And the winner is … Lynn Swann. In both delivery and substance, GOP challenger Lynn Swann outclassed Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell in the first of two scheduled televised debates this month.
Swann, who is trailing in the polls with about 30 days to go before the election, won the debate by holding his own against Rendell, widely regarded as the "consummate politician."
Rendell was hesitant and rambling and lost his temper a few times under stinging criticism from Swann. Rendell fired off a few cheap shots at Swann, calling the NFL Hall of Famer a "celebrity" and ridiculing Swann's plan for property tax relief, calling it a "disaster."
Swann kept his composure the entire time. He recounted Rendell's record of failures and broken promises.
Rendell appeared condescending several times and his attempts at humor bombed. In contrast, Swann looked and sounded like a serious candidate for governor. While Rendell spouted off statistics and rattled off bureaucratic gibberish, Swann shared a positive vision for Pennsylvania's future.
Forget the spin from Rendell's pals in the liberal media. I watched Wednesday's debate twice, the first time to gauge the candidates' composure and demeanor. The second time I listened to every word as Swann and Rendell answered a dozen questions posed by TV and newspaper journalists from Pittsburgh. The next debate is Tuesday in Philadelphia.
If Swann does as well next week, he could narrow the gap against Rendell, who has millions to spend on television ads.
Here's a look at how the candidates did at various stages of the debate.
OPENING REMARKS: Swann was animated and persuasive as a citizen politician who wants to clean up the mess in Harrisburg. "I believe in the two R's. I believe in reform and I believe in results," Swann said. "My opponent also believes in the two R's. He believes in rhetoric and he believes in Rendell." In the other corner, Rendell was visibly uncomfortable as he grasped for any accomplishments during a first term in which he raised taxes, increased state spending to record levels, ushered in the flawed casino gambling plan and signed the infamous July 2005 pay raise bill.
THE BLAME GAME: After admitting that signing the pay raise was a "mistake," Rendell offered several excuses for failing to deliver on his promise of a 30-percent property tax cut for every Pennsylvania homeowner. His worst was: "Let's begin with the proposition that no governor over the past 50 years all promised tax relief and didn't do it." In other words, Rendell didn't have to keep his promise because his predecessors also lied to get elected. Lame.
MORE BLAME: Rendell also blamed the Republican-controlled legislature for failing to deliver property tax relief, conveniently ignoring the fact that every Democrat in the House voted against the Commonwealth Caucus plan to eliminate property taxes by expanding the sales tax.
PROMISES: After blaming everyone else about his failure to deliver property tax relief, Rendell had the nerve to ask voters to give him another extension on his four-year-old pledge: "I'm going to go work to see if we can do some tax shifting next year."
HONEST ED: Gov. Rendell admitted Pennsylvania is facing a potentially devastating fiscal crisis if it does not address the astronomical costs of funding pensions for teachers and state workers. By 2011, the state will have to spend at least $1 billion a year to fund those pension plans, Rendell said. And local school districts may go bankrupt trying to pay their share of the pension costs. That was a rare moment of honesty from Pennsylvania's chief spin doctor.
BEST QUESTION: A reporter asked Rendell if the tax increases school districts will impose over the next few years will offset the promised tax cuts from casino revenues. The governor admitted sheepishly: "They might and that's why we have to do more and give broader tax relief." Is that another way of saying Rendell’s tax relief plan is a sham?
NO REPLY: Rendell had no response to Swann's charges that Pennsylvania doctors are fleeing the state because of skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums or why 10 Pennsylvania hospitals have shut their doors or why 900,000 working Pennsylvanians can't afford health insurance.
NO REPLY II: Rendell did not counter Swann's charges that Pennsylvania schools are failing despite more money being poured into public education. In a splendid response after Rendell boasted of spending money to buy laptop computers for inner-city students, Swann said, "Having a laptop computer is a great tool, but what good is it if you can't read?"
FUTURE BLACKMAIL: In a statement that could come back to haunt him, Rendell said he will not seek an expansion to full casinos during his second term, even though neighboring states have table games and the casino industry will tell you Pennsylvania won't be competitive with just slots.
SWANN'S WORST ANSWER: Swann offered no plan for dealing with future pay raises for elected officials. Rendell endorsed the concept of an independent citizen commission to set salaries. Of course that won't work either, but at least it's a plan.
ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL: Rendell sliced apart Swann's plan for providing tax relief, but Swann failed to counter, other than saying, "Ed's numbers are wrong." Swann needs to do a better job of explaining his tax plan to voters.
SWANN'S BEST COMEBACK: After Rendell washed his hands of the tax cut promise, Swann struck this body blow: "Ed Rendell made a mistake. He promised us 30 percent and he didn't deliver on it. Now the fact that he didn't deliver, he wants a do-over. When does the governor become accountable for making a bad decision?"
SMOKERS BEWARE: If re-elected, Rendell promised to ban smoking in all public places in Pennsylvania, including bars and restaurants. Swann said he didn't think the government should tell business owners how to run their establishments.
CLOSING REMARKS: Swann finished strong. "Government shouldn't be this complicated. And with all the experience this administration has, they still failed to give us the kind of leadership we need. The pay raise was still signed. So ask yourself what you would like to see over the next four years. Reform and results, or rhetoric?" Rendell rambled on with the standard liberal view that government should be involved in every aspect of a person's life. In Pennsylvania, that usually means having someone reach into your pockets.
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Democrats promise to raise your taxes
Every month the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue puts out a press release bragging how much money the state collects from you and me.
The numbers are staggering. The limitless ways state government has found to tax Pennsylvania residents is remarkable.
The state collected $2.5 billion in General Fund revenue in September alone, according to the Department of Revenue. And that was $76.5 million, or 3.2 percent, more than anticipated.
Since the new fiscal year began on July 1, Pennsylvania has managed to relieve residents of $5.8 billion, which is $55.7 million, or 1 percent, above estimate.
Here's a recap (provided by the Department of Revenue)of how many different ways the state can tax and how much money it removes from the economy:
Sales Tax receipts totaled $706.8 million for September, which was $12 million above estimate. Sales Tax collections year-to-date total $2.2 billion.
Personal Income Tax (PIT) revenue in September was $939.8 million, which was $35 million above estimate. This brings year-to-date PIT collections to $2.2 billion, which is $28.9 million, or 1.3 percent, above estimate.
September Corporation Tax revenue of $573.2 million was $28.2 million above estimate. Year-to-date Corporation Tax collections total $725.4 million, which is $49.4 million, or 7.3 percent, above estimate.
Other General Fund revenue figures for the month included $59.6 million in Inheritance Tax, which was $3 million below estimate. This brings the year-to-date total to $181.1 million, which is $14.6 million below estimate. (I'm guessing not enough people are dying in Pennsylvania to suit the tax collector.)
Realty Transfer Tax was $52.3 million for September, bringing the total to $164.3 million for the year, which is $3.6 million less than anticipated.
Other General Fund revenue including the Cigarette, Malt Beverage and Liquor Tax totaled $124.6 million for the month, or $5.3 million above estimate, and brings the year-to-date total to $319.5 million, which is $4.9 million below estimate.
In addition to the General Fund collections, the Motor License Fund received $208.3 million for the month, $7.7 million above estimate. Fiscal year-to-date collections for the fund total $653.5 million, which is $10.7 million, or 1.6 percent, below estimate.
No wonder we need tens of thousands of state workers. How else can you keep track of all the money the government takes in?
If you think you're not paying enough in taxes, licenses fees and other tolls, you should definitely vote for Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell.
In a speech last week, Rendell would not rule out increases in the income tax or sales tax or a combination of those taxes, even though Pennsylvania ended the last fiscal year with nearly $1 billion in surplus. That means the state collected $1 billion more in taxes than it needed to fund state government. The government is good at taking your money. Giving it back is another story.
I'm not sure if it's overconfidence or pure chutzpah, but a lot of Democratic candidates are saying they are willing to raise taxes or eliminate existing tax breaks if elected.
Lois Murphy, who is challenging Republican Jim Gerlach in the 6th Congressional District promises to repeal the tax cuts Congress approved in 2001 and 2003. Ed Rendell never met a tax hike he didn't like. Bob Casey, the Democrat for U.S. Senate trying to unseat Republican Rick Santorum, also supports the repeal of existing tax cuts.
If Democrats regain control of the House, Charles Rangel, the ultra-liberal from New York would end up chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Rangel said last week he would not rule out scrapping any of President Bush's tax cuts in the quest to curtail the alternative minimum tax while balancing the budget. "If we spend billions to bring equity, we have to find some place to do it," Rangel said at a news conference. Rengel said a variety of tax increase would be "on the table."
Here's what rolling back the Bush tax cuts would mean:
Pennsylvania's married couples would face an average of $2,726 more per year in taxes.
Pennsylvania's families with children would face an average of $2,084 more per year in taxes.
Rolling back the tax cuts would mean the average family of four with two children, that today has a $50,000 annual income, would see a 132 percent higher tax bill.
If the Democrats regain power in Harrisburg or Washington, hold on to your wallets.
The numbers are staggering. The limitless ways state government has found to tax Pennsylvania residents is remarkable.
The state collected $2.5 billion in General Fund revenue in September alone, according to the Department of Revenue. And that was $76.5 million, or 3.2 percent, more than anticipated.
Since the new fiscal year began on July 1, Pennsylvania has managed to relieve residents of $5.8 billion, which is $55.7 million, or 1 percent, above estimate.
Here's a recap (provided by the Department of Revenue)of how many different ways the state can tax and how much money it removes from the economy:
Sales Tax receipts totaled $706.8 million for September, which was $12 million above estimate. Sales Tax collections year-to-date total $2.2 billion.
Personal Income Tax (PIT) revenue in September was $939.8 million, which was $35 million above estimate. This brings year-to-date PIT collections to $2.2 billion, which is $28.9 million, or 1.3 percent, above estimate.
September Corporation Tax revenue of $573.2 million was $28.2 million above estimate. Year-to-date Corporation Tax collections total $725.4 million, which is $49.4 million, or 7.3 percent, above estimate.
Other General Fund revenue figures for the month included $59.6 million in Inheritance Tax, which was $3 million below estimate. This brings the year-to-date total to $181.1 million, which is $14.6 million below estimate. (I'm guessing not enough people are dying in Pennsylvania to suit the tax collector.)
Realty Transfer Tax was $52.3 million for September, bringing the total to $164.3 million for the year, which is $3.6 million less than anticipated.
Other General Fund revenue including the Cigarette, Malt Beverage and Liquor Tax totaled $124.6 million for the month, or $5.3 million above estimate, and brings the year-to-date total to $319.5 million, which is $4.9 million below estimate.
In addition to the General Fund collections, the Motor License Fund received $208.3 million for the month, $7.7 million above estimate. Fiscal year-to-date collections for the fund total $653.5 million, which is $10.7 million, or 1.6 percent, below estimate.
No wonder we need tens of thousands of state workers. How else can you keep track of all the money the government takes in?
If you think you're not paying enough in taxes, licenses fees and other tolls, you should definitely vote for Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell.
In a speech last week, Rendell would not rule out increases in the income tax or sales tax or a combination of those taxes, even though Pennsylvania ended the last fiscal year with nearly $1 billion in surplus. That means the state collected $1 billion more in taxes than it needed to fund state government. The government is good at taking your money. Giving it back is another story.
I'm not sure if it's overconfidence or pure chutzpah, but a lot of Democratic candidates are saying they are willing to raise taxes or eliminate existing tax breaks if elected.
Lois Murphy, who is challenging Republican Jim Gerlach in the 6th Congressional District promises to repeal the tax cuts Congress approved in 2001 and 2003. Ed Rendell never met a tax hike he didn't like. Bob Casey, the Democrat for U.S. Senate trying to unseat Republican Rick Santorum, also supports the repeal of existing tax cuts.
If Democrats regain control of the House, Charles Rangel, the ultra-liberal from New York would end up chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Rangel said last week he would not rule out scrapping any of President Bush's tax cuts in the quest to curtail the alternative minimum tax while balancing the budget. "If we spend billions to bring equity, we have to find some place to do it," Rangel said at a news conference. Rengel said a variety of tax increase would be "on the table."
Here's what rolling back the Bush tax cuts would mean:
Pennsylvania's married couples would face an average of $2,726 more per year in taxes.
Pennsylvania's families with children would face an average of $2,084 more per year in taxes.
Rolling back the tax cuts would mean the average family of four with two children, that today has a $50,000 annual income, would see a 132 percent higher tax bill.
If the Democrats regain power in Harrisburg or Washington, hold on to your wallets.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Lois Murphy is not my neighbor
I live in Pennsylvania's 6th Congressional District, home of Rep. Jim Gerlach, a moderate Republican seeking re-election to a third term in what has become one of the most contentious political fights in the country.
Gerlach's Democratic opponent is Lois Murphy, a lawyer who lives in the affluent Main Line area outside Philadelphia. Murphy ran against Gerlach two years ago and came within 6,500 votes of beating the incumbent thanks largely to John Kerry's coattails. She's back again, running essentially the same campaign she did in 2004.
The Gerlach-Murphy contest is one of the most closely watched in the country as Democrats attempt to regain control of Congress. The Democrats need to pick up 15 House seats and five Senate seats to wrest control from the Republicans.
Because Gerlach narrowly won re-election two years ago, he is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in Congress. Democrats smell blood and have sent in the wolves to do battle on behalf of Murphy, who could use all the help she can get.
The Harvard-educated Murphy is probably a smart woman, but she's a terrible campaigner, spouting off Democratic talking points by rote. She has yet to give voters in the 6th District a single reason she deserves to go to Congress other than she's not Jim Gerlach.
Murphy has never held political office, although she served as a campaign coordinator for Gov. Ed Rendell four years ago. She's been active in various liberal causes through the years, and if voters are being asked to judge Murphy by the company she keeps, she’s in trouble.
Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco liberal who fancies herself the next Speaker of the House should Democrats win in November, is featured prominently under the list of supporters on Murphy's Web site. The ACLU is also in Murphy’s camp, sponsoring attack ads on Gerlach. Murphy is also backed by big labor, the pro-abortion lobby and an assortment of shadowy liberal political action groups.
Murphy is more comfortable at a cocktail party with Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer than at a factory, a farm or a middle-class neighborhood in the 6th District, which stretches across three suburban Philadelphia counties.
Which brings me to the point about why Murphy doesn't fit in with 6th District voters. Her campaign and Democratic Party operatives working on her behalf have bombarded voters with glossy mailings blaming Gerlach for high gas prices, the war in Iraq, global warming and the loss of manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania.
Somebody should tell Murphy that her doom-and-gloom assessment of Pennsylvania's economy differs greatly from the positive spin Gov. Ed Rendell is putting on the state's business climate. Rendell is Murphy’s honorary campaign chairman, but the two apparently are not on speaking terms because they can't seem to coordinate their political attacks.
A recent Murphy mailing caught my attention because it began with the words "Dear Neighbor." That's rich. Lois Murphy is not my neighbor. She's a puppet of the far left who wouldn't have a reason to be in my neighborhood unless her limousine had a flat tire. Murphy isn't comfortable mingling with the common folk in the 6th District.
She resembles John Kerry during campaign stops. Murphy was extremely uncomfortable at a recent stop at a senior citizens' center. This wasn't the country club set that a limousine liberal like Lois Murphy is used to hanging out with.
And Murphy couldn't find her way to one of the sprawling family farms in Berks or Chester counties if you gave her a map and a compass. It's hard to represent a district when you've purposely avoided visiting 90 percent of it. In contrast, Gerlach spends a lot of time talking to regular people in his district about what’s on their minds.
Murphy is wrong for the 6th District in so many ways. The bulk of the 6th District is fiscally conservative, including most of the registered Democrats. Lois is a tax-and-spend liberal.
This is a woman who served as president and a board member of NARAL Pro-Choice Pennsylvania. NARAL is a lobbying group that pushes its pro-abortion agenda and threatens politicians who dare vote for parental notification when a child seeks an abortion.
Murphy goes to great lengths to avoid taking a stand on important issues. Would 6th District voters support someone who wants to raise taxes, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, raid the Social Security Trust Fund, surrender to the terrorists in Iraq and force socialized medicine on Americans? Lois Murphy's marching orders come directly from Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and their positions are clear.
On her Web site and in campaign literature, Lois Murphy asks the question, "Wouldn't it be great to be represented by someone who shares your values and will stand up for what is right?"
