Legend has it when Lord Cornwallis surrendered his army to Gen. George Washington after the British defeat at the battle of Yorktown, a British band played a song called "The World Turned Upside Down."
If true, it was a fitting selection. What else could best describe the October 1781 defeat of Great Britain, the world’s reigning superpower at the time, by a rag-tag militia of Colonists? The world truly had turned upside down.
I’ve been thinking about that tune as more evidence surfaces that liberals (well, not all, but some) are coming to their senses. I’m not sure what to make of this. Maybe it’s part of a left-wing campaign to lull the majority of Americans into a false sense of security while the left and its cronies (the ACLU, the Hollywood elite, radical college professors, activist judges and the few Democrats left in Washington) continue their assault on the country from within.
Or maybe, just maybe, people who have been wrong so many times about so many things have finally seen the light. I submit the following evidence to support my theory:
Exhibit A: The Philadelphia Inquirer, a newspaper that published 21 consecutive editorials endorsing John Forbes Kerry for president last fall, criticized Democrats in a recent editorial about Social Security. I can’t recall ever reading an editorial critical of the left in this newspaper. But just about every day, you can read about how George W. Bush/Karl Rove (they’re interchangeable in this newspaper) are responsible for bad weather, traffic jams, reality television, obesity and the fact your kids won’t listen to you.
The Inquirer’s editorial board, all charter members of the Michael Moore Fan Club, blasted Democrats for obscuring the debate about the future of Social Security by flooding the country with inaccurate information, much of it promulgated by the Democrats left-wing propaganda machines. The editorial also pointed out, correctly, that the Democrats have yet to offer a single alternative to the proposals advanced by President Bush.
Exhibit B: Nat Hentoff, a card-carrying member of the ACLU and one of the most liberal columnists in the country, went after his own kind for their coverage of the Terri Schiavo case. Hentoff described the behavior of the established news media (the networks, CNN, the big city newspapers) as "the worst case of liberal media bias I’ve ever seen." Hentoff said the network coverage was politically motivated, with the established media painting Republicans as villains and liberals as saints during the agonizing two weeks that Schiavo starved to death.
Exhibit C: The New Republic, a small circulation magazine that is the gospel for many left-wingers, recently published a column by its editor-in-chief, Martin Peretz that praised George W. Bush for his handling of the Middle East, which is erupting in Democracy, just as Bush predicted. Peretz goes a step further and blasts his fellow Democrats for their do-nothing stance on major issues facing the country. The election is over and Bush won, Peretz argues. It’s time for Democrats to get over their superiority complex and stop the knee-jerk opposition to everything the Republican majority puts on the agenda. In other words, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, put the country first and let your partisan prejudice go until 2008.
Exhibit D: The Washington Post, one of the big five liberal newspapers in the country, ran a front page article last week proclaiming to the world that yes, as those right-wing fanatics have been telling us for years, college campuses are littered by left-wing professors. "By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative," The Post reported as it detailed the findings of a study conducted by political science professors at two universities. Surveys have found a similar left bias in the mainstream news media. So what you have is a minority of liberals controlling the dissemination of information in this country and indoctrinating our next generation of leaders.
What’s wrong with having so many liberals in academia? Here’s the problem. Liberals represent a splinter group within the minority governing party in this country. Why should they be allowed to indoctrinate so many young minds? Why can’t college students be exposed to alternative viewpoints?
Even if you labeled all Democrats as liberals, that would still be 49 percent of the population based on the outcome of the November election. Why shouldn’t conservatives make up 51 percent of college faculties? Suppose you showed up for a baseball game and one of the teams could field only six players while the other team put nine men on the field. Is that fair?
This growing evidence that liberals have come to their senses is unnerving. What am I going to write about if everybody starts getting along and treating each other with respect? It’s almost as unsettling as the sight of George H.W. Bush holding hands with his new best pal, Bill Clinton.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, April 11, 2005
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
Are you paying too much for health insurance?
Did you know that Pennsylvania and Hawaii are the only states that place no limits on how commercial insurance companies base their premiums for small employers?
That means for-profit insurance companies can charge whatever they want. They can raise their rates 10 times higher than the rate of inflation at time of renewal. And guess what? That’s what these companies have been doing in Pennsylvania over the past five years.
Since 2000, more than 330,000 non-elderly Pennsylvanians have lost their health coverage. Others have been forced by employers to pay a bigger share of the cost of health insurance, while at the same time, paying higher deductibles and co-pays. Some employers are reluctant to fill vacancies because they will have to pay so much in health insurance premiums for new workers.
State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., wants to help small companies and their workers by placing the same regulations on for-profit firms that the state already imposes on non-profit insurance carriers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and HMOs.
In the next few weeks, Wonderling will introduce Senate Bill 671 to reform health insurance rating practices for small employer groups. The bill, and its companion legislation in the state House, would restrict how insurance carriers assess companies with workers at an average age of 45 or firms that have too many women working there or places of employment where the group’s medical questionnaires showed possible health needs.
Senator Wonderling’s legislation would implement a uniform modified demographic rating requirement that would be used by all health insurers writing health insurance for small employers in the Commonwealth.
In plain language, it would level the playing field for small employers and allow companies to continue offering health coverage to workers at reasonable rates.
The proposed legislation would prohibit the use of "medical underwriting" to adjust the rate of a small group policy. Insurers could not use medical questionnaires to identify employee and dependent health status, physical or mental conditions, genetic information or disability when setting rates. "Pre-existing condition" standards could be used for the first 12 months of policy coverage. Renewal of small group plans would be guaranteed.
"My biggest reason for being the prime sponsor of a bill to lower the cost of health insurance is the number of people in my Senate district who work very hard but do not have health care coverage," Wonderling said. "During my campaign, I talked to both employers who wanted to provide health care coverage but couldn’t because of the cost, and employees who don’t have health insurance provided by their employers. I knew that the problem existed but I was struck by how common the problem was."
As Wonderling looked into the issue, he found a shocking statistic — 80 percent of the people who don’t have health insurance have jobs.
"Think about that. These are hard working people trying to feed their families but are terrified that they will get sick or hurt because if they do, the money needed to pay for health insurance has to come from some other important priority," Wonderling said. "I want to help hard working people get ahead, not just get by. This is part of making the American dream a reality for more people in Pennsylvania."
Small group health insurance reform is long overdue in Pennsylvania. The continuation of the current practices that discriminate against groups based on age, gender and health status will only lead to the creation of a large group of uninsured and uninsurable Pennsylvanians.
And if you’re currently enrolled in a Blue Cross plan, don’t think this doesn’t affect you. The higher insurance premiums go for small companies, the more workers will be left without private insurance. That means they will go on Medicare, which is funded by taxpayers.
Wonderling needs our help. If you’re fed up with the high cost of health insurance, you need to impress on your state senator or representative that his or her job depends on whether they support Senate Bill 671 and its companion bill in the state House.
I urge to call, write or e-mail your state senator today with a simple message: Support Senate Bill 671 to curb skyrocketing health insurance costs. Be sure to include your full name and your home address so they know you’re a registered voter and you’re serious about holding them accountable.
For all the talk about politicians catering to special interests and being wooed by industry lobbyists, the bottom line is that a politician can be fired by the voters. Without your vote, they can’t go back to Harrisburg and enjoy those very generous perks of public office.
So let’s call in a favor and get our representatives in Harrisburg to do something in the best interests of hard-working Pennsylvanians.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
That means for-profit insurance companies can charge whatever they want. They can raise their rates 10 times higher than the rate of inflation at time of renewal. And guess what? That’s what these companies have been doing in Pennsylvania over the past five years.
Since 2000, more than 330,000 non-elderly Pennsylvanians have lost their health coverage. Others have been forced by employers to pay a bigger share of the cost of health insurance, while at the same time, paying higher deductibles and co-pays. Some employers are reluctant to fill vacancies because they will have to pay so much in health insurance premiums for new workers.
State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., wants to help small companies and their workers by placing the same regulations on for-profit firms that the state already imposes on non-profit insurance carriers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and HMOs.
In the next few weeks, Wonderling will introduce Senate Bill 671 to reform health insurance rating practices for small employer groups. The bill, and its companion legislation in the state House, would restrict how insurance carriers assess companies with workers at an average age of 45 or firms that have too many women working there or places of employment where the group’s medical questionnaires showed possible health needs.
Senator Wonderling’s legislation would implement a uniform modified demographic rating requirement that would be used by all health insurers writing health insurance for small employers in the Commonwealth.
In plain language, it would level the playing field for small employers and allow companies to continue offering health coverage to workers at reasonable rates.
The proposed legislation would prohibit the use of "medical underwriting" to adjust the rate of a small group policy. Insurers could not use medical questionnaires to identify employee and dependent health status, physical or mental conditions, genetic information or disability when setting rates. "Pre-existing condition" standards could be used for the first 12 months of policy coverage. Renewal of small group plans would be guaranteed.
"My biggest reason for being the prime sponsor of a bill to lower the cost of health insurance is the number of people in my Senate district who work very hard but do not have health care coverage," Wonderling said. "During my campaign, I talked to both employers who wanted to provide health care coverage but couldn’t because of the cost, and employees who don’t have health insurance provided by their employers. I knew that the problem existed but I was struck by how common the problem was."
As Wonderling looked into the issue, he found a shocking statistic — 80 percent of the people who don’t have health insurance have jobs.
"Think about that. These are hard working people trying to feed their families but are terrified that they will get sick or hurt because if they do, the money needed to pay for health insurance has to come from some other important priority," Wonderling said. "I want to help hard working people get ahead, not just get by. This is part of making the American dream a reality for more people in Pennsylvania."
Small group health insurance reform is long overdue in Pennsylvania. The continuation of the current practices that discriminate against groups based on age, gender and health status will only lead to the creation of a large group of uninsured and uninsurable Pennsylvanians.
And if you’re currently enrolled in a Blue Cross plan, don’t think this doesn’t affect you. The higher insurance premiums go for small companies, the more workers will be left without private insurance. That means they will go on Medicare, which is funded by taxpayers.
Wonderling needs our help. If you’re fed up with the high cost of health insurance, you need to impress on your state senator or representative that his or her job depends on whether they support Senate Bill 671 and its companion bill in the state House.
I urge to call, write or e-mail your state senator today with a simple message: Support Senate Bill 671 to curb skyrocketing health insurance costs. Be sure to include your full name and your home address so they know you’re a registered voter and you’re serious about holding them accountable.
For all the talk about politicians catering to special interests and being wooed by industry lobbyists, the bottom line is that a politician can be fired by the voters. Without your vote, they can’t go back to Harrisburg and enjoy those very generous perks of public office.
So let’s call in a favor and get our representatives in Harrisburg to do something in the best interests of hard-working Pennsylvanians.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
On cows and politics
Don't know the origin of this, but it's too funny not to share.
DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous. Barbra Streisand sings for you.
SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?
COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch. Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. You produce your 10th, 5-year plan in the last 3 months. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION: You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which is two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
POLISH CORPORATION: You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
FLORIDA CORPORATION: You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who like the brown one best vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best looking one.
NEW YORK CORPORATION: You have 15 million cows. You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd, so you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.
DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous. Barbra Streisand sings for you.
SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.
REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?
COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.
CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.
DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.
BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.
AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.
FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch. Life is good.
JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.
GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.
ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.
RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. You produce your 10th, 5-year plan in the last 3 months. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.
TALIBAN CORPORATION: You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which is two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.
POLISH CORPORATION: You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.
FLORIDA CORPORATION: You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who like the brown one best vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best looking one.
NEW YORK CORPORATION: You have 15 million cows. You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd, so you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Blame it on the Democrats
I’ve come to the conclusion that everything that goes wrong in the world can be traced back to the Democrats. Here’s proof:
Choking on bus fumes
Every time I see an empty bus driving around town — and I see at least one every day — I want to smack Gov. Ed Rendell for diverting $900 million of Pennsylvania’s tax dollars into his favorite lost cause: Bailing out mass transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This money was supposed to go into fixing Pennsylvania’s highways and bridges, but Rendell decided to use the money to buy votes in our twin basket-case cities at opposite ends of the state. We have to keep those unions happy (and voting for Democrats). I don’t hear the liberal outcries about wasted energy resources when empty buses are riding around our cities, guzzling up gasoline. No wonder we need to drill for oil in Alaska. We have to make up for the gas these buses waste. Don’t forget that Rendell is up for reelection in 2006.
Liberal hypocrisy, you say?
Remember when the Clintons were in power and their masculine attorney general, Janet Reno, defied the courts and sent her stormtroopers on a midnight raid into a private home in Florida to seize Elian Gonzalez, the little boy who escaped Fidel Castro’s island prison? The liberals danced in the streets at the prospect of returning the boy to the clutches of the Cuban dictator. Imagine what would have happened if Gov. Jeb Bush or President George Bush sent armed officers to save Terry Sciavo. California and Massachusetts would have seceded from the union and declared war. The TV networks and their left-leaning newspaper cousins would have called for lynching both Bush brothers if they had pulled a Clinton move. That’s just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy in American society.
Reality bites for Democrats
The story didn’t get the kind of play it deserved, with many major newspapers burying it on inside pages when they’ve been running liberal propaganda about Social Security on their front pages for months. The headlines should have screamed: "Social Security to go broke in 2017." That’s just 12 short years from now. Turns out President Bush was right. Social Security needs to be addressed sooner, rather than later. And it appears that the Democrats got caught in another lie. Shame on you, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You’ve been telling us there’s nothing to worry about and we should go about our routines so we wouldn’t notice that Democrats in Congress have driven the Social Security Trust Fund into the poor house. Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017. That announcement didn’t come from the White House. It came from the trustees of the Social Security Administration. They’re the people who run the program. "The numbers leave nothing to doubt about the financial condition of the Social Security system," Treasury Secretary John Snow, chairman of the six-member trustees’ board, told the Associated Press. "The report underscores the fact that we need to do something." Despite the cold hard facts, Sen. Harry "The Ostrich" Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, stuck his head out of the ground long enough to proclaim: "Today’s report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." Sure, Harry, keep saying that and you’ll be minority leader for a long time.
Sen. Byrd-brain is running again
With the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, it’s tough to settle on one person for the distinction of being the biggest embarrassment in the United States Senate, but my money is on Sen. Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klan member who has been representing West Virginia since 1958. The 87-year-old former Klansman, who has trouble telling what day of the week it is most of the time, is running for re-election in 2006. Already, the left-wing propaganda machines like MoveOn.org (affectionately referred to as Moron.org by some) is working hard to keep Byrd in the Senate. These left-wing organizations vilified President Bush because he dared to say that he believes in God, but wouldn’t think of criticizing a Democrat who not only was a member of the KKK, but also served as a recruiter for the organization. Byrd was once quoted as saying the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values." And Democrats wonder why more blacks are switching to the Republican Party?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Choking on bus fumes
Every time I see an empty bus driving around town — and I see at least one every day — I want to smack Gov. Ed Rendell for diverting $900 million of Pennsylvania’s tax dollars into his favorite lost cause: Bailing out mass transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This money was supposed to go into fixing Pennsylvania’s highways and bridges, but Rendell decided to use the money to buy votes in our twin basket-case cities at opposite ends of the state. We have to keep those unions happy (and voting for Democrats). I don’t hear the liberal outcries about wasted energy resources when empty buses are riding around our cities, guzzling up gasoline. No wonder we need to drill for oil in Alaska. We have to make up for the gas these buses waste. Don’t forget that Rendell is up for reelection in 2006.
Liberal hypocrisy, you say?
Remember when the Clintons were in power and their masculine attorney general, Janet Reno, defied the courts and sent her stormtroopers on a midnight raid into a private home in Florida to seize Elian Gonzalez, the little boy who escaped Fidel Castro’s island prison? The liberals danced in the streets at the prospect of returning the boy to the clutches of the Cuban dictator. Imagine what would have happened if Gov. Jeb Bush or President George Bush sent armed officers to save Terry Sciavo. California and Massachusetts would have seceded from the union and declared war. The TV networks and their left-leaning newspaper cousins would have called for lynching both Bush brothers if they had pulled a Clinton move. That’s just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy in American society.
Reality bites for Democrats
The story didn’t get the kind of play it deserved, with many major newspapers burying it on inside pages when they’ve been running liberal propaganda about Social Security on their front pages for months. The headlines should have screamed: "Social Security to go broke in 2017." That’s just 12 short years from now. Turns out President Bush was right. Social Security needs to be addressed sooner, rather than later. And it appears that the Democrats got caught in another lie. Shame on you, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You’ve been telling us there’s nothing to worry about and we should go about our routines so we wouldn’t notice that Democrats in Congress have driven the Social Security Trust Fund into the poor house. Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017. That announcement didn’t come from the White House. It came from the trustees of the Social Security Administration. They’re the people who run the program. "The numbers leave nothing to doubt about the financial condition of the Social Security system," Treasury Secretary John Snow, chairman of the six-member trustees’ board, told the Associated Press. "The report underscores the fact that we need to do something." Despite the cold hard facts, Sen. Harry "The Ostrich" Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, stuck his head out of the ground long enough to proclaim: "Today’s report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." Sure, Harry, keep saying that and you’ll be minority leader for a long time.
