Tax relief scheme blows up in Rendell's face

Tick … tick … tick … tick … tick

Time is running out for Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts to opt into Act 72 — the shabby excuse for tax relief that Gov. Ed Rendell and the highest-paid state legislature in the country palmed off on the residents of Pennsylvania.

Monday is the deadline to opt in to the program. So far, an overwhelming majority of school districts have opted out of Act 72, a bold move considering the biggest complaint most residents have is about high property taxes.

As of Friday afternoon, 318 districts opted out of Act 72, while just 96 opted in. That’s a better than 3-1 margin against Act 72.

And what does our fearless governor have to say about the snub of his tax-relief plan by such a large number of school board members, many of whom are Democrats?

Rendell says it was a mistake to give school boards a choice in the matter. If he had to do it over again, he would drag the rebellious school board members kicking and screaming into Act 72.

"It's enormously frustrating to me that the school boards haven't seen or recognized what we've tried to do here," Rendell told The Associated Press last week.

But school boards have seen all too well and understand exactly what Act 72 means for their districts: a slim chance at token tax relief years from now if gambling revenues reach a certain dollar amount, while handcuffing elected representatives with back-end referendums that forces them to go to voters every time they need to hire teachers, expand buildings or add programs.

Not withstanding the flaws of Act 72, many school boards have a basic moral problem with funding public education through gambling revenues.

"To prey on the weak and elderly to raise funds that may be returned to them at a later date seems fundamentally and morally wrong, Owen J. Roberts School Board President Barbara L. McMeekin told The Mercury. "In order to receive a few hundred dollars in tax relief per household, each person must lose over $900. People who try to pull off that kind of scam in day-to-day living are known as con artists."

"This is a sham to promote gambling. And that’s it plain and simple," Paul Farmer, a school board member in the Wallingford-Swarthmore School District, told The (Delaware County) Daily Times.

It’s not just gambling that upsets school officials. It’s the smorgasbord of deficiencies in the law. Politicians threw everything but the kitchen sink into Act 72.

Wallingford-Swarthmore School District board member Jon Auritt likened Act 72 to a "Frankenstein" monster.

"What (Act 72) turned out to be was a concoction of gobbledygook in need of an extreme makeover," Auritt was quoted as saying in The Daily Times.

Rendell can hold his breath until he’s blue in the face, but he will never persuade local school officials that Act 72 is anything more than political trickery.

"As far as the hollow tax relief promised by opting into Act 72, most of OJR's residents will pay more in taxes, not less, because they will lose in income tax increases what is gained in property tax reductions," Karen L. Zelley, vice president of the Owen J. Roberts School Board, told The Mercury.

It appears school board members have done their homework on Act 72 and the more they know about it, the less there is to like.

Weatherly Area School Board member Gary J. Makuch told The Morning Call in Allentown that he attended four meetings on the 108-page law and spent about 100 hours analyzing it, but still found it confusing.

"Act 72 is the worst piece of legislation I have seen," Makuch was quoted as saying in The Morning Call.

Rendell has spent much political capital pushing this sorry piece of legislation. He’s lost a lot of support from the traditional Democratic base in the education community. Rendell’s potential GOP opponents in 2006 will certainly exploit the governor’s blind obedience to such a bankrupt scheme.

And here’s something Rendell and his cronies in Harrisburg don’t want you to know: Experts say there about 9 million Pennsylvania residents eligible to gamble, and to reach the $1 billion mark in revenue that Rendell says will result in tax relief for school districts, some $3 billion must be lost at the slots, averaging more than $300 per gambler. But less than 10 percent of those eligible gamble on a regular basis. That means each gambler must lose an average of $3,120 at the slots every year to fully fund the property-relief plan. And the payout? Around $250 to $300 per household. Talk about a sucker’s bet.

Perhaps, it’s a pigheaded governor who hasn’t "seen or recognized" the flaws of Act 72. It might take a wake-up call in 2006 — when Rendell is tossed from office by voters — for the message to finally sink in.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Pushed to the brink, the Democrats blink

As the parade of U.S. senators dubbed “The Gang of 14” stood at the podium late Monday night to announce the great compromise on the filibuster debate, the first thing that came to my mind was British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s remarks as he got off a plane in September 1938 waiving a piece of paper signed by Adolf Hitler.

In what became known as the Munich Agreement, Hitler promised not to invade any more countries in Europe to avoid war with England. Chamberlain, who would become synonymous with the failed policy of appeasement, told the British public: “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.” A little thing called World War II got in the way of Chamberlain’s promise.

The Democrats played a game of chicken with Republicans over the filibuster, the favorite delaying tactic of America’s permanent minority party. On the eve of a vote to deny the minority the right to refuse to allow President Bush’s judicial nominees to be approved by the full Senate, the Democrats waived the white flag and agreed to vote on three key nominees right away.

Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, blocked by the Democrats for four years, was approved by the Senate Wednesday for a federal appeals court in a party-line vote. Approval of two other nominations held up by the Democrats for two years — William H. Pryor Jr. for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit — are expected to follow shortly.

The rest of the president’s judicial nominees would not be filibustered unless Democrats believe the judges are out of the mainstream. That’s an odd thing to leave to a party that’s been out of the mainstream in five of the last seven presidential elections.

The so-called compromise worked out in the 11th hour by a group of Senate moderates simply postpones the inevitable showdown over the filibuster.

When President Bush nominates a replacement this summer for Chief Justice William Rehnquist, the Democrats (and their left-wing sugar daddies) will be back on the filibuster watch.

Howard Dean, who self-destructed again over the weekend in an appearance on “Meet the Press,” has been saying that the surrender by Democrats is a victory for his party. I guess that makes sense if you cling to the fact that John Kerry finished second in the presidential election last year. What Dean doesn’t realize is that the 41 votes the Democrats need to filibuster judicial nominees in the Senate are unattainable now that seven Democrats signed a pledge that they would resort to the filibuster only under “extreme circumstances.”

What happens if President Bush nominates Owen to the Supreme Court? If the majority of the Senate approved them for federal judgeships, how can the seven Democrats vote against them without breaking their compromise? If they do, Republicans simply go ahead with their vote to eliminate the filibuster entirely. It’s a lose-lose proposition for the Democrats.

More Americans are beginning to realize what’s at stake if the minority party circumvents the Constitution and the will of the majority of voters by stacking the courts with activist judges. Democrats can’t win the White House and can’t win Congress so they are focusing their attention on federal judges, who increasingly usurp the role of elected legislators.

Important issues such as abortion, the death penalty, government benefits for same-sex couples and right-to-die are being decided by unelected judges instead of legislators. All it takes for left-wing radicals to get their way on issues as parental consent for abortion is to find five liberal judges, and laws drafted by the representatives of the people are ignored.

Liberals are quick to cite Thomas Jefferson when it comes to constitutional issues, but it was Jefferson who warned that the Constitution in the hands of activist judges “is a mere thing of wax … which they may twist and shape into any form they please.” That is what’s happening in the United States today.

A handful of judges — appointed for life — are reshaping American society. That’s why the stakes are so high in the Senate. Stay tuned. This was just a skirmish. The real battle is ahead. And the Senate will never have "peace" until Democrats are put in their place.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Fast Eddie makes a final stand on Act 72

I’m not sure if Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell should be compared to Gen. George Armstrong Custer at the Little Big Horn or Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo. Either, way, Fast Eddie is making a final stand on his much-maligned Act 72 "property tax relief" measure.

With about two weeks to go until the May 30 deadline for school districts to opt in or out of Act 72, fewer than 50 of the state’s 501 school districts have signed up for the plan. This despite a non-stop propaganda campaign by Rendell and his cronies to persuade school boards that Act 72 is the greatest thing since the Eagles drafted Donovan McNabb.

Not long ago, Rendell used the word "nuts" to describe school board members who didn’t support Act 72. The fact that his own education secretary won’t come within 10 feet of Act 72 hasn’t deterred Rendell as he tries to pull another fast one on Pennsylvania taxpayers.

A couple of weeks ago, Rendell forced school board members to sit through a two-hour teleconference where he and his cronies tried to twist some more arms. That didn’t work, either. Last week, the governor hit the road with a handful of superintendents and other school administrators in a last-ditch effort to drum up support for Act 72.

As of last week, only 48 of the state’s 501 school districts are on board with Act 72. A dozen have already voted to opt out. Most of the rest of the districts have held public hearings to lukewarm response and will formally vote their districts out of Act 72 by May 30. It’s not looking good for Rendell. In fact, some Rendell lackeys in the state Legislature have floated the idea of making Act 72 mandatory. There’s Democracy at work for you. If school boards and the residents they represent are too stupid to see it our way, we’ll force them to join the plan!

The bottom line is this: Act 72, or the Homeowner Tax Relief Act, is a sham. It forces school districts to bet their fiscal future on unknown revenues from the 14 slots parlors planned across the state. Those revenues won’t start trickling in until 2007 at the earliest, but most likely not until 2009 or 2010. Talk about a gamble. If revenues from the slot machines don’t meet projections, school districts will be in danger of financial collapse, unable to raise taxes to pay their bills.