I couldn't agree more with Murphy. I want a member of Congress who shares my values and stands up for what’s right. That's why I'm voting for Jim Gerlach.
Gerlach's Democratic opponent is Lois Murphy, a lawyer who lives in the affluent Main Line area outside Philadelphia. Murphy ran against Gerlach two years ago and came within 6,500 votes of beating the incumbent thanks largely to John Kerry's coattails. She's back again, running essentially the same campaign she did in 2004.
The Gerlach-Murphy contest is one of the most closely watched in the country as Democrats attempt to regain control of Congress. The Democrats need to pick up 15 House seats and five Senate seats to wrest control from the Republicans.
Because Gerlach narrowly won re-election two years ago, he is considered one of the most vulnerable incumbents in Congress. Democrats smell blood and have sent in the wolves to do battle on behalf of Murphy, who could use all the help she can get.
The Harvard-educated Murphy is probably a smart woman, but she's a terrible campaigner, spouting off Democratic talking points by rote. She has yet to give voters in the 6th District a single reason she deserves to go to Congress other than she's not Jim Gerlach.
Murphy has never held political office, although she served as a campaign coordinator for Gov. Ed Rendell four years ago. She's been active in various liberal causes through the years, and if voters are being asked to judge Murphy by the company she keeps, she’s in trouble.
Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco liberal who fancies herself the next Speaker of the House should Democrats win in November, is featured prominently under the list of supporters on Murphy's Web site. The ACLU is also in Murphy’s camp, sponsoring attack ads on Gerlach. Murphy is also backed by big labor, the pro-abortion lobby and an assortment of shadowy liberal political action groups.
Murphy is more comfortable at a cocktail party with Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer than at a factory, a farm or a middle-class neighborhood in the 6th District, which stretches across three suburban Philadelphia counties.
Which brings me to the point about why Murphy doesn't fit in with 6th District voters. Her campaign and Democratic Party operatives working on her behalf have bombarded voters with glossy mailings blaming Gerlach for high gas prices, the war in Iraq, global warming and the loss of manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania.
Somebody should tell Murphy that her doom-and-gloom assessment of Pennsylvania's economy differs greatly from the positive spin Gov. Ed Rendell is putting on the state's business climate. Rendell is Murphy’s honorary campaign chairman, but the two apparently are not on speaking terms because they can't seem to coordinate their political attacks.
A recent Murphy mailing caught my attention because it began with the words "Dear Neighbor." That's rich. Lois Murphy is not my neighbor. She's a puppet of the far left who wouldn't have a reason to be in my neighborhood unless her limousine had a flat tire. Murphy isn't comfortable mingling with the common folk in the 6th District.
She resembles John Kerry during campaign stops. Murphy was extremely uncomfortable at a recent stop at a senior citizens' center. This wasn't the country club set that a limousine liberal like Lois Murphy is used to hanging out with.
And Murphy couldn't find her way to one of the sprawling family farms in Berks or Chester counties if you gave her a map and a compass. It's hard to represent a district when you've purposely avoided visiting 90 percent of it. In contrast, Gerlach spends a lot of time talking to regular people in his district about what’s on their minds.
Murphy is wrong for the 6th District in so many ways. The bulk of the 6th District is fiscally conservative, including most of the registered Democrats. Lois is a tax-and-spend liberal.
This is a woman who served as president and a board member of NARAL Pro-Choice Pennsylvania. NARAL is a lobbying group that pushes its pro-abortion agenda and threatens politicians who dare vote for parental notification when a child seeks an abortion.
Murphy goes to great lengths to avoid taking a stand on important issues. Would 6th District voters support someone who wants to raise taxes, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, raid the Social Security Trust Fund, surrender to the terrorists in Iraq and force socialized medicine on Americans? Lois Murphy's marching orders come directly from Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and their positions are clear.
On her Web site and in campaign literature, Lois Murphy asks the question, "Wouldn't it be great to be represented by someone who shares your values and will stand up for what is right?"
I couldn't agree more with Murphy. I want a member of Congress who shares my values and stands up for what’s right. That's why I'm voting for Jim Gerlach.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
How others see Gov. Ed Rendell
If Ed Rendell wins re-election to a second term as governor of Pennsylvania, he should issue a proclamation crediting the liberal Philadelphia media for helping him hold on to the governor’s seat despite a shoddy record during his first four years.
Rendell has all the advantages over GOP challenger Lynn Swann. Rendell has $26 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interest groups and corporate fat cats. He’s used $12 million so far to bombard Pennsylvania voters with round-the-clock television commercials since April.
Rendell has also turned the governor’s public information office into the Ministry of Propaganda, churning out daily press releases on how wonderful it is for Rendell to be spending our tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow.
Rendell has a third wheel in his re-election bandwagon. He owns the Philadelphia media market, which reaches half the population of Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, already left-leaning, are falling over backwards to find positive, fluffy news about Rendell to fill their pages.
And the TV stations fawn over Rendell every time he stops in front of a news crew to take a bite out of a cheese steak. That’s what amounts to political coverage in the world of "action" news and "eyewitness" news.
You have to step away from the slanted coverage of Rendell by the liberal media to get a true picture of how lame Rendell has been as governor.
One person who doesn’t have trouble seeing that Emperor Rendell has no clothes is Cal Thomas, whose twice-weekly column runs in more than 600 newspapers across the country.
In a terrific piece headlined, "Wisdom and judgment deficiency," Thomas writes about Rendell’s shortcomings in relation to many other liberal politicians who insist on offering opinions on matters they know nothing about.
Here’s the part of Thomas’ recent column that deals with Rendell:
And now for the definition-impaired, the meaning of the word "naive": "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment." There was plenty of that on display last week in Pittsburgh and in Washington.
At the annual National Conference of Editorial Writers Convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania governor and former general chair of the Democratic National Committee, Ed Rendell, addressed a group of pundits on the subject, "Will the Real Democratic Party Please Stand Up?" After running through standard Democratic boilerplate issues — increase the minimum wage, raise taxes (except property taxes), spend more on education (as if too much is not already being spent with little to show for it) and, curiously, "The Bible has nothing to say about abortion and gay marriage" (but it has plenty to say about sexual relationships and life's value at all stages). Later, Rendell invoked biblical mandates to justify his view that God meant government, not individuals or the church, should help the poor and "disadvantaged."
Rendell was asked what he would do about Iraq if he were president. He said he is not running, but if he were and he won, on the day after his inauguration, "I would go to Iraq and ask to be on TV throughout the Middle East and I'd say, 'We came here with the best of intentions and wanted to create freedom and democracy for all and 3,000 Americans have died. It is clear to me we have become the main problem. I'm going to ask the international community to develop a peacekeeping force and reduce our presence. We're going to help you build houses, provide aid and economic opportunity for your people."'
That isn't a peace plan; it's a plan for surrender. Like liberal Democrats in the 1980s, who believed the best way to handle the Soviet Union was to demonstrate we meant them no harm by unilaterally disarming, Rendell and many of his fellow Democrats believe there would be no consequences for America and the world should we fail to support democracy in Iraq for which millions of Iraqis have voted. Does he seriously believe such a retreat would not be seen as surrender and weakness, playing into the hands of jihadists, who would be emboldened to keep on fighting until they dominated all of Europe and then come after America? This is why liberal Democrats cannot be trusted to run the foreign policy of the United States.
Thomas goes on to point out that Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also suffers from "the naiveté virus." McCain probably killed his chances for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination "by suggesting the United States should be bound by the Geneva Conventions in dealing with stateless terrorists determined to murder civilians," Thomas writes. "Murdering civilians is condemned by those same Conventions, but the jihadists are not persuaded to conform to these treaties."
For those Pennsylvania residents still planning to vote for Ed Rendell on Nov. 7, maybe you should take a trip out of Pennsylvania to clear your head. It appears others see how dangerous political elites like Rendell can be for the rest of us.
Rendell has all the advantages over GOP challenger Lynn Swann. Rendell has $26 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interest groups and corporate fat cats. He’s used $12 million so far to bombard Pennsylvania voters with round-the-clock television commercials since April.
Rendell has also turned the governor’s public information office into the Ministry of Propaganda, churning out daily press releases on how wonderful it is for Rendell to be spending our tax dollars like there’s no tomorrow.
Rendell has a third wheel in his re-election bandwagon. He owns the Philadelphia media market, which reaches half the population of Pennsylvania. The Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News, already left-leaning, are falling over backwards to find positive, fluffy news about Rendell to fill their pages.
And the TV stations fawn over Rendell every time he stops in front of a news crew to take a bite out of a cheese steak. That’s what amounts to political coverage in the world of "action" news and "eyewitness" news.
You have to step away from the slanted coverage of Rendell by the liberal media to get a true picture of how lame Rendell has been as governor.
One person who doesn’t have trouble seeing that Emperor Rendell has no clothes is Cal Thomas, whose twice-weekly column runs in more than 600 newspapers across the country.
In a terrific piece headlined, "Wisdom and judgment deficiency," Thomas writes about Rendell’s shortcomings in relation to many other liberal politicians who insist on offering opinions on matters they know nothing about.
Here’s the part of Thomas’ recent column that deals with Rendell:
And now for the definition-impaired, the meaning of the word "naive": "deficient in worldly wisdom or informed judgment." There was plenty of that on display last week in Pittsburgh and in Washington.
At the annual National Conference of Editorial Writers Convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania governor and former general chair of the Democratic National Committee, Ed Rendell, addressed a group of pundits on the subject, "Will the Real Democratic Party Please Stand Up?" After running through standard Democratic boilerplate issues — increase the minimum wage, raise taxes (except property taxes), spend more on education (as if too much is not already being spent with little to show for it) and, curiously, "The Bible has nothing to say about abortion and gay marriage" (but it has plenty to say about sexual relationships and life's value at all stages). Later, Rendell invoked biblical mandates to justify his view that God meant government, not individuals or the church, should help the poor and "disadvantaged."
Rendell was asked what he would do about Iraq if he were president. He said he is not running, but if he were and he won, on the day after his inauguration, "I would go to Iraq and ask to be on TV throughout the Middle East and I'd say, 'We came here with the best of intentions and wanted to create freedom and democracy for all and 3,000 Americans have died. It is clear to me we have become the main problem. I'm going to ask the international community to develop a peacekeeping force and reduce our presence. We're going to help you build houses, provide aid and economic opportunity for your people."'
That isn't a peace plan; it's a plan for surrender. Like liberal Democrats in the 1980s, who believed the best way to handle the Soviet Union was to demonstrate we meant them no harm by unilaterally disarming, Rendell and many of his fellow Democrats believe there would be no consequences for America and the world should we fail to support democracy in Iraq for which millions of Iraqis have voted. Does he seriously believe such a retreat would not be seen as surrender and weakness, playing into the hands of jihadists, who would be emboldened to keep on fighting until they dominated all of Europe and then come after America? This is why liberal Democrats cannot be trusted to run the foreign policy of the United States.
Thomas goes on to point out that Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also suffers from "the naiveté virus." McCain probably killed his chances for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination "by suggesting the United States should be bound by the Geneva Conventions in dealing with stateless terrorists determined to murder civilians," Thomas writes. "Murdering civilians is condemned by those same Conventions, but the jihadists are not persuaded to conform to these treaties."
For those Pennsylvania residents still planning to vote for Ed Rendell on Nov. 7, maybe you should take a trip out of Pennsylvania to clear your head. It appears others see how dangerous political elites like Rendell can be for the rest of us.
Saturday, September 23, 2006
Should we call off the election?
Two new polls show Gov. Ed Rendell holds a commanding lead over GOP challenger Lynn Swann as the race for Pennsylvania governor enters the homestretch.
With about six weeks to go, Swann trails Rendell in one poll by 28 percentage points. Another poll shows Rendell ahead of Swann by an 18-point margin.
Maybe we should just call off the Nov. 7 election and declare Rendell the winner.
A funny thing about polls. They can be wrong. John Kerry was ahead in the polls in the 2004 presidential campaign every day in 2004. He was ahead of George W. Bush on Election Day. Even the exit polls had Kerry winning the presidency and you'd think people would have no qualms telling pollsters who they voted for after they had cast their ballots. Then the real election results started coming in. George Bush was elected president by 2 million votes.
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to write off Lynn Swann. Maybe we should give Pennsylvania voters a chance to pick their next governor before we start making plans for Rendell's re-election party.
Something called the Keystone Poll shows Rendell leading Republican Lynn Swann 52 percent to 34 percent — with 14 percent undecided. Another poll, the IssuesPA/Pew survey, has Rendell so far ahead in the race, Swann needs to call a taxi to catch up. Rendell is ahead 58 percent to 30 percent, and 11 percent undecided, according to the IssuesPA/Pew poll.
Commenting on the IssuesPA/Pew poll, Swann campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar told the Associated Press, "We don’t believe this poll." Well, that settles it. Not surprisingly, the Rendell camp was ecstatic about the latest polls.
Campaign spokesman Dan Fee told the AP, Rendell was "gratified to know that voters are responding so strongly to the governor's record of achievement."
I don't get paid to say nice things about the governor or pretend he's doing a good job, so I'm having a hard time understanding Rendell's big lead in the polls.
Any impartial review of Rendell's record shows that he has been a terrible governor. Yet it appears Rendell will coast to reelection.
Never mind that he promised to cut everyone's property taxes by 30 percent and has failed to deliver on that promise in four years. Never mind that state spending has risen at twice the rate of inflation since Rendell took office to an astronomical $26 billion.
Never mind that Rendell raised the state income tax by 10 percent and imposed a $52 a year EMS tax on most working Pennsylvanian.
Never mind that Pennsylvania lags behind most other states in getting welfare recipients off the public dole and into jobs. Never mind that nearly 1 million Pennsylvanians don't have health insurance. Never mind that the casino gambling bill Rendell signed has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.
Never mind that Rendell signed the notorious July 2005 pay raise bill into law and praised it as good legislation. Never mind that Pennsylvania has one of the highest corporate net income tax rates in the country, discouraging businesses from bringing jobs to the state.
OK, you get the picture.
Think of Rendell as the captain of the Titanic and the ship of state has struck the iceberg. The ship is going down and there's not enough lifeboats for all of us.
Six weeks is a lifetime in politics. Swann can still pull this one out. It won't be easy because Rendell, the darling of lobbyists and corporate fat cats, is sitting on $10 million in the bank and has already spent $10 million in television advertising. Swann's best chance to derail the Rendell victory lap will come in two televised debates scheduled for early October.
The first is Oct. 4 in Pittsburgh, followed by a second debate Oct. 10 in Philadelphia. Both will be carried live on television and will be rebroadcast on the Pennsylvania Cable Network. Swann has plenty of ammunition to go after Rendell and has a full hour of free television time to reach voters. If Swann is to have any chance of unseating Rendell, he must make his case during these two crucial forums.
And speaking of television, if you missed Thursday night's telecast of the "Journalists Roundtable" program, in which I joined two other panelists to discuss the Rendell-Swann race as well as the Casey-Santorum contest, you can catch the most scintillating hour on television this Sunday (Sept. 24) at 7 p.m. and again at 11 p.m. on your local PCN cable channel.
With about six weeks to go, Swann trails Rendell in one poll by 28 percentage points. Another poll shows Rendell ahead of Swann by an 18-point margin.
Maybe we should just call off the Nov. 7 election and declare Rendell the winner.
A funny thing about polls. They can be wrong. John Kerry was ahead in the polls in the 2004 presidential campaign every day in 2004. He was ahead of George W. Bush on Election Day. Even the exit polls had Kerry winning the presidency and you'd think people would have no qualms telling pollsters who they voted for after they had cast their ballots. Then the real election results started coming in. George Bush was elected president by 2 million votes.
Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to write off Lynn Swann. Maybe we should give Pennsylvania voters a chance to pick their next governor before we start making plans for Rendell's re-election party.
Something called the Keystone Poll shows Rendell leading Republican Lynn Swann 52 percent to 34 percent — with 14 percent undecided. Another poll, the IssuesPA/Pew survey, has Rendell so far ahead in the race, Swann needs to call a taxi to catch up. Rendell is ahead 58 percent to 30 percent, and 11 percent undecided, according to the IssuesPA/Pew poll.
Commenting on the IssuesPA/Pew poll, Swann campaign spokesman Leonardo Alcivar told the Associated Press, "We don’t believe this poll." Well, that settles it. Not surprisingly, the Rendell camp was ecstatic about the latest polls.
