108: “What’s wrong with this picture?”

I’m glad you asked.

Daily the headlines and editorials march forward in ever increasing numbers: “Gambling’s Tangled Web in Pittsburgh”, “PGCB Still Withholding Info from Public”, “More Legislators Calling for Changes in Slots Law”, “Trump Faces Angry Phila. Group Over Casino Plan”.

In Pittsburgh, a city that only supports winners, as the fans traditionally stay home when the Pirates and Penguins are not leading their leagues, the politicians and casino investors are tying a new arena to the licensure of a slots casino. It is the only way, they say, to keep the Penguins, a franchise that has been rescued before, in Pittsburgh.

In the Pocono Mountains, an “entrepreneur” who has been convicted of attempting to defraud the United States government of $525,000, for which he received a suspended sentence, is vying for one of the two freestanding slots casinos in the state. Louis DeNaples is also allegedly linked to a mob figure who is the head of the Buffalino Family in Northeast Pennsylvania. Associates of this “entrepreneur” have been named to the Gambling Control Board.

In Gettysburg, a shady former corporate executive (David LeVan) is competing against the Pocono project, and other applicants in the Allentown-Bethlehem area, in spite of worldwide condemnation, and the wishes of his close friend Governor Rendell, and just about everybody else in the world.

The two free standing casinos are supposed to enhance tourism in Pennsylvania. Now, the last time I checked, Gettysburg already attracts a million visitors a year to the area. Allentown-Bethlehem are not your typical tourist destinations, though they do indeed draw some tourism to the Pennsylvania Dutch area west of Allentown, and there is a large amusement park in the area. The Poconos lost their luster decades ago back when they were a haven for honeymooners, skiers and summer visitors. The Poconos need tourists.

In Philadelphia, there will be three free standing casinos, authorized by legislation, and “The Donald”, who enticed a substantial list of popular Philly sports personalities to become investors, is seeking to build a casino in an area struck by the closing of the large employer there, the Budd Company, which made rail cars, and facing the probable loss of the Philly-based Tasty Baking Corporation as it seeks to relocate its bakery operations and its headquarters.

In all of these areas except the Poconos, community resistance to the imposition of casinos in their neighborhoods has risen to the level of a statewide umbrella organization, with friends in the legislature, and with the backing of some of the more powerful newspaper editorial boards in the state.

In the legislature, the House passed an amendment to a gambling omnibus bill by a vote of 199-0 that would prohibit a casino in Adams County. There is a bill pending in the House that would repeal the enabling legislation.

The Gambling Control Board, which has been in operation nearly two years, has run out of money, sparking outrage at the Governor and Senator Vince Fumo when they arranged to take money from several state departments in violation of the State Constitution, and shift it to the Gambling Control Board. It is unconstitutional to supply money without an appropriation, meaning the General Assembly must vote for all funding.

The Board, the chairman (Tad Decker) of which claims is "...neither a board nor a commission”, and therefore has no obligation under the state’s Sunshine Law, has operated in secret, giving preferential treatment to applicants and supporters, while giving short shrift and outright hostility to opponents.

Several employees of the gambling Control Board have been arrested for such crimes as brawling in public, drunk and disorderly, misusing their official position, and even murder. [The board insisted on subcontracting out background checks that the legislation detailed must be done by the Pennsylvania State Police.] The newly hired Executive Director (Anna Neeb) of the Gambling Control Board, who doubled her salary when she was hired away from the same job in Louisiana, barely escaped charges that she turned in false time sheets and was thus fraudulently overpaid by Louisiana.

And the worst still has not emerged from the secret and shadowy world of slots suppliers, a secondary industry created by the legislature as part of the enabling legislation specifically for insiders, lobbyists, personal and political friends and relatives. This industry which just began issuing licenses is already so corrupt and filled with graft that several license applicants, including one group that was actually awarded a license, chose to void its application and another group lost its main investors, both groups doing so because of the graft and corruption already present!

In the State Senate, Democrats and Republicans have been playing a political game of mumblety-peg over an amendment package reforming the Gambling Act [Act 71 of 2004]. The game became visible during last minute budget negotiations when Republicans held up the budget so one of their members could publicly query Senator Fumo about the transfer of funds to keep the Gambling Control Board running. [Fumo is under investigation by the Feds who are looking into his handling of money in and out of a non-profit organization he founded in his district in Philadelphia.]

All of this, however, stems from a series of unconstitutional actions committed by legislative leadership in the wee hours of an early July morning in 2004, when they conspired to pass an act, Act 71, with neither the due process or due diligence required by the Constitution, and using an unconstitutionally constructed bill. Governor Rendell signaled his complicity by signing the act immediately. The State Supreme Court under Chief Justice Ralph Cappy has so far signaled its complicity as well by refusing several attempts to overturn the Act as unconstitutional, regardless of the facts.

Now, citizens of Pennsylvania need to ask themselves a number of questions:

What’s wrong with this picture?

How could our elected official, from the State Representatives in the House, to the State Senators, to the Governor, to the justices of the State Supreme Court, conspire together to create such a conglomeration of corruption, graft, greed, nepotism, incompetence and insider conspiracies and do so by claiming it will bring tax relief to property owners in the Commonwealth? [That “relief” will be about $200 each which will primarily go to our aged population.]

What more will it take to awaken the citizens of Pennsylvania to the absolute danger that our corrupted elected officials have created, more for themselves than for their constituents?

What must the awakened citizenry do to correct this crime, and punish those responsible for it? [Hint: go back and read this again, only this time, write down the names you read.]

Now, armed with your list, go do what you know you must do to correct this. And do not waste any time, for the longer you wait, the closer we get to the issuance of free-standing licenses and once that happens, any roll-back or repeal will generate enormous lawsuits that the Commonwealth will lose, and the litigation will be costly, though not nearly as costly as the awards given to the applicants that sue.

The one name you need to know to go to in order to fix this is Representative Paul Clymer of Bucks County. He has the pending repeal bill. He also has a bill pending to order a moratorium against the issuance of any licenses of any kind by the Gambling Control Board until this can be sorted out in the legislature and in the courts.

What’s wrong with this picture? Aren’t you glad you asked?

THE CENTRIST

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

Tony Phyrillas: Rendell's gambling problem

Gov. Ed Rendell is riding high in the polls and sitting on a giant pile of cash as he prepares to seek another four-year term.

He has the state's biggest media outlets (the fawning Philadelphia newspapers and TV stations) in his back pocket. He has the power of incumbency, which allows him to travel all over Pennsylvania at taxpayers' expense for thinly disguised campaign appearances, including handing out millions of tax dollars in areas Rendell needs to buy votes.

But don't bet the farm that Rendell will coast to re-election this November. Rendell has an Achilles' heel.

Rendell promised to cut everyone's taxes when he first ran for governor in 2002. He has failed to deliver on the promise. The best he could do is a rebate plan, where he borrows money from the state lottery to send a few hundred dollars back to low-income seniors. The rest of us — 80 percent of Pennsylvania taxpayers — won't get a dime under Rendell's plan.