Act 72 is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted. It’s a dead horse that Rendell keeps beating. It’s not getting up.

School officials don’t like Act 72 because it forces them to immediately raise the earned income tax in their district — raising taxes is something Rendell knows about — but it ties school districts’ ability to raise taxes in the future. If a district wants to exceed spending beyond the rate of inflation, it must ask voters for permission to raise taxes. How likely are you to vote "yes" on a tax increase? Especially if you’re a senior citizen whose kids are no longer in school.

Here’s another fundamental problem I have with Rendell’s "gambling-for-property-tax-relief" premise. Seniors on fixed income are hurt the most by property taxes. In order for seniors to see a reduction in taxes, they must spend more of their income at Rendell’s slot parlors. Let’s face facts. Who rides most of the buses to Atlantic City? Seniors. So in order to get back $250 to $300 in 2007, seniors will have to drop hundreds or thousands of dollars into slot machines each year to fund Rendell’s scheme. It’s a sucker’s bet.

That’s why seniors, who attend a lot of school board meetings and tend to vote consistently in elections, have been reluctant to embrace Act 72. School board members have been seeing those seniors in the audience and they don’t want to risk their futures on a governor who may not make it past a first term.

Rendell was sent to Harrisburg with a clear mandate: Reduce property taxes. He hasn’t done it. Rendell thinks he’s going to waltz back for a second term in 2006. But Pennsylvanians won’t forget that Rendell raised the state income tax by $1 billion during his first term, sucking more of the life out of the state’s basket-case economy.

Whether Rendell’s Republican opponent is former Lt. Gov. William Scranton III or state Sen. Jeffrey Piccola or former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann, Rendell shouldn’t make plans to stay in Harrisburg beyond 2006.

If the majority of the state’s school districts opt out of Act 72 — and it sure looks like they will — Rendell’s entire gambling initiative will be exposed for what it is — an opportunity for fat cats to get richer on the backs of seniors and working stiffs who don’t see any prospect out of their economic condition other than to feed the one-armed bandit in a slot parlor coming soon near you. That’s a sorry legacy for Rendell.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottmerc.com

Health insurance crisis is getting harder to ignore

On the same day a study was released showing that 900,000 Pennsylvania residents lacked any kind of health insurance coverage, two area legislators held a press conference in Harrisburg to gather support for legislation that would help working Pennsylvanians hold on to their health insurance.

Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., and Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th Dist., were joined Monday by a coalition of small businesses from across the state to promote legislation aimed at reducing the cost of health care coverage for the workers at small companies, where the bulk of Pennsylvanians work.

One of the business owners in attendance was Ron Black of the Ron Black Insurance Agency in Royersford. Black, who has been working in the insurance industry for more than 45 years, has been one of the staunchest supporters for reforming Pennsylvania’s health insurance regulations.

The release of a 61-page health insurance survey on the same day makes the bills that Wonderling and Schroder have introduced even more imperative.

According to an Associated Press analysis of the report, of Pennsylvania's 900,000 uninsured:
*19 percent (171,000) are black, or 14 percent of all blacks in the state.
* 4 percent (35,000) are Hispanic, or 9 percent of all Hispanics.
* 81 percent (734,000) are white, or 7 percent of all whites.
* 49 percent (450,000) are between the ages of 18 and 34.
* 49 percent (450,000) live in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or surrounding counties.
* 60 percent (543,000) are employed; 62 percent of the employed uninsured (337,000) work in the service sector.

In other words, this is a problem that cuts across all racial and socio-economic lines. This is a crisis that has been ignored far too long by our state legislators.
Wonderling and Schroder were joined in the Capitol by fellow legislators who support passage of Senate Bill 671 and House Bill 1240, small business owners who have formed a group called Pennsylvanians for Small Group Health Insurance Reform.

Pennsylvania is one of only two states that does not regulate for-profit insurance companies. That means these companies can discriminate on the basis of age, gender and health history. The only opposition to the reform bills has come from the insurance lobby, which says that more regulation would decrease competition.

Here’s a simple question for the lobbyists. If 48 other states regulate for-profit insurance carriers, where exactly are they going to go if Pennsylvania adopts the same rules? So much for the competition argument.

The legislation proposed by Wonderling and Schroder would simply level the playing field for all insurance carriers in Pennsylvania so they can’t "cherry-pick" which companies they want to serve. If you’re an insurance company doing business in Pennsylvania right now, you can choose not to provide affordable health plans for companies because they have too many women or too many employees over 40 or have had sick workers in the past. That’s not right.

Nobody is trying to drive insurance carriers out of Pennsylvania, but the reality is that Pennsylvania has one of the oldest populations in the country. If you want to do business here, you’re going to have to provide affordable insurance rates for companies that employ experienced workers.

Wonderling explained that Senate Bill 671 would ban the practice of medical underwriting for small groups in order to stabilize health insurance rates. The bill would require insurers to spread the cost of health care over a larger population so smaller companies are better able to offer coverage for their employees. Additionally, the legislation will expand benefit options, ensuring that all Pennsylvania small businesses will have insurers competing for their business.

"Our legislation is crucial to make health care coverage more affordable for working people and their families so they can have access to preventive care and medical treatment when they need it," Wonderling said.

Schroder said his bill proposes a uniform modified demographic rating format that would be used by all health insurers writing health insurance for small business employers in the state having between two and 50 employees.

"In serving as a member of the House Insurance Committee, I have heard many small-business owners ask for a change in insurance ratings so they can afford to provide health benefits," Schroder said. "Small-business owners want to be able to offer health insurance for their employees, but the cost has been prohibitive for them."

Pricing policies based upon the health history of each small business has driven the cost of health insurance out of reach for many Pennsylvanians employed by small businesses, Schroder said. All it takes is one sick employee for rates to double or triple, he added.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

David Horowitz is living proof liberals can be rehabilitated

"I make no apologies for my present position. My values have not changed, but my sense of what supports them and makes them possible has. It was what I thought was the humanity of the Marxist idea that made me what I was; it is the inhumanity of what I have seen to be the Marxist reality that has made me what I am."

-- David Horowitz, a former left-wing radical who came to his senses

Not since Saul's conversion on the road to Damascus in 35 A.D. has anyone experienced such a profound transformation as David Horowitz. For those who haven't picked up the Bible lately, Saul of Tarsus was a Jewish official who persecuted Christians until he saw the light … literally … and heard the voice of God. He converted to Christianity, becoming the Apostle Paul. He spent the rest of his life traveling throughout the Roman world, planting the seeds of Christianity in thousands of hearts.

David Horowitz never stood a chance. He was born into a Communist family living in the United States. His parents, Phil and Blanche Horowitz, joined the Communist Party in the 1930s. Their goal was to overthrow the existing Democratic government in the United States in favor of a Marxist state. Both were schoolteachers in the New York area, where they found refuge in a growing Communist enclave.

David Horowitz recounts his days as a Communist in his autobiography, "Radical Son." He became a leading radical intellectual of the 1960s, bent on spreading Marxist doctrine throughout American society. But Horowitz came to his senses when leftist radicals murdered his close friend. It took a shocking act of violence by the people he thought shared his views to get Horowitz to realize he had been living a lie. He recognized how bankrupt the radical left movement was when an innocent person was killed by people who would sacrifice anyone to promote their political movement.

Horowitz dedicated the next 30 years of his life to exposing the radical left. Today, he is considered a leading conservative intellectual. "Radical Son" is a distant memory, actually more of a bad dream. His most recent best seller is "Left Illusions." That title best describes the worldview of liberals who dominate the news media, the courts, academia and the entertainment industry. The only way the left can live with itself is to establish a world of delusion. A permanent state (Massachusetts?) where reality doesn't encroach. How else can you explain a Ted Kennedy, a Barbara Boxer, a Michael Moore or a John Kerry?

Scorned by the very liberals who once sang his praises, Horowitz decided he could no longer live the lie. In a 1979 article in the Nation magazine titled "A Radical's Disenchantment," Horowitz writes: "Can the left take a really hard look at itself — the consequences of its failures, the credibility of its critiques, the viability of its goals? Can it begin to shed the arrogant cloak of self-righteousness that elevates it above its own history and makes it impervious to the lessons of experience?"

Twenty-five years later, the answer to Horowitz's question is still a resounding "no." As Mona Charen points out in her book, "Do-Gooders: How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help (And The Rest of Us)," look at the mess the left has made of education, race relations, crime, welfare, homelessness and just about every domestic issue over the past four decades.

Despite failed economic, social and foreign policies, the left still operates with impunity. The left has hijacked the once-dominant political party in the U.S. — the Democratic Party. How else can you explain a steady diet of far-left candidates such as Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John Kerry as the Democrats' presidential nominees? All are classic liberals — arrogant, insolent, and out-of-touch with mainstream American values. Despite losing five of the last seven presidential elections, despite losing the House and the Senate, Democrats turn to Howard Dean to lead their party and have anointed Hillary Clinton as their 2008 sacrificial lamb.

