Legislators dare you to vote them out
Hey, stupid. Yeah, you. Go ahead. Try to vote me out. Do your best. I’m a member of the Pennsylvania House of Lords (aka state legislature). You can’t touch me. I’m invincible. I can rob you blind any time of day or night, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
That, in essence, is the attitude of many of the people you’ve hired to serve in the Pennsylvania House and Senate. Not only did they vote themselves exorbitant pay raises in the middle of the night, but they believe you’re too chicken to do anything about it.
Sure, about two dozen of the 253 lawmakers have seen the error of their ways and decided not to take the 16 percent to 34 percent pay raises. Some have even pledged to repeal the pay hike when they get back to Harrisburg on Sept. 26. But the vast majority are digging in.
They don’t think you’ve got the brains or guts to stand up to them — to fire them. So they’re going to take the $11,000 raise on top of the 5.2 percent cost-of-living increase they took at the beginning of the year, and they’re going to tack on another cost-of-living increase in 2006 just because they can.
And you’ll continue to pay every penny to maintain Pennsylvania’s royalty in the lifestyle they’ve become accustomed to.
Allow me to introduce you to state Rep. Jacqueline R. Crahalla, a Republican from the 150th House District, which includes Collegeville, Lower Providence, Trappe, Upper Providence and West Norriton. What does Rep. Crahalla have to say to her constituents who would rather she not have increased her own pay to $81,027 a year, as well as that of her husband, District Judge Benjamin Crahalla, to $74,566 a year as part of the same pay raise bill?
"I’m staying the course," Crahalla told The Philadelphia Inquirer when asked if she was willing to heed the demands of constituents. "The nastier people get, the more stubborn I get."
Hmmm. Stubbornness. Just the kind of trait we need in a lawmaker. To her credit, Rep. Crahalla has been one of the few lawmakers willing to explain the indefensible 2 a.m. raid on the state treasury. She says she routinely puts in more than 50 hours a week on the job. She says judges and cabinet officers should be paid more.
Rep. Crahalla could make a strong case for boosting the salaries of judges and county district attorneys, but there’s no justification for giving herself an $11,000 raise.
Crahalla conveniently forgets that the state legislature met an average of 77 days in each of the past five years.
While the typical Pennsylvania worker puts in at least 245 work days during the year (assuming three weeks vacation), state legislators go to Harrisburg 77 days, take a 10-week summer vacation, go home for at least a month for a winter holiday and take every government holiday off as well.
I’m guessing Rep. Crahalla finds things to do around her district the 200-plus days the legislature is not in session. On the bright side, there’s no heavy lifting involved in being a state lawmaker — unless you pick up that hefty paycheck in cash. Does any of this justify legislators being paid more than twice what the average worker in Pennsylvania is making?
Has Crahalla given any thought to the thousands of senior citizens in her district who are struggling on Social Security? Their cost-of-living increase this year was 2.7 percent, or $15 a month. If the Crahallas need $20,000 more to get by, what does Rep. Crahalla tell the folks back home trying to stretch that $15 until next month’s check?
Arrogant is not a strong enough word to describe the hundreds of Harrisburg pay-grabbers. Insolent might be the better word. The contempt these "public servants" have shown the people who elected them is palpable.
In addition to the unbelievable display of disdain these politicians have for the people in their home districts, another interesting point in the Inquirer article was the fact that so few politicians were even willing to "defend" the pay grab. The reporter who wrote the story called 25 lawmakers, but only two were willing to talk. Imagine that. A politician who doesn’t want his or her name in the newspaper. That’s a first.
We’re approaching the two-month anniversary of the Great Pay Grab of 2005. The politicians who orchestrated this betrayal of public trust can’t hide forever. Eventually, they will return to the scene of the crime.
Will the 23 legislators who voted for the pay hike but changed their minds about taking the money stand up to the party bosses who run Harrisburg? Will the 79 House members who opposed the pay grab in the first place stand up to the tyrants? Will the 23 senators who voted against the pay hike demand a vote to rescind the pay raise?
Only three state senators need to reverse their vote on the pay hike. And 26 state representatives need to change their vote to repeal the raises. Gov. Ed Rendell, who is getting booed more often than Terrell Owens these days, said he will sign the bill abolishing the pay grab.
Voters in the 150th District will let Rep. Crahalla know if she still has a job in Harrisburg when she faces reelection in May 2006.
What about your state legislator? Have you told him or her in no uncertain terms that their future hinges on whether they do the right thing for the people they promised to represent?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, August 29, 2005
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Pay raise outcry continues into week 7
This is the latest editorial in The Mercury (Pottstown, Pa.) on the Legislative pay grab. The newspaper has collected 7,000 protest letters from readers in the past three weeks. They will be delivered to Harrisburg when the Legislators return on Sept. 26.
At the beginning of week seven since the legislative pay grab, few things have changed since the debacle first unfolded on July 7.
The first legislative leader to change his mind on collecting the midterm raise as an unvouchered expense — Rep. Brett Feese, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee — came forward last week. He became the first leader to reverse his earlier decision. Feese’s decision does not apply to his actual raise, however, which he will collect, starting in December 2006.
Most of the leaders, who received the biggest raises, accepted the early payments. Three others in leadership — Sens. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin; Mary Jo White, R-Franklin; and Connie Williams, D-Delaware — refused the special payments from the beginning.
Feese was among the three latest lawmakers to rescind their acceptance of the unvouchered expenses, pushing the total to 17.
At the same time, other legislators dug in their heels in defense of the 16 to 34 percent raises they awarded themselves on July 7, repeating the argument that they work hard and deserve the raise.
“I think this is fair compensation for the amount of hours we put in,” said state Rep. Jacqueline R. Crahalla, R-150th Dist., noting she routinely works 50-plus hour weeks. “This job is tough and every two years, your reputation gets knocked to hell if you are seeking reelection, and there is no job security,” said Crahalla, adding that “municipal administrators” often get paid more and have better job security than state lawmakers.
The pay raise legislation, passed at 2 a.m. on July 7, boosts the base salary of state lawmakers from $69,647 to $81,050, with committee heads and those in leadership posts getting additional hikes. Pennsylvania now has the second highest paid legislators in the country, behind only California.
Throughout the state, voter outrage has continued loud and strong. More than 7,000 people have sent protest letters to legislators as part of Operation Giveback, a letter-writing campaign sponsored by The Mercury to “send a message to Harrisburg.” A Web site and a radio station conducting similar campaigns have also reported phenomenal voter reaction.
Area lawmakers voting against the pay hike were state Sen. John C. Rafferty, R-44th Dist., state Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., state Rep. Tom Quigley, R-146th Dist., state Rep. Carole Rubley, R-157th Dist., and state Rep. Douglas Reichley, R-134th. Reichley, however, took the money as an unvouchered expense.
Voting for the hike were Crahalla; state Sen. Michael O’Pake, D-11th; state Sen. Robert Thompson, R-19th; state Rep. Dennis Leh, R-130th; state Rep. Raymond Bunt, R-47th; state Rep. Timothy Hennessey, R-25th; state Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th, and state Rep. Robert Flick, R-167th. Schroder reversed himself after initially accepting the unvouchered expenses and announced he would not take the raise early.
Taxpayers are upset not only with the magnitude of the pay hike but also with legislators’ poor track record on property tax reform, jobs growth and schools funding. One legislator ludicrously defended the vote to give themselves a raise as part of a package that ultimately benefitted taxpayers.
Ask taxpayers how much they’ve benefitted from the legislators’ pay grab.
In particular, ask them this week as they try to pull together the money for local school tax bills that have a discount due date if paid by Aug. 31.
We think we know what their answers will be.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
At the beginning of week seven since the legislative pay grab, few things have changed since the debacle first unfolded on July 7.
The first legislative leader to change his mind on collecting the midterm raise as an unvouchered expense — Rep. Brett Feese, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee — came forward last week. He became the first leader to reverse his earlier decision. Feese’s decision does not apply to his actual raise, however, which he will collect, starting in December 2006.
Most of the leaders, who received the biggest raises, accepted the early payments. Three others in leadership — Sens. Jeffrey Piccola, R-Dauphin; Mary Jo White, R-Franklin; and Connie Williams, D-Delaware — refused the special payments from the beginning.
Feese was among the three latest lawmakers to rescind their acceptance of the unvouchered expenses, pushing the total to 17.
At the same time, other legislators dug in their heels in defense of the 16 to 34 percent raises they awarded themselves on July 7, repeating the argument that they work hard and deserve the raise.
“I think this is fair compensation for the amount of hours we put in,” said state Rep. Jacqueline R. Crahalla, R-150th Dist., noting she routinely works 50-plus hour weeks. “This job is tough and every two years, your reputation gets knocked to hell if you are seeking reelection, and there is no job security,” said Crahalla, adding that “municipal administrators” often get paid more and have better job security than state lawmakers.
The pay raise legislation, passed at 2 a.m. on July 7, boosts the base salary of state lawmakers from $69,647 to $81,050, with committee heads and those in leadership posts getting additional hikes. Pennsylvania now has the second highest paid legislators in the country, behind only California.
Throughout the state, voter outrage has continued loud and strong. More than 7,000 people have sent protest letters to legislators as part of Operation Giveback, a letter-writing campaign sponsored by The Mercury to “send a message to Harrisburg.” A Web site and a radio station conducting similar campaigns have also reported phenomenal voter reaction.
Area lawmakers voting against the pay hike were state Sen. John C. Rafferty, R-44th Dist., state Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., state Rep. Tom Quigley, R-146th Dist., state Rep. Carole Rubley, R-157th Dist., and state Rep. Douglas Reichley, R-134th. Reichley, however, took the money as an unvouchered expense.
Voting for the hike were Crahalla; state Sen. Michael O’Pake, D-11th; state Sen. Robert Thompson, R-19th; state Rep. Dennis Leh, R-130th; state Rep. Raymond Bunt, R-47th; state Rep. Timothy Hennessey, R-25th; state Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th, and state Rep. Robert Flick, R-167th. Schroder reversed himself after initially accepting the unvouchered expenses and announced he would not take the raise early.
Taxpayers are upset not only with the magnitude of the pay hike but also with legislators’ poor track record on property tax reform, jobs growth and schools funding. One legislator ludicrously defended the vote to give themselves a raise as part of a package that ultimately benefitted taxpayers.
Ask taxpayers how much they’ve benefitted from the legislators’ pay grab.
In particular, ask them this week as they try to pull together the money for local school tax bills that have a discount due date if paid by Aug. 31.
We think we know what their answers will be.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Monday, August 22, 2005
Has your state legislator apologized yet?
I’ve been checking Web sites of newspapers across Pennsylvania since the House of Lords (aka the state legislature) gave itself an exorbitant pay raise six weeks ago.
To my pleasant surprise, every newspaper in the state — from the big city papers in Philadelphia, Allentown and Pittsburgh to the smallest daily papers scattered across the state — has editorialized against the unjustified pay raise and the reprehensible method it was approved (under cover of darkness on the last day of the Legislative session before lawmakers went on their 10-week summer vacation).
I’ve read hundreds of letters sent to newspapers by residents of Pennsylvania who feel violated and betrayed by people who are supposed to look out for them. It’s like having a member of your own family commit a crime against you.
One of the most interesting articles I’ve come across was in the Lancaster New Era.
It was a story about a state legislator from central Pennsylvania who not only reversed his stand on the pay hike (at least 16 legislators have done so since July 7) but this lawmaker publicly apologized to his constituents.
State Rep. Tom Creighton, who originally voted for the pay raise and defended it for five weeks, now admits it was an "error in judgment" that violated the "faith and trust" voters placed in him, according to the newspaper.
"In asking for your forgiveness on my vote on the pay raise, I’m committing my full energies in the remaining days of my term to fixing a broken system," Creighton said in a letter to residents of the 37th District.
"In the coming days, I will be introducing legislation to repeal the legislative pay raise, and intend to work with my colleagues and a growing number of concerned citizens like you, to restore the faith and trust you’ve placed in me," he wrote.
Creighton also told the newspaper that he originally voted for the pay raise because the Harrisburg party bosses put the squeeze on him. Voters in Creighton’s district need to think long and hard if they want to send this man back to Harrisburg next year when it appears he turns into a spineless jellyfish and does what he’s told. Imagine his campaign theme: "I will mindlessly obey others."
It’s difficult to say if Creighton’s apology is sincere, but it is a step in the right direction. Unlike the conceited party bosses — John Perzel, William DeWeese, Robert Mellow, David Brightbill, Robert Mellow, Samuel Smith — who refuse to even acknowledge that the pay raise was a mistake, at least Creighton heard what his constituents were saying and put their needs ahead of his own.
When will area lawmakers show some backbone and apologize for their grave error in judgment?
I am referring to Sens. Michael O’Pake, Robert Thompson, Connie Williams and Stewart Greenleaf and state Reps. Tim Hennessey, Raymond Bunt, Dennis Leh, Robert J. Flick, Dante Santoni Jr., Tom Caltagirone, Sam Rohrer and Jacqueline Crahalla. They voted for the pay raise and have so far refused to give the ill-gotten gain back.
State Rep. Douglas Reichley also has a lot of explaining to do. He initially voted against the pay raise, but then showed up in Harrisburg to collect the pay hike even though the state Constitution prohibits lawmakers from approving pay raises for themselves during their current term.
Rep. Curt Schroder decided not to take the pay raises even though he voted in favor of boosting his salary by a minimum of $11,000 a year on top of the very generous perks legislators enjoy as members of the House of Lords. One recent study determined the total compensation package (salary and benefits) for a single state legislator costs taxpayers $150,000 a year.
While wholesale changes are needed in Harrisburg (228 of the 253 members of the bloated Pennsylvania House of Lords will be up for reelection in 2006), voters should be willing to give Sens. Rob Wonderling and John Rafferty and state Reps. Tom Quigley and Carole Rubley the benefit of the doubt. They voted against the pay raise, and as far as I know, have not accepted the money as "unvouchered expenses," the euphemism lawmakers are using to circumvent the Pennsylvania Constitution.
On the bright side, the list of legislators who have decided not to participate in the "unvouchered expense" scam is now up to 105.
Back to Rep. Creighton. "Trading principled decisions for legislative expediency is never right," Creighton wrote. "Unfortunately, for me, the State Capitol and its internal system of punishments and rewards got the best of me in that fateful vote."
Creighton wrote that he reversed his position "after much reflection, prayer and the counsel from countless friends like you."
He concluded by saying he is deeply sorry that the residents of Pennsylvania have lost faith in their lawmakers because of the pay grab. "The process needs to be responsive to the people, to the voters. If I made a mistake, I think I need to state why I made the mistake and explain why I won’t do it again and try to fix it."
The rest of the legislators who voted for the pay grab need to step up to the plate and say they’re sorry. They still have a long way to go to regain the public trust they violated, but an apology is a good place to start.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
To my pleasant surprise, every newspaper in the state — from the big city papers in Philadelphia, Allentown and Pittsburgh to the smallest daily papers scattered across the state — has editorialized against the unjustified pay raise and the reprehensible method it was approved (under cover of darkness on the last day of the Legislative session before lawmakers went on their 10-week summer vacation).
I’ve read hundreds of letters sent to newspapers by residents of Pennsylvania who feel violated and betrayed by people who are supposed to look out for them. It’s like having a member of your own family commit a crime against you.
One of the most interesting articles I’ve come across was in the Lancaster New Era.
It was a story about a state legislator from central Pennsylvania who not only reversed his stand on the pay hike (at least 16 legislators have done so since July 7) but this lawmaker publicly apologized to his constituents.
State Rep. Tom Creighton, who originally voted for the pay raise and defended it for five weeks, now admits it was an "error in judgment" that violated the "faith and trust" voters placed in him, according to the newspaper.
"In asking for your forgiveness on my vote on the pay raise, I’m committing my full energies in the remaining days of my term to fixing a broken system," Creighton said in a letter to residents of the 37th District.
"In the coming days, I will be introducing legislation to repeal the legislative pay raise, and intend to work with my colleagues and a growing number of concerned citizens like you, to restore the faith and trust you’ve placed in me," he wrote.
Creighton also told the newspaper that he originally voted for the pay raise because the Harrisburg party bosses put the squeeze on him. Voters in Creighton’s district need to think long and hard if they want to send this man back to Harrisburg next year when it appears he turns into a spineless jellyfish and does what he’s told. Imagine his campaign theme: "I will mindlessly obey others."
It’s difficult to say if Creighton’s apology is sincere, but it is a step in the right direction. Unlike the conceited party bosses — John Perzel, William DeWeese, Robert Mellow, David Brightbill, Robert Mellow, Samuel Smith — who refuse to even acknowledge that the pay raise was a mistake, at least Creighton heard what his constituents were saying and put their needs ahead of his own.
When will area lawmakers show some backbone and apologize for their grave error in judgment?
I am referring to Sens. Michael O’Pake, Robert Thompson, Connie Williams and Stewart Greenleaf and state Reps. Tim Hennessey, Raymond Bunt, Dennis Leh, Robert J. Flick, Dante Santoni Jr., Tom Caltagirone, Sam Rohrer and Jacqueline Crahalla. They voted for the pay raise and have so far refused to give the ill-gotten gain back.
State Rep. Douglas Reichley also has a lot of explaining to do. He initially voted against the pay raise, but then showed up in Harrisburg to collect the pay hike even though the state Constitution prohibits lawmakers from approving pay raises for themselves during their current term.
Rep. Curt Schroder decided not to take the pay raises even though he voted in favor of boosting his salary by a minimum of $11,000 a year on top of the very generous perks legislators enjoy as members of the House of Lords. One recent study determined the total compensation package (salary and benefits) for a single state legislator costs taxpayers $150,000 a year.
While wholesale changes are needed in Harrisburg (228 of the 253 members of the bloated Pennsylvania House of Lords will be up for reelection in 2006), voters should be willing to give Sens. Rob Wonderling and John Rafferty and state Reps. Tom Quigley and Carole Rubley the benefit of the doubt. They voted against the pay raise, and as far as I know, have not accepted the money as "unvouchered expenses," the euphemism lawmakers are using to circumvent the Pennsylvania Constitution.
On the bright side, the list of legislators who have decided not to participate in the "unvouchered expense" scam is now up to 105.
Back to Rep. Creighton. "Trading principled decisions for legislative expediency is never right," Creighton wrote. "Unfortunately, for me, the State Capitol and its internal system of punishments and rewards got the best of me in that fateful vote."
Creighton wrote that he reversed his position "after much reflection, prayer and the counsel from countless friends like you."