Another glaring blunder in Rendell's first term was the middle-of-the-night passage of a casino gambling bill pushed through the Republican legislature. Nearly every Democratic legislator voted for Rendell's gambling plan and enough Republican legislators joined in to form a gambling majority.

Two years later, we are finally beginning to realize how terrible this gambling bill truly is. And politicians are beginning to understand that the anti-gambling constituency is not going away. Many Pennsylvania voters will go to the polls this November with one thing mind: Punish Rendell and the legislators who brought gambling to Pennsylvania.

Republican state Senators, chastised by the drubbing their leadership took in the May primary, have asked the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board to delay licensing slots parlors until the Legislature can go back and fix the many loopholes in the gambling law. A citizens' group called CasinoFreePa is organizing a petition drive to have the entire gambling bill repealed.

Even Lynn Swann, the GOP candidate for governor, has figured out that gambling could be his ticket to unseat Rendell. Swann recently called on Rendell to specifically list gambling reforms that the governor favors so the Legislature can act on them.

"Passing a piece of legislation for reform knowing that the governor is not going to sign it means what?" Swann told the Associated Press. "It doesn't mean anything."

So it appears that the first licenses will be awarded in September before the Legislature has an opportunity to fix the holes in the gambling law.

All the nightmare scenarios that gambling opponents warned us about are coming true. We have lobbyists and legislators owning casinos that will be regulated by the state. We have a Gaming Control Board that can't live within its means. The board has already spent all of the money the Legislature has set aside for it and has had to borrow money from other state agencies.

Insiders predict Rendell, if re-elected this November, will go back to the Legislature early in 2007 and propose expanding the slots parlors to full casinos, just like neighboring New Jersey. If the Gaming Board can't get its act together to regulate a dozen slots parlors, what makes you think it can handle full-blown casinos?

Swann also took a shot at Rendell for vetoing a bill two years ago that would have eliminated a provision allowing lawmakers to have stakes in companies licensed under the state's slot machine law. The same bill would have forced Gaming Control Board meetings to be open to the public and it would have imposed right-to-know laws on the board's business. It also would have required State Police background checks of board employees. But Rendell vetoed the bill. Given a choice of looking out for taxpayers or the gambling interests, Rendell always goes where the money is.

Pennsylvania's rush to enact gambling has opened a Pandora's Box of financial mismanagement, shady deals and cronyism. One look at Rendell's campaign contributions from the gaming industry should raise questions about what the governor's motives were in pushing so hard to bring casinos to Pennsylvania.

Outwardly, Rendell promised tax relief from casino revenues, but the numbers don't add up. Several billion dollars will have to be wagered and lost by Pennsylvania residents before one dollar is returned in property tax relief. And there's a strong possibility that no tax relief will come to fruition until after 2010 when Rendell leaves office (should he win a second term).

Eight years is a long time to wait. Rendell promised tax relief in 2002. And something else could have been done in the eight years Pennsylvania residents will probably have to wait for their luck to change.

We know who's already won. Rendell has millions of dollars in his campaign war chest from the gaming industry. Lawmakers can own as much as 1 percent of a gambling company. Political cronies sit on the Gaming Board or have been hired to work for the board. Nearly $50 million in taxpayer money has been spent so far by the board and not a single license has been issued.

We know who the losers are so far: Pennsylvania taxpayers who took Rendell's sucker bet.

Tony Phyrillas is a columnist for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa. E-mail him at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

107: DR Rates Swann Candidacy

[see # 106: DR Rates Rendell Candidacy for comparison.]
Following up on DemocracyRisingPA's first installment of their evaluations of the Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidates, here is the latest from DR, and good friend Tim Potts:

***********************************************************************

Democracy Rising PA News
August 3, 2006
tim@democracyrisingpa.com
717-243-8570

SPECIAL REPORT: SWANN RESPONDS

As we did in yesterday’s Special Report on Gov. Ed Rendell, here are highlights of the responses by Lynn Swann to the survey sent to gubernatorial candidates last December. The highlights also include comments by Democracy Rising PA (DR) and by the Commonwealth Foundation (CF).

Attached is Swann’s complete response. Also, for the questions and the full response of every candidate, side-by-side, go to the Democracy Rising PA web site at http://www.democracyrisingpa.com/bulletins/response.asp.

Overall DR Comment: We’re grateful to have Swann’s response on the record. However, his response contains numerous attacks against Gov. Rendell, the sort of criticism that is conspicuously absent from Rendell’s response. DR made a commitment to put every candidate’s full response, without comment, on our web site. We will honor that commitment. We consider it inappropriate and symptomatic of what’s wrong with electoral politics that Swann uses so much of this opportunity complaining about his opponent rather than explaining his own positive agenda.

Although he says he agrees with “the goal of giving Pennsylvania the highest standards of public integrity in America,” none of Swann’s specific proposals demonstrate that they would achieve that goal. There is no commitment to making Pennsylvania’s government the best in the nation on any standard of public integrity, value for tax dollars, transparency, or earning the confidence of citizens.

Swann’s opposition to a Constitutional convention because he fears its results shows an unfortunate lack of confidence in the judgment of the citizens he wants to serve. Like Rendell, Swann wants the chance to make government in his own image but does not want to give citizens the same opportunity, even though the citizens own the government.

Standards of Public Integrity:
“…[I]t is my commitment…that my administration will work in a way that guarantees open and transparent behavior.”

Regulating Lobbying:
“A lobbyist disclosure measure must indicate what is being spent by whom and there must be strong penalties for those who refuse to comply. Every document filed must be available for viewing on the web.”

DR Comment: By this standard, Swann’s version of a lobbying control law would still give Pennsylvania the worst law in the nation. PA currently has no law to control lobbying.

CF Comment: Openness and transparency must be more than buzz-words and will require a great deal of detail. There are 49 other states with examples from which we can choose, and we hope if Mr. Swann becomes Governor Swann that he will take the very best ideas and implement them in Pennsylvania. However, the fact that a similar kind of statement to this is missing from his answer is rather troubling.

Ending “Stealth Legislation”:
“I have proposed a 72-hour waiting period before I would sign any piece of legislation, provided that it does not deal with a state of emergency issue…. This three day waiting period will allow the people of Pennsylvania to weigh in [on] any piece of legislation…. The General Assembly has the Constitutional power to regulate itself.”

DR Comment: Citizens deserve the ability to “weigh in” on laws before they’re passed, not just after. DR believes any governor should veto any legislation whose passage does not strictly comply with the provisions of Article III of the Constitution. Members of the General Assembly have the Constitutional duty to obey the Constitution.

CF Comment: The 72-hour waiting period, after the legislation has passed both houses, is too late for the people to weigh in. The waiting period needs to be strictly applied in the legislative process, not after the process has already taken place.

Internet Access to All Laws:
“Bills and Acts should be freely accessible to all individuals on the internet or in hard copy. I believe that we should make both available in order to reach all residents…. I believe that state government has for too long made it financially impossible to copy documents from our many agencies. We must ensure that those who request the documents are charged reasonable and affordable rates.”