Today, David Horowitz is on a one-man crusade to expose the radical left's attempts to undermine freedom and Democracy in the United States. Horowitz founded the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, which is dedicated to "defending the cultural foundations of a free society." The center's online journal, FrontPageMagazine.com is visited 1.7 million times a month. He also established the Individual Rights Foundation, the legal arm of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture.

The foundation confronts the radical American Civil Liberties Union as it undermines American society by attacking churches and synagogues, the Boy Scouts, school districts and municipal and county governments. The ACLU clearly wants to establish a secular Soviet Union-style government in the U.S. with ACLU board members sitting as the ruling politburo.

Horowitz continues to write provocative books. "The Politics of Bad Faith" explores the radical left's assault on America's political system. Horowitz's latest book, "Unholy Alliance," examines the link between radical Islam and the American left.

Another recent venture is a Web site called DiscoverTheNetwork.org, a guide to the radical left. It's an offshoot of Horowitz's work with the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. Like wanted posters, the Web site gives you a guide to the radical left and the threat its members pose in American society.

Horowitz also tours the country speaking on college campuses, which is enemy territory for Republicans, conservatives, Christians and Jews. Where else but on a college campus can a fraud like Ward Churchill collect a paycheck from taxpayers to teach while spending all his waking hours advocating the overthrow of the government?

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

45 million Americans and counting

A hospital in my neck of the woods is observing "Cover the Uninsured Week." It’s not exactly a reason to celebrate, but it is important to bring attention to the plight of millions of Americans who do not have health insurance.

"Cover the Uninsured Week" is supposed to be part of a national campaign by hospitals and an organization known as Families USA to put a face on the tens of millions of Americans who do not have basic health coverage.

More than 45 million Americans — equal to the combined population of 24 states — do not have health care coverage, and 8 million are children, according Families USA, which bills itself as "the voice for health care consumers." Eight of 10 of the uninsured are in working families, who either do not make enough money to afford insurance or whose company does not provide it.

"While offering the best medical care in the world, the U.S. healthcare system, specifically the payment system, is broken," said John R. Morahan, president and chief executive officer of St. Joseph Medical Center in Reading, Pa. "Until we as a society and until the state and federal legislative bodies call for and act on change in this system, the crisis in healthcare will continue."

And speaking of ways to fix the health care crisis in Pennsylvania, bills were recently introduced in the state Legislature to help small businesses struggling with the high cost of providing health insurance coverage for their workers.

Senate Bill 671, introduced by state Sen. Rob Wonderling, and House Bill 1240, introduced by state Rep. Curt Schroder, would go a long way to helping some of the more than 375,000 working Pennsylvanians who do not have health insurance.

The bills are before the respective insurance committees in each chamber and have received bipartisan support by many senators and representatives. But similar bills languished in committee during the 2003-04 legislative session and were never released for a vote.

The only opposition to the bills is coming from the insurance lobby, which is looking at its bottom line. The question now is will our elected representatives help hard-working Pennsylvanians obtain health coverage or will they bow to the pressures of the insurance lobby?

These two bills need to be brought out of committee for a vote in each chamber and signed by the governor. Pennsylvania is one of only two states (Hawaii is the other) that do not regulate "for-profit" insurance companies.

The bills would bring "for-profit" insurance companies under the same regulations as "non-profit" agencies such as Blue Cross and Blue Shield and HMOs. It would level the playing field and provide access to health insurance for thousands. Right now, "for-profit" insurance companies and pick and choose which workers to cover. They can deny coverage to workers with pre-existing conditions or drop them for no reason. They can also charge whatever they want for premiums and raise those premiums 10 or 20 times the rate of inflation if they so choose.

That has forced small employers — the backbone of Pennsylvania’s economy — to pass on costs to their workers and their families or drop health coverage entirely for employees.

The health crisis in this country is enormous. It's easy to throw your hands up and give up because it's such a hurdle to climb. Congress has done that repeatedly.

But when there's an opportunity to help people, even a little bit, we have to take it. That's why the Pennsylvania bills need to be approved during the current session. We're talking about commonsense solutions to at least one part of the overall health crisis.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Renew USA Patriot Act now

I’m guessing the favorite reality show of the radical left is "Fear Factor" or more appropriately, a show called "Scare Tactics," which is shown on one of the cable channels high on the television dial. Either title is appropriate to describe the campaign of misinformation and distortion the alarmist left has pursued against the USA Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act is one of the best laws ever passed by Congress. It gives authorities the tools needed to protect U.S. citizens from terrorism at home by expanding laws that were already available to prosecutors for standard crime fighting to cover cases of suspected terrorists.

Since President Bush signed it into law shortly after the 9/11 attacks, the Patriot Act has been a cornerstone of this country’s war on terror. The proof is in the pudding. There have been no acts of terrorism on U.S. soil since the Patriot Act was signed into law. Terrorist plots have been foiled repeatedly since 2001 and dozens of suspected terrorists are behind bars. And to date, there has not been a single instance where the American Civil Liberties Union and its allies in the liberal media can cite abuse of the Patriot Act by the government.

Can you imagine the coverage in The New York Times or CBS News or CNN if the rights of a single American were violated by the Patriot Act?

More than a dozen key provisions of the Patriot Act will expire at the end of this year if Congress doesn’t renew them. President Bush has urged Congress to act swiftly in renewing the Patriot Act, but the Just Say No Party (formerly known as the Democrats) has lined up against a law with a proven track record of protecting American citizens.

Opponents of the Patriot Act (the usual suspects, including the always-reliable ACLU) have spent millions of dollars on a propaganda campaign to confuse and intimidate the American public. Never letting facts get in the way, the ACLU and its Democrat allies have spread all kinds of rumors about the government agencies keeping track of the library books people check out or Web sites they visit or prying into medical records. None of it is true.

Here are the cold, hard facts: The Bush administration has used the Patriot Act’s powers to listen to cell phone conversations and examine business records of individuals or firms with suspected terrorist ties just 84 times since 2001, according to Congressional testimony.

That’s 84 cases of the thousands of leads or tips the government has received and investigated since the Patriot Act was adopted. And again, not a single complaint has been received, not a single lawsuit filed, not a single American has come forward with any evidence they’ve been harmed by the Patriot Act.

In every case where the government has used surveillance on suspected terrorists, the FBI or other agents had to obtain a warrant from a federal judge. At no point were the Constitutional rights of any American violated.

If you’re not a terrorist, a supporter of terrorism or someone who finances terrorist acts, you have nothing to fear from the Patriot Act. I can see why someone like Professor "Mental" Ward Churchill would oppose the Patriot Act. He cheered when 3,000 Americans were murdered on Sept. 11. But how do you explain Ted Kennedy, John Forbes Kerry and Barbara Boxer? Can they embarrass the Democratic Party any more than they have already?

The USA Patriot Act is a straightforward, commonsense piece of legislation. It gives our government the authority it needs to monitor and prosecute suspected terrorists and their collaborators. Nothing more.

We have a law on the books that works. Do we give in to the Democrats and their "global test" for defending the United States against terrorism? Are you willing to jeopardize the lives of your family members by allowing the ACLU and its big-money Democratic supporters to gut the Patriot Act?

President Bush made the following argument for renewing the Patriot Act at the swearing-in ceremony for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in February:

"We must not allow the passage of time or the illusion of safety to weaken our resolve in this new war. To protect the American people, Congress must promptly renew all provisions of the Patriot Act this year."

Write to your senators and representative and urge them to support renewal of all 15 provisions of the Patriot Act that expire this year.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

What are we doing in the United Nations?

"The United States is the world’s best hope, but if you fetter her in the interests and quarrels of other nations, if you tangle her in the intrigues of Europe, you will destroy her powerful good, and endanger her very existence. Leave her to march freely through the centuries to come, as in the years that have gone. Strong, generous, and confident, she has nobly served mankind. Beware how you trifle with your marvelous inheritance — this great land of ordered liberty. For if we stumble and fall, freedom and civilization everywhere will go down in ruin."

— Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge

In 1919, Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge of Massachusetts successfully led the opposition to U.S. entry into the League of Nations. We could use someone like Lodge today.

The dog-and-pony show Senate Democrats have been putting on in recent weeks over the nomination John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations masks the real discussion we should be having.

Namely, what is the U.S. doing in the United Nations? Haven’t we had enough abuse from irrelevant countries over the past 60 years? Why are we paying for the privilege of being abused by tinhorn dictators from unpronounceable nations around the globe?

The U.N. is a bureaucratic nightmare. The U.N. is a haven for spies. The U.N. is the most corrupt organization on the planet. The U.N. is taking up valuable real estate in this country. Is there a crane big enough to pick up the building and drop it somewhere in the vicinity of France?

The whitewash of the massive oil-for-food scandal is just the latest example of corruption inside the U.N. In case you haven’t been following developments, two senior investigators probing the oil-for-food program resigned this week because the so-called independent panel led by longtime Kofi Annan pal Paul Volker downplayed Annan’s involvement in the scandal. What else would you expect when the fox is appointed to investigate why chickens are disappearing from the hen house?