He concluded by saying he is deeply sorry that the residents of Pennsylvania have lost faith in their lawmakers because of the pay grab. "The process needs to be responsive to the people, to the voters. If I made a mistake, I think I need to state why I made the mistake and explain why I won’t do it again and try to fix it."
The rest of the legislators who voted for the pay grab need to step up to the plate and say they’re sorry. They still have a long way to go to regain the public trust they violated, but an apology is a good place to start.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, August 18, 2005
Money-grubbing politicians feel the heat
An editorial cartoon in The Mercury this week raised the question of whether Pennsylvania lawmakers were hearing the public outrage over the Great Pay Grab of 2005. Rest assured, they’re hearing you loud and clear.
The citizens of Pennsylvania are going to win this one. The Pennsylvania House of Lords (aka state legislature) is feeling the heat. The 253 state House and Senate members remind me of George Armstrong Custer’s 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. Through arrogance and audacity, legislative leaders have led their troops into hostile territory, where they are greatly outnumbered by Pennsylvania taxpayers. Like Custer, the party bosses have managed to get their forces surrounded. And we all know how the Battle of the Little Big Horn turned out.
The party bosses that masterminded the pay grab — Perzel, DeWeese, Jubelirer, Mellow, Brightbill — are losing soldiers daily. Two more legislators have changed their minds and decided not to accept "unvouchered expenses" that let lawmakers collect their new pay raises 16 months before the Pennsylvania Constitution allows, according to The (Delaware County) Daily Times. Rep. Nicholas A. Micozzie and Sen. Dominic E. Pileggi joined 12 other legislators who initially accepted and — amid a roar of public disapproval — subsequently rejected the special payments that are equal to their prospective raises, the newspaper reports.
The party bosses have circled the wagons and are preparing to fight for the pay raise to the last man. But the foot soldiers who were led into this battle with the promise that voters are too dumb to figure out what the Legislature did at 2 a.m. on July 7 or too lazy to do anything about it are deserting the Custers who led them into the quagmire. As constituents continue to confront legislators, it’s becoming every man for himself, and politicians, by their very nature, will do whatever it takes to save their own skin.
Newspapers continue to lead the charge with daily revelations of the greed and back-room dealing in the Pennsylvania House of Lords. The Mercury has collected 3,400 signatures opposing the pay grab in just 10 days. Four of The Mercury’s sister newspapers in southeastern Pennsylvania have joined the cause. We will deliver the letters to Harrisburg next month.
The number of Web sites helping organize the people’s revolt against the greedy politicians is growing. PACleanSweep.com reports 38,000 visitors to its Web site. The group has also signed up 2,200 subscribers to receive e-mail updates on the progress to clean up the mess in Harrisburg. Former state Rep. John Kennedy, who launched his own campaign to repeal the pay raise, reports 17,000 people have visited his Web site, www.declarationofaction.
The newest Web site devoted to winning back Pennsylvania from the gluttonous politicians is www.InformedPA.com. The group is planning to plaster the faces of the leaders of the pay grab on billboards across the state.
The politicians are blaming news coverage of the pay raise for stirring up the public, but as usual, they underestimate the intelligence of voters. You don’t need a Ph.D. to realize someone just reached into your pocket to relieve you of your hard-earned money. This revolt is grassroots. And voters won’t forget the pay raise when 228 of the 253 members of the House of Lords face reelection in 2006.
It’s not just the pay raise that is drawing public scrutiny. Residents are fuming about the $150,000 in taxpayer money being wasted by state lawmakers attending a junket in Seattle. Pennsylvania is sending nearly 100 delegates to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The only legislator from Berks, Chester or Montgomery counties I know went to Seattle is Rep. Dante Santoni Jr., a Democrat who "serves" the 126th District outside Reading.
Santoni, one of the drones who was promoted to a committee chairmanship when Democratic leader Bill DeWeese punished 15 Democrats who voted their conscience by not supporting the pay grab, willingly took the $11,000 pay raise and the chairmanship post, which added another $4,050 to his pockets. Santoni is also billing constituents for the $1,750 cost of attending the conference.
In western Pennsylvania, Rep. Frank LaGrotta said someone approached him in a supermarket and called him a thief for taking a "vacation" at taxpayers’ expense. LaGrotta decided not go to Seattle.
This is a defining moment in Pennsylvania history. Citizens must stand and fight the flagrant theft of public money and public trust. There are nearly 8 million registered voters in Pennsylvania.
Regardless of party affiliation, we need to work together to oust the 200 or so legislators who raided the public treasury on July 7.
Even if the 2 a.m. cowards rescind the pay raise when they get back to Harrisburg after their 10-week vacation, they will try to rob us again.
The only solution is remove them from the temptation of taking our money. Remember the pay raise! Vote them out!
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The citizens of Pennsylvania are going to win this one. The Pennsylvania House of Lords (aka state legislature) is feeling the heat. The 253 state House and Senate members remind me of George Armstrong Custer’s 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. Through arrogance and audacity, legislative leaders have led their troops into hostile territory, where they are greatly outnumbered by Pennsylvania taxpayers. Like Custer, the party bosses have managed to get their forces surrounded. And we all know how the Battle of the Little Big Horn turned out.
The party bosses that masterminded the pay grab — Perzel, DeWeese, Jubelirer, Mellow, Brightbill — are losing soldiers daily. Two more legislators have changed their minds and decided not to accept "unvouchered expenses" that let lawmakers collect their new pay raises 16 months before the Pennsylvania Constitution allows, according to The (Delaware County) Daily Times. Rep. Nicholas A. Micozzie and Sen. Dominic E. Pileggi joined 12 other legislators who initially accepted and — amid a roar of public disapproval — subsequently rejected the special payments that are equal to their prospective raises, the newspaper reports.
The party bosses have circled the wagons and are preparing to fight for the pay raise to the last man. But the foot soldiers who were led into this battle with the promise that voters are too dumb to figure out what the Legislature did at 2 a.m. on July 7 or too lazy to do anything about it are deserting the Custers who led them into the quagmire. As constituents continue to confront legislators, it’s becoming every man for himself, and politicians, by their very nature, will do whatever it takes to save their own skin.
Newspapers continue to lead the charge with daily revelations of the greed and back-room dealing in the Pennsylvania House of Lords. The Mercury has collected 3,400 signatures opposing the pay grab in just 10 days. Four of The Mercury’s sister newspapers in southeastern Pennsylvania have joined the cause. We will deliver the letters to Harrisburg next month.
The number of Web sites helping organize the people’s revolt against the greedy politicians is growing. PACleanSweep.com reports 38,000 visitors to its Web site. The group has also signed up 2,200 subscribers to receive e-mail updates on the progress to clean up the mess in Harrisburg. Former state Rep. John Kennedy, who launched his own campaign to repeal the pay raise, reports 17,000 people have visited his Web site, www.declarationofaction.
The newest Web site devoted to winning back Pennsylvania from the gluttonous politicians is www.InformedPA.com. The group is planning to plaster the faces of the leaders of the pay grab on billboards across the state.
The politicians are blaming news coverage of the pay raise for stirring up the public, but as usual, they underestimate the intelligence of voters. You don’t need a Ph.D. to realize someone just reached into your pocket to relieve you of your hard-earned money. This revolt is grassroots. And voters won’t forget the pay raise when 228 of the 253 members of the House of Lords face reelection in 2006.
It’s not just the pay raise that is drawing public scrutiny. Residents are fuming about the $150,000 in taxpayer money being wasted by state lawmakers attending a junket in Seattle. Pennsylvania is sending nearly 100 delegates to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The only legislator from Berks, Chester or Montgomery counties I know went to Seattle is Rep. Dante Santoni Jr., a Democrat who "serves" the 126th District outside Reading.
Santoni, one of the drones who was promoted to a committee chairmanship when Democratic leader Bill DeWeese punished 15 Democrats who voted their conscience by not supporting the pay grab, willingly took the $11,000 pay raise and the chairmanship post, which added another $4,050 to his pockets. Santoni is also billing constituents for the $1,750 cost of attending the conference.
In western Pennsylvania, Rep. Frank LaGrotta said someone approached him in a supermarket and called him a thief for taking a "vacation" at taxpayers’ expense. LaGrotta decided not go to Seattle.
This is a defining moment in Pennsylvania history. Citizens must stand and fight the flagrant theft of public money and public trust. There are nearly 8 million registered voters in Pennsylvania.
Regardless of party affiliation, we need to work together to oust the 200 or so legislators who raided the public treasury on July 7.
Even if the 2 a.m. cowards rescind the pay raise when they get back to Harrisburg after their 10-week vacation, they will try to rob us again.
The only solution is remove them from the temptation of taking our money. Remember the pay raise! Vote them out!
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, August 15, 2005
Pa. residents must organize to take back their state
The revolution is on. The shots were fired in the wee small hours of the morning of July 7 when most Pennsylvanians were fast asleep. That’s when 253 renegade politicians gave themselves outrageous pay raises on the last day of the legislative session before going on a 10-week summer vacation.
The 2004-05 session was one in which our well-paid legislators again failed to deliver property tax relief to the state’s beleaguered homeowners, failed to deliver health insurance reform for small business, leaving thousands of Pennsylvanians without health coverage, failed to provide adequate Medicare funding for the state’s poor, and failed to raise the state’s minimum wage, keeping thousands of the state’s working poor in poverty.
To reward themselves for complete failure, they broke into the state treasury in the middle of the night and ran off with pay raises ranging from $11,000 to $36,000.
The anger and frustration among the state’s besieged taxpayers continues to rise with the August heat. The revelation that Pennsylvania lawmakers will fleece taxpayers for another $150,000 to spend the week vacationing (I meant to say attending a conference) in Seattle is another kick in the groin for Pennsylvania taxpayers.
That bit of news was followed by an investigative piece in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that exposed a $135 million slush fund set up by the party bosses who rule Harrisburg. This account is controlled by legislative leaders — the same ones who pushed through the pay raise and the very same ones who punished legislators who voted against the money grab by removing them from committee chairmanships. The $135 million can be spent at the discretion of the party bosses. They can buy off anyone in the state with the money, which used to be part of the state treasury until the party bosses confiscated it for their private accounts.
And the very same article in the Tribune-Review revealed that our hard-working, full-time state legislators averaged 77 session days a year for the past five years in Harrisburg. So much for working "24/7" as some of these charlatans have been telling constituents. Anyone interested in a part-time job (you only have to show up 77 days a year) that pays $81,027 to start with the potential to make $145,553 if you rise to the post of party boss? The line forms behind me.
So what can the tormented taxpayer do between now and May 2006, when Pennsylvania residents can extract their revenge on these bandits in three-piece suits?
First, educate yourself. House Democratic leader William "Boss Hogg" DeWeese complained last week that Pennsylvania newspapers have been writing too much about the pay raise. He thinks the news coverage is behind the outrage. In other words, if taxpayers would be kept in the dark, it would be a lot easier for the state Legislature to carry on its criminal activities.
DeWeese’s contempt for the people of Pennsylvania speaks volumes of the arrogance of elected officials in this state. They are not public servants. They have crowned themselves as royalty — a Pennsylvania House of Lords — to rule over the rest of us commoners. This is all the reason Pennsylvania residents need to clean house in Harrisburg.
Second, continue to voice your opposition. Call and write your legislators. Challenge them at public forums to defend the pillage of taxpayers so they can maintain the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Participate in The Mercury’s Operation Giveback. Write a letter to the editor. Call your local talk radio station. Keep it alive.
Third, and most importantly, start making plans for the May 2006 primary election. All 203 members of the House of Representatives and 25 of the 50 Senators will face reelection next year. Unless the incumbents have opposition on the ballot, there’s no way to get rid of them. Consider running for office yourself. You can’t do any worse than the do-nothing dregs we have in office now. If you’re an independent, a libertarian or a member of another third-party, you must change your registration to Republican or Democrat in order to vote in the primary. That’s crucial.
There are several Web sites already set up offering advice on how Pennsylvania residents can organize and work to take back their government from the freeloaders who inhabit Harrisburg.
Former state Rep. John Kennedy, a Republican from Cumberland County who declined his pension and perks while serving from 1981 to 1988, has set up an informative site called: www.declarationofaction.org.
Another good site is www.genestilp.blogspot.com, the Web log of activist Eugene Stilp of Harrisburg, who has filed a lawsuit to overturn the pay hike.
The newest site attempting to organize residents is www.democracyrisingpa.com
Also worth checking out is www.pacleansweep.com, which was set up by Russ Diamond, a Lebanon County businessman, whose goal is to kick out the entire Legislature. Diamond’s site offers a lot of practical advice on how to make wholesale changes in Harrisburg in 2006 and beyond. And who — except for the 253 mutineers — doesn’t believe change is needed?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The 2004-05 session was one in which our well-paid legislators again failed to deliver property tax relief to the state’s beleaguered homeowners, failed to deliver health insurance reform for small business, leaving thousands of Pennsylvanians without health coverage, failed to provide adequate Medicare funding for the state’s poor, and failed to raise the state’s minimum wage, keeping thousands of the state’s working poor in poverty.
To reward themselves for complete failure, they broke into the state treasury in the middle of the night and ran off with pay raises ranging from $11,000 to $36,000.
The anger and frustration among the state’s besieged taxpayers continues to rise with the August heat. The revelation that Pennsylvania lawmakers will fleece taxpayers for another $150,000 to spend the week vacationing (I meant to say attending a conference) in Seattle is another kick in the groin for Pennsylvania taxpayers.
That bit of news was followed by an investigative piece in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review that exposed a $135 million slush fund set up by the party bosses who rule Harrisburg. This account is controlled by legislative leaders — the same ones who pushed through the pay raise and the very same ones who punished legislators who voted against the money grab by removing them from committee chairmanships. The $135 million can be spent at the discretion of the party bosses. They can buy off anyone in the state with the money, which used to be part of the state treasury until the party bosses confiscated it for their private accounts.
And the very same article in the Tribune-Review revealed that our hard-working, full-time state legislators averaged 77 session days a year for the past five years in Harrisburg. So much for working "24/7" as some of these charlatans have been telling constituents. Anyone interested in a part-time job (you only have to show up 77 days a year) that pays $81,027 to start with the potential to make $145,553 if you rise to the post of party boss? The line forms behind me.
So what can the tormented taxpayer do between now and May 2006, when Pennsylvania residents can extract their revenge on these bandits in three-piece suits?
First, educate yourself. House Democratic leader William "Boss Hogg" DeWeese complained last week that Pennsylvania newspapers have been writing too much about the pay raise. He thinks the news coverage is behind the outrage. In other words, if taxpayers would be kept in the dark, it would be a lot easier for the state Legislature to carry on its criminal activities.
DeWeese’s contempt for the people of Pennsylvania speaks volumes of the arrogance of elected officials in this state. They are not public servants. They have crowned themselves as royalty — a Pennsylvania House of Lords — to rule over the rest of us commoners. This is all the reason Pennsylvania residents need to clean house in Harrisburg.
Second, continue to voice your opposition. Call and write your legislators. Challenge them at public forums to defend the pillage of taxpayers so they can maintain the lifestyles of the rich and famous. Participate in The Mercury’s Operation Giveback. Write a letter to the editor. Call your local talk radio station. Keep it alive.
Third, and most importantly, start making plans for the May 2006 primary election. All 203 members of the House of Representatives and 25 of the 50 Senators will face reelection next year. Unless the incumbents have opposition on the ballot, there’s no way to get rid of them. Consider running for office yourself. You can’t do any worse than the do-nothing dregs we have in office now. If you’re an independent, a libertarian or a member of another third-party, you must change your registration to Republican or Democrat in order to vote in the primary. That’s crucial.
There are several Web sites already set up offering advice on how Pennsylvania residents can organize and work to take back their government from the freeloaders who inhabit Harrisburg.
Former state Rep. John Kennedy, a Republican from Cumberland County who declined his pension and perks while serving from 1981 to 1988, has set up an informative site called: www.declarationofaction.org.
Another good site is www.genestilp.blogspot.com, the Web log of activist Eugene Stilp of Harrisburg, who has filed a lawsuit to overturn the pay hike.
The newest site attempting to organize residents is www.democracyrisingpa.com
Also worth checking out is www.pacleansweep.com, which was set up by Russ Diamond, a Lebanon County businessman, whose goal is to kick out the entire Legislature. Diamond’s site offers a lot of practical advice on how to make wholesale changes in Harrisburg in 2006 and beyond. And who — except for the 253 mutineers — doesn’t believe change is needed?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Pay raise revolt heats up: Letters pour in
This article was published Sunday, August 14, 2005, in The Mercury, Pottstown, PA
POTTSTOWN — One week after The Mercury began a campaign urging Pennsylvania lawmakers to return the large pay raise they gave themselves, nearly 3,000 readers have responded.
Enraged by the 2 a.m. July 7 vote by House and Senate members to increase lawmakers' salaries between 16 and 34 percent, readers have been mailing signed letters in droves to The Mercury office.
Titled Operation Giveback, the crusade aims to have state lawmakers repeal the pay increase and consider the needs of its citizens, many of whom are "struggling to pay property taxes and health care costs."
During the past week, The Mercury has been joined by four other Philadelphia area newspapers: The (Delaware County) Daily Times in Primos, the Daily Local News in West Chester, the Times Herald in Norristown and The Phoenix in Phoenixville.
Letters gathered by the five newspapers will be collectively hand-delivered to the state Capitol building in Harrisburg when the House and the Senate return from a 10-week summer recess on Sept 26.
Mercury editor Nancy March said the letter-writing campaign was inspired by a message left by a reader.
"A woman called and asked if we could print a petition so people could pass it around and let legislators know just how angry they are," she said. "So we thought, ‘Why not invite readers to send letters?’ Taking a huge stack of mail from angry constituents to Harrisburg is one way to let lawmakers see firsthand the furor they’ve created."
The reaction of readers has been gratifying, March added.
"People are calling us and coming into the office to thank us for the opportunity," she said. "In just one week, the campaign has generated a tremendous response, and it has all been positive. The people of the Pottstown area are telling us they welcome this opportunity to send a message to their elected representatives."
Bill Sharon, an employee of the Pottstown Codes Department, made 500 copies of the Operation Giveback letter and has spread them among six friends who are finding people to sign them. Although his letter is similar to The Mercury's, Sharon's goes a step further by demanding tax reform.
"I tell people they have to stop talking, and now is the time to take action," Sharon said. "We have to get out there and really make a statement."
Sharon has also set up a stand in front of his home at 131 King St. in Pottstown where passersby can stop and sign a letter. If people continue to respond, Sharon said he will copy another 500 letters and get more signatures.
