and paid with public monies, regularly, systematically, and brazenly spent part or all of their workdays on political campaigns. Indeed, some of them were hired to do just that. In Harrisburg the public’s business has been the private business of a clique of powerful legislators willing to do whatever it takes to sustain their personal power while taxpayers pick up the bill.

But what now?

What can be done to prevent future such abuses of public trust?
How can legislators be prevented from dragooning public employees to work in their own campaigns?
What should be done to prevent state legislators from looting the public treasury to finance their own re-election campaigns?

These are not issues that will fade away with one case or one verdict. And if you think a few, or even a few dozen, convictions will stop inventive malefactors from finding new and creative ways to bilk the public treasury, think again. The systematic impressments of legislative staff and the pillaging of public dough to run private campaigns is an ancient scam in state politics—a fraud with more variations than we have legislators.

Sending people to jail isn’t going to stop it, editorializing passionately about honest government isn’t going to stop it, more crusading prosecutors aren’t going to stop it, and wishing it so isn’t going to stop it.

But there is something that will stop it—stop it fast, stop it cold, and stop it permanently. And that something is a state Hatch Act, modeled after the federal legislation of that name.

The Hatch Act passed in 1939 and was named after Senator Carl Hatch (New Mexico), who introduced the federal legislation. It was formally designated as An Act to Prevent Pernicious Political Activities, ironically foreshadowing the very pernicious political activities that would evolve in the Pennsylvania legislature.

The original Act was designed to prohibit federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity. Later it was extended to thousands of state employees, mostly in executive branches whose programs use federal monies in their programs.

But what’s good for the goose might be even better for the gander. Why not a state legislative version of the Hatch Act? A little Hatch Act, if you will, that would apply to legislative staffers. Certainly “preventing pernicious political activities” is what we want to do, particularly in the legislative branch where workers have no civil service or union protection.

They are at-will employees mostly, meaning they get hired and fired by legislators—legislators very interested in getting re-elected and legislators that are very good at finding ways to accomplish that. In fact, until recently Pennsylvania had incumbency re-election rates of more than 95 percent.

And Bonusgate is exactly about that problem: using staff and other public resources to get re-elected. The problem is cash. The demand for campaign resources is almost inexhaustible in modern times, and hijacking at-will staff paid with public monies presents an irresistible temptation for hard pressed legislators running political campaigns.

James Madison described it best long ago in Federalist No. 51: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” But men are not angels, as our politicians remind us again and again.

And so lacking both meaningful reform and angelic politicians, the abuses uncovered in Bonusgate will continue long after the last trial, long after the last prosecutor goes home, and long after the last legislator goes to jail. They will continue because under current law state legislators are like kids in a candy store—with no one behind the counter to make them leave the candy alone.

A little Hatch Act will put someone behind that counter, guaranteeing that the ancient abusive practices toward staff are ended. And it will do more. It will ensure that legislative staff are employed because of competence and ability, encouraged to learn and perfect the many technical competencies demanded of government workers, without fear that campaigning is expected for the next raise or the next promotion.

Some exceptions will likely have to be carved to account for the differences between state and federal government. But even with such exceptions, Pennsylvania has much to gain and little to lose by ‘hatching’ legislative staff.

Doing so would be a giant step toward leaving behind the near paralysis that has afflicted the general assembly for two years. And it would help send a clear and unequivocal message that the business of politics is no longer business as usual in the Pennsylvania legislature.

------------------
Politically Uncorrected™ is published twice monthly, and previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu. The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any institution or organization with which they are affiliated. This article may be used in whole or part only with appropriate attribution. Copyright © 2010 Terry Madonna and Michael Young.

Anyone for a game of political hot potato (Part One)?: Misuse of Legislative Resources

2010-03-23T08:27:00.002-04:00

PART ONE OF A TWO PART SERIES
(read PART TWO HERE)

Written by Roberta Biros

Politics are funny. Wait. STRIKE THAT. Let me start again.

Politicians are funny.

They are all the same. Democrat or Republican . . . it doesn’t matter. They all follow a code. That code can affectionately be referred to as CYA (yes, Cover Your Arse). As a general rule, once an individual has been elected to public office, they will live and die by the CYA code. I’ve seen it in action for years, but never quite so obviously as over the past few weeks.

Today’s issue actually began at the beginning of March. On March 1st I published an opinion post. Nothing unusual. On March 2nd I received a nasty comment to my opinion post. Again nothing unusual . . . not on the surface anyway. I receive positive and negative comments all the time. I write political commentary in an effort to educate and to stimulate. If I don’t stimulate conversation, then I simply haven’t done my job. It is my belief that more people need to “care” about politics and government, and I’m doing my part to increase interest and attract attention to important issues. The comment that I received on March 2nd was particularly personal. When I researched its origins I found that the comment was generated from a computer in a U.S. House of Representatives office. Based on a review of all of the data available, it was clear that the comment was submitted by a member of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper’s staff. I did what I do best . . . I published the information and contacted Mrs. Dahlkemper, the current candidates for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District, and my current state legislators to find out where they stand on the issue of congressional staff using taxpayer resources to grind a personal axe. Letters and email messages went out on Thursday, March 4, 2010.

The responses (or lack thereof) to my direct questions were interesting. In this post, which is PART ONE of a two part series, I will outline the response that I received from Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and those that are challenging her politically this year in the 3rd Congressional District. Here is a detailed break down of "who said what":

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper

On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, I received a phone call from Congresswoman Dahlkemper. The call came in at 5:40pm from the US Capitol (202-226-9928). I was not home and the call went to voice mail. Congresswoman Dahlkemper left the following message:

“Hi Roberta. This is Congresswoman Dahlkemper calling. I was following up with you on the letter that you sent me. I will try to call you later this evening just to touch base with you on that.”

I received a second call from Mrs. Dahlkemper’s private cell phone at 7:30pm. She left no message.

I received a third call from Mrs. Dahlkemper’s private cell phone again at 8:59pm. Because I was still not home, she left the following message:

“Hello Roberta. This is Congresswoman Dahlkemper calling again. I was hoping to connect with you. I will try again. If you have a chance you can call me at my office tomorrow at 202-225-5406. Thank you.”

I called Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office on Thursday, March 11, 2010 as instructed. She was unavailable and I left a message. I never received a return call. I emailed the Congresswoman’s office once again on Tuesday, March 16th. I received no response.

Mrs. Dahlkemper found it important enough to attempt to call me three times in three hours on one evening. However, the interest quickly faded and things returned to business as usual. It is unfortunate that I was not available to receive Mrs. Dahlkemper’s calls. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the matter with her personally and to find out exactly where she stands on the issue of her staff’s misuse of time and resources. Lack of a concrete response leaves me with no other choice than to say that Mrs. Dahlkemper didn’t find the issue important enough to take a stand “for” or “against” her staff. I find her behavior weak. I have no respect for an elected official that “stands for nothing”. If she had at least explained her opinion in the matter, I would have respected her for taking a stand. Instead, she tossed the hot potato.

Mrs. Dahlkemper receives high points in her ability to follow CYA protocols.

Candidates for Congress in the 3rd District

I sent letters and/or email notifications to the candidates for Congress in the 3rd District. Who responded to my query?

Steve Fisher (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

I received an immediate response from only ONE of the candidates listed above. Steve Fisher contacted me personally by email and promised that he would provide official written responses to my questions. In response to the three questions that I posed to all recipients of my letter, Mr. Fisher responded as follows:

Question #1:
Do you condone the use of federally-funded equipment on federally-funded time to defend your image as a Congressperson?

Response to Question #1 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
As an elected official, I would not condone any of my staff members for using such equipment or time to defend my image in a manner such as this. First of all, it was a blatant attack on your character. And second, it was done without any identification. My staff would be instructed to respond accordingly to letters, complaints, etc. using all professional methods necessary. If we were made aware of a Blog, Twitter account, etc. that is seeking information regarding my position, they would be responding without personal attack and would use factual documentation and they would be identified by name and position. If detailed information was required, I would have those requests directed to me. I would also personally follow-up as much as possible to meet with the concerned citizens. I understand that covering seven counties can make this difficult, but a letter like what you wrote would definitely receive a personal phone call or visit.

Question #2:
Do you actively request that your employees seek out negative information about you (on Federally-funded time and equipment) on the internet with the intention of personally attacking the individuals that are responsible for the posts?

Response to Question #2 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
Absolutely not. As an elected official, one must understand that there will always be some negativity in the media, on the internet, or in social activities. I am sure that people would make me aware of such personal attacks, but we would not be spending tax-payer dollars seeking them out. As to how we would respond, I believe I addressed that in the first question but can assure you that I would not allow any personal attacks such as what you received. In my opinion, such an attack would be cause for discipline and possible termination.

Question #3:
Do you encourage your staff members to speak on your behalf regarding issues of policy, issues of politics, and issues of personal-decisions and personal preferences?

Response to Question #3 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
Knowing that I will not always be available, I believe that my staff should have a strong understanding of my position on issues and would be able to reflect my position to constituents. If specific questions are asked that go beyond the basic information, my preference would be for them to refer those directly to me for my personal response. Part of the problem that we have had in Washington is that our elected officials have distanced themselves from the voters. I do plan to make myself more available in all seven counties on a regular basis. This may require me to hold meetings at night and on weekends, but that would be acceptable if it allowed me to better serve the District.

Steve Fisher took the time to respond personally, and he put forth an effort to be clear about his opinions of the incident. He took a stand, and he put his opinions in writing. He demonstrated that he would not waiver on how he makes decisions. He is a candidate worthy of support in his race against Mrs. Dahlkemper in November. He demonstrated intestinal fortitude, which is refreshing.

Ed Franz (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

I had the opportunity to have a one-on-one discussion with Ed Franz. I attended a meet-and-greet which was held on his behalf on Tuesday, March 9th in Linesville, PA. I was encouraged to attend by a friend (and an Ed Franz supporter). I had heard that Ed was a great guy, but I wanted to make my own judgment on his qualifications as a candidate. I had an interesting conversation with Mr. Franz, and in response to the 'Dahlkemper issue' he stated that he would provide me with a written response by email. We exchanged contact information. Unfortunately, Mr. Franz never bothered to take the time to put his responses in writing and he did not contact me to complete our conversation. He was quick to make 'the promise', but he did not follow through with 'the action'. He did the one thing that ALL people hate about "politicians" . . . he made a promise that he did not keep. Tisk . . . tisk . . . tisk. For this reason, the value of Ed Franz stock has dropped in my book. I don't want to be too quick to judge, but Mr. Franz has not made a good first impression with me. He is a nice guy, but he hasn't demonstrated his ability to take on the task of Congressman in the 3rd.

Mike Kelly (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

I received a personal phone call from Mike Kelly. He called to thank me for my work as a blogger and my efforts to shine a light on the political issues of the area. While he did not call to specifically discuss the issues related to Mrs. Dahlkemper, he found the allogations regarding the actions of her staff to be embarrasing. He stated in general terms that Mrs. Dahlkemper has abandoned her original stand as a non-politician and business person by quickly becoming a very entrenched politician. Our conversation was brief but we managed to discuss our opinions on many different issues. We both agreed that a longer discussion at a later date would be useful. He stated that he would call me back in the near future to schedule a personal meeting.

I give Mr. Kelly credit for taking the "personal route". The effort was all his, and he earns extra credit for that. I was curious to see if Mr. Kelly would keep his promise by scheduling a face-to-face meeting. My question was answered on Saturday, March 20 when I received another call from Mr. Kelly and he scheduled to meet me for coffee and further discussion. What did I discover?

Mr. Kelly is less interested in "politics" than he is in "policy". He is less interested in the "political back biting" that IS the Mercer County GOP than he is interested in bravely representing the 3rd District in Washington DC. He gracefully manages to side step "political" questions by focusing on the issues. He explained his view on Health Care Reform by citing specific examples that he has experienced as a business owner. He explained is support for keeping I-80 TOLL FREE by citing a childhood experience and his common sense view. He illustrated his firm support of smaller government and fiscal conservatism by expressing his own personal concerns as a "person" and not a "politician".

I'll admit that some of the rumors that I read and heard about Mike Kelly had me somewhat concerned. The gossip put him "in the pocket of political insiders", and that worried me. After meeting with him personally, I can say that Mike Kelly is his own man and he seems genuine in his desire to bring bold representation to our area. He is a candidate worthy of support in his race against Mrs. Dahlkemper in November.