How many wars has the United Nations prevented since 1945? The answer is zero. How many people have died in violent conflict or from disease or starvation since the U.N. was founded? Tens of millions. Millions are suffering and dying today while Kofi Annan and his diplomatic corps live it up in New York. Ironically, many of the people who are being slaughtered or starved to death are in Africa and Asia, where the secretary general of the U.N. is usually picked. So much for helping the people who need it the most.

The purposes of the United Nations, according to its charter, are to maintain international peace and security; to develop friendly relations among nations; to cooperate in solving international economic, social, cultural and humanitarian problems and in promoting respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

I don’t know what planet Democrats like Barbara Boxer and John "Global Test" Kerry are living on, but none of that is happening on planet Earth.

The U.N. is just as ineffectual as its predecessor, the League of Nations, which lasted from 1919 to 1946, when it was swallowed up by its "new and improved" version, the United Nations. The U.N. has proven to be the same paper tiger that the League of Nations was. The difference is that the United States had enough sense to stay out of the League of Nations. We’ve been paying the bill for the U.N. for the past 60 years. How much more in U.S. taxpayer dollars should we sink into the rat-hole?

President Bush could nominate singer Michael Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the U.N. It’s not going to make any difference. At least John Bolton is going into the job firmly grounded in reality. He sees the U.N. for what it is — a failed concept.

"There is no such thing as the United Nations. There is an international community that can occasionally be led by the only real power left in the world — and that is the United States, when it suits our interests and when we can get others to go along."

John R. Bolton said that in a 1994 speech. Bolton got it right. The U.S. doesn’t need the United Nations for anything. We should drop out and use the billion dollars we throw away on U.N. dues to help the people of our own country.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Freedom's march arrives in Cyprus

It took the death of Yasser Arafat to clear one of the biggest obstacles on the road to peace in the Middle East.

The Palestinian dictator never wanted to see an end to hostilities between Palestinians and Israelis. That’s what kept him in power all those years. As long as he could blame Israel, he never had to answer for the suffering he brought on his own people.

Something similar is happening on the Mediterranean island of Cyprus. A thug by the name of Rauf Denktash has been the president of the phony Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus since it declared its independence from the rest of the island in 1983. The "Turkish Republic" is recognized by one other nation — Turkey, which has 35,000 troops occupying parts of Cyprus.

Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 after a failed coup orchestrated by Greece attempted to unite the island with Greece. Although the elected government of Cyprus was restored, Turkey seized the opportunity to invade the island to "protect the Turkish minority." That has led to the illegal 31-year occupation of a sovereign nation. Turkey has ignored dozens of United Nations resolutions calling for withdrawal of Turkish troops from the island, a former British colony that gained its independence in 1960.

Denktash, who rivals Fidel Castro in the Aging Dictators Hall of Shame, is 81 and has lost his grip on power in occupied Cyprus. The election of 53-year-old Mehmet Ali Talat over the weekend as president of the "Turkish Republic" has brought renewed hope that the Cyprus issue can be resolved peacefully.

As Denktash got older and more inflexible in his refusal to work toward reunification of the Cyprus, the world passed him by. The European Union was formed. If you’re not part of the EU, you’re out in the cold. That’s what the Turkish residents of occupied Cyprus figured out. Talat campaigned on a platform of renewing peace talks with the majority Greek Cypriots in the southern two-thirds of the island, withdrawal of Turkish troops and possible reunification of the island, which would allow Turkish Cypriots to participate in the European Union.

That brought him 56 percent of the vote in weekend balloting, much of the support from young people who weren’t alive when Denktash took power and who don’t care to reopen 30-year-old wounds. Denktash’s hand-picked successor, Dervis Eroglu, who wanted to maintain the status quo, received just 23 percent of the vote.

What young people living in occupied Cyprus see is a lack of opportunity in the police state that Denktash has ruled over. They see a prosperous Cyprus to the south and want to share in the booming tourism and trade industries.

Cyprus, at least the internationally recognized Democratic southern part of the island, joined the EU last year. The Turkish Cypriots in the north are not part of the EU and rely on the charity of mainland Turkey to keep their economy going, much like the old Soviet Union system that has kept basket-case economies such as Cuba, alive. Many Cubans living on the island or in exile in Florida, are certain that Cubans will overthrow its Communists oppressors the day Fidel Castro rolls his last cigar.

Greek Cypriots welcomed the change in regimes in the occupied north. The "Cyprus government expresses the hope that the Turkish Cypriot leadership around Mr. Talat will ... contribute ... to the achievement of a just and viable settlement the soonest possible," according to a statement by Cypriot government spokesman reported by The Associated Press.

Talat quickly extended an olive branch to the south.

"I am also calling on the Greek Cypriot leaders that I am extending my hand for peace and this hand will be there until it is held," Talat was quoted by the Associated Press. "I sincerely believe that one day this hand will be held."

There are many hurdles ahead, not the least of which is fair compensation for the 200,000 Greek Cypriots driven from their homes and ancestral lands by the Turkish army in 1974. Although many Greek Cypriots rebuilt their lives in the southern half of the island, some of them may want to return to their homes. The problem is that their homes are now occupied by Turkish Cypriots or by tens of thousands of "colonists" sent by Turkey from the mainland to distort the population of Cyprus.

But for the first time in three decades, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Just as in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, it’s amazing what a little Democracy will do in a part of the world where people have been denied fundamental rights to freedom for so long.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

When the left starts getting it right

Legend has it when Lord Cornwallis surrendered his army to Gen. George Washington after the British defeat at the battle of Yorktown, a British band played a song called "The World Turned Upside Down."

If true, it was a fitting selection. What else could best describe the October 1781 defeat of Great Britain, the world’s reigning superpower at the time, by a rag-tag militia of Colonists? The world truly had turned upside down.

I’ve been thinking about that tune as more evidence surfaces that liberals (well, not all, but some) are coming to their senses. I’m not sure what to make of this. Maybe it’s part of a left-wing campaign to lull the majority of Americans into a false sense of security while the left and its cronies (the ACLU, the Hollywood elite, radical college professors, activist judges and the few Democrats left in Washington) continue their assault on the country from within.

Or maybe, just maybe, people who have been wrong so many times about so many things have finally seen the light. I submit the following evidence to support my theory:

Exhibit A: The Philadelphia Inquirer, a newspaper that published 21 consecutive editorials endorsing John Forbes Kerry for president last fall, criticized Democrats in a recent editorial about Social Security. I can’t recall ever reading an editorial critical of the left in this newspaper. But just about every day, you can read about how George W. Bush/Karl Rove (they’re interchangeable in this newspaper) are responsible for bad weather, traffic jams, reality television, obesity and the fact your kids won’t listen to you.

The Inquirer’s editorial board, all charter members of the Michael Moore Fan Club, blasted Democrats for obscuring the debate about the future of Social Security by flooding the country with inaccurate information, much of it promulgated by the Democrats left-wing propaganda machines. The editorial also pointed out, correctly, that the Democrats have yet to offer a single alternative to the proposals advanced by President Bush.

Exhibit B: Nat Hentoff, a card-carrying member of the ACLU and one of the most liberal columnists in the country, went after his own kind for their coverage of the Terri Schiavo case. Hentoff described the behavior of the established news media (the networks, CNN, the big city newspapers) as "the worst case of liberal media bias I’ve ever seen." Hentoff said the network coverage was politically motivated, with the established media painting Republicans as villains and liberals as saints during the agonizing two weeks that Schiavo starved to death.

Exhibit C: The New Republic, a small circulation magazine that is the gospel for many left-wingers, recently published a column by its editor-in-chief, Martin Peretz that praised George W. Bush for his handling of the Middle East, which is erupting in Democracy, just as Bush predicted. Peretz goes a step further and blasts his fellow Democrats for their do-nothing stance on major issues facing the country. The election is over and Bush won, Peretz argues. It’s time for Democrats to get over their superiority complex and stop the knee-jerk opposition to everything the Republican majority puts on the agenda. In other words, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid, put the country first and let your partisan prejudice go until 2008.

Exhibit D: The Washington Post, one of the big five liberal newspapers in the country, ran a front page article last week proclaiming to the world that yes, as those right-wing fanatics have been telling us for years, college campuses are littered by left-wing professors. "By their own description, 72 percent of those teaching at American universities and colleges are liberal and 15 percent are conservative," The Post reported as it detailed the findings of a study conducted by political science professors at two universities. Surveys have found a similar left bias in the mainstream news media. So what you have is a minority of liberals controlling the dissemination of information in this country and indoctrinating our next generation of leaders.

What’s wrong with having so many liberals in academia? Here’s the problem. Liberals represent a splinter group within the minority governing party in this country. Why should they be allowed to indoctrinate so many young minds? Why can’t college students be exposed to alternative viewpoints?