Campaign spokesman Dan Fee told the AP, Rendell was "gratified to know that voters are responding so strongly to the governor's record of achievement."
I don't get paid to say nice things about the governor or pretend he's doing a good job, so I'm having a hard time understanding Rendell's big lead in the polls.
Any impartial review of Rendell's record shows that he has been a terrible governor. Yet it appears Rendell will coast to reelection.
Never mind that he promised to cut everyone's property taxes by 30 percent and has failed to deliver on that promise in four years. Never mind that state spending has risen at twice the rate of inflation since Rendell took office to an astronomical $26 billion.
Never mind that Rendell raised the state income tax by 10 percent and imposed a $52 a year EMS tax on most working Pennsylvanian.
Never mind that Pennsylvania lags behind most other states in getting welfare recipients off the public dole and into jobs. Never mind that nearly 1 million Pennsylvanians don't have health insurance. Never mind that the casino gambling bill Rendell signed has loopholes big enough to drive a truck through.
Never mind that Rendell signed the notorious July 2005 pay raise bill into law and praised it as good legislation. Never mind that Pennsylvania has one of the highest corporate net income tax rates in the country, discouraging businesses from bringing jobs to the state.
OK, you get the picture.
Think of Rendell as the captain of the Titanic and the ship of state has struck the iceberg. The ship is going down and there's not enough lifeboats for all of us.
Six weeks is a lifetime in politics. Swann can still pull this one out. It won't be easy because Rendell, the darling of lobbyists and corporate fat cats, is sitting on $10 million in the bank and has already spent $10 million in television advertising. Swann's best chance to derail the Rendell victory lap will come in two televised debates scheduled for early October.
The first is Oct. 4 in Pittsburgh, followed by a second debate Oct. 10 in Philadelphia. Both will be carried live on television and will be rebroadcast on the Pennsylvania Cable Network. Swann has plenty of ammunition to go after Rendell and has a full hour of free television time to reach voters. If Swann is to have any chance of unseating Rendell, he must make his case during these two crucial forums.
And speaking of television, if you missed Thursday night's telecast of the "Journalists Roundtable" program, in which I joined two other panelists to discuss the Rendell-Swann race as well as the Casey-Santorum contest, you can catch the most scintillating hour on television this Sunday (Sept. 24) at 7 p.m. and again at 11 p.m. on your local PCN cable channel.
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Rendell soft on crime
One day after the FBI released a report showing that violent crime is on the rise across the United States and one day after GOP challenger Lynn Swann unveiled an ambitious anti-crime plan involving hiring up to 5,000 more police officers in Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell decided it was time to do something about crime.
Rendell announced $10 million in "Police on Patrol" grants to be awarded to police departments across the state to help them hire additional officers.
It's good to be the incumbent governor. You can pull money out of your pocket anytime you need to counter stinging criticism of your record.
Rendell, the former district attorney and two-term mayor of Philadelphia, has been oblivious to the rising crime rate in most of Pennsylvania's cities, including his beloved Philadelphia.
Is Pennsylvania a more dangerous place to live since Ed Rendell became governor? It sure is. The FBI statistics show it. Philadelphia's murder-a-day pace backs up those numbers.
And what is Gov. Rendell's solution to the deadly violence plaguing many Pennsylvania cities? The old liberal standby: Gun control. Rendell is pushing the legislature to enact a bill to limit gun purchases to one per day.
While that sounds like a reasonable approach, what are the odds that people who are gunning down their fellow Pennsylvanians purchased their gun at a store and filled out all the proper paperwork? Drug dealers, ex-cons and other low-lifes don't buy guns at gun shops. They buy them off the street or steal them. Limiting gun purchases to one a day is political pandering to pretend you're addressing the problem. It's what Rendell specializes in.
After four years of neglecting crime, Rendell is pretending he's serious about the issue. Does the fact that the election is less than 50 days away have anything to do with Rendell's new-found interest in fighting crime?
Today is the 263rd day of 2006. So far this year, 274 people have been murdered in Philadelphia. The city has already broken its previous year's homicide total of 272 and we still have a hundred days left in the year. More than 1,200 Philadelphia residents have been shot this year.
And it's not just a Philadelphia problem. Reading, which has a population of 80,000, had a total of 936 violent crimes reported in 2005, including 22 homicides. Two police officers have been killed in the line of duty by gunfire in the streets of Reading since 2004.
Allentown, Lancaster, Pittsburgh, York, Altoona, Chester, Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport. You name any city of significant size in Pennsylvania and you've got a problem with violent crime.
"Police on Patrol will provide the funding necessary to ramp up police presence on city streets and help to begin to stem the flow of illegal gun running, random violent acts against innocent citizens and drug trafficking across our commonwealth," Rendell said Tuesday in announcing the grants.
The question I have is where has Rendell been since 2003? Why wasn't this money delivered to police departments earlier? The answer is painfully clear: While people are dying on the streets of our cities, the governor is waiting until an opportune time to make the biggest political impact with this money.
Swann's approach is more comprehensive. If elected, Swann said he would authorize putting up to 5,000 additional law enforcement officers on the streets of Pennsylvania's largest cities by 2010.
At a campaign stop in Philadelphia, Swann said he would also increase enforcement of current gun laws, expand community-based crime fighting programs and create a "drug dealer registry" similar to sex offender registries, according to the Associated Press.
Rendell's plan is much more limited in scope. For three years, $50,000 grants will be awarded annually to selected communities who will commit to hiring new police officers for street patrols and will keep them on staff after the state funds expire, according to a Rendell news release.
Swann also said he would urge the legislature to enact legislation establishing a mandatory 25-year minimum prison term for some child sex offenders, with lifetime satellite monitoring after they are released. Seventeen states have enacted versions of the measure, called "Jessica's Law" for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and murdered, the AP reported.
John Perzel, the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, has floated a plan to hire 10,000 more cops by 2010. Perzel's idea will be debated during the upcoming Committee of the Whole in the state House scheduled for Sept. 26.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, who joined Swann in Philadelphia, said that law enforcement "has not been the focus" of the Rendell administration. That's an understatement.
When it comes to fighting crime and protecting the citizens of Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell has been AWOL.
Returning to TV
I'’ll be making a return appearance on the "Journalists Roundtable" program this Thursday at 8 p.m. on the Pennsylvania Cable Network Check your local cable service for the channel. PCN will repeat the one-hour program Sunday at 7 p.m. and again at 11 p.m.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Rendell announced $10 million in "Police on Patrol" grants to be awarded to police departments across the state to help them hire additional officers.
It's good to be the incumbent governor. You can pull money out of your pocket anytime you need to counter stinging criticism of your record.
Rendell, the former district attorney and two-term mayor of Philadelphia, has been oblivious to the rising crime rate in most of Pennsylvania's cities, including his beloved Philadelphia.
Is Pennsylvania a more dangerous place to live since Ed Rendell became governor? It sure is. The FBI statistics show it. Philadelphia's murder-a-day pace backs up those numbers.
And what is Gov. Rendell's solution to the deadly violence plaguing many Pennsylvania cities? The old liberal standby: Gun control. Rendell is pushing the legislature to enact a bill to limit gun purchases to one per day.
While that sounds like a reasonable approach, what are the odds that people who are gunning down their fellow Pennsylvanians purchased their gun at a store and filled out all the proper paperwork? Drug dealers, ex-cons and other low-lifes don't buy guns at gun shops. They buy them off the street or steal them. Limiting gun purchases to one a day is political pandering to pretend you're addressing the problem. It's what Rendell specializes in.
After four years of neglecting crime, Rendell is pretending he's serious about the issue. Does the fact that the election is less than 50 days away have anything to do with Rendell's new-found interest in fighting crime?
Today is the 263rd day of 2006. So far this year, 274 people have been murdered in Philadelphia. The city has already broken its previous year's homicide total of 272 and we still have a hundred days left in the year. More than 1,200 Philadelphia residents have been shot this year.
And it's not just a Philadelphia problem. Reading, which has a population of 80,000, had a total of 936 violent crimes reported in 2005, including 22 homicides. Two police officers have been killed in the line of duty by gunfire in the streets of Reading since 2004.
Allentown, Lancaster, Pittsburgh, York, Altoona, Chester, Wilkes-Barre, Williamsport. You name any city of significant size in Pennsylvania and you've got a problem with violent crime.
"Police on Patrol will provide the funding necessary to ramp up police presence on city streets and help to begin to stem the flow of illegal gun running, random violent acts against innocent citizens and drug trafficking across our commonwealth," Rendell said Tuesday in announcing the grants.
The question I have is where has Rendell been since 2003? Why wasn't this money delivered to police departments earlier? The answer is painfully clear: While people are dying on the streets of our cities, the governor is waiting until an opportune time to make the biggest political impact with this money.
Swann's approach is more comprehensive. If elected, Swann said he would authorize putting up to 5,000 additional law enforcement officers on the streets of Pennsylvania's largest cities by 2010.
At a campaign stop in Philadelphia, Swann said he would also increase enforcement of current gun laws, expand community-based crime fighting programs and create a "drug dealer registry" similar to sex offender registries, according to the Associated Press.
Rendell's plan is much more limited in scope. For three years, $50,000 grants will be awarded annually to selected communities who will commit to hiring new police officers for street patrols and will keep them on staff after the state funds expire, according to a Rendell news release.
Swann also said he would urge the legislature to enact legislation establishing a mandatory 25-year minimum prison term for some child sex offenders, with lifetime satellite monitoring after they are released. Seventeen states have enacted versions of the measure, called "Jessica's Law" for a 9-year-old Florida girl who was raped and murdered, the AP reported.
John Perzel, the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, has floated a plan to hire 10,000 more cops by 2010. Perzel's idea will be debated during the upcoming Committee of the Whole in the state House scheduled for Sept. 26.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett, who joined Swann in Philadelphia, said that law enforcement "has not been the focus" of the Rendell administration. That's an understatement.
When it comes to fighting crime and protecting the citizens of Pennsylvania, Gov. Ed Rendell has been AWOL.
Returning to TV
I'’ll be making a return appearance on the "Journalists Roundtable" program this Thursday at 8 p.m. on the Pennsylvania Cable Network Check your local cable service for the channel. PCN will repeat the one-hour program Sunday at 7 p.m. and again at 11 p.m.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, September 18, 2006
All you need to know about Lynn Swann
I've heard repeatedly that Pennsylvania voters don't know enough about Lynn Swann, the Republican candidate for governor.
This could explain Ed Rendell's commanding lead in the polls despite a shabby record as governor.
I'm not buying the excuse that voters don't know Lynn Swann. It's not like Swann has been hiding for the last 20 years. He's a legendary football player who is enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, having led the Pittsburgh Steelers to four Super Bowl victories in his nine years with the team.
After retiring from football, Swann stayed in the Pittsburgh area and began a successful career as a broadcaster for ABC television. He has toured the country as a motivational speaker. Since 1980, Lynn Swann has been the national spokesman for Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Whatever you need to know about Swann can be found at his Web site, www.swannforgovernor.com. Swann's campaign even put together a 143-page paperback book about the candidate and his position on the major issues: "A New Direction: My Plan for a Better Pennsylvania." (They'll send you the book for a $10 donation or you can download it yourself from the Web site for free.)
Swann makes no secret of why he wants to be governor: "Our party needs a principled conservative with a vision to get government under control, lower the tax burden on our working families and job creators, and make sure that our children have the opportunity for a quality education that will give them the skills they need to succeed," Swann states on his Web site. "In short, we need a governor who offers fresh and energetic leadership and a vision that offers opportunities for Pennsylvanians."
What will Swann do for Pennsylvania if he's elected governor? He wants to cut property taxes, reform state government, create more economic opportunities, preserve Pennsylvania farms, pass medical malpractice reforms, get people off welfare and improve education.
Have you noticed that Ed Rendell hasn't given a single reason why he wants another four years as governor other than to keep doing more of the same.
The same things Rendell gave us in his first four years? Higher taxes, runaway spending, unregulated gambling, crumbling roads and bridges, congested highways, failing schools, secret deals with legislative leaders in the middle of the night and rising violent crime?
The choice we make Nov. 7 will determine Pennsylvania's future. Will you choose a burned-out career politician who has broken most of his promises or a political newcomer who has a vision for a better Pennsylvania?
We're running out of time to turn things around in Pennsylvania. We don't have the luxury of four more years of a mediocre governor whose only goal is to enrich his friends and political cronies. (See previous post: "Why Ed Rendell lost my vote.")
Ed Rendell has spent $10 million so far on television commercials designed to fool voters into thinking he's accomplished something since taking office. Why does an incumbent governor have to spend so much money on propaganda? Why is Rendell trying so hard to hide his record?
For those who say that Swann doesn't have the experience to be governor, consider this. How did Pennsylvania get into the mess it's in? Professional politicians like Ed Rendell got us into this hole. And the first rule of holes is: "If you're in a hole, stop digging."
If you're still thinking about voting for Rendell because you don't know enough about Lynn Swann, here's all you need to know:
Lynn Swann did not sign the July 2005 pay raise that gave the governor, judges and legislators pay raises of 16 percent to 54 percent. Rendell did. Rendell could have stopped the pay raise, but he joined the rest of the Harrisburg Hogs in raiding the public treasury and he even praised the pay raise vote.
Lynn Swann did not promise to cut property taxes for every Pennsylvania homeowner by 30 percent while running for the office in 2002, only to break that promise four years in a row. Rendell did.
Since Ed Rendell was sworn into office, property taxes in Pennsylvania have risen by $2 billion. Ed Rendell never met a tax hike he didn't like. Rendell also signed the largest increase in the state income tax in the state's history in 2003. Rendell signed the $52 EMS tax and raised fees for state permits and licenses.
If re-elected, Rendell will raise the state income tax again and will probably raise the state's gasoline tax, already one of the highest in the nation.
The Nov. 7 election is a referendum on Ed Rendell, a limousine liberal who will continue to pick your pockets until he's out of office. That's all you need to know about the race for governor.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
This could explain Ed Rendell's commanding lead in the polls despite a shabby record as governor.
I'm not buying the excuse that voters don't know Lynn Swann. It's not like Swann has been hiding for the last 20 years. He's a legendary football player who is enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, having led the Pittsburgh Steelers to four Super Bowl victories in his nine years with the team.
After retiring from football, Swann stayed in the Pittsburgh area and began a successful career as a broadcaster for ABC television. He has toured the country as a motivational speaker. Since 1980, Lynn Swann has been the national spokesman for Big Brothers Big Sisters of America.
Whatever you need to know about Swann can be found at his Web site, www.swannforgovernor.com. Swann's campaign even put together a 143-page paperback book about the candidate and his position on the major issues: "A New Direction: My Plan for a Better Pennsylvania." (They'll send you the book for a $10 donation or you can download it yourself from the Web site for free.)
Swann makes no secret of why he wants to be governor: "Our party needs a principled conservative with a vision to get government under control, lower the tax burden on our working families and job creators, and make sure that our children have the opportunity for a quality education that will give them the skills they need to succeed," Swann states on his Web site. "In short, we need a governor who offers fresh and energetic leadership and a vision that offers opportunities for Pennsylvanians."
What will Swann do for Pennsylvania if he's elected governor? He wants to cut property taxes, reform state government, create more economic opportunities, preserve Pennsylvania farms, pass medical malpractice reforms, get people off welfare and improve education.
Have you noticed that Ed Rendell hasn't given a single reason why he wants another four years as governor other than to keep doing more of the same.
The same things Rendell gave us in his first four years? Higher taxes, runaway spending, unregulated gambling, crumbling roads and bridges, congested highways, failing schools, secret deals with legislative leaders in the middle of the night and rising violent crime?
The choice we make Nov. 7 will determine Pennsylvania's future. Will you choose a burned-out career politician who has broken most of his promises or a political newcomer who has a vision for a better Pennsylvania?
We're running out of time to turn things around in Pennsylvania. We don't have the luxury of four more years of a mediocre governor whose only goal is to enrich his friends and political cronies. (See previous post: "Why Ed Rendell lost my vote.")
Ed Rendell has spent $10 million so far on television commercials designed to fool voters into thinking he's accomplished something since taking office. Why does an incumbent governor have to spend so much money on propaganda? Why is Rendell trying so hard to hide his record?
For those who say that Swann doesn't have the experience to be governor, consider this. How did Pennsylvania get into the mess it's in? Professional politicians like Ed Rendell got us into this hole. And the first rule of holes is: "If you're in a hole, stop digging."