Sen. Byrd-brain is running again
With the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, it’s tough to settle on one person for the distinction of being the biggest embarrassment in the United States Senate, but my money is on Sen. Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klan member who has been representing West Virginia since 1958. The 87-year-old former Klansman, who has trouble telling what day of the week it is most of the time, is running for re-election in 2006. Already, the left-wing propaganda machines like MoveOn.org (affectionately referred to as Moron.org by some) is working hard to keep Byrd in the Senate. These left-wing organizations vilified President Bush because he dared to say that he believes in God, but wouldn’t think of criticizing a Democrat who not only was a member of the KKK, but also served as a recruiter for the organization. Byrd was once quoted as saying the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values." And Democrats wonder why more blacks are switching to the Republican Party?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, March 28, 2005
What are they hiding in Harrisburg?
THIS IS TOO GOOD NOT TO SHARE. THE AUTHOR AND SUPPORTERS ARE LISTED AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE. EVERYBODY IN PENNSYLVANIA SHOULD BE AWARE OF HOW THINGS ARE RUN IN HARRISBURG. -- TONY PHYRILLAS.
Corrupt.
It’s not a word to be used lightly. But sometimes it’s the only word that fits, and this is one of those times.
Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation without a law requiring lobbyists to disclose what they’re spending and doing to influence our legislators and our governor. The only state.
So it’s no coincidence, in our opinion, that Pennsylvania authorized more slot machines than any state but Nevada while our citizens were not protected by a lobbyist disclosure law. It is no coincidence that our legislators and our governor cooked a secret deal and enacted it within 36 hours when there was no way for anyone — ever — to know how much money changed hands and what promises were made.
While we can only guess how much money special interests spent, our guess can be an educated one. Thanks to Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer, without whose leadership the public would know nothing at all, the Senate has a rule (not a law) to get some information from lobbyists.
Under Senate reporting alone, lobbyists spent $64 million in just the first half of last year to influence legislation. Recently, Jubelirer told the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association he expects the total for 2004 to be well over $100 million. The Senate has only 50 members. Imagine how much special interests spent in the 203-member House and the governor’s office.
Corrupt? Ask yourself this: If a system of unbridled influence peddling by lobbyists is not corrupt, why have all 49 other states bridled it? Even the federal government has a law.
But the heart of corruption in Pennsylvania is not that legislators and the governor are hiding how they cut deals with special interests, like professional gambling. The heart of this corruption is that it spits on democracy. It spits in the face of the people who have to live with and pay for the laws that special interests purchase under cover of secrecy.
Whether you’re for gambling or against it, the way Pennsylvania authorized 61,000 slot machines was an insult to democracy. Despite a constitution that plainly says bills should be considered on three different days in the House and three different days in the Senate, our gambling law was enacted in just 36 hours.
You and I had no opportunity to see what was proposed — and what we opposed. When we learned that lawmakers could own 1 percent of gambling interests, when we learned that our communities could be colonized by huge gambling parlors over the objection of local residents and officials, we raised Cain. Last fall, facing unhappy voters at election time, the General Assembly passed changes — only to have them vetoed by Gov. Rendell.
All of that could have been avoided if our public officials would stop playing keep-away from the people.
In March, we may hear from the third branch of our government — the State Supreme Court. Opponents of public corruption and opponents of gambling have filed suit to have the gambling law overturned because its passage violated the Constitution.
This month we may learn whether our Supreme Court justices have any greater sense of democracy than the legislative and executive branches. We will see whether our Supreme Court considers the Constitution’s three-day rule a mere how-to manual that can be ignored when the stakes are high, or whether it gives the people real due-process rights so that we can understand and influence proposed laws before it’s too late.
Pennsylvania needs a government — all three branches — that strengthens our democracy, not one that dismantles it. We need the best disclosure law in the country, not the worst. We need a law that:
• Requires lobbyists to register, to disclose their interests, and to report their spending.
• Prohibits lobbyists from giving anything of value, except information, to public officials.
• Requires the immediate, complete and public disclosure of information given to public officials on a dedicated "public integrity" Web site.
• Imposes harsh penalties against violators.
There is no benefit to the people when lobbyists give public officials expensive dinners, golf outings, tickets to sporting events, free financial advice and a thousand other things that we will never know about — but will live with and pay for.
Only our legislators and governor can enact such a law, and we should make sure they do.
In a democracy, "We the People" really do choose our government. The good news is that we can do it. When the politicians know that voters want integrity in public service, they will give the voters integrity in public service. They can’t help themselves; they’re politicians.
It’s hard when a word like "corrupt" attaches not just to institutions but to individuals. Sooner or later, it becomes impossible to separate the two. You can’t have a corrupt institution that’s populated by innocent individuals.
The preservation of democracy is job No. 1 for any public official. If our legislators fail to enact a state-of-the-art lobbyist disclosure law now, it is only reasonable for voters to conclude that legislators who don’t fight to end influence peddling are the ones who benefit from it.
This article was written by Timothy Potts, a former staff member in the Pennsylvania legislature. It was endorsed by Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation; Kathleen Daugherty of the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Pennsylvania; Lou Hammann, a retired professor of religion, Gettysburg College; Barry Kauffman of Common Cause/PA; and the Rev. Sandra Strauss, Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
Corrupt.
It’s not a word to be used lightly. But sometimes it’s the only word that fits, and this is one of those times.
Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation without a law requiring lobbyists to disclose what they’re spending and doing to influence our legislators and our governor. The only state.
So it’s no coincidence, in our opinion, that Pennsylvania authorized more slot machines than any state but Nevada while our citizens were not protected by a lobbyist disclosure law. It is no coincidence that our legislators and our governor cooked a secret deal and enacted it within 36 hours when there was no way for anyone — ever — to know how much money changed hands and what promises were made.
While we can only guess how much money special interests spent, our guess can be an educated one. Thanks to Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer, without whose leadership the public would know nothing at all, the Senate has a rule (not a law) to get some information from lobbyists.
Under Senate reporting alone, lobbyists spent $64 million in just the first half of last year to influence legislation. Recently, Jubelirer told the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association he expects the total for 2004 to be well over $100 million. The Senate has only 50 members. Imagine how much special interests spent in the 203-member House and the governor’s office.
Corrupt? Ask yourself this: If a system of unbridled influence peddling by lobbyists is not corrupt, why have all 49 other states bridled it? Even the federal government has a law.
But the heart of corruption in Pennsylvania is not that legislators and the governor are hiding how they cut deals with special interests, like professional gambling. The heart of this corruption is that it spits on democracy. It spits in the face of the people who have to live with and pay for the laws that special interests purchase under cover of secrecy.
Whether you’re for gambling or against it, the way Pennsylvania authorized 61,000 slot machines was an insult to democracy. Despite a constitution that plainly says bills should be considered on three different days in the House and three different days in the Senate, our gambling law was enacted in just 36 hours.
You and I had no opportunity to see what was proposed — and what we opposed. When we learned that lawmakers could own 1 percent of gambling interests, when we learned that our communities could be colonized by huge gambling parlors over the objection of local residents and officials, we raised Cain. Last fall, facing unhappy voters at election time, the General Assembly passed changes — only to have them vetoed by Gov. Rendell.
All of that could have been avoided if our public officials would stop playing keep-away from the people.
In March, we may hear from the third branch of our government — the State Supreme Court. Opponents of public corruption and opponents of gambling have filed suit to have the gambling law overturned because its passage violated the Constitution.
This month we may learn whether our Supreme Court justices have any greater sense of democracy than the legislative and executive branches. We will see whether our Supreme Court considers the Constitution’s three-day rule a mere how-to manual that can be ignored when the stakes are high, or whether it gives the people real due-process rights so that we can understand and influence proposed laws before it’s too late.
Pennsylvania needs a government — all three branches — that strengthens our democracy, not one that dismantles it. We need the best disclosure law in the country, not the worst. We need a law that:
• Requires lobbyists to register, to disclose their interests, and to report their spending.
• Prohibits lobbyists from giving anything of value, except information, to public officials.
• Requires the immediate, complete and public disclosure of information given to public officials on a dedicated "public integrity" Web site.
• Imposes harsh penalties against violators.
There is no benefit to the people when lobbyists give public officials expensive dinners, golf outings, tickets to sporting events, free financial advice and a thousand other things that we will never know about — but will live with and pay for.
Only our legislators and governor can enact such a law, and we should make sure they do.
In a democracy, "We the People" really do choose our government. The good news is that we can do it. When the politicians know that voters want integrity in public service, they will give the voters integrity in public service. They can’t help themselves; they’re politicians.
It’s hard when a word like "corrupt" attaches not just to institutions but to individuals. Sooner or later, it becomes impossible to separate the two. You can’t have a corrupt institution that’s populated by innocent individuals.
The preservation of democracy is job No. 1 for any public official. If our legislators fail to enact a state-of-the-art lobbyist disclosure law now, it is only reasonable for voters to conclude that legislators who don’t fight to end influence peddling are the ones who benefit from it.
This article was written by Timothy Potts, a former staff member in the Pennsylvania legislature. It was endorsed by Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation; Kathleen Daugherty of the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Pennsylvania; Lou Hammann, a retired professor of religion, Gettysburg College; Barry Kauffman of Common Cause/PA; and the Rev. Sandra Strauss, Pennsylvania Council of Churches.
Wednesday, March 23, 2005
2 years in Iraq: Is this any way to win a war?
Two years into a war that should have been over in two months, I’m beginning to wonder about U.S. strategy in Iraq.
The United States has been fighting this with one hand and one foot tied behind its back. The result has been 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead and thousands more wounded — most of them unnecessarily. Far too many American soldiers have died at highway checkpoints or guarding buildings or driving in convoys.
When you stand around waiting for the enemy to kill you, invariably, that's what happens. If you're hunting down the enemy, there’s a much better chance you’ll get them before they get you. It's easy to kill the enemy if they're wearing the same uniform and coming at you in an open field. But when the enemy is fighting a guerrilla war and mingles easily with the civilian population, it's nearly impossible to defeat them.
When the enemy has access to ammunition, shelter, food and water, he can drag the conflict out as long as he wants. When the enemy can plan attacks from safe bunkers and can regroup by crossing the border into a neighboring country, you’re in for a long war.
When the enemy can communicate with comrades at will, when the enemy can recruit new members from surrounding countries, when the enemy can use television and the Internet to promote its cause, you’re going to lose the war.
If you want to stop car bombings, stop selling gas to terrorists. Can't tell who the terrorists are? Stop selling gas to everyone in Iraq for a month. Are two guys in hoods going to push car bombs into buildings? Let the terrorists use donkeys to carry explosives. Let them resort to suicide bombing by bicycle.
Insurgents coming into Iraq through Syria and Iran? Close the borders. Have U.S. warplanes and helicopters fly up and down the borders with Syria and Iran around the clock. Shoot at anything that moves across the borders. That will end the flow of terrorists into Iraq.
The problem with how the Bush administration is handling the war in Iraq is that it's trying to fight a war at the same time it's rebuilding a nation. Can't be done. You have to win the war first. Kill the enemy, then worry about rebuilding the country. That’s the way we did it in Germany and Japan. We killed anyone who raised arms against us, then brought Democracy to those nations.
It took years to rebuild Germany and Japan, but you didn’t have American soldiers picked off by snipers or blown up by suicide bombers.
Another troubling aspect of the Iraq War is that the Bush Administration has allowed our enemies to use television and the Internet to recruit new followers and broadcast propaganda to the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world.
War is fought not only with weapons but also with words. Military censorship is missing from the Iraq War. Information that could be helpful to the enemy is made readily available by 24-hour news channels, Internet sites and various publications, including the most anti-American of newspapers, The New York Times.
In place of "Tokyo Rose" and "Berlin Betty" we now have the Al-Jazeera network. Undermining the will to fight of your enemy is a crucial stage to victory. Pull the plug on Al-Jazeera, the enemy’s primary means of propaganda. Shut down all pro-terrorist Web sites.
Somewhere along the way, the Bush administration has forgotten what we’re doing in Iraq. This is not a doctrine. This is not a diplomatic initiative. This is not a global test. This is war! You kill your enemy, you win the war!
America has forgotten the lessons it learned in World War II. You destroy the enemy by attacking him ceaselessly.
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." — General George Patton Jr.
In three years of combat operations from North Africa to Sicily to France to Belgium to Germany, Gen. Patton never issued a defensive order. His battle plan was simple: attack, attack and attack again. He never gave the enemy time to regroup. He kept them on the run so they could never mount a counterattack. That’s how you win a war.
Where is Gen. Patton when you need him? Today’s generals want to become politicians or diplomats. They want to write books and go on lecture tours. I’m beginning to have my doubts if anyone in Washington has the resolve to win this war.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The United States has been fighting this with one hand and one foot tied behind its back. The result has been 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead and thousands more wounded — most of them unnecessarily. Far too many American soldiers have died at highway checkpoints or guarding buildings or driving in convoys.
When you stand around waiting for the enemy to kill you, invariably, that's what happens. If you're hunting down the enemy, there’s a much better chance you’ll get them before they get you. It's easy to kill the enemy if they're wearing the same uniform and coming at you in an open field. But when the enemy is fighting a guerrilla war and mingles easily with the civilian population, it's nearly impossible to defeat them.
When the enemy has access to ammunition, shelter, food and water, he can drag the conflict out as long as he wants. When the enemy can plan attacks from safe bunkers and can regroup by crossing the border into a neighboring country, you’re in for a long war.
When the enemy can communicate with comrades at will, when the enemy can recruit new members from surrounding countries, when the enemy can use television and the Internet to promote its cause, you’re going to lose the war.
If you want to stop car bombings, stop selling gas to terrorists. Can't tell who the terrorists are? Stop selling gas to everyone in Iraq for a month. Are two guys in hoods going to push car bombs into buildings? Let the terrorists use donkeys to carry explosives. Let them resort to suicide bombing by bicycle.
Insurgents coming into Iraq through Syria and Iran? Close the borders. Have U.S. warplanes and helicopters fly up and down the borders with Syria and Iran around the clock. Shoot at anything that moves across the borders. That will end the flow of terrorists into Iraq.
The problem with how the Bush administration is handling the war in Iraq is that it's trying to fight a war at the same time it's rebuilding a nation. Can't be done. You have to win the war first. Kill the enemy, then worry about rebuilding the country. That’s the way we did it in Germany and Japan. We killed anyone who raised arms against us, then brought Democracy to those nations.
It took years to rebuild Germany and Japan, but you didn’t have American soldiers picked off by snipers or blown up by suicide bombers.
Another troubling aspect of the Iraq War is that the Bush Administration has allowed our enemies to use television and the Internet to recruit new followers and broadcast propaganda to the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world.
War is fought not only with weapons but also with words. Military censorship is missing from the Iraq War. Information that could be helpful to the enemy is made readily available by 24-hour news channels, Internet sites and various publications, including the most anti-American of newspapers, The New York Times.
In place of "Tokyo Rose" and "Berlin Betty" we now have the Al-Jazeera network. Undermining the will to fight of your enemy is a crucial stage to victory. Pull the plug on Al-Jazeera, the enemy’s primary means of propaganda. Shut down all pro-terrorist Web sites.
Somewhere along the way, the Bush administration has forgotten what we’re doing in Iraq. This is not a doctrine. This is not a diplomatic initiative. This is not a global test. This is war! You kill your enemy, you win the war!
America has forgotten the lessons it learned in World War II. You destroy the enemy by attacking him ceaselessly.
"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." — General George Patton Jr.
In three years of combat operations from North Africa to Sicily to France to Belgium to Germany, Gen. Patton never issued a defensive order. His battle plan was simple: attack, attack and attack again. He never gave the enemy time to regroup. He kept them on the run so they could never mount a counterattack. That’s how you win a war.
Where is Gen. Patton when you need him? Today’s generals want to become politicians or diplomats. They want to write books and go on lecture tours. I’m beginning to have my doubts if anyone in Washington has the resolve to win this war.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, March 21, 2005
Sen. Wonderling, Rep. Schroder step up to the plate
Two area state legislators are planning to introduce bills in the next few weeks that would help control skyrocketing health care costs for small businesses and their workers.
I’ve written recently about the lack of checks on insurance companies when it comes to setting rates for smaller employers, many of whom face outrageous annual increases in health insurance premiums. In many cases, those costs have been passed on to workers, who are seeing more of their paycheck going toward health coverage for their families.