DR Comment: DR believes that public documents should be available free of charge to citizens in the format most useful to citizens.

CF Comment: We support Mr. Swan’s idea on accessibility, however, this openness should apply to anything and everything state government does, not just bills and Acts.

Support for a Constitutional Convention:
“I am fearful that a Constitutional Convention would present too much of an opportunity for the [sic] some of a particular cause or belief to move items that would harm others…. I am unconvinced that the delegates will all have the best interests of the people of the Commonwealth in mind.”

DR Comment: This response discounts that in order for the Constitution to be changed, the legislature must place proposed changes on the ballot and the voters must approve those changes by referendum. Convention delegates have no power to change the Constitution by themselves.

CF Comment: Fears about the end result of a Constitutional Convention are legitimate and understandable. However, if our elected officials refuse to reform state government, it is within Pennsylvanians’ constitutional rights (Article I, Section 2) to “alter, reform or abolish” their government if they deem it necessary.

Proposed Amendments to the Constitution:
Swann proposes five Constitutional amendments:
1. “an amendment which limits the amount of revenue state government can spend from one year to the next.”
2. an amendment to the Constitution’s uniformity clause to allow “eliminating our [property tax] assessment system and moving to a purchase price system” for determining property taxes.
3. an amendment to allow audits of “the funds within the control of the House and Senate.”
4. “I also support shrinking the size of the General Assembly.”
5. an amendment to allow the legislature to enact a “fair and equitable cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.”

DR Comment: These ideas are among the more than 120 ideas submitted to DR by citizens around the state as part of the agenda for a Constitutional Convention.

CF Comment: Unfortunately, only 2 of Mr. Swann’s 5 proposed amendments address the issue of more open, transparent and accountable government. We fully support his idea of auditing all of the legislature’s funds. However, his support of shrinking the size of the General Assembly will not likely result in either cost savings or real substantive changes in legislative operations (as noted in the testimony by Mr. Nathan Benefield before the Senate Majority Policy Committee). We also wish that Mr. Swann would join Governor Rendell’s call for legislative term limits and the establishment of an independent commission for the purposes of redistricting. (NOTE: We do applaud Mr. Swann’s proposed amendments that are specific policy changes, including limits on state government spending increases and efforts to curtail lawsuit abuse in Pennsylvania,)

How to Conduct a Constitutional Convention:
“I do not support a constitutional convention, but … [w]hatever process is determined to give the people of Pennsylvania the most assurance that the electors are representative of the diversity of Pennsylvania and that they are interested in all the people should be the process that is utilized.”

A Constitutional Convention Organized and Operated by Citizens:
“I would be very hesitant to endorse such a process but am unable to say with certainty until all such details would be outlined….[V]oters need also be assured that those who are making the proposed changes have been duly selected and are representative of different philosophies and have divergent views.”

Issues to Exclude from a Constitutional Convention:
“I would not want our families and businesses to pay more in taxes… Many social issues would likely be proposed and opening the door to them may put Pennsylvania in a position that is in conflict with the Federal Constitution.”

Court Interpretation of the Constitution:
“Three days should mean three days. I believe in allowing the people time to review each bill and amendment as it works through the process.”

DR Comment: DR agrees with this interpretation of our Constitution’s requirements governing how laws should be enacted.

Court Interpretation of “Unvouchered Expenses”:
“Unvouchered expenses should be held to be illegal and it is my hope that the Court will rule in such a manner in the case pending before them.”

DR Comment: DR agrees with this interpretation and disagrees with Supreme Court decisions that have permitted “unvouchered expenses.”

Appointment of Judges:
“Any judge nominated by me will reflect my views to a certain degree. Nevertheless, the individual will be called to exercise his or her own positions when performing the duties of a judge…. Diversity is an important aspect of the judicial branch and I would seek such when making my nomination.”

Swann agrees to appoint and consult with a Judicial Nominating Commission when appointing judges. “Nominating commissions are helpful to ensure that the individuals under consideration are not just diverse, but also possess the highest level of academic and professional expertise…. I will select nominating commission members that will search the Commonwealth for attorneys that have a solid history of exemplarily [sic] work experience as well as a variety of different life perspectives.”

DR Comment: DR agrees that the process for selecting judges should be based less on political considerations and who knows whom and more on the legal qualifications and experience of nominees. A well-balanced Judicial Nominating Commission can produce nominees of that caliber.

Tim Potts, Co-Founder
Democracy Rising PA
P.O. Box 618,
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-8570

***********************************************************************

[see # 106: DR Rates Rendell Candidacy for comparison.]

Thanks, Tim, for your usual excellence in bringing the facts and pertinaant issue before the voters. It is a sterling service you perform, and the citizens of the Commonwealth owe you a debt of great gratitude for the work you do.

THE CENTRIST

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

106: DR Rates Rendell Candidacy

[see # 107: DR Rates Swann Candidacy for comparison.]
Once again Tim Potts and Democracy Rising PA are out in front of the issues, and the candidates. DR combined with several other organizations to put together a survey of the candidates for Governor of Pennsylvania. Here is Ed Rendell's response:

******************************************************************

Democracy Rising PA News
August 2, 2006
tim@democracyrisingpa.com
717-243-8570

SPECIAL REPORT: RENDELL RESPONDS

Last December, a Democracy Rising PA coalition of eight statewide organizations (see below) asked candidates for governor to respond to a questionnaire about public integrity, a Constitutional convention and appointments to judicial vacancies. We asked for responses by the end of January.

The first to respond, Jim Panyard, subsequently dropped out of the race. The second, Russ Diamond, responded the day before he announced his candidacy as an independent.

Following an article by Harrisburg Patriot political reporter Sharon Smith noting that both Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell and Republican candidate Lynn Swann had failed to respond to the survey, both campaigns promised to provide their candidates’ views. On Monday, Rendell fulfilled that promise, and on Tuesday, Swann did as well.

We have summarized Rendell’s responses below with a few comments from Democracy Rising (DR) and the Commonwealth Foundation (CF). Tomorrow we’ll do the same for Swann in another DR News Special Report.

With the apparently successful petition drive by the Green Party, we also have again asked their gubernatorial candidate, Marakay Rogers, to participate in the survey. When she responds, she will receive the same treatment afforded the other candidates.

Attached is Rendell’s complete response. To see the questions and the full responses of every candidate, side-by-side, go to the Democracy Rising PA web site at http://www.democracyrisingpa.com/bulletins/response.asp.

Overall DR Comment: It’s a good thing that Rendell responded to these questions. But the responses don’t give us much hope for any real improvement. Although he says he agrees with “the goal of giving Pennsylvania the highest standards of public integrity in America,” none of his proposals would do so. There is no commitment to making Pennsylvania’s government the best in the nation on any standard of public integrity, value for tax dollars, transparency, or earning the confidence of citizens.