If you're still thinking about voting for Rendell because you don't know enough about Lynn Swann, here's all you need to know:
Lynn Swann did not sign the July 2005 pay raise that gave the governor, judges and legislators pay raises of 16 percent to 54 percent. Rendell did. Rendell could have stopped the pay raise, but he joined the rest of the Harrisburg Hogs in raiding the public treasury and he even praised the pay raise vote.
Lynn Swann did not promise to cut property taxes for every Pennsylvania homeowner by 30 percent while running for the office in 2002, only to break that promise four years in a row. Rendell did.
Since Ed Rendell was sworn into office, property taxes in Pennsylvania have risen by $2 billion. Ed Rendell never met a tax hike he didn't like. Rendell also signed the largest increase in the state income tax in the state's history in 2003. Rendell signed the $52 EMS tax and raised fees for state permits and licenses.
If re-elected, Rendell will raise the state income tax again and will probably raise the state's gasoline tax, already one of the highest in the nation.
The Nov. 7 election is a referendum on Ed Rendell, a limousine liberal who will continue to pick your pockets until he's out of office. That's all you need to know about the race for governor.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Why Ed Rendell lost my vote
I was on a radio program recently when a listener called in to ask why I hate Gov. Ed Rendell so much. I was surprised by the question. I'm not sure why the caller had the impression I hate Rendell. I've never met Ed Rendell. It's hard to hate somebody you've never met.
I think Rendell has been a terrible governor, but I never said I hate the man. I'm sure he's a nice guy. And it appears Rendell and I have a couple of things in common: We love the Eagles and we like to eat food that isn't good for us.
I helped elect Ed Rendell in 2002. I looked at his record as Philadelphia mayor. I reviewed his campaign promises and I bought into his vision for a "new Pennsylvania." I voted for him. Four year later, it's painfully clear that Ed Rendell lied to me (and a few hundred thousand other Pennsylvania voters).
There's an old expression: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I trusted Ed Rendell. He betrayed that trust. I'll never vote for him again.
I believed Ed Rendell when he promised in 2002 he would cut property taxes. It's 2006. My property taxes have risen 22 percent since Rendell took office. Pennsylvania property owners have paid $2 billion more in property taxes under Rendell. You call that tax relief?
The pundits who say Ed Rendell is a sure bet to win re-election assume he will get every vote he did when he won in 2002. That's not the case. Rendell needs to find one more new vote this year because I won't be voting for him. Thousands of other Pennsylvanians — maybe hundreds of thousands — won't be voting for Rendell either. Unless Pennsylvania voters are just plain dumb, why would they vote for a politician who broke his promise?
In 2002, Rendell attracted Republican voters who weren't impressed with GOP candidate Mike Fisher, who never articulated why he wanted to be governor. Fisher had no vision for Pennsylvania's future. Unfortunately, Rendell's vision included raising taxes, increasing state spending at twice the rate of inflation and mortgaging the state's future with massive borrowing.
I know that independent voters and members of the Libertarian, Green and other third parties won't vote for Rendell in 2006. The Democratic Party, which is run by Rendell, has worked feverishly this year to deny third party candidates access to statewide offices.
Rendell has lost the anti-gambling vote. He told voters in 2002 he wanted to revive the state's horse racing industry by allowing slots at racetracks. Instead, he pushed a bill through the legislature that will bring 61,000 slots throughout Pennsylvania.
The casino money at the end of the rainbow is a mirage. Just look at New Jersey, which takes in $475 million a year from 20 full casinos. Rendell is promising $1 billion for tax relief from 14 slot parlors? Do the math. Rendell's scheme to cut taxes using casino revenues is built on a house of cards.
Rendell won't get support from the growing taxpayers' movement led by the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations because he pushed Act 72 and later Act 1 down the throats of unsuspecting homeowners. Rendell's shell game with public school funding will mean higher school taxes for most Pennsylvania residents for years to come.
Rendell has lost the support of reformers. State government needs fumigation, but Rendell likes the "pay-to-play" culture of Harrisburg. He can do business with the legislative leadership that gave us the infamous July 2005 pay raise. Rendell signed the pay raise bill because he said he needed to "kiss a little butt" in order to work with the legislature.
Rendell has lost support of Pennsylvania physicians. He promised to fix the medical malpractice mess. Instead he gave us MCARE abatement which costs taxpayers 220 million a year and vetoed the Fair Share Act that he said he would sign into law if sent to him.
Rendell has lost the support of senior citizens who are smart enough to see through the dog-and-pony show Rendell puts on when it comes to tax reform. A $250 rebate for somebody who is paying $3,000 in property taxes isn't enough to buy Rendell a single vote.Rendell has lost the support of the business community as he presides over one of the worst economic climates in the country. Forbes magazine ranks Pennsylvania 41 out of 50 states in business climate. High taxes and government regulations have driven out many of the state's businesses.
Nobody is more disappointed in Ed Rendell than I am. I hired him to do a job. I pay his salary. He works for me. He hasn't done the job I hired him to do. Four years of failure is all I can afford in a governor. On Nov. 7, I'm going to hire someone else for the job.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, September 11, 2006
Bill Clinton failed to prevent 9/11
In his insufferable 957-page autobiography, "My Life," former President Bill Clinton devotes a total of four paragraphs to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993.
"I wrote this book to tell my story, and to tell the story of America in the last half of the twentieth century," Clinton brags early in the book.
Clinton must have been suffering selective amnesia when he wrote the book. To sidestep the opening skirmish of what could end up being the greatest struggle the United States has faced — the war against Islamic fascists — says a great deal about Clinton and his failure to prevent the tragic events that led to Sept. 11, 2001.
The deaths of 3,000 Americans five years ago was the culmination of an eight-year campaign of terror waged against the U.S. by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. Attack after attack went unanswered by Bill Clinton. His weakness emboldened our enemies. The assaults escalated to the horrific events of 9/11.
The attacks on U.S. soil by Muslim fanatics came nine months into the presidency of George W. Bush, but they were planned, rehearsed and financed while Bill Clinton was president.
The attacks of 9/11 were successful because our enemies saw weakness in Bill Clinton (and by extension, the American people). They were successful because Clinton and his top advisers were negligent. Our enemies succeeded because Bill Clinton defanged the CIA and FBI during his tenure in the White House. They succeeded because the U.S. military rusted under another oblivious Democrat who put all his faith in the hands of the United Nations.
The path to 9/11 was clearly delineated for anyone willing to pay attention. It was Bill Clinton's job to connect the dots and respond accordingly to protect American lives. Clinton failed us.
On Feb. 26, 1993, during the second year of Clinton's presidency, a powerful bomb exploded in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring 1,040 others. Clinton considered the plot to bring down one of the nation's most recognizable buildings as a "law enforcement" matter instead of the opening salvo of a global war to wipe out the United States and Western civilization.
It would be the first of many mistakes Clinton and the left-wing cabal he installed in the State and Defense departments would make.
On Oct. 3, 1993, 19 Americans died and 84 were wounded in an ill-planned mission to Somalia to capture warlord Mohammed Aidid. The bodies of American servicemen were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by Aidid's militia. The failed mission was the basis of the best-selling book "Black Hawk Down," later made into a movie.
Instead of sending adequate troops to hunt down Aidid after the murder of U.S. servicemen, Clinton decided to cut and run, the same policy that leading Democrats are advocating today. Clinton's decision to abandon Somalia sent a message to terrorists all over the world that the United States doesn't have the stomach to fight. Somalia remains a terrorist haven to this day.
On Nov. 13, 1995, five Americans were killed when a bomb exploded at a U.S.-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Osama bin Laden denied involvement, but praised the attack.
In February 1996, the government of Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and his top al-Qaida lieutenants to the United States. Bill Clinton passed up a chance to bring the terrorist mastermind to justice, allowing bin Laden and his henchmen to escape to Afghanistan, where they would continue to plan for 9/11.
In June 1996, 19 Air Force personnel were killed and 300 Americans and others were wounded when terrorists drove a truck full of explosives into the Khobar Towers, a military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban came to power during the Clinton administration, capturing Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, in September 1996. The Taliban would offer sanctuary to bin Laden and his terrorist network.
Powerful bombs destroyed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya on Aug. 7, 1998, killing 257 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring 4,500 others. Clinton knew bin Laden was behind the bombings. Clinton knew bin Laden vowed to bring the war home to America. Clinton's response? He ordered cruise missile strikes against empty terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan. Osama bin Laden would live to fight another day.
On Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in the port of Aden in Yemen. Terrorists drove a speedboat full of explosives into the side of the destroyer, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more. No response from Clinton.
History has been far too kind to Bill Clinton. It's understandable that Bill Clinton would gloss over his sorry record of fighting terrorism. This is the same man who lied to the American people about his Oval Office dalliance with a female intern. It's the liberal media that deserves much of the blame for covering up the failure of the Clinton administration to protect this nation.
The warning signs were there. Clinton chose to ignore them. Because of Clinton's negligence, thousands of Americans died.
George W. Bush learned from Clinton's mistakes. The Bush-haters will never stop carping about the reasons we're fighting in Iraq. The reality is this: Five years after Osama bin Laden brought the war to our shores, there have been no attacks on U.S. soil. Bush has kept this country safe for 1,825 days. Thank you, Mr. President.
We need to think long and hard about the future of this country, especially now that Hillary Clinton is promising to bring back the "Clinton years" as she prepares to run for president in 2008. Are you willing to put your life on the line under another Clinton presidency?
"I wrote this book to tell my story, and to tell the story of America in the last half of the twentieth century," Clinton brags early in the book.
Clinton must have been suffering selective amnesia when he wrote the book. To sidestep the opening skirmish of what could end up being the greatest struggle the United States has faced — the war against Islamic fascists — says a great deal about Clinton and his failure to prevent the tragic events that led to Sept. 11, 2001.
The deaths of 3,000 Americans five years ago was the culmination of an eight-year campaign of terror waged against the U.S. by Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. Attack after attack went unanswered by Bill Clinton. His weakness emboldened our enemies. The assaults escalated to the horrific events of 9/11.
The attacks on U.S. soil by Muslim fanatics came nine months into the presidency of George W. Bush, but they were planned, rehearsed and financed while Bill Clinton was president.
The attacks of 9/11 were successful because our enemies saw weakness in Bill Clinton (and by extension, the American people). They were successful because Clinton and his top advisers were negligent. Our enemies succeeded because Bill Clinton defanged the CIA and FBI during his tenure in the White House. They succeeded because the U.S. military rusted under another oblivious Democrat who put all his faith in the hands of the United Nations.
The path to 9/11 was clearly delineated for anyone willing to pay attention. It was Bill Clinton's job to connect the dots and respond accordingly to protect American lives. Clinton failed us.
On Feb. 26, 1993, during the second year of Clinton's presidency, a powerful bomb exploded in a parking garage under the World Trade Center, killing six people and injuring 1,040 others. Clinton considered the plot to bring down one of the nation's most recognizable buildings as a "law enforcement" matter instead of the opening salvo of a global war to wipe out the United States and Western civilization.
It would be the first of many mistakes Clinton and the left-wing cabal he installed in the State and Defense departments would make.
On Oct. 3, 1993, 19 Americans died and 84 were wounded in an ill-planned mission to Somalia to capture warlord Mohammed Aidid. The bodies of American servicemen were dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by Aidid's militia. The failed mission was the basis of the best-selling book "Black Hawk Down," later made into a movie.
Instead of sending adequate troops to hunt down Aidid after the murder of U.S. servicemen, Clinton decided to cut and run, the same policy that leading Democrats are advocating today. Clinton's decision to abandon Somalia sent a message to terrorists all over the world that the United States doesn't have the stomach to fight. Somalia remains a terrorist haven to this day.
On Nov. 13, 1995, five Americans were killed when a bomb exploded at a U.S.-operated Saudi National Guard training center in Riyadh. Osama bin Laden denied involvement, but praised the attack.
In February 1996, the government of Sudan offered to turn over Osama bin Laden and his top al-Qaida lieutenants to the United States. Bill Clinton passed up a chance to bring the terrorist mastermind to justice, allowing bin Laden and his henchmen to escape to Afghanistan, where they would continue to plan for 9/11.
In June 1996, 19 Air Force personnel were killed and 300 Americans and others were wounded when terrorists drove a truck full of explosives into the Khobar Towers, a military housing complex in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
The Taliban came to power during the Clinton administration, capturing Kabul, the capital of Afghanistan, in September 1996. The Taliban would offer sanctuary to bin Laden and his terrorist network.
Powerful bombs destroyed the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya on Aug. 7, 1998, killing 257 people, including 12 Americans, and injuring 4,500 others. Clinton knew bin Laden was behind the bombings. Clinton knew bin Laden vowed to bring the war home to America. Clinton's response? He ordered cruise missile strikes against empty terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and blew up an aspirin factory in Sudan. Osama bin Laden would live to fight another day.
On Oct. 12, 2000, the USS Cole was attacked in the port of Aden in Yemen. Terrorists drove a speedboat full of explosives into the side of the destroyer, killing 17 sailors and wounding 39 more. No response from Clinton.
History has been far too kind to Bill Clinton. It's understandable that Bill Clinton would gloss over his sorry record of fighting terrorism. This is the same man who lied to the American people about his Oval Office dalliance with a female intern. It's the liberal media that deserves much of the blame for covering up the failure of the Clinton administration to protect this nation.
The warning signs were there. Clinton chose to ignore them. Because of Clinton's negligence, thousands of Americans died.
George W. Bush learned from Clinton's mistakes. The Bush-haters will never stop carping about the reasons we're fighting in Iraq. The reality is this: Five years after Osama bin Laden brought the war to our shores, there have been no attacks on U.S. soil. Bush has kept this country safe for 1,825 days. Thank you, Mr. President.
We need to think long and hard about the future of this country, especially now that Hillary Clinton is promising to bring back the "Clinton years" as she prepares to run for president in 2008. Are you willing to put your life on the line under another Clinton presidency?
Thursday, September 07, 2006
The incredible shrinking candidate
NBC's "Meet the Press" kicked off a two-month series of Senate debates Sunday with one of the marquee races in the country: Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a two-term Republican, versus Bob Casey, the current state treasurer and perennial candidate.
A candidate for four different state offices in the past six years, Casey promised that his run for Senate would be his last. If you believe that one, I have some lakefront property in New Orleans I'd like to sell you.
Casey has a history of running for his next cushy political job as soon as he starts collecting a paycheck for the current one. Casey hasn't shown up for work in the state treasurer's office half the time in 2006, but has no problem collecting a hefty state paycheck.
What Casey really wants is to be governor of Pennsylvania, but his mentor, Ed Rendell, currently holds that job, and Rendell is seeking another four-year term this November.
If Casey becomes a U.S. senator, I guarantee you hell resign midway through the six-year term to run for governor in 2010, following the same path as Jon Corzine in New Jersey.
Imagining Bobby Casey Jr. as a U.S. senator is a stretch. The man has toiled in unimportant jobs like auditor general and treasurer, but has little to show for the many years of feeding at the public trough. He shuffles a lot of paper around and signs checks, but the fact that Casey can skip work half the year without anybody missing him says a lot about the work he does.
Casey has name recognition, his father was a two-term governor, and he has the backing of every far left political activist and blogger in the country. But he lacks gravitas. It's hard to take this guy seriously about anything.
Casey reminds me of John F. Kerry but with a lot less hair. He speaks in a monotone voice and never really says anything. He's a champion flip-flopper. He recites bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo but has no vision for Pennsylvania or the nation. He's a walking sleeping pill. Bobby Casey Jr. couldn't excite a crowd if he fired a Taser gun at his audience.
The joint appearance on "Meet the Press" gave Pennsylvania voters (at least those who watch public affairs programs on Sunday morning) an opportunity to size up the candidates side by side. Casey has avoided voters (and newspaper interviews) as much as possible, prompting one columnist to label him "Hermetic Bob."
I've read a few critiques of Sunday’s debate by the pundits and I'm scratching my head. Some political commentators are saying that Casey held his own against Santorum. I'm wondering if the pundits watched the same debate.
I thought Santorum mopped the floor with Casey, who appeared nervous, interrupted Santorum and host Tim Russert frequently and dodged most of Russert's questions. An exasperated Russert tried two or three times to get Casey to answer very basic questions, often to no avail.
Silent Bob Casey wasn't about to take a position on any important issues, especially with potential voters watching.