"Maybe this pay raise issue is the kick in the backside that we need." Sharon said. "Everybody in the Pottstown area should sign a letter. There's not a reason why we shouldn't have 20,000, and it'd be great if people outside the area sent in letters, too."
Marie Piroschak, a senior citizen living in Pottstown, said she took 50 copies from Sharon and distributed all of them at the Pottstown Area Seniors Center. She said the response was so tremendous that she intends to hand them out again on Monday.
"Everybody wanted to sign, no problem at all, and they all seemed to know what this was all about. I was surprised," Piroschak said.
Although last month's pay increase is still fresh in the minds of constituents, many citizens are hoping that the taxpayers remember this vote during next year's elections when all 203 members of the state House and 25 of the 50 members of the state Senate face reelection.
Henry Flack of Schwenksville said signing an Operation Giveback letter was a no-brainer. The lawmakers' salary raise as well as the failure of the Legislature to enact property tax reform made his decision in next year's election an easy one.
"There isn't an incumbent that I would vote for again. I'm fed up with all of them," Flack said. "If a dog catcher ran against them, I still wouldn't vote for them."
By Don Brensinger
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
POTTSTOWN — One week after The Mercury began a campaign urging Pennsylvania lawmakers to return the large pay raise they gave themselves, nearly 3,000 readers have responded.
Enraged by the 2 a.m. July 7 vote by House and Senate members to increase lawmakers' salaries between 16 and 34 percent, readers have been mailing signed letters in droves to The Mercury office.
Titled Operation Giveback, the crusade aims to have state lawmakers repeal the pay increase and consider the needs of its citizens, many of whom are "struggling to pay property taxes and health care costs."
During the past week, The Mercury has been joined by four other Philadelphia area newspapers: The (Delaware County) Daily Times in Primos, the Daily Local News in West Chester, the Times Herald in Norristown and The Phoenix in Phoenixville.
Letters gathered by the five newspapers will be collectively hand-delivered to the state Capitol building in Harrisburg when the House and the Senate return from a 10-week summer recess on Sept 26.
Mercury editor Nancy March said the letter-writing campaign was inspired by a message left by a reader.
"A woman called and asked if we could print a petition so people could pass it around and let legislators know just how angry they are," she said. "So we thought, ‘Why not invite readers to send letters?’ Taking a huge stack of mail from angry constituents to Harrisburg is one way to let lawmakers see firsthand the furor they’ve created."
The reaction of readers has been gratifying, March added.
"People are calling us and coming into the office to thank us for the opportunity," she said. "In just one week, the campaign has generated a tremendous response, and it has all been positive. The people of the Pottstown area are telling us they welcome this opportunity to send a message to their elected representatives."
Bill Sharon, an employee of the Pottstown Codes Department, made 500 copies of the Operation Giveback letter and has spread them among six friends who are finding people to sign them. Although his letter is similar to The Mercury's, Sharon's goes a step further by demanding tax reform.
"I tell people they have to stop talking, and now is the time to take action," Sharon said. "We have to get out there and really make a statement."
Sharon has also set up a stand in front of his home at 131 King St. in Pottstown where passersby can stop and sign a letter. If people continue to respond, Sharon said he will copy another 500 letters and get more signatures.
"Maybe this pay raise issue is the kick in the backside that we need." Sharon said. "Everybody in the Pottstown area should sign a letter. There's not a reason why we shouldn't have 20,000, and it'd be great if people outside the area sent in letters, too."
Marie Piroschak, a senior citizen living in Pottstown, said she took 50 copies from Sharon and distributed all of them at the Pottstown Area Seniors Center. She said the response was so tremendous that she intends to hand them out again on Monday.
"Everybody wanted to sign, no problem at all, and they all seemed to know what this was all about. I was surprised," Piroschak said.
Although last month's pay increase is still fresh in the minds of constituents, many citizens are hoping that the taxpayers remember this vote during next year's elections when all 203 members of the state House and 25 of the 50 members of the state Senate face reelection.
Henry Flack of Schwenksville said signing an Operation Giveback letter was a no-brainer. The lawmakers' salary raise as well as the failure of the Legislature to enact property tax reform made his decision in next year's election an easy one.
"There isn't an incumbent that I would vote for again. I'm fed up with all of them," Flack said. "If a dog catcher ran against them, I still wouldn't vote for them."
By Don Brensinger
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Legislative pay raise: Throw the bums out only goes so far
It’s been 30 days since the Pennsylvania Legislature pulled off the Great Pay Grab of 2005. The fact we’re still talking about the crime a month later is a victory in itself. But a lot more needs to be done between now and the primary election in 2006, which will be the first opportunity voters have to throw the bums out.
The news media has a short attention span. Stories are followed for a day or two and then forgotten. Television is the worst. Unless you’re a runaway bride or an attractive blonde high school senior who disappeared in Aruba, you’re lucky if the story stays on the air more than a day.
Since the initial vote on July 7 when legislators gave themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 34 percent, there’s been hardly a mention of the Great Pay Grab on any television newscasts, which, sadly, is the main source of news for many people. It’s been up to newspapers and a few radio stations to keep the issue alive.
I’ve browsed Web sites of many Pennsylvania newspapers over the past 30 days to see how this story is being covered across the state. To my surprise, every newspaper — large and small, liberal and conservative — has been outraged by the flagrant abuse of power displayed by the Pennsylvania Legislature. I’ve read more than two dozen editorials, at least 100 letters to the editor and dozens of columnists. Everyone is on the same page.
I can’t recall any issue in my 23 years in the newspaper industry where there has been universal agreement. What the legislators did on July 7 is reprehensible. A betrayal of public trust. Utter contempt for the people these legislators claim to represent.
The pay heist wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment crime. It was premeditated. Down to the last detail. The party bosses knew which legislators came from safe districts. They voted yes. The party bosses knew which freshmen legislators were vulnerable. They were allowed to vote no. But don’t be fooled. Nineteen House and Senate members who voted against the pay raise took the money anyway.
The smug political bosses who run this state miscalculated on the pay grab. They figured the whole thing would blow over in a week or two. But five weeks after Pennsylvania residents were fleeced by their own state representatives, the anger continues to grow. Spurred by newspapers, talk radio and the Internet, residents are organizing and planning their response to July 7, 2005 — a date that will live in infamy in the annals of Pennsylvania history.
After voting themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 34 percent at 2 a.m. on July 7, the 253 members of the legislative body in the country went on a 10-week summer vacation. Legislators are spending the month of August at their shore homes or in their cabins in the Poconos. Some of them are at their homes in Florida. Others are on European vacations. Who can blame them? If you just "found" an extra $11,000 in your pocket, wouldn’t you go on a spending spree?
If they’re not relaxing on the beach, our legislators are spending the summer in underground bunkers. Politicians love to see their name in print and their smiling face on the front pages of newspapers. But for the past five weeks, they’ve been in hiding, refusing requests for interviews about the pay grab. Readers have contacted me to say they believe the legislators disabled their e-mail systems so constituents could not contact them.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who signed the pay grab into law, and Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy are the only politicians who’ve publicly defended the heist. (Rendell gets a $21,228 annual pay raise under the same legislation, while Cappy gets an $18,144 per year pay boost.)
Their arguments are weak: "Legislators work hard. They put in long hours. They’re away from their families." Nobody is putting a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to run for public office. Legislators are free to leave Harrisburg for private sector jobs any time they want. But name one private sector job where you can set your own salary and boost your pay any time you want (as long as you do it in the middle of the night when your boss is asleep).
Rendell, whose own re-election in 2006 is jeopardized by the pay heist, dropped by the Reading Fair Monday to grab something to eat. He was booed by the fairgoers. Nothing planned. No organized protest. Just hard-working residents of Pennsylvania trying to provide a day out for their families. They saw a well-dressed politician making four times the pay they bring home and spontaneously started booing Rendell.
Rendell is lucky fairgoers didn’t toss tomatoes or eggs or cow chips in his direction.
There’s no doubt politicians are feeling the heat. But the key is to channel the anger into action. It’s time for wholesale changes in Harrisburg. Unless most the incumbents on the ballot in 2006 are voted out of office, the politicians will continue to rape taxpayers.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The news media has a short attention span. Stories are followed for a day or two and then forgotten. Television is the worst. Unless you’re a runaway bride or an attractive blonde high school senior who disappeared in Aruba, you’re lucky if the story stays on the air more than a day.
Since the initial vote on July 7 when legislators gave themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 34 percent, there’s been hardly a mention of the Great Pay Grab on any television newscasts, which, sadly, is the main source of news for many people. It’s been up to newspapers and a few radio stations to keep the issue alive.
I’ve browsed Web sites of many Pennsylvania newspapers over the past 30 days to see how this story is being covered across the state. To my surprise, every newspaper — large and small, liberal and conservative — has been outraged by the flagrant abuse of power displayed by the Pennsylvania Legislature. I’ve read more than two dozen editorials, at least 100 letters to the editor and dozens of columnists. Everyone is on the same page.
I can’t recall any issue in my 23 years in the newspaper industry where there has been universal agreement. What the legislators did on July 7 is reprehensible. A betrayal of public trust. Utter contempt for the people these legislators claim to represent.
The pay heist wasn’t a spur-of-the-moment crime. It was premeditated. Down to the last detail. The party bosses knew which legislators came from safe districts. They voted yes. The party bosses knew which freshmen legislators were vulnerable. They were allowed to vote no. But don’t be fooled. Nineteen House and Senate members who voted against the pay raise took the money anyway.
The smug political bosses who run this state miscalculated on the pay grab. They figured the whole thing would blow over in a week or two. But five weeks after Pennsylvania residents were fleeced by their own state representatives, the anger continues to grow. Spurred by newspapers, talk radio and the Internet, residents are organizing and planning their response to July 7, 2005 — a date that will live in infamy in the annals of Pennsylvania history.
After voting themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 34 percent at 2 a.m. on July 7, the 253 members of the legislative body in the country went on a 10-week summer vacation. Legislators are spending the month of August at their shore homes or in their cabins in the Poconos. Some of them are at their homes in Florida. Others are on European vacations. Who can blame them? If you just "found" an extra $11,000 in your pocket, wouldn’t you go on a spending spree?
If they’re not relaxing on the beach, our legislators are spending the summer in underground bunkers. Politicians love to see their name in print and their smiling face on the front pages of newspapers. But for the past five weeks, they’ve been in hiding, refusing requests for interviews about the pay grab. Readers have contacted me to say they believe the legislators disabled their e-mail systems so constituents could not contact them.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who signed the pay grab into law, and Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ralph J. Cappy are the only politicians who’ve publicly defended the heist. (Rendell gets a $21,228 annual pay raise under the same legislation, while Cappy gets an $18,144 per year pay boost.)
Their arguments are weak: "Legislators work hard. They put in long hours. They’re away from their families." Nobody is putting a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to run for public office. Legislators are free to leave Harrisburg for private sector jobs any time they want. But name one private sector job where you can set your own salary and boost your pay any time you want (as long as you do it in the middle of the night when your boss is asleep).
Rendell, whose own re-election in 2006 is jeopardized by the pay heist, dropped by the Reading Fair Monday to grab something to eat. He was booed by the fairgoers. Nothing planned. No organized protest. Just hard-working residents of Pennsylvania trying to provide a day out for their families. They saw a well-dressed politician making four times the pay they bring home and spontaneously started booing Rendell.
Rendell is lucky fairgoers didn’t toss tomatoes or eggs or cow chips in his direction.
There’s no doubt politicians are feeling the heat. But the key is to channel the anger into action. It’s time for wholesale changes in Harrisburg. Unless most the incumbents on the ballot in 2006 are voted out of office, the politicians will continue to rape taxpayers.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, August 08, 2005
Give it back: Newspaper launches campaign to rescind Legislative pay grab
The Mercury, the largest circulation newspaper based in Montgomery County, ran a front-page editorial in its Sunday, Aug. 7, 2005, edition, along with a letter that readers can clip and send to the newspaper, which plans to deliver the letters to Harrisburg. The editorial is reprinted below:
Legislators are urged to give it back
Anger is brewing in the state of Pennsylvania.
The spark for this anger is House Bill 1521 approved by Pennsylvania lawmakers early in the morning of July 7. The legislation drove the annual base salaries of Pennsylvania lawmakers from $69,647 to $81,050, making them the second highest paid legislators in the nation.
The increases ranged from 16 to 34 percent with legislative leaders and committee chairmen getting the largest pay hikes.
As if that wasn’t enough to raise the hackles of folks struggling with high taxes and health care costs, the legislators then skirted the law so they could collect their money now instead of waiting until Jan. 1, 2007, when the raises take effect.
Using the tactic of "unvouchered expenses," 131 of the 201 sitting House members and 27 of the 50 senators got their money in checks on Aug. 1. That group included several who had voted against the bill but chose to accept the money anyway.
The legislators who said no to the raise — including both Rep. Tom Quigley and state Sen. John Rafferty of Montgomery County and state Rep. Carole Rubley of Chester County — are getting kudos from their constituents. Legislative leaders, however, punished those who voted against the bill by taking away committee posts.
The stream of letters, phone calls and e-mail to legislators has not slowed since the July 7 vote became public.
Instead, furor has grown as more details have been revealed about the package deal legislators are getting. Lawmakers get fully paid health insurance, up to $7,800 a year for vehicles, and those who live more than 50 miles from Harrisburg get expenses of $129 per day during legislative sessions. They also get fully paid pension benefits, which went up proportionately with the new salaries.
The pay raise bill was negotiated in secret, and the vote to approve it was taken in the middle of the night, just hours after a state budget was approved — six days behind schedule — that cut benefits for human services. As one Pottstown School Board member commented: "They can’t afford to feed the hungry school children, but they can find money for their own wallets."
Among the last-minute actions that the legislators left unfinished before starting their 10-week summer vacation was a proposal to raise the minimum wage. As was pointed out in an editorial in the Delaware County Daily Times: "The average $11,000 pay hike legislators are pocketing is more than a person working at minimum wage in the Keystone State makes in a year."
Those are just a few of the reasons for taxpayers to feel betrayed.
Another reason is the poor track record demonstrated by lawmakers.
They have failed to improve the economy. Pennsylvania ranks 47th in the nation in percentage employment growth and loses more young employment prospects to other areas than any other state. Population growth is nearly stagnant with a national ranking of 48th among the 50 states.
Pennsylvania ranks 40th in percentage income growth. The average Pennsylvania earned just $38,532 last year. The state is 44th in new business starts and growth.
In public education, Pennsylvania consistently gets low marks for how public schools are funded. It is 48th in the nation for state funding of public education and at the top of the list for the reliance on local property taxes to fund schools. Reliance on local property taxes creates lopsided funding that differs from school district to school district and makes Pennsylvania among the worst states for addressing equity in school funding.
The arguments that legislators work long hours and need high salaries to keep them equal with the private sector do not hold water. Their abysmal track record in fixing the commonwealth’s problems would get them fired in the private sector. They surely wouldn’t get such hefty raises.
Pennsylvania is rich in many ways. The stirrings that led to the birth of the nation started here. The state’s natural resources fueled industry and commerce for centuries. It has a wealth of culture and natural beauty.
But the citizens are getting tired of riches wasted on potential, on decades of lobbying for tax reform, on schools struggling with an antiquated funding system and on an economy stalled by a lack of initiative and incentive.
The only category in which this legislature has managed to rise to the top is in how much lawmakers get paid.
Pennsylvania is spending more than any other state in the nation on paying its legislators. And to borrow a phrase from an old movie: We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore.
Readers are encouraged to cut out and mail to The Mercury the letter to legislators on the front page of this newspaper. The letters will be collected and hand-delivered to the state Capitol. Readers may also wish to contact their representatives by letter, phone or e-mail.
Legislators are urged to give it back
Anger is brewing in the state of Pennsylvania.
The spark for this anger is House Bill 1521 approved by Pennsylvania lawmakers early in the morning of July 7. The legislation drove the annual base salaries of Pennsylvania lawmakers from $69,647 to $81,050, making them the second highest paid legislators in the nation.
The increases ranged from 16 to 34 percent with legislative leaders and committee chairmen getting the largest pay hikes.
As if that wasn’t enough to raise the hackles of folks struggling with high taxes and health care costs, the legislators then skirted the law so they could collect their money now instead of waiting until Jan. 1, 2007, when the raises take effect.
Using the tactic of "unvouchered expenses," 131 of the 201 sitting House members and 27 of the 50 senators got their money in checks on Aug. 1. That group included several who had voted against the bill but chose to accept the money anyway.
The legislators who said no to the raise — including both Rep. Tom Quigley and state Sen. John Rafferty of Montgomery County and state Rep. Carole Rubley of Chester County — are getting kudos from their constituents. Legislative leaders, however, punished those who voted against the bill by taking away committee posts.
The stream of letters, phone calls and e-mail to legislators has not slowed since the July 7 vote became public.
Instead, furor has grown as more details have been revealed about the package deal legislators are getting. Lawmakers get fully paid health insurance, up to $7,800 a year for vehicles, and those who live more than 50 miles from Harrisburg get expenses of $129 per day during legislative sessions. They also get fully paid pension benefits, which went up proportionately with the new salaries.
The pay raise bill was negotiated in secret, and the vote to approve it was taken in the middle of the night, just hours after a state budget was approved — six days behind schedule — that cut benefits for human services. As one Pottstown School Board member commented: "They can’t afford to feed the hungry school children, but they can find money for their own wallets."
Among the last-minute actions that the legislators left unfinished before starting their 10-week summer vacation was a proposal to raise the minimum wage. As was pointed out in an editorial in the Delaware County Daily Times: "The average $11,000 pay hike legislators are pocketing is more than a person working at minimum wage in the Keystone State makes in a year."
Those are just a few of the reasons for taxpayers to feel betrayed.
Another reason is the poor track record demonstrated by lawmakers.
They have failed to improve the economy. Pennsylvania ranks 47th in the nation in percentage employment growth and loses more young employment prospects to other areas than any other state. Population growth is nearly stagnant with a national ranking of 48th among the 50 states.
Pennsylvania ranks 40th in percentage income growth. The average Pennsylvania earned just $38,532 last year. The state is 44th in new business starts and growth.
In public education, Pennsylvania consistently gets low marks for how public schools are funded. It is 48th in the nation for state funding of public education and at the top of the list for the reliance on local property taxes to fund schools. Reliance on local property taxes creates lopsided funding that differs from school district to school district and makes Pennsylvania among the worst states for addressing equity in school funding.
The arguments that legislators work long hours and need high salaries to keep them equal with the private sector do not hold water. Their abysmal track record in fixing the commonwealth’s problems would get them fired in the private sector. They surely wouldn’t get such hefty raises.