Even if you labeled all Democrats as liberals, that would still be 49 percent of the population based on the outcome of the November election. Why shouldn’t conservatives make up 51 percent of college faculties? Suppose you showed up for a baseball game and one of the teams could field only six players while the other team put nine men on the field. Is that fair?

This growing evidence that liberals have come to their senses is unnerving. What am I going to write about if everybody starts getting along and treating each other with respect? It’s almost as unsettling as the sight of George H.W. Bush holding hands with his new best pal, Bill Clinton.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Are you paying too much for health insurance?

Did you know that Pennsylvania and Hawaii are the only states that place no limits on how commercial insurance companies base their premiums for small employers?

That means for-profit insurance companies can charge whatever they want. They can raise their rates 10 times higher than the rate of inflation at time of renewal. And guess what? That’s what these companies have been doing in Pennsylvania over the past five years.

Since 2000, more than 330,000 non-elderly Pennsylvanians have lost their health coverage. Others have been forced by employers to pay a bigger share of the cost of health insurance, while at the same time, paying higher deductibles and co-pays. Some employers are reluctant to fill vacancies because they will have to pay so much in health insurance premiums for new workers.

State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., wants to help small companies and their workers by placing the same regulations on for-profit firms that the state already imposes on non-profit insurance carriers like Blue Cross and Blue Shield and HMOs.

In the next few weeks, Wonderling will introduce Senate Bill 671 to reform health insurance rating practices for small employer groups. The bill, and its companion legislation in the state House, would restrict how insurance carriers assess companies with workers at an average age of 45 or firms that have too many women working there or places of employment where the group’s medical questionnaires showed possible health needs.

Senator Wonderling’s legislation would implement a uniform modified demographic rating requirement that would be used by all health insurers writing health insurance for small employers in the Commonwealth.

In plain language, it would level the playing field for small employers and allow companies to continue offering health coverage to workers at reasonable rates.

The proposed legislation would prohibit the use of "medical underwriting" to adjust the rate of a small group policy. Insurers could not use medical questionnaires to identify employee and dependent health status, physical or mental conditions, genetic information or disability when setting rates. "Pre-existing condition" standards could be used for the first 12 months of policy coverage. Renewal of small group plans would be guaranteed.

"My biggest reason for being the prime sponsor of a bill to lower the cost of health insurance is the number of people in my Senate district who work very hard but do not have health care coverage," Wonderling said. "During my campaign, I talked to both employers who wanted to provide health care coverage but couldn’t because of the cost, and employees who don’t have health insurance provided by their employers. I knew that the problem existed but I was struck by how common the problem was."

As Wonderling looked into the issue, he found a shocking statistic — 80 percent of the people who don’t have health insurance have jobs.

"Think about that. These are hard working people trying to feed their families but are terrified that they will get sick or hurt because if they do, the money needed to pay for health insurance has to come from some other important priority," Wonderling said. "I want to help hard working people get ahead, not just get by. This is part of making the American dream a reality for more people in Pennsylvania."

Small group health insurance reform is long overdue in Pennsylvania. The continuation of the current practices that discriminate against groups based on age, gender and health status will only lead to the creation of a large group of uninsured and uninsurable Pennsylvanians.

And if you’re currently enrolled in a Blue Cross plan, don’t think this doesn’t affect you. The higher insurance premiums go for small companies, the more workers will be left without private insurance. That means they will go on Medicare, which is funded by taxpayers.

Wonderling needs our help. If you’re fed up with the high cost of health insurance, you need to impress on your state senator or representative that his or her job depends on whether they support Senate Bill 671 and its companion bill in the state House.

I urge to call, write or e-mail your state senator today with a simple message: Support Senate Bill 671 to curb skyrocketing health insurance costs. Be sure to include your full name and your home address so they know you’re a registered voter and you’re serious about holding them accountable.

For all the talk about politicians catering to special interests and being wooed by industry lobbyists, the bottom line is that a politician can be fired by the voters. Without your vote, they can’t go back to Harrisburg and enjoy those very generous perks of public office.

So let’s call in a favor and get our representatives in Harrisburg to do something in the best interests of hard-working Pennsylvanians.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

On cows and politics

Don't know the origin of this, but it's too funny not to share.

DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who put a tax on your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money, buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous. Barbra Streisand sings for you.

SOCIALIST: You have two cows. The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor. You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

REPUBLICAN: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. So?

COMMUNIST: You have two cows. The government seizes both and provides you with milk. You wait in line for hours to get it. It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

DEMOCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government taxes you to the point you have to sell both to support a man in a foreign country who has only one cow, which was a gift from your government.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE: You have two cows. The government takes them both, shoots one, milks the other, pays you for the milk, then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one. You force the 2 cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses. Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION: You have two cows. You go on strike because you want three cows. You go to lunch. Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION: You have two cows. You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk. They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains. Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You reengineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour. Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows but you don't know where they are. While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman. You break for lunch. Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION: You have two cows. You count them and learn you have five cows. You have some more vodka. You count them again and learn you have 42 cows. You count them again and learn you have 12 cows. You stop counting cows and open another bottle of vodka. You produce your 10th, 5-year plan in the last 3 months. The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION: You have all the cows in Afghanistan, which is two. You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature's private parts.

POLISH CORPORATION: You have two bulls. Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

FLORIDA CORPORATION: You have a black cow and a brown cow. Everyone votes for the best looking one. Some of the people who like the brown one best vote for the black one. Some people vote for both. Some people vote for neither. Some people can't figure out how to vote at all. Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which is the best looking one.

NEW YORK CORPORATION: You have 15 million cows. You have to choose which one will be the leader of the herd, so you pick some fat cow from Arkansas.

Blame it on the Democrats

I’ve come to the conclusion that everything that goes wrong in the world can be traced back to the Democrats. Here’s proof:

Choking on bus fumes

Every time I see an empty bus driving around town — and I see at least one every day — I want to smack Gov. Ed Rendell for diverting $900 million of Pennsylvania’s tax dollars into his favorite lost cause: Bailing out mass transit in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. This money was supposed to go into fixing Pennsylvania’s highways and bridges, but Rendell decided to use the money to buy votes in our twin basket-case cities at opposite ends of the state. We have to keep those unions happy (and voting for Democrats). I don’t hear the liberal outcries about wasted energy resources when empty buses are riding around our cities, guzzling up gasoline. No wonder we need to drill for oil in Alaska. We have to make up for the gas these buses waste. Don’t forget that Rendell is up for reelection in 2006.

Liberal hypocrisy, you say?

Remember when the Clintons were in power and their masculine attorney general, Janet Reno, defied the courts and sent her stormtroopers on a midnight raid into a private home in Florida to seize Elian Gonzalez, the little boy who escaped Fidel Castro’s island prison? The liberals danced in the streets at the prospect of returning the boy to the clutches of the Cuban dictator. Imagine what would have happened if Gov. Jeb Bush or President George Bush sent armed officers to save Terry Sciavo. California and Massachusetts would have seceded from the union and declared war. The TV networks and their left-leaning newspaper cousins would have called for lynching both Bush brothers if they had pulled a Clinton move. That’s just one of the many examples of liberal hypocrisy in American society.

Reality bites for Democrats

The story didn’t get the kind of play it deserved, with many major newspapers burying it on inside pages when they’ve been running liberal propaganda about Social Security on their front pages for months. The headlines should have screamed: "Social Security to go broke in 2017." That’s just 12 short years from now. Turns out President Bush was right. Social Security needs to be addressed sooner, rather than later. And it appears that the Democrats got caught in another lie. Shame on you, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You’ve been telling us there’s nothing to worry about and we should go about our routines so we wouldn’t notice that Democrats in Congress have driven the Social Security Trust Fund into the poor house. Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes in 2017. That announcement didn’t come from the White House. It came from the trustees of the Social Security Administration. They’re the people who run the program. "The numbers leave nothing to doubt about the financial condition of the Social Security system," Treasury Secretary John Snow, chairman of the six-member trustees’ board, told the Associated Press. "The report underscores the fact that we need to do something." Despite the cold hard facts, Sen. Harry "The Ostrich" Reid, the leader of the Democrats in the Senate, stuck his head out of the ground long enough to proclaim: "Today’s report confirms that the so-called Social Security crisis exists in only one place: the minds of Republicans." Sure, Harry, keep saying that and you’ll be minority leader for a long time.

Sen. Byrd-brain is running again

With the likes of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, it’s tough to settle on one person for the distinction of being the biggest embarrassment in the United States Senate, but my money is on Sen. Robert Byrd, the former Ku Klux Klan member who has been representing West Virginia since 1958. The 87-year-old former Klansman, who has trouble telling what day of the week it is most of the time, is running for re-election in 2006. Already, the left-wing propaganda machines like MoveOn.org (affectionately referred to as Moron.org by some) is working hard to keep Byrd in the Senate. These left-wing organizations vilified President Bush because he dared to say that he believes in God, but wouldn’t think of criticizing a Democrat who not only was a member of the KKK, but also served as a recruiter for the organization. Byrd was once quoted as saying the Klan was an "effective force" in "promoting traditional American values." And Democrats wonder why more blacks are switching to the Republican Party?