Especially disappointing in the wake of the Constitutional abuses of the past few years – by all three branches of government – is Rendell’s apparent fear of allowing citizens to improve their government through a Constitutional convention. Democracy Rising PA has gathered more than 120 ideas that citizens want to debate at a Constitutional convention. Many, perhaps most, are better dealt with through normal laws, but that still leaves a lot more than the three meaningful changes Rendell thinks should comprise the entire reform agenda for our Constitution. Incredibly, he proposes no improvements to our judiciary.

Legislative Districts:
Rendell proposes “ending incumbent protection by amending the Constitution to vest the power to redraw legislative districts in the hands of a nonpartisan independent commission and to enact legislative term limits.”
· The independent commission could not include elected officials, “political party operatives or lobbyists.”
· Lawmakers should be limited to eight years in office, “consistent with the 8-year gubernatorial term limit.”

Rendell calls for these constitutional changes to be introduced next January, “so that they can be ratified by the voters as early as the primary election of 2009 and no later than the primary election of 2011.”

CF Comment: We are highly supportive of both of these proposals. The goal of the decennial redistricting of legislative districts should be to increase the competitive nature of elections rather than protect incumbent legislators. The structure and the details outlining the creation of this commission will truly determine whether or not it is “nonpartisan” and “independent.” Term limits are necessary because of the power of incumbency that suppresses electoral competition. Only term limits will guarantee a return to citizen-led legislature.

Size of the Legislature:
Rendell proposes “right-sizing the legislature by reducing the number of members in order to cut costs and improve productivity.”

The proposal notes that, “The average size of the State House or Assembly in the five states with a larger population than Pennsylvania is 124, compared with 203 in the Commonwealth.” There is no recommendation for the size of the Senate.

CF Comment: This measure is more symbolic than substantive. In fact, as a stand-alone reform, it could possibly exacerbate the current problems in the current system. While we are not opposed to this idea, we believe that other reforms MUST be incorporated with it if a reduction in the size of the legislature is to have a positive impact on the legislative process. http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/index.cfm?section=commentaries&articleID=1682&articleType=29.

Campaign Finance:
PA alone does not limit the amount of money that individuals can contribute to political campaigns, a status Rendell would change. “Pennsylvania should enact limits on how much can be donated to campaigns, using the federal limits as a model.” Current federal limits are $2,000 per individual for election (primary and general).

However, Rendell does not embrace proposals to limit how much money legislative candidates can raise from outside their districts.

CF Comment: Reducing citizens’ Constitutional rights to free speech through their political giving is not the answer to high-priced campaigns. The answer is complete and immediate transparency.

Lobbying Control:
Rendell calls on the General Assembly to pass a law requiring lobbyists to report, “who is lobbying, on what issues, how much they have spent to lobby, whether they have given any gifts to members, and, if so how much and to whom.”

DR Comment: States with the toughest lobbying control laws, such as the Commonwealth of Kentucky, prohibit gifts to public officials.

CF Comment: PA should strive to be the standard-bearer on the issue of lobbyist control.

Open Records:
“I support…appropriate extension of the Open Records law to include the Legislature and Judiciary.”

CF and DR Comment: Not only should the Open Records law apply to the Legislative and Judicial branches, but it should be vastly improved to provide greater access to the average citizen.

Constitutional Convention:
Rendell opposes a general convention under all circumstances. He supports a convention limited to proposals for redistricting legislative districts, reducing the size of the legislature and imposing 8-year term limits on lawmakers, but only if theses proposals are blocked in the legislature. “If there were a Constitutional convention, it should occur after all other attempts at enacting good government reform by the Legislature have been exhausted.”

Rendell does not support a constitutional convention organized and operated by citizens. “There is no provision in law for an independent Constitutional convention. As has been done each time a Constitutional convention has been held in the Commonwealth, the Legislature must pass and the Governor must sign legislation authorizing the convention…”

DR Comment: Citizens do not need the government’s permission to change their government. Article I, Section 2 of the PA Constitution states: “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.” This sounds like a “provision in law” to us.

CF Comment: Article 1, Section 2 reminds us that we the citizens of Pennsylvania—not the governor or legislators or judges—have to power to “alter, reform or abolish” our government. Whether or not it is time for a constitutional convention remains to be seen. Many of the reforms we have called for would indeed require constitutional changes. We believe that a constitutional convention should be considered if/when the governor and General Assembly fail to move the necessary reforms through the amendment process in a timely manner.

Judicial Appointments:
Rendell rejects the idea of a Judicial Nominating Commission to recommend candidates for appointment to vacancies on the courts. “I…consult on a nonpartisan basis with Pennsylvanians from all different parts of the Commonwealth in order to ensure that my nominees reflect the Commonwealth’s rich diversity.”

CF Comment: Our courts should not be political playing fields. Pennsylvania’s highly politicized system has effectively neutered an important check and balance in state government. One needs to look no further than the Court’s blessing of lawmakers’ practice of unconstitutionally increasing their own pay through “unvouchered expenses” as an example of the need to increase the independence of the judiciary from the legislative and executive branches.

Note: In addition to Democracy Rising PA, the other organizations sponsoring the gubernatorial survey are:
· The League of Women Voters of PA
· Common Cause/PA
· The Commonwealth Foundation
· The Pennsylvania Council of Churches
· PA Clean Sweep
· Rock the Capital
· PA Citizens for Legislator Accountability

Tim Potts, Co-Founder
Democracy Rising PA
P.O. Box 618,
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-8570

******************************************************************

Thanks to Tim Potts at DemocracyRisingPA for forwarding this survey. This is important stuff. Compare Rendell's answers to those of Lynn Swann in the next post!

[see # 107: DR Rates Swann Candidacy for comparison.]

THE CENTRIST

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

105: "Changes for Clean Sweep"

News just in from OperationCleanSweepPA. We’ll let Russ Diamond tell it:

PACleanSweep Loses Corporate Bureaucracy

Lebanon County Judge Samuel Kline today granted a motion to dissolve the non-profit corporation known as PACleanSweep, Inc. Five members of the corporation’s Board of Directors filed the motion after months of deadlocks within the organization regarding how to follow up the group’s success over the last year.

“This is not the end of the movement,” said Russ Diamond, PACleanSweep founder, “rather this is simply an adjustment in the way the group operates. The corporate structure that we set up last year, while well-intentioned, significantly hampered the effort to compete in the fast-paced political realm.”

Diamond, one of the petitioners, intends to continue maintaining the PACleanSweep.com website, which was established before any corporate structure was put in place.

Bucks County attorney Lawrence Otter was appointed Receiver by the court to wind up the now- defunct corporation’s affairs and liquidate its assets.

PACleanSweep raised nearly 100 candidates to run in the 2006 primary election in its effort to change the face of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly. 35 of those candidates won their primary race with seven of those victories coming at the expense of incumbents.

The group was also instrumental in the first-ever non- retention of a state Supreme Court Justice when Russell Nigro lost his seat last November.