Pennsylvania is rich in many ways. The stirrings that led to the birth of the nation started here. The state’s natural resources fueled industry and commerce for centuries. It has a wealth of culture and natural beauty.
But the citizens are getting tired of riches wasted on potential, on decades of lobbying for tax reform, on schools struggling with an antiquated funding system and on an economy stalled by a lack of initiative and incentive.
The only category in which this legislature has managed to rise to the top is in how much lawmakers get paid.
Pennsylvania is spending more than any other state in the nation on paying its legislators. And to borrow a phrase from an old movie: We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take this anymore.
Readers are encouraged to cut out and mail to The Mercury the letter to legislators on the front page of this newspaper. The letters will be collected and hand-delivered to the state Capitol. Readers may also wish to contact their representatives by letter, phone or e-mail.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Politicians miscalculated; Voters will not forget
This is the editorial from the Sunday, July 31, 2005, edition of The Mercury, Pottstown, Pa.
Lawmakers count on voters forgetting the raise debacle
"Nothing more than a tempest in a teapot."
Those were the words of one legislative aide regarding the allegations that Democratic legislators were punished with committee demotions for voting against the recent pay raise for themselves.
The tempest that’s brewing regarding the pay raises is gaining some steam, but not enough to knock some sense into lawmakers. Pennsylvania’s tax-paying residents are angry and upset that their elected officials voted themselves a 16 percent pay raise at a time when most workers are seeing far smaller increases in their paychecks.
But the legislators, and particularly legislative leaders — who got even larger pay raises — are neither hearing nor heeding the outrage. Instead, they will be collecting their first super-sized paychecks on Monday.
In the latest revelation on the raises, it was reported that state House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese demoted 15 Democrats from their committee posts as punishment for voting against the raises. The demotions affected 12 subcommittee chairmen and three committee vice chairmen.
Michael Manzo, chief of staff to DeWeese, said, "It's nothing more than a tempest in a teapot," referring to the reports about the demotions.
Rep. Thomas F. Yewcic of Cambria County, who lost his post as chairman of the economic development subcommittee, told The Associated Press: "We were told before the pay-raise vote that if people voted against it, we would be removed. It was punishment. People who had less seniority were promoted because they voted for the pay raise."
The pay-raise bill passed July 7 by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Ed Rendell increases legislators' base pay from $69,647 to $81,050. Subcommittee chairs and committee vice chairs, who previously were paid the same rank-and-file salary, receive an additional $4,050.
DeWeese, whose salary will increase from $100,911 to $134,771 annually, did not respond on Thursday to requests from The Associated Press for comment.
Speaking for DeWeese, Manzo said Democratic leaders determined that about a dozen of the 61 Democrats who voted for the raises would receive only the base pay because they did not currently hold positions as subcommittee chairmen or committee vice chairmen. "It is unfair that those who put up that vote should be paid less than those who did not," Manzo said.
The demotion news was the latest in a long list of reports out of Harrisburg that shock and disgust tax-paying citizens of the Commonwealth.
The Associated Press also reported last week that the raise will give members of the Pennsylvania Legislature a similar boost to pensions that are already considered generous when compared with many public employee retirement systems around the country.
A rank-and-file state representative who retires this month after 20 years in the Pennsylvania Legislature would get an annual pension of up to $40,000. But thanks to the pay raise, a 20-year rank-and-file House representative who gets the 16 percent raise and retires in three years could get an annual pension of roughly $50,000, factoring in cost-of-living salary increases.
Lawmakers who chair a committee will see a 28 percent salary boost — from $69,647 to $89,155. At that salary, a 20-year veteran who retires in 2008 could get an annual pension of roughly $55,000. (Unless, of course, the committee chair voted against the pay raise, and then he or she will be demoted.)
Lawmakers and judges defend the pay raises as a way to make their salaries commensurate with those of other public officials, such as school superintendents, or private sector employees. But in the private sector, raises are often withheld if employees do a lousy job and fail to produce results.
Pennsylvania ranks in the lowest tier of states in economic growth and jobs creation and for how schools are funded and how residents are taxed. The raises give the state the dubious distinction of being number one in legislative pay and benefits.
The salary vote and the controversies surrounding it speak volumes about the quality of our legislators — or lack of it. Several movements are afoot to oust current lawmakers the next time they come up for election. But will voters remember?
Apparently the legislators don’t think so, as they will interrupt their summer vacations on Monday long enough to collect their raise.
We, however, will not forget. This newspaper will continue to publish the names and addresses of those who voted for this raise and those who voted against it from now until the next time they face election. Make sure they know where you stand.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Lawmakers count on voters forgetting the raise debacle
"Nothing more than a tempest in a teapot."
Those were the words of one legislative aide regarding the allegations that Democratic legislators were punished with committee demotions for voting against the recent pay raise for themselves.
The tempest that’s brewing regarding the pay raises is gaining some steam, but not enough to knock some sense into lawmakers. Pennsylvania’s tax-paying residents are angry and upset that their elected officials voted themselves a 16 percent pay raise at a time when most workers are seeing far smaller increases in their paychecks.
But the legislators, and particularly legislative leaders — who got even larger pay raises — are neither hearing nor heeding the outrage. Instead, they will be collecting their first super-sized paychecks on Monday.
In the latest revelation on the raises, it was reported that state House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese demoted 15 Democrats from their committee posts as punishment for voting against the raises. The demotions affected 12 subcommittee chairmen and three committee vice chairmen.
Michael Manzo, chief of staff to DeWeese, said, "It's nothing more than a tempest in a teapot," referring to the reports about the demotions.
Rep. Thomas F. Yewcic of Cambria County, who lost his post as chairman of the economic development subcommittee, told The Associated Press: "We were told before the pay-raise vote that if people voted against it, we would be removed. It was punishment. People who had less seniority were promoted because they voted for the pay raise."
The pay-raise bill passed July 7 by lawmakers and signed by Gov. Ed Rendell increases legislators' base pay from $69,647 to $81,050. Subcommittee chairs and committee vice chairs, who previously were paid the same rank-and-file salary, receive an additional $4,050.
DeWeese, whose salary will increase from $100,911 to $134,771 annually, did not respond on Thursday to requests from The Associated Press for comment.
Speaking for DeWeese, Manzo said Democratic leaders determined that about a dozen of the 61 Democrats who voted for the raises would receive only the base pay because they did not currently hold positions as subcommittee chairmen or committee vice chairmen. "It is unfair that those who put up that vote should be paid less than those who did not," Manzo said.
The demotion news was the latest in a long list of reports out of Harrisburg that shock and disgust tax-paying citizens of the Commonwealth.
The Associated Press also reported last week that the raise will give members of the Pennsylvania Legislature a similar boost to pensions that are already considered generous when compared with many public employee retirement systems around the country.
A rank-and-file state representative who retires this month after 20 years in the Pennsylvania Legislature would get an annual pension of up to $40,000. But thanks to the pay raise, a 20-year rank-and-file House representative who gets the 16 percent raise and retires in three years could get an annual pension of roughly $50,000, factoring in cost-of-living salary increases.
Lawmakers who chair a committee will see a 28 percent salary boost — from $69,647 to $89,155. At that salary, a 20-year veteran who retires in 2008 could get an annual pension of roughly $55,000. (Unless, of course, the committee chair voted against the pay raise, and then he or she will be demoted.)
Lawmakers and judges defend the pay raises as a way to make their salaries commensurate with those of other public officials, such as school superintendents, or private sector employees. But in the private sector, raises are often withheld if employees do a lousy job and fail to produce results.
Pennsylvania ranks in the lowest tier of states in economic growth and jobs creation and for how schools are funded and how residents are taxed. The raises give the state the dubious distinction of being number one in legislative pay and benefits.
The salary vote and the controversies surrounding it speak volumes about the quality of our legislators — or lack of it. Several movements are afoot to oust current lawmakers the next time they come up for election. But will voters remember?
Apparently the legislators don’t think so, as they will interrupt their summer vacations on Monday long enough to collect their raise.
We, however, will not forget. This newspaper will continue to publish the names and addresses of those who voted for this raise and those who voted against it from now until the next time they face election. Make sure they know where you stand.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Pennsylvania is No. 1 in trash, overpaid politicians
This editorial was published Sunday, July 24, in The Mercury, Pottstown, Pa.
Item: "Pa. trash imports drop, but state still No. 1"
Item: "Report: Pa. lawmakers’ payroll tops nation"
Those headlines from this past week should make every politician in Pennsylvania — from the governor to the newly-rich state Legislature — hang his or her head in shame.
Those are two areas Pennsylvania should not be ranked No. 1, especially when the state usually drops to the mid- to low-40s (out of 50 states) when it comes to education, health care, transportation, the environment and economic growth.
We can thank Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled state Legislature for both dubious distinctions.
The amount of trash imported into Pennsylvania in 2004 dropped for the third straight year because of high fuel prices, state officials said, but the Keystone state easily remained the nation’s top destination for interstate waste shipments, according to The Associated Press.
And it’s not like our state officials are doing anything to discourage New York and New Jersey from using Pennsylvania as a garbage can. The reason trash shipments are down is because companies increasingly are switching trash shipments from trucks to rail because of the high cost of fuel. And you thought there wasn’t a positive side to rising gas prices.
Turns out Pennsylvania doesn’t have direct rail service to its landfills, so we’ve been spared some of the refuse from our neighboring states.
Trash imports to Pennsylvania dropped by 446,000 tons, or about 4 percent, in 2004, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. At 10.1 million tons last year, Pennsylvania took 2.3 million more tons of out-of-state trash than the second-place state, Virginia, where trash imports increased by 1.2 million tons, or 18 percent, in 2004.
Gov. Rendell sponsored a contest last year to pick a new state motto. It appears to have been a waste of time. Pennsylvania already has a state motto: "America’s dumping ground."
While on the subject of waste, Pennsylvania’s legislative payroll is now the most expensive in the nation because of a pay raise that state lawmakers gave themselves earlier this month, according to a Harrisburg-based policy analysis group.
The state’s 253 lawmakers could earn nearly $20.5 million in base salary alone this fiscal year. According to the Pennsylvania Economy League, the base salary is enough to give the Pennsylvania Legislature the highest payroll — more than the $17 million base payroll in New York and $12 million in California.
Pennsylvania already had the largest state legislature in the nation but now the state’s beleaguered taxpayers will have to find another $20 million a year to keep their elected representatives in the luxury they’ve become accustomed to living.
The Pennsylvania Economy League report doesn’t make any conclusions on whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth from their legislators.
"It’s a decision that each voter is going to have to make for him or herself," said Karen Miller, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League.
Voters will be able to make that decision in 2006 when Gov. Rendell, the entire 203-member state House and half of the 50-member state Senate will face reelection.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Item: "Pa. trash imports drop, but state still No. 1"
Item: "Report: Pa. lawmakers’ payroll tops nation"
Those headlines from this past week should make every politician in Pennsylvania — from the governor to the newly-rich state Legislature — hang his or her head in shame.
Those are two areas Pennsylvania should not be ranked No. 1, especially when the state usually drops to the mid- to low-40s (out of 50 states) when it comes to education, health care, transportation, the environment and economic growth.
We can thank Gov. Ed Rendell, a Democrat, and the Republican-controlled state Legislature for both dubious distinctions.
The amount of trash imported into Pennsylvania in 2004 dropped for the third straight year because of high fuel prices, state officials said, but the Keystone state easily remained the nation’s top destination for interstate waste shipments, according to The Associated Press.
And it’s not like our state officials are doing anything to discourage New York and New Jersey from using Pennsylvania as a garbage can. The reason trash shipments are down is because companies increasingly are switching trash shipments from trucks to rail because of the high cost of fuel. And you thought there wasn’t a positive side to rising gas prices.
Turns out Pennsylvania doesn’t have direct rail service to its landfills, so we’ve been spared some of the refuse from our neighboring states.
Trash imports to Pennsylvania dropped by 446,000 tons, or about 4 percent, in 2004, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection. At 10.1 million tons last year, Pennsylvania took 2.3 million more tons of out-of-state trash than the second-place state, Virginia, where trash imports increased by 1.2 million tons, or 18 percent, in 2004.
Gov. Rendell sponsored a contest last year to pick a new state motto. It appears to have been a waste of time. Pennsylvania already has a state motto: "America’s dumping ground."
While on the subject of waste, Pennsylvania’s legislative payroll is now the most expensive in the nation because of a pay raise that state lawmakers gave themselves earlier this month, according to a Harrisburg-based policy analysis group.
The state’s 253 lawmakers could earn nearly $20.5 million in base salary alone this fiscal year. According to the Pennsylvania Economy League, the base salary is enough to give the Pennsylvania Legislature the highest payroll — more than the $17 million base payroll in New York and $12 million in California.
Pennsylvania already had the largest state legislature in the nation but now the state’s beleaguered taxpayers will have to find another $20 million a year to keep their elected representatives in the luxury they’ve become accustomed to living.
The Pennsylvania Economy League report doesn’t make any conclusions on whether taxpayers are getting their money’s worth from their legislators.
"It’s a decision that each voter is going to have to make for him or herself," said Karen Miller, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League.
Voters will be able to make that decision in 2006 when Gov. Rendell, the entire 203-member state House and half of the 50-member state Senate will face reelection.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Taxpayers should sue legislators who gave themselves pay raises
This editorial was published Thursday, July 21, in The Mercury, Pottstown, Pa.
When somebody confronts you on the street and steals your money or breaks into your house and runs off with your valuables, you call the police. The judicial system is designed to protect law-abiding citizens from those who are not willing to live by society’s rules.
When elected officials commit crimes, residents have two options: vote them out of office or turn to the courts for relief.
The first option is on the minds of almost every Pennsylvania taxpayer who was recently mugged by their own elected representatives. Judging from the articles, editorials and letters to the editor appearing in newspapers across the state, the great money-grab of 2005 has galvanized citizens as nothing has in recent memory.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators knew what they were doing. This was a well-planned crime.
The members of the state legislature who voted themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 34 percent a year did so in a year when none of them face reelection. The entire House membership and half of the state Senate won’t be on the ballot until 2006, but that’s 10 months away for the primary election and 16 months until the general election. The politicians are counting on the public forgetting the holdup by the time they face the voters.
Which brings us to the courts. While the way the pay raise was approved is reprehensible (a vote in the middle of the night without any public discussion of the numbers agreed to in secret by party bosses), there’s no debate that the legislators had the authority to give themselves pay raises. They can grant themselves titles of nobility and prance around in crowns and robes if they want.
But what is questionable is the scheme the politicians concocted to collect their pay raises today even though the Constitution prohibits such action.
From the Pennsylvania Constitution: Article II, Compensation, Section 8 ... No members of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.
Can the language be any clearer? The Constitution forbids members of the legislature who vote themselves a pay raise from collecting that money until their current term expires. The Constitution was written that way so politicians would have to win reelection before enjoying the spoils of a pay raise. But our esteemed legislators have decided to start collecting their ill-gotten gain right away as "unvouchered expenses."
They have made a mockery of the very Constitution they swore to uphold. A salary is not an "unvouchered expense." Maybe somebody should tip off the IRS that Pennsylvania legislators are collecting part of their salary under the table.
There have been rumblings by a few citizen activists of filing a lawsuit to stop the pay hikes. Something similar was tried in 1995, the last time the Harrisburg politicians robbed the taxpayers. Unbelievably, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t have a problem with this flagrant breach of the Constitution.
This is an issue the court needs to revisit. And we hope the current crop of justices are able to read. The problem is that the very justices who would be asked to rule on the constitutionality of the pay-raise issue are themselves getting a pay raise. If they toss out the Legislature’s vote, the judges would be rejecting their own pay raise.
The way the legislature went about handing itself more money "demeans the entire legislative and democratic process ... it’s just a cynical way to do business," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a non-partisan citizens lobby group.
A lawsuit by the citizens of Pennsylvania is the first step. Voting out every member who approved the pay raise is the next step. And if necessary, impeaching the judges who refuse to uphold the Constitution should be the third step.
Something’s rotten in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It’s becoming clear that a thorough cleansing of the ruling class in Harrisburg is the only way to eliminate the stench.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
When somebody confronts you on the street and steals your money or breaks into your house and runs off with your valuables, you call the police. The judicial system is designed to protect law-abiding citizens from those who are not willing to live by society’s rules.
When elected officials commit crimes, residents have two options: vote them out of office or turn to the courts for relief.
The first option is on the minds of almost every Pennsylvania taxpayer who was recently mugged by their own elected representatives. Judging from the articles, editorials and letters to the editor appearing in newspapers across the state, the great money-grab of 2005 has galvanized citizens as nothing has in recent memory.
Unfortunately, the perpetrators knew what they were doing. This was a well-planned crime.
The members of the state legislature who voted themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 34 percent a year did so in a year when none of them face reelection. The entire House membership and half of the state Senate won’t be on the ballot until 2006, but that’s 10 months away for the primary election and 16 months until the general election. The politicians are counting on the public forgetting the holdup by the time they face the voters.
Which brings us to the courts. While the way the pay raise was approved is reprehensible (a vote in the middle of the night without any public discussion of the numbers agreed to in secret by party bosses), there’s no debate that the legislators had the authority to give themselves pay raises. They can grant themselves titles of nobility and prance around in crowns and robes if they want.
But what is questionable is the scheme the politicians concocted to collect their pay raises today even though the Constitution prohibits such action.
From the Pennsylvania Constitution: Article II, Compensation, Section 8 ... No members of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.
Can the language be any clearer? The Constitution forbids members of the legislature who vote themselves a pay raise from collecting that money until their current term expires. The Constitution was written that way so politicians would have to win reelection before enjoying the spoils of a pay raise. But our esteemed legislators have decided to start collecting their ill-gotten gain right away as "unvouchered expenses."
They have made a mockery of the very Constitution they swore to uphold. A salary is not an "unvouchered expense." Maybe somebody should tip off the IRS that Pennsylvania legislators are collecting part of their salary under the table.
There have been rumblings by a few citizen activists of filing a lawsuit to stop the pay hikes. Something similar was tried in 1995, the last time the Harrisburg politicians robbed the taxpayers. Unbelievably, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t have a problem with this flagrant breach of the Constitution.
This is an issue the court needs to revisit. And we hope the current crop of justices are able to read. The problem is that the very justices who would be asked to rule on the constitutionality of the pay-raise issue are themselves getting a pay raise. If they toss out the Legislature’s vote, the judges would be rejecting their own pay raise.
The way the legislature went about handing itself more money "demeans the entire legislative and democratic process ... it’s just a cynical way to do business," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause Pennsylvania, a non-partisan citizens lobby group.