All Other Candidates

Paul Huber (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
Clayton Grabb (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
Martha Moore (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

The remaining candidates on the list had no response to my inquiry. Hmmm. Hot potato anyone?

I had the opportunity to meet all three remaining candidates at a townhall meeting today. Here are some additional comments:

Clayton Grabb knew me when I introduced myself, he perfectly recalled the letter that I sent, he noted that he had posted my blog article on his Facebook page, but he never thought to respond. Hmmm.

Martha Moore knew me when I introduced myself. I asked if she received me letter and she said "yes". I asked if she wanted to respond to my questions and she said "should I?". Hmmm.

Paul Huber seems to be the most intelligent and well-versed in the group. However, when I introduced myself he had no idea who I was. I explained that I had sent a personal letter to his campaign and he responded "I've receive a lot of correspondence and I've been really busy". Hmmm.

In Closing . . .

This is a simple example focused on one straightforward set of questions.

Out of seven candidates for a very important elected position in the of U.S. Congress, only four made ANY attempt to respond.

Congresswoman Dahlkemper made an attempt but she lost interest and focus quickly. The “hot potato” was completely hers and she failed to handle it. She is no leader.

Candidates Steve Fisher and Mike Kelly stepped up to show that they are not afraid of questions. They both made clear statements of who they are and what they believe. I would be willing to give either one a shot at being my Congressman.

Candidate Ed Franz is a really nice guy. I'd have coffee with him any time. He failed, however, to illustrate his ability to lead or make hard decisions. He'd make a great buddy, but I don't know that he's ready to be a Congressman.

What about the other candidates? I ask you "What other candidates?"

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

.

Anyone for a game of political hot potato (Part Two)?: You say Hot POTATO I say Hot POTAHTO

2010-03-23T08:25:00.000-04:00

PART TWO OF A TWO PART SERIES
(read PART ONE HERE)

Written by Roberta Biros

I'll start PART TWO of this story in the same way that I started PART ONE . . .

Politics are funny. Wait. STRIKE THAT. Let me start again.

Politicians are funny.

The Basis of The Story

The original "story" is related to an opinion post that I published on March 1. The opinion snowballed into a bigger issue when a congressional employee submitted a nasty comment to my post. I contacted Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper regarding her thoughts on the problem that occurred, and I contacted state legislators to get their opinions on the same issue.

In PART ONE of this two part story, I outlined the responses from Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and her opponents on the Republican ticket in the Congressional race in the 3rd District. In this Part Two of two parts, I'd like to review the State angle on this issue.

In the case of the State Legislators that represent Mercer County, I realized that this particular “political hot potato” was a bit too hot for any of them to touch. For that reason, I decided to reframe my specific questions to them in an effort to find their individual legislative opinions regarding a more general topic. To that end, I sent them a follow up email stating the following:

As I am sure you are aware, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett, is currently involved in a public corruption investigation. The charges that have been brought against members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly are very serious and specific. While the problem that was outlined in my correspondence (regarding Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s staff) does not rise to that level, the basic questions that I ask are important in understanding your perception of “good government” as an elected official representing Mercer County. As a matter of discussion, I’d like to take a direct quote from the Pennsylvania State Grand Jury presentment (which can be downloaded HERE):

"Numerous past and present members of Representative DeWeese's legislative staff from his district offices testified before the Grand Jury. These staffers described the type of work that should be performed by legislative district office employees. This
legitimate work was primarily in the field of constituent services. The district office employees would assist people with forms, issues and concerns arising out of constituent interactions with state agencies.
Staff members would also assist constituents with questons about state employment. Additionally, staffers discussed and noted the concerns of constituents about legislation and legislative concerns. These would be forwarded to Harrisburg staff for any required attention and response. All of the district office staffers who testified before the Grand Jury stated that they knew the difference between legitimate legislative work and improper campaign work. They all stated that their work was never limited to the aforementioned appropriate legislative work.

Representative DeWeese's legislative staff and campaign staff were virtually one in the same. Michael Manzo detailed for the grand jury how DeWeese had no campaign apparatus beyond his legislative staff. Practically every aspect of his campaign, whether fundraising, mailers, advertisements, signs, or door to door canvassing, was performed by legislative employees. The core group in this effort was the staffers in DeWeese's district offices. "

In the statement above, the types of “legitimate” work that should be handled by staffers is clear. Based on those statements, please answer the following additional
questions regarding the incident of March 2nd that was outlined in my original
email message:

Do you believe that the “comment” that was posted to a public forum by a federal employee falls under the category of “legitimate work”?

Do you believe that there is room for any “grey area” when determining “legitimate work” of government employees?

Additionally, please respond to the following questions regarding the general concept of staffers mixing legitimate work and campaign work:

Should paid staff members be involved in campaigning at all (even on their personal time)?

In an effort to avoid the perception of impropriety, would you support legislation that would draw a firm line between legislative staff and campaign staff?

I emailed these follow-up statements and questions to Mercer County’s legislators on Tuesday, March 16. Below are the responses that I received (and those that I did not).

Representative Mark Longietti

I've never been disappointed by Mark Longietti’s level of energy or commitment to his constituents. He always responds to my queries . . . even if to say “I don’t want to respond to your query”. In this case, Representative Longietti called me from his personal (and privately funded) cell phone . . . a point that he stressed. First, he wanted to make it clear that I should not “assume any response based on his non-response to my query”. Rep Longietti then went on to explain that it is “hard to define what is political and what is not”, and in this particular instance it is his feeling that “this is part of a political discourse” and that in exercising his “best judgment” he chooses to “not use legislative resources to respond” to my query. He asked that I “respect his judgment in this matter”.

I explained that because he is an elected official in my district, I felt it his responsibility to respond to issues of legislative opinion. Specifically regarding the last questions posed, I asked his “legislative opinion” (not “political” opinion) regarding these specific questions. He refused to respond.

Rep. Longietti and I have had discussions regarding this matter in the past, and we argue the details each time. It is always an intelligent and heated debate. I asked Representative Longietti that since ANYTHING can fall under the category of “political”, did he feel that using the label of “political” as a guise to hide behind was unfair to his constituents. Again, he refused to answer and asked that I simply respect his right to not respond.

Once again, I respect Representative Longietti for getting back to me quickly and respectfully. I do not, however, support hiding behind words. He says potato and I say potahto . . . he says the question is "political" and I say a question is "policy". We will always disagree on this issue. He clearly senses the “hot potato”, and he reacted by backing into CYA mode. Unfortunately, that is just what politicians do. Representative Longietti is very much a “politician” . . . and a very good one at that. He is, however, also a pretty good guy. I’ll give him a pass on this one. He always has a right to refuse to answer a question, but I will continue to reserve the right to argue with him about it.

Representative Michele Brooks

Representative Michele Brooks is a hard-working public servant that burns the candle at both ends without complaint. The people of Mercer County can count on Ms. Brooks to respond to their inquiries . . . even if they do not reside in the 17th District (I am proof of that). Representative Brooks contacted me by phone (also using her personal cell). Like Representative Longietti, she made it very clear that she would not comment on the issues specifically related to Congresswoman Dahlkemper. Aware of the hot potato aspect, she felt it was “inappropriate to comment”.

When I specifically asked about Ms. Brooks legislative opinion regarding “legitimate work” and possible legislative reform in that arena, Representative Brooks provided a brief explanation. She stated that she has “supported reform legislation” in all areas. She explained that while many of the problems that are currently under investigation by the Attorney General took place before she was elected in 2006, many changes have already occurred to prevent potential problems in the future. While she made it clear that things are much better than they were, she also stressed that she would support further reforms in that area if they were to be presented. Representative Brooks has proven her stand as a "dedicated reformer" by her actions in Harrisburg over the past three years (which is why she is one of only ten members of our "PAGovWatch Honor Roll").

Regarding the rules that are already in place regarding legislative staff, Representative Brooks made a general statement that the members of her staff adhere to all rules regarding their positions.

I respect Representative Brooks for always responding to my questions and concerns. While she passed on the “hot potato” question related to Congresswoman Dahlkemper, she still showed “testicular fortitude” when responding to issues of legislative reform and good government (two areas in which Representative Brooks is both familiar and particularly active). Of the four state legislators that represent Mercer County, I find it funny that the ONLY woman in the pack is also the ONLY one in the whole lot of them with any “testicular fortitude”. The irony makes me giggle.

Representative Dick Stevenson and Senator Bob Robbins

As two of the original writers of the CYA code, Representative Stevenson and Senator Robbins did what they always do. They ignored my inquiry. In their case, it had nothing to do with a “hot potato”. For them it was easier than that. For Rep. Stevenson and Sen. Robbins it is simply a matter of ignoring their constituents consistently at every turn. Explain to me again why no one runs against these two? Neither one has any sort of “fortitude” . . . testicular, intestinal, or otherwise.

In Closing . . .

My experiences of the past few years have proven to me that I am not alone in my opinion of "what makes for a good public servant". There was a great letter to the editor in The Herald on Friday, March 20. In it a reference was made to our "so-called representatives". The individual wrote:

"We believe they are called public servants. We think each one should look up
the definition of a servant."

I've talked about the issue at great length with MANY MANY people in Mercer County, and my findings are always the same. As taxpayer . . . voters . . . concerned citizens, we all long for elected representatives with GUTS. I've used the terms "intestinal fortitude" and "testicular fortitude" interchangeably to represent this illusive characteristic. Is it so much to ask a person in office (or running for office) to stand for SOMETHING? Is it so ridiculous to think that people who are holding or seeking office should be required to clearly state an opinion when asked?

Trying to get a straight answer out of some of these people is like "pushing a rope". Should it really be that hard? Have the concepts of public service, transparency, and accountability been replaced with the "CYA Code" and "the game of political hot potato"? Sometimes I wonder, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that I am not alone in my concerns.

To that, I offer you (again) the following STATISTICS FOR REFERENCE:

The following is a quote from my article titled 2010 Petitions are IN: A Political Summary (published on 3/10/2010). It makes reference to the legislative offices that are open for election this year.

Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time, interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an elected candidate at the last election within the district”. Those numbers are computed below:

To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).
To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).
To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).
To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).

Summary Thoughts:

All you need is 826 signatures by August to run against Senator Bob Robbins? That would actually be pretty easy for anyone that's done that sort of thing before . Do you know anyone that fits the description?

They would, of course, need to be registered as "non-affiliated" or as a member of a third-party. Do you know anyone that fits the description?

They would also need to be dedicated to the concepts of good government and government reform . . . not to mention the fact that they would need to have a tireless desire to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. Do you know anyone that fits the description?

Hmmm. Once again, the irony makes me giggle.

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

BLOG POST UPDATE:

I contact our legislators regularly as I feel that it is the responsibility of "we the people" to hold our elected officials to the highest standard. Last week I sent the above list of questions regarding "legitimate legislative use" to the legislators representing Mercer County. Although I received some responses (2 out of 4 responded), my questions were not well received by any of those elected officials. I am not the only one in the State of Pennsylvania (or Mercer County) that is concerned about the inappropriate use of legislative staff. There was an interesting AP article (that was also published in The Herald on 3/21) which proves that. The article (read the full text HERE) provides a list of questions that we should ALL be asking of EVERY LEGISLATOR in Pennsylvania. I've sent the list of questions to those legislators representing Mercer County, and I will publish their responses if they decide to submit them.

I URGE ALL OF YOU to do the same!

Who is Mel Marin, Democrat Candidate for Congress?

2010-03-21T22:54:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

There are many of us who have been asking the same question, and I felt I had some responsibility to shed some light on the topic.

On March 18th I posted a blog titled “Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper faces petition challenge”. In it I explained that Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s political challenger on the Democrat ticket in the Primary is also challenging her nomination petitions. Mel Marin of Erie filed the necessary paperwork in Harrisburg to officially challenge Mrs. Dahlkemper’s petitions.

“Mel Marin” is a bit of an anomaly in the 3rd Congressional District. There appears to be very little information about him available on the internet, and some of us find the lack of details particularly curious. In my post of March 18th I provided some information about Mr. Marin as it was originally reported in The Herald, and I also provided a link to Mr. Marin’s website.

Upon publication of the post I was contacted by an anonymous source. The source informed me that there was more to know about Mel Marin and they suggested that I take a closer look. They provided a few bread crumbs as a trail for me to follow. Since that time I’ve done a bit of research and I thought I should share my findings with all of you.