State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., and state Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th Dist., plan to re-introduce legislation in their respective chambers to address the problem. Wonderling was the primary sponsor of similar legislation in the 2003-04 session, but the bill never made it out of the Senate’s Insurance Committee. A parallel bill introduced in the House also got bogged down in committee.
Meanwhile, small business owners and their employees have suffered double-digit increases — in some cases as high as 25 to 35 percent — to pay for health insurance coverage. Some companies have dropped health insurance for their workers. Others won’t hire new workers because they can’t afford to pay the health premiums.
Although Wonderling and Schroder have worked hard to get dozens of fellow legislators to co-sponsor the bills, there’s no guarantee the legislation will not suffer the same fate it did in the last session. That’s where you and I come in. We have to make sure that our state senators and representatives know we’re watching these bills closely and expect to see them passed and eventually signed by Gov. Ed Rendell.
It’s imperative that everyone call, write or e-mail their elected representatives in Harrisburg to demand these bills don’t end up at the bottom of a pile on somebody’s desk or slip between the cracks.
Wonderling is a fresh face on the Harrisburg scene, first elected to the Senate in November 2002, but he’s risen quickly through the ranks to become chairman of the Senate’s Communications and Technology Committee. He’s sponsored several key bills in the short time he’s been in office and continues to work for his constituents and all Pennsylvanians. He’s been talking up Senate Bill 671 to his colleagues during the current session.
"I’m very pleased by the level of support from my fellow senators," Wonderling said. "The bill has co-sponsors from every geographic region in Pennsylvania and every ideological philosophy is represented — from liberal to conservative."
In addition to contacting our state representatives as individual voters, we must also get organizations such as the chamber of commerce and other business groups to lobby Harrisburg for passage of these reforms. Local government also needs to get behind this bill. Fewer jobs means less tax revenue for municipal coffers.
While Wonderling was disappointed that the insurance reform bill didn’t pass in the last session, he hasn’t given up hope. "Many concepts that challenge the status quo take time for people to hear about them, think them through and finally become comfortable with them becoming reality," Wonderling said. "I am overwhelmed by the number of people who have contacted my office to encourage me to keep fighting to bring down the high cost of health insurance."
Every state in the country — except Pennsylvania — sets some standards in their small group insurance rates, according to Wonderling. "Since Pennsylvania’s rate of uninsured is increasing, it’s time to take action and implement standards that any insurer in the small group market will have to meet. This will make health insurance more available to small groups in Pennsylvania."
The problem with the existing system is that big insurance companies can set rates for businesses based solely on the type of workers in the firm. It’s called "demographic rating." That means that a company with a lot of female employees or older male workers will get hammered with high premiums.
If this sounds like government-sanctioned discrimination, that’s exactly what it is. Left unchecked, about the only businesses that insurance companies will cover will be landscaping firms, which tend to hire young, healthy men.
The proposed legislation would require insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania to use a "modified demographic" rating to determine premiums for smaller firms and their workers. "Modified demographic" rating will include the following factors: age, gender, family composition, industry and geographic area.
"This will permit a better balancing between risk groups," Wonderling said. "Which is what insurance really does — balance risk. Additionally, modified demographic rating does not advantage either small or large insurance companies in a given market. Uniform rating rules will help to level the playing field for everyone. In addition, the new rating system in the bill also encourages existing carriers to remain in the market and new carriers to come to Pennsylvania to set up shop."
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
I’ve written recently about the lack of checks on insurance companies when it comes to setting rates for smaller employers, many of whom face outrageous annual increases in health insurance premiums. In many cases, those costs have been passed on to workers, who are seeing more of their paycheck going toward health coverage for their families.
State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., and state Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th Dist., plan to re-introduce legislation in their respective chambers to address the problem. Wonderling was the primary sponsor of similar legislation in the 2003-04 session, but the bill never made it out of the Senate’s Insurance Committee. A parallel bill introduced in the House also got bogged down in committee.
Meanwhile, small business owners and their employees have suffered double-digit increases — in some cases as high as 25 to 35 percent — to pay for health insurance coverage. Some companies have dropped health insurance for their workers. Others won’t hire new workers because they can’t afford to pay the health premiums.
Although Wonderling and Schroder have worked hard to get dozens of fellow legislators to co-sponsor the bills, there’s no guarantee the legislation will not suffer the same fate it did in the last session. That’s where you and I come in. We have to make sure that our state senators and representatives know we’re watching these bills closely and expect to see them passed and eventually signed by Gov. Ed Rendell.
It’s imperative that everyone call, write or e-mail their elected representatives in Harrisburg to demand these bills don’t end up at the bottom of a pile on somebody’s desk or slip between the cracks.
Wonderling is a fresh face on the Harrisburg scene, first elected to the Senate in November 2002, but he’s risen quickly through the ranks to become chairman of the Senate’s Communications and Technology Committee. He’s sponsored several key bills in the short time he’s been in office and continues to work for his constituents and all Pennsylvanians. He’s been talking up Senate Bill 671 to his colleagues during the current session.
"I’m very pleased by the level of support from my fellow senators," Wonderling said. "The bill has co-sponsors from every geographic region in Pennsylvania and every ideological philosophy is represented — from liberal to conservative."
In addition to contacting our state representatives as individual voters, we must also get organizations such as the chamber of commerce and other business groups to lobby Harrisburg for passage of these reforms. Local government also needs to get behind this bill. Fewer jobs means less tax revenue for municipal coffers.
While Wonderling was disappointed that the insurance reform bill didn’t pass in the last session, he hasn’t given up hope. "Many concepts that challenge the status quo take time for people to hear about them, think them through and finally become comfortable with them becoming reality," Wonderling said. "I am overwhelmed by the number of people who have contacted my office to encourage me to keep fighting to bring down the high cost of health insurance."
Every state in the country — except Pennsylvania — sets some standards in their small group insurance rates, according to Wonderling. "Since Pennsylvania’s rate of uninsured is increasing, it’s time to take action and implement standards that any insurer in the small group market will have to meet. This will make health insurance more available to small groups in Pennsylvania."
The problem with the existing system is that big insurance companies can set rates for businesses based solely on the type of workers in the firm. It’s called "demographic rating." That means that a company with a lot of female employees or older male workers will get hammered with high premiums.
If this sounds like government-sanctioned discrimination, that’s exactly what it is. Left unchecked, about the only businesses that insurance companies will cover will be landscaping firms, which tend to hire young, healthy men.
The proposed legislation would require insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania to use a "modified demographic" rating to determine premiums for smaller firms and their workers. "Modified demographic" rating will include the following factors: age, gender, family composition, industry and geographic area.
"This will permit a better balancing between risk groups," Wonderling said. "Which is what insurance really does — balance risk. Additionally, modified demographic rating does not advantage either small or large insurance companies in a given market. Uniform rating rules will help to level the playing field for everyone. In addition, the new rating system in the bill also encourages existing carriers to remain in the market and new carriers to come to Pennsylvania to set up shop."
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Big Brother is watching you ... light up
In the fictional world of George Orwell’s "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Big Brother is everywhere, controlling all aspects of a person’s life. Around every corner in the totalitarian state of Orwell’s Oceania, giant posters stare back at you with the ominous warning, "Big Brother is watching you."
If Jim Matthews gets his way, the nightmarish world of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" may soon become a reality in Montgomery County. Jim Matthews is the big brother of maniacal talk-show host Chris Matthews of MSNBC fame. Jim Matthews is also the chairman of the Board of Commissioners in Montgomery County, just outside Philadelphia.
In a move believed to be the first of its kind in the country, Big Brother Matthews floated the idea of adopting a policy that would ban the hiring of smokers for county jobs.
We're not talking about people who smoke during work hours or sneak a cigarette during their lunch break. If you smoke any time, any place — whether it’s in the privacy of your home or at your favorite tavern or in your car — don’t bother applying for any of the 3,200 full-time jobs that Montgomery County has to offer.
Big Brother Matthews, a Republican, says he’s trying to save taxpayers some money by reducing the number of smokers employed by the county. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with banning smokers because their habit is bad for their health and leads to higher premiums paid by the county.
I’m not a smoker. Never have smoked and have no desire to start. And I don’t enjoy breathing in second-hand smoke. But there’s something inherently wrong about government telling people how to live their lives on their own time.
Is there any more punishment we can inflict on the estimated 47 million Americans who smoke? The government already taxes cigarettes to the point where a pack of smokes costs $7.50 in New York City. Let’s be up front about those taxes. The government will tell you it’s trying to discourage smoking by placing such burdensome taxes on tobacco, but it’s just an easy way to tax a group that isn’t organized enough to fight back.
Smokers have suffered much humiliation at the hands of government in recent years. They’ve been chased from restaurants, bars and all manner of public buildings. They can’t smoke in airplanes or taxis or buses. Private employers have followed suit, forcing smokers into back alleys or ledges for a quick drag. You almost feel sorry for smokers.
If you carry Big Brother Matthews reasoning to its logical conclusion, people won’t be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. I can’t wait until this case gets to the Supreme Court, which previously plucked the "right to privacy" from the Constitution even though those words don’t appear anywhere in the document. Where is a person’s right to privacy if your boss can fire you for a lifestyle choice not connected to your job performance?
Big Brother Matthews is riding a slippery slope. If smokers are banned from the workplace, who would be next? What about fat people? Obesity is a public health crisis in the United States. Are we nearing the day when workers will have to get on a scale every morning before they start work?
What other undesirables are lurking in the cubicles of offices or assembly lines? If a guy goes home after a hard day at the office and has a few beers, shouldn't his boss know about that? What about a person with tattoos? Shouldn’t Big Brother Matthews be worried about hiring these kind of people? And will the policy cover "elected" county employees, such as Big Brother Matthews, who quit smoking two years ago, but chews nicotine gum to curb his cravings?
There are other "vices" besides smoking. How can you single out one? What about people who buy lottery tickets? That’s gambling, isn’t it? Aren’t gamblers prone to stealing from their employer to feed their habits? Oh, wait. The lottery is government-sponsored gambling. Never mind. It's OK to gamble as long as the government gets the money.
What if someone starts smoking after they’re hired? Will Big Brother Matthews order county detectives to follow suspected smokers after they leave work? Will he set up surveillance of workers on weekends and holidays? Will he round up employees who try to wolf down a Big Mac or a Whopper? Maybe the county should hire only vegetarians.
What if a top county administrator is having an extra-marital affair and Big Brother Matthews' secret police get pictures of the indiscretion? Is the tryst OK as long as the philanderer doesn't light up a cigarette after leaving a motel room? Is there anything wrong with frequenting a strip club as long as you don't smoke?
How far is Big Brother Matthews willing to go to invade the privacy of a worker? And why stop at vices? Shouldn’t Montgomery County impose limits on how many children workers can have? After all, those dependents cost the county money when they're added to the health plan.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
If Jim Matthews gets his way, the nightmarish world of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" may soon become a reality in Montgomery County. Jim Matthews is the big brother of maniacal talk-show host Chris Matthews of MSNBC fame. Jim Matthews is also the chairman of the Board of Commissioners in Montgomery County, just outside Philadelphia.
In a move believed to be the first of its kind in the country, Big Brother Matthews floated the idea of adopting a policy that would ban the hiring of smokers for county jobs.
We're not talking about people who smoke during work hours or sneak a cigarette during their lunch break. If you smoke any time, any place — whether it’s in the privacy of your home or at your favorite tavern or in your car — don’t bother applying for any of the 3,200 full-time jobs that Montgomery County has to offer.
Big Brother Matthews, a Republican, says he’s trying to save taxpayers some money by reducing the number of smokers employed by the county. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with banning smokers because their habit is bad for their health and leads to higher premiums paid by the county.
I’m not a smoker. Never have smoked and have no desire to start. And I don’t enjoy breathing in second-hand smoke. But there’s something inherently wrong about government telling people how to live their lives on their own time.
Is there any more punishment we can inflict on the estimated 47 million Americans who smoke? The government already taxes cigarettes to the point where a pack of smokes costs $7.50 in New York City. Let’s be up front about those taxes. The government will tell you it’s trying to discourage smoking by placing such burdensome taxes on tobacco, but it’s just an easy way to tax a group that isn’t organized enough to fight back.
Smokers have suffered much humiliation at the hands of government in recent years. They’ve been chased from restaurants, bars and all manner of public buildings. They can’t smoke in airplanes or taxis or buses. Private employers have followed suit, forcing smokers into back alleys or ledges for a quick drag. You almost feel sorry for smokers.
If you carry Big Brother Matthews reasoning to its logical conclusion, people won’t be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. I can’t wait until this case gets to the Supreme Court, which previously plucked the "right to privacy" from the Constitution even though those words don’t appear anywhere in the document. Where is a person’s right to privacy if your boss can fire you for a lifestyle choice not connected to your job performance?
Big Brother Matthews is riding a slippery slope. If smokers are banned from the workplace, who would be next? What about fat people? Obesity is a public health crisis in the United States. Are we nearing the day when workers will have to get on a scale every morning before they start work?
What other undesirables are lurking in the cubicles of offices or assembly lines? If a guy goes home after a hard day at the office and has a few beers, shouldn't his boss know about that? What about a person with tattoos? Shouldn’t Big Brother Matthews be worried about hiring these kind of people? And will the policy cover "elected" county employees, such as Big Brother Matthews, who quit smoking two years ago, but chews nicotine gum to curb his cravings?
There are other "vices" besides smoking. How can you single out one? What about people who buy lottery tickets? That’s gambling, isn’t it? Aren’t gamblers prone to stealing from their employer to feed their habits? Oh, wait. The lottery is government-sponsored gambling. Never mind. It's OK to gamble as long as the government gets the money.
What if someone starts smoking after they’re hired? Will Big Brother Matthews order county detectives to follow suspected smokers after they leave work? Will he set up surveillance of workers on weekends and holidays? Will he round up employees who try to wolf down a Big Mac or a Whopper? Maybe the county should hire only vegetarians.
What if a top county administrator is having an extra-marital affair and Big Brother Matthews' secret police get pictures of the indiscretion? Is the tryst OK as long as the philanderer doesn't light up a cigarette after leaving a motel room? Is there anything wrong with frequenting a strip club as long as you don't smoke?
How far is Big Brother Matthews willing to go to invade the privacy of a worker? And why stop at vices? Shouldn’t Montgomery County impose limits on how many children workers can have? After all, those dependents cost the county money when they're added to the health plan.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
A short story about 3 assholes
News anchors, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Cokie Roberts, along with their Marine aide, were captured by terrorists. They were all to be killed.
The leader of the terrorists asked if they had a last request.
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili." The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said! , "Now I can die content."
Peter Jennings said, "I am Canadian, so I'd like to hear the song "O Canada" one last time." The leader nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.
Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end." The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, now I can die happy."
The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.
"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.
The Marine went sprawling, but rolling to his knees; he pulled a 9 mm pistol from inside his cammies, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the Iraqis with gunfire. In a flash, all the Iraqis were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Rather, Jennings, and Roberts, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them from the get-go? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?"
"What," replied the Marine, "and have you three ass-holes call ME the aggressor?
The leader of the terrorists asked if they had a last request.
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili." The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said! , "Now I can die content."
Peter Jennings said, "I am Canadian, so I'd like to hear the song "O Canada" one last time." The leader nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.
Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end." The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, now I can die happy."
The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.
"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.
The Marine went sprawling, but rolling to his knees; he pulled a 9 mm pistol from inside his cammies, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the Iraqis with gunfire. In a flash, all the Iraqis were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Marine was untying Rather, Jennings, and Roberts, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them from the get-go? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?"
"What," replied the Marine, "and have you three ass-holes call ME the aggressor?
Tales from the Secret Service
Got this interesting e-mail today from a reliable source. Can't verify the truth, but it sure makes for entertaining reading.
Secret Service Comments:
We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane ---
[yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ol boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.]
The information below is accurate. Former Pres. Bush Sr. and the current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the aircrews who fly them around
[When the president flies, there are several planes that also go -- one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft] and both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so these Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.
(WHAT WAS, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, AND WHAT IS)
WHAT WAS:
Hillary Clinton was arrogant and vocally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her.
Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all "loathed" her and wanted to be on a different detail. She was hard work because she was so nasty and mean toward her detail. Hillary Clinton was uniformly despised by the Secret Service as a whole.
Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife Hillary. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attack antics that Hillary would use against her husband, the then President. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and yell so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.
Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most people wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."
Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have "charisma," and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. They did respect him, unlike his wife, but they did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him. He was polite, but not kind.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN:
Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in . They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing and very hateful, not just politically opposed, to Republicans than Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This bitter hatred was something that he and Hillary had very much in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities where Al Gore and Hillary had none in the view of their security details.
Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them in disgust as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion when Al Gore got angry at his offspring and loudly, in their presence, pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?!?"
Word of this insulting and demeaning verbiage by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as despised and disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed that Al Gore would not be elected President and they really did have private small celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat. He was much dis liked. Al Gore was not a good and kind person. That he could have been our President may suggest that God was "answering prayers" and looking out for the country with Al Gore's defeat.
WHAT IS:
Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they uniformly concede that she is perhaps the most nice, kind, and genuinely good person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers.
She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Laura Bush really is this kind of a person and her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They actually love her as a human being.
They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."
Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Que for his security detail and he helps in serving them their meals. He eats with them, sits with them, and talks with them. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers, and he of course, knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection.
They believe that he actually loves his security detail and that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush, and most of them did not know they would feel this way until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed in the time that he has been President. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.
Please pass this on. It is important for everyday Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.
Secret Service Comments:
We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane ---
[yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ol boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.]
The information below is accurate. Former Pres. Bush Sr. and the current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the aircrews who fly them around
[When the president flies, there are several planes that also go -- one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft] and both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so these Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.
(WHAT WAS, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, AND WHAT IS)
WHAT WAS:
Hillary Clinton was arrogant and vocally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her.
Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all "loathed" her and wanted to be on a different detail. She was hard work because she was so nasty and mean toward her detail. Hillary Clinton was uniformly despised by the Secret Service as a whole.
Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife Hillary. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attack antics that Hillary would use against her husband, the then President. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and yell so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.
Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most people wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."
Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have "charisma," and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. They did respect him, unlike his wife, but they did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him. He was polite, but not kind.
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN:
Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in . They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.
Al Gore was far more left wing and very hateful, not just politically opposed, to Republicans than Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This bitter hatred was something that he and Hillary had very much in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities where Al Gore and Hillary had none in the view of their security details.
Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them in disgust as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion when Al Gore got angry at his offspring and loudly, in their presence, pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?!?"
Word of this insulting and demeaning verbiage by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as despised and disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed that Al Gore would not be elected President and they really did have private small celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat. He was much dis liked. Al Gore was not a good and kind person. That he could have been our President may suggest that God was "answering prayers" and looking out for the country with Al Gore's defeat.
WHAT IS:
Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they uniformly concede that she is perhaps the most nice, kind, and genuinely good person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers.
She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Laura Bush really is this kind of a person and her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They actually love her as a human being.
They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."
Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Que for his security detail and he helps in serving them their meals. He eats with them, sits with them, and talks with them. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers, and he of course, knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection.
They believe that he actually loves his security detail and that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush, and most of them did not know they would feel this way until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed in the time that he has been President. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.
Please pass this on. It is important for everyday Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Grades are in: Ed Rendell flunks out
It’s report card time for the nation’s governors. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s favorite son, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, didn’t do so well.
I hope you’re sitting down for this mom and dad. Rendell brought home a big red "F" on his report card. Where did we go wrong? I knew he was spending too much time at Eagles games and not enough time hitting the books.
The Washington, D.C.-based CATO Institute has released a new report grading the nation’s governors on taxes and spending policies. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Rendell’s first two years in office to learn that raising the state’s income tax by 33 percent, saddling Pennsylvania residents with a host of other nuisance taxes and funneling money into ratholes like SEPTA and the Philadelphia schools tends to sink economic prospects.
Gov. Rendell was one of only four governors to receive a grade of "F" on the CATO Institute’s "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2004." The other governors who flunked basic economics are Republican Bob Taft of Ohio, Democrat Bob Holden of Missouri and Democrat James McGreevey of New Jersey.
The CATO Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation founded in 1977. It has no connection to the Republican Party or the Bush administration. The people behind the study believe that lower taxes, less government spending and minimal government regulations tend to stimulate the economy.
So why did Ed Rendell finish 41 out of 42 governors? (Eight governors were excluded from the study because they just began office). The only governor ranked behind Rendell was McGreevey, who resigned last year.
It appears that Rendell’s plan of siphoning $1 billion a year from working Pennsylvanians to support his massive government spending plan had something to do with his low marks. There’s also those hidden taxes, including higher fees for state inspections and emissions testing. And let’s not forget the $50 tax on workers Rendell pushed through last year, allowing communities to raise their occupational privilege tax from $10 to $52 a year.
And of course, there’s the gambling bill, the worst legislation since Prohibition. Rendell wants to tax Pennsylvania’s elderly even more by bringing slot machines to Pennsylvania so seniors won’t have to go to Atlantic City to lose more of their money.
In return for slots, Rendell said residents might get back a few hundred dollars in property tax relief in three or four years or they might get nothing if seniors don’t gamble away at least $1 billion a year. That’s Rendell’s version of property tax relief. Are you sure an "F" is the lowest grade you can earn?
The CATO study is based on 15 objective measures of fiscal performance. Four governors received "A" grades from Cato: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-California), Gov. Bill Owens (R-Colorado), Gov. Judy Martz (R-Montana) and Gov. Craig Benson (R-New Hampshire). The top-ranked Democrat governors were New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, Washington’s Gary Locke, Maine’s John Baldacci and Tennessee’s Phil Bredensen, all of whom who earned a "B."
Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most received the highest grades, according to according to Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski, who wrote the CATO report. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most get the lowest grades.
"Our analysis shows that states that keep tax rates low and restrain spending growth have the best economic performance and thus the best long-term fiscal health," Moore and Slivinski wrote in the report’s executive summary.
The complete CATO report can be downloaded in PDF format free of charge from the institute’s Web site: www.cato.org
Out of 12.3 million residents in Pennsylvania, is "Fast Eddie" Rendell the best we can do? No wonder Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom of just about every quality of life issue that can measured, whether it's health care, transportation, schools, the environment or job creation.
Can Pennsylvania afford four more years of Rendell’s failed tax-and-spend policies? He’s up for reelection in 2006. It might be time to homeschool our boy Eddie.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
I hope you’re sitting down for this mom and dad. Rendell brought home a big red "F" on his report card. Where did we go wrong? I knew he was spending too much time at Eagles games and not enough time hitting the books.
The Washington, D.C.-based CATO Institute has released a new report grading the nation’s governors on taxes and spending policies. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Rendell’s first two years in office to learn that raising the state’s income tax by 33 percent, saddling Pennsylvania residents with a host of other nuisance taxes and funneling money into ratholes like SEPTA and the Philadelphia schools tends to sink economic prospects.
Gov. Rendell was one of only four governors to receive a grade of "F" on the CATO Institute’s "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2004." The other governors who flunked basic economics are Republican Bob Taft of Ohio, Democrat Bob Holden of Missouri and Democrat James McGreevey of New Jersey.
The CATO Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation founded in 1977. It has no connection to the Republican Party or the Bush administration. The people behind the study believe that lower taxes, less government spending and minimal government regulations tend to stimulate the economy.
So why did Ed Rendell finish 41 out of 42 governors? (Eight governors were excluded from the study because they just began office). The only governor ranked behind Rendell was McGreevey, who resigned last year.
It appears that Rendell’s plan of siphoning $1 billion a year from working Pennsylvanians to support his massive government spending plan had something to do with his low marks. There’s also those hidden taxes, including higher fees for state inspections and emissions testing. And let’s not forget the $50 tax on workers Rendell pushed through last year, allowing communities to raise their occupational privilege tax from $10 to $52 a year.
And of course, there’s the gambling bill, the worst legislation since Prohibition. Rendell wants to tax Pennsylvania’s elderly even more by bringing slot machines to Pennsylvania so seniors won’t have to go to Atlantic City to lose more of their money.
In return for slots, Rendell said residents might get back a few hundred dollars in property tax relief in three or four years or they might get nothing if seniors don’t gamble away at least $1 billion a year. That’s Rendell’s version of property tax relief. Are you sure an "F" is the lowest grade you can earn?
The CATO study is based on 15 objective measures of fiscal performance. Four governors received "A" grades from Cato: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-California), Gov. Bill Owens (R-Colorado), Gov. Judy Martz (R-Montana) and Gov. Craig Benson (R-New Hampshire). The top-ranked Democrat governors were New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, Washington’s Gary Locke, Maine’s John Baldacci and Tennessee’s Phil Bredensen, all of whom who earned a "B."
Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most received the highest grades, according to according to Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski, who wrote the CATO report. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most get the lowest grades.
"Our analysis shows that states that keep tax rates low and restrain spending growth have the best economic performance and thus the best long-term fiscal health," Moore and Slivinski wrote in the report’s executive summary.
The complete CATO report can be downloaded in PDF format free of charge from the institute’s Web site: www.cato.org
Out of 12.3 million residents in Pennsylvania, is "Fast Eddie" Rendell the best we can do? No wonder Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom of just about every quality of life issue that can measured, whether it's health care, transportation, schools, the environment or job creation.
Can Pennsylvania afford four more years of Rendell’s failed tax-and-spend policies? He’s up for reelection in 2006. It might be time to homeschool our boy Eddie.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Skyrocketing health premiums cost everyone
The inflation rate for 2004 was 2.7 percent. That’s the highest rate since 2000 when inflation was measured at 3.5 percent. Inflation has not been at double-digit rates since 1981 when it was 11.2 percent. The worst inflation rate of the past 25 years was in 1980 when it hit 14.3 percent.
Keep those figures in mind. The costs of health care premiums for employers and their workers have been rising annually from 15 percent to 25 percent in recent years. How can insurance companies raise premiums by 25 percent when the rate of inflation is below 3 percent?
The short answer is because they can. There’s nothing to stop them from raising prices to any level they want. There are no regulations in Pennsylvania to prohibits these outrageous increases by commercial insurance carriers.
Politicians in Harrisburg know about the problem. They just haven’t made it a priority. In the meantime, small employers are forced to pay more to provide health care coverage for their workers or pass those increases onto the workers and their families.
This is especially troubling for companies who have 100 or fewer workers. But this issue hits home with just about everyone. If this trend is not reversed, companies will simply stop offering health coverage as part of their benefits coverage. That means workers will have to rely on taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid or CHIP to cover their family’s health expenses. That means higher taxes for everyone to pay for these programs.
Companies may also decide not to hire more workers because of the high cost of providing health coverage. That means more unemployment. And guess who pays more in taxes to cover unemployment benefits?
Two area insurance agents are very familiar with the dilemma in health care coverage. Ronald H. Back is president of the Ron Black Agency in Royersford. Charles A. Laskey Jr. is vice president. They’ve been in the business for decades. They pride themselves in finding the right insurance at the right price for any of their clients. But it’s getting harder to do their job.
Before this starts sounding like a commercial for the Ron Black Agency, let me say that I have no connection to the firm whatsoever. Ron Black asked me if I would write about this issue and provided me with copies of the legislation. That’s my only dealing with the firm.
Black and Laskey feel so strongly about this issue that they devote a portion of their firm’s Web site to educating the public about the current health coverage dilemma. They’ve spoken to business groups, appeared on local television to discuss the issue and traveled to Harrisburg to testify before legislative committees.
Black and Laskey wholeheartedly supported bills in the state House and Senate to remedy the problem. The legislation (Senate Bill 671 and House Bill 1891) was introduced during the 2003-2004 session. Both bills were referred to their respective insurance committees, but neither made it out of committee for a vote.
Passage of these bills wouldn’t benefit the Ron Black Agency’s bottom line. Black and Laskey want to see reform because they care deeply about their customers, including many of the local businesses that provide jobs for area residents. Black and Laskey talk to these business owners regularly and they feel their pain. They want to find affordable health insurance for these firms, but that’s becoming harder to do in Pennsylvania.
The legislation seeks to ban "demographic rating" and medical underwriting in the small employer market. If passed, insurance companies would no longer be allowed to charge a business a higher rate because that firm has older workers or a lot of women working there. The insurance companies would have to use "community rating" to determine what they charge. This is what Blue Cross/Blue Shield does. That would bring rates down for everyone because the costs are spread out over all employers in a region.
One of the more interesting sections on the Ron Black Agency’s Web site deals with the question of what would happen if the Senate and House bills are not passed:
* Rates will rise more drastically. Companies with an average age of workers over 45 could see a 30 percent to 40 percent rate increase.
* Employers may be forced to discriminate when hiring new employees in order to keep their average age down. They’ll hire young men instead of women or more experienced workers.
* Employers may be forced to pass more of the increased health insurance premiums onto their employees (which is what many firms are already doing).
* Employers may be forced to offer plans with higher deductibles and co-pays to their employees in order to keep insurance premiums down. (See above).
* Employers may be forced to eliminate their health insurance plans altogether because of the soaring costs.
This is a complex issue but the solution is common sense. The state Senate and House need to enact legislation to deal with this problem. Since the two bills never made it out of committee, somebody needs to stand up in the Legislature and introduce the measures again.
I urge you to contact your state senator and representative and get them behind this legislation. Every worker and taxpayer in the Commonwealth needs speak up. I will continue to write about this issue until Gov. Ed Rendell signs legislation to curb the skyrocketing costs of health insurance.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Keep those figures in mind. The costs of health care premiums for employers and their workers have been rising annually from 15 percent to 25 percent in recent years. How can insurance companies raise premiums by 25 percent when the rate of inflation is below 3 percent?
The short answer is because they can. There’s nothing to stop them from raising prices to any level they want. There are no regulations in Pennsylvania to prohibits these outrageous increases by commercial insurance carriers.
Politicians in Harrisburg know about the problem. They just haven’t made it a priority. In the meantime, small employers are forced to pay more to provide health care coverage for their workers or pass those increases onto the workers and their families.
This is especially troubling for companies who have 100 or fewer workers. But this issue hits home with just about everyone. If this trend is not reversed, companies will simply stop offering health coverage as part of their benefits coverage. That means workers will have to rely on taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid or CHIP to cover their family’s health expenses. That means higher taxes for everyone to pay for these programs.
Companies may also decide not to hire more workers because of the high cost of providing health coverage. That means more unemployment. And guess who pays more in taxes to cover unemployment benefits?
Two area insurance agents are very familiar with the dilemma in health care coverage. Ronald H. Back is president of the Ron Black Agency in Royersford. Charles A. Laskey Jr. is vice president. They’ve been in the business for decades. They pride themselves in finding the right insurance at the right price for any of their clients. But it’s getting harder to do their job.
Before this starts sounding like a commercial for the Ron Black Agency, let me say that I have no connection to the firm whatsoever. Ron Black asked me if I would write about this issue and provided me with copies of the legislation. That’s my only dealing with the firm.
Black and Laskey feel so strongly about this issue that they devote a portion of their firm’s Web site to educating the public about the current health coverage dilemma. They’ve spoken to business groups, appeared on local television to discuss the issue and traveled to Harrisburg to testify before legislative committees.
Black and Laskey wholeheartedly supported bills in the state House and Senate to remedy the problem. The legislation (Senate Bill 671 and House Bill 1891) was introduced during the 2003-2004 session. Both bills were referred to their respective insurance committees, but neither made it out of committee for a vote.
Passage of these bills wouldn’t benefit the Ron Black Agency’s bottom line. Black and Laskey want to see reform because they care deeply about their customers, including many of the local businesses that provide jobs for area residents. Black and Laskey talk to these business owners regularly and they feel their pain. They want to find affordable health insurance for these firms, but that’s becoming harder to do in Pennsylvania.
The legislation seeks to ban "demographic rating" and medical underwriting in the small employer market. If passed, insurance companies would no longer be allowed to charge a business a higher rate because that firm has older workers or a lot of women working there. The insurance companies would have to use "community rating" to determine what they charge. This is what Blue Cross/Blue Shield does. That would bring rates down for everyone because the costs are spread out over all employers in a region.
One of the more interesting sections on the Ron Black Agency’s Web site deals with the question of what would happen if the Senate and House bills are not passed:
* Rates will rise more drastically. Companies with an average age of workers over 45 could see a 30 percent to 40 percent rate increase.
* Employers may be forced to discriminate when hiring new employees in order to keep their average age down. They’ll hire young men instead of women or more experienced workers.
* Employers may be forced to pass more of the increased health insurance premiums onto their employees (which is what many firms are already doing).
* Employers may be forced to offer plans with higher deductibles and co-pays to their employees in order to keep insurance premiums down. (See above).
* Employers may be forced to eliminate their health insurance plans altogether because of the soaring costs.
This is a complex issue but the solution is common sense. The state Senate and House need to enact legislation to deal with this problem. Since the two bills never made it out of committee, somebody needs to stand up in the Legislature and introduce the measures again.
I urge you to contact your state senator and representative and get them behind this legislation. Every worker and taxpayer in the Commonwealth needs speak up. I will continue to write about this issue until Gov. Ed Rendell signs legislation to curb the skyrocketing costs of health insurance.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
If Syria leaves Lebanon, will Turkey leave Cyprus?