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

What are they hiding in Harrisburg?

THIS IS TOO GOOD NOT TO SHARE. THE AUTHOR AND SUPPORTERS ARE LISTED AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE. EVERYBODY IN PENNSYLVANIA SHOULD BE AWARE OF HOW THINGS ARE RUN IN HARRISBURG. -- TONY PHYRILLAS.

Corrupt.

It’s not a word to be used lightly. But sometimes it’s the only word that fits, and this is one of those times.

Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation without a law requiring lobbyists to disclose what they’re spending and doing to influence our legislators and our governor. The only state.

So it’s no coincidence, in our opinion, that Pennsylvania authorized more slot machines than any state but Nevada while our citizens were not protected by a lobbyist disclosure law. It is no coincidence that our legislators and our governor cooked a secret deal and enacted it within 36 hours when there was no way for anyone — ever — to know how much money changed hands and what promises were made.

While we can only guess how much money special interests spent, our guess can be an educated one. Thanks to Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer, without whose leadership the public would know nothing at all, the Senate has a rule (not a law) to get some information from lobbyists.

Under Senate reporting alone, lobbyists spent $64 million in just the first half of last year to influence legislation. Recently, Jubelirer told the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association he expects the total for 2004 to be well over $100 million. The Senate has only 50 members. Imagine how much special interests spent in the 203-member House and the governor’s office.

Corrupt? Ask yourself this: If a system of unbridled influence peddling by lobbyists is not corrupt, why have all 49 other states bridled it? Even the federal government has a law.

But the heart of corruption in Pennsylvania is not that legislators and the governor are hiding how they cut deals with special interests, like professional gambling. The heart of this corruption is that it spits on democracy. It spits in the face of the people who have to live with and pay for the laws that special interests purchase under cover of secrecy.

Whether you’re for gambling or against it, the way Pennsylvania authorized 61,000 slot machines was an insult to democracy. Despite a constitution that plainly says bills should be considered on three different days in the House and three different days in the Senate, our gambling law was enacted in just 36 hours.

You and I had no opportunity to see what was proposed — and what we opposed. When we learned that lawmakers could own 1 percent of gambling interests, when we learned that our communities could be colonized by huge gambling parlors over the objection of local residents and officials, we raised Cain. Last fall, facing unhappy voters at election time, the General Assembly passed changes — only to have them vetoed by Gov. Rendell.

All of that could have been avoided if our public officials would stop playing keep-away from the people.

In March, we may hear from the third branch of our government — the State Supreme Court. Opponents of public corruption and opponents of gambling have filed suit to have the gambling law overturned because its passage violated the Constitution.

This month we may learn whether our Supreme Court justices have any greater sense of democracy than the legislative and executive branches. We will see whether our Supreme Court considers the Constitution’s three-day rule a mere how-to manual that can be ignored when the stakes are high, or whether it gives the people real due-process rights so that we can understand and influence proposed laws before it’s too late.

Pennsylvania needs a government — all three branches — that strengthens our democracy, not one that dismantles it. We need the best disclosure law in the country, not the worst. We need a law that:

• Requires lobbyists to register, to disclose their interests, and to report their spending.

• Prohibits lobbyists from giving anything of value, except information, to public officials.

• Requires the immediate, complete and public disclosure of information given to public officials on a dedicated "public integrity" Web site.

• Imposes harsh penalties against violators.

There is no benefit to the people when lobbyists give public officials expensive dinners, golf outings, tickets to sporting events, free financial advice and a thousand other things that we will never know about — but will live with and pay for.
Only our legislators and governor can enact such a law, and we should make sure they do.

In a democracy, "We the People" really do choose our government. The good news is that we can do it. When the politicians know that voters want integrity in public service, they will give the voters integrity in public service. They can’t help themselves; they’re politicians.

It’s hard when a word like "corrupt" attaches not just to institutions but to individuals. Sooner or later, it becomes impossible to separate the two. You can’t have a corrupt institution that’s populated by innocent individuals.

The preservation of democracy is job No. 1 for any public official. If our legislators fail to enact a state-of-the-art lobbyist disclosure law now, it is only reasonable for voters to conclude that legislators who don’t fight to end influence peddling are the ones who benefit from it.

This article was written by Timothy Potts, a former staff member in the Pennsylvania legislature. It was endorsed by Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation; Kathleen Daugherty of the Lutheran Advocacy Ministry in Pennsylvania; Lou Hammann, a retired professor of religion, Gettysburg College; Barry Kauffman of Common Cause/PA; and the Rev. Sandra Strauss, Pennsylvania Council of Churches.

2 years in Iraq: Is this any way to win a war?

Two years into a war that should have been over in two months, I’m beginning to wonder about U.S. strategy in Iraq.

The United States has been fighting this with one hand and one foot tied behind its back. The result has been 1,500 U.S. soldiers dead and thousands more wounded — most of them unnecessarily. Far too many American soldiers have died at highway checkpoints or guarding buildings or driving in convoys.

When you stand around waiting for the enemy to kill you, invariably, that's what happens. If you're hunting down the enemy, there’s a much better chance you’ll get them before they get you. It's easy to kill the enemy if they're wearing the same uniform and coming at you in an open field. But when the enemy is fighting a guerrilla war and mingles easily with the civilian population, it's nearly impossible to defeat them.

When the enemy has access to ammunition, shelter, food and water, he can drag the conflict out as long as he wants. When the enemy can plan attacks from safe bunkers and can regroup by crossing the border into a neighboring country, you’re in for a long war.

When the enemy can communicate with comrades at will, when the enemy can recruit new members from surrounding countries, when the enemy can use television and the Internet to promote its cause, you’re going to lose the war.

If you want to stop car bombings, stop selling gas to terrorists. Can't tell who the terrorists are? Stop selling gas to everyone in Iraq for a month. Are two guys in hoods going to push car bombs into buildings? Let the terrorists use donkeys to carry explosives. Let them resort to suicide bombing by bicycle.

Insurgents coming into Iraq through Syria and Iran? Close the borders. Have U.S. warplanes and helicopters fly up and down the borders with Syria and Iran around the clock. Shoot at anything that moves across the borders. That will end the flow of terrorists into Iraq.

The problem with how the Bush administration is handling the war in Iraq is that it's trying to fight a war at the same time it's rebuilding a nation. Can't be done. You have to win the war first. Kill the enemy, then worry about rebuilding the country. That’s the way we did it in Germany and Japan. We killed anyone who raised arms against us, then brought Democracy to those nations.

It took years to rebuild Germany and Japan, but you didn’t have American soldiers picked off by snipers or blown up by suicide bombers.

Another troubling aspect of the Iraq War is that the Bush Administration has allowed our enemies to use television and the Internet to recruit new followers and broadcast propaganda to the people of Iraq and the rest of the Arab world.

War is fought not only with weapons but also with words. Military censorship is missing from the Iraq War. Information that could be helpful to the enemy is made readily available by 24-hour news channels, Internet sites and various publications, including the most anti-American of newspapers, The New York Times.

In place of "Tokyo Rose" and "Berlin Betty" we now have the Al-Jazeera network. Undermining the will to fight of your enemy is a crucial stage to victory. Pull the plug on Al-Jazeera, the enemy’s primary means of propaganda. Shut down all pro-terrorist Web sites.

Somewhere along the way, the Bush administration has forgotten what we’re doing in Iraq. This is not a doctrine. This is not a diplomatic initiative. This is not a global test. This is war! You kill your enemy, you win the war!

America has forgotten the lessons it learned in World War II. You destroy the enemy by attacking him ceaselessly.

"There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time." — General George Patton Jr.

In three years of combat operations from North Africa to Sicily to France to Belgium to Germany, Gen. Patton never issued a defensive order. His battle plan was simple: attack, attack and attack again. He never gave the enemy time to regroup. He kept them on the run so they could never mount a counterattack. That’s how you win a war.

Where is Gen. Patton when you need him? Today’s generals want to become politicians or diplomats. They want to write books and go on lecture tours. I’m beginning to have my doubts if anyone in Washington has the resolve to win this war.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Sen. Wonderling, Rep. Schroder step up to the plate

Two area state legislators are planning to introduce bills in the next few weeks that would help control skyrocketing health care costs for small businesses and their workers.

I’ve written recently about the lack of checks on insurance companies when it comes to setting rates for smaller employers, many of whom face outrageous annual increases in health insurance premiums. In many cases, those costs have been passed on to workers, who are seeing more of their paycheck going toward health coverage for their families.

State Sen. Rob Wonderling, R-24th Dist., and state Rep. Curt Schroder, R-155th Dist., plan to re-introduce legislation in their respective chambers to address the problem. Wonderling was the primary sponsor of similar legislation in the 2003-04 session, but the bill never made it out of the Senate’s Insurance Committee. A parallel bill introduced in the House also got bogged down in committee.