Additional information regarding Mel Marin is publicly accessible on-line if you know where to look. Mr. Marin is known by various names (aka Melvin Milivoj Marin, aka Mel Milivoj Marin, aka Mel M. Marin, aka Melvin Marin, aka Melvin Marinkovic). It is through the use of these various names and the names of his parents Milivoj and Eva Marinkovich (named as his campaign managers on his website) that additional information can be found through simple internet searches. Here are some of my findings [I urge you to review the internet links for additional details]:

The Sharon Herald reported HERE that “Marin made news in Mercer County last fall for filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city of Sharon for allegedly refusing to sell him condemned properties for $10 each because he is Serbian.” According to numerous sources sited on the internet, it seems that this is not Mel Marin’s first experience in the court system.

Mel Marin's name is associated with numerous instances of litigation throughout the US. Mr. Marin is currently listed as a VEXATIOUS LITIGANT in the State of California. A vexatious litigant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vexatious_litigation) is an individual who repeatedly brings about frivolous lawsuits for the sole purpose of harassing individuals, groups, or corporations. Mr. Marin is listed HERE (a PDF file) on the Superior Court of California, County of Imperial website. In the published “vexatious litigant list” he is listed under his various names of Mel Marin, Mel M. Marin, Melvin M. Marin, and Mel M. Marinkovic.

Mr. Marin also has a legal history in the state of Arizona where he is listed in court documents HERE under the name of Mel M. Marin along with his parents, Milivoj Marinkovic and Eva Marinkovic.

A simple search found lawsuits in Mel Marin’s name in Arizona, California, District of Columbia, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania (including Mercer County).

Regarding his parents Milivoj and Eva Marinkovic, they are listed as his campaign managers on his website HERE (at the bottom of the page). Their names in that instance are listed as Milivoj and Eva Marinkovich with an address of PO Box 1651 in Hermitage PA. My anonymous source suggested that both Milivoj and Eva Marinkovic / Marinkovich are deceased. I did a search of the Social Security Death Index and found one Milivoj Marinkovic with a last residence in Utica NY that passed away in 2008 (and recorded in Ohio). I also found one Eva Marinkovic with a last residence in Escondido, CA that passed away in October of 2009 (and recorded in Ohio). These previous addresses are consistent with the other information that was available on-line regarding Mr. Marin’s parents. An on-line document provided by the USPS provides information regarding legal action by Mr. Marin against the US Postal Service. In the document references are made to his California and Utica NY addresses.

As a final note of interest, there is a story posted by a San Diego TV station regarding a Melvin Marin and his mother Eva. In the story it is explained that Oceanside California police were looking for Eva Marinkovic, who had gone missing from a La Paloma Convalescent Center. The story further stated "Family members believe her son, Melvin, may have checked her out of the facility, and taken the woman to another state for treatment of dementia and Alzheimer's." The story can be viewed on-line HERE. The on-line version of the story helps to tie the individuals from the San Diego incident to candidate Mel Marin of Erie as a photo of his mother, Eva, is supplied. The woman in the photo is strikingly similar to the woman in the photo that is provided of Marin's mother on his campaign website HERE.

I’d like to make it very clear that I am not making any specific accusations regarding Mr. Marin or his background. I simply followed information that was publicly available through simple internet searches. My concern for good government makes me wonder “Who exactly is Mel Marin?"

Once again, I urge you to make use of the links that I’ve provided and do a little research of your own. I am willing to share any information that is brought forward regarding this matter in an effort to uncover the truth.

Dating Awareness Bill Passes the House

2010-03-21T07:07:00.001-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

The story below (published on-line by the Post Gazette) shares information about recent legislation (HB 2026) that provides dating awareness for teens. It is "designed to help teen boys and girls become aware of obsessive or dangerous signs in the people they date". The basis of the bill is a story that truly pulls at your heart strings. Named the Demi Brae Cuccia bill, the legislation was written in honor of a teenage girl from Monroeville who was murdered in 2007 by a young man she had been dating. The effort behind the bill was a testament to the commitment of the family and their legislators, but it called into question the role of government in the education of our children.

The bill met with opposition from some legislators. According to the Post Gazette, "Rep. Gordon Denlinger, R-Lancaster, said he understands the problem but worried about too much government intrusion into family matters. "

A review of the House history of the bill shows quite a bit of wrangling by some to make the Bill more palatable before passage. The full history is published HERE. Representative Michele Brooks (R17-Mercer, Lawrence, Crawford) added an amendment to the bill (illustrated in the voting history HERE) that provides parents with the power to "opt out" of the program if they choose. Representative Brooks stated "I should have a choice, as a parent, as to what is being taught about what my daughter should be doing on a date."

Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10076/1043354-454.stm

State Lawmakers are working to protect us from the Federal Government

2010-03-20T23:48:00.001-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

The Federal Government seems out of control. There are things going on in Washington DC right now that make us feel helpless. There are deals going on inside the beltway that don’t seem to take the concerns of Pennsylvanians into consideration. It is partially our fault for having elected Senators and Representatives that don’t care about us or our needs, but national politics is sometimes “too big” for some locals to feel attached to. I’m one of those people. I work hard to retain the ear of my state legislators (some of them), but when it comes to our Senators and Representatives in Washington DC, I’m left with a feeling that they “live in DC now” and they don’t have a sense of what their constituents in the area are thinking.

Let us take a look at the key issues on the national news THIS MORNING. If you tune in to Fox News today, Saturday, March 20, 2010, you will find ONE gigantic story topping the headlines. That topic is Health Care Reform. Let us talk about that subject first.

Health Care Reform

Like many of you, I’ve received numerous email messages and phone calls urging me to contact my Congresswoman (Kathy Dahlkemper) to urge her to vote Yes OR No for Health Care Reform. If you attempt to call the Congresswoman’s office, however, you never get an opportunity to talk to her. In some cases you can’t even get through to the office because of the high volume of calls. It is difficult to feel attached to the issue when you can’t even have an educated debate regarding the topic.

We see that many are making the trip to DC in an effort to protest one side of the issue or the other, but not everyone has the time or money to make a trip like that. We are left back at home watching the discourse from a distance on TV or over the internet.

In the end, we are all left with the feeling that Health Care Reform will be decided through backroom deals and super secret payoffs. What WE have to say doesn’t really matter in the long run.

Closing Guantanamo Bay in exchange for military tribunals

Another issue that is at the top of the headlines is a possible “horse trade agreement” headed by Lindsey Graham that will close Guantanamo Bay in exchange for military tribunals. It is another example of politicians making backroom deals that WE have no control over. Lindsey Graham thinks that he can make a deal, but Eric Holder still stresses that he “believes in civilian trials”. Lindsey Graham may think that he is making a “gentlemen’s agreement”, but I would argue that there is no such thing in Washington DC.

What are our Legislators doing to protect us from the deals in Washington DC?

Using the two examples above, it is important that Pennsylvanians understand that they DO have a way to fight back against the deals in Washington. Our way to protect ourselves against “deal making” is to count on our State Lawmakers. Here are a few examples of state legislators that are pushing to protect us from Washington DC deals:

Health Care Reform Protection from Harrisburg

HR 562 – Introduced by Rep. Karen Boback (R)*

HR 562 is a House Resolution memorializing the Congress of the United States in its health care reform decisions to apply the American Cancer Society's guidelines for breast cancer screening. Rather than following the USPSTF recommendation against teaching women breast self-examination and recommendation against routine mammograms for women 40 to 49, HR 562 requests that Congress apply the recommendation of the American Cancer Society (suggesting continued annual screening).

HR 562 may seem silly to some in that it is extremely specific, but it attempts to send a message to Washington DC regarding a very specific concern. It illustrates that our only way to combat the Universal Health Care Reform legislation may be by picking it apart one item at a time.

HB 2179 – Introduced by Rep. Curt Schroder (R)*

HB 2179 is a House Bill with a broader goal. HB2179 is a House Bill which attempts to amend the PA Constitution by adding the following clause: "No law or program shall be enacted requiring citizens of this Commonwealth to participate in a health care system and no law or program shall:(1) prohibit a person from or penalize a person for making direct payment to a health care provider for tendering health care services;(2) prohibit or penalize the purchase of health care insurance from a privately owned health care insurance company; or (3) penalize a person, employer or health care provider for declining to participate in a health care system.

This bill is specifically designed to protect us from the unconstitutional elements of the Health Care Reform legislation that is being pushed through Washington DC.

What do they mean?

These pieces of legislation illustrate that there are elected representatives in Harrisburg that are actively attempting to protect Pennsylvanians from the actions of Washington DC. If we can’t fight DC, we can atleast retain protection from their poor decisions. In the case of HR 562, we can send clear messages to to DC regarding a specific issue (breast cancer screening). In the case of HB 2179, we can attempt to protect ourselves in the case that our specific messages aren’t heard.

Guantanamo Bay and Civilian Trials Protection

HR 110 -- Introduced by Rep. Dan Moul (R)*

HR 110 is a House Resolution that urges the United States Congress not to transfer any detainees from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp to Pennsylvania.

HR 622 – Introduced by Rep. Michele Brooks (R)*

HR 622 is a House Resolution memorializing the United States Department of Justice and United States Attorney General Eric Holder to not hold the trials for those individuals accused of being the masterminds behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the citizens of the United States of America in Pennsylvania.

What do they mean?

These pieces of legislation attempt to send a message to Washington DC that explain that Pennsylvanians don’t agree with the direction that DC is going. They make simple statements like “we don’t want your detainees” and “we don’t want your 9/11 trials”. We many not have the ability to control the decisions in DC, but we can send a clear message that we don’t want to be a part of their actions.

Wrapping it up

These are just a few examples of how Pennsylvanians can have a voice in Washington DC. While you may not be able to state your concerns personally to your Senators and Congressmen and women, you we still have the ability to voice our concerns through your state lawmakers. While Congresswoman Dahlkemper may not return my calls, I know that I will receive a response from State Representatives like Curt Schroeder, Karen Boback, Dan Moul, and Michele Brooks. You don’t believe me? Well, try it for yourself. I may not reside in Representative Brooks district (although I am from her County), but that doesn’t stop her from responding to my questions. I don’t live anywhere near Curt Schroeder’s district, but he has responded to my email inquiries personally (and I might add that he did so more quickly than my own legislators).

Here is some advice. If you find that YOUR legislators aren’t listening, find ones that do. The legislator that represents my district (Representative Mark Longietti from the 7th in Mercer County) is responsive to my questions and he is a nice fella, but he doesn’t support the issues that are important to me. As a concerned citizen that actively pushes for government reform, transparancy, and accountability, I’ve found it necessary to seek legislators that “think the way that I think” and that “support the issues that are important to me”. If you are finding yourself frustrated with your elected officials, take steps to fix the problem . . .

(1) work to vote out the lawmakers that don’t represent your values
(2) seek out and support lawmakers that DO represent your values (where ever they may be)

* NOTE: Representatives Karen Boback, Curt Schroeder, Dan Moul, and Michele Brooks are all included in the Directory of Fiscal Conservative Pennsylvania State Legislators. If you are looking for legislators that support good government, you might want to start with this list.

BLOG POST UPDATE:

In case you thought the concept of holding 9/11 trials in PA were not going to happen, READ THIS article that explains that Joe Sestak "supports trying 9/11-mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Western Pennsylvania". According to the article:

On Sunday, Joe Sestak told WPVI ABC News he is “open to the possibility” and he
will “accept it” if the trial is moved from New York City to Pennsylvania. He is also adamantly in favor of holding Mohammed’s trial in a civilian court, where we will be forced to grant the terrorist generous rights that may compromise our national security interests.

This is just another reminder that HR 622 (referenced above) needs to be passed sooner than later!

President Obama is keeping a close eye on Congresswoman Dahlkemper

2010-03-20T09:42:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

For those of us that work on the internet everyday, statistics are our world. I keep a close eye on the web traffic of my business websites, and I keep an equally close eye on my political blog readership. The majority of my traffic comes from residential internet customers. It is normal people in their homes reading political opinion and news stories regarding local political figures. Everyday I receive traffic from the Pennsylvania House and Senate. This is nothing odd since much of my subject matter is the Pennsylvania General Assembly. It is good to know that they are looking to see what people are saying about them. I've also received steady traffic from Washington DC offices. They usually just visit the site, read the articles, and then leave. The ONLY exception was the recent visit by a staff member of Congresswoman Dahlkemper who felt compelled to submit a nasty comment in response to a blog post about their boss (read HERE). This was VERY unusual and obviously the actions of an idiot. Traffic from high profile government or commercial entities is not uncommon. HOWEVER . . . In a quick review of my web stats today, I found a very interesting entry that managed to grab my attention.