There’s growing international pressure on Syria to end its illegal occupation of Lebanon. Syria has been using its tiny neighbor as a military base since 1976 when it sent 27,000 troops into Lebanon under the guise of establishing order after a bloody Lebanese civil war.
Lebanon was once the jewel of the Middle East, with a thriving economy and tourist industry. It was one of the few countries in that part of the world where Muslims and Christians lived in harmony.
While the Syrian invasion brought an end to civil war, it also marked an end to Lebanese independence. After order was restored, the Syrians decided to stay in Lebanon. They installed a series of puppet regimes and put out the welcome sign for terrorist groups to use Lebanon as a staging area for attacks on Israel.
The recent assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister, a staunch opponent of the Syrian occupation, has brought a renewed effort both at the United Nations and the United States to get Syria to leave Lebanon. Syria still has 15,000 troops stationed in Lebanon.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "The Syrians are out of step with where the region is going and out of step with the aspirations of the people of the Middle East." Rice said international resolve was growing that Syria must pull out of Lebanon and allow the Lebanese to choose their own political future. That choice must be independent of "contaminating influences," Rice said. "I think it's one of the strongest statements in a long time about what needs to happen in Lebanon."
Very strong words coming from the Bush administration, especially when the United States has looked the other way for 30 years at a very similar situation in the region.
About 60 miles west of Syria sits the island of Cyprus, a sovereign nation since 1960. It too has endured an occupation by a foreign power. Since 1974, Turkish troops have controlled one-third of the island.
Armed with American weapons, Turkey invaded Cyprus on July 20, 1974, under the guise of protecting the Turkish minority following an unsuccessful coup against the elected government of Cyprus by forces loyal to the military junta that was governing Greece at the time. Cyprus was another case of Christians and Muslims living side-by-side for decades in relative peace and stability.
In a matter of days, the 40,000-strong Turkish invasion force drove nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, farms and businesses, turning them into refugees in their own country. With Greece threatening to come to the aid of Cyprus (leaving the U.S. with the unpleasant prospect of seeing two of its NATO allies at war), a cease-fire was arranged on Aug. 16, 1974.
But the damage was done. More than 6,000 Greek-Cypriots were killed by the Turks and another 1,600 disappeared behind Turkish lines. Thirty years later, there has never been a full accounting by Turkey of what happened to the 1,300 men, 116 women and 133 children caught behind the advancing Turkish army.
Since the invasion, some 115,000 "undesirable" Turks from the mainland have been illegally settled in occupied Cyprus. In 1983, Turkey declared the occupied portion of Cyprus as an independent nation. To this day, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus as well as the continuing violation of the fundamental human rights of the people of Cyprus has been condemned by every international body, including the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Commonwealth, the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe. But Turkey doesn't care about the law.
Fed by billions of dollars in U.S. aid, Turkey thumbs its nose at international law — and U.S. taxpayers. This is the same Turkey that continues to have one of the worst records of human rights violations in the world. The same Turkey that denied the United States use of its military bases and air space to launch a northern offensive against Iraq. Imagine how many more Saddam loyalists and insurgents could have been killed or captured in the opening days of the Iraq War had Turkey cooperated with the U.S.
Turkey keeps 30,000 troops on Cyprus to keep the Greeks from returning to their homes. It has ignored dozens of U.N. resolutions calling for unification of the island. And while the U.S. talks tough to Syria, it permits Turkey to occupy a neighboring country.
Why should American taxpayers finance this rogue nation? Unlike Syria, where the U.S. has little leverage, the Turkish economy would collapse without U.S. dollars. What’s so difficult about insisting that Turkey end its illegal occupation of Cyprus before any more America tax dollars make into Turkish pockets?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Lebanon was once the jewel of the Middle East, with a thriving economy and tourist industry. It was one of the few countries in that part of the world where Muslims and Christians lived in harmony.
While the Syrian invasion brought an end to civil war, it also marked an end to Lebanese independence. After order was restored, the Syrians decided to stay in Lebanon. They installed a series of puppet regimes and put out the welcome sign for terrorist groups to use Lebanon as a staging area for attacks on Israel.
The recent assassination of Lebanon’s former prime minister, a staunch opponent of the Syrian occupation, has brought a renewed effort both at the United Nations and the United States to get Syria to leave Lebanon. Syria still has 15,000 troops stationed in Lebanon.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "The Syrians are out of step with where the region is going and out of step with the aspirations of the people of the Middle East." Rice said international resolve was growing that Syria must pull out of Lebanon and allow the Lebanese to choose their own political future. That choice must be independent of "contaminating influences," Rice said. "I think it's one of the strongest statements in a long time about what needs to happen in Lebanon."
Very strong words coming from the Bush administration, especially when the United States has looked the other way for 30 years at a very similar situation in the region.
About 60 miles west of Syria sits the island of Cyprus, a sovereign nation since 1960. It too has endured an occupation by a foreign power. Since 1974, Turkish troops have controlled one-third of the island.
Armed with American weapons, Turkey invaded Cyprus on July 20, 1974, under the guise of protecting the Turkish minority following an unsuccessful coup against the elected government of Cyprus by forces loyal to the military junta that was governing Greece at the time. Cyprus was another case of Christians and Muslims living side-by-side for decades in relative peace and stability.
In a matter of days, the 40,000-strong Turkish invasion force drove nearly 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, farms and businesses, turning them into refugees in their own country. With Greece threatening to come to the aid of Cyprus (leaving the U.S. with the unpleasant prospect of seeing two of its NATO allies at war), a cease-fire was arranged on Aug. 16, 1974.
But the damage was done. More than 6,000 Greek-Cypriots were killed by the Turks and another 1,600 disappeared behind Turkish lines. Thirty years later, there has never been a full accounting by Turkey of what happened to the 1,300 men, 116 women and 133 children caught behind the advancing Turkish army.
Since the invasion, some 115,000 "undesirable" Turks from the mainland have been illegally settled in occupied Cyprus. In 1983, Turkey declared the occupied portion of Cyprus as an independent nation. To this day, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognized only by Turkey.
The Turkish invasion of Cyprus as well as the continuing violation of the fundamental human rights of the people of Cyprus has been condemned by every international body, including the United Nations, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Commonwealth, the European Court of Human Rights and the Council of Europe. But Turkey doesn't care about the law.
Fed by billions of dollars in U.S. aid, Turkey thumbs its nose at international law — and U.S. taxpayers. This is the same Turkey that continues to have one of the worst records of human rights violations in the world. The same Turkey that denied the United States use of its military bases and air space to launch a northern offensive against Iraq. Imagine how many more Saddam loyalists and insurgents could have been killed or captured in the opening days of the Iraq War had Turkey cooperated with the U.S.
Turkey keeps 30,000 troops on Cyprus to keep the Greeks from returning to their homes. It has ignored dozens of U.N. resolutions calling for unification of the island. And while the U.S. talks tough to Syria, it permits Turkey to occupy a neighboring country.
Why should American taxpayers finance this rogue nation? Unlike Syria, where the U.S. has little leverage, the Turkish economy would collapse without U.S. dollars. What’s so difficult about insisting that Turkey end its illegal occupation of Cyprus before any more America tax dollars make into Turkish pockets?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, February 28, 2005
Why Democrats oppose Social Security reform
There’s so much information (and misinformation) out there about Social Security reform that it’s easy to get confused. So here’s the answers you need to make up your mind about what needs to be done to salvage Social Security.
Is there a crisis with Social Security?
It depends if you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Social Security is a great big government-operated Ponzi scheme. The people who got in on the ground floor made out OK. There was plenty of money in the system in the beginning. People who are collecting benefits today or are planning to retire in the next decade are also fine. But anyone who is 20 or more years away from retirement is going to be in for a rude awakening. (There are 35 million Americans age 65 or older today. In 2030, that number will reach 72 million). When Social Security was founded, there were 16 workers putting money into the system for every retiree collecting benefits. Today, there are three workers paying into the system for every retiree. That will go down to two workers in the coming decades. Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes beginning as early as 2018. By 2042, Social Security will only be able to pay 70 percent of the benefits it has promised.
Why do the Democrats oppose Social Security reform?
Two reasons. The Democrats have been relegated to the status of being the "obstruction party." They automatically oppose anything the president proposes. If George W. Bush were to announce a cure for cancer, Howard Dean would step to the microphone to object to the cure. Second, the Democrats don’t like to talk about Social Security. There’s a deep, dark secret about the so-called Social Security Trust Fund that Democrats don’t want you to know about. Congress, which was run by Democrats for most of the past century, has raided the trust fund repeatedly to pay for every government program other than Social Security. In its place, Congress has left a stack of IOUs. The Trust Fund is supposed to be at $1.5 trillion. But that money has been invested in U.S. Treasury securities to keep the federal government afloat. The Democrats don’t want you to know that the money you’ve been putting into the system has already been spent. That’s why Democrats always want to change the subject.
Aren’t these personal accounts risky?
A dozen years ago, something called a 401(k) plan was a mysterious thing to most workers. Today, it’s as routine as direct deposit of your weekly paycheck. Did you know that civilian federal government workers, including Congressional Democrats, already invest their Social Security withholdings in personal retirement accounts? The Thrift Savings Plan, established 18 years ago, has assets of $152 billion. Nobody ever lost a dime in that private account. Politicians are no fools. They take care of themselves first. If personal accounts are good enough for Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, why won’t the Democrats let the rest of us have them?
Why is the AARP spending millions to Social Security reform?
In one word, politics. The leadership of the AARP has been hijacked by left-wing radicals who want to embarrass the president and defeat Republicans in Congress. Same thing happened to the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers' union, which spends millions of lobbying dollars to block education reforms. The AARP is open to people 55 and older. All of the reforms floated by the Bush administration are geared toward people under 55. The AARP has no concern with the Social Security debate.
Why mess with something that works?
Some people have short memories. Social Security started going broke in 1983 when payments to beneficiaries exceeded contributions into the system. (Think Ponzi scheme again). Payroll taxes were increased, benefits were cut and the retirement age was raised to 67 to make up for the shortfall. George W. Bush didn’t have to touch the third rail of American politics. Nothing bad is going to happen to the system in the next four years. But Bush is thinking about the 72 million baby boomers who will swamp the system when they retire over the next 25 to 30 years. He’s thinking of the millions of Americans in their 20s and 30s who are going to be crushed by the weight of Social Security if something isn’t done.
I hope I was helpful in clearing up some of the confusion. If there’s any other specific questions on your mind about Social Security, you know where to find me.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Is there a crisis with Social Security?
It depends if you believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Social Security is a great big government-operated Ponzi scheme. The people who got in on the ground floor made out OK. There was plenty of money in the system in the beginning. People who are collecting benefits today or are planning to retire in the next decade are also fine. But anyone who is 20 or more years away from retirement is going to be in for a rude awakening. (There are 35 million Americans age 65 or older today. In 2030, that number will reach 72 million). When Social Security was founded, there were 16 workers putting money into the system for every retiree collecting benefits. Today, there are three workers paying into the system for every retiree. That will go down to two workers in the coming decades. Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes beginning as early as 2018. By 2042, Social Security will only be able to pay 70 percent of the benefits it has promised.
Why do the Democrats oppose Social Security reform?
Two reasons. The Democrats have been relegated to the status of being the "obstruction party." They automatically oppose anything the president proposes. If George W. Bush were to announce a cure for cancer, Howard Dean would step to the microphone to object to the cure. Second, the Democrats don’t like to talk about Social Security. There’s a deep, dark secret about the so-called Social Security Trust Fund that Democrats don’t want you to know about. Congress, which was run by Democrats for most of the past century, has raided the trust fund repeatedly to pay for every government program other than Social Security. In its place, Congress has left a stack of IOUs. The Trust Fund is supposed to be at $1.5 trillion. But that money has been invested in U.S. Treasury securities to keep the federal government afloat. The Democrats don’t want you to know that the money you’ve been putting into the system has already been spent. That’s why Democrats always want to change the subject.
Aren’t these personal accounts risky?
A dozen years ago, something called a 401(k) plan was a mysterious thing to most workers. Today, it’s as routine as direct deposit of your weekly paycheck. Did you know that civilian federal government workers, including Congressional Democrats, already invest their Social Security withholdings in personal retirement accounts? The Thrift Savings Plan, established 18 years ago, has assets of $152 billion. Nobody ever lost a dime in that private account. Politicians are no fools. They take care of themselves first. If personal accounts are good enough for Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, why won’t the Democrats let the rest of us have them?
Why is the AARP spending millions to Social Security reform?
In one word, politics. The leadership of the AARP has been hijacked by left-wing radicals who want to embarrass the president and defeat Republicans in Congress. Same thing happened to the National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers' union, which spends millions of lobbying dollars to block education reforms. The AARP is open to people 55 and older. All of the reforms floated by the Bush administration are geared toward people under 55. The AARP has no concern with the Social Security debate.
Why mess with something that works?
Some people have short memories. Social Security started going broke in 1983 when payments to beneficiaries exceeded contributions into the system. (Think Ponzi scheme again). Payroll taxes were increased, benefits were cut and the retirement age was raised to 67 to make up for the shortfall. George W. Bush didn’t have to touch the third rail of American politics. Nothing bad is going to happen to the system in the next four years. But Bush is thinking about the 72 million baby boomers who will swamp the system when they retire over the next 25 to 30 years. He’s thinking of the millions of Americans in their 20s and 30s who are going to be crushed by the weight of Social Security if something isn’t done.
I hope I was helpful in clearing up some of the confusion. If there’s any other specific questions on your mind about Social Security, you know where to find me.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Friday, February 25, 2005
Health insurance costs: There ought to be a law
A recent poll found that the No. 1 concern of Pennsylvania residents is being able to afford health care for sick family members. The Issues PA/Pew Benchmark survey determined that health care affordability is the biggest worry for 53 percent of Pennsylvanians.
You’d think the Pennsylvania legislature would be burning the midnight oil tackling an issue that’s on the minds of so many of its constituents. Wrong. The legislature has kept busy raising taxes, bringing gambling to Pennsylvania, sanctioning ghost voting and giving itself pay raises. Dealing with the skyrocketing costs of health insurance keeps falling below the radar screen of most of our esteemed politicians.
The last time anyone tried to take up the issue was during the 2003-2004 legislative session when bills were introduced in both the state House and state Senate to control the double-digit increases in premiums forced on employers and workers by the big insurance companies over the past few years.
Senate Bill 671, introduced by 10 state senators, including two from Montgomery County — Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist. and Connie Williams, D-17th Dist. — would have gone a long way in addressing the problem.
The Pennsylvania Health Care Security Act, as SB 671 is commonly known, would have prevented the big insurance companies from using unfair rating practices to jack up premiums for smaller companies. SB 671 would have required insurance companies to develop a community rate for health benefit plans for businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
Community rating spreads risk across the carrier’s small group population, a sweeping change from the current practice of demographic rating that discriminates against numerous groups by basing premiums on factors such as the age of employees, the number of women of child-bearing years, and the type of industry. SB 671 would also place limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions that prevent many Pennsylvanians from getting insurance.
Companion legislation, House Bill 1891, was introduced by 66 state representatives, including Raymond Bunt Jr., R-147th Dist., Jacqueline Crahalla, R-150th Dist., Tim Hennessey, R-26th Dist., Carole Rubley, R-157th Dist. and Curt Schroder, R-155th Dist. (Mary Ann Daily, the Pottstown-Limerick area representative who retired from the state House at the end of 2004, was also one of the sponsors.)
I spent a recent afternoon with Ronald H. Black and Charles A. Laskey Jr., who operate the Ron Black Agency in Royersford. Health insurance is not the sexiest topic, but what these two veteran insurance agents had to say about the state of health insurance in Pennsylvania is troubling. Black and Laskey are not blaming anyone in particular, but they’re upset with the lack of progress being made by the Legislature to address this crisis. That will be the topic of a future column.
Senate Bill 671 was referred to the Senate’s Banking and Insurance Committee, where it has languished since April 2003. The chairman of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee is Gibson E. Armstrong, a Republican who represents parts of Lancaster and York counties. Bills don’t leave the committee until Sen. Armstrong says so. As a worker who has seen a bigger chunk of my paycheck go to cover health insurance, I’d like to know why our state representatives are not doing something about it.