Meanwhile, small business owners and their employees have suffered double-digit increases — in some cases as high as 25 to 35 percent — to pay for health insurance coverage. Some companies have dropped health insurance for their workers. Others won’t hire new workers because they can’t afford to pay the health premiums.

Although Wonderling and Schroder have worked hard to get dozens of fellow legislators to co-sponsor the bills, there’s no guarantee the legislation will not suffer the same fate it did in the last session. That’s where you and I come in. We have to make sure that our state senators and representatives know we’re watching these bills closely and expect to see them passed and eventually signed by Gov. Ed Rendell.

It’s imperative that everyone call, write or e-mail their elected representatives in Harrisburg to demand these bills don’t end up at the bottom of a pile on somebody’s desk or slip between the cracks.

Wonderling is a fresh face on the Harrisburg scene, first elected to the Senate in November 2002, but he’s risen quickly through the ranks to become chairman of the Senate’s Communications and Technology Committee. He’s sponsored several key bills in the short time he’s been in office and continues to work for his constituents and all Pennsylvanians. He’s been talking up Senate Bill 671 to his colleagues during the current session.

"I’m very pleased by the level of support from my fellow senators," Wonderling said. "The bill has co-sponsors from every geographic region in Pennsylvania and every ideological philosophy is represented — from liberal to conservative."

In addition to contacting our state representatives as individual voters, we must also get organizations such as the chamber of commerce and other business groups to lobby Harrisburg for passage of these reforms. Local government also needs to get behind this bill. Fewer jobs means less tax revenue for municipal coffers.

While Wonderling was disappointed that the insurance reform bill didn’t pass in the last session, he hasn’t given up hope. "Many concepts that challenge the status quo take time for people to hear about them, think them through and finally become comfortable with them becoming reality," Wonderling said. "I am overwhelmed by the number of people who have contacted my office to encourage me to keep fighting to bring down the high cost of health insurance."

Every state in the country — except Pennsylvania — sets some standards in their small group insurance rates, according to Wonderling. "Since Pennsylvania’s rate of uninsured is increasing, it’s time to take action and implement standards that any insurer in the small group market will have to meet. This will make health insurance more available to small groups in Pennsylvania."

The problem with the existing system is that big insurance companies can set rates for businesses based solely on the type of workers in the firm. It’s called "demographic rating." That means that a company with a lot of female employees or older male workers will get hammered with high premiums.

If this sounds like government-sanctioned discrimination, that’s exactly what it is. Left unchecked, about the only businesses that insurance companies will cover will be landscaping firms, which tend to hire young, healthy men.

The proposed legislation would require insurance companies doing business in Pennsylvania to use a "modified demographic" rating to determine premiums for smaller firms and their workers. "Modified demographic" rating will include the following factors: age, gender, family composition, industry and geographic area.

"This will permit a better balancing between risk groups," Wonderling said. "Which is what insurance really does — balance risk. Additionally, modified demographic rating does not advantage either small or large insurance companies in a given market. Uniform rating rules will help to level the playing field for everyone. In addition, the new rating system in the bill also encourages existing carriers to remain in the market and new carriers to come to Pennsylvania to set up shop."

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Big Brother is watching you ... light up

In the fictional world of George Orwell’s "Nineteen Eighty-Four," Big Brother is everywhere, controlling all aspects of a person’s life. Around every corner in the totalitarian state of Orwell’s Oceania, giant posters stare back at you with the ominous warning, "Big Brother is watching you."

If Jim Matthews gets his way, the nightmarish world of "Nineteen Eighty-Four" may soon become a reality in Montgomery County. Jim Matthews is the big brother of maniacal talk-show host Chris Matthews of MSNBC fame. Jim Matthews is also the chairman of the Board of Commissioners in Montgomery County, just outside Philadelphia.

In a move believed to be the first of its kind in the country, Big Brother Matthews floated the idea of adopting a policy that would ban the hiring of smokers for county jobs.

We're not talking about people who smoke during work hours or sneak a cigarette during their lunch break. If you smoke any time, any place — whether it’s in the privacy of your home or at your favorite tavern or in your car — don’t bother applying for any of the 3,200 full-time jobs that Montgomery County has to offer.

Big Brother Matthews, a Republican, says he’s trying to save taxpayers some money by reducing the number of smokers employed by the county. He thinks there’s nothing wrong with banning smokers because their habit is bad for their health and leads to higher premiums paid by the county.

I’m not a smoker. Never have smoked and have no desire to start. And I don’t enjoy breathing in second-hand smoke. But there’s something inherently wrong about government telling people how to live their lives on their own time.

Is there any more punishment we can inflict on the estimated 47 million Americans who smoke? The government already taxes cigarettes to the point where a pack of smokes costs $7.50 in New York City. Let’s be up front about those taxes. The government will tell you it’s trying to discourage smoking by placing such burdensome taxes on tobacco, but it’s just an easy way to tax a group that isn’t organized enough to fight back.

Smokers have suffered much humiliation at the hands of government in recent years. They’ve been chased from restaurants, bars and all manner of public buildings. They can’t smoke in airplanes or taxis or buses. Private employers have followed suit, forcing smokers into back alleys or ledges for a quick drag. You almost feel sorry for smokers.

If you carry Big Brother Matthews reasoning to its logical conclusion, people won’t be able to smoke in the privacy of their own homes. I can’t wait until this case gets to the Supreme Court, which previously plucked the "right to privacy" from the Constitution even though those words don’t appear anywhere in the document. Where is a person’s right to privacy if your boss can fire you for a lifestyle choice not connected to your job performance?

Big Brother Matthews is riding a slippery slope. If smokers are banned from the workplace, who would be next? What about fat people? Obesity is a public health crisis in the United States. Are we nearing the day when workers will have to get on a scale every morning before they start work?

What other undesirables are lurking in the cubicles of offices or assembly lines? If a guy goes home after a hard day at the office and has a few beers, shouldn't his boss know about that? What about a person with tattoos? Shouldn’t Big Brother Matthews be worried about hiring these kind of people? And will the policy cover "elected" county employees, such as Big Brother Matthews, who quit smoking two years ago, but chews nicotine gum to curb his cravings?

There are other "vices" besides smoking. How can you single out one? What about people who buy lottery tickets? That’s gambling, isn’t it? Aren’t gamblers prone to stealing from their employer to feed their habits? Oh, wait. The lottery is government-sponsored gambling. Never mind. It's OK to gamble as long as the government gets the money.

What if someone starts smoking after they’re hired? Will Big Brother Matthews order county detectives to follow suspected smokers after they leave work? Will he set up surveillance of workers on weekends and holidays? Will he round up employees who try to wolf down a Big Mac or a Whopper? Maybe the county should hire only vegetarians.

What if a top county administrator is having an extra-marital affair and Big Brother Matthews' secret police get pictures of the indiscretion? Is the tryst OK as long as the philanderer doesn't light up a cigarette after leaving a motel room? Is there anything wrong with frequenting a strip club as long as you don't smoke?

How far is Big Brother Matthews willing to go to invade the privacy of a worker? And why stop at vices? Shouldn’t Montgomery County impose limits on how many children workers can have? After all, those dependents cost the county money when they're added to the health plan.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

A short story about 3 assholes

News anchors, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Cokie Roberts, along with their Marine aide, were captured by terrorists. They were all to be killed.

The leader of the terrorists asked if they had a last request.

Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan; so I'd like one last bowlful of hot spicy chili." The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili. Rather ate it all and said! , "Now I can die content."

Peter Jennings said, "I am Canadian, so I'd like to hear the song "O Canada" one last time." The leader nodded to a terrorist who had studied the Western world and knew the music. He returned with some rag-tag musicians and played the anthem. Jennings sighed and declared he could now die peacefully.

Cokie Roberts said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end." The leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Roberts dictated some comments. She then said, now I can die happy."

The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. U.S. Marine, what is your final wish?"

"Kick me in the ass," said the Marine.

"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"

"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the ass," insisted the Marine. So the leader shoved him into the open, and kicked him in the ass.

The Marine went sprawling, but rolling to his knees; he pulled a 9 mm pistol from inside his cammies, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he leapt to his knapsack, pulled out his M4 carbine, and sprayed the Iraqis with gunfire. In a flash, all the Iraqis were either dead or fleeing for their lives.

As the Marine was untying Rather, Jennings, and Roberts, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them from the get-go? Why did you ask them to kick you in the ass?"

"What," replied the Marine, "and have you three ass-holes call ME the aggressor?

Tales from the Secret Service

Got this interesting e-mail today from a reliable source. Can't verify the truth, but it sure makes for entertaining reading.

Secret Service Comments:

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane ---

[yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ol boy" womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.]

The information below is accurate. Former Pres. Bush Sr. and the current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the aircrews who fly them around

[When the president flies, there are several planes that also go -- one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft] and both Bush's made it a point to stay home on holidays, so these Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.

(WHAT WAS, WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN, AND WHAT IS)

WHAT WAS:

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and vocally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her.

Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all "loathed" her and wanted to be on a different detail. She was hard work because she was so nasty and mean toward her detail. Hillary Clinton was uniformly despised by the Secret Service as a whole.

Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife Hillary. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attack antics that Hillary would use against her husband, the then President. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and yell so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying.

Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most people wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience."

Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have "charisma," and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them. His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. They did respect him, unlike his wife, but they did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him. He was polite, but not kind.

WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN:

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were more friendly toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in . They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing and very hateful, not just politically opposed, to Republicans than Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too "centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This bitter hatred was something that he and Hillary had very much in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities where Al Gore and Hillary had none in the view of their security details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them in disgust as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion when Al Gore got angry at his offspring and loudly, in their presence, pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?!?"

Word of this insulting and demeaning verbiage by the former Vice-president quickly spread and he became as despised and disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed that Al Gore would not be elected President and they really did have private small celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat. He was much dis liked. Al Gore was not a good and kind person. That he could have been our President may suggest that God was "answering prayers" and looking out for the country with Al Gore's defeat.

WHAT IS:

Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they uniformly concede that she is perhaps the most nice, kind, and genuinely good person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers.

She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Laura Bush really is this kind of a person and her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They actually love her as a human being.

They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Que for his security detail and he helps in serving them their meals. He eats with them, sits with them, and talks with them. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers, and he of course, knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection.

They believe that he actually loves his security detail and that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush, and most of them did not know they would feel this way until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed in the time that he has been President. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Please pass this on. It is important for everyday Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President.

Grades are in: Ed Rendell flunks out

It’s report card time for the nation’s governors. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania’s favorite son, Gov. Edward G. Rendell, didn’t do so well.

I hope you’re sitting down for this mom and dad. Rendell brought home a big red "F" on his report card. Where did we go wrong? I knew he was spending too much time at Eagles games and not enough time hitting the books.

The Washington, D.C.-based CATO Institute has released a new report grading the nation’s governors on taxes and spending policies. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone who has been following Rendell’s first two years in office to learn that raising the state’s income tax by 33 percent, saddling Pennsylvania residents with a host of other nuisance taxes and funneling money into ratholes like SEPTA and the Philadelphia schools tends to sink economic prospects.

Gov. Rendell was one of only four governors to receive a grade of "F" on the CATO Institute’s "Fiscal Policy Report Card on America’s Governors: 2004." The other governors who flunked basic economics are Republican Bob Taft of Ohio, Democrat Bob Holden of Missouri and Democrat James McGreevey of New Jersey.

The CATO Institute is a non-profit public policy research foundation founded in 1977. It has no connection to the Republican Party or the Bush administration. The people behind the study believe that lower taxes, less government spending and minimal government regulations tend to stimulate the economy.

So why did Ed Rendell finish 41 out of 42 governors? (Eight governors were excluded from the study because they just began office). The only governor ranked behind Rendell was McGreevey, who resigned last year.

It appears that Rendell’s plan of siphoning $1 billion a year from working Pennsylvanians to support his massive government spending plan had something to do with his low marks. There’s also those hidden taxes, including higher fees for state inspections and emissions testing. And let’s not forget the $50 tax on workers Rendell pushed through last year, allowing communities to raise their occupational privilege tax from $10 to $52 a year.

And of course, there’s the gambling bill, the worst legislation since Prohibition. Rendell wants to tax Pennsylvania’s elderly even more by bringing slot machines to Pennsylvania so seniors won’t have to go to Atlantic City to lose more of their money.

In return for slots, Rendell said residents might get back a few hundred dollars in property tax relief in three or four years or they might get nothing if seniors don’t gamble away at least $1 billion a year. That’s Rendell’s version of property tax relief. Are you sure an "F" is the lowest grade you can earn?

The CATO study is based on 15 objective measures of fiscal performance. Four governors received "A" grades from Cato: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-California), Gov. Bill Owens (R-Colorado), Gov. Judy Martz (R-Montana) and Gov. Craig Benson (R-New Hampshire). The top-ranked Democrat governors were New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, Washington’s Gary Locke, Maine’s John Baldacci and Tennessee’s Phil Bredensen, all of whom who earned a "B."

Governors who have cut taxes and spending the most received the highest grades, according to according to Stephen Moore and Stephen Slivinski, who wrote the CATO report. Those who have increased spending and taxes the most get the lowest grades.
"Our analysis shows that states that keep tax rates low and restrain spending growth have the best economic performance and thus the best long-term fiscal health," Moore and Slivinski wrote in the report’s executive summary.

The complete CATO report can be downloaded in PDF format free of charge from the institute’s Web site: www.cato.org

Out of 12.3 million residents in Pennsylvania, is "Fast Eddie" Rendell the best we can do? No wonder Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom of just about every quality of life issue that can measured, whether it's health care, transportation, schools, the environment or job creation.

Can Pennsylvania afford four more years of Rendell’s failed tax-and-spend policies? He’s up for reelection in 2006. It might be time to homeschool our boy Eddie.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Skyrocketing health premiums cost everyone

The inflation rate for 2004 was 2.7 percent. That’s the highest rate since 2000 when inflation was measured at 3.5 percent. Inflation has not been at double-digit rates since 1981 when it was 11.2 percent. The worst inflation rate of the past 25 years was in 1980 when it hit 14.3 percent.

Keep those figures in mind. The costs of health care premiums for employers and their workers have been rising annually from 15 percent to 25 percent in recent years. How can insurance companies raise premiums by 25 percent when the rate of inflation is below 3 percent?

The short answer is because they can. There’s nothing to stop them from raising prices to any level they want. There are no regulations in Pennsylvania to prohibits these outrageous increases by commercial insurance carriers.

Politicians in Harrisburg know about the problem. They just haven’t made it a priority. In the meantime, small employers are forced to pay more to provide health care coverage for their workers or pass those increases onto the workers and their families.

This is especially troubling for companies who have 100 or fewer workers. But this issue hits home with just about everyone. If this trend is not reversed, companies will simply stop offering health coverage as part of their benefits coverage. That means workers will have to rely on taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid or CHIP to cover their family’s health expenses. That means higher taxes for everyone to pay for these programs.

Companies may also decide not to hire more workers because of the high cost of providing health coverage. That means more unemployment. And guess who pays more in taxes to cover unemployment benefits?

Two area insurance agents are very familiar with the dilemma in health care coverage. Ronald H. Back is president of the Ron Black Agency in Royersford. Charles A. Laskey Jr. is vice president. They’ve been in the business for decades. They pride themselves in finding the right insurance at the right price for any of their clients. But it’s getting harder to do their job.

Before this starts sounding like a commercial for the Ron Black Agency, let me say that I have no connection to the firm whatsoever. Ron Black asked me if I would write about this issue and provided me with copies of the legislation. That’s my only dealing with the firm.

Black and Laskey feel so strongly about this issue that they devote a portion of their firm’s Web site to educating the public about the current health coverage dilemma. They’ve spoken to business groups, appeared on local television to discuss the issue and traveled to Harrisburg to testify before legislative committees.

Black and Laskey wholeheartedly supported bills in the state House and Senate to remedy the problem. The legislation (Senate Bill 671 and House Bill 1891) was introduced during the 2003-2004 session. Both bills were referred to their respective insurance committees, but neither made it out of committee for a vote.

Passage of these bills wouldn’t benefit the Ron Black Agency’s bottom line. Black and Laskey want to see reform because they care deeply about their customers, including many of the local businesses that provide jobs for area residents. Black and Laskey talk to these business owners regularly and they feel their pain. They want to find affordable health insurance for these firms, but that’s becoming harder to do in Pennsylvania.

The legislation seeks to ban "demographic rating" and medical underwriting in the small employer market. If passed, insurance companies would no longer be allowed to charge a business a higher rate because that firm has older workers or a lot of women working there. The insurance companies would have to use "community rating" to determine what they charge. This is what Blue Cross/Blue Shield does. That would bring rates down for everyone because the costs are spread out over all employers in a region.

One of the more interesting sections on the Ron Black Agency’s Web site deals with the question of what would happen if the Senate and House bills are not passed:

* Rates will rise more drastically. Companies with an average age of workers over 45 could see a 30 percent to 40 percent rate increase.

* Employers may be forced to discriminate when hiring new employees in order to keep their average age down. They’ll hire young men instead of women or more experienced workers.

* Employers may be forced to pass more of the increased health insurance premiums onto their employees (which is what many firms are already doing).

* Employers may be forced to offer plans with higher deductibles and co-pays to their employees in order to keep insurance premiums down. (See above).

* Employers may be forced to eliminate their health insurance plans altogether because of the soaring costs.

This is a complex issue but the solution is common sense. The state Senate and House need to enact legislation to deal with this problem. Since the two bills never made it out of committee, somebody needs to stand up in the Legislature and introduce the measures again.

I urge you to contact your state senator and representative and get them behind this legislation. Every worker and taxpayer in the Commonwealth needs speak up. I will continue to write about this issue until Gov. Ed Rendell signs legislation to curb the skyrocketing costs of health insurance.

E-mail Tony Phyrillas at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com