As you can imagine, it caught my eye pretty quickly. If you didn’t see it clearly, the source of the web traffic is labeled Executive Office of the President of the USA. It got my attention and I had to take a closer look.

A person at a computer in the Executive Office of President Obama took time to read the article that I posted on my site PAGovWatch.com. The specific article that was accessed was titled “Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper faces petition challenge” and it was posted to that website this morning.

For those of us that live in Mrs. Dahlkemper’s 3rd Congressional District, we KNOW that both sides of the aisle are VERY interested in registered voters in this area right now. I’ve received about 10 calls in the past 4 days asking my “opinion” on Health Care Reform. I’ve received daily email messages from David Plouffe of BarackObama.com telling me to contact Congresswoman Dahlkemper. Robo-calls and automated email messages (spam) are one thing. A person in the President’s Office actually sitting down to research the latest news on Congresswoman Dahlkemper is really funny.

The visit made me think of two (2) separate issues:

First, the story that was accessed was regarding the issue that Mel Marin (Congresswoman Dahlkemper's Democrat challenger) is challenging Mrs. Dahlkemper's nomination petitions. I’m wondering if Mel Marin has received an offer of a job in the White House yet? I’m sure the White House would love the Congresswoman to “promise” a YES vote on Health Care, and I’ll bet my bottom dollar that they are looking for the perfect carrot to dangle at the end of their stick. What better offer than for her "problems" to disappear.

Second, I’m glad to see that the staff at the White House has more self control than the staff at Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office. They were able to visit the site and read the article, but they managed to have enough discipline and restraint to not send me a nasty comment regarding my opinions. I'm fair and I'll give credit where credit is due!

This is just a simple reminder to all of us . . . Big Brother IS watching.

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper faces petition challenge

2010-03-19T07:54:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

The details are still coming in, but it seems that Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper has yet another hurdle to pass in order to simply get her name on the Democrat ballot for the Primary. March 16th was the last day for challenges to be filed against nomination petitions for the 2010 Primary Election. The Pennsylvania Voting and Elections site provides the complete list of challenges HERE.

Based on the published list, Mrs. Dahlkemper’s petitions for the Democrat nomination are being challenged by Mel Marin, who happens to be Mrs. Dahlkemper’s Democrat opponent on that same ballot. According to a story published at PAIndependent.com, “There is a hearing scheduled for March 24, said Mr. Boyle, at which time Mr. Marin (or any objector) will appear in court to present the challenge. But, Mr. Boyle also said “Sometimes objections are withdrawn, and sometimes because of an objection the candidate withdraws, so that’s always a possibility.”

Read the full story at PAIndependent.com HERE .

My guess is that the basis of this challenge is simple political wrangling. It does prove, however, that candidate Mel Marin is determined to make a bold statement in his challenge of Mrs. Dahlkemper. For that Mr. Marin receives points for "spunk" in my book.

I'll admit that I know very little about Mel Marin, and very little is available through on-line research. Mr. Marin does have a campaign website [HERE], but it is not particularly robust. The little bit that I do know came from an article in The Herald last week [read the full story HERE]. In that story by Matt Snyder, The Herald reported the following:

Marin made news in Mercer County last fall for filing a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city of Sharon for allegedly refusing to sell him condemned properties for $10 each because he is Serbian.

Marin’s campaign Web site blames corrupt judges and bankers for home foreclosures, claims health care professionals push the elderly into hospice care so they will die faster, and suggests that gays use parades and clowns to seduce young people.

The Herald story was interesting, but some of the statements could be considered interpretations by Matt Snyder. Rather than relying on the snippets from The Herald alone, I would suggest that readers explore Mr. Marin's website in order to learn more about the candidate.

We will need to wait another week to find out how the petition challenge pans out. During that time we might also find out exactly where Congresswoman Dahlkemper stands on Health Care Reform. In other words, her political future may very well be determined in the next seven days . . . one way or another.

Race for Lt. Governor reveals GOP's deep divide

2010-03-18T06:29:00.000-04:00

By: Lowman S. Henry

All signs point to 2010 being a banner year for Republicans in Pennsylvania. Powered by the national backlash over the dramatic leftward tilt of the Obama Administration, the GOP appears poised to win back the U.S. Senate seat lost by the defection last year of Arlen Specter, pick up a number of congressional seats, and reclaim the governor's office.

The Republican tide runs so deep and so strong all this is likely to happen despite deep and deepening divisions within the ranks of the GOP. Only Pat Toomey, the leading candidate for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, has largely united the party behind him. It is in races for the other two statewide offices on the ballot - governor and lieutenant governor - where the fissure emerges.

State party leaders thought they had successfully cleared the field for Attorney General Tom Corbett to claim the gubernatorial nomination uncontested. Then State Representative Sam Rohrer jumped into the race. While Rohrer remains a decided underdog, he is filling rooms across the state with town hall-style meetings and has tapped into the energy of the TEA party movement. Something is happening at the grassroots level, but it is too early to tell where it might lead.

But it is the down ballot race for lieutenant governor where the intra-party angst is most prominent. In a normal year the selection of a lieutenant governor candidate is almost an afterthought. In fact, traditionally, the party's endorsed candidate for governor has selected his or her own lieutenant gubernatorial running mate. Those candidates have generally faced little or no primary opposition; then they go along for the ride in the general election as governors and lieutenant governors are voted on as a team.

That hasn't happened this year. A multi-candidate field emerged to contend for the party endorsement, which eventually went to Bucks County Commissioner Jim Cawley. This occurred after two ballots and considerable behind-the-scenes maneuvering. Several of the candidates then stepped aside in deference to the party's decision. But, some did not, and a number of other candidates ignored the endorsement process entirely and joined the fray at the filing deadline.

A field of nine candidates will appear on the ballot for lieutenant governor this year. It consists basically of Cawley - and eight others, most of whom are running on a reform agenda. Part of what they want to reform is the endorsement process itself, which this year sparked an unusual amount of controversy amid ignored calls for an open primary.

State Representative Daryl Metcalfe, a surprise last-minute entry into the race, began his campaign with a verbal blast at state party chairman Rob Gleason. Chet Beiler, the party's 2008 nominee for auditor general, continued his campaign for lieutenant governor after finishing second for the endorsement infuriated by what he saw as party leaders putting their fingers on the scale. York County businessman Steve Johnson; and the party's 2004 nominee for state treasurer, Jean Craige Pepper, also competed for the endorsement and lost. Both have stayed in the race.

Also in the field are candidates who have made their reputations fighting for reform. Former State Representative John Kennedy of Cumberland County refused a state pension and other perks accorded legislators during his terms in office; and Russ Diamond of Lebanon County led the Clean Sweep movement that sprang up in the wake of the infamous pay raise debacle. Rounding out the field are Luzerne County Commissioner Steve Urban and Billy McCue, a conservative activist from Washington County.

The conservative base of the Republican Party in Pennsylvania has for years felt estranged from the official party establishment. That estrangement has manifested itself in several ways, ranging from the ousting of incumbent legislators in the wake of the pay raise controversy, to the recent flocking of conservative Republicans into the TEA party movement.

This year, the battle is being fought by Rohrer, but also in the race for lieutenant governor. With nine candidates running around the state, and six or seven beating the drums for reform, the inescapable targets are party and elected leaders and the systems they have constructed. It is here the battle for the soul of the GOP is being fought.

The danger, of course, is that with one officially anointed candidate and multiple reform candidates the reform vote will predominate, but be split, allowing Cawley to emerge as the ultimate winner. Geography, name recognition, fundraising and ballot positions will also play important roles. The outcome is uncertain, but one thing is for sure; the outrage and anger are for real and for the Republican Party to remain viable going forward it is going to have address that anger by instituting significant reforms.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

Rep. Kathy Rapp: State Agency Says Regulation of Wood Boilers Should Be Legislative Decision

2010-03-17T17:02:00.002-04:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

State Agency Says Regulation of Wood Boilers Should Be Legislative Decision

Causer, Rapp, Gabler call on DEP to withdraw regulations

The state’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission (IRRC) has weighed in on the proposed regulation of outdoor wood-fired boilers (OWBs) and says the decision is one that should be made by lawmakers, not regulators.

According to comments IRRC submitted to the state’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB) Monday, “the regulation of OWBs on a statewide scale is a policy decision of such a substantial nature that it requires legislative review...Since regulations have the full force and effect of law, we believe any decision pertaining to the use of OWBs should be made by the elected officials of the legislative branch of government that represent all geographic regions of the Commonwealth.”

Reps. Martin Causer, Kathy Rapp and Matt Gabler applaud the IRRC opinion and say it is just one more piece of evidence that should convince the Department of Environmental Protection to reject the proposed regulations.

“I have stated from the beginning that I do not believe the state should be involved in the regulation of wood-fired boilers. Local governments already have that authority, and they impose regulations where they are needed,” Causer said. “I too believe EQB overstepped its bounds with this proposal and have introduced legislation that will require legislative action on all future regulations proposed by the board.”

“Again, at a time when almost all Pennsylvanians are struggling with higher energy bills and the harmful effects of the international economic recession, the DEP’s new wood boiler regulations have little to do with environmental protection and will amount to nothing more than kicking hard-working people while they’re down,” Rapp said. “In terms of job creation, economic recovery and achieving Pennsylvania’s energy independence from non-renewable foreign imports, these overkill regulations should not just be sent back to the drawing board, but scrapped entirely.”

“I don't believe the Department of Environmental Protection has any business trying to enact a one-size-fits-all policy for the entire Commonwealth,” said Gabler. “This is a classic case of state government overstepping its bounds in taking on this issue. A one-size-fits-all approach wouldn’t even work in my own district, let alone an approach that treats us the same as the City of Philadelphia.”

Under the proposed regulations:

A person may not purchase, sell, offer for sale, distribute or install a boiler unless it meets Phase 2 standards for efficiency.
New boilers must be installed at least a minimum of 150 feet from the nearest property line.
New boilers must have a permanently attached stack that must be at least 10 feet above ground and extend at least two feet above the highest peak of the highest residence located within 150 feet of the boiler.
Existing boilers must also have a permanently attached stack that is at least 10 feet above ground and extend at least two feet above the highest peak of the highest residence located within 500 feet of the boiler.
Only clean wood, wood pellets made from clean wood and certain home heating oil, natural gas or propane fuels can be used in the boilers.
DEP must now take into consideration the IRRC comments, as well as those from the public and from lawmakers. The agency will then decide whether to keep the regulation as it is, revise it or withdraw it completely.

IRRC was created in 1982 to review Commonwealth agency regulations to ensure that they are in the public interest, that the agency has the statutory authority to enact the regulation and determine whether it is consistent with legislative intent.

Rep. Martin T. Causer
67th District

Rep. Matt Gabler
75th District

Rep. Kathy Rapp
65th District

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper “urges women to run for office” (as long as they are Republicans with no aspirations to be a Congresswoman)

2010-03-15T07:39:00.000-04:00

Written by Roberta Biros

I know that the title of this blog post seems a little mean spirited, but I am simply providing a service. The headline quotes a news article from GoErie.com (read the full story HERE), the parenthetical goes a step further to state the underlying meaning of the first quote. Allow me to explain.

On Thursday, March 10, GoErie.com published a story titled “Dahlkemper to honor women in Pa. legislature on House floor”. In it they explained that at 10am that morning Congresswoman Dahlkemper was scheduled to speak on the House floor “to recognize the six women in the Pennsylvania General Assembly from the 3rd Congressional District.” The article further explained that in recognition of Women in History Month, Congresswoman Dahlkemper was going to recognize state Sens. Jane Earll, Jane Clare Orie and Mary Jo White, and state Reps. Michele Brooks, Donna Oberlander and Kathy Rapp. Furthermore, she is making this statement because she (according to GoErie.com) “is urging more women to consider running for office.”

That was the content of the very short story on GoErie.com. Allow me, however, to provide the REST OF THE STORY. First, let us examine the women that Congresswoman Dahlkemper planned on recognizing on March 10th.