Maybe you’d like to ask Sen. Armstrong the same question. Here’s how to contact him: Gibson E. Armstrong, Senate Box 203013, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3013; Toll-free telephone: 1-800-235-1313. E-mail address: garmstrong@pasen.gov
House Bill 1891 was referred to the House Insurance Committee in August 2003. That’s where it died. The chairman of the House Insurance Committee is Nicholas A. Micozzie, R-Dist. 163. Here’s where to reach him: 6 South Springfield Road, Clifton Heights, PA, 19018. Telephone: 610-259-2820. You can also e-mail him at his Web site: www.RepMicozzie.com
These two committees should be looking out for the residents of Pennsylvania. Legislation to contain the skyrocketing costs of health insurance should be passed without delay.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
You’d think the Pennsylvania legislature would be burning the midnight oil tackling an issue that’s on the minds of so many of its constituents. Wrong. The legislature has kept busy raising taxes, bringing gambling to Pennsylvania, sanctioning ghost voting and giving itself pay raises. Dealing with the skyrocketing costs of health insurance keeps falling below the radar screen of most of our esteemed politicians.
The last time anyone tried to take up the issue was during the 2003-2004 legislative session when bills were introduced in both the state House and state Senate to control the double-digit increases in premiums forced on employers and workers by the big insurance companies over the past few years.
Senate Bill 671, introduced by 10 state senators, including two from Montgomery County — Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist. and Connie Williams, D-17th Dist. — would have gone a long way in addressing the problem.
The Pennsylvania Health Care Security Act, as SB 671 is commonly known, would have prevented the big insurance companies from using unfair rating practices to jack up premiums for smaller companies. SB 671 would have required insurance companies to develop a community rate for health benefit plans for businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
Community rating spreads risk across the carrier’s small group population, a sweeping change from the current practice of demographic rating that discriminates against numerous groups by basing premiums on factors such as the age of employees, the number of women of child-bearing years, and the type of industry. SB 671 would also place limits on the use of pre-existing condition exclusions that prevent many Pennsylvanians from getting insurance.
Companion legislation, House Bill 1891, was introduced by 66 state representatives, including Raymond Bunt Jr., R-147th Dist., Jacqueline Crahalla, R-150th Dist., Tim Hennessey, R-26th Dist., Carole Rubley, R-157th Dist. and Curt Schroder, R-155th Dist. (Mary Ann Daily, the Pottstown-Limerick area representative who retired from the state House at the end of 2004, was also one of the sponsors.)
I spent a recent afternoon with Ronald H. Black and Charles A. Laskey Jr., who operate the Ron Black Agency in Royersford. Health insurance is not the sexiest topic, but what these two veteran insurance agents had to say about the state of health insurance in Pennsylvania is troubling. Black and Laskey are not blaming anyone in particular, but they’re upset with the lack of progress being made by the Legislature to address this crisis. That will be the topic of a future column.
Senate Bill 671 was referred to the Senate’s Banking and Insurance Committee, where it has languished since April 2003. The chairman of the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee is Gibson E. Armstrong, a Republican who represents parts of Lancaster and York counties. Bills don’t leave the committee until Sen. Armstrong says so. As a worker who has seen a bigger chunk of my paycheck go to cover health insurance, I’d like to know why our state representatives are not doing something about it.
Maybe you’d like to ask Sen. Armstrong the same question. Here’s how to contact him: Gibson E. Armstrong, Senate Box 203013, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3013; Toll-free telephone: 1-800-235-1313. E-mail address: garmstrong@pasen.gov
House Bill 1891 was referred to the House Insurance Committee in August 2003. That’s where it died. The chairman of the House Insurance Committee is Nicholas A. Micozzie, R-Dist. 163. Here’s where to reach him: 6 South Springfield Road, Clifton Heights, PA, 19018. Telephone: 610-259-2820. You can also e-mail him at his Web site: www.RepMicozzie.com
These two committees should be looking out for the residents of Pennsylvania. Legislation to contain the skyrocketing costs of health insurance should be passed without delay.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, February 21, 2005
A sampling of un-politically correct fan mail
People ask me if critical letters to the editor published in The Mercury bother me. Not really. I know I’m right on all the positions I take in my columns, so why would the opinion of somebody who disagrees — and is therefore wrong — be of any concern?
Since I started writing columns on a regular basis about a year ago, I’ve received letters, phone calls and e-mails from more than 300 different readers. I emphasize "different" because some people — both admirers and critics — write me often. Two-thirds of the critical letters and e-mails I’ve received in the past year have come from about a dozen people. I guess it’s true what they say about squeaky wheels.
Of the 300 people who took the time to share their opinion on a column, 8 out of 10 agree with what I had to say. At a time when President Bush's approval rating hovers around 50 percent, an 80 percent approval rating is something any politician would salivate over.
People have a misperception about conservatives. It probably comes from the liberal bias of the news media. The people who tend to rave and rant are usually on the left of the political spectrum. These are the same folks who threatened to move to Canada if George W. Bush won the election, but I’m afraid most did not keep their word.
A lot of the people I hear from don’t want their letters published in the newspaper because we require publication of their full name and hometown. These readers have told me repeatedly that they fear harassment from left-wingers.
Today, I’d like to share a sampling of reader comments just from the past two weeks. These are the actual words of readers. The only thing I’ve left out is their identity.
"It is absolutely amazing that a newspaper actually allows you to print the truth, no matter how un-politically correct the rest of the world might view it."
"Great column!!! I was worried that the liberals broke in to your building and kidnapped you!!! It has been a while since I last read one of your pieces. Keep spreading the word."
"Tony: Your article was beautifully crafted, first word to last and powerful."
"Great article about Churchill. It is irritating that he isn't fired on the spot. The University of Colorado hardly needs this bad news on top of all the other crap going on there. However, there must be an attitude from the top there, that is causing all of their problems. I hope the Governor can straighten it out and force Churchill's firing and future life in a teepee! Thanks again for your write-up."
"Another masterpiece Tony. Regarding academia and liberalism, we need to create a system that ranks universities according to their degree of liberalism. Maybe a 1 could represent right wingers and a 99 could represent Teddy K., Kerry, Hillary and Ward. Someone really needs to spearhead this effort so that we have a choice on where our kids receive their education from."
"Fantastic viewpoint on Ted Kennedy, but an even better one on how the liberals got it wrong. Keep up the good work and great writing style."
"God Bless You, Tony!!! The public deserves quality music and record companies will not provide so long as they can keep dishing out no-talent, "hack" artists like Ashlee to gullible audiences. United, we can bring an end to her auditory reign of terror!"
"I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the truthful comic relief that your column provides me."
"Just wanted to respond to your Kennedy piece in The Mercury today. You are right on target with that buffoon. If the Democratic party was smart, they would abduct that guy and hide him in a cave somewhere to shut him up. He alienates voters every time he speaks."
"I find it amazing that after all this time of my disagreeing with your anti-Democrat and pro-Republican (even more so than Ann Coulter) columns you finally have come up with a column I agree with. Today's column regarding Ted Kennedy and Hillary."
"Tony, You hit a HOME RUN with this one. I forwarded three copies of it, already, to some of my "vast right wing conspiracy" friends! I laughed out loud reading about some of the "libs." So true!"
"Great piece about Teddy behind the wheel! Keep it up ... don't let the letters from the ignorant left discourage you. Empty barrels make the most noise."
"Thanks for your many articles, especially Kennedy at the wheel & liberals get it wrong. Thanks for the use of names, statements made and actions taken by the politicians and journalists of the left. Not being a journalist, I appreciate your putting my very thoughts in print for me."
"Way to go Tony! Keep up the good work you great American!"
"I loved the article you wrote in the Feb. 01, 05 Mercury about that disgusting Ted Kennedy and I couldn't agree with you more. Also really like your description of Mass. that should go down as a classic. Keep up the good work and thanks."
"Tony, Enjoy your column. I love the way you point out the hypocritical rhetoric of the liberal left. I cannot understand how people can be duped, falling for this dribble time and time again. Rendell is definitely a graduate of the "ista" school, whose motto is" Don't ask what you can do for mankind but what can mankind do for me." Ista graduates don't hesitate to out ista each other. When he was in the Clinton camp as honorary Democratic chairman and the inventor of the Internet lost. He said that Clinton's impeachment was the cause of Gore losing. A high official in the Democrat Party said "I wouldn't want to be in a fox hole with Ed Rendell."
"Dear Mr. Phyrillas, I felt compelled to say that I thank you for your publication today on Gov. Rendell. On a day where every one feels bad for our state executive because his team lost (boo-hoo), someone should state how much he is sticking us when working his "second job." As a college journalist at Bloomsburg University and as an intern in the state capitol, this is a topic that I have covered and continue to do so. Your article will serve me greatly in my addressing of the situation in the future. Please continue doing what you have been!"
"May God Bless you and thanks again. I always look forward to reading your column."
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Since I started writing columns on a regular basis about a year ago, I’ve received letters, phone calls and e-mails from more than 300 different readers. I emphasize "different" because some people — both admirers and critics — write me often. Two-thirds of the critical letters and e-mails I’ve received in the past year have come from about a dozen people. I guess it’s true what they say about squeaky wheels.
Of the 300 people who took the time to share their opinion on a column, 8 out of 10 agree with what I had to say. At a time when President Bush's approval rating hovers around 50 percent, an 80 percent approval rating is something any politician would salivate over.
People have a misperception about conservatives. It probably comes from the liberal bias of the news media. The people who tend to rave and rant are usually on the left of the political spectrum. These are the same folks who threatened to move to Canada if George W. Bush won the election, but I’m afraid most did not keep their word.
A lot of the people I hear from don’t want their letters published in the newspaper because we require publication of their full name and hometown. These readers have told me repeatedly that they fear harassment from left-wingers.
Today, I’d like to share a sampling of reader comments just from the past two weeks. These are the actual words of readers. The only thing I’ve left out is their identity.
"It is absolutely amazing that a newspaper actually allows you to print the truth, no matter how un-politically correct the rest of the world might view it."
"Great column!!! I was worried that the liberals broke in to your building and kidnapped you!!! It has been a while since I last read one of your pieces. Keep spreading the word."
"Tony: Your article was beautifully crafted, first word to last and powerful."
"Great article about Churchill. It is irritating that he isn't fired on the spot. The University of Colorado hardly needs this bad news on top of all the other crap going on there. However, there must be an attitude from the top there, that is causing all of their problems. I hope the Governor can straighten it out and force Churchill's firing and future life in a teepee! Thanks again for your write-up."
"Another masterpiece Tony. Regarding academia and liberalism, we need to create a system that ranks universities according to their degree of liberalism. Maybe a 1 could represent right wingers and a 99 could represent Teddy K., Kerry, Hillary and Ward. Someone really needs to spearhead this effort so that we have a choice on where our kids receive their education from."
"Fantastic viewpoint on Ted Kennedy, but an even better one on how the liberals got it wrong. Keep up the good work and great writing style."
"God Bless You, Tony!!! The public deserves quality music and record companies will not provide so long as they can keep dishing out no-talent, "hack" artists like Ashlee to gullible audiences. United, we can bring an end to her auditory reign of terror!"
"I thank you from the bottom of my heart for the truthful comic relief that your column provides me."
"Just wanted to respond to your Kennedy piece in The Mercury today. You are right on target with that buffoon. If the Democratic party was smart, they would abduct that guy and hide him in a cave somewhere to shut him up. He alienates voters every time he speaks."
"I find it amazing that after all this time of my disagreeing with your anti-Democrat and pro-Republican (even more so than Ann Coulter) columns you finally have come up with a column I agree with. Today's column regarding Ted Kennedy and Hillary."
"Tony, You hit a HOME RUN with this one. I forwarded three copies of it, already, to some of my "vast right wing conspiracy" friends! I laughed out loud reading about some of the "libs." So true!"
"Great piece about Teddy behind the wheel! Keep it up ... don't let the letters from the ignorant left discourage you. Empty barrels make the most noise."
"Thanks for your many articles, especially Kennedy at the wheel & liberals get it wrong. Thanks for the use of names, statements made and actions taken by the politicians and journalists of the left. Not being a journalist, I appreciate your putting my very thoughts in print for me."
"Way to go Tony! Keep up the good work you great American!"
"I loved the article you wrote in the Feb. 01, 05 Mercury about that disgusting Ted Kennedy and I couldn't agree with you more. Also really like your description of Mass. that should go down as a classic. Keep up the good work and thanks."
"Tony, Enjoy your column. I love the way you point out the hypocritical rhetoric of the liberal left. I cannot understand how people can be duped, falling for this dribble time and time again. Rendell is definitely a graduate of the "ista" school, whose motto is" Don't ask what you can do for mankind but what can mankind do for me." Ista graduates don't hesitate to out ista each other. When he was in the Clinton camp as honorary Democratic chairman and the inventor of the Internet lost. He said that Clinton's impeachment was the cause of Gore losing. A high official in the Democrat Party said "I wouldn't want to be in a fox hole with Ed Rendell."
"Dear Mr. Phyrillas, I felt compelled to say that I thank you for your publication today on Gov. Rendell. On a day where every one feels bad for our state executive because his team lost (boo-hoo), someone should state how much he is sticking us when working his "second job." As a college journalist at Bloomsburg University and as an intern in the state capitol, this is a topic that I have covered and continue to do so. Your article will serve me greatly in my addressing of the situation in the future. Please continue doing what you have been!"
"May God Bless you and thanks again. I always look forward to reading your column."
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Dr. Howard Dean called to save the Democrats
YEEEEEEARRRGH!!! That scream you just heard was the last moderate Democrat after hearing Dr. Howard Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Dr. Dean (he was a medical doctor before he became a radical politician) showed how connected he is to the electorate last year by losing 17 straight primary contests to John F. Kerry before dropping out of the race for president. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!! (I can’t get that earsplitting scream Dr. Dean made when he lost the Iowa caucus out of my head.)
Did the Democratic Party learning anything from Dr. Dean’s political demise in 2004? Sure. They unanimously elected the good doctor to head their party for the next four years. Democrats would have been better off nominating Dr. Jack Kevorkian. If they wanted to commit doctor-assisted suicide, they could have done it quickly and with much less pain. Instead, the party faces the prospect of a slow, agonizing death as Dr. Dean leads the party faithful over the liberal abyss.
A quick quiz. Who made the following comment last week: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." A) Michael Moore B) Ted Kennedy C) Nancy Pelosi D) Dr. Howard Dean. Yes, that was Dr. Dean on the eve of his ascension to the party leadership post. Does that sound like the words of somebody who can build a winning coalition and stop the Democratic slide by attracting moderate Republicans and independents? YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
This is the same Dr. Dean who insulted Southerners by calling them hayseeds who drove pickup trucks with the Confederate flag displayed in the rear window. The same Dr. Dean who supports socialized medicine paid for by higher income taxes on the middle class, government-sanctioned same sex unions and massive cuts in defense spending. His strategy for fighting terrorism? Let’s go to the United Nations and talk those misunderstood Islamic terrorists that Ward Churchill weeps for.
Dr. Dean is further to the left than John Kerry, who came in 3 million votes short in the last presidential election, giving Democrats five loses in the last seven contests for the White House. In case the left-wing of the party (which appears to be in firm control) hasn’t noticed, Kerry lost 31 of 50 states in November. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
By turning the party over to Dr. Dean, the Democrats have written off every state south of the Mason-Dixon Line and everything west of the Mississippi River (except the Left Coast, where Hollywood’s leftist community resides). It doesn’t take Karl Rove to figure out the Democrats’ problem in national elections. Only two Democrats have occupied the White House in the past 35 years — a peanut farmer from Georgia and a guy named Bubba from Arkansas. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
When the Democrats nominate candidates like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Forbes Kerry — big-spending, anti-defense liberals — they lose every time. Voters didn’t trust Kerry on the critical issue of national security. Did the party learn anything? The Democrats are trusting their future in the former governor of Vermont, a hippie commune that probably has a bigger population of moose than people.
The party that dominated American politics for most of the 20th century is now the party of radicals like Al Sharpton, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and Dr. Howard Dean. Guess which party will dominate the 21st century? YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
The coronation of Dr. Dean as the titular head of the party is an admission by Democrats that they have no new ideas to offer America. Higher taxes, bigger government, abortion-on-demand, same-sex unions, cuts in defense, weakness in the war on terror make up the Democrats’ platform. It’s the reason Kerry lost. It’s the reason Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle lost. It’s the reason Republicans built bigger majorities in the House and Senate.
Dr. Dean is not only too far left to be an effective leader for the party, but he has no credibility after spending all of 2003 and 2004 badmouthing the Democratic establishment in Washington. He positioned himself as an outsider taking on the system. Now he is part of the very system he denounced. Who is Dr. Dean going to blame when Democrats lose more seats in the 2006 mid-term elections?
And what of Dr. Dean’s celebrated temper? It’s only a matter of time before Hillary Clinton pisses him off or John Edwards tries to take the spotlight away from the good doctor. When that happens, run for cover. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Dr. Dean (he was a medical doctor before he became a radical politician) showed how connected he is to the electorate last year by losing 17 straight primary contests to John F. Kerry before dropping out of the race for president. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!! (I can’t get that earsplitting scream Dr. Dean made when he lost the Iowa caucus out of my head.)