“We did well over the last year, and that’s something to be proud of. But true reform is not a once-and- done thing. We’ve only gotten lip service and reform- lite so far as a result of the public outrage over the pay raise. The people of Pennsylvania need to maintain their focus on everything that’s wrong in Harrisburg and continue to keep the pressure on elected officials;” concluded Diamond.

About PACleanSweep
PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to defeating incumbent elected officials in Pennsylvania and replacing them with true public servants. For more information, please visit www.PACleanSweep.com.

Russ Diamond
chair@pacleansweep.com
717.383.3025

We look forward to supporting Russ’s efforts any way we can. The more incumbents dethroned, the better for Pennsylvania citizens.

THE CENTRIST

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

Tony Phyrillas: I want to be a casino boss, too

Let's see a show of hands. Everyone who is not part-owner of a casino or casino-related business in Pennsylvania, raise your hand.

Is it just me or does every politician, every lobbyist, every son or daughter of a politician or a lobbyist own a share of the casinos coming to Pennsylvania? How did that happen?

Why didn't anybody ask me if I wanted to be part-owner of a casino?

Act 71 of 2004, which authorized 14 slots venues with a total of 61,000 slot machines, remains one of the worst bills ever passed by the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed into law by Gov. Ed Rendell, the prime mover (along with his good friend John Perzel) behind bringing gambling to the Keystone State.

I always like to remind people that the casino bill was passed by 88 Democrats in the House (of the total 94 Democrats), with only 25 Republicans (of a total 109) voting in favor of the bill. So yes, it was Rendell and his Democratic lemmings who brought gambling to Pennsylvania.

How bad is the gambling bill, which as approved in the middle of the night without public hearings or public input?

It's bad enough that members of the state Legislature snuck a provision into the law that allows them to own a 1 percent share in casinos.

It's bad enough that all sorts of political cronies have been appointed to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board or have been hired for one of the cushy jobs available at the gaming board.

It's bad enough that a big-time lobbyist used the names of his "minor children" as casino owners to circumvent the law preventing him from being a direct owner.

Now we hear that former Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Mark S. Singel, a political consultant and lobbyist, is being forced to sever his ties with a company seeking a license to distribute slot machines in Pennsylvania.

Does everybody in Harrisburg have his hand in the cookie jar?

Sixteen companies have been licensed as slots distributors so far and there’s another six firms under review. One of them, Revenco Gaming, had Single on its payroll, but hasn't been able to get approval from the Gaming Board.

Singel wrote the Gaming Board saying that he would no longer serve as a member and director of Revenco, based in Westmoreland County.

"I came to the conclusion that if in fact I ... was drawing too much of the attention and causing a problem for this new potential business, that I should step aside," Singel told the Associated Press Friday. "It's just troublesome to me that somebody who spends a good portion of their life devoted to public service somehow is considered unsuitable or questionable."

Let's just say that Revenco probably hired Singel because of his political background (lieutenant governor from 1987 to 1995 under Gov. Robert P. Casey Sr.) rather than his expertise with slot machines.

It's not the first time politics has gotten in the way of commerce in Pennsylvania's convoluted run to cash in on casinos. The Associated Press noted that one of the licensed distributors — New Century Entertainment, whose partners included former Allegheny County chief executive Jim Roddey — announced Tuesday that it was giving up its license, alleging that it had been shut out of doing business by "politics" and unnamed manufacturers.

I wrote a column shortly after the Legislature approved Rendell’s casino plan in July 2004 saying it was one of the biggest mistakes in Pennsylvania history. The consequences would not be realized until years later, but casinos would be the ruin of Pennsylvania.

That column, "Tony Soprano has friends in Pennsylvania," also hinted at organized crime's influence on casinos. In hindsight, I may have overestimated the mob’s influence on gambling. It's not the Mafia that worries me now. It's the politicians. The state's political elite are going to get rich from casinos. The rest of us will end up paying a steep price.

The state Legislature should take the advice of CasinoFreePa, a statewide coalition of groups and individuals opposing casino gambling in Pennsylvania, which has the following comment posted on its Web site: "The worse the law, the sooner it should be repealed."

Another screaming headline on www.casinofreepa.org is: "No one asked us!"

Barring a repeal of gambling by the Legislature (highly unlikely because so many politicians stand to make a fortune), the only other option Pennsylvania residents have is to vote out Ed Rendell and the Democrats who supported gambling in the November election.

Tony Phyrillas is a columnist for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa. E-mail him at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

Russ Diamond: Petition Challenge Industry Gears Up

Russ Diamond is always welcome here. We are happy to see him continuing his work begun a little over a year ago. His is a voice that all should heed.

PACleanSweep Opinion
by Russ Diamond
August 4, 2006

Petition Challenge Industry Gears Up

The underbelly of politics has become big business in Pennsylvania, tipping the scales even further toward incumbent protection.

Newspapers and other media outlets have been brimming of late with news of the success or failure of various potential candidates in collecting a sufficient number of signatures to qualify for ballot access.

Most of these accounts have focused on the various strict regulations, significant hurdles and the absolute requirement for attention to detail by elective hopefuls. Mostly unreported, however, has been what happens after the petitioning process is complete and nominating petitions are turned in to the Department of State.

The petition challenge, somewhat of a rarity in the past, has now become the norm in Pennsylvania, employing countless lawyers, experts and consultants as hit-men to knock opponents off the ballot.

For those who offer their services in this capacity - sometimes billing in excess of $400 per hour - this now-regular seasonal business adds up to big bucks. This helps to further exacerbate the incumbent protection program we've all heard so much about over the last year, as only those candidates with vast resources at their disposal can afford a detailed review of an opponent's petitions.

Before this year's primary, PACleanSweep tried to counter this imbalance by educating its candidates on the particulars of reviewing petitions, urging them to conduct reviews on their own behalf and by employing additional volunteers in the
effort.

One result of these reviews was a confirmation that Pennsylvania's ballot access requirements are so tedious that even incumbents find it necessary to bend the rules - or cheat outright - in an effort to insure their political futures.

One incumbent was forced to withdraw in the face of a blatantly false sworn affidavit. Another successfully obtained the signatures of dead people. Others qualified for the primary ballot with the help of "signatures" from many voters who all - oddly - had the exact same handwriting.

On the other side of the coin, one incumbent successfully challenged three different opponents off the primary ballot. Although PACleanSweep candidates did have a few minor victories in petition challenges, the very fact that challenges are
becoming the norm is a sad commentary.

To make matters worse, court decisions in petition challenges are extremely difficult to predict. The official interpretation of what's legal and what isn't seems to change from year to year. In addition, different judges or panels can interpret the law differently in the same year.

For those who wish to run for office in Pennsylvania, this only leads to uncertainty, a need to far exceed the official number of signatures required by law and the need to set aside a great amount of resources - just in case of a challenge - which could be better utilized to inform voters of positions on the issues.

Qualifying for the ballot in Pennsylvania has essentially become a crap shoot. Armed with the right legal team, selective precedent and the prevailing whims of the courts, any candidate could be successfully disqualified from participating.