State Senator Jane Earll: 49th District, Erie County, Republican

State Senator Jane Clare Orie: 40th District, parts of Allegheny and Butler Counties, Republican

State Senator Mary Jo White: 21st District, Erie, Warren, Forest, Venango, Clarion, and Butler Counties, Republican

State Representative Michele Brooks: 17th District, Mercer, and parts of Crawford and Lawrence Counties, Republican. [NOTE: Representative Michele Brooks has also received our Highest Ranking on our Directory of Fiscal Conservative Pennsylvania State Legislators]

State Representative Donna Oberlander: 63rd District, parts of Clairon and Armstrong Counties, Republican [NOTE: Representative Donna Oberlander has also received a High Ranking on our Directory of Fiscal Conservative Pennsylvania State Legislators]

State Representative Kathy Rapp: 65th District: Warren, Forest, McKean Counties, Republican [NOTE: Representative Kathy Rapp has also received our Highest Ranking on our Directory of Fiscal Conservative Pennsylvania State Legislators]

Upon close (or not so close) review, you will find that ALL of the six women who were being recognized are all REPUBLICANS. This observation illustrates the important fact that Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s 3rd District in Pennsylvania is CONSERVATIVE. I make this point specifically for those Democrats that have recently argued that point with me. Contrary to the beliefs of some Mercer County Democrats, the 3rd Congressional District is NOT even remotely similar to Nancy Pelosi's district in San Francisco. It also goes to show that perhaps Congresswoman Dahlkemper does have an understanding of who she needs to pander to in this election year, which is refreshing.

The “line” in the article that states that Congresswoman Dahlkemper “is urging more women to consider running for office” makes me laugh, though. The statement is disingenuous. When the Congresswoman had an opportunity to support a fellow fiscal conservative running for office last year, she ran for the hills. She also has a clear opportunity to support a woman, Martha Moore, that is running in her district THIS year . . . but I’ll bet you all a dozen donuts that she has not welcomed her into the political ring. Why? Because Martha Moore is a woman running for office . . . Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office. Dr. Martha Moore is running for Congress in the 3rd District.

The truth is that Mrs. Dahlkemper honored these 6 women on the floor of House yesterday as a personal Thank You to each of them for NOT running against her this year. It has nothing to do with “women supporting women”.

As a personal note to State Senators Jane Earll, Jane Clare Orie and Mary Jo White, and State Representatives Michele Brooks, Donna Oberlander and Kathy Rapp, I’d like to extend a SINCERE thank you for representing WOMEN and ALL people in our area graciously. Furthermore, I would like to urge each and every one of you to consider making a move to the U.S. Congress in 2012 as each of you are perfectly qualified and deserving (this is something that Mrs. Dahlkemper would never tell you).

.

2010 Petitions are IN: A Political Summary

2010-03-11T06:41:00.001-05:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Tuesday, March 9th was the last day to file nomination petitions in Pennsylvania. Individuals wishing to run as a major party candidate needed to gather a pre-determined number of signatures in order for their names to appear on the Primary Ballot in May for their respective parties. There are several state-wide and regional races of note, and the candidates in those races are numerous. All of the petitions that were filed are listed HERE for your review.

U.S. Senator

In the race for US Senator, three Democrats will fight for Arlen Specter’s seat.

SPECTER, ARLEN
SESTAK, JOE
VODVARKA, JOSEPH

In the Republican race for US Senator, two Republicans will battle it out for the opportunity to take Arlen Specter’s seat.

TOOMEY, PAT
LUKSIK, PEG

Details:

The candidates in the race for US Senator were required to gather 2000 signatures on their petitions, and they needed to submit a $200.00 filing fee for the privilege of running for office.

My Comments:

We are all looking forward to seeing Arlen Specter lose. At this point it is a matter of whether he loses in the Primary or in the General Election. I wish I had a preference, but I do not. Anytime will be a good time to see Arlen Specter retire.

Pennsylvania Governor

In the race for Governor, four Democrats are taking on the challenge to fill Ed Rendell’s very capable shoes (that was a joke, of course).

WAGNER, JACK
ONORATO, DAN
HOEFFEL, JOSEPH
WILLIAMS, ANTHONY HARDY

On the Republican side, there are two options for the Republican Gubernatorial candidate.

CORBETT, TOM
ROHRER, SAMUEL

Details:

The candidates that wished to run for the office of Governor of Pennsylvania were required to gather 2000 signatures and pay a $200.00 filing fee. The 2000 signatures needed to include at least 100 signatures from each of at least 10 counties.

My Comments:

I have favorites from both the Republican and Democrat tickets in this race. For the Democrats, I have a special respect and admiration for Jack Wagner. I like Jack and I feel that he would make a fine Governor. In the Republican column, I am a fan of Sam Rohrer. In 2009, I published my own “Directory of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally conservative events. Representative Rohrer faired very well in my unscientific poll, and, therefore, tops my list of preferred candidates.

Representative in Congress, 3rd District

To focus more closely on the Northwest Region of Pennsylvania, I’d like to discuss the race for Representative in Congress in the 3rd District.

On the Democrat ticket, current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper has an opponent.

DAHLKEMPER, KATHY
MARIN, MEL

On the Republican ticket, six candidates have stepped up to send Mrs. Dahlkemper back home to Erie.

FRANZ, ED
KELLY, MIKE
HUBER, PAUL
GRABB, CLAYTON
FISHER, STEVEN
MOORE, MARTHA

Details:

Candidates running for the much coveted position of Representative in Congress needed to collect 1000 signatures and pay a $150.00 filing fee.

My Comments:

First, I’m very excited to see that Mrs. Dahlkemper has a Democrat opponent. I wish Mel Marin the best of luck.

The field of six Republicans is interesting. I’m impressed by two of the Republican candidates. Steven Fisher seems very intelligent and hard-working. I had a brief email conversation with him last week regarding the recent problems within Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office (read the full story HERE, and I will publish details regarding Mr. Fisher’s comments within the next week). Mr. Fisher was quick to personally respond to my query, and I respect that in any one that is seeking a position in public service. I’ve also had the pleasure of meeting with candidate Ed Franz. Mr. Franz was kind enough to devote time to a personal discussion with me at a meet and greet earlier this week. Mr. Franz is also a hard worker, and he seems to have the best interests of the people of the 3rd District in the correct perspective. Candidates Kelly, Huber, Grabb, and Moore have not responded to my personal queries. I, therefore, cannot offer a positive testimonial regarding their ability to serve the people of my congressional district.

2010 Election in Mercer County decided by Petitions

As a resident and concerned citizen of Mercer County, I always attempt to focus on the races that directly impact our local area. Unfortunately, it appears that ALL of the races for Senator and Representatives in the General Assembly have already been determined.

Senator in the General Assembly, 50th

Incumbent Senator Bob Robbins (R) was simply required to receive 500 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee is re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 500 signatures and $100).

Representative in the General Assembly, 7th

Incumbent Representative Mark Longietti (D) was simply required to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 300 signatures and $100).

Representative in the General Assembly, 8th

Incumbent Representative Dick Stevenson (R) was simply required to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 300 signatures and $100).

Are you seeing the trend here? Well, it wouldn’t be complete unless . . . yes . . .

Representative in the General Assembly, 17th

Incumbent Representative Michele Brooks (R) was simply required to receive 300 signatures and pay a $100 filing fee to guarantee re-election. At this point it appears that he will have NO opponent. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide (based on 300 signatures and $100).

But does it stop there? Oh Gosh NO.

Member of the Democrat State Committee (43rd)

Mark Longietti (State Rep.) and Liz Fair (Mercer County Prothonotary) will again both run against no other candidates for the two seats. 100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the two of them to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins this election by a landslide.

Member of the Republican State Committee (43rd)

Cindy Robbins (wife of State Senator, and chairwoman of the Mercer County Incumbent Party), Walter Richardson (husband of Mercer County Treasurer, and husband of the co-chairwoman of the Mercer County Incumbent Party), and Scott Boyd (newcomer and Tea Party organizer) will all run together with no other challengers for the three seats. 100 signatures each and a $25 filing fee allows the three of them to walk into the positions unopposed. The Mercer County Incumbent Party wins two seats and will do everything that they can to discourage all activity by Scott Boyd.

My Comments:

Once again, no one in Mercer County (with the exception of Scott Boyd) wants to step up to challenge the Mercer County Incumbent Party. Democrats are watching the backs of Republicans, and Republicans are watching the backs of Democrats. In the end, the incumbents run unopposed and everything remains business as usual in Mercer County.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that it is NOT TOO LATE to challenge the incumbents. If you have the nerve, it is possible to run against Senator Bob Robbins and Representatives Stevenson, Longietti, and Brooks. “How?”, you ask.

Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time, interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an elected candidate at the last election within the district”. Those numbers are computed below:

To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).

To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).

To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).

To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).

Races of Note from a Conservative Perspective

As I referenced earlier in this article, in 2009 I published my own “Directory of Fiscally Conservative PA Legislators”. The list was based on the participation of the legislators in specific fiscally conservative events. The full list can be viewed HERE.

I decided to take a look at the list to see how our conservative legislators are doing in their respective races this year. Of the legislators that are on the list, the following are considered the MOST FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE by my rankings. I’ve also noted the status of their political races this year:

Bradley Roae (6th) – running unopposed in November

Daryl Metcalfe (12th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November, but Rep. Metcalfe is also running for the office of Lt. Governor

Michele Brooks (17th)* -- running unopposed in November

Mike Turzai (28th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Thomas Creighton (37th)* -- will have a Republican opponent in the Primary.

Scott Hutchinson (64th)* -- running unopposed in November

Kathy Rapp (65th)* -- running unopposed in November

Jerry Stern (80th)* -- running unopposed in November

Rob Kauffman (89th) – running unopposed in November

Todd Rock (90th) ) – running unopposed in November

Dan Moul (91st)* )* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Stanley Saylor (94th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Rosemarie Swanger (102nd) -- will have a Republican opponent in the Primary.

Karen Boback (117th) -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Samuel Rohrer (128th) – running for the office of Governor of Pennsylvania.

Jim Cox (129th) – running unopposed in November

Paul Clymer (145th) -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

Bob Mensch (147th) – running for the office of State Senator.

Curt Schroder (155th)* -- will have a Democrat opponent in November.

* - an asterisk designates that the individual received my highest rating for fiscal conservative legislators in 2009.

In Closing

So, there you have it . . . a summary of the interesting races in 2010 as of today, Wednesday, March 10, 2010. As we all know, however, the dynamics of these races could change on a dime in the coming days, weeks, and months.

I’ve always made it clear that I support fiscally conservative candidates. The list above is a summary of “who needs your help” this year. I intend on offering my assistance to any fiscally conservative candidate that is willing to accept my help (regardless of the location of their voting district).

I’ve also made my thoughts regarding the importance of running for public office very clear. Competition and opposition during an election is healthy. It draws attention to the importance of elected office, and it forces our elected officials to defend their territory. I give credit to all of the candidates that have taken the step to run in 2010, and I encourage concerned citizens to get involved in the process. If ANYONE in Mercer County is interested in running as a third party candidate for any of the legislative positions outlined above, feel free to contact me at roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com. I am willing to offer assistance, guidance, and support in your endeavor.

.

Employees of Congresswoman Dahlkemper Campaigning “On Company Time”?

2010-03-02T10:43:00.001-05:00

Written by Roberta Biros

I get plenty of traffic to my numerous blogs. I’m currently publishing my comments through several different forums and I receive traffic from all of them. The traffic patterns are always interesting to look at. I receive local traffic throughout Mercer County, I receive traffic from throughout Pennsylvania (Harrisburg, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Erie), and I receive steady traffic from Washington DC. I understand that there are plenty of people “keeping an eye” on bloggers (especially the conservative ones), and I’m entertained by their diligence. Today, however, I experienced something new, and I feel that it should be discussed publicly as it exemplifies a problem with “the system”.

The "Dahlkemper Post"

I published a blog post yesterday titled “Taking Bets: Will Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper Be a One Hit Wonder?”. It was a simple piece explaining why I think that Congresswoman Dahlkemper will lose her seat in Congress in 2010. As soon as the post was published it began to receive traffic nationwide. It also received quick comments through the supplied discussion forum.

I believe in free speech, and I like the comment feature because it gives everyone an opportunity to join in the conversation. I accept the criticisms that are shot my way and I publish all comments and respond accordingly.