Did the Democratic Party learning anything from Dr. Dean’s political demise in 2004? Sure. They unanimously elected the good doctor to head their party for the next four years. Democrats would have been better off nominating Dr. Jack Kevorkian. If they wanted to commit doctor-assisted suicide, they could have done it quickly and with much less pain. Instead, the party faces the prospect of a slow, agonizing death as Dr. Dean leads the party faithful over the liberal abyss.
A quick quiz. Who made the following comment last week: "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." A) Michael Moore B) Ted Kennedy C) Nancy Pelosi D) Dr. Howard Dean. Yes, that was Dr. Dean on the eve of his ascension to the party leadership post. Does that sound like the words of somebody who can build a winning coalition and stop the Democratic slide by attracting moderate Republicans and independents? YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
This is the same Dr. Dean who insulted Southerners by calling them hayseeds who drove pickup trucks with the Confederate flag displayed in the rear window. The same Dr. Dean who supports socialized medicine paid for by higher income taxes on the middle class, government-sanctioned same sex unions and massive cuts in defense spending. His strategy for fighting terrorism? Let’s go to the United Nations and talk those misunderstood Islamic terrorists that Ward Churchill weeps for.
Dr. Dean is further to the left than John Kerry, who came in 3 million votes short in the last presidential election, giving Democrats five loses in the last seven contests for the White House. In case the left-wing of the party (which appears to be in firm control) hasn’t noticed, Kerry lost 31 of 50 states in November. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
By turning the party over to Dr. Dean, the Democrats have written off every state south of the Mason-Dixon Line and everything west of the Mississippi River (except the Left Coast, where Hollywood’s leftist community resides). It doesn’t take Karl Rove to figure out the Democrats’ problem in national elections. Only two Democrats have occupied the White House in the past 35 years — a peanut farmer from Georgia and a guy named Bubba from Arkansas. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
When the Democrats nominate candidates like George McGovern, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis and John Forbes Kerry — big-spending, anti-defense liberals — they lose every time. Voters didn’t trust Kerry on the critical issue of national security. Did the party learn anything? The Democrats are trusting their future in the former governor of Vermont, a hippie commune that probably has a bigger population of moose than people.
The party that dominated American politics for most of the 20th century is now the party of radicals like Al Sharpton, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy and Dr. Howard Dean. Guess which party will dominate the 21st century? YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
The coronation of Dr. Dean as the titular head of the party is an admission by Democrats that they have no new ideas to offer America. Higher taxes, bigger government, abortion-on-demand, same-sex unions, cuts in defense, weakness in the war on terror make up the Democrats’ platform. It’s the reason Kerry lost. It’s the reason Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle lost. It’s the reason Republicans built bigger majorities in the House and Senate.
Dr. Dean is not only too far left to be an effective leader for the party, but he has no credibility after spending all of 2003 and 2004 badmouthing the Democratic establishment in Washington. He positioned himself as an outsider taking on the system. Now he is part of the very system he denounced. Who is Dr. Dean going to blame when Democrats lose more seats in the 2006 mid-term elections?
And what of Dr. Dean’s celebrated temper? It’s only a matter of time before Hillary Clinton pisses him off or John Edwards tries to take the spotlight away from the good doctor. When that happens, run for cover. YEEEEEEARRRGH!!!
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, February 14, 2005
Ward Churchill is a raving lunatic
Ward Churchill is a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado. Until a few weeks ago, nobody outside the radical left academic community had heard of Churchill. But somebody tipped off Bill O’Reilly that Churchill was invited to speak at a small college in New York.
When O’Reilly checked into Churchill’s background, he was stunned. That’s been the reaction of just about everybody who researches the kind of hate-filled, anti-American propaganda Churchill has been spewing for years in the guise of teaching "ethnic studies."
Churchill hates the United States. He hates everything about us. Our government. Our people. Our education system. Our foreign policy. Our economy. Our faith. Our social institutions. Everything. He hates you and me.
Churchill blames the United States for everything wrong in the world. He claims the United States has murdered millions of innocent children throughout the world. Americans deserve to die for their sins against the "dark" people of the world, according to Churchill. By dark, he refers to anyone other than Caucasian.
Churchill likes to pretend that he's a Native American from an unspecified tribe, but there’s no evidence that he has an ounce of Native American blood in him. It’s one of the delusions that this screwball harbors so he can blame everyone else in the U.S. except for the Native Americans.
I watched a televised speech Churchill gave on the campus of the University of Colorado. He surrounded himself with Native Americans and he even had somebody beating a tom-tom drum every time he made a major point. Talk about demeaning an ethnic group. I fully expected Churchill to strap on a feather headdress and do a raindance in the middle of the auditorium. He’s about as Native American as I am.
Churchill was happy in his psychotic little world until Bill O’Reilly put him in "The No Spin Zone." What caught O’Reilly’s attention was an essay that Churchill published shortly after Sept. 11 that said the 3,000 American men and women who were killed by the terrorist attacks deserved what they got. He also compared the victims of 9/11 to "Little Eichmans," a reference to the infamous Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust.
There’s a movement in Colorado to fire Churchill. He’s already stepped down as chairman of the ethnic studies department, but because he has tenure, Churchill has no intention of giving up his $100,000-a-year job.
The American Civil Liberties Union has already come to Churchill’s defense, saying this a freedom of speech case. Would it surprise anyone that the ACLU would support such a radical anti-American? Is there a more anti-American organization than the ACLU?
This is not a free speech issue. No one is infringing Churchill’s rights. His essay is readily available on the Internet. He lectures daily to a captive audience of students. He can stand on any street corner in America and spew his venom. Nobody is denying him the right to free speech.
What this case boils down to is competency. Should a teacher distort the truth to indoctrinate young students to his radical views? Should a person who is paid by the taxpayers of Colorado use classroom time to advocate the overthrow of the United States government?
The Supreme Court has ruled there is no "absolute right" to free speech. You can’t run into a movie theater and scream "Fire!" at the top of your lungs to create a panic because you feel you’re exercising free speech. The KKK can't march through a black neighborhood.
So what is Professor Churchill teaching in his class? He says the victims of 9/11 had it coming because 400 years ago, the Dutch cheated the Native Americans out of Manhattan island. Yes, he actually said that.
Churchill is virulently anti-Semitic. He doesn’t believe the Holocaust took place. He says it’s all a big conspiracy by the Jews to gain sympathy. He blames Israel for many of the problems in the Middle East.
He has said the United States was the aggressor in World War II. We had no right to bomb the Japanese home islands, populated by civilians. That's probably because the Japanese Army was occupying other nations at the time. (I’m also guessing Professor Churchill never heard of Pearl Harbor.)
He says the United States is an outlaw nation because it used "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (atomic bombs) on Japan to end World War II.
It might be wiser to ignore Churchill until his 15 minutes of fame expire, but he is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to radical leftists who populate college campus. Where are communists hiding out these days? In the faculty lounge of many of our institutions of higher learning. More on that in a future column.
In the meantime, size up Ward Churchill for a straitjacket. It's for his own protection.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
When O’Reilly checked into Churchill’s background, he was stunned. That’s been the reaction of just about everybody who researches the kind of hate-filled, anti-American propaganda Churchill has been spewing for years in the guise of teaching "ethnic studies."
Churchill hates the United States. He hates everything about us. Our government. Our people. Our education system. Our foreign policy. Our economy. Our faith. Our social institutions. Everything. He hates you and me.
Churchill blames the United States for everything wrong in the world. He claims the United States has murdered millions of innocent children throughout the world. Americans deserve to die for their sins against the "dark" people of the world, according to Churchill. By dark, he refers to anyone other than Caucasian.
Churchill likes to pretend that he's a Native American from an unspecified tribe, but there’s no evidence that he has an ounce of Native American blood in him. It’s one of the delusions that this screwball harbors so he can blame everyone else in the U.S. except for the Native Americans.
I watched a televised speech Churchill gave on the campus of the University of Colorado. He surrounded himself with Native Americans and he even had somebody beating a tom-tom drum every time he made a major point. Talk about demeaning an ethnic group. I fully expected Churchill to strap on a feather headdress and do a raindance in the middle of the auditorium. He’s about as Native American as I am.
Churchill was happy in his psychotic little world until Bill O’Reilly put him in "The No Spin Zone." What caught O’Reilly’s attention was an essay that Churchill published shortly after Sept. 11 that said the 3,000 American men and women who were killed by the terrorist attacks deserved what they got. He also compared the victims of 9/11 to "Little Eichmans," a reference to the infamous Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann, the architect of the Holocaust.
There’s a movement in Colorado to fire Churchill. He’s already stepped down as chairman of the ethnic studies department, but because he has tenure, Churchill has no intention of giving up his $100,000-a-year job.
The American Civil Liberties Union has already come to Churchill’s defense, saying this a freedom of speech case. Would it surprise anyone that the ACLU would support such a radical anti-American? Is there a more anti-American organization than the ACLU?
This is not a free speech issue. No one is infringing Churchill’s rights. His essay is readily available on the Internet. He lectures daily to a captive audience of students. He can stand on any street corner in America and spew his venom. Nobody is denying him the right to free speech.
What this case boils down to is competency. Should a teacher distort the truth to indoctrinate young students to his radical views? Should a person who is paid by the taxpayers of Colorado use classroom time to advocate the overthrow of the United States government?
The Supreme Court has ruled there is no "absolute right" to free speech. You can’t run into a movie theater and scream "Fire!" at the top of your lungs to create a panic because you feel you’re exercising free speech. The KKK can't march through a black neighborhood.
So what is Professor Churchill teaching in his class? He says the victims of 9/11 had it coming because 400 years ago, the Dutch cheated the Native Americans out of Manhattan island. Yes, he actually said that.
Churchill is virulently anti-Semitic. He doesn’t believe the Holocaust took place. He says it’s all a big conspiracy by the Jews to gain sympathy. He blames Israel for many of the problems in the Middle East.
He has said the United States was the aggressor in World War II. We had no right to bomb the Japanese home islands, populated by civilians. That's probably because the Japanese Army was occupying other nations at the time. (I’m also guessing Professor Churchill never heard of Pearl Harbor.)
He says the United States is an outlaw nation because it used "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (atomic bombs) on Japan to end World War II.
It might be wiser to ignore Churchill until his 15 minutes of fame expire, but he is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to radical leftists who populate college campus. Where are communists hiding out these days? In the faculty lounge of many of our institutions of higher learning. More on that in a future column.
In the meantime, size up Ward Churchill for a straitjacket. It's for his own protection.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Part-time job at $155,000 a year sounds nice
Pennsylvania, do you know where your governor is? It’s Super Bowl Sunday and the Philadelphia Eagles are in it, so odds are good that Gov. Ed Rendell is in Jacksonville, Fla.
When Pennsylvanians elected Rendell governor in 2002, they probably didn’t realize they were also getting John Madden at the same time. Rendell likes to moonlight as a sportscaster during football season. Or more realistically, he moonlights as governor while the Eagles play.
Throughout the preseason last summer, the regular schedule and the two home playoff games won by the Eagles, Rendell has been in the broadcast booth at Comcast's SportsNet.
It must be great to live out your fantasy — and still collect a paycheck for your "other" job? There’s no denying Rendell is a big Eagles fan. He’s been a season ticketholder for more than 20 years. And he does know the game. Coach Andy Reid better deliver tonight. Watching Rendell on SportsNet after Eagles games, I get the feeling the governor is one step from issuing an executive order appointing himself coach of the Eagles for life.
You have to wonder if there’s not enough for Rendell to do in his regular job of running the state. After all, that is why we pay him $155,572 a year. But don’t bother Rendell on a Sunday. He’s not the governor when the Eagles play at home. Add Monday nights to the list of days Rendell hangs out the "Do Not Disturb" sign if the Eagles play on Monday Night Football. And the NFL does like to throw in an occasional Thursday night and Saturday night game.
Does the football analyst gig interfere with his day job? Last week Rendell informed state legislators that he is delaying his annual budget message to accommodate his trip to Jacksonville.
The delivery of the budget was to take place Feb. 8, but if the Eagles win tonight’s game, there’s going to be a parade in Philadelphia Tuesday and given a choice of addressing the state Legislature in Harrisburg or riding down Broad Street in a limo, it’s a no-brainer. The gov would rather be in Philadelphia.
Rendell obviously thinks he can do both jobs. He is so pleased with his job performance that he gave himself a 7.7 percent pay raise in January, bringing his salary up from $144,416 to $155,572, making him one of the highest paid governors in the nation. That’s what’s so great about being governor. You can give yourself pay raises and leave work anytime you want to watch your favorite football team play.
I don’t know if Rendell gets paid for the Comcast gig. I suspect that he doesn’t because it would be too obvious that he would be influenced by the cable TV giant. If Rendell does get paid, he probably gives it to charity.
I do know that Rendell recently gave Comcast permission to tape a commercial in the governor’s mansion at no charge. Rendell fidgeted during a recent press conference when a reporter asked about the arrangement with Comcast to use government space for free. Rendell said he didn’t charge Comcast for use of public facilities because the governor allows charitable groups to use the space as well. If he billed Comcast, he would have to charge the charities for use of the facility as well, the governor argued.
I’m not buying that answer. You can have a policy of allowing non-profit organizations to use government facilities, but you can still charge a fee for profit-making firms. If you’re not sure whether Comcast is a profit-making entity, check you latest cable bill. Since Comcast purchased my local cable company a few years ago, adding to its monopoly in southeastern Pennsylvania, my cable rates have increased 10 times the rate of inflation.
I hope the Eagles win the Super Bowl and the governor gets to ride in his victory parade. But I still have a problem with a man who gets paid $155,000 a year, not to mention free housing and free transportation, taking so much time off to follow the Eagles around like a groupie. Thank God Rendell isn’t a big fan of the Phillies. They play 162 games.
Rendell appears too distracted to do his job as governor. The only thing he’s done in his first two years was raise income taxes by $1 billion, sneak a bunch of other tax increase on workers (the latest being the $52 deduction from our paychecks) and pull one of the greatest con jobs in history by pretending that slot machines will bring property tax relief.
More bad news. Fast Eddie already announced plans to seek reelection in 2006.
We’ve got serious problems in this state and we need a governor who takes his job more seriously.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
When Pennsylvanians elected Rendell governor in 2002, they probably didn’t realize they were also getting John Madden at the same time. Rendell likes to moonlight as a sportscaster during football season. Or more realistically, he moonlights as governor while the Eagles play.
Throughout the preseason last summer, the regular schedule and the two home playoff games won by the Eagles, Rendell has been in the broadcast booth at Comcast's SportsNet.
It must be great to live out your fantasy — and still collect a paycheck for your "other" job? There’s no denying Rendell is a big Eagles fan. He’s been a season ticketholder for more than 20 years. And he does know the game. Coach Andy Reid better deliver tonight. Watching Rendell on SportsNet after Eagles games, I get the feeling the governor is one step from issuing an executive order appointing himself coach of the Eagles for life.
You have to wonder if there’s not enough for Rendell to do in his regular job of running the state. After all, that is why we pay him $155,572 a year. But don’t bother Rendell on a Sunday. He’s not the governor when the Eagles play at home. Add Monday nights to the list of days Rendell hangs out the "Do Not Disturb" sign if the Eagles play on Monday Night Football. And the NFL does like to throw in an occasional Thursday night and Saturday night game.
Does the football analyst gig interfere with his day job? Last week Rendell informed state legislators that he is delaying his annual budget message to accommodate his trip to Jacksonville.
The delivery of the budget was to take place Feb. 8, but if the Eagles win tonight’s game, there’s going to be a parade in Philadelphia Tuesday and given a choice of addressing the state Legislature in Harrisburg or riding down Broad Street in a limo, it’s a no-brainer. The gov would rather be in Philadelphia.
Rendell obviously thinks he can do both jobs. He is so pleased with his job performance that he gave himself a 7.7 percent pay raise in January, bringing his salary up from $144,416 to $155,572, making him one of the highest paid governors in the nation. That’s what’s so great about being governor. You can give yourself pay raises and leave work anytime you want to watch your favorite football team play.
I don’t know if Rendell gets paid for the Comcast gig. I suspect that he doesn’t because it would be too obvious that he would be influenced by the cable TV giant. If Rendell does get paid, he probably gives it to charity.
I do know that Rendell recently gave Comcast permission to tape a commercial in the governor’s mansion at no charge. Rendell fidgeted during a recent press conference when a reporter asked about the arrangement with Comcast to use government space for free. Rendell said he didn’t charge Comcast for use of public facilities because the governor allows charitable groups to use the space as well. If he billed Comcast, he would have to charge the charities for use of the facility as well, the governor argued.