On Social Security, Casey said there's no problem. When Russert reminded Casey that the number of retirees will double in the next 20-30 years, Casey didn't seem to grasp the economics. (This is supposed to be the state treasurer, after all. I'm wondering if Casey needs a refresher in third-grade math.) If you have twice as many people (up to 40 million more) retiring and you depend on the same shrinking pool of workers to fund Social Security, where is the money coming from? Casey had no answer.
On runaway spending in Washington, D.C., Casey said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to reduce the debt. Last time I checked, the national debt was pushing $8.5 trillion. The Bush tax cuts add up to about $60 billion in lost revenue. These might big numbers for the state treasurer, but restoring $60 billion doesn’t make a dent in the $8.5 trillion debt.
On Iraq, Casey said we need a new direction. He didn't elaborate. (Think cut-and-run).
Casey enjoyed a 20-point lead in the polls earlier this year. The race is now a dead heat. As I've been saying for the past year, the more you know about Bob Casey, the less there is to like. More Pennsylvania voters are getting to know Casey. That's why Santorum has closed the gap.
Santorum is one of the brightest, most sensible, articulate and hardest working members in the U.S. Senate. He's the third highest-ranking member of the Senate and has done a lot for his home state. Voters aren't going to give up that kind of clout so Bobby Casey Jr. can get on-the-job training.
Santorum will win a third term to the Senate this November. Bobby Casey will return to his job of state treasurer and he’ll bide his time until 2010 when he will run for governor — against Republican Lynn Swann, who will defeat Ed Rendell on Nov. 7.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
A candidate for four different state offices in the past six years, Casey promised that his run for Senate would be his last. If you believe that one, I have some lakefront property in New Orleans I'd like to sell you.
Casey has a history of running for his next cushy political job as soon as he starts collecting a paycheck for the current one. Casey hasn't shown up for work in the state treasurer's office half the time in 2006, but has no problem collecting a hefty state paycheck.
What Casey really wants is to be governor of Pennsylvania, but his mentor, Ed Rendell, currently holds that job, and Rendell is seeking another four-year term this November.
If Casey becomes a U.S. senator, I guarantee you hell resign midway through the six-year term to run for governor in 2010, following the same path as Jon Corzine in New Jersey.
Imagining Bobby Casey Jr. as a U.S. senator is a stretch. The man has toiled in unimportant jobs like auditor general and treasurer, but has little to show for the many years of feeding at the public trough. He shuffles a lot of paper around and signs checks, but the fact that Casey can skip work half the year without anybody missing him says a lot about the work he does.
Casey has name recognition, his father was a two-term governor, and he has the backing of every far left political activist and blogger in the country. But he lacks gravitas. It's hard to take this guy seriously about anything.
Casey reminds me of John F. Kerry but with a lot less hair. He speaks in a monotone voice and never really says anything. He's a champion flip-flopper. He recites bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo but has no vision for Pennsylvania or the nation. He's a walking sleeping pill. Bobby Casey Jr. couldn't excite a crowd if he fired a Taser gun at his audience.
The joint appearance on "Meet the Press" gave Pennsylvania voters (at least those who watch public affairs programs on Sunday morning) an opportunity to size up the candidates side by side. Casey has avoided voters (and newspaper interviews) as much as possible, prompting one columnist to label him "Hermetic Bob."
I've read a few critiques of Sunday’s debate by the pundits and I'm scratching my head. Some political commentators are saying that Casey held his own against Santorum. I'm wondering if the pundits watched the same debate.
I thought Santorum mopped the floor with Casey, who appeared nervous, interrupted Santorum and host Tim Russert frequently and dodged most of Russert's questions. An exasperated Russert tried two or three times to get Casey to answer very basic questions, often to no avail.
Silent Bob Casey wasn't about to take a position on any important issues, especially with potential voters watching.
On Social Security, Casey said there's no problem. When Russert reminded Casey that the number of retirees will double in the next 20-30 years, Casey didn't seem to grasp the economics. (This is supposed to be the state treasurer, after all. I'm wondering if Casey needs a refresher in third-grade math.) If you have twice as many people (up to 40 million more) retiring and you depend on the same shrinking pool of workers to fund Social Security, where is the money coming from? Casey had no answer.
On runaway spending in Washington, D.C., Casey said he'd repeal the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to reduce the debt. Last time I checked, the national debt was pushing $8.5 trillion. The Bush tax cuts add up to about $60 billion in lost revenue. These might big numbers for the state treasurer, but restoring $60 billion doesn’t make a dent in the $8.5 trillion debt.
On Iraq, Casey said we need a new direction. He didn't elaborate. (Think cut-and-run).
Casey enjoyed a 20-point lead in the polls earlier this year. The race is now a dead heat. As I've been saying for the past year, the more you know about Bob Casey, the less there is to like. More Pennsylvania voters are getting to know Casey. That's why Santorum has closed the gap.
Santorum is one of the brightest, most sensible, articulate and hardest working members in the U.S. Senate. He's the third highest-ranking member of the Senate and has done a lot for his home state. Voters aren't going to give up that kind of clout so Bobby Casey Jr. can get on-the-job training.
Santorum will win a third term to the Senate this November. Bobby Casey will return to his job of state treasurer and he’ll bide his time until 2010 when he will run for governor — against Republican Lynn Swann, who will defeat Ed Rendell on Nov. 7.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Friday, September 01, 2006
The left blames Bush for poverty
Here's a news flash. Poor people have been around for a long time. You can look it up in the Bible, which was written 2,000 years ago. The Gospel of Matthew attributes these words to Jesus Christ: "For you have the poor with you always, but me you do not have always." Matthew 26:11
But to hear the liberal media, poor people magically appeared in the United States on the day George W. Bush was sworn in as president in 2001.
The anti-Bush media jumped all over a new report by the U.S. Census Bureau on the poverty rate in the United States. Newspapers ran headlines such as "More poor" and "Swelling poverty risk seen in U.S." and "Rising economy leaves Americans behind."
I doubt that many of the partisan scribes took time to actually read the 86-page report. If they had, they would have reached the same conclusion that the Census Bureau did: "Real median household income increased between 2004 and 2005. Both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate were not statistically different between 2004 and 2005."
The poverty rate for whites — which make up the majority of people below the poverty level — decreased, while the overall rate was statistically unchanged, the Census Bureau concluded.
After four consecutive years of increases, the poverty rate stabilized in 2005. That should have been the front page banner headline in every newspaper in the country. Since a high of 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available, the poverty rate in the U.S. has dropped nearly in half.
The poverty rates under George W. Bush are lower than they were in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president. But you'll never see the left-wing media report anything positive about the Bush economic recovery. And you'll never see any criticism of the Clinton era, especially with Madame Hillary Clinton, the darling of the liberal media, about to make her much-anticipated assault on the White House.
There were 37 million people living in poverty in 2005, or 12.6 percent of the U.S. population. The poverty rate for whites dropped to 8.3 percent in 2005 from 8.7 percent in 2004.
Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for blacks and Hispanics between 2004 and 2005 even with the devastation that predominantly black New Orleans suffered in 2005.
Whites account for about 44 percent of people in poverty and 66.7 percent of the total U.S. population. Where is the Rev. Jesse Jackson to decry the horrible state of poverty among white people in this country?
The federal government has spent more money on anti-poverty programs during the Bush administration than at any other point in history. Same goes for funding public education in America's poorest school districts. And for all the shameful race-baiting the liberal media engaged in during Hurricane Katrina (and continues today on the one-year anniversary of the disaster), liberals can't ignore the fact that black home ownership is at an all-time high in the U.S. and there's a thriving black middle-class under the Bush administration.
If poverty is something the government can solve by raising taxes and redistributing the nation's wealth, why hasn't poverty been eradicated over the past 40 years? Why didn't Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton eliminate poverty when they were in the White House?
Don't get me wrong. It's a national disgrace that we have so many Americans struggling to get by while many others are living in the lap of luxury. Blaming Bush is not the solution. And the Democratic Party, as usual, has no answer for any of the nation's problems.
Here's another detail the liberal media forgot to mention. The income and poverty estimates released by the Census Bureau are based solely on income before taxes and do not include the value of "noncash benefits such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and employer-provided fringe benefits."
Here's what got missed in the fine print as the left-wing media rushed to blame George Bush for poor people.
Real median income of households in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, from $45,817 to $46,326. Real median income of households rose by 2.9 percent in the Northeast and 1.5 percent in the West. Statistical declines in median income were recorded in the Midwest and the South.
The moral of the story is don't believe what you read in the left-wing press, including the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Don't believe the mainstream television media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) which promote the far-left agenda of liberal elitists.
Next time you read something in one of those big city liberal newspapers that sounds fishy, go to the source yourself. You can download the entire report on poverty from the Census Bureau's Web site at www.census.gov
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
But to hear the liberal media, poor people magically appeared in the United States on the day George W. Bush was sworn in as president in 2001.
The anti-Bush media jumped all over a new report by the U.S. Census Bureau on the poverty rate in the United States. Newspapers ran headlines such as "More poor" and "Swelling poverty risk seen in U.S." and "Rising economy leaves Americans behind."
I doubt that many of the partisan scribes took time to actually read the 86-page report. If they had, they would have reached the same conclusion that the Census Bureau did: "Real median household income increased between 2004 and 2005. Both the number of people in poverty and the poverty rate were not statistically different between 2004 and 2005."
The poverty rate for whites — which make up the majority of people below the poverty level — decreased, while the overall rate was statistically unchanged, the Census Bureau concluded.
After four consecutive years of increases, the poverty rate stabilized in 2005. That should have been the front page banner headline in every newspaper in the country. Since a high of 22.4 percent in 1959, the first year for which poverty estimates are available, the poverty rate in the U.S. has dropped nearly in half.
The poverty rates under George W. Bush are lower than they were in the 1990s when Bill Clinton was president. But you'll never see the left-wing media report anything positive about the Bush economic recovery. And you'll never see any criticism of the Clinton era, especially with Madame Hillary Clinton, the darling of the liberal media, about to make her much-anticipated assault on the White House.
There were 37 million people living in poverty in 2005, or 12.6 percent of the U.S. population. The poverty rate for whites dropped to 8.3 percent in 2005 from 8.7 percent in 2004.
Poverty rates remained statistically unchanged for blacks and Hispanics between 2004 and 2005 even with the devastation that predominantly black New Orleans suffered in 2005.
Whites account for about 44 percent of people in poverty and 66.7 percent of the total U.S. population. Where is the Rev. Jesse Jackson to decry the horrible state of poverty among white people in this country?
The federal government has spent more money on anti-poverty programs during the Bush administration than at any other point in history. Same goes for funding public education in America's poorest school districts. And for all the shameful race-baiting the liberal media engaged in during Hurricane Katrina (and continues today on the one-year anniversary of the disaster), liberals can't ignore the fact that black home ownership is at an all-time high in the U.S. and there's a thriving black middle-class under the Bush administration.
If poverty is something the government can solve by raising taxes and redistributing the nation's wealth, why hasn't poverty been eradicated over the past 40 years? Why didn't Lyndon Johnson or Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton eliminate poverty when they were in the White House?
Don't get me wrong. It's a national disgrace that we have so many Americans struggling to get by while many others are living in the lap of luxury. Blaming Bush is not the solution. And the Democratic Party, as usual, has no answer for any of the nation's problems.
Here's another detail the liberal media forgot to mention. The income and poverty estimates released by the Census Bureau are based solely on income before taxes and do not include the value of "noncash benefits such as food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, public housing and employer-provided fringe benefits."
Here's what got missed in the fine print as the left-wing media rushed to blame George Bush for poor people.
Real median income of households in the United States rose by 1.1 percent between 2004 and 2005, from $45,817 to $46,326. Real median income of households rose by 2.9 percent in the Northeast and 1.5 percent in the West. Statistical declines in median income were recorded in the Midwest and the South.
The moral of the story is don't believe what you read in the left-wing press, including the New York Times and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Don't believe the mainstream television media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) which promote the far-left agenda of liberal elitists.
Next time you read something in one of those big city liberal newspapers that sounds fishy, go to the source yourself. You can download the entire report on poverty from the Census Bureau's Web site at www.census.gov
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Predictions for the November elections
I've been thinking a lot about pundits lately. What exactly is a pundit anyway? How do you become a pundit? Is there a pundit club you can join? Are there membership dues? Is there a secret initiation?
I see a lot of people on TV who are described as pundits, but most of the time they don't know what they're talking about. A lot of college professors are often referred to as pundits, but I wonder about them. Some of these so-called intellectuals have been so isolated from the real world for so long, it's hard for them to tell night from day.
The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a pundit as: "A person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner, usually through the mass media." That sounds like me. I work for a newspaper. I've been on more than a dozen radio programs this year. I've been on the Pennsylvania Cable Network twice in the past three months. I'm sure this qualifies me as a pundit.
The one thing the definition of pundit doesn't cover is whether pundits have to be right more often than they're wrong. A lot of pundits get things wrong.
The pundits never thought the outrage over the July 2005 legislative pay raise would last more than a few weeks. It's 13 months later and we’re still talking about the pay raise. At least I am. The pundits didn't think it was possible for a Pennsylvania judge to lose a retention vote, but tell that to former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro, who was tossed out by more than 800,000 voters in November 2005. The pundits said the legislature would never repeal the pay raise, but the politicians did just that.
A prominent Pennsylvania pundit kept saying right up to the May 2006 primary that only a handful of incumbent legislators would lose. Wrong again. Seventeen lawmakers lost in the primary, including the top two Republican leaders in the state Senate. Considering that the re-election rate for Pennsylvania legislators had been 98 percent, the defeat of 17 incumbents was a political seismic shock. And don’t forget that 30 other legislators "retired" instead of facing the voters.
Now the pundits are saying that Gov. Ed Rendell will coast to re-election this November. The pundits also say that Rick Santorum's days in the U.S. Senate are numbered. They also see Democrats winning control of the U.S. House and Senate.
As someone who's been right so far about the political winds of change in Pennsylvania, I'd like to offer my predictions for the coming elections.
I see a lot of people on TV who are described as pundits, but most of the time they don't know what they're talking about. A lot of college professors are often referred to as pundits, but I wonder about them. Some of these so-called intellectuals have been so isolated from the real world for so long, it's hard for them to tell night from day.
The Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary defines a pundit as: "A person who gives opinions in an authoritative manner, usually through the mass media." That sounds like me. I work for a newspaper. I've been on more than a dozen radio programs this year. I've been on the Pennsylvania Cable Network twice in the past three months. I'm sure this qualifies me as a pundit.
The one thing the definition of pundit doesn't cover is whether pundits have to be right more often than they're wrong. A lot of pundits get things wrong.
The pundits never thought the outrage over the July 2005 legislative pay raise would last more than a few weeks. It's 13 months later and we’re still talking about the pay raise. At least I am. The pundits didn't think it was possible for a Pennsylvania judge to lose a retention vote, but tell that to former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Russell Nigro, who was tossed out by more than 800,000 voters in November 2005. The pundits said the legislature would never repeal the pay raise, but the politicians did just that.
A prominent Pennsylvania pundit kept saying right up to the May 2006 primary that only a handful of incumbent legislators would lose. Wrong again. Seventeen lawmakers lost in the primary, including the top two Republican leaders in the state Senate. Considering that the re-election rate for Pennsylvania legislators had been 98 percent, the defeat of 17 incumbents was a political seismic shock. And don’t forget that 30 other legislators "retired" instead of facing the voters.
Now the pundits are saying that Gov. Ed Rendell will coast to re-election this November. The pundits also say that Rick Santorum's days in the U.S. Senate are numbered. They also see Democrats winning control of the U.S. House and Senate.
As someone who's been right so far about the political winds of change in Pennsylvania, I'd like to offer my predictions for the coming elections.