Overall, the Commonwealth's qualifying process serves to benefit a few - incumbents and paid experts - and put prospective challengers and newcomers at a distinct disadvantage. In the end, it's the voters who suffer, as their choices are limited due to technicalities and legal loopholes.

Pennsylvania's ballot access laws are complex, inequitable and arcane. It's time to simplify them in the interest of increasing competition and providing more choices for voters. More choices will ultimately lead to better government, as competition makes the cream rise to the top.

Unfortunately, this is not in the best interest of the ballot access hit-men and hired guns who are pocketing vast amounts of money in the business of politics. And of course, changing the law requires the cooperation of incumbents, an act which would threaten their very livelihood.

About PACleanSweep
PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to defeating incumbent elected officials in Pennsylvania and replacing them with true public servants. For more information, please visit http://www.pacleansweep.com/. Contact Russ Diamond at chair@pacleansweep.com

Thanks Russ, and come back again soon! You are always welcome here.

THE CENTRIST

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

Tony Phyrillas: Russ Diamond's swan song

Russ Diamond dreamed the improbable dream.

The dream ended Tuesday when he woke up to the realization that he will not be governor of Pennsylvania. Not that he had much of a chance in the first place. But Diamond's remarkable one-year run in the spotlight has left a lasting mark on Pennsylvania politics.

Politics is a contact sport. The defending champions and the perennial opposition don't like competition. Tuesday was the last day for minor-party and independent candidates to submit nominating petitions to have their names placed on the Nov. 7 ballot. Diamond gathered more than 37,000 signatures, but fell far short of the 67,000 names he needed.

Money is the engine that drives politics. That's why Ed Rendell has been so successful. He has the ability to raise large amounts of money, mostly from corporate fat cats, labor unions and the casino industry. Lynn Swann also has the ability to raise money, but to a much lesser extent than Rendell, who is sitting on a $20 million campaign war chest as he prepares to buy his way to a second term as Pennsylvania governor.

Diamond didn't have any money. He went right to the people. He had to ask, cajole and beg 37,000 registered voters to sign his nominating petitions. And Diamond had no political favors to entice supporters. He couldn't promise them any cushy state jobs or sweetheart contracts.

Rendell and Swann have scores of paid workers who can gather signatures on their behalf. And they didn't need that many names to begin with. State law requires minor-party and independent candidates to collect 2 percent of the total ballots cast for the highest vote-getter in the last statewide election. That would be state Treasurer Bob Casey Jr., who received a record 3.4 million votes in 2004, which was a presidential election year.

Major party candidates like Rendell and Swann need only 2,000 names to get on the ballot. Of course it's not fair, but when the two monopoly political parties write the rules, who said it has to be fair? Elections in Pennsylvania are a private party and it's invitation only.

If you're an independent voter or a member of the Green Party, Socialist Party, Constitution Party or Libertarian Party, you might as well leave Pennsylvania. You don't matter to the political party bosses who handpick the candidates.

Before July 7, 2005, when the Pennsylvania legislature gave itself and the governor a middle-of-the-night pay raise, Diamond was a small business owner in Lebanon County whose only previous political involvement was a losing campaign for Congress on the Libertarian ticket.

Diamond was so agitated with the flagrant disregard of the Pennsylvania constitution by the politicians who took an oath to uphold it that he set up a Web site called PACleanSweep. The rest is history.

The goal was to keep the pay raise issue alive and recruit candidates to run against incumbent state legislators. At one point, more than 100 candidates had joined the PACleanSweep movement. More than 50 ran against incumbents in the May 2006 primary and at least seven won their races. Nearly 50 PACleanSweep candidates will be on the ballot this November, although PACleanSweep itself may not be around by the time the election rolls around.

Internal bickering between Diamond and others on the nonprofit group's 10-member board led to lawsuits and an effort to disband the organization. Diamond either left the group or was forced out (depends on whom you talk to) when he announced this spring that he was going to mount an independent run for governor.

Although he has filed court papers to dissolve PACleanSweep, Diamond told the Associated Press he intends to remain politically active. "Time will tell what's able to rise from the ashes" of PACleanSweep, Diamond said.

Diamond could still have an impact on the Pennsylvania governor's race. There are at least 37,000 Pennsylvania residents who are not happy with the choice between Rendell and Swann and would have preferred a third option. There are many other disenchanted voters who support Diamond's efforts to clean up the mess in Harrisburg created by both major parties.

A Diamond endorsement of Swann could help the GOP challenger gain some ground on the heavily favored Rendell. While Swann and Diamond may differ on some issues, Diamond's reform platform is a lot closer to what Swann has been saying than Rendell's "business as usual" re-election theme.

Pennsylvania voters want change. They've seen what four years of Rendell has brought: higher taxes, corporate welfare and runaway state spending.

Swann's campaign people should be on the phone today to Diamond to work out a way to find a meaningful role on the Swann team for the political maverick who has captured the voters' imagination without money or established party machinery.

Tony Phyrillas is a columnist for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa. E-mail him at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

104: “The End of the Road?”

Russ Diamond has withdrawn from the Governor’s race. In a statement recorded in the Harrisburg Patriot News, Russ said, “I’m calling it a day.”

Needless to say, we are greatly disappointed in the news. We thought better of our readers that they would support Russ and help him overcome the artificial handicap of not running as a Democrat or Republican.

Sadly, Russ Diamond fell about 35,000 signatures short of the required 67,000 signatures to get on the ballot in November.

Even more sad is the fact that this impossibly high requirement is set against third party candidates by the Republicans and Democrats for two reasons: first, it keeps third party candidates to a minimum, and second, it protects one or both parties from vote-total inroads against them by those third party candidates.

There is no legitimate reason why third party candidates should be required to amass more than the Republican or Democratic candidates 2,000 signatures. In that sense, Russ out polled both Rendell and Swann by 14-1.

The effect of this stupidly arrogant election law is that Pennsylvania voters are now stuck with three choices for governor: Rendell, the tax and spend Democrat; Swann, the empty suit Republican; and Marakay Rogers, the Green Party candidate.

Ms. Rogers met her goal of 100,000 signatures with the help of the Republicans in western Pennsylvania who called for contributors to help her and US Senatorial Candidate Carl Romanelli. $40,000 later, they had their signatures. Of course, the goal of the Republicans here is to cut into the Casey and Rendell votes as the Green Party is, in many cases, farther to the left than the Democrats, and both Rendell and Casey work out as somewhat moderate Liberals.

But legitimate candidates should not come only from the two parties. And the playing field should be level. It is reprehensible that the two major parties have stacked the deck so high, and thus cheated the Pennsylvania electorate of alternatives to their big-money driven party platforms.

Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the death of Democracy and the advent of a Plutocracy (government by the wealthy).

You major parties have maneuvered themselves into the position that only wealth counts, only wealth can make the decisions for the party, and only wealth will get you elected. In return, you will pass legislation and make decisions based on what the wealthy desire.