A lawsuit by the citizens of Pennsylvania is the first step. Voting out every member who approved the pay raise is the next step. And if necessary, impeaching the judges who refuse to uphold the Constitution should be the third step.
Something’s rotten in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It’s becoming clear that a thorough cleansing of the ruling class in Harrisburg is the only way to eliminate the stench.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Monday, July 18, 2005
Voters must not forget legislative money-grab
The editorial below was published Sunday, July 17, 2005, in The Mercury, Pottstown, Pa. It lists all the legislators in The Mercury's coverage area and how they voted on the pay raise issue. The editorial ran with a cartoon of a couple in bed who wake up to find a burglar going through their belongings in the middle of the night. The burglar smiles and tells the couple not to worry. He's not a thief, he's their local state legislator.
Thieves in the night.
That description embodies a growing consensus among Pennsylvania taxpayers that the action by state legislators to raise their own salaries between 16 and 34 percent last week was outright thievery.
For those who may have missed the details, state lawmakers passed House Bill 1521 in the early hours of the morning on Thursday, July 7. The legislation drove the annual base salaries of Pennsylvania lawmakers from $69,647 to $81,050, making them the second-highest paid legislators in the nation. The House voted 119-79 and the Senate voted 27-23.
Committee chairmen’s pay will increase by 28 percent to $89,155; committee vice chairmen to $85,103. Majority and minority leaders’ pay increased by 24 percent to $124,788, and pay for the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tem jumped 34 percent to $145,553.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who signed and defended the bill, said he would forgo his $21,000 raise if reelected next year.
The bill will go into effect Dec. 1, 2006. However, lawmakers have figured out a way to collect their raises right away by authorizing the payment of "unvouchered expenses" equal to the amount of the raises until the new salary levels take effect.
In addition, Pennsylvania lawmakers receive fully paid health insurance, a fully paid pension and as much as $7,800 a year for vehicle expenses. Those who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol get $129 a day in travel expenses.
Among area legislators, state Sens. Michael O’Pake (D-11th) and Robert Thompson (R-19th) voted yes; state Sens. John Rafferty (R-44th) and Robert Wonderling (R-24th) voted no.
State Reps. Tim Hennessey (R-26th), Dennis Leh (R-130th), Raymond Bunt (R-147th), Jacqueline Crahalla (R-150th), and Curt Schroder (R-155th) voted yes.
State Reps. Douglass Reichley (R-134th), Tom Quigley (R-146th), and Carole Rubley (R-157th) voted no.
When asked about their votes, some said they thought it was justified. Other claimed the raise was long overdue.
Think again.
In private industry, pay raises are tied to performance. When did failing to solve the problems of a state ranked near the bottom in every economic development and educational spending criteria match up with stellar performance?
And overdue? How many workers in the private sector have enjoyed automatic cost-of-living raises every year?
Crahalla said the raise was justified for some legislators who, like herself, pour many hours into their job. She also said she voted yes because her husband, who is a local district judge, deserves a raise, and that was part of the package.
Although O’Pake, voted in favor of the bill, Bill Evans, his executive assistant, said he planned to give the money to charity. (Taxpayers may have preferred it stay in their pockets, and they give it to the charity of their choice.)
Although voting against the bill, Reichley said his decision was a "personal opinion" and stood up for the legislators who favored the pay raise.
"I have no contrary opinion to those who voted for it. The criticism is not justified," Reichley said. "If people had a better sense of what goes into the job requirements, then they might have a different opinion on this issue."
The opinions on the issue arise from the fact that few taxpayers have the luxury of deciding how much they get paid.
Those same taxpayers are struggling to pay taxes in a system that desperately needs an overhaul. While they struggle with a lack of growth in the state’s economy and a graying population with a growing number on fixed incomes, they question the performance of the legislators in correcting these ills.
As an answer, lawmakers give themselves a raise.
Newspapers throughout the state are reminding voters that if they don’t have a say in how much legislators are paid, they do have a say in who gets the money.
Remember the names of those who voted for this pay raise and then decide at election time if they’re worth the money.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Thieves in the night.
That description embodies a growing consensus among Pennsylvania taxpayers that the action by state legislators to raise their own salaries between 16 and 34 percent last week was outright thievery.
For those who may have missed the details, state lawmakers passed House Bill 1521 in the early hours of the morning on Thursday, July 7. The legislation drove the annual base salaries of Pennsylvania lawmakers from $69,647 to $81,050, making them the second-highest paid legislators in the nation. The House voted 119-79 and the Senate voted 27-23.
Committee chairmen’s pay will increase by 28 percent to $89,155; committee vice chairmen to $85,103. Majority and minority leaders’ pay increased by 24 percent to $124,788, and pay for the Speaker of the House and Senate Pro Tem jumped 34 percent to $145,553.
Gov. Ed Rendell, who signed and defended the bill, said he would forgo his $21,000 raise if reelected next year.
The bill will go into effect Dec. 1, 2006. However, lawmakers have figured out a way to collect their raises right away by authorizing the payment of "unvouchered expenses" equal to the amount of the raises until the new salary levels take effect.
In addition, Pennsylvania lawmakers receive fully paid health insurance, a fully paid pension and as much as $7,800 a year for vehicle expenses. Those who live more than 50 miles from the Capitol get $129 a day in travel expenses.
Among area legislators, state Sens. Michael O’Pake (D-11th) and Robert Thompson (R-19th) voted yes; state Sens. John Rafferty (R-44th) and Robert Wonderling (R-24th) voted no.
State Reps. Tim Hennessey (R-26th), Dennis Leh (R-130th), Raymond Bunt (R-147th), Jacqueline Crahalla (R-150th), and Curt Schroder (R-155th) voted yes.
State Reps. Douglass Reichley (R-134th), Tom Quigley (R-146th), and Carole Rubley (R-157th) voted no.
When asked about their votes, some said they thought it was justified. Other claimed the raise was long overdue.
Think again.
In private industry, pay raises are tied to performance. When did failing to solve the problems of a state ranked near the bottom in every economic development and educational spending criteria match up with stellar performance?
And overdue? How many workers in the private sector have enjoyed automatic cost-of-living raises every year?
Crahalla said the raise was justified for some legislators who, like herself, pour many hours into their job. She also said she voted yes because her husband, who is a local district judge, deserves a raise, and that was part of the package.
Although O’Pake, voted in favor of the bill, Bill Evans, his executive assistant, said he planned to give the money to charity. (Taxpayers may have preferred it stay in their pockets, and they give it to the charity of their choice.)
Although voting against the bill, Reichley said his decision was a "personal opinion" and stood up for the legislators who favored the pay raise.
"I have no contrary opinion to those who voted for it. The criticism is not justified," Reichley said. "If people had a better sense of what goes into the job requirements, then they might have a different opinion on this issue."
The opinions on the issue arise from the fact that few taxpayers have the luxury of deciding how much they get paid.
Those same taxpayers are struggling to pay taxes in a system that desperately needs an overhaul. While they struggle with a lack of growth in the state’s economy and a graying population with a growing number on fixed incomes, they question the performance of the legislators in correcting these ills.
As an answer, lawmakers give themselves a raise.
Newspapers throughout the state are reminding voters that if they don’t have a say in how much legislators are paid, they do have a say in who gets the money.
Remember the names of those who voted for this pay raise and then decide at election time if they’re worth the money.
Copyright 2005 The Mercury
Stop the presses! The New York Times admits bias
Dan Rather tried to swing the 2004 presidential election to John Kerry using faked memos about President Bush's National Guard service. Rather paid the price for his failed scheme when he was forced out as anchor of the "CBS Evening News" and the show where he broke the memo story — "60 Minutes II" — was canceled.
The New York Times tried something similar. Remember the front-page stories on the Iraqi weapons depot that was looted supposedly while U.S. forces were guarding it? That "scoop" on the eve of the election was part of a campaign of biased reporting at the Times to tip the election to Kerry. It failed, but nobody lost their job at the New York Times as a result of the "missing weapons" hoax. For the longest time, it looked like the newspaper would get away with spewing its leftist propaganda.
Should it matter to you what happens at the New York Times? Yes. The New York Times and the radical left have formed an unholy alliance. The newspaper legitimizes the left's extremist agenda and gives the Democratic Party a platform to contaminate the nation's political system.
The Times is an anti-Republican propaganda machine in the guise of an objective news source. The influence doesn't stop with the New York Times' declining readership base. The Times' parent company owns many other newspapers across the country and those papers use the same stories written by New York Times' reporters, exposing millions of Americans to its biased reporting.
Eight months after the phony weapons story was published (and obediently repeated by other newspapers and the evening news broadcasts on all three major networks), a remarkable report was released detailing a pattern of biased reporting at the New York Times. The report never made the front-page of the Times. But if you do a little bit of detective work, you can track it down on the Internet.
On the surface, the internal memo on the "newsroom culture" at the New York Times appears innocuous. But read the report carefully, get past the buzzwords and you come away with a startling conclusion. The New York Times' own reporters and editors acknowledge the newspaper has shown favoritism toward radical liberal causes and the Democratic politicians behind them.
The newspaper's Credibility Committee (is that a joke?) consisted of 19 veteran news people at the paper who spent eight months investigating a variety of concerns about the newspaper. The committee wants the newspaper's top brass to implement changes to address "an impression of one-sidedness" in the newspaper's pages. "The goal is not only to avoid appearing one-sided but also to find ways to present more contrarian and unexpected viewpoints in our news pages."
In other words, forget the Times' motto of "All the News That's Fit to Print." It's more like "What Our Radical Liberal Readers Want to Hear Today." A bad habit at the New York Times (and many other big city liberal newspapers) is inserting opinion into news stories and running opinion pieces on the front page and trying to pass them off as objective news stories.
Another suggestion the committee made is to hold regular seminars so reporters can learn how to cover "emotionally charged" topics in a "neutral way." If a reporter has gotten to the New York Times and doesn't know how to remain objective, there's a serious problem with the newspaper's hiring practices. The Credibility Committee wants the top editors to routinely look for "lapses that look like favoritism" in the pages of the New York Times and share those blunders with the rest of the staff.
The best line from the committee's report is: "Our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions." By "unorthodox" and "contrarian," the Times staffers are referring to such unusual persons as Republicans, conservatives, moderate Democrats, people who believe in God and attend a church or synagogue, heterosexuals and people who support U.S. troops in a time of war.
The smoking gun comes on page 14 of the 16-page report when the committee says, "In part because the Time's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic."
The fact that the New York Times hasn't endorsed a Republican president since Abraham Lincoln should be a tip-off that the editorial pages lean radical left, but the key term in that sentence is "monolithic." What the Credibility Committee is saying is that the newspaper lacks credibility because its news coverage is just as biased as its editorial page.
The committee wants management to bring some "diversity" to the newsroom, but the committee isn't talking about hiring more minority reporters and editors. For the insular New York Times, "diversity" can be achieved by recruiting what the committee puts it as "talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths."
In other words, everybody working at the New York Times hates the military, doesn't believe in God, came from a snobby Ivy League school and is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Do you suppose that fact alone may have something to do with how biased the news is inside the pages of the New York Times?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The New York Times tried something similar. Remember the front-page stories on the Iraqi weapons depot that was looted supposedly while U.S. forces were guarding it? That "scoop" on the eve of the election was part of a campaign of biased reporting at the Times to tip the election to Kerry. It failed, but nobody lost their job at the New York Times as a result of the "missing weapons" hoax. For the longest time, it looked like the newspaper would get away with spewing its leftist propaganda.
Should it matter to you what happens at the New York Times? Yes. The New York Times and the radical left have formed an unholy alliance. The newspaper legitimizes the left's extremist agenda and gives the Democratic Party a platform to contaminate the nation's political system.
The Times is an anti-Republican propaganda machine in the guise of an objective news source. The influence doesn't stop with the New York Times' declining readership base. The Times' parent company owns many other newspapers across the country and those papers use the same stories written by New York Times' reporters, exposing millions of Americans to its biased reporting.
Eight months after the phony weapons story was published (and obediently repeated by other newspapers and the evening news broadcasts on all three major networks), a remarkable report was released detailing a pattern of biased reporting at the New York Times. The report never made the front-page of the Times. But if you do a little bit of detective work, you can track it down on the Internet.
On the surface, the internal memo on the "newsroom culture" at the New York Times appears innocuous. But read the report carefully, get past the buzzwords and you come away with a startling conclusion. The New York Times' own reporters and editors acknowledge the newspaper has shown favoritism toward radical liberal causes and the Democratic politicians behind them.
The newspaper's Credibility Committee (is that a joke?) consisted of 19 veteran news people at the paper who spent eight months investigating a variety of concerns about the newspaper. The committee wants the newspaper's top brass to implement changes to address "an impression of one-sidedness" in the newspaper's pages. "The goal is not only to avoid appearing one-sided but also to find ways to present more contrarian and unexpected viewpoints in our news pages."
In other words, forget the Times' motto of "All the News That's Fit to Print." It's more like "What Our Radical Liberal Readers Want to Hear Today." A bad habit at the New York Times (and many other big city liberal newspapers) is inserting opinion into news stories and running opinion pieces on the front page and trying to pass them off as objective news stories.
Another suggestion the committee made is to hold regular seminars so reporters can learn how to cover "emotionally charged" topics in a "neutral way." If a reporter has gotten to the New York Times and doesn't know how to remain objective, there's a serious problem with the newspaper's hiring practices. The Credibility Committee wants the top editors to routinely look for "lapses that look like favoritism" in the pages of the New York Times and share those blunders with the rest of the staff.
The best line from the committee's report is: "Our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions." By "unorthodox" and "contrarian," the Times staffers are referring to such unusual persons as Republicans, conservatives, moderate Democrats, people who believe in God and attend a church or synagogue, heterosexuals and people who support U.S. troops in a time of war.
The smoking gun comes on page 14 of the 16-page report when the committee says, "In part because the Time's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic."
The fact that the New York Times hasn't endorsed a Republican president since Abraham Lincoln should be a tip-off that the editorial pages lean radical left, but the key term in that sentence is "monolithic." What the Credibility Committee is saying is that the newspaper lacks credibility because its news coverage is just as biased as its editorial page.
The committee wants management to bring some "diversity" to the newsroom, but the committee isn't talking about hiring more minority reporters and editors. For the insular New York Times, "diversity" can be achieved by recruiting what the committee puts it as "talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths."
In other words, everybody working at the New York Times hates the military, doesn't believe in God, came from a snobby Ivy League school and is a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Do you suppose that fact alone may have something to do with how biased the news is inside the pages of the New York Times?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, July 14, 2005
Repeal the Legislative Pay Increase
I became aware Thursday of a campaign by Gene Stilp to organize a grass-roots effort by Pennsylvania taxpayers to repeal the money grab by our conniving state legislators and the governor, who signed the pay raise bill.
Gene Stilp is a Harrisburg-area resident who sued the state, governor and treasurer in 1995, the last time the politicos gave themselves a big fat pay raise. (That's not counting the automatic annual cost-of-living increases they voted themselves).
Mr. Stilp told The Associated Press he intends to sue again to overturn the latest travesty. The legislators are using the same sneaky tactic they invented in 1995 to bypass the state Constitution, which prohibits them from collecting the self-approved raise right away.
The Constitution says the scoundrels who gave themselves pay raises of 16 to 34 percent will have to wait until December 2006 to start collecting. But these unscrupulous "public servants" have decided to circumvent the Constitution by pretending that their pay hikes are "unvouchered expenses" so they can sneak the money into their pockets a year earlier.
Mr. Stilp's lawsuit was thrown out by a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel in 1997, but the court never ruled on the merits of the case. The fact that judges are also getting pay raises don't bode well, but maybe there are a few honest elected officials left in Pennsylvania and we can put a stop to this unconstitutional theft of taxpayer money and flagrant betrayal of the public trust by our so-called lawmakers.
Mr. Stilp has set up a Web site to help organize opposition to the highway robbery perpetrated on unsuspecting Pennsylvania taxpayers.
Visit the Web site at http://www.genestilp.blogspot.com to learn more about the campaign to expose these charlatans. And by all means, spread to the word to every victim of this crime: your relatives, friends, neighbors and co-workers in Pennsylvania.
And write to your state senator and representative and tell them there are too many witnesses to their crime to get away with it. Tell them to enjoy their pay raise for the next year because you will vote them out of office in 2006.
Gene Stilp is a Harrisburg-area resident who sued the state, governor and treasurer in 1995, the last time the politicos gave themselves a big fat pay raise. (That's not counting the automatic annual cost-of-living increases they voted themselves).
Mr. Stilp told The Associated Press he intends to sue again to overturn the latest travesty. The legislators are using the same sneaky tactic they invented in 1995 to bypass the state Constitution, which prohibits them from collecting the self-approved raise right away.
The Constitution says the scoundrels who gave themselves pay raises of 16 to 34 percent will have to wait until December 2006 to start collecting. But these unscrupulous "public servants" have decided to circumvent the Constitution by pretending that their pay hikes are "unvouchered expenses" so they can sneak the money into their pockets a year earlier.
Mr. Stilp's lawsuit was thrown out by a three-judge Commonwealth Court panel in 1997, but the court never ruled on the merits of the case. The fact that judges are also getting pay raises don't bode well, but maybe there are a few honest elected officials left in Pennsylvania and we can put a stop to this unconstitutional theft of taxpayer money and flagrant betrayal of the public trust by our so-called lawmakers.
Mr. Stilp has set up a Web site to help organize opposition to the highway robbery perpetrated on unsuspecting Pennsylvania taxpayers.
Visit the Web site at http://www.genestilp.blogspot.com to learn more about the campaign to expose these charlatans. And by all means, spread to the word to every victim of this crime: your relatives, friends, neighbors and co-workers in Pennsylvania.
And write to your state senator and representative and tell them there are too many witnesses to their crime to get away with it. Tell them to enjoy their pay raise for the next year because you will vote them out of office in 2006.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Why is Fast Eddie in such a hurry to pardon so many criminals?
If Dale Carnegie hadn’t come up with it first, an appropriate title for a book about Gov. Ed Rendell might be "How to Win Friends and Influence People." That pretty much sums up Rendell’s life. Rendell is the consummate politician. He tries to make people happy and he enjoys influence.
But the governor appears to be trying too hard to make friends from one particular group of Pennsylvanians — convicted criminals.
According to a recent review of clemency records by The Associated Press, Rendell is on a pace to set a new record for the number of criminals pardoned by a Pennsylvania governor.
Rendell, a Democrat, has granted 231 pardons and denied 31 requests during 2½ years in office, the vast majority for minor offenses, the AP reports.