Pennsylvania governor
Gov. Ed Rendell will lose to Lynn Swann. Forget the polls. The only poll that matters is on Election Day. Rendell has broken his promise to cut taxes, has saddled Pennsylvania with the worst gambling law in the country and Pennsylvania has become a more dangerous place to live because of Rendell's neglect of crime. Philadelphia will set a new homicide record this year. Reading, Allentown and Lancaster are places you don't want to be when the sun goes down. All those catchy tourism ads won't change the fact that the average Pennsylvanian is far worse off today than he was four years ago.U.S. Senate
Sen. Rick Santorum will defeat Bob Casey Jr. The more you know about Casey, the less there is to like about this clueless ultra-liberal career bureaucrat. The U.S. Senate is no place for on-the-job training and Casey needs a lot more schooling. Casey's only foreign policy experience is visiting the Jersey Shore.6th Congressional District
This is my home district, so I'm paying close attention to it. Rep. Jim Gerlach will beat back challenger Lois Murphy, who is even more liberal than Casey. Murphy wants to raise taxes, force socialized medicine on us and push her radical social agenda in Congress. We already have Hillary Clinton to do that. Murphy's shrill attacks and distortions of Gerlach's record has grown tiresome with voters in the 6th District.Other Congressional races
Several other Republican congressmen, namely Curt Weldon, Mike Fitzpatrick, Charlie Dent and Joe Pitts, will return to Washington. I see one incumbent from the Pennsylvania delegation (Don Sherwood) losing, but I also think Democrat John Murtha, leader of the "cut-and-run" brigade on Iraq, will lose. Murtha is an embarrassment to Pennsylvania and the nation.Control of Congress
Forget what the pundits keep saying. The House and the Senate will remain in Republican control, although the GOP will probably lose a few seats in each chamber. Despite President Bush's poor job approval numbers and his bungling of Iraq, Americans understand there's too much at stake to hand over Congress to the Democrats.Monday, August 28, 2006
How long can the 'party of death' survive?
I've had a few unkind things to say about the Democratic Party through the years.
It's pretty clear to me that Democrats are wrong about every issue facing this country, especially in the last 30 years as the Democratic Party has veered far to the left. That's why Democrats tend to lose so many elections, including seven of the last 10 presidential contests.
I've also taken my share of shots at the rogues' gallery that passes for leadership in today's Democratic Party. Any political organization that counts Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi as its standard bearers might as well slap a "kick me" sign on its back.
But even I was taken aback by the title of a new book about the current state of the Democratic Party. How many rank-and-file Democrats realize they belong to the party of death?
The book, "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life" shows the Democratic Party in a whole new light. The author of this provocative work is National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru, a staunch conservative but not a commentator that would be confused by right-wing flame-throwers like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage.
Ponnuru's book is a thought-provoking assessment of the decline of America's once-dominant political party.
If you think about it, most Democrats, including nearly all of the party's leadership, support abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia and the destruction of stem cells for medical research. Each of those actions leads to the termination of human life at various stages.
While Ponnuru concedes there are Republicans who support abortion, it is the litmus test that Democrats use for every national and state political contest. Abortion defines the Democratic Party and helps explain why Democrats have lost support in many parts of this country, keeping their traditional hold in the Northeast and the West Coast, but losing the South and "middle America" to the GOP.
"The Party of Death started with abortion, but its sickle has gone from threatening the unborn, to the elderly, to the disabled; it has swept from the maternity ward to the cloning laboratory to the generalized disregard for 'inconvenient' human life," Ponnuru writes in the opening chapter of the book.
The book begins with a comprehensive review of Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and spawned an abortion cottage industry. Ponnuru points out that many legal scholars consider Roe v Wade one of the most flawed decisions in the high court's history. But thanks to the pro-abortion industry and its media allies, the myth of Roe v Wade has been perpetuated for 30 years, leading to the mistaken belief by many Americans that abortion is a constitutional right.
While Democrats continue to use abortion as a scare tactic whenever there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the more pragmatic leaders in the Democratic Party have come to the realization that abortion is losing its luster with voters.
That explains why Bob Casey Jr., a mediocre career politician, is the Democratic challenger to Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Casey opposes abortion, much to the dismay of die-hard liberals. But the party bosses figure their only chance of unseating the Republican Santorum is to run somebody who won't automatically turn off half the voters with a pro-abortion platform.
Ponnuru's book also discusses Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming president in 2008, the Terri Schiavo case that exposed the hypocrisy of liberals on the euthanasia debate, why 19th century feminists opposed abortion and why the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that offers no legal protection to the unborn at any stage of development.
It's a serious book about some of the most important issues of our times. It's not just the future of the Democratic Party at stake. It may be the future of this nation.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
It's pretty clear to me that Democrats are wrong about every issue facing this country, especially in the last 30 years as the Democratic Party has veered far to the left. That's why Democrats tend to lose so many elections, including seven of the last 10 presidential contests.
I've also taken my share of shots at the rogues' gallery that passes for leadership in today's Democratic Party. Any political organization that counts Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi as its standard bearers might as well slap a "kick me" sign on its back.
But even I was taken aback by the title of a new book about the current state of the Democratic Party. How many rank-and-file Democrats realize they belong to the party of death?
The book, "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life" shows the Democratic Party in a whole new light. The author of this provocative work is National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru, a staunch conservative but not a commentator that would be confused by right-wing flame-throwers like Ann Coulter or Michael Savage.
Ponnuru's book is a thought-provoking assessment of the decline of America's once-dominant political party.
If you think about it, most Democrats, including nearly all of the party's leadership, support abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia and the destruction of stem cells for medical research. Each of those actions leads to the termination of human life at various stages.
While Ponnuru concedes there are Republicans who support abortion, it is the litmus test that Democrats use for every national and state political contest. Abortion defines the Democratic Party and helps explain why Democrats have lost support in many parts of this country, keeping their traditional hold in the Northeast and the West Coast, but losing the South and "middle America" to the GOP.
"The Party of Death started with abortion, but its sickle has gone from threatening the unborn, to the elderly, to the disabled; it has swept from the maternity ward to the cloning laboratory to the generalized disregard for 'inconvenient' human life," Ponnuru writes in the opening chapter of the book.
The book begins with a comprehensive review of Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and spawned an abortion cottage industry. Ponnuru points out that many legal scholars consider Roe v Wade one of the most flawed decisions in the high court's history. But thanks to the pro-abortion industry and its media allies, the myth of Roe v Wade has been perpetuated for 30 years, leading to the mistaken belief by many Americans that abortion is a constitutional right.
While Democrats continue to use abortion as a scare tactic whenever there's a vacancy on the Supreme Court, the more pragmatic leaders in the Democratic Party have come to the realization that abortion is losing its luster with voters.
That explains why Bob Casey Jr., a mediocre career politician, is the Democratic challenger to Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum. Casey opposes abortion, much to the dismay of die-hard liberals. But the party bosses figure their only chance of unseating the Republican Santorum is to run somebody who won't automatically turn off half the voters with a pro-abortion platform.
Ponnuru's book also discusses Hillary Clinton's chances of becoming president in 2008, the Terri Schiavo case that exposed the hypocrisy of liberals on the euthanasia debate, why 19th century feminists opposed abortion and why the U.S. is the only industrialized nation in the world that offers no legal protection to the unborn at any stage of development.
It's a serious book about some of the most important issues of our times. It's not just the future of the Democratic Party at stake. It may be the future of this nation.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Stuck in a state of frustration, Part II
Maybe it's the heat, but I'm still fuming about the state of affairs in Pennsylvania. So I'm going to continue the rant I began a few days ago.
The Associated Press reports that a number of high-profile Pennsylvania politicians have received more than $760,000 in campaign contributions from law firms and lobbyists representing the 22 applicants for slot-machine parlor licenses in the state. (That figure is for Jan. 1 to June 5 of this year, the most recent reporting period.) I know we forced the state legislature and Gov. Ed Rendell give back the money they lavished on themselves with the infamous July 2005 pay raise, but how appropriate is it for politicians to be accepting so much money from casino interests? At the very top of the list of recipients is Republican state Sen. Robert Jubelirer, who received $62,500 in casino money. He is followed closely by Gov. Rendell, who pocketed $60,000 from the friends of the casinos. Coming in third is Republican Speaker of the House John Perzel, who got $46,000. These three men also were the driving force behind the legislative pay grab of 2005. Pennsylvania would be so much better off without this trio in charge. Jubelirer was knocked out in the primary. Do yourself a favor and help get rid of Rendell and Perzel. Don't shed a tear for any of them. With all the money the gambling industry has invested in Rendell, Perzel and Jubelirer, I'm sure each has a lucrative casino job waiting for them.
Even before the first casino license has been issued, we know who's already made out like one-arm bandits: Politicians and their cronies.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The Associated Press reports that a number of high-profile Pennsylvania politicians have received more than $760,000 in campaign contributions from law firms and lobbyists representing the 22 applicants for slot-machine parlor licenses in the state. (That figure is for Jan. 1 to June 5 of this year, the most recent reporting period.) I know we forced the state legislature and Gov. Ed Rendell give back the money they lavished on themselves with the infamous July 2005 pay raise, but how appropriate is it for politicians to be accepting so much money from casino interests? At the very top of the list of recipients is Republican state Sen. Robert Jubelirer, who received $62,500 in casino money. He is followed closely by Gov. Rendell, who pocketed $60,000 from the friends of the casinos. Coming in third is Republican Speaker of the House John Perzel, who got $46,000. These three men also were the driving force behind the legislative pay grab of 2005. Pennsylvania would be so much better off without this trio in charge. Jubelirer was knocked out in the primary. Do yourself a favor and help get rid of Rendell and Perzel. Don't shed a tear for any of them. With all the money the gambling industry has invested in Rendell, Perzel and Jubelirer, I'm sure each has a lucrative casino job waiting for them.
***
Four lesser-known politicos are also on the list of top recipients of casino money. Sen. Vince Fumo received $29,500. Fumo was in the news recently when it was revealed that he spent more than $1.2 million in taxpayer and campaign funds to pay lawyers to defend him against a corruption probe by the FBI. You see Fumo is the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and he decided the best way to spend $1,031,700 or your tax dollars was on lawyers to help keep Fumo out of the clutches of the FBI. Your tax dollars at work. Isn't it nice when you can use other people's money to defend yourself against charges that you’ve betrayed the public trust? Only in Pennsylvania.***
Rep. Sam Smith, the No. 2 Republican in the House, received $29,000 from the casinos. Rep. Mike Veon, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, received $26,500. Smith thinks he's going to fill Perzel's shows when Perzel is sent to the back of the room by his fellow Republicans, but Smith has been Perzel's errand boy way too long. There's going to be a new batch of legislators going to Harrisburg in January 2007 and their first duty is to fumigate the place. Veon, in addition to providing comedy relief as the sidekick of Rep. Bill DeWeese, the top Democrat in the House, also has the distinction of being the only member of the House to vote against the repeal of the 2005 pay grab. What do all these politicians have in common? They love money. Our money. They love to spend it. They love to waste it. They like to lavish it on themselves. They like to raise our taxes so they can have more of our money to spend. Every incumbent who accepted money from the casinos should return it. If they refuse, vote them out.***
If you've been wondering how the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board could spend between $50 million and $100 million (nobody knows the exact amount) in less than a year, you might want to take a look at the board's payroll. That's what Michael Race, the Harrisburg bureau chief for the Times-Shamrock newspaper group in the Scranton area, did recently, compiling a detailed list of how much our newest "public servants" are earning. It's costing taxpayers $11.5 million a year to cover the salaries of the Gaming Board. In a story headline, "Gaming board ranking in fat paychecks," Race found that 25 appointed officials and top staffers at the Gaming Board each earn more than $100,000 a year. Nearly one-third of the agency's 170 employees pocket more than the $72,187-a-year base pay for state lawmakers, who felt voters' wrath after they briefly boosted their salaries last year, Race says. The average annual salary for a gaming board employee is $67,400 — about double Pennsylvania's per capita income of $33,257, according to state census data. Here's some more gems from Race's investigation: Anne LeCour Neeb, the board's executive director, makes $180,011. She is followed in the pay rankings by board chairman Thomas "Tad" Decker, who makes $150,006. The board's six other voting members earn $145,018 each. Your tax dollars in action, folks.Even before the first casino license has been issued, we know who's already made out like one-arm bandits: Politicians and their cronies.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Stuck in a state of frustration
I've got a lot on my mind today so here goes.
Gov. Ed Rendell is spending millions in television ads to brag about how Pennsylvania's economy is booming under his leadership. Just the other day, Forbes magazine published a list of the "Best States for Business." Where did Ed Rendell's Pennsylvania rank? 41 out of 50. The Keystone State finished right behind Alabama, which is nothing to brag about. Forbes ranked the states based on such categories as economic climate, business costs, crime rates, taxes and quality of life. Pennsylvania finished in the bottom third in almost all the categories. So who has more credibility? A politician who will say anything to get re-elected or a prestigious national business publication? Ed Rendell is living in a state of delusion.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Gov. Ed Rendell is spending millions in television ads to brag about how Pennsylvania's economy is booming under his leadership. Just the other day, Forbes magazine published a list of the "Best States for Business." Where did Ed Rendell's Pennsylvania rank? 41 out of 50. The Keystone State finished right behind Alabama, which is nothing to brag about. Forbes ranked the states based on such categories as economic climate, business costs, crime rates, taxes and quality of life. Pennsylvania finished in the bottom third in almost all the categories. So who has more credibility? A politician who will say anything to get re-elected or a prestigious national business publication? Ed Rendell is living in a state of delusion.
***
Another interesting revelation about how Rendell does business came out in the Allentown Morning Call. The newspaper reported that state officials want taxpayers to help pay for promoting slots parlors. The Governor's Tourism Partnership thinks that casinos will be a big draw for out-of-state visitors, but until those casinos start making money, taxpayers should chip in to help promote the gambling palaces. I don't know about you, but I don't want my tax dollars going to help poor Donald Trump or any of the multibillion-dollar corporations that want to open casinos in Pennsylvania. It's bad enough that the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board has spent somewhere between $50 million to $100 million of our money so far and has yet to award a single license, but why should the state's beleaguered taxpayers have to chip in for Rendell’s latest corporate welfare scheme?***
And speaking of the hapless Gaming Board, did you see how quickly it reversed its policy of keeping secret the identities of potential casino owners? The Associated Press reported Monday that the agency had concluded that the 2-year-old state law that legalized slot machines barred it from releasing the information. Imagine that. The people of Pennsylvania don't have a right to know who has ownership stakes in the lucrative casinos. What does the Gaming Board have to hide? Is Rendell’s Aunt Gertrude one of the owners? Is the Gaming Board trying to protect the privacy of mobsters or convicted felons? Do state legislators and their relatives own a piece of the pie? Thanks to the public outrage over the secrecy, state gambling regulators announced Wednesday that they would reverse their policy and will, in fact, release documents showing the potential owners of Pennsylvania casinos. The information will be posted on the Gaming Board's Web site starting Monday. The culture of corruption involving the licensing of casinos in this state is astounding. To keep up with the latest shenanigans involving casinos, check out CasinoFreePa.org And while you're there, you may want to sign the group's petition to put a stop to the casino debacle.***
Does anyone else think it's obscene to be paying a state worker nearly $500,000 a year? The chief executive of Pennsylvania's college student-loan agency, PHEAA, made $469,900 in 2005, about 7 percent more than the previous year, according to The Patriot-News of Harrisburg. Richard Willey was paid $290,000 in salary and earned a bonus of nearly $179,900, according to the newspaper. That makes Mr. Willey the highest-paid employee in state government, earning about three times as much as the governor. Imagine how many deserving students could attend college if the $500,000 was used for loans or grants instead of fattening the wallet of one individual. And it doesn't just stop with Mr. Willey. PHEEA's six vice presidents also received bonuses ranging from $110,700 to $113,100 for a total compensation of about $330,000 per person, the newspaper reported. Bonuses for those top executives total $852,835 — enough to give the maximum individual grant of $4,500 to 189 college students, according to the newspaper. PHEEA is notorious for sending its workers on expensive junkets and lavishing them with all sorts of gifts. And guess who gets stuck with the bill?***
When it comes to government, Ed Rendell and I differ in a crucial area. I believe government should not be making a profit from its citizens. A budget surplus means government is collecting too much in taxes. That money should be returned to the people. What happened to the concept of public service? If Mr. Willey thinks he should be paid like a corporate executive, let him take his skills to the private sector. If he wants to be in public service and help send more Pennsylvania students to college, he should return the bonus money to increase the pool of available grants and loans. I'm sick of politicians and their millionaire pals living lifestyles of the rich and famous on the backs of taxpayers. Election Day is Nov. 7. If you want real change, Rendell and most of the state Legislature must be voted out of office on that day.***
I'll be back on the radio Monday at 4 p.m. on WPAZ 1370 AM. Listeners are invited to call in to the Nick Lawrence Show with questions or comments about current issues. The one-hour program can also be heard live over the Internet at www.1370wpaz.com. Just click on the "live audio" button at the top of the station's Web site and follow instructions.E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Lessons from trip to Jersey: Self-serving politicians are everywhere
I spent a few days at the Jersey Shore.