You no longer have any influence with your elected officials. How can you when you do not really have any choice of who those elected official are?

And all of us are responsible because we allowed it to happen. We did not demand our representatives act appropriately, and legally, and turned a blind eye when they unconstitutionally passed legislation. We turned a blind eye when our Governor raised our taxes his first year, installed gambling his second year, sign a clearly illegal pay raise into law his third year, and then tried to defend it, and gave us an insult of a tax increase his fourth year. And most of all, we have ceded control of our state Republican and Democratic parties to the wealthy.

The only hope left is to turn out the incumbents in November. And you can, like I will do, take your pen into the voting booth and write in Russ Diamond’s name for Governor. At least your conscience will be clear on that one.

I hold little hope for Reform now, because we have no voice in the Governor’s race. We have the Reformers, and we have the candidates from the soon to be defunct Clean Sweep. Right now, that is all we have.

What a pity. What a crime it will become in the legislature, where crime is already the order of the day.

We have no candidate for Governor, or Lieutenant Governor.

Montana is starting to look attractive.

THE CENTRIST

We support Russ Diamond for Governor!

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

Tony Phyrillas: Voters are wise to Liberal Lois Murphy

I've polished my crystal ball and I'm ready to make a prediction. Republican Jim Gerlach will win re-election to Congress in the 6th District by a comfortable margin.

Gerlach narrowly won re-election in 2004 against Democrat Lois Murphy. Many pundits are predicting another tight race in this year's Gerlach-Murphy rematch. Not me. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Gerlach will win by double his margin of victory from 2004.

Murphy is the beneficiary of tons of money from every left-wing political group under the sun, but I have a gut feeling about this race. Murphy's negative campaigning, the only type of campaign she knows how to run, has grown tiresome.

Murphy spent the entire 2004 campaign bashing Gerlach and blaming him for everything that went wrong in the country the previous two years. The voters of the 6th District, which stretches from the liberal Philadelphia suburbs to more conservative western Montgomery, northern Chester and southern Berks counties, are wise to Murphy.

There was a terrific letter to the editor published in The Mercury a couple of weeks ago from a reader who bemoaned Murphy's latest attempt to demonize Gerlach. "I suppose voters in the 6th District should expect as much from a candidate whose only viable position is that she hates Rep. Jim Gerlach," wrote Jillian Nebenfuhr of Phoenixville.

Gerlach has been an excellent legislator. He's intelligent, energetic, responsive to his constituents and genuinely enjoys his job. Gerlach spends a lot of time in his district — not just when running for re-election, which is about the only time you see some members of Congress.

Murphy is old news. She's a tax-and-spend liberal who rode John Kerry's coattails in 2004 to come close to defeating Gerlach, but there won't be a presidential race this year. The 2006 ballot will feature embattled Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, running on a "vote for me and I’ll raise your taxes" platform, and Bob Casey Jr., a 6-foot-tall sleeping pill attempting to unseat Sen. Rick Santorum.

A lot of Democrats will be staying home this November.

Murphy is the darling of feminists and the radical left. A visit to her Web site shows support of every radical liberal organization in the country. She makes Hillary Clinton look like a moderate.

Murphy has no platform other than "I oppose everything Jim Gerlach supports." And another favorite line from the Murphy camp is that "Jim Gerlach is George W. Bush." Unfortunately for Murphy, that line simply isn’t true. Gerlach has shown an independent streak that has frustrated some of the more conservative voters in his district, but if they had to pick between Gerlach and Murphy, Gerlach wins hands down.

Murphy has been trying to portray herself as a reformer who wants to go to Washington to "clean up Congress." But she lacks credibility because she's a lawyer and lobbyist — exactly the wrong person to send to Washington.

Murphy also comes across as a puppet for Pennsylvania's liberal governor, who has presided over four years of massive tax increases and skyrocketing state spending. If you live in the 6th District and you're worried about the federal deficit, do you really want to send a free-spending liberal to Washington?

If you don't want to pay more taxes, why vote for a candidate who thinks government exists to tax people and redistribute wealth? That's the Ed Rendell philosophy of government. That's the Lois Murphy model, too.

Tony Phyrillas is a columnist for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa. E-mail him at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com

103: News from Democracy Rising PA

We are always happy to pass on word from Good Friend and Citizen Patriot Hero Tim Potts from DemocracyRisingPA.

We would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate Tim, who along with Eric Epstein and Gene Stilp was honored by Pennsylvania Common Cause on Saturday with presentations of the CCPA Public Service Achievement Award. All three gentlemen are richly deserving of such recognition. Please visit the CommonCausePA website to see the details.

Democracy Rising PA News
July 25, 2006
tim@democracyrisingpa.com
717-243-8570

In this issue:

• Tick, Tick, Tick
• What’s Up with PEL?
• When a Cut is not a Cut

Tick, Tick, Tick

• Days since the pay raise of 2005: 384
• Days until Election Day: 104
• Roadmap reforms enacted: 0

What’s Up with PEL?
Advocates for greater integrity in state government were stunned last week by the announcement that the Pennsylvania Economy League (PEL) has appointed Rep. Steve Stetler (D-York) as its new executive director.

PEL is an “independent, nonprofit public policy research and development organization” headquartered in Philadelphia. The mission of the business-oriented group “is to promote better government for a more competitive region.” http://www.peleast.org/.

PEL’s Republican-dominated board of directors looks like every politician’s dream contributor list. http://www.peleast.org/webboardlist.pdf. But the appointment of a Democrat is not surprising. Stetler replaces Karen Miller, who served as Secretary of Community Affairs under Dem. Gov. Robert P. Casey. The appointment of Democrats to leadership posts allows PEL to demonstrate its non-partisan nature. Plus, Stetler has a reputation as a genuinely smart and nice guy whose family has owned a Dodge dealership in York for generations, giving him a business credential that doesn’t hurt.

What troubles integrity advocates is that Stetler voted for the pay raise, took $9,188 in “unvouchered expenses,” voted to repeal the raise but refused to repay the extra cash, and claims to have given the extra pay to charities but won’t say which ones. As a result, York Daily Record reporter Richard Fellinger writes in today’s edition, Stetler stands to get a $2,000-a-year increase in his pension, raising his pension from nearly $62,000 a year to $64,000. http://www.ydr.com/politics/ci_4092352.

Perhaps it’s the Philadelphia focus of PEL that explains its apparent indifference to Stetler’s record on one of the most significant Constitutional and political issues of our time. The pay raise never was as big deal in Philadelphia as in other parts of Pennsylvania.

When a Cut is Not a Cut
The skeptics were right. As reported in the July 11 DR News, the House and Senate actually cut their budget for this year compared to last year. Skeptics argued that although they may have cut the budget, they won’t be cutting spending; they’ll just dip into their (our) $180 million in reserves.

Harrisburg Patriot Capitol Bureau Chief Jan Murphy’s Sunday story, (click here) quotes Mike Long, a top aide to outgoing Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer as saying, “I think there's an obvious interest in holding our spending as tightly as possible. By spending down reserves, we're not appropriating additional funds.”