Republican Tom Ridge, who campaigned aggressively to limit the clemency process, granted 270 applications and rejected 140 during nearly seven years in office, according to the AP.
If re-elected in 2006 and he maintains his current pace, Rendell would issue more pardons than any other modern governor, Democrat or Republican, who has served two terms.
Milton J. Shapp, a Democrat who served from 1971 to 1979 issued 475 pardons, and commuted 251 life sentences.
Dick Thornburgh, a Republican who served from 1979 to 1987 issued 61 pardons, and commuted 7 life sentences.
Robert P. Casey, a Democrat who served from 1987 to 1995 issued 302 pardons and commuted 27 life sentences.
In addition to the 231 pardons he’s issued so far, Rendell has another 133 appeals pending, according to the Pennsylvania Pardons Board.
The problem with being so quick to issue pardons is that pardons restore legal rights and privileges lost upon conviction, such as the right to vote, to purchase and carry a gun and employment rights.
The Associated Press discovered that half of Rendell's pardons involved theft-related offenses and one-fifth were granted to those convicted of drug offenses or drunken-driving. The most serious crimes among the governor’s pardons include aggravated assault, statutory rape, prison escape and arson.
Is the governor thinking of the safety and welfare of the majority of law-abiding citizens when he makes it easier for convicted criminals to acquire guns?
Rendell needs to make a better case to the people of Pennsylvania why he’s on a record pace to absolve criminals.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
But the governor appears to be trying too hard to make friends from one particular group of Pennsylvanians — convicted criminals.
According to a recent review of clemency records by The Associated Press, Rendell is on a pace to set a new record for the number of criminals pardoned by a Pennsylvania governor.
Rendell, a Democrat, has granted 231 pardons and denied 31 requests during 2½ years in office, the vast majority for minor offenses, the AP reports.
Republican Tom Ridge, who campaigned aggressively to limit the clemency process, granted 270 applications and rejected 140 during nearly seven years in office, according to the AP.
If re-elected in 2006 and he maintains his current pace, Rendell would issue more pardons than any other modern governor, Democrat or Republican, who has served two terms.
Milton J. Shapp, a Democrat who served from 1971 to 1979 issued 475 pardons, and commuted 251 life sentences.
Dick Thornburgh, a Republican who served from 1979 to 1987 issued 61 pardons, and commuted 7 life sentences.
Robert P. Casey, a Democrat who served from 1987 to 1995 issued 302 pardons and commuted 27 life sentences.
In addition to the 231 pardons he’s issued so far, Rendell has another 133 appeals pending, according to the Pennsylvania Pardons Board.
The problem with being so quick to issue pardons is that pardons restore legal rights and privileges lost upon conviction, such as the right to vote, to purchase and carry a gun and employment rights.
The Associated Press discovered that half of Rendell's pardons involved theft-related offenses and one-fifth were granted to those convicted of drug offenses or drunken-driving. The most serious crimes among the governor’s pardons include aggravated assault, statutory rape, prison escape and arson.
Is the governor thinking of the safety and welfare of the majority of law-abiding citizens when he makes it easier for convicted criminals to acquire guns?
Rendell needs to make a better case to the people of Pennsylvania why he’s on a record pace to absolve criminals.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Rendell, cronies do not deserve another pay hike
Seven months after abandoning a plan to raise their own salaries by nearly 20 percent, Gov. Ed Rendell and the Republican-controlled state Legislature are making noises about — you guessed it — hiking their pay.
Rendell and the Legislature left so much undone in the waning days of 2004, but one thing they desperately tried to pass was a pay raise for themselves. This would have been a pay hike on top of the automatic 5.2 percent cost-of-living increase the Legislature previously approved for itself, ensuring that the most bloated legislature in the country also remains one of the highest paid.
Since 1995, the last time Harrisburg politicians had the courage to debate their salaries publicly, the lawmakers passed legislation that gives them automatic pay raises each year based on the cost-of-living index in the Philadelphia region (which is a lot higher than the rest of the state).
So while most workers received 1.5 percent to 3 percent cost-of-living adjustments, our voracious public servants saw their pay rise much higher than the rate of inflation.
Another trick the politicians like to play is to tie their salaries to those of state judges or cabinet officers so they can piggyback their salaries and watch them go higher each time another state officials gets a raise.
Fresh off the fiasco of Act 72, unable to solve the state's growing health-care crisis and unwilling to deal with the issue of chronic underfunding of public schools, our esteemed lawmakers have the nerve to bring up the topic of lining their own pockets again.
Rendell's latest proposal — to tie an increase in the state's minimum wage to pay raises for politicians — is the height of hypocrisy. It's bad enough that so many of the state's working poor struggle for a meager existence. Don't use them as a stepping stone to boost your own pay, governor.
At $155,572 a year, Rendell already makes more than 3.5 times the average salary of a Pennsylvania worker ($42,000) and Rendell gets to live rent-free in a mansion paid for by the taxpayers. He also gets to drive around in a state car (which has been clocked at 100 mph on state highways) and judging from the governor's growing waistline, is treated to free food everywhere he goes.
Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll, who doesn't appear to have much to do, makes $130,679 and gets to live in a state-owned home. State Treasurer Bob Casey, who abandoned his job three months into it so he could run for U.S. Senator, makes $129,436.
The 203 state House members and 50 Senators make $69,647 for a part-time job and enjoy numerous perks, including a top-of-the-line health insurance package paid by taxpayers, a $127 daily meal allowance and a state car or $650 per month for a privately leased vehicle, plus a pension. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate each earn $108,722 a year.
Rendell and the rest of the career politicians in Harrisburg should be grateful they're able to cash their current hefty paychecks. If they want to make more money, they're welcome to return to the private sector.
Based on their dismal job performance over the past two years, Rendell and the Legislature should be ashamed to even mention pay hikes. They should consider pay cuts instead.
Rendell and the Legislature left so much undone in the waning days of 2004, but one thing they desperately tried to pass was a pay raise for themselves. This would have been a pay hike on top of the automatic 5.2 percent cost-of-living increase the Legislature previously approved for itself, ensuring that the most bloated legislature in the country also remains one of the highest paid.
Since 1995, the last time Harrisburg politicians had the courage to debate their salaries publicly, the lawmakers passed legislation that gives them automatic pay raises each year based on the cost-of-living index in the Philadelphia region (which is a lot higher than the rest of the state).
So while most workers received 1.5 percent to 3 percent cost-of-living adjustments, our voracious public servants saw their pay rise much higher than the rate of inflation.
Another trick the politicians like to play is to tie their salaries to those of state judges or cabinet officers so they can piggyback their salaries and watch them go higher each time another state officials gets a raise.
Fresh off the fiasco of Act 72, unable to solve the state's growing health-care crisis and unwilling to deal with the issue of chronic underfunding of public schools, our esteemed lawmakers have the nerve to bring up the topic of lining their own pockets again.
Rendell's latest proposal — to tie an increase in the state's minimum wage to pay raises for politicians — is the height of hypocrisy. It's bad enough that so many of the state's working poor struggle for a meager existence. Don't use them as a stepping stone to boost your own pay, governor.
At $155,572 a year, Rendell already makes more than 3.5 times the average salary of a Pennsylvania worker ($42,000) and Rendell gets to live rent-free in a mansion paid for by the taxpayers. He also gets to drive around in a state car (which has been clocked at 100 mph on state highways) and judging from the governor's growing waistline, is treated to free food everywhere he goes.
Lt. Gov. Catherine Baker Knoll, who doesn't appear to have much to do, makes $130,679 and gets to live in a state-owned home. State Treasurer Bob Casey, who abandoned his job three months into it so he could run for U.S. Senator, makes $129,436.
The 203 state House members and 50 Senators make $69,647 for a part-time job and enjoy numerous perks, including a top-of-the-line health insurance package paid by taxpayers, a $127 daily meal allowance and a state car or $650 per month for a privately leased vehicle, plus a pension. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate each earn $108,722 a year.
Rendell and the rest of the career politicians in Harrisburg should be grateful they're able to cash their current hefty paychecks. If they want to make more money, they're welcome to return to the private sector.
Based on their dismal job performance over the past two years, Rendell and the Legislature should be ashamed to even mention pay hikes. They should consider pay cuts instead.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Liberal media excuses Dick Durbin's Nazi rhetoric
Are there any consequences to a Democrat spewing out the most ridiculous, hate-filled rhetoric imaginable? The double standard is evident in the case of U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat from Illinois, who compared U.S. solders guarding terrorists in Guantanamo to Nazis.
Daffy Durbin also accused the United States government of operating a Soviet-style "Gulag" in the military detention center on Cuba. He also compared treatment of terrorists at the hands of U.S. soldiers to the slaughter of 2 million Cambodians by Pol Pot's Communist regime.
With Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean ranting about "white Christians" and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calling President Bush "dumb" it should come as no surprise that demoralized Democrats would escalate the name-calling to new levels.
Durbin’s Nazi and Gulag and Killing Fields references are so over the top, so far from any semblance of political criticism, that you have to wonder if we shouldn’t require mental health screening as a prerequisite to running for public office.
Is there anything a Democrat can say publicly that crosses the boundary of decency, taste and decorum? How far will the liberal media go to excuse the behavior of such irresponsible people?
While the liberal media is busy these days with its witch-hunt against John Bolton ("he was mean to coworkers") Tom Delay (questionable financial dealings) and the impeach George Bush movement by the lunatic left, it can’t seem to find much air time to cover the Durbin travesty.
Perhaps Sen. Durbin should personally inspect the Guantanamo facility, with its air conditioned cells, recreation yards, prayer areas, library. Perhaps he would like to sample some of the catered meals provided three times a day to the terrorists who would like nothing more than to kill every member of Durbin’s family if turned loose.
Is Durbin playing with a full deck? Is his rhetoric part of a planned campaign at the highest echelons of the Democratic Party to undermine the U.S. war effort? Those are the questions the media should be asking and pursuing.
For the record, the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during World War II and were responsible for another 3 million deaths. For the record, the Communists in Cambodia murdered 2 million people, mostly women and children. For the record, the Soviet Union imprisoned, starved and murdered millions of its own citizens in the Gulags.
This kind of mass murder has nothing remotely to do with the capture and imprisonment of 600 enemy combatants taken off the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq while attempting to kill American solders.
Durbin may be stupid or insane or a little bit of both. But where is the condemnation from his fellow Democrats? Does he speak for the Democratic Party? Why hasn’t the Senate censured Durbin for such inappropriate remarks?
Where are the liberal talking heads on CNN and ABC and MSNBC or the left-wing scribes at the New York Times? Why aren’t they forcing Durbin to explain exactly what he meant by his incendiary comments?
Durbin stood by his remarks for days despite an outcry from constituents, military families and other senators. Then Durbin issued a message of "regret" on his Web site, still refusing to apologize for the comments, but regretting that so many people were upset by them.
Finally, Durbin started issuing half-hearted apologies, but they’ve all included the word "if" as in "if you took what I sad the wrong way, so sorry." That’s not good enough. Durbin has insulted every American in uniform.
He was given our enemies propaganda to use to recruit more terrorists in the global campaign to destroy the U.S. Durbin is the new poster boy for Al-Jazeera, the same Islamic propaganda machine that gleefully televised images of American hostages being beheaded by terrorists.
It’s one thing to oppose the war in Iraq or criticize the Bush administration’s handling of the war. Making comparisons of the United States to three of the most brutal regimes in the history of the world goes beyond the boundaries of fair criticism.
The Senate should impeach Durbin for his treacherous comments and his treasonous efforts to undermine the U.S. war effort.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Daffy Durbin also accused the United States government of operating a Soviet-style "Gulag" in the military detention center on Cuba. He also compared treatment of terrorists at the hands of U.S. soldiers to the slaughter of 2 million Cambodians by Pol Pot's Communist regime.
With Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean ranting about "white Christians" and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid calling President Bush "dumb" it should come as no surprise that demoralized Democrats would escalate the name-calling to new levels.
Durbin’s Nazi and Gulag and Killing Fields references are so over the top, so far from any semblance of political criticism, that you have to wonder if we shouldn’t require mental health screening as a prerequisite to running for public office.
Is there anything a Democrat can say publicly that crosses the boundary of decency, taste and decorum? How far will the liberal media go to excuse the behavior of such irresponsible people?
While the liberal media is busy these days with its witch-hunt against John Bolton ("he was mean to coworkers") Tom Delay (questionable financial dealings) and the impeach George Bush movement by the lunatic left, it can’t seem to find much air time to cover the Durbin travesty.
Perhaps Sen. Durbin should personally inspect the Guantanamo facility, with its air conditioned cells, recreation yards, prayer areas, library. Perhaps he would like to sample some of the catered meals provided three times a day to the terrorists who would like nothing more than to kill every member of Durbin’s family if turned loose.
Is Durbin playing with a full deck? Is his rhetoric part of a planned campaign at the highest echelons of the Democratic Party to undermine the U.S. war effort? Those are the questions the media should be asking and pursuing.
For the record, the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during World War II and were responsible for another 3 million deaths. For the record, the Communists in Cambodia murdered 2 million people, mostly women and children. For the record, the Soviet Union imprisoned, starved and murdered millions of its own citizens in the Gulags.
This kind of mass murder has nothing remotely to do with the capture and imprisonment of 600 enemy combatants taken off the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq while attempting to kill American solders.
Durbin may be stupid or insane or a little bit of both. But where is the condemnation from his fellow Democrats? Does he speak for the Democratic Party? Why hasn’t the Senate censured Durbin for such inappropriate remarks?
Where are the liberal talking heads on CNN and ABC and MSNBC or the left-wing scribes at the New York Times? Why aren’t they forcing Durbin to explain exactly what he meant by his incendiary comments?
Durbin stood by his remarks for days despite an outcry from constituents, military families and other senators. Then Durbin issued a message of "regret" on his Web site, still refusing to apologize for the comments, but regretting that so many people were upset by them.
Finally, Durbin started issuing half-hearted apologies, but they’ve all included the word "if" as in "if you took what I sad the wrong way, so sorry." That’s not good enough. Durbin has insulted every American in uniform.
He was given our enemies propaganda to use to recruit more terrorists in the global campaign to destroy the U.S. Durbin is the new poster boy for Al-Jazeera, the same Islamic propaganda machine that gleefully televised images of American hostages being beheaded by terrorists.
It’s one thing to oppose the war in Iraq or criticize the Bush administration’s handling of the war. Making comparisons of the United States to three of the most brutal regimes in the history of the world goes beyond the boundaries of fair criticism.
The Senate should impeach Durbin for his treacherous comments and his treasonous efforts to undermine the U.S. war effort.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Saving the Supreme Court from itself
"The Court, in addition to the proper use of its judicial functions, has improperly set itself up as a third house of Congress — a super-legislature, as one of the justices has called it — reading into the Constitution words and implications which are not there, and which were never intended to be there. We have therefore reached a point as a nation when we must take action to save the Constitution from the Court and the Court from itself. We must find a way to take an appeal from the Supreme Court to the Constitution itself. We want a Supreme Court which will do justice under the Constitution and not over it. In our courts we want a government of laws and not of men."
Care to venture a guess who made the above remarks? You’re probably thinking it was a conservative commentator rallying troops for the pending battle to control the Supreme Court. Sorry. Not even close.
Those words were spoken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a March 9, 1937, "fireside chat" on the radio as he attempted to rally Americans to support his plan to expand the membership of the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices who were declaring major portions of Roosevelt’s New Deal as unconstitutional.
The Constitution doesn’t specify the number of justices who sit on the court. Congress originally decided the court should consist of six justices. It wasn’t until 1869 that the court reached nine members. What is the ideal number of judges on the court? It’s an interesting debate. How is it that five people can say they see a "right" to abortion in the Constitution but four others can’t find that same language, but it becomes the law of the land?
Why trust the judgment of five people? Why not have 17 Supreme Court members with a majority of nine needed to rule on Constitutional questions? If nine people came to the same conclusion, wouldn’t that be more reassuring than just five?
Roosevelt’s proposal was to have Congress pass legislation allowing the president to appoint new justices for every justice who stayed on the court past the age of 70, up to a total of six new justices. Had he gotten his way, Roosevelt would have had 14 justices on the court. And by appointing six liberals, Roosevelt would have gotten his way on the New Deal.
Roosevelt’s attempt at "court packing" didn’t work. Americans don’t like change. The sitting Supreme Court justices at the time fought against it. After all, who wants to share power?
Something has to be done to bring some balance back to Supreme Court, which has run amuck in the past 50 years, finding bogus justification for social reform that is not included in the Constitution. Just as Roosevelt complained in 1937, today’s court — at least the four liberal judges who serve on it — considers itself a super-legislature, able to rule on matters such as abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage and campaign financing reform.
In his best-selling book "Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," constitutional lawyer Mark R. Levin argues for term limits as a way to rein the runaway judiciary. Levin makes a convincing case, noting in his book that associate justices of the Supreme Court serve an average of 17 years while 11 justices served 30 years or more. Can you imagine a president serving that long? Of course, there are no term limits for Congress, so you have many members serving for decades or in the case of Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, about a century.
"Perhaps Supreme Court justices should be appointed to fixed, staggered terms of 12 years, with three years intervening between terms," Levin argues. I would go one step further. Lower-court judges face mandatory retirement (usually at age 70). So why allow Supreme Court justices to serve into their 80s or 90s? I’d like to see a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Supreme Court justices.
Levin also makes one of the most daring proposals to curb judicial activism. He would like to see a Constitutional amendment establishing a congressional veto over Supreme Court decisions, an extension of the power Congress now has to override presidential veto of legislation.
"The framers worried that a president might amass too much authority. Today, the problem is an oligarchical Court, not a presidential monarchy, supplanting the constitutional authority of the other branches," Levin writes in his book.
Under Levin’s plan, a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate could override a Supreme Court decision. Imagine that. Elected representatives of the people actually getting to decide important issues. Of course, it will never happen. The people getting a say in what government does? The Supreme Court will undoubtedly rule it unconstitutional.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Care to venture a guess who made the above remarks? You’re probably thinking it was a conservative commentator rallying troops for the pending battle to control the Supreme Court. Sorry. Not even close.
Those words were spoken by Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a March 9, 1937, "fireside chat" on the radio as he attempted to rally Americans to support his plan to expand the membership of the Supreme Court beyond the nine justices who were declaring major portions of Roosevelt’s New Deal as unconstitutional.