This morning I received an interesting comment that attempted to criticize me personally, and also attempted to “prop up Mrs. Dahlkemper” using this public forum. The comment read as follows (or you may read the comment HERE):

We do think a lot of ourselves don't we? Much as i thought, you have no clue as to how one becomes a "Blue Dog". You have to be invited to join the group, you can't just announce it. Be asked to join means that you meet a certain criteria the group has. Perhaps research is not your strong suit.'
I also noticed you skipped over the the pro-life issue which you in your original is informed rant inferred that she was not. Again making things up will only fool the ignorant. The facts will make your bet the sucker bet.
By the way, I'll see your acquaintances and raise you mine that Dahlkemper has more personalty in her pinky than you do in your entire body. Do you think that your obvious disdain for 'them thar LIBrals' might have something to do with the fact that Dahlkemper did not fawn over you? Again, you do think a lot of yourselve don't you. Did you win by a landslide in your race? Oh that's right you lost.

I found the comment to be particularly angry, but still eager to "campaign" on behalf of Mrs. Dahlkemper. I was curious, and a quick glance at the origination of the published comment was startling.

My Findings?

It seems that a FEDERAL EMPLOYEE that works in a U.S. House of Representatives Office was posting the comment using US TAX PAYER DOLLARS on a computer and internet connection that were PAID FOR by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and US TAX PAYER DOLLARS.

The Details

The individual logged in from IP address 143.228.129.9. A simple search on that IP address through on-line sources (in this case http://cqcounter.com/whois/) proved that the comment was posted on March 2nd, 2010 at 9:13:41 AM by a PC that is using a US House of Representatives computer and internet connection. The data regarding IP address 143.228.129.9 is displayed below.

My experiences with these types of visits (and I have seen many during the past year and a half) have shown that the IP address may show up as Washington DC, but the physical connection itself can be anywhere. The same goes for Pennsylvania State Government connections that are labeled “Harrisburg PA”. The physical connection may well be in Mercer County.

The internet connection being used in this case is clearly paid for, installed on behalf of, and maintained by the Federal government via the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington DC, but the actual visit may have occurred from a PC in a different location (like Hermitage, PA, for instance). I’m sure that a Federal review of the IP address would probably provide additional information in this case.

My point is . . .

I understand that it may be the job of Federal employees to monitor blog activity regarding elected officials. Such monitoring might actually provide elected officials with the most accurate account of what concerned citizens are thinking, and that is a good thing. However, when a Federal employee makes use of the time and equipment that is paid for by the Federal government (and thus the tax payers) to grind a personal axe or to attempt to promote “their candidate” on MY DIME, I become VERY VERY CONCERNED.

Perhaps this incident should be investigated a bit.

Please feel free to share your thoughts HERE.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

.

Taking Bets: Will Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper Be a One Hit Wonder?

2010-03-02T10:41:00.000-05:00

Written by Roberta Biros

With little political activity in Mercer County this year, we are left to focus on the one big race that faces Mercer Countians and voters in the Northwest corner of PA . . . the race for the much coveted seat in the 3rd Congressional District. The race is shaping up to be one featuring the current incumbent, Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper, against any one of many Republican challengers. Regardless of which Republican ends up on top after the Primary, the final result will be the same. I’m willing to bet my bottom dollar that Congresswoman Dahlkemper will lose her seat after only one lack-luster term in the U.S. House of Representatives . . . and rightly so.

To examine why the results are so simple to predict, we need to examine a few issues . . . the past, the present, and the future.

The Past (2008)

First, let us examine the past . . . long past. Let us take a time machine trip back to 2008 when Mrs. Dahlkemper ran against long-time incumbent Phil English. It is first important to understand that Mrs. Dahlkemper didn’t win against Phil English because she was the best possible candidate. No way . . . not by a long shot. Mrs. Dahlkemper won against Phil English because conservatives wanted Phil English OUT.

The chatter before the 2008 General Election was that conservatives would vote for Dahlkemper just to boot Phil’s rear-end out of Washington and to the curb. The idea was to get rid of Phil English so that he could be replaced with a “real” conservative in 2010. It was a chance that Mercer Conservatives were willing to take (Clarification: in this case, “Mercer Conservatives” is not referring to me, but to the body of conservative voters in Mercer County as a whole). Mrs. Dahlkemper won the 3rd District because conservatives LET her win.

In 2008, Mrs. Dahlkemper ran against a non-existent Phil English campaign in Mercer County. There were NO English signs displayed in the County (even though it is my understanding that there were hundreds available), and there were no visible efforts by those in charge of the English campaign to fight Mrs. Dahlkemper. There has been some speculation that this downplaying of the Republican support was part of the backroom dealings in the “Mercer County Incumbent Party”, but regardless of WHY it happened, Mrs. Dahlkemper won Mercer County.

The Past (2009)

Rather than understanding HOW she got there, Mrs. Dahlkemper went on to make more mistakes by listening to the Democratic leadership in Mercer County. They insisted that “they” were the reason for Mrs. Dahlkemper’s 2008 win, and they insisted that the Congresswoman “owed” the Progressive wing of Mercer County politics some level of payback. While Mrs. Dahlkemper had the right idea by announcing her “Blue Dog” affiliation early in 2009, she was also quick to abandon those values when pressured by Progressive Democrats. She has taken bad advice from Mercer County Democrats and members of her own staff, and she is left looking spineless and lacking leadership abilities.

The Present

Let us examine the present as it applies to Congresswoman Dahlkemper. She finds herself at the center of the health care debate in Washington. While she “promised” to support health care reform, she also “promised” to be pro-life. She promised to be a fiscal conservative, but also promised to support one of the most fiscally irresponsible health care bills in our country’s history. (Sidebar: Don’t get me wrong . . . I support the idea of health care reform, but this 2000+ page Bill isn’t what I was looking for.) Mrs. Dahlkemper seems to have made too many promises that she simply cannot keep. In the end, she attempted to be all things to all people but ultimately she stands for absolutely nothing.

In addition to her decision making problems, Mrs. Dahlkemper simply isn’t a good “people person”. I’ve met her numerous times. I’ve been introduced to her (and have been introduced) so many times that I cannot even count the instances. Yet, Mrs. Dahlkemper wouldn’t know me if I walked up to her at an event with a name tag on. I’ve written numerous letters and email messages to her office in Erie, and I have never received so much as a courtesy response. She has no people skills. She has no personality. She seems to be a bit of a “muppet” with an interesting “deer in the headlights” look to her. I don’t mean to be unkind, I’m simply stating it like I see it . . .Congresswoman Dahlkemper gives the impression of being a very empty suit.

The Future

Lastly, when we examine the future we see that “Millionaire” Kathy Dahlkemper doesn’t have enough time or money to re-invent herself before November of 2010. She spent the last year taking advantage of photo-ops but has managed to make no real or substantial impact in Washington. Her most important piece of legislation was simply a photocopy of Rep. Longietti’s “failure to launch” Bill. It is a Bill that makes it possible for parents to cover their “children” on their heath insurance policies until their “children” are nearing retirement age (I exaggerate, but I simply think that 30 years old is simply too old to continue to be covered by your parents insurance). The bill seems ridiculous at the State level and is even more so at the Federal level.

The Congresswoman has shown her true colors, and it will be impossible for her to re-paint herself as a fiscal conservative between now and November. She will have NO support from Mercer County Democrats because Mercer County Democrats are all too busy watching out for themselves. Additionally, the leadership of the Mercer County Democrat Committee made clear statements last year that Mrs. Dahlkemper’s “Blue Dog” roots make her “as bad as a Republican”. I’m sure that isn’t the glowing endorsement that she would be hoping for. The Mercer County Republicans will be of no assistance to Mrs. Dahlkemper this time around either as they have too many deals that require payback after the 2009 election. Ginny Richardson, Bob Robbins, and Dave King made some hefty promises to the state GOP last year that will require their very serious involvement in ousting Mrs. Dahlkemper this year. If the Congresswoman is looking for help, she will need to find it in Crawford County or Erie, but she will be wasting her time in Mercer County as a whole.

In Closing

Based on her experiences in the past, present, and future, Congresswoman Dahlkemper will undoubtedly be a “one-hit wonder”. With any luck, a “Conservative” will win the seat in the 3rd Congressional District and Mrs. Dahlkemper will have served her purpose well. She will go down in history as the temporary placeholder that got rid of Phil English.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer County Conservatives

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe: February 2010 Metcalfe Memo

2010-02-25T20:03:00.003-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

From the Office of State Representative Daryl Metcalfe

Pull the Political Covers off Wasteful Spending

February is the month of the governor’s budget address to the Pennsylvania Legislature. Before I address the governor’s budget proposal for this year, let’s look at last month’s legislative activity.

Last month the final deals of last year’s budget were put in place as the legislature passed another gambling expansion bill. I shared with you in my January memo how the legislature violated both the spirit and the intent of the House of Representatives rules and the law to ram the bill through.

The legislation also included a new form of “WAM” or funding streams to benefit certain legislative districts and of course the legislators for those districts. Although the governor publicly acknowledged and lamented that the legislation contained these funding streams for certain legislators, he signed it any way.

One of the political covers that legislators utilize is their elected legislative leaders. At the federal level certain Democrat legislators try to claim they are conservative while at the same time they elect and empower radical leftists like Representative Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid.

At the state level Republicans hold the majority in the Senate and control the flow of legislation. The most recent gambling expansion bill was opposed by 80 percent of the Republicans in the House and 67 percent of the Republicans in the Senate. Why would the Senate leadership allow a bill to pass and even be voted on that 2/3 of the Republican Senators supposedly opposed?

What is even more interesting is that the very same week, just before the vote, the Senate held leadership elections and all leaders were retained. After the bill passed, it was also reported that one of the House leaders admitted that he helped the Democrat leadership identify Republican House members who would vote for the gambling legislation. That leader recently resigned his leadership position.

The only secret votes cast by legislators in Harrisburg are for their leaders. All votes cast by legislators should be open. Bringing an end to secret leadership elections would create more accountability by removing one of the political covers legislators are using to vote one way for show but allow their leadership to enact policies that they say they oppose.

Exposing and removing the political covers used by politicians is vital if we are to be successful at stopping the out of control spending by our government.

The most important vote of the year cast by the Pennsylvania Legislature is on the budget. Everything that our state government does for us or to us is enabled or disabled through the budget.

Of course, the governor is proposing to do even more to us in this year’s budget. His proposal to spend $29 billion or $1.2 billion more than last year’s budget is a reckless and callous disregard for the citizens of Pennsylvania. The governor continues to call for tax increases to fund his insatiable appetite for spending and his lust to have more control over the lives of Pennsylvanians. One of his tax increases is to tax dozens of products or services that taxpayers do not currently pay taxes on.

I will continue the fight in Harrisburg to protect taxpayers.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe
Office Locations
2525 Rochester Road, Suite 201, Cranberry Township, PA, 16066 Phone: (724) 772-3110
1165 Pittsburgh Road, Route 8, Valencia, PA 16059 Phone: (724) 898-1500
47 East Wing, PO Box 202012, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2012 Phone: (717) 783-1707

Rep. Karen Boback Reminds Seniors of Free Seminar

2010-02-25T09:39:00.003-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

From the Office of State Representative Karen Boback

Free Seminars Help Seniors Protect Themselves, Their Assets

If you are a senior citizen or the care giver of an older adult, I encourage you to attend a seminar hosted by the Luzerne-Wyoming Counties Elder Abuse Task Force of Pennsylvania to learn about financial fraud.

When?

The free seminar, “Protecting Yourself from Elder Financial Fraud: Don’t Become a Victim!” will take place from 10 a.m. to noon on Monday, March 8, at Misericordia University’s Insalaco Hall. There will also be an evening seminar held from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. on the same day and at the same location. The morning session will include lunch and the evening session will include light refreshments.

Presenters at the event will include:

Ronald Costen, director of the Pennsyvlania Institute of Protective Services at Temple University.

Brenda Colbert of Marshall, Parker & Associates, a law firm specializing in elder issues and estate planning.

A representative from the Pennsylvania State Police.

Staff from the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office.

To learn more about the seminars or to register, call (570) 822-1158 before March 1.

More information about the Luzerne-Wyoming Counties Elder Abuse Task Force is available here.