The huge reserves continue to trouble integrity advocates. The $180 million are nearly two-thirds of the $297 million in the combined House and Senate budgets for this year. Reserves are unheard of for most state offices. Nearly everyone else in state government must return unused funds to the State Treasury at the end of the year.

Legislators argue that they need extra funds in case the governor vetoes their budgets. But since lawmakers can override a veto and get their budgets anyway, this reason is unconvincing.

In fact, the reserves are a source of mischief. They were used to pay the infamous and unconstitutional “unvouchered expenses” last year. They also are used as part of a system of rewards and punishments that keep rank-and-file lawmakers under the thumb of the leaders, who brought us the unconstitutional pay raise and many other unconstitutional enactments in recent years.

Question:
How does spending reserve funds qualify as holding down spending?

Tim Potts, Co-Founder

Democracy Rising PA

P.O. Box 618,

Carlisle, PA 17013

717-243-8570

Stetler and Representative Steve Maitland are in the same kettle, boiling away. Both took the money and ran, Stetler claims to have given to charity and will not pay it back, while Maitland took his illegitimate money and used it to pay for law school so he could be a better Representative!

Hello? Mr. Stetler, I would wager, claimed that gift to charity on his Income Tax! He has no option other than to return the money, with interest NOW!

Mr. Maitland found out the hard way that his constituents don’t like paying his way through law school, especially without being asked! He has no choice other than to PAY THE MONEY BACK NOW! And don’t forget the interest! I'll bet he claimed the tuition on his tax return, too!

Our thanks, as ever, to Tim Potts for keeping the heat on these thieves. And let us not mince words any more: they are thieves! Crooks! And they should be prosecuted for stealing from the tax payers of the Commonwealth!

THE CENTRIST

We support Russ Diamond for Governor!

We support the Roadmap to Reform!

“Kick the hubris out of Harrisburg!” -- THE CENTRIST

"It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacities to give validity to his convictions in political affairs." -- Albert Einstein

Remember in November! Before you vote, GettysBLOG!

Copyright © 2006: “THE CENTRIST”. All Rights Reserved.

Tony Phyrillas: Rick Santorum recognizes the threat

Sen. Rick Santorum is in the fight for his political life. The junior senator from the Pennsylvania, has risen quickly through the Republican ranks to claim one of the top leadership posts in the Senate at a fairly young age.

He has also become a lightning rod for the far left. He is the No. 1 target of the liberal smear machine and is the big fish Democrats want to land this November. A big part of the venom liberals have toward Santorum is the fact that he stands for something. As outlined in his best-selling book "It Takes A Family," Santorum champions traditional American values, the kind that have been under attack by the radical left for decades.

The other reason Santorum has been targeted by the left is payback for the defeat of former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle in 2004. Democrats want revenge. And Santorum, the third ranking Republican in the Senate, has a giant bull's-eye on his back.

The unfortunate part of all this is that Santorum is a good senator. Not only has he done a great job of representing Pennsylvania since 1994, but he has been a conservative standard-bearer at a time when most politicians won't take a position without first conducting a poll. The John Kerrys and Hillary Clintons of the world are all over the map depending on which special interest group is picking up the tab that week, but Santorum has stood his ground, even when it means opposing President Bush.

The most recent split between Santorum and the White House has been immigration. While Bush and many Republicans (including Pennsylvania's senior senator, Arlen Specter) are behind the Senate's "amnesty bill" for illegal immigrants, Santorum voted against it.

One issue that Santorum has never wavered on is the war on terrorism. In a remarkable speech largely ignored by the left-leaning mainstream media, Santorum outlined clearly what the United States is facing if we retreat from the threat posed by Islamic fascists.

In a speech delivered at the National Press Club, Santorum made a convincing case that the United States and its allies are engaged in a World War IV, which is no less dangerous than the two previous two world wars or the Cold War.

"In those wars we fought against European tyrants and their allies, from the Kaiser to Hitler to Lenin, Stalin, and their heirs," Santorum said. "We fought them because we knew that our survival was at stake. The tyrants would never stop attacking until they had defeated us, or we had defeated them."

While the Dean-Kerry-Kennedy wing of the Democratic Party has its head in the sand and the liberal media continues to mislead the American public, Santorum fully understands what's at stake if we lose in Iraq and Afghanistan and allow Islamic terrorists to destroy Israel.

"We are in the same kind of conflict today," Santorum said. "Some say we are fighting a war on terror. That is like saying World War II was a war on blitzkrieg. Terror like blitzkrieg is a tactic used by our enemy, not the enemy itself."

Santorum went on to say that "the threat of Islamic fascism is just as menacing as the threat from Nazism and Soviet communism. Now, as then, we face fanatics who will stop at nothing to dominate us. Now, as then, there is no way out; we will either win or lose."

The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, were the culmination of a 10-year campaign by our enemies that largely went unanswered by President Bill Clinton, according to Santorum.

"A group of Islamic fascists attacked the United States directly, at the World Trade Center, a month into Bill Clinton's first term," Santorum said. "So why is it so hard for so many Americans to see the nature of this war?"

Santorum answered his own question later in the speech: "I think in part because it makes us feel vulnerable. This is not just happening someplace thousands of miles away. The enemy is doing his utmost to kill us, because of who we are, wherever we are, at home or overseas."

Unlike the "Blame America First" crowd, which includes prominent Democrats such as John Murtha, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Dick Durbin, Santorum believes we should not be afraid to confront the enemy.

"It is unfashionable in some quarters to speak about the Islamo-fascists, because of the misguided cultural reflex that condemns anyone who speaks critically about others' practices or beliefs. Therefore, we can't say or do anything that might offend Muslims," Santorum argues. "But that's backwards. The real offense to Muslims is to remain silent about an ideology that produces the systemic murder of innocents. Those who refuse to criticize Islamic fascism undermine the cause of freedom of religion because if the Islamic fascists win this war, no other religion will be permitted to flourish."

Santorum is a serious man. An intelligent man with a firm grasp of history. The kind of person we need in the Senate.

His opponent is an empty suit by the name of Bob Casey Jr., the son of the former Pennsylvania governor. Casey, hand-picked by Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, is a younger version of John Kerry, but with a lot less hair. Bob Casey Jr. has flip-flopped on so many important issues he could open a pancake shop.

While Casey Jr. was attending a fund-raiser hosted by the increasingly embarrassing Murtha, the darling of the "cut-and-run" crowd, Santorum was standing up for his country by making his courageous speech.

"Islamic fascism is the great test of this generation," Santorum said. "We have an obligation as leaders to articulate exactly what this threat is, and to defeat it. The American people have always rallied to the cause of freedom, once they understood what was at stake."

Leadership is a rare quality. It's what we need to survive as a nation. Rick Santorum is a proven leader. Pennsylvania — and the nation — needs to keep Santorum in the Senate.

Tony Phyrillas is a columnist for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa. E-mail him at tphyrillas@pottsmerc.com