The Constitution doesn’t specify the number of justices who sit on the court. Congress originally decided the court should consist of six justices. It wasn’t until 1869 that the court reached nine members. What is the ideal number of judges on the court? It’s an interesting debate. How is it that five people can say they see a "right" to abortion in the Constitution but four others can’t find that same language, but it becomes the law of the land?
Why trust the judgment of five people? Why not have 17 Supreme Court members with a majority of nine needed to rule on Constitutional questions? If nine people came to the same conclusion, wouldn’t that be more reassuring than just five?
Roosevelt’s proposal was to have Congress pass legislation allowing the president to appoint new justices for every justice who stayed on the court past the age of 70, up to a total of six new justices. Had he gotten his way, Roosevelt would have had 14 justices on the court. And by appointing six liberals, Roosevelt would have gotten his way on the New Deal.
Roosevelt’s attempt at "court packing" didn’t work. Americans don’t like change. The sitting Supreme Court justices at the time fought against it. After all, who wants to share power?
Something has to be done to bring some balance back to Supreme Court, which has run amuck in the past 50 years, finding bogus justification for social reform that is not included in the Constitution. Just as Roosevelt complained in 1937, today’s court — at least the four liberal judges who serve on it — considers itself a super-legislature, able to rule on matters such as abortion, immigration, same-sex marriage and campaign financing reform.
In his best-selling book "Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," constitutional lawyer Mark R. Levin argues for term limits as a way to rein the runaway judiciary. Levin makes a convincing case, noting in his book that associate justices of the Supreme Court serve an average of 17 years while 11 justices served 30 years or more. Can you imagine a president serving that long? Of course, there are no term limits for Congress, so you have many members serving for decades or in the case of Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, about a century.
"Perhaps Supreme Court justices should be appointed to fixed, staggered terms of 12 years, with three years intervening between terms," Levin argues. I would go one step further. Lower-court judges face mandatory retirement (usually at age 70). So why allow Supreme Court justices to serve into their 80s or 90s? I’d like to see a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Supreme Court justices.
Levin also makes one of the most daring proposals to curb judicial activism. He would like to see a Constitutional amendment establishing a congressional veto over Supreme Court decisions, an extension of the power Congress now has to override presidential veto of legislation.
"The framers worried that a president might amass too much authority. Today, the problem is an oligarchical Court, not a presidential monarchy, supplanting the constitutional authority of the other branches," Levin writes in his book.
Under Levin’s plan, a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate could override a Supreme Court decision. Imagine that. Elected representatives of the people actually getting to decide important issues. Of course, it will never happen. The people getting a say in what government does? The Supreme Court will undoubtedly rule it unconstitutional.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Can Democrats do more to help the terrorists?
Congressional Democrats are up in arms over the treatment of terrorists being held at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay on the island of Cuba.
If only the Democrats could show as much concern for working Americans who don’t have health insurance and face the prospect of Social Security going bankrupt. If only they could bring as much attention to the growing dominance of China as an economic power at the expense of American jobs. If only congressional Democrats would stop bottling up President Bush’s energy bill and do something about rising gas prices that are choking the U.S. economy. If only Democrats would do something … anything … except complain.
But it’s easier to grab headlines in the liberal press (New York Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN) by blasting the Bush administration and making wild accusations for the way terrorists are treated in Guantanamo.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, an ultra-liberal who has maple syrup for brains, took the lead this week in giving aid-and-comfort to our enemies by calling the prison "an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals and remains a festering threat to our security."
Had Leahy been in charge during World War II, the East Coast would speaking German and the West Coast would be speaking Japanese.
The truth is that the 600 terrorists held at Guantanamo are treated better than many American citizens held behind bars. The captured terrorists get three catered meals a day, unlimited access to health care and recreation and unhindered ability to worship their God.
These are enemy combatants. They are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as American citizens. You don’t stop in the middle of a battlefield and read the enemy his Miranda rights. You kill him before he kills you. If you capture him, you put him in a place where he can no longer harm you. If the Democrats are so upset about these terrorists, they can take up a collection and hire Michael Jackson’s lawyer now that he’s done with Jackson’s trial.
I have my own suggestion on what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. Congressional Democrats should take them in over the summer as foreign exchange students.
I'm sure Sen. Ted Kennedy would be the first to sign up for the program because he is so concerned about the welfare of his Muslim brethren.
Kennedy was quoted by the Associated Press the other day as saying that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo stained the nation’s reputation on human rights, inflamed the Muslim world and had become "a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists."
"Closing Guantanamo makes sense," Kennedy added. I’m sure Kennedy can house at least a half-dozen detainees at the family compound in Hyannisport, Mass., this summer.
The captain of the Chappaquiddick Swim Team could instruct the terrorists on water safety and Kennedy wouldn’t have to worry about his guests getting into his liquor cabinet because Muslims don’t drink alcohol.
And let’s not forget Howard Dean. Although he’s no longer holding elected office, I’m certain the chairman of the Democratic National Committee is willing to help out. His disdain for "white Christians" will surely lead him to take in a few of the Muslim terrorists. Dean could pull a few strings and get them jobs at the Ben & Jerry ice cream plant in his home state of Vermont.
Hillary Clinton could add some of the detainees to her presidential campaign staff as she prepares for a 2008 run for the White House. The detainees could make buttons or campaign signs for Hillary. And they could give her campaign an edge with Muslim voters. Since Hillary won’t win a single state below the Mason-Dixon line, her detainees/political operatives could help win support with Muslim voters in the Northeast and West Coast.
Americans don’t want to turn 600 terrorists loose so they can have another try to kill us. For most Americans, Cuba is too close for comfort to house these terrorists.
According to the Associated Press, Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway told a Senate panel Wednesday, "America is at war. It is not a metaphorical war. It is as tangible as the blood, the rubble that littered the streets of Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001." Of the detainees, "We are holding them humanely," Hemingway said. Asked how long they could be held, Hemingway said: "I think we can hold them as long as the conflict endures."
That was not what Sen. Leahy wanted to hear. "All of us know this war will not end in our lifetime," Leahy said. All the more reason to keep Guantanamo in operation for as long as necessary as a matter of national security.
Shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay would be a significant victory for terrorists. Why would any sane American want that? And what does that say about the Democrats in Congress?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
If only the Democrats could show as much concern for working Americans who don’t have health insurance and face the prospect of Social Security going bankrupt. If only they could bring as much attention to the growing dominance of China as an economic power at the expense of American jobs. If only congressional Democrats would stop bottling up President Bush’s energy bill and do something about rising gas prices that are choking the U.S. economy. If only Democrats would do something … anything … except complain.
But it’s easier to grab headlines in the liberal press (New York Times, Newsweek, Time, CNN) by blasting the Bush administration and making wild accusations for the way terrorists are treated in Guantanamo.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, an ultra-liberal who has maple syrup for brains, took the lead this week in giving aid-and-comfort to our enemies by calling the prison "an international embarrassment to our nation, to our ideals and remains a festering threat to our security."
Had Leahy been in charge during World War II, the East Coast would speaking German and the West Coast would be speaking Japanese.
The truth is that the 600 terrorists held at Guantanamo are treated better than many American citizens held behind bars. The captured terrorists get three catered meals a day, unlimited access to health care and recreation and unhindered ability to worship their God.
These are enemy combatants. They are not entitled to the same constitutional rights as American citizens. You don’t stop in the middle of a battlefield and read the enemy his Miranda rights. You kill him before he kills you. If you capture him, you put him in a place where he can no longer harm you. If the Democrats are so upset about these terrorists, they can take up a collection and hire Michael Jackson’s lawyer now that he’s done with Jackson’s trial.
I have my own suggestion on what to do with the Guantanamo detainees. Congressional Democrats should take them in over the summer as foreign exchange students.
I'm sure Sen. Ted Kennedy would be the first to sign up for the program because he is so concerned about the welfare of his Muslim brethren.
Kennedy was quoted by the Associated Press the other day as saying that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo stained the nation’s reputation on human rights, inflamed the Muslim world and had become "a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists."
"Closing Guantanamo makes sense," Kennedy added. I’m sure Kennedy can house at least a half-dozen detainees at the family compound in Hyannisport, Mass., this summer.
The captain of the Chappaquiddick Swim Team could instruct the terrorists on water safety and Kennedy wouldn’t have to worry about his guests getting into his liquor cabinet because Muslims don’t drink alcohol.
And let’s not forget Howard Dean. Although he’s no longer holding elected office, I’m certain the chairman of the Democratic National Committee is willing to help out. His disdain for "white Christians" will surely lead him to take in a few of the Muslim terrorists. Dean could pull a few strings and get them jobs at the Ben & Jerry ice cream plant in his home state of Vermont.
Hillary Clinton could add some of the detainees to her presidential campaign staff as she prepares for a 2008 run for the White House. The detainees could make buttons or campaign signs for Hillary. And they could give her campaign an edge with Muslim voters. Since Hillary won’t win a single state below the Mason-Dixon line, her detainees/political operatives could help win support with Muslim voters in the Northeast and West Coast.
Americans don’t want to turn 600 terrorists loose so they can have another try to kill us. For most Americans, Cuba is too close for comfort to house these terrorists.
According to the Associated Press, Air Force Brig. Gen. Thomas L. Hemingway told a Senate panel Wednesday, "America is at war. It is not a metaphorical war. It is as tangible as the blood, the rubble that littered the streets of Manhattan on Sept. 11, 2001." Of the detainees, "We are holding them humanely," Hemingway said. Asked how long they could be held, Hemingway said: "I think we can hold them as long as the conflict endures."
That was not what Sen. Leahy wanted to hear. "All of us know this war will not end in our lifetime," Leahy said. All the more reason to keep Guantanamo in operation for as long as necessary as a matter of national security.
Shutting down the prison at Guantanamo Bay would be a significant victory for terrorists. Why would any sane American want that? And what does that say about the Democrats in Congress?
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, June 13, 2005
Silence is costing your family $900 a year
We all nod in agreement when we hear the story of the Good Samaritan, but how many of us go out of our way to help a stranger? How about a co-worker? Or even someone who lives in the same town?
I’ve written extensively in the past six months about the growing crisis in health care in Pennsylvania, especially skyrocketing insurance premiums for workers at small firms. It’s an issue that hasn’t exactly galvanized the public what with Michael Jackson on trial, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston getting a divorce and Paris Hilton stripping down to her itsy-bitsy bikini to wash a car while eating a hamburger. So I’m going to appeal to your selfish interests today.
Before you say that it’s not your problem if your neighbor doesn’t have health insurance, here’s something that will hit you right where it matters — in the pocketbook.
A new study says that providing health care for the uninsured increases the annual cost of insurance premiums for the average worker by $341 and for the average family by $922.
The report, by the advocacy group Families USA, concludes that the lack of health insurance affects everyone because those with health insurance subsidize the cost of care to the uninsured. The study, prepared by Emory University Professor Ken Thorpe, states that $1 out of every $12 spent on health insurance premiums indirectly pays for health care provided the uninsured, according to an article by The Associated Press.
Someone is trying to address the problem in Pennsylvania. State Sen. Rob Wonderling recently introduced Senate Bill 671 to level the playing field when it comes to insuring workers at small companies. State Rep. Curt Schroder introduced a companion bill, House Bill 1240.
The legislation would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against small companies. The bills would require insurers to spread the cost of health care over a larger population so smaller companies are better able to afford coverage for their employees. The bills also expand benefit options for workers.
Unfortunately, both bills are languishing in committee. Many bills never make it out of committee, where powerful chairmen (aka, career politicians) decide what measures are voted on by the full House and Senate.
The chairman of the House insurance committee is Nick Micozzie, who has spent the past 25 years collecting a paycheck from Pennsylvania taxpayers. The chairman of the Senate Banking & Insurance Committee is Gib Armstrong, who has served in the state Senate for the past 20 years. Before that, he served in the state House for eight years. That’s a total of 28 years on the public payroll.
Pennsylvania is one of only two states that do not regulate “for-profit” insurance companies. That means these companies can legally discriminate on the basis of age, gender and health history. The only opposition to the proposed reform has come from the insurance lobby, which has deep pockets, thanks primarily to the exorbitant premiums they charge Pennsylvania workers and their families.
Wonderling and Schroder have done their part in sponsoring their respective bills. It’s time for voters to hold politicians accountable.
Sen. Gibson E. Armstrong, a Republican who represents portions of Lancaster and York counties, can be reached at his district office, 120 S. Queen St., Lancaster, PA 17603. His telephone is 717-397-1309. You can also write to him at Senate Box 203013, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3013, or call his office at 717-787-6535. You can also send him an e-mail at garmstrong@pasen.gov
Rep. Nicholas A. Micozzie, a Republican from Delaware County, can be reached at 6 S. Springfield Road, Clifton Heights, PA 19018 or House of Representatives, Room 45, East Wing, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020. His Delaware County office number is 610-259-2820. His Harrisburg phone number is 717-783-8808. You can also e-mail Micozzie through his Web site at www.RepMicozzie.com
This comes down to a choice of helping working Pennsylvanians or continuing to line the pockets of big insurance companies.
Please take a few minutes to contact your state representative and senator and ask them to put pressure on Armstrong and Micozzie to bring the bills to the floor for a vote. I also urge you to contact Armstrong and Micozzie directly to demand that these public servants put the interests of Pennsylvania residents ahead of the insurance lobby.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
I’ve written extensively in the past six months about the growing crisis in health care in Pennsylvania, especially skyrocketing insurance premiums for workers at small firms. It’s an issue that hasn’t exactly galvanized the public what with Michael Jackson on trial, Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston getting a divorce and Paris Hilton stripping down to her itsy-bitsy bikini to wash a car while eating a hamburger. So I’m going to appeal to your selfish interests today.
Before you say that it’s not your problem if your neighbor doesn’t have health insurance, here’s something that will hit you right where it matters — in the pocketbook.
A new study says that providing health care for the uninsured increases the annual cost of insurance premiums for the average worker by $341 and for the average family by $922.
The report, by the advocacy group Families USA, concludes that the lack of health insurance affects everyone because those with health insurance subsidize the cost of care to the uninsured. The study, prepared by Emory University Professor Ken Thorpe, states that $1 out of every $12 spent on health insurance premiums indirectly pays for health care provided the uninsured, according to an article by The Associated Press.
Someone is trying to address the problem in Pennsylvania. State Sen. Rob Wonderling recently introduced Senate Bill 671 to level the playing field when it comes to insuring workers at small companies. State Rep. Curt Schroder introduced a companion bill, House Bill 1240.
The legislation would prohibit insurance companies from discriminating against small companies. The bills would require insurers to spread the cost of health care over a larger population so smaller companies are better able to afford coverage for their employees. The bills also expand benefit options for workers.
Unfortunately, both bills are languishing in committee. Many bills never make it out of committee, where powerful chairmen (aka, career politicians) decide what measures are voted on by the full House and Senate.
The chairman of the House insurance committee is Nick Micozzie, who has spent the past 25 years collecting a paycheck from Pennsylvania taxpayers. The chairman of the Senate Banking & Insurance Committee is Gib Armstrong, who has served in the state Senate for the past 20 years. Before that, he served in the state House for eight years. That’s a total of 28 years on the public payroll.
Pennsylvania is one of only two states that do not regulate “for-profit” insurance companies. That means these companies can legally discriminate on the basis of age, gender and health history. The only opposition to the proposed reform has come from the insurance lobby, which has deep pockets, thanks primarily to the exorbitant premiums they charge Pennsylvania workers and their families.
Wonderling and Schroder have done their part in sponsoring their respective bills. It’s time for voters to hold politicians accountable.
Sen. Gibson E. Armstrong, a Republican who represents portions of Lancaster and York counties, can be reached at his district office, 120 S. Queen St., Lancaster, PA 17603. His telephone is 717-397-1309. You can also write to him at Senate Box 203013, Harrisburg, PA 17120-3013, or call his office at 717-787-6535. You can also send him an e-mail at garmstrong@pasen.gov
Rep. Nicholas A. Micozzie, a Republican from Delaware County, can be reached at 6 S. Springfield Road, Clifton Heights, PA 19018 or House of Representatives, Room 45, East Wing, Harrisburg, PA 17120-2020. His Delaware County office number is 610-259-2820. His Harrisburg phone number is 717-783-8808. You can also e-mail Micozzie through his Web site at www.RepMicozzie.com
This comes down to a choice of helping working Pennsylvanians or continuing to line the pockets of big insurance companies.
Please take a few minutes to contact your state representative and senator and ask them to put pressure on Armstrong and Micozzie to bring the bills to the floor for a vote. I also urge you to contact Armstrong and Micozzie directly to demand that these public servants put the interests of Pennsylvania residents ahead of the insurance lobby.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Howard Dean's winning strategy: Open mouth, insert foot
Howard Dean, who ran up an impressive losing streak in his bid to win the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004 but did manage to get himself elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is living proof that Democrats still don’t get it.
The party has lost seven of the last 10 presidential elections, but its leaders still think it’s a bad luck streak that will end soon. President Bush won 96 percent of the counties in the United States in 2004, but the Democrats still think they’re the party of the people.
The reality is that the Democratic Party is becoming snootier by the day — the party of eastern liberal elites, the media giants and Hollywood radicals. Take away the West Coast and the New England states and Democrats couldn’t find the real America if they had Lewis and Clark as guides. And the closest party bosses like Howard Dean come to the Average Joe is the waiter who fills their water glass at party gatherings.
After a 70-year run as the dominant political party in Washington, D.C., the Democrats should be starring in the ABC show "Lost." They lost control of Congress in 1994 and have lost ground to the GOP in every subsequent election. But they still think they’re an election away from regaining the majority. And I’m just a Powerball ticket away from retirement.
I watched Howard Dean’s speech last week to a gathering called "Campaign for America’s Future." It was billed as a political conference to get the Democrats energized for the 2006 mid-term elections, but the crowd (looking like extras from "The West Wing") wasn’t exactly mesmerized by Dean’s speech. Good thing Dean is a medical doctor. I thought Dr. Dean might have to perform CPR on some of the audience members as they passed out from boredom.
Dean kept throwing out lines like: "We need a president who understands working people in this country." I guess he was referring to someone like John Forbes Kerry, who is still getting an allowance from the Widow Heinz. Or maybe John Edwards, the smooth-talking Southern lawyer who got rich suing doctors and hospitals.
Did you know that more millionaires contributed to the Democratic Party in 2004 than to the Republican Party? This is not your granddad’s Democratic Party. The blue collar Detroit Democrats of the past have been replaced by caviar-eating blue bloods from Boston.
And all this talk about reaching out to moderates is just talk. Dean insulted about 50 million potential voters when he said he’s never met a Republican who has done an honest day’s work in his life. He wasn’t talking about politicians. He was referring to every single registered Republican in the country.