It is shameful that unscrupulous individuals target vulnerable and trusting senior citizens, but by learning about these scams, I am hopeful senior citizens will be equipped to protect themselves. As a founding member of the task force, I can tell you that these seminars will empower participants with the information they need to avoid being victimized.

Office Locations for Representative Boback:

5315 Main Road , P.O. Box 333, Sweet Valley, PA 18656 (570) 477-3752
7844 Blue Ridge Trail, Mountain Top, PA 18707 Phone: (570) 868-7780
141B East Wing, PO Box 202117, Harrisburg PA 17120-2117 Phone: (717) 787-1117

Rep. Mark Longietti announces Financial assistance available for people with autism

2010-02-23T09:44:00.003-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

From the Office of State Representative Mark Longietti:

I am pleased to inform you that individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder, as well as families with a member who has it, can apply for state grants of up to $500 to help offset the costs of certain services or activities. The deadline to apply for this program is April 16.

Priority will be given to individuals who did not receive this grant from the Bureau of Autism Services in the past. Remaining grants will be offered on a first-come, first-served basis. Total funding for these mini-grants is limited.
To apply, visit the bureau’s Web site. You may also call toll free 1-866-539-7689 (select Option #2) and leave a message requesting a paper application be mailed to you.

As always, please contact me if you have questions about this, or any other state-related issue.

Rep. Michele Brooks Says Applications Now Available for Property Tax/Rent Rebate Program

2010-02-22T10:24:00.004-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) would like to let residents know that forms for the state’s Property Tax/Rent Rebate program for 2009 are now available and offers assistance to residents in completing the rebate forms.

Eligible participants can receive a rebate of up to $650 based on their rent or property taxes paid in 2009. The program benefits eligible Pennsylvanians who are 65 years or older, widows and widowers 50 years or older, and those 18 years or older with permanent disabilities.

Eligibility income limits for homeowners and renters are set at the following levels, excluding 50 percent of Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Railroad Retirement Tier 1 benefits:

$0 to $8,000, maximum $650 rebate (Homeowners and renters)
$8,001 to $15,000, maximum $500 rebate (Homeowners and renters)
$15,001 to $18,000, maximum $300 rebate (Homeowners only)
$18,001 to $35,000, maximum $250 rebate (Homeowners only)

The Property Tax/Rent Rebate program is one of many initiatives supported by the Pennsylvania Lottery, which dedicates its proceeds to support programs for older Pennsylvanians. Since the program began in 1971, more than $4 billion has been paid to qualified applicants.

Residents are reminded to provide all the necessary income, property tax or rental information required to process claims quickly and accurately. Applications are due by June 30.

Property Tax/Rent Rebate claim forms are available by contacting Brooks’ office at (724) 588-8911 or (800) 457-2040 or by visiting her Web site at RepMicheleBrooks.com.

Rep. Michele Brooks

17th District Pennsylvania House of Representatives

(724) 588-8911

(800) 457-2040

(814) 337-8132

(717) 783-5008

Rep. Michele Brooks’ Resolution Requests Federal Official to Reject Pennsylvania as 9-11 Trial Site

2010-02-16T06:56:00.000-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

To honor and respect the memory of the heroic passengers and crew members killed aboard United Airlines Flight 93 in Somerset County on Sept. 11, 2001, and to protect the safety and well being of Pennsylvania residents, Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) is sponsoring a resolution urging the U.S. Attorney General to remove Pennsylvania as a possible location for the upcoming trial of the terrorists.

“We owe the brave men and women aboard that flight our eternal gratitude and respect for their bravery and patriotism shown in their final hours,” Brooks said. “These people were true American heroes, and to consider Pennsylvania as a location for the trial is dishonorable at best.”

The resolution, which Brooks expects to formally introduce in the House in the coming days, requests the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder eliminate Pennsylvania from consideration as an alternative location for the trials of the Sept. 11, 2001, masterminds. The criminals are slated to go on trial in New York City; however, the Obama administration has since announced that alternative locations are being considered. The decision on an alternative location is being left up to Attorney General Holder.

Since this announcement, the federal court in the Western District of Pennsylvania – which includes all of Pennsylvania – has been mentioned as an alternative.

“The military should be handling these trials as the risks are too great to our homeland security. Although the federal government is now pledging $200 million to help pay for security costs, there is no indication that this amount will cover all of the necessary expenses which must be undertaken to ensure the safety and peace of mind of the citizens of Pennsylvania,” Brooks added.

Rep. Michele Brooks
17th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(724) 588-8911
(800) 457-2040
(814) 337-8132
(717) 783-5008
Member Site: RepMicheleBrooks.com
Caucus Site: PAHouseGOP.com

Rep. Mark Longietti says LIHEAP deadline extended, cash grants increased

2010-01-05T17:35:00.002-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

Representative Mark Longietti made the following announcement today, Tuesday, January 5, 2009:

Pennsylvania's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, better known as
LIHEAP, will increase cash grant amounts by $100 and extend the program through
April 2 because additional federal money has become available.

Under the changes, LIHEAP's closing date has been extended from March 15 to April 2. The Department of Public Welfare, which administers the program, expects the change will allow an additional 80,000 households to receive help paying for their
heat.

DPW also expects cash grants for this winter to average $326 because of the additional federal dollars.
You can visit the LIHEAP section in DPW's web site by clicking here. Information
is also available by calling the Mercer County Assistance Office toll free
at 1-800-747-8405.

Additional details regarding this issue are available from Representative Longietti's website at http://www.pahouse.com/Longietti/index.asp

Mercer County Legislators Respond To COLA Questions (or not)

2010-01-05T07:04:00.001-05:00

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

Rep. Mark Longietti announces Pa. House Scholarship applications available

2009-12-17T17:06:00.000-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT from Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th)

Pa. House Scholarship applications available

Applications for the 2010-11 Pennsylvania House of Representatives Scholarship are now available at my Hermitage constituent service office, or online at www.pahousescholarship.com.

This scholarship program is open to Pennsylvania high school seniors who plan to attend an in-state college, university or professional training school full-time.

Applicants are judged on academic record, extra-curricular activities, leadership and commitment to community; must have a 3.0 grade-point average; and are required to submit an essay on William Penn's role in shaping state government.

The deadline to apply is March 1, 2010.

If you know a college-bound high school senior who could use a little help with tuition costs, please share this information with them. There are two scholarships worth approximately $2,500. The program is privately funded; no taxes or other public funds are used.

Please contact Representative Longietti if he may be of further service to you and your family.

Tolling of I-80: Concerned Pennsylvanians Take Their Fight to Washington DC

2009-12-14T06:53:00.001-05:00

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

.

Representative Roae (Crawford) Supports Efforts to Fund State-Related Universities

2009-12-14T05:25:00.000-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT
DISTRIBUTED ON DECEMBER 10, 2009

Rep. Brad Roae (R-Crawford) predicts that it will be at least Monday until the House votes on bills to fund Pitt, Penn State and three other measures for state-related institutions.

“I voted five times on Wednesday to bring the college funding bills up for a vote, but the Democrats blocked them,” Roae said. “One after another the Democrats voted against allowing the Pitt, Penn State and the three other college funding bills to come up for votes.”

Roae said the schools will have to raise tuition if the college funding bills are not approved.

“The funding should have been passed by June 30 as part of the budget, but the Democrats have blocked them for several months” Roae said

“At 11 p.m. last night, when voting session ended, the Democratic speaker of the House announced that voting session would be at 8 a.m. on Thursday. At midnight, he changed it to 10 a.m.; then, at about 10:15 a.m., he postponed voting session for the rest of the day.

“The table game gambling expansion bill was up for the third and final day of consideration, but Speaker McCall moved it back to make it the second day of consideration again so they could amend it,” Roae said. “The speaker, majority leader, and governor are demanding that the gambling bill and the $200 million in expected tax revenue pass before bringing up the $600 million in bills to fund the colleges. The House Republican Appropriations Committee reports that $400 million of it could be passed before the gambling bill.”

Roae said the attorney general has a grand jury investigating gambling casino corruption.

“Many of us (in the General Assembly) believe we should not give table game licenses to people who may be under investigation,” Roae said. “It would be prudent to wait until the attorney general’s investigation is completed before we consider table games.”

“If we do approve table games, the tax revenue should be used for property tax cuts rather than for regular government spending. Gambling was supposed to dramatically lower our property taxes, a promise many believe has not been kept.”

Roae said many people are also concerned about current bill language that would allow casinos to make loans to customers who are out of money but want to keep gambling.

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

.

Representative Michele Brooks is "On the Road Again"

2009-12-07T08:00:00.000-05:00

Written by Roberta Biros

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17) sent an email announcement yesterday morning stating that she would be hosting three town hall meetings in December. The meetings were scheduled for December 1, 2, and 3 from 7pm until 8pm. The announcement provided very short notice to its recipients, but it was an interesting announcement none the less. Why? Well, allow me to explain!

Most interesting is the fact that Representative Michele Brooks is the ONLY legislator that represents any portion of Mercer County that schedules town hall meetings on a regular basis. I am on the email lists of Sen. Bob Robbins, Rep. Dick Stevenson, Rep. Mark Longietti, and Rep. Michele Brooks, and Rep. Brooks seems to be the only one that regularly meets with her constituents in an open forum. For the record, I would be more than happy to attend and summarize any and all meetings of other Mercer County legislators, but there haven't been any that I am aware of.

Also of interest to me were the locations of Rep. Brooks’ meetings. You may recall that back in May Rep. Brooks held two town hall meetings (read my summary of those meetings HERE). At that time I criticized that both meetings were scheduled for the northwest corner of her district (in Espyville in Crawford County and Greenville in Mercer County). It was my opinion that Rep. Brooks was staying close to her home town of Jamestown and ignoring the rest of her district because she wanted to remain in her “comfort zone”. This month, however, the three meetings were stretched across the vast expanse of the 17th District as follows:

Dec. 1 – Coolspring Township Building, 852 North Perry Highway, Mercer.
Dec. 2 – Cochranton Firehall, 113 Adams St., Cochranton.
Dec. 3 – Washington Township Building, 1413 George Washington Road, Volant.

The careful planning of these meetings is clearly an attempt to cover a much larger piece of real estate, and I give her credit for that. Insert well deserved applause HERE.

I already had previous engagements for December 2nd and 3rd, so I decided to attend the December 1 meeting. Besides, the Coolspring Township location was only a few minutes from my home in Delaware Township. I covered one of her May meetings pretty thoroughly [READ HERE], but I was curious to see if the content matter changed 6 months later.

The meeting was scheduled to begin at 7pm. Unlike the meeting in May, I managed to arrive at this meeting on time and was able to experience the excitement from start to finish. There were between 15 and 20 attendees. Rep. Brooks did not have a planned discussion thread. Instead, she opened the floor to open comments from the attendees and she fielded any and all questions that were tossed her way.

The discussion topics varied, but the following issues were all discussed at some level:

I-80 Tolling
Health Care Reform
2009-2010 PA State Budget
Fair Funding
Police Services
Alternative Energy
PA Agricultural Caucus
Fire Departments
Term Limits
Building Codes
Regulations re: Outdoor Wood Stoves
Guantanamo Bay Prisoners

Below is a more detailed overview of some of the more interesting (and, perhaps, controversial) topics:

I-80 Tolling

Although many people think that the issue of the tolling of I-80 is long over, the truth is that the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission has resubmitted an application for enacting tolls on the interstate to the Federal Highway Administration. The two prior applications were rejected, but the Turnpike Commission’s attempts continue. This was the first topic that was brought up by attendees of the meeting, and Representative Brooks was anxious to discuss the topic in detail. As per Rep. Brooks:

“I am spearheading an effort with Congressman Thompson (R-PA 5) and Congresswoman Dahlkemper (D-PA 3) to coordinate a meeting with the Secretary of the Highway Administration. We want to arrange for a delegation to travel to Washington to meet with Secretary LaHood.”

Rep. Brooks made it clear that the goal of the meeting would be to turn down tolling on I-80, but she feels that it is important to make sure that the information used to make the decision is accurate. Rep. Brooks sited various examples of misinformation regarding recent studies and comments regarding “over exaggeration regarding the potential economic hardships for the area”, and she wants to make sure that accurate data is presented from the stand point of trucking, goods and services, and agriculture.

Rep. Brooks pointed out that “while this is a Federal decision, we have rallied to point out the deficiencies in the application that the Turnpike Commission has submitted . . . they have spent millions of dollars getting their story out and we need to make sure that our story is also heard”.