I’m not buying that answer. You can have a policy of allowing non-profit organizations to use government facilities, but you can still charge a fee for profit-making firms. If you’re not sure whether Comcast is a profit-making entity, check you latest cable bill. Since Comcast purchased my local cable company a few years ago, adding to its monopoly in southeastern Pennsylvania, my cable rates have increased 10 times the rate of inflation.
I hope the Eagles win the Super Bowl and the governor gets to ride in his victory parade. But I still have a problem with a man who gets paid $155,000 a year, not to mention free housing and free transportation, taking so much time off to follow the Eagles around like a groupie. Thank God Rendell isn’t a big fan of the Phillies. They play 162 games.
Rendell appears too distracted to do his job as governor. The only thing he’s done in his first two years was raise income taxes by $1 billion, sneak a bunch of other tax increase on workers (the latest being the $52 deduction from our paychecks) and pull one of the greatest con jobs in history by pretending that slot machines will bring property tax relief.
More bad news. Fast Eddie already announced plans to seek reelection in 2006.
We’ve got serious problems in this state and we need a governor who takes his job more seriously.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Defeatist Democrats get it wrong again about Iraq
At what point does the left — whether they be politicians or journalists — lose all credibility? I’ve been thinking about this as Iraqi citizens went to the polls in astonishing numbers Sunday and defied not only the terrorist thugs, but the defeatist liberals.
An estimated 8 million courageous Iraqi men and women cast ballots in the nation’s first Democratic election in more than 50 years. They went to the polls despite threats from terrorists that they would be gunned down as they stood in line to vote.
They showed up to vote despite predictions of "bloodbaths" by all-knowing liberal journalists, who too often sympathize with the terrorists. They stood in line for hours to vote despite the best efforts of John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy to discourage them from taking their country back from blood-thirsty savages.
There was violence in Iraq on Sunday, with 44 people losing their lives attempting to vote. Sadly, 44 dead is a relatively good day in Iraq, where terrorists have turned their attacks to schools, hospitals, mosques and humanitarian workers in their effort to prevent Democracy from taking root in Iraq. The fact that only 44 people died out of the 8 million who stood in line outside Iraq’s 5,200 precincts is remarkable.
Regardless if you support the war in Iraq, regardless if you voted for George W. Bush, you’d have to be an incredibly callous individual not to feel joy for the Iraqi people, who have endured more than 30 years of brutality under Saddam Hussein.
There were people, both in the United States and across the world, who could not bring themselves to put aside their self-absorbed agendas and feel genuine pride for the success of the Iraqi elections. I’m not talking only about Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac.
Having failed to oust George W. Bush on Nov. 2, 2004, the leftist gaggle of aimless Democrats, clueless journalists and corrupt world leaders turned their attention to the Iraqi elections.
They called for delays. They encouraged boycotts. They said the U.S. could not possibly provide security for the elections. The United Nations, which wanted to send observers to monitor the U.S. presidential election, couldn’t muster much enthusiasm to assist with the election in Iraq.
Sourpuss John Forbes Kerry went on "Meet The Press" Sunday morning to caution Americans about the significance of successful elections in Iraq. Mr. "Wrong War at the Wrong Time at the Wrong Place" got it all wrong again.
If you watched "Hardball" on MSNBC as the vote approached, you heard the loudmouth, know-nothing Chris Matthews predict that the election would "demolish" Iraq.
Matthews opened his show with these remarks: "Birth of a nation — will elections unite Iraq or ignite civil war? Will this weekend’s vote create a country or demolish it? ... For Iraqis, a moment teeming with risk and potential: liberation or devastation."
Pessimism ruled even at Fox News, where reporter Steve Harrigan, who spent the last two years in Iraq, was beating the drums of defeat Friday during an appearance on Fox & Friends. "I think there’s going to be a bloodbath on Sunday," Harrigan predicted. "All over the place, especially in Baghdad and a few other cities, Mosul. About half the country’s in big trouble."
NBC "Today Show" co-host Matt Lauer hit on the same theme as he began Friday’s show with this comment: "Bloody countdown. Amid growing violence, will Iraq be able to hold its first free elections in more than 50 years?"
And where would we be without the sparkling commentary of Canadian-exile Peter Jennings, who went to Iraq last week hoping to report on the failure of the elections.
Despite reality staring him in the face Sunday night, this is what he said on the ABC Evening News: "It seemed a strange way to experience the democratic process, from the back of a heavily-armored vehicle," Jennings said. In "parts of the Sunni Muslim heartland, it looks as if the election process has been rejected," Jennings added. "Without Sunni participation, somehow, the future here is still pretty bleak."
If you want to read more about how disappointed the liberal media was at how well the Iraqi elections went, check out a terrific Web site run by the Media Research Center, which bills itself as America’s Media Watchdog. The site is www.mediaresearch.org.
My favorite piece of post-election analysis came from liberal funnyman Jon Stewart over at Comedy Central’s "The Daily Show." Stewart was interviewing an editor from Newsweek magazine Monday when he blurted out the essence of liberal angst over the war in Iraq: What if George Bush was right all along? What if bringing Democracy to Iraq is the key to peace and stability in the Middle East? And by extension, security for the United States?
What would that sudden insight do to everything liberals have been taught to believe? Faced with the stark realization that the world is round, how does a liberal go on when he’s spent his entire life believing the world is flat?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
An estimated 8 million courageous Iraqi men and women cast ballots in the nation’s first Democratic election in more than 50 years. They went to the polls despite threats from terrorists that they would be gunned down as they stood in line to vote.
They showed up to vote despite predictions of "bloodbaths" by all-knowing liberal journalists, who too often sympathize with the terrorists. They stood in line for hours to vote despite the best efforts of John Kerry, Barbara Boxer and Ted Kennedy to discourage them from taking their country back from blood-thirsty savages.
There was violence in Iraq on Sunday, with 44 people losing their lives attempting to vote. Sadly, 44 dead is a relatively good day in Iraq, where terrorists have turned their attacks to schools, hospitals, mosques and humanitarian workers in their effort to prevent Democracy from taking root in Iraq. The fact that only 44 people died out of the 8 million who stood in line outside Iraq’s 5,200 precincts is remarkable.
Regardless if you support the war in Iraq, regardless if you voted for George W. Bush, you’d have to be an incredibly callous individual not to feel joy for the Iraqi people, who have endured more than 30 years of brutality under Saddam Hussein.
There were people, both in the United States and across the world, who could not bring themselves to put aside their self-absorbed agendas and feel genuine pride for the success of the Iraqi elections. I’m not talking only about Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac.
Having failed to oust George W. Bush on Nov. 2, 2004, the leftist gaggle of aimless Democrats, clueless journalists and corrupt world leaders turned their attention to the Iraqi elections.
They called for delays. They encouraged boycotts. They said the U.S. could not possibly provide security for the elections. The United Nations, which wanted to send observers to monitor the U.S. presidential election, couldn’t muster much enthusiasm to assist with the election in Iraq.
Sourpuss John Forbes Kerry went on "Meet The Press" Sunday morning to caution Americans about the significance of successful elections in Iraq. Mr. "Wrong War at the Wrong Time at the Wrong Place" got it all wrong again.
If you watched "Hardball" on MSNBC as the vote approached, you heard the loudmouth, know-nothing Chris Matthews predict that the election would "demolish" Iraq.
Matthews opened his show with these remarks: "Birth of a nation — will elections unite Iraq or ignite civil war? Will this weekend’s vote create a country or demolish it? ... For Iraqis, a moment teeming with risk and potential: liberation or devastation."
Pessimism ruled even at Fox News, where reporter Steve Harrigan, who spent the last two years in Iraq, was beating the drums of defeat Friday during an appearance on Fox & Friends. "I think there’s going to be a bloodbath on Sunday," Harrigan predicted. "All over the place, especially in Baghdad and a few other cities, Mosul. About half the country’s in big trouble."
NBC "Today Show" co-host Matt Lauer hit on the same theme as he began Friday’s show with this comment: "Bloody countdown. Amid growing violence, will Iraq be able to hold its first free elections in more than 50 years?"
And where would we be without the sparkling commentary of Canadian-exile Peter Jennings, who went to Iraq last week hoping to report on the failure of the elections.
Despite reality staring him in the face Sunday night, this is what he said on the ABC Evening News: "It seemed a strange way to experience the democratic process, from the back of a heavily-armored vehicle," Jennings said. In "parts of the Sunni Muslim heartland, it looks as if the election process has been rejected," Jennings added. "Without Sunni participation, somehow, the future here is still pretty bleak."
If you want to read more about how disappointed the liberal media was at how well the Iraqi elections went, check out a terrific Web site run by the Media Research Center, which bills itself as America’s Media Watchdog. The site is www.mediaresearch.org.
My favorite piece of post-election analysis came from liberal funnyman Jon Stewart over at Comedy Central’s "The Daily Show." Stewart was interviewing an editor from Newsweek magazine Monday when he blurted out the essence of liberal angst over the war in Iraq: What if George Bush was right all along? What if bringing Democracy to Iraq is the key to peace and stability in the Middle East? And by extension, security for the United States?
What would that sudden insight do to everything liberals have been taught to believe? Faced with the stark realization that the world is round, how does a liberal go on when he’s spent his entire life believing the world is flat?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Democrats put Ted Kennedy behind the wheel
Ted Kennedy is everywhere these days. He’s on the Senate floor calling Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice a liar. He’s on TV saying soon-to-be Attorney General Alberto Gonzales endorses torture of terrorists. He gives a major policy speech in Washington calling for the United States to surrender in Iraq. He’s the Democratic point man on Social Security, arguing that the system is hunky-dory and doesn’t need to be touched.
When did Ted Kennedy become the new face of the Democratic Party? A 72-year-old political hack who rode his slain brothers’ coattails to prominence only to become the laughingstock of American politics is going to lead his party out of the wilderness?
Outside the safe confines of the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy is a parody of a dimwitted, self-serving politician. He is Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby of "The Simpsons" come to life. He is the poster child for what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.
The pasty-faced Massachusetts liberal has been rejected twice for president but has been a fixture in the Senate since 1962. He is the wise old man of his party and has sent his minions — most notably Michael Dukakis and John Forbes Kerry — to face the harsh reality of presidential defeat. The rest of America is nothing like Massachusetts, home base of liberal influence peddlers and leftist college professors.
Ted Kennedy may have fallen into the role of standard-bearer of the Democratic Party by default. The ranks of party leaders are pretty thin. There’s Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, the twin fruitcakes from California. There’s John Forbes Kerry, the second-place finisher in last year’s two-man race for president. But Kerry is still not sure what he stands for. Has anybody seen John Edwards? His picture should be on a milk carton.
And what of Hillary Clinton, the patron saint of lost liberal causes? Hillary’s got her own problems. There’s talk that Rudolph Giuliani may challenge her in 2006 when she runs for re-election as the junior senator from New York. If Hillary can’t hold on to her Senate seat, forget about 2008. It’s back to Arkansas and a reality TV series co-starring Bubba.
Always calculating, Hillary joined 85 Senators who voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice as secretary of state. Take that, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. Hillary may believe what you do, but she’s ambitious, so she’ll vote the way she thinks people would want her to vote. Sounds a lot like John Kerry and his "I voted for the war, but then I voted against the war" explanation.
Hillary’s future may depend on Howard Dean. If Dean is the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, we’ll be in for an entertaining couple of years. Hillary will pretend to take the party to the center, while Dean pulls it farther to the left. And if the Democrats think Ted Kennedy is the future, they will wander the banks of the Potomac for 40 years before they’ll see power again.
Ted Kennedy’s solution to dealing with terrorism? Declare defeat in Iraq and run away. Bring home the troops and hope the Islamic fanatics leave us alone. Ted Kennedy’s solution for Social Security? Raise payroll taxes. Ted Kennedy’s answer for improving our schools? Spend more money. (See raise taxes). Ted Kennedy’s plan for creating jobs? Raise the federal minimum wage. Ted Kennedy’s solution for the nation’s health care crisis? Socialized medicine. Paid for by higher taxes.
The only thing you need to know about Ted Kennedy is Mary Jo Kopechne. On July 18, 1969, a married Ted Kennedy, offered to drive Kopechne, a 28-year-old single woman, home from a party on Chappaquiddick Island near Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Both had too much to drink.
Driving on a suspended license, Kennedy lost control of the car while crossing a bridge and drove into a pond, where the vehicle overturned and began sinking in the mud. Kennedy saved himself, swam to shore and left Kopechne in the car to die. He walked around for an hour until he came to the home of a cousin. Kennedy then went to sleep. Kennedy didn't report the accident to police until the next morning — nine hours after the crash.
For causing Mary Jo Kopechne’s death, Ted Kennedy had his driver’s license revoked for one year. This is the essence of Ted Kennedy. The man has no soul. He has no conscience. Mary Jo’s life didn’t matter to Ted Kennedy. The lives of ordinary Americans are inconsequential to Ted Kennedy or his elitist Democratic friends.
If Democrats can’t figure out why they’re out of power, they need to spend more time thinking about who Ted Kennedy is and why he’s the public face of their party.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
When did Ted Kennedy become the new face of the Democratic Party? A 72-year-old political hack who rode his slain brothers’ coattails to prominence only to become the laughingstock of American politics is going to lead his party out of the wilderness?
Outside the safe confines of the Socialist Republic of Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy is a parody of a dimwitted, self-serving politician. He is Mayor "Diamond" Joe Quimby of "The Simpsons" come to life. He is the poster child for what’s wrong with the Democratic Party.
The pasty-faced Massachusetts liberal has been rejected twice for president but has been a fixture in the Senate since 1962. He is the wise old man of his party and has sent his minions — most notably Michael Dukakis and John Forbes Kerry — to face the harsh reality of presidential defeat. The rest of America is nothing like Massachusetts, home base of liberal influence peddlers and leftist college professors.
Ted Kennedy may have fallen into the role of standard-bearer of the Democratic Party by default. The ranks of party leaders are pretty thin. There’s Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, the twin fruitcakes from California. There’s John Forbes Kerry, the second-place finisher in last year’s two-man race for president. But Kerry is still not sure what he stands for. Has anybody seen John Edwards? His picture should be on a milk carton.
And what of Hillary Clinton, the patron saint of lost liberal causes? Hillary’s got her own problems. There’s talk that Rudolph Giuliani may challenge her in 2006 when she runs for re-election as the junior senator from New York. If Hillary can’t hold on to her Senate seat, forget about 2008. It’s back to Arkansas and a reality TV series co-starring Bubba.
Always calculating, Hillary joined 85 Senators who voted to confirm Condoleeza Rice as secretary of state. Take that, Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer. Hillary may believe what you do, but she’s ambitious, so she’ll vote the way she thinks people would want her to vote. Sounds a lot like John Kerry and his "I voted for the war, but then I voted against the war" explanation.
Hillary’s future may depend on Howard Dean. If Dean is the next chairman of the Democratic National Committee, we’ll be in for an entertaining couple of years. Hillary will pretend to take the party to the center, while Dean pulls it farther to the left. And if the Democrats think Ted Kennedy is the future, they will wander the banks of the Potomac for 40 years before they’ll see power again.
Ted Kennedy’s solution to dealing with terrorism? Declare defeat in Iraq and run away. Bring home the troops and hope the Islamic fanatics leave us alone. Ted Kennedy’s solution for Social Security? Raise payroll taxes. Ted Kennedy’s answer for improving our schools? Spend more money. (See raise taxes). Ted Kennedy’s plan for creating jobs? Raise the federal minimum wage. Ted Kennedy’s solution for the nation’s health care crisis? Socialized medicine. Paid for by higher taxes.
The only thing you need to know about Ted Kennedy is Mary Jo Kopechne. On July 18, 1969, a married Ted Kennedy, offered to drive Kopechne, a 28-year-old single woman, home from a party on Chappaquiddick Island near Martha’s Vineyard in Massachusetts. Both had too much to drink.
Driving on a suspended license, Kennedy lost control of the car while crossing a bridge and drove into a pond, where the vehicle overturned and began sinking in the mud. Kennedy saved himself, swam to shore and left Kopechne in the car to die. He walked around for an hour until he came to the home of a cousin. Kennedy then went to sleep. Kennedy didn't report the accident to police until the next morning — nine hours after the crash.
For causing Mary Jo Kopechne’s death, Ted Kennedy had his driver’s license revoked for one year. This is the essence of Ted Kennedy. The man has no soul. He has no conscience. Mary Jo’s life didn’t matter to Ted Kennedy. The lives of ordinary Americans are inconsequential to Ted Kennedy or his elitist Democratic friends.
If Democrats can’t figure out why they’re out of power, they need to spend more time thinking about who Ted Kennedy is and why he’s the public face of their party.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)