Dean tipped his hat on what the main theme of the Democratic Party will be in 2006. They’re going to blame George W. Bush and the Republicans for corporations reneging on pension plans for retired workers. "Pension plans ought not to be controlled by companies," Dean said. "They ought to be controlled by the people who those pension plans belong to. That’s the working people of America."
Wait a minute. Dean wants you and me to have more control of our retirement savings? Isn’t that what President Bush is trying to do with Social Security? Is Dean endorsing the Bush plan to allow Americans to have a say in their Social Security investments or is he just talking out of both sides of his mouth? Just like pension plans, Social Security withholdings don’t belong to the government. Why can’t I decide what to do with my money?
Another whopper from the mouth of Dr. Dean: "(The Bush) administration is beginning to erode the core of our Democracy." Is that so? Isn’t it the Democrats who threatened to shut down the Senate with filibusters if they didn’t get their way in blocking President Bush’s judicial appointments? A minority party obstructing the will of the voters who elected the majority from another party seems to me to be the real erosion of the core of Democracy.
Dean also said, "We need to be the party of campaign finance and election reform."
That’s an odd thing for Dean to be saying when just a few weeks ago, the Democratic National Committee and the Rev. Jesse Jackson (a mouthpiece for the Democrats) agreed to pay $200,000 in civil fines for campaign finance violations in the 2000 elections. Imagine that. The Democrats tried to cheat their way to victory in the 2000 election, but still couldn’t get Al Gore elected president.
I’d like to wish Howard Dean continued success in his effort to keep winning elections — for the Republican Party.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The party has lost seven of the last 10 presidential elections, but its leaders still think it’s a bad luck streak that will end soon. President Bush won 96 percent of the counties in the United States in 2004, but the Democrats still think they’re the party of the people.
The reality is that the Democratic Party is becoming snootier by the day — the party of eastern liberal elites, the media giants and Hollywood radicals. Take away the West Coast and the New England states and Democrats couldn’t find the real America if they had Lewis and Clark as guides. And the closest party bosses like Howard Dean come to the Average Joe is the waiter who fills their water glass at party gatherings.
After a 70-year run as the dominant political party in Washington, D.C., the Democrats should be starring in the ABC show "Lost." They lost control of Congress in 1994 and have lost ground to the GOP in every subsequent election. But they still think they’re an election away from regaining the majority. And I’m just a Powerball ticket away from retirement.
I watched Howard Dean’s speech last week to a gathering called "Campaign for America’s Future." It was billed as a political conference to get the Democrats energized for the 2006 mid-term elections, but the crowd (looking like extras from "The West Wing") wasn’t exactly mesmerized by Dean’s speech. Good thing Dean is a medical doctor. I thought Dr. Dean might have to perform CPR on some of the audience members as they passed out from boredom.
Dean kept throwing out lines like: "We need a president who understands working people in this country." I guess he was referring to someone like John Forbes Kerry, who is still getting an allowance from the Widow Heinz. Or maybe John Edwards, the smooth-talking Southern lawyer who got rich suing doctors and hospitals.
Did you know that more millionaires contributed to the Democratic Party in 2004 than to the Republican Party? This is not your granddad’s Democratic Party. The blue collar Detroit Democrats of the past have been replaced by caviar-eating blue bloods from Boston.
And all this talk about reaching out to moderates is just talk. Dean insulted about 50 million potential voters when he said he’s never met a Republican who has done an honest day’s work in his life. He wasn’t talking about politicians. He was referring to every single registered Republican in the country.
Dean tipped his hat on what the main theme of the Democratic Party will be in 2006. They’re going to blame George W. Bush and the Republicans for corporations reneging on pension plans for retired workers. "Pension plans ought not to be controlled by companies," Dean said. "They ought to be controlled by the people who those pension plans belong to. That’s the working people of America."
Wait a minute. Dean wants you and me to have more control of our retirement savings? Isn’t that what President Bush is trying to do with Social Security? Is Dean endorsing the Bush plan to allow Americans to have a say in their Social Security investments or is he just talking out of both sides of his mouth? Just like pension plans, Social Security withholdings don’t belong to the government. Why can’t I decide what to do with my money?
Another whopper from the mouth of Dr. Dean: "(The Bush) administration is beginning to erode the core of our Democracy." Is that so? Isn’t it the Democrats who threatened to shut down the Senate with filibusters if they didn’t get their way in blocking President Bush’s judicial appointments? A minority party obstructing the will of the voters who elected the majority from another party seems to me to be the real erosion of the core of Democracy.
Dean also said, "We need to be the party of campaign finance and election reform."
That’s an odd thing for Dean to be saying when just a few weeks ago, the Democratic National Committee and the Rev. Jesse Jackson (a mouthpiece for the Democrats) agreed to pay $200,000 in civil fines for campaign finance violations in the 2000 elections. Imagine that. The Democrats tried to cheat their way to victory in the 2000 election, but still couldn’t get Al Gore elected president.
I’d like to wish Howard Dean continued success in his effort to keep winning elections — for the Republican Party.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Men in Black: Darth Vader isn't the only threat this summer
Judging from the front cover of Mark R. Levin’s latest book, "Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America," Darth Vader isn’t the only villain dressed in a flowing black robes who is bringing terror to a galaxy not so far away.
Levin’s best-seller warns about the danger that liberal judges pose on American society and foreshadows the epic struggle we will witness this summer for control of the Supreme Court.
"It’s difficult to find any aspect of society where the federal government doesn’t have some role or influence," Levin writes. "And the Supreme Court, more than any other branch or entity of government, is the most radical and aggressive practitioner of unrestrained power. The purpose in creating a branch of government not subject to election, and whose members are appointed for life, was to ensure that it would undertake its responsibility to interpret the Constitution and arbitrate disputes in an almost ministerial fashion. There was no expectation the courts would assume the functions of the legislature or executive branches."
At a brisk 212 pages, "Men in Black" should be required reading for every American.
The book examines how activist judges have taken over the role of elected legislators in our system of government. Minority groups (including the Democratic Party) get around the will of the elected majority by going to the courts to rewrite laws or strike down legislation that reflects the wishes of most Americans.
That’s why we have abortion-on-demand for 13-year-old girls, same-sex marriages, a ban on the death penalty for 17-year-old killers and the right to free public education and health care for illegal immigrants. And there’s also a dangerous new precedent of courts granting legal rights to captured enemy combatants during a war.
The Constitution was written to protect the rights of U.S. citizens — not terrorists whose goal is to kill every man, woman and child in the United States.
Regardless of how many laws elected legislators pass, the radical left can count on an army of unelected, unaccountable judges ready to impose their radical views on our society. Levin calls it exactly what it is: "judicial tyranny."
With Chief Justice William Rehnquist fighting cancer and advancing age (he’s 80), there’s a strong chance he won’t return to the Supreme Court this fall. The departure of Rehnquist, who has served as chief justice since 1986 and has been a member of the court since 1972, would open the way for George W. Bush to begin reshaping the Supreme Court.
Reshape may not be the right word. As John Leo wrote in a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report, Republicans have a historic opportunity to "repair a damaged Supreme Court." The damage has been caused by 50 years of judicial activism, primarily at the hands of Democratic appointees to the nation’s highest court.
While the president can nominate a chief justice directly, many believe Bush will promote a conservative justice to the top spot and nominate a replacement for the associate justice’s seat. The only candidates Bush would consider on the current court are Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Two other Republican appointees (Anthony Kennedy and David H. Souter) have been major disappointments to the conservative cause, often joining the liberals on the court to form 5-4 voting majorities on a variety of social issues.
O’Connor would be a bold pick. She would be the first female chief justice in the court’s 216-year history. The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, O’Connor has served with distinction over the past quarter century. But the drawback is her age. At 75, O’Connor is unlikely to serve more than a few more years on the court. Bush is looking for somebody who could lead the court for the next 10 to 15 years. So the contest for chief justice comes down to Scalia and Thomas, the only black justice on the court.
My choice would be Scalia, who has emerged as the most commonsense jurist the court has seen in decades. Scalia understands the Constitution, something I can’t say about half the members of the Supreme Court. I’ll explain why Antonin Scalia should be the next chief justice in a future column.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Levin’s best-seller warns about the danger that liberal judges pose on American society and foreshadows the epic struggle we will witness this summer for control of the Supreme Court.
"It’s difficult to find any aspect of society where the federal government doesn’t have some role or influence," Levin writes. "And the Supreme Court, more than any other branch or entity of government, is the most radical and aggressive practitioner of unrestrained power. The purpose in creating a branch of government not subject to election, and whose members are appointed for life, was to ensure that it would undertake its responsibility to interpret the Constitution and arbitrate disputes in an almost ministerial fashion. There was no expectation the courts would assume the functions of the legislature or executive branches."
At a brisk 212 pages, "Men in Black" should be required reading for every American.
The book examines how activist judges have taken over the role of elected legislators in our system of government. Minority groups (including the Democratic Party) get around the will of the elected majority by going to the courts to rewrite laws or strike down legislation that reflects the wishes of most Americans.
That’s why we have abortion-on-demand for 13-year-old girls, same-sex marriages, a ban on the death penalty for 17-year-old killers and the right to free public education and health care for illegal immigrants. And there’s also a dangerous new precedent of courts granting legal rights to captured enemy combatants during a war.
The Constitution was written to protect the rights of U.S. citizens — not terrorists whose goal is to kill every man, woman and child in the United States.
Regardless of how many laws elected legislators pass, the radical left can count on an army of unelected, unaccountable judges ready to impose their radical views on our society. Levin calls it exactly what it is: "judicial tyranny."
With Chief Justice William Rehnquist fighting cancer and advancing age (he’s 80), there’s a strong chance he won’t return to the Supreme Court this fall. The departure of Rehnquist, who has served as chief justice since 1986 and has been a member of the court since 1972, would open the way for George W. Bush to begin reshaping the Supreme Court.
Reshape may not be the right word. As John Leo wrote in a recent issue of U.S. News & World Report, Republicans have a historic opportunity to "repair a damaged Supreme Court." The damage has been caused by 50 years of judicial activism, primarily at the hands of Democratic appointees to the nation’s highest court.
While the president can nominate a chief justice directly, many believe Bush will promote a conservative justice to the top spot and nominate a replacement for the associate justice’s seat. The only candidates Bush would consider on the current court are Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Two other Republican appointees (Anthony Kennedy and David H. Souter) have been major disappointments to the conservative cause, often joining the liberals on the court to form 5-4 voting majorities on a variety of social issues.
O’Connor would be a bold pick. She would be the first female chief justice in the court’s 216-year history. The first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, O’Connor has served with distinction over the past quarter century. But the drawback is her age. At 75, O’Connor is unlikely to serve more than a few more years on the court. Bush is looking for somebody who could lead the court for the next 10 to 15 years. So the contest for chief justice comes down to Scalia and Thomas, the only black justice on the court.
My choice would be Scalia, who has emerged as the most commonsense jurist the court has seen in decades. Scalia understands the Constitution, something I can’t say about half the members of the Supreme Court. I’ll explain why Antonin Scalia should be the next chief justice in a future column.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Tax relief scheme blows up in Rendell's face
Tick … tick … tick … tick … tick
Time is running out for Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts to opt into Act 72 — the shabby excuse for tax relief that Gov. Ed Rendell and the highest-paid state legislature in the country palmed off on the residents of Pennsylvania.
Monday is the deadline to opt in to the program. So far, an overwhelming majority of school districts have opted out of Act 72, a bold move considering the biggest complaint most residents have is about high property taxes.
As of Friday afternoon, 318 districts opted out of Act 72, while just 96 opted in. That’s a better than 3-1 margin against Act 72.
And what does our fearless governor have to say about the snub of his tax-relief plan by such a large number of school board members, many of whom are Democrats?
Rendell says it was a mistake to give school boards a choice in the matter. If he had to do it over again, he would drag the rebellious school board members kicking and screaming into Act 72.
"It's enormously frustrating to me that the school boards haven't seen or recognized what we've tried to do here," Rendell told The Associated Press last week.
But school boards have seen all too well and understand exactly what Act 72 means for their districts: a slim chance at token tax relief years from now if gambling revenues reach a certain dollar amount, while handcuffing elected representatives with back-end referendums that forces them to go to voters every time they need to hire teachers, expand buildings or add programs.
Not withstanding the flaws of Act 72, many school boards have a basic moral problem with funding public education through gambling revenues.
"To prey on the weak and elderly to raise funds that may be returned to them at a later date seems fundamentally and morally wrong, Owen J. Roberts School Board President Barbara L. McMeekin told The Mercury. "In order to receive a few hundred dollars in tax relief per household, each person must lose over $900. People who try to pull off that kind of scam in day-to-day living are known as con artists."
"This is a sham to promote gambling. And that’s it plain and simple," Paul Farmer, a school board member in the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, told The (Delaware County) Daily Times.
It’s not just gambling that upsets school officials. It’s the smorgasbord of deficiencies in the law. Politicians threw everything but the kitchen sink into Act 72.
Wallingford-Swarthmore School District board member Jon Auritt likened Act 72 to a "Frankenstein" monster.
"What (Act 72) turned out to be was a concoction of gobbledygook in need of an extreme makeover," Auritt was quoted as saying in The Daily Times.
Rendell can hold his breath until he’s blue in the face, but he will never persuade local school officials that Act 72 is anything more than political trickery.
"As far as the hollow tax relief promised by opting into Act 72, most of OJR's residents will pay more in taxes, not less, because they will lose in income tax increases what is gained in property tax reductions," Karen L. Zelley, vice president of the Owen J. Roberts School Board, told The Mercury.
It appears school board members have done their homework on Act 72 and the more they know about it, the less there is to like.
Weatherly Area School Board member Gary J. Makuch told The Morning Call in Allentown that he attended four meetings on the 108-page law and spent about 100 hours analyzing it, but still found it confusing.
"Act 72 is the worst piece of legislation I have seen," Makuch was quoted as saying in The Morning Call.
Rendell has spent much political capital pushing this sorry piece of legislation. He’s lost a lot of support from the traditional Democratic base in the education community. Rendell’s potential GOP opponents in 2006 will certainly exploit the governor’s blind obedience to such a bankrupt scheme.
And here’s something Rendell and his cronies in Harrisburg don’t want you to know: Experts say there about 9 million Pennsylvania residents eligible to gamble, and to reach the $1 billion mark in revenue that Rendell says will result in tax relief for school districts, some $3 billion must be lost at the slots, averaging more than $300 per gambler. But less than 10 percent of those eligible gamble on a regular basis. That means each gambler must lose an average of $3,120 at the slots every year to fully fund the property-relief plan. And the payout? Around $250 to $300 per household. Talk about a sucker’s bet.
Perhaps, it’s a pigheaded governor who hasn’t "seen or recognized" the flaws of Act 72. It might take a wake-up call in 2006 — when Rendell is tossed from office by voters — for the message to finally sink in.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Time is running out for Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts to opt into Act 72 — the shabby excuse for tax relief that Gov. Ed Rendell and the highest-paid state legislature in the country palmed off on the residents of Pennsylvania.
Monday is the deadline to opt in to the program. So far, an overwhelming majority of school districts have opted out of Act 72, a bold move considering the biggest complaint most residents have is about high property taxes.
As of Friday afternoon, 318 districts opted out of Act 72, while just 96 opted in. That’s a better than 3-1 margin against Act 72.
And what does our fearless governor have to say about the snub of his tax-relief plan by such a large number of school board members, many of whom are Democrats?
Rendell says it was a mistake to give school boards a choice in the matter. If he had to do it over again, he would drag the rebellious school board members kicking and screaming into Act 72.
"It's enormously frustrating to me that the school boards haven't seen or recognized what we've tried to do here," Rendell told The Associated Press last week.
But school boards have seen all too well and understand exactly what Act 72 means for their districts: a slim chance at token tax relief years from now if gambling revenues reach a certain dollar amount, while handcuffing elected representatives with back-end referendums that forces them to go to voters every time they need to hire teachers, expand buildings or add programs.
Not withstanding the flaws of Act 72, many school boards have a basic moral problem with funding public education through gambling revenues.
"To prey on the weak and elderly to raise funds that may be returned to them at a later date seems fundamentally and morally wrong, Owen J. Roberts School Board President Barbara L. McMeekin told The Mercury. "In order to receive a few hundred dollars in tax relief per household, each person must lose over $900. People who try to pull off that kind of scam in day-to-day living are known as con artists."
"This is a sham to promote gambling. And that’s it plain and simple," Paul Farmer, a school board member in the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, told The (Delaware County) Daily Times.
It’s not just gambling that upsets school officials. It’s the smorgasbord of deficiencies in the law. Politicians threw everything but the kitchen sink into Act 72.
Wallingford-Swarthmore School District board member Jon Auritt likened Act 72 to a "Frankenstein" monster.
"What (Act 72) turned out to be was a concoction of gobbledygook in need of an extreme makeover," Auritt was quoted as saying in The Daily Times.
Rendell can hold his breath until he’s blue in the face, but he will never persuade local school officials that Act 72 is anything more than political trickery.
"As far as the hollow tax relief promised by opting into Act 72, most of OJR's residents will pay more in taxes, not less, because they will lose in income tax increases what is gained in property tax reductions," Karen L. Zelley, vice president of the Owen J. Roberts School Board, told The Mercury.
It appears school board members have done their homework on Act 72 and the more they know about it, the less there is to like.
Weatherly Area School Board member Gary J. Makuch told The Morning Call in Allentown that he attended four meetings on the 108-page law and spent about 100 hours analyzing it, but still found it confusing.
"Act 72 is the worst piece of legislation I have seen," Makuch was quoted as saying in The Morning Call.
Rendell has spent much political capital pushing this sorry piece of legislation. He’s lost a lot of support from the traditional Democratic base in the education community. Rendell’s potential GOP opponents in 2006 will certainly exploit the governor’s blind obedience to such a bankrupt scheme.
And here’s something Rendell and his cronies in Harrisburg don’t want you to know: Experts say there about 9 million Pennsylvania residents eligible to gamble, and to reach the $1 billion mark in revenue that Rendell says will result in tax relief for school districts, some $3 billion must be lost at the slots, averaging more than $300 per gambler. But less than 10 percent of those eligible gamble on a regular basis. That means each gambler must lose an average of $3,120 at the slots every year to fully fund the property-relief plan. And the payout? Around $250 to $300 per household. Talk about a sucker’s bet.
Perhaps, it’s a pigheaded governor who hasn’t "seen or recognized" the flaws of Act 72. It might take a wake-up call in 2006 — when Rendell is tossed from office by voters — for the message to finally sink in.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)