Rep. Brooks also stated “the merits of application have not changed … and we want to make certain that decisions are made on the merit of the application and not on the politics . . . Washington politics should not be involved in this decision”. Rep Brooks stated “there is too much at stake to do otherwise”.

After a long and detailed discussion of the topic, Representative Brooks stated regarding the tolling of I-80, “We aren’t going down without a fight”.

[What is my opinion? I’m glad to see that Representative Brooks is taking a pro-active roll in the fight against the tolling of I-80. It would be easy to simply say “this is a federal issue and it is out of my hands”, but, instead, she is taking extra steps to rally Congressmen and women and take the fight to Washington DC. I’d like to see more ACTION like this from our state legislators. Bravo!]

Health Care Reform

The next topic that was brought up by attendees was that of Health Care Reform. Representative Brooks was very clear to point out that the topic of Health Care Reform is a federal issue, but she was willing to discuss the topic from the prospective of opinion only. While she shared some of her thoughts about the current health care legislation being considered by the federal government, she was equally careful to remain unbiased. While those in attendance were clearly “party friendly”, she made a point to not offend the few Democrats in the room (there were two that I counted . . . including myself).

As a general opinion, Rep. Brooks stated “I’m very concerned about the costs of this plan, but I also wish that the quality of our health care would enter into the discussion.”

Regarding the current health care bill, Rep. Brooks noted “I was raised that you try to do things right the first time. Thousands of pages take months to digest and understand I’m afraid that they are trying to push through a fix too quickly. Don’t we want it done right?”

Representative Brooks further explained that she had participated in a public hearing in the spring at Edinboro University where she heard testimony from physicians from Canada and Australia. She outlined numerous examples of problems with the single-payer systems in those countries.

Rep. Brooks made every attempt to share information as well as her personal opinions regarding health care reform. She shared personal stories and experiences regarding problems with health insurance (and a lack thereof), but she reminded the attendees again “I’m not involved on the federal level but those are my concerns”.

In closing, Rep. Brooks stated “if this (health care bill) goes through, elected officials should be forced to have to go on the plan too”.

[What is my opinion? Oddly enough (and hold onto your hats here), I agree with Representative Brooks. While she was very careful to make her statements regarding health care reform very general, she hit on very important points. I feel very strongly that we need health care reform, but I am very nervous about the current Bill that is working its way through Washington. I’d like to see the focus turn toward torte reform, accessibility across state lines, and extended availability of Medicare (for a fee based on a sliding scale). Unfortunately, the current health care bill doesn’t look anything like that. I think the current option is too big, too expensive, and too complicated to be a viable option.]

Term Limits

I saved my favorite topic for last, but it also happened to be the last topic brought up by the attendees . . . TERM LIMITS. When the question “do you support term limits?” was asked, I nearly fell off my chair and I literally laughed out loud. After a pause (that seemed to last a lifetime), Rep. Brooks explained that she feels that terms limits already exist as “term limits are decided in at the voters box”. [Hmmm . . . Ouch!]

She further went on to explain that “if you don’t like the job that someone is doing you can vote them out”. If voters feel that the person is still doing a good job after years of service, they will vote them back in. [Again Hmmmm . . . and Double Ouch!]

In an effort to try to hang her hat somewhere in the middle, Rep. Brooks stated “there is something to be said for wisdom, and something to be said for new blood”. Unfortunately, however, I get a sense that Rep. Brooks appears to lean away from the "new blood" and toward the “wisdom”. [Ugh! and Triple Ouch!]

In summary, Representative Brooks is clearly against the idea of term limits. After receiving a few groans from the attendees (mostly from a frustrated “new blood” that was seated in the front row), Rep. Brooks asked for a show of hands from those that supported term limits. Unfortunately, I missed the results of the simple poll as I was attempting to type notes on my laptop while also extending my hand as high as I could reach.

[What is my opinion? As someone who ran a race against a 16-year incumbent with a campaign slogan like “the office of county treasurer should be a public service . . . not a career” . . . and with a campaign promise to NOT seek re-election after 2 terms in office, what do YOU think my opinion is?

Regardless of the fact that the topic hits a little close too home for me, the subject was of special interest to me personally for two reasons. The first is an issue of how politics affects those that are involved in it. Glenn Beck made a statement back in February. I wrote about it back then [read HERE], but I’d like to present the quote again now . . .

“I have a new theory. I don’t think I’ll take any more applies from the barrel. I’m gonna start pickin’ them from the tree. I’m gonna start listening to the freshman class because you guys, hopefully, haven’t been corrupted yet!”

It was a general statement that theorized that once “new blood” is elected, it doesn’t take long for them to “become” one of the “good ol’ boys (or girls)”. It is interesting that Rep. Brooks (after only 1.5 terms in state office) has already fallen into the typical style of a “politician”. I’m not sure if she has hopes of protecting her own VERY LONG career in office or if she is defending the VERY LONG careers of her friends and colleagues. I would be curious to know if her perception was the same not so many years ago?

The second point that I found personally interesting is that my stand that is firmly "FOR TERM LIMITS" places me safely “to the right” of Rep. Brooks. That was a place that I didn’t think I’d find myself in right now, so I have to take a minute to savor it.]

My Summary and Closing Comments

The meeting was both interesting and entertaining. The attendees had very intelligent questions and shared in some thoughtful discussion. Representative Brooks has a VERY LOYAL following, and they take the time to show up for her town hall meetings. Her supporters don’t simply respect her as a qualified representative of the 17th district (which they clearly do), but they personally “adore her”. They respect her as “Representative Michele Brooks”, but they seem to protect her more like a daughter . . . a sister . . . or a close and trusted friend.

At the end of the meeting one of the attendees made a statement regarding Representative Brooks as follows “of all of the legislators, you are one of the best communicators”. He then went on to point out the value of her email communications, website, and town hall meetings. In response, Representative Brooks said “we work for you, and I don’t ever want to loose site of that”. She continued with “we chose to live here and we chose to raise our family here . . . I believe this area will be strong again and you are the solution . . . your ideas and feedback are very important”.

What more can I say?

As always, just my opinion.

.

ALERT Regarding Outdoor Wood-Fired Boilers from Rep. Rapp

2009-12-07T07:47:00.000-05:00

The following legislator announcement was received from Representative Kathy Rapp of the 65th District, but it might be of significant interest to folks in Mercer County too. I am, therefore, sharing the complete content below unedited.

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

Representative Kathy Rapp Announces

Fight for Your Rights: Tell DEP to Leave Your Boilers Alone

Big government is at it again.

The state’s Environmental Quality Board (EQB), which develops regulations for the Department of Environmental Protection, is proposing significant new restrictions on the use of outdoor wood-fired boilers.

Many people rely on these boilers to affordably heat their homes and should not be subject to unwanted and unneeded regulation by the state. Local governments already have the authority to regulate these boilers if needed. If these state regulations are allowed to go through as-is, there’s no telling what the Rendell administration will go after next.

Tell the EQB and DEP to leave your boilers alone by submitting your comments before Jan. 4, 2010:

Send written comments to Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 8477, Harrisburg, PA 17105-8477 (express mail: Rachel Carson State Office Building, 16th Floor, 400 Market St., Harrisburg, PA 17101-2301). No fax comments will be accepted.

Send written comments via e-mail to http://reprapp.com/mail/util.cfm?mailaction=clickthru&gpiv=2100050829.26108.101&gen=1&mailing_linkid=4311.
A subject heading of the proposal and a return name and address must be included in each e-mail. If the sender does not receive acknowledgement that the comments
were received within two working days, the sender should resubmit his or her comments.

Attend an upcoming public hearing scheduled on the matter. The closest hearing will be held in Cranberry Township, Butler County at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, Dec. 2, at the Cranberry Township Municipal Building, 2525 Rochester Road.

> More information is available at RepRapp.com.

PennDOT Changes Age Requirement for Photo ID Cards

2009-12-06T19:36:00.002-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

State Representative Ron Miller Announces that PennDOT Changes Age Requirement for Photo ID Cards

As per a legislator announcement from Rep. Miller:

Photo identification (ID) cards are now available to Pennsylvania residents ages 10 and older. The previous minimum age requirement to obtain a photo ID card was 16.

Act 159 of 2006 lowered the minimum age requirement for a Pennsylvania photo ID card to age 10. The law took effect Nov. 29, 2009.

To obtain a photo ID card, an individual must complete Form DL-54A, “Application for Initial Photo Identification Card,” which is available on PennDOT's Driver and Vehicle Services Web site, http://www.dmv.state.pa.us, under the Driver License/Photo ID Information Center. An individual must bring the completed form, along with the required identity documents and a fee of $12 to a PennDOT Driver License Center to obtain the photo ID. Required identity documents are listed on Form DL-54A.

Individuals under the age of 18 applying for a photo ID card at a PennDOT Driver License Center must be accompanied by a parent, guardian or person acting in loco parentis.

How Many of You Are Getting a Pay Raise Today? . . . This Month? . . . This Year?

2009-12-02T10:29:00.001-05:00

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

Brooks to Host December Series of Town Hall Meetings

2009-12-01T09:45:00.000-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

To help maintain open lines of communication between residents of the 17th District and state government in Harrisburg, Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) will host three town hall meetings Tuesday, Dec. 1, through Thursday, Dec. 3.

“Maintaining open lines of communication is essential as we work together to make the 17th District an even better place to live, work and raise our families,” Brooks said. “It is in this spirit that I have scheduled additional town hall meetings throughout the district.”

For the convenience of residents, three locations have been scheduled for the first week of December:

Dec. 1 – Coolspring Township Building, 852 North Perry Highway, Mercer.
Dec. 2 – Cochranton Firehall, 113 Adams St., Cochranton.
Dec. 3 – Washington Township Building, 1413 George Washington Road, Volant.

All meetings will be held from 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

There is no need to register for the event. For more information, call Brooks’ office at 1-800-457-2040.

Rep. Michele Brooks
17th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(724) 588-8911
(800) 457-2040
(814) 337-8132
(717) 783-5008
Member Site: RepMicheleBrooks.com
Caucus Site: PAHouseGOP.com

Schroder Says Public Hearing Needed Concerning Role of Pennsylvania Casino Association

2009-12-01T09:30:00.000-05:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT

Rep. Curt Schroder (R-Chester County), Republican chairman of the House Gaming Oversight Committee, is urging the committee’s majority chairman, Rep. Dante Santoni (D-Berks), to hold a public hearing to allay concerns following the Pennsylvania Casino Association’s contention that it is not subject to the state’s lobbying disclosure law.

“I am concerned about statements by the officers of the association that the association is not lobbying and therefore does not need to comply with the requirements of Act 71, the state’s lobbying disclosure law,” said Schroder. “The public and members of the state Legislature deserve to know why the association was created, who its members are, and most importantly, why it is not a registered lobbying group.”

The Pennsylvania Casino Association identifies itself as an association whose mission is to educate public officials about the gaming industry, a role that belongs to lobbyists.

“If they are engaging in lobbying activity, they need to identify themselves as lobbyists and register with the state,” said Schroder. “This is yet another of the unintended consequences of bringing casino gambling into the Commonwealth. I believe we need to publicly air our concerns about this particular issue, and to address necessary gaming reforms before discussions go any further on the expansion of gambling in Pennsylvania.”

Rep. Curt Schroder
155th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives
(610) 524-5595
(717) 783-2520
www.CurtSchroder.com
www.pahousegop.com

Rep. Mark Longietti Reminds Residents that LIHEAP to take applications beginning Nov. 2

2009-10-12T11:10:00.000-04:00

LEGISLATOR ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF REPRESENTATIVE MARK LONGIETTI

I'm writing to let you know that Pennsylvania's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program will open about a month earlier than expected because of a recent increase in federal funding.

The Department of Public Welfare considered opening LIHEAP on Dec. 1 due to funding concerns, but a recent increase in federal funding will allow it to open Nov. 2.

The program provides cash and crisis assistance grants to help families heat their homes. In these tough economic times, I'm sure there are families in our community that can benefit. A family of four with an annual income of up to $33,075 can qualify for assistance.

Once the program opens, applications will be available at the Mercer County Assistance Office, local utility companies and community service agencies. The toll-free number for the county assistance office is 1-800-747-8405.

Starting Nov. 2, the application will also be available on the state Department of Public Welfare's Web site.

As always, if I can be of assistance, contact me.