New Jersey gets a bad rap on many things, but I noticed during my visit that Jersey does some things better than Pennsylvania.
New Jersey roads are better maintained than the ones in Pennsylvania, where the pothole should be designated the state seal.
True, some of the roads in N.J., especially the ones leading to Shore destinations, are congested, but I noticed it was mostly Pennsylvania drivers clogging up the Garden State's highways.
I liked the law in N.J. that requires motorists to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. What a novel concept. In Pennsylvania, motorists tend to speed up when they see somebody attempting to cross the street. Pennsylvania drivers also seem to be under the wrong impression that stopping at red lights has become optional.
I was curious to see if there would be any complaints about the recent increase in the New Jersey state sales tax. I can report to you that not a single person I came across on the crowded boardwalk and streets of Ocean City, N.J., minded the 7 percent sales tax recently enacted in the state.
The 1-cent increase was negotiated by Democratic N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine and the state Legislature as a way to make up a budget shortfall and provide property tax relief.
I know this is going to be hard to believe, but New Jersey property owners pay more in taxes than their counterparts in Pennsylvania, although N.J. residents make more money than workers in Pennsylvania, so maybe it's a wash.
While Ed Rendell has failed in four years to provide the property tax cuts he promised, Corzine found a way to do it in less than six months in office.
Several newspapers I picked up in N.J. reported that the state Legislature is already meeting to discuss ways to provide additional tax relief to property owners.
In contrast, the Pennsylvania legislature is on its annual two-month summer vacation, having failed to come up with meaningful property tax reform for the 30th consecutive year.
Before you get the idea that I like Jon Corzine, I need to remind you that Corzine, like Rendell, lied to voters.
Corzine promised to cut taxes if he was elected governor, but he raised the sales tax in his first year. Turn back the clock and you had a similar scenario in Pennsylvania, where Rendell promised in 2002 to lower property taxes for every Pennsylvania taxpayer. It's 2006 and I'm still waiting for my property taxes to go down. Those are the very same property taxes that rose 22 percent while Rendell has been in the governor’s mansion.
In 2003, Rendell pushed for a $1 billion increase in the Pennsylvania income tax. In 2004, Rendell pushed through casino gambling for Pennsylvania, which is a sneaky form of taxation. In 2005, Rendell pushed through the $52 EMS tax, which forces workers to pay $1 a week for the privilege of holding a job in Pennsylvania.
I couldn't help but laugh at Rendell’s latest television ads that tout how he balanced the budget for four years in a row and cut taxes.
How dumb does Rendell think Pennsylvania voters are? The state constitution mandates a balanced budget. It has nothing to do with Rendell, who has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to finance his pet projects on top of the massive tax hikes he fought for. Long after Rendell leaves office, Pennsylvania taxpayers will be paying for his spending binges.
As for cutting taxes, Rendell is blowing smoke. He's borrowing money from the state lottery to send rebate checks to low-income senior citizens. The other 80 percent of taxpayers get nothing. You call that tax relief? And the only tax breaks for businesses came at the insistence of Republican legislators. Rendell reluctantly agreed to the business tax cuts in return for Republican votes to pass his $26 billion budget.
I guess the moral of the story is that you can travel 150 miles from home, but you still can't get away from self-serving politicians.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
New Jersey gets a bad rap on many things, but I noticed during my visit that Jersey does some things better than Pennsylvania.
New Jersey roads are better maintained than the ones in Pennsylvania, where the pothole should be designated the state seal.
True, some of the roads in N.J., especially the ones leading to Shore destinations, are congested, but I noticed it was mostly Pennsylvania drivers clogging up the Garden State's highways.
I liked the law in N.J. that requires motorists to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks. What a novel concept. In Pennsylvania, motorists tend to speed up when they see somebody attempting to cross the street. Pennsylvania drivers also seem to be under the wrong impression that stopping at red lights has become optional.
I was curious to see if there would be any complaints about the recent increase in the New Jersey state sales tax. I can report to you that not a single person I came across on the crowded boardwalk and streets of Ocean City, N.J., minded the 7 percent sales tax recently enacted in the state.
The 1-cent increase was negotiated by Democratic N.J. Gov. Jon Corzine and the state Legislature as a way to make up a budget shortfall and provide property tax relief.
I know this is going to be hard to believe, but New Jersey property owners pay more in taxes than their counterparts in Pennsylvania, although N.J. residents make more money than workers in Pennsylvania, so maybe it's a wash.
While Ed Rendell has failed in four years to provide the property tax cuts he promised, Corzine found a way to do it in less than six months in office.
Several newspapers I picked up in N.J. reported that the state Legislature is already meeting to discuss ways to provide additional tax relief to property owners.
In contrast, the Pennsylvania legislature is on its annual two-month summer vacation, having failed to come up with meaningful property tax reform for the 30th consecutive year.
Before you get the idea that I like Jon Corzine, I need to remind you that Corzine, like Rendell, lied to voters.
Corzine promised to cut taxes if he was elected governor, but he raised the sales tax in his first year. Turn back the clock and you had a similar scenario in Pennsylvania, where Rendell promised in 2002 to lower property taxes for every Pennsylvania taxpayer. It's 2006 and I'm still waiting for my property taxes to go down. Those are the very same property taxes that rose 22 percent while Rendell has been in the governor’s mansion.
In 2003, Rendell pushed for a $1 billion increase in the Pennsylvania income tax. In 2004, Rendell pushed through casino gambling for Pennsylvania, which is a sneaky form of taxation. In 2005, Rendell pushed through the $52 EMS tax, which forces workers to pay $1 a week for the privilege of holding a job in Pennsylvania.
I couldn't help but laugh at Rendell’s latest television ads that tout how he balanced the budget for four years in a row and cut taxes.
How dumb does Rendell think Pennsylvania voters are? The state constitution mandates a balanced budget. It has nothing to do with Rendell, who has borrowed hundreds of millions of dollars to finance his pet projects on top of the massive tax hikes he fought for. Long after Rendell leaves office, Pennsylvania taxpayers will be paying for his spending binges.
As for cutting taxes, Rendell is blowing smoke. He's borrowing money from the state lottery to send rebate checks to low-income senior citizens. The other 80 percent of taxpayers get nothing. You call that tax relief? And the only tax breaks for businesses came at the insistence of Republican legislators. Rendell reluctantly agreed to the business tax cuts in return for Republican votes to pass his $26 billion budget.
I guess the moral of the story is that you can travel 150 miles from home, but you still can't get away from self-serving politicians.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Monday, August 14, 2006
Howard Dean and the Far Left still don't get it
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean was in San Francisco for a campaign rally the other day when he made the following remarks, which demonstrate again why he was rejected as the party's presidential nominee two years ago.
Asked by reporters to respond to the news of the arrest of two dozen terror plotters in England and Pakistan, Dean said the event was staged by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair to prop up their political standing.
"The president and his team out there — Karl Rove and all his folks — they're trying to scare people again. You hear what they said about Ned Lamont's win: 'Oh, well, that's a good thing for al-Qaida.' That's what Dick Cheney said. I'll tell you what the best recruiting tool for al-Qaida has been, and you know who that is."
This is the kind of hysterical nonsense that we've heard so many times before from the man who heads the Democratic Party.
Instead of applauding the news that a terrorist plot to blow up as many as 10 passenger jets bound for the United States was foiled by authorities, Howard Dean makes political hay of the threat.
And you wonder why voters won't take Democrats seriously when it comes to national security. Exhibit 1 is Howard Dean, the man who screamed his way into political infamy in 2004 and has continue to embarrass his own party over the past two years.
Howard Dean, like so many left-wing radicals, just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand that the United States is involved in a global war against Islamic fascists bent on killing every man, woman and child in the country. That includes Democrats.
Dean wants you to think that the war on terror is a Bush administration campaign to "scare us again" and keep Republicans in control.
Well, Dr. Dean, I am scared.
The possibility of 10 airplanes loaded with fuel and passengers exploding over American cities or crashing into buildings in New York, Washington or Philadelphia scare me.
The prospect of 40,000-strong army of terrorists known as Hezbollah on Israel's northern border scares me. Hezbollah is funded by Iran, trained by Iran and equipped with Iranian missiles.
Iran with nuclear weapons scares me, especially when its obvious Iran is waging a proxy war against the United States to drive us out of Iraq and Afghanistan so it can control the Middle East and continue to breed terrorists scares me.
The possibility that Iran could cut off our oil supply and destroy our economy scares me.
Unlike Howard Dean, I remember where I was five years ago when 3,000 American died on Sept. 11, 2001. How quickly Dean forgets, especially if he thinks it can help his party politically.
The mid-term Congressional elections of 2006 — just like the 2004 presidential election — and the 2008 elections come down to one issue: National security.
Which party can best protect the United States from the threat of Islamic fascists?
It's not the party of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ned Lamont, Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
The U.S. House of Representatives may go back to the Democrats this November, but that's typical of what happens in the last two years of the second term of a presidency. American voters are fickle and have a short-attention span. They get bored with presidents. Bush fatigue has set in.
Regardless of what happens in the House, the Senate will remain in GOP control and Bush has another two years to go in his term. Voters may want to send a message to Bush that he bungled the Iraq War by voting in a bunch of anti-war Democrats to the House, but deep down, Americans feel safer having Bush as president.
It's also important to note that British authorities arrested the 24 terrorists thanks in large part to expanded surveillance and police powers granted to law enforcement in that country. These are the same law enforcement techniques that have come under fire in this country by Howard Dean and many others in the Democratic Party, the ACLU and the left-wing press, led by the New York Times.
According to the New York Times, a senior American official confirmed that the British disruption of the plot to down airliners began with the follow-up investigation after last summer's suicide attacks on the London subways, which killed 52 people.
"MI-5 (the British version of the CIA) tracked everyone involved in the London attacks," the official told the Times. "Their past movements, phone calls and e-mails, everything. It was comprehensive in much the same way that the FBI conducted the post-9/11 investigation."
It was that investigation that led the British authorities to the suspects in the current plot and allowed them to insert an undercover officer, which is unlikely to happen in the U.S. because Dean and the Democrats work to undermine the government's attempts to deter terrorists.
As we approach the fifth anniversary of 9/11, Howard Dean needs a reminder of the threat facing the American people.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Saturday, August 12, 2006
Ed Rendell has a gambling problem
Gov. Ed Rendell is riding high in the polls and sitting on a giant pile of cash as he prepares to seek another four-year term.
He has the state's biggest media outlets (the fawning Philadelphia newspapers and TV stations) in his back pocket. He has the power of incumbency, which allows him to travel all over Pennsylvania at taxpayers' expense for thinly disguised campaign appearances, including handing out millions of tax dollars in areas Rendell needs to buy votes.
But don't bet the farm that Rendell will coast to re-election this November. Rendell has an Achilles' heel.
Rendell promised to cut everyone's taxes when he first ran for governor in 2002. He has failed to deliver on the promise. The best he could do is a rebate plan, where he borrows money from the state lottery to send a few hundred dollars back to low-income seniors. The rest of us — 80 percent of Pennsylvania taxpayers — won't get a dime under Rendell's plan.
Another glaring blunder in Rendell's first term was the middle-of-the-night passage of a casino gambling bill pushed through the Republican legislature. Nearly every Democratic legislator voted for Rendell's gambling plan and enough Republican legislators joined in to form a gambling majority.
Two years later, we are finally beginning to realize how terrible this gambling bill truly is. And politicians are beginning to understand that the anti-gambling constituency is not going away. Many Pennsylvania voters will go to the polls this November with one thing mind: Punish Rendell and the legislators who brought gambling to Pennsylvania.
Republican state Senators, chastised by the drubbing their leadership took in the May primary, have asked the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to delay licensing slots parlors until the Legislature can go back and fix the many loopholes in the gambling law.
A citizens' group called CasinoFreePa is organizing a petition drive to have the entire gambling bill repealed. Even Lynn Swann, the GOP candidate for governor, has figured out that gambling could be his ticket to unseat Rendell. Swann recently called on Rendell to specifically list gambling reforms that the governor favors so the Legislature can act on them.
"Passing a piece of legislation for reform knowing that the governor is not going to sign it means what?" Swann told the Associated Press. "It doesn't mean anything."
So it appears that the first licenses will be awarded in September before the Legislature has an opportunity to fix the holes in the gambling law.
All the nightmare scenarios that gambling opponents warned us about are coming true. We have lobbyists and legislators owning casinos that will be regulated by the state. We have a Gaming Control Board that can't live within its means. The board has already spent all of the money the Legislature has set aside for it and has had to borrow money from other state agencies.
Insiders predict Rendell, if re-elected this November, will go back to the Legislature early in 2007 and propose expanding the slots parlors to full casinos, just like neighboring New Jersey. If the Gaming Board can't get its act together to regulate a dozen slots parlors, what makes you think it can handle full-blown casinos?
Swann also took a shot at Rendell for vetoing a bill two years ago that would have eliminated a provision allowing lawmakers to have stakes in companies licensed under the state's slot machine law. The same bill would have forced Gaming Control Board meetings to be open to the public and it would have imposed right-to-know laws on the board's business. It also would have required State Police background checks of board employees. But Rendell vetoed the bill. Given a choice of looking out for taxpayers or the gambling interests, Rendell always goes where the money is.
Pennsylvania's rush to enact gambling has opened a Pandora's Box of financial mismanagement, shady deals and cronyism. One look at Rendell's campaign contributions from the gaming industry should raise questions about what the governor's motives were in pushing so hard to bring casinos to Pennsylvania.
Outwardly, Rendell promised tax relief from casino revenues, but the numbers don't add up. Several billion dollars will have to be wagered and lost by Pennsylvania residents before one dollar is returned in property tax relief. And there's a strong possibility that no tax relief will come to fruition until after 2010 when Rendell leaves office (should he win a second term).
Eight years is a long time to wait. Rendell promised tax relief in 2002. And something else could have been done in the eight years Pennsylvania residents will probably have to wait for their luck to change.
We know who's already won. Rendell has millions of dollars in his campaign war chest from the gaming industry. Lawmakers can own as much as 1 percent of a gambling company. Political cronies sit on the Gaming Board or have been hired to work for the board. Nearly $50 million in taxpayer money has been spent so far by the board and not a single license has been issued.
We know who the losers are so far: Pennsylvania taxpayers who took Rendell's sucker bet.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
He has the state's biggest media outlets (the fawning Philadelphia newspapers and TV stations) in his back pocket. He has the power of incumbency, which allows him to travel all over Pennsylvania at taxpayers' expense for thinly disguised campaign appearances, including handing out millions of tax dollars in areas Rendell needs to buy votes.
But don't bet the farm that Rendell will coast to re-election this November. Rendell has an Achilles' heel.
Rendell promised to cut everyone's taxes when he first ran for governor in 2002. He has failed to deliver on the promise. The best he could do is a rebate plan, where he borrows money from the state lottery to send a few hundred dollars back to low-income seniors. The rest of us — 80 percent of Pennsylvania taxpayers — won't get a dime under Rendell's plan.
Another glaring blunder in Rendell's first term was the middle-of-the-night passage of a casino gambling bill pushed through the Republican legislature. Nearly every Democratic legislator voted for Rendell's gambling plan and enough Republican legislators joined in to form a gambling majority.
Two years later, we are finally beginning to realize how terrible this gambling bill truly is. And politicians are beginning to understand that the anti-gambling constituency is not going away. Many Pennsylvania voters will go to the polls this November with one thing mind: Punish Rendell and the legislators who brought gambling to Pennsylvania.
Republican state Senators, chastised by the drubbing their leadership took in the May primary, have asked the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to delay licensing slots parlors until the Legislature can go back and fix the many loopholes in the gambling law.
A citizens' group called CasinoFreePa is organizing a petition drive to have the entire gambling bill repealed. Even Lynn Swann, the GOP candidate for governor, has figured out that gambling could be his ticket to unseat Rendell. Swann recently called on Rendell to specifically list gambling reforms that the governor favors so the Legislature can act on them.
"Passing a piece of legislation for reform knowing that the governor is not going to sign it means what?" Swann told the Associated Press. "It doesn't mean anything."
So it appears that the first licenses will be awarded in September before the Legislature has an opportunity to fix the holes in the gambling law.
All the nightmare scenarios that gambling opponents warned us about are coming true. We have lobbyists and legislators owning casinos that will be regulated by the state. We have a Gaming Control Board that can't live within its means. The board has already spent all of the money the Legislature has set aside for it and has had to borrow money from other state agencies.
Insiders predict Rendell, if re-elected this November, will go back to the Legislature early in 2007 and propose expanding the slots parlors to full casinos, just like neighboring New Jersey. If the Gaming Board can't get its act together to regulate a dozen slots parlors, what makes you think it can handle full-blown casinos?
Swann also took a shot at Rendell for vetoing a bill two years ago that would have eliminated a provision allowing lawmakers to have stakes in companies licensed under the state's slot machine law. The same bill would have forced Gaming Control Board meetings to be open to the public and it would have imposed right-to-know laws on the board's business. It also would have required State Police background checks of board employees. But Rendell vetoed the bill. Given a choice of looking out for taxpayers or the gambling interests, Rendell always goes where the money is.
Pennsylvania's rush to enact gambling has opened a Pandora's Box of financial mismanagement, shady deals and cronyism. One look at Rendell's campaign contributions from the gaming industry should raise questions about what the governor's motives were in pushing so hard to bring casinos to Pennsylvania.
Outwardly, Rendell promised tax relief from casino revenues, but the numbers don't add up. Several billion dollars will have to be wagered and lost by Pennsylvania residents before one dollar is returned in property tax relief. And there's a strong possibility that no tax relief will come to fruition until after 2010 when Rendell leaves office (should he win a second term).
Eight years is a long time to wait. Rendell promised tax relief in 2002. And something else could have been done in the eight years Pennsylvania residents will probably have to wait for their luck to change.
We know who's already won. Rendell has millions of dollars in his campaign war chest from the gaming industry. Lawmakers can own as much as 1 percent of a gambling company. Political cronies sit on the Gaming Board or have been hired to work for the board. Nearly $50 million in taxpayer money has been spent so far by the board and not a single license has been issued.
We know who the losers are so far: Pennsylvania taxpayers who took Rendell's sucker bet.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Friday, August 04, 2006
I want to be a casino boss, too
Let's see a show of hands. Everyone who is not part-owner of a casino or casino-related business in Pennsylvania, raise your hand.
Is it just me or does every politician, every lobbyist, every son or daughter of a politician or a lobbyist own a share of the casinos coming to Pennsylvania? How did that happen?
Why didn't anybody ask me if I wanted to be part-owner of a casino?
Act 71 of 2004, which authorized 14 slots venues with a total of 61,000 slot machines, remains one of the worst bills ever passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ed Rendell, the prime mover (along with his good friend John Perzel) behind bringing gambling to the Keystone State.
I always like to remind people that the casino bill was passed by 88 Democrats in the House (of the total 94 Democrats), with only 25 Republicans (of a total 109) voting in favor of the bill. So yes, it was Rendell and his Democratic lemmings who brought gambling to Pennsylvania.
How bad is the gambling bill, which as approved in the middle of the night without public hearings or public input?
It's bad enough that members of the state Legislature snuck a provision into the law that allows them to own a 1 percent share in casinos.
It's bad enough that all sorts of political cronies have been appointed to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board or have been hired for one of the cushy jobs available at the gaming board.
It's bad enough that a big-time lobbyist used the names of his "minor children" as casino owners to circumvent the law preventing him from being a direct owner.
Now we hear that former Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Mark S. Singel, a political consultant and lobbyist, is being forced to sever his ties with a company seeking a license to distribute slot machines in Pennsylvania.
Does everybody in Harrisburg have his hand in the cookie jar?
Sixteen companies have been licensed as slots distributors so far and there’s another six firms under review. One of them, Revenco Gaming, had Single on its payroll, but hasn't been able to get approval from the Gaming Board.
Singel wrote the Gaming Board saying that he would no longer serve as a member and director of Revenco, based in Westmoreland County.
"I came to the conclusion that if in fact I ... was drawing too much of the attention and causing a problem for this new potential business, that I should step aside," Singel told the Associated Press Friday. "It's just troublesome to me that somebody who spends a good portion of their life devoted to public service somehow is considered unsuitable or questionable."
Let's just say that Revenco probably hired Singel because of his political background (lieutenant governor from 1987 to 1995 under Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr.) rather than his expertise with slot machines.
It's not the first time politics has gotten in the way of commerce in Pennsylvania's convoluted run to cash in on casinos. The Associated Press noted that one of the licensed distributors — New Century Entertainment, whose partners included former Allegheny County chief executive Jim Roddey — announced Tuesday that it was giving up its license, alleging that it had been shut out of doing business by "politics" and unnamed manufacturers.
I wrote a column shortly after the Legislature approved Rendell’s casino plan in July 2004 saying it was one of the biggest mistakes in Pennsylvania history. The consequences would not be realized until years later, but casinos would be the ruin of Pennsylvania.
That column, "Tony Soprano has friends in Pennsylvania," also hinted at organized crime's influence on casinos. In hindsight, I may have overestimated the mob’s influence on gambling. It's not the Mafia that worries me now. It's the politicians. The state's political elite are going to get rich from casinos. The rest of us will end up paying a steep price.
The state Legislature should take the advice of CasinoFreePa, a statewide coalition of groups and individuals opposing casino gambling in Pennsylvania, which has the following comment posted on its Web site: "The worse the law, the sooner it should be repealed."
Another screaming headline on www.casinofreepa.org is: "No one asked us!"
Barring a repeal of gambling by the Legislature (highly unlikely because so many politicians stand to make a fortune), the only other option Pennsylvania residents have is to vote out Ed Rendell and the Democrats who supported gambling in the November election.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Is it just me or does every politician, every lobbyist, every son or daughter of a politician or a lobbyist own a share of the casinos coming to Pennsylvania? How did that happen?
Why didn't anybody ask me if I wanted to be part-owner of a casino?
Act 71 of 2004, which authorized 14 slots venues with a total of 61,000 slot machines, remains one of the worst bills ever passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ed Rendell, the prime mover (along with his good friend John Perzel) behind bringing gambling to the Keystone State.
I always like to remind people that the casino bill was passed by 88 Democrats in the House (of the total 94 Democrats), with only 25 Republicans (of a total 109) voting in favor of the bill. So yes, it was Rendell and his Democratic lemmings who brought gambling to Pennsylvania.
How bad is the gambling bill, which as approved in the middle of the night without public hearings or public input?
It's bad enough that members of the state Legislature snuck a provision into the law that allows them to own a 1 percent share in casinos.
It's bad enough that all sorts of political cronies have been appointed to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board or have been hired for one of the cushy jobs available at the gaming board.
It's bad enough that a big-time lobbyist used the names of his "minor children" as casino owners to circumvent the law preventing him from being a direct owner.
Now we hear that former Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Mark S. Singel, a political consultant and lobbyist, is being forced to sever his ties with a company seeking a license to distribute slot machines in Pennsylvania.
Does everybody in Harrisburg have his hand in the cookie jar?
Sixteen companies have been licensed as slots distributors so far and there’s another six firms under review. One of them, Revenco Gaming, had Single on its payroll, but hasn't been able to get approval from the Gaming Board.
Singel wrote the Gaming Board saying that he would no longer serve as a member and director of Revenco, based in Westmoreland County.
"I came to the conclusion that if in fact I ... was drawing too much of the attention and causing a problem for this new potential business, that I should step aside," Singel told the Associated Press Friday. "It's just troublesome to me that somebody who spends a good portion of their life devoted to public service somehow is considered unsuitable or questionable."
Let's just say that Revenco probably hired Singel because of his political background (lieutenant governor from 1987 to 1995 under Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr.) rather than his expertise with slot machines.
It's not the first time politics has gotten in the way of commerce in Pennsylvania's convoluted run to cash in on casinos. The Associated Press noted that one of the licensed distributors — New Century Entertainment, whose partners included former Allegheny County chief executive Jim Roddey — announced Tuesday that it was giving up its license, alleging that it had been shut out of doing business by "politics" and unnamed manufacturers.
I wrote a column shortly after the Legislature approved Rendell’s casino plan in July 2004 saying it was one of the biggest mistakes in Pennsylvania history. The consequences would not be realized until years later, but casinos would be the ruin of Pennsylvania.
That column, "Tony Soprano has friends in Pennsylvania," also hinted at organized crime's influence on casinos. In hindsight, I may have overestimated the mob’s influence on gambling. It's not the Mafia that worries me now. It's the politicians. The state's political elite are going to get rich from casinos. The rest of us will end up paying a steep price.
The state Legislature should take the advice of CasinoFreePa, a statewide coalition of groups and individuals opposing casino gambling in Pennsylvania, which has the following comment posted on its Web site: "The worse the law, the sooner it should be repealed."
Another screaming headline on www.casinofreepa.org is: "No one asked us!"
Barring a repeal of gambling by the Legislature (highly unlikely because so many politicians stand to make a fortune), the only other option Pennsylvania residents have is to vote out Ed Rendell and the Democrats who supported gambling in the November election.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Diamond's swan song: Ballot bid falls short
Russ Diamond dreamed the improbable dream.
The dream ended Tuesday when he woke up to the realization that he will not be governor of Pennsylvania. Not that he had much of a chance in the first place. But Diamond's remarkable one-year run in the spotlight has left a lasting mark on Pennsylvania politics.
Politics is a contact sport. The defending champions and the perennial opposition don't like competition. Tuesday was the last day for minor-party and independent candidates to submit nominating petitions to have their names placed on the Nov. 7 ballot. Diamond gathered more than 37,000 signatures, but fell far short of the 67,000 names he needed.
Money is the engine that drives politics. That's why Ed Rendell has been so successful. He has the ability to raise large amounts of money, mostly from corporate fat cats, labor unions and the casino industry. Lynn Swann also has the ability to raise money, but to a much lesser extent than Rendell, who is sitting on a $20 million campaign war chest as he prepares to buy his way to a second term as Pennsylvania governor.
Diamond didn't have any money. He went right to the people. He had to ask, cajole and beg 37,000 registered voters to sign his nominating petitions. And Diamond had no political favors to entice supporters. He couldn't promise them any cushy state jobs or sweetheart contracts.
Rendell and Swann have scores of paid workers who can gather signatures on their behalf. And they didn't need that many names to begin with. State law requires minor-party and independent candidates to collect 2 percent of the total ballots cast for the highest vote-getter in the last statewide election. That would be state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., who received a record 3.4 million votes in 2004, which was a presidential election year.
Major party candidates like Rendell and Swann need only 2,000 names to get on the ballot. Of course it's not fair, but when the two monopoly political parties write the rules, who said it has to be fair? Elections in Pennsylvania are a private party and it's invitation only.
If you're an independent voter or a member of the Green Party, Socialist Party, Constitution Party or Libertarian Party, you might as well leave Pennsylvania. You don't matter to the political party bosses who handpick the candidates.
Before July 7, 2005, when the Pennsylvania legislature gave itself and the governor a middle-of-the-night pay raise, Diamond was a small business owner in Lebanon County whose only previous political involvement was a losing campaign for Congress on the Libertarian ticket.
Diamond was so agitated with the flagrant disregard of the Pennsylvania constitution by the politicians who took an oath to uphold it that he set up a Web site called PACleanSweep. The rest is history.
The goal was to keep the pay raise issue alive and recruit candidates to run against incumbent state legislators. At one point, more than 100 candidates had joined the PACleanSweep movement. More than 50 ran against incumbents in the May 2006 primary and at least seven won their races. Nearly 50 PACleanSweep candidates will be on the ballot this November, although PACleanSweep itself may not be around by the time the election rolls around.
Internal bickering between Diamond and others on the nonprofit group's 10-member board led to lawsuits and an effort to disband the organization. Diamond either left the group or was forced out (depends on whom you talk to) when he announced this spring that he was going to mount an independent run for governor.
Although he has filed court papers to dissolve PACleanSweep, Diamond told the Associated Press he intends to remain politically active. "Time will tell what's able to rise from the ashes" of PACleanSweep, Diamond said.
Diamond could still have an impact on the Pennsylvania governor's race. There are at least 37,000 Pennsylvania residents who are not happy with the choice between Rendell and Swann and would have preferred a third option. There are many other disenchanted voters who support Diamond's efforts to clean up the mess in Harrisburg created by both major parties.
A Diamond endorsement of Swann could help the GOP challenger gain some ground on the heavily favored Rendell. While Swann and Diamond may differ on some issues, Diamond's reform platform is a lot closer to what Swann has been saying than Rendell's "business as usual" re-election theme.
Pennsylvania voters want change. They've seen what four years of Rendell has brought: higher taxes, corporate welfare and runaway state spending.
Swann's campaign people should be on the phone today to Diamond to work out a way to find a meaningful role on the Swann team for the political maverick who has captured the voters' imagination without money or established party machinery.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
The dream ended Tuesday when he woke up to the realization that he will not be governor of Pennsylvania. Not that he had much of a chance in the first place. But Diamond's remarkable one-year run in the spotlight has left a lasting mark on Pennsylvania politics.
Politics is a contact sport. The defending champions and the perennial opposition don't like competition. Tuesday was the last day for minor-party and independent candidates to submit nominating petitions to have their names placed on the Nov. 7 ballot. Diamond gathered more than 37,000 signatures, but fell far short of the 67,000 names he needed.
Money is the engine that drives politics. That's why Ed Rendell has been so successful. He has the ability to raise large amounts of money, mostly from corporate fat cats, labor unions and the casino industry. Lynn Swann also has the ability to raise money, but to a much lesser extent than Rendell, who is sitting on a $20 million campaign war chest as he prepares to buy his way to a second term as Pennsylvania governor.
Diamond didn't have any money. He went right to the people. He had to ask, cajole and beg 37,000 registered voters to sign his nominating petitions. And Diamond had no political favors to entice supporters. He couldn't promise them any cushy state jobs or sweetheart contracts.
Rendell and Swann have scores of paid workers who can gather signatures on their behalf. And they didn't need that many names to begin with. State law requires minor-party and independent candidates to collect 2 percent of the total ballots cast for the highest vote-getter in the last statewide election. That would be state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., who received a record 3.4 million votes in 2004, which was a presidential election year.
Major party candidates like Rendell and Swann need only 2,000 names to get on the ballot. Of course it's not fair, but when the two monopoly political parties write the rules, who said it has to be fair? Elections in Pennsylvania are a private party and it's invitation only.
If you're an independent voter or a member of the Green Party, Socialist Party, Constitution Party or Libertarian Party, you might as well leave Pennsylvania. You don't matter to the political party bosses who handpick the candidates.
Before July 7, 2005, when the Pennsylvania legislature gave itself and the governor a middle-of-the-night pay raise, Diamond was a small business owner in Lebanon County whose only previous political involvement was a losing campaign for Congress on the Libertarian ticket.
Diamond was so agitated with the flagrant disregard of the Pennsylvania constitution by the politicians who took an oath to uphold it that he set up a Web site called PACleanSweep. The rest is history.
The goal was to keep the pay raise issue alive and recruit candidates to run against incumbent state legislators. At one point, more than 100 candidates had joined the PACleanSweep movement. More than 50 ran against incumbents in the May 2006 primary and at least seven won their races. Nearly 50 PACleanSweep candidates will be on the ballot this November, although PACleanSweep itself may not be around by the time the election rolls around.
Internal bickering between Diamond and others on the nonprofit group's 10-member board led to lawsuits and an effort to disband the organization. Diamond either left the group or was forced out (depends on whom you talk to) when he announced this spring that he was going to mount an independent run for governor.
Although he has filed court papers to dissolve PACleanSweep, Diamond told the Associated Press he intends to remain politically active. "Time will tell what's able to rise from the ashes" of PACleanSweep, Diamond said.
Diamond could still have an impact on the Pennsylvania governor's race. There are at least 37,000 Pennsylvania residents who are not happy with the choice between Rendell and Swann and would have preferred a third option. There are many other disenchanted voters who support Diamond's efforts to clean up the mess in Harrisburg created by both major parties.
A Diamond endorsement of Swann could help the GOP challenger gain some ground on the heavily favored Rendell. While Swann and Diamond may differ on some issues, Diamond's reform platform is a lot closer to what Swann has been saying than Rendell's "business as usual" re-election theme.
Pennsylvania voters want change. They've seen what four years of Rendell has brought: higher taxes, corporate welfare and runaway state spending.
Swann's campaign people should be on the phone today to Diamond to work out a way to find a meaningful role on the Swann team for the political maverick who has captured the voters' imagination without money or established party machinery.
E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)