Category: Guest Authors

PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

By Robert Small PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

At the 24th Annual Bill of Rights Commemorative Banquet, Dec. 15, the winner of the 2015 Bill of Rights Award was David Baldinger of the Pennsylvania Taxpayers Cyber Coalition (PTCC). Carris Kocher, Founder and one of the main drivers of the Bill of Rights Bicentennial Committee, said David was chosen for his dedication to the 4th and 5th Amendment Rights to property.

Though one might characterize the BRBC as conservative, their
2013 Honoree was one Edward Snowden who, as Carris dryly remarked was “unavailable to personally accept this award”.

They seek to honor persons who have stood up for the Bill of Rights at great personal risk.

Their mailing address is Bill of Rights Bicentennnial Committee, P. O. Box 912, Concordville , Pa., 19331 or kochercj@verizon.net.

The Cyber Coalition has taken a stand on property tax reform and notes on its  website that HB/SB 76 is pending in the Pennsylvania Legislature. This bill would shift the school funding burden to the Sales tax by increasing the rate to 7 percent (8 percent in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh) and taxing more goods and services.

It would raise the personal income tax rate from 3.07 percent to 4.34 percent.

Within two years, this would abolish the school property tax, except to the extent necessary to pay off existing school district debts. It would authorize school districts to levy a new tax on income (subject to referendum approval), to be collected by local authorities. However, these new provisions would also tie this funding to the vagaries of the economy.

On Nov. 21, SB 76 garnered a 24-24 tie vote in the Pa. Senate. The tie-breaking vote against it was cast by Lt. Gov. Mike Stack.

Having heard this, I spoke to my two local Pennsylvania Legislature members.

According to the office of State Rep. Leanne Kruger-Braneky (D-161), this bill will not come to the State House at this time. They also added that no other property tax relief is in the latest proposed budget. There is nothing else particularly in play regarding property tax relief. We are still awaiting a return call or email from State Senator Tom McGarrigle (R-26) after two weeks.

According to the PTCC, some of the major newly taxed goods would include much food and clothing items, and newly taxed services would include all or nearly all professional or technical (except business-to-business), personal, transportation, finance and insurance services.

As one reviews their website, there may be some caveats to a few of the items added to the taxable base, primarily magazines and newspapers many of whom, in this computer age, are barely financially viable. However, the majority seems reasonable, especially considering they would exempt items covered by WIC, etc. Obviously no piece of Legislation will have everyone’s approval on everything.

Some items that seem to be common-sensible, as opposed to government sensible, are all schools will be funded at their current levels and This Property Tax Independence Act completely eliminates the ability of local school boards to tax real estate, except to pay off their own district’s outstanding debt.

Furthermore, an analysis of the 2011-2012 version of the Property Tax Independence act by the Pennsylvania Independent Fiscal Office indicates the plan is financially viable.

There had been two Delaware County branches of the PTCC,
Delaware County 55% Coalition and Delaware County Taxpayers Coalition, but they both seem to have become inactive.

Nothing else will likely happen until the Pennsylvania Budget is passed.
We share with Illinois the distinction, if one can call it that, of going the longest in 2015 without passing a budget.

Mr. Small is a resident of Swarthmore. He can be reached at writ1@verizon.net

PTCC Praised By Freedom Group

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

By Chris Freind Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town

Sometimes life imitates art so perfectly that even Hollywood couldn’t script it.

Now is such a time. And how ironic.

Hollywood – long perceived as a bastion of unwavering liberalism – is now being accused of playing the race card, employing discrimination in how Academy Awards nominees were selected, or, more accurately, not selected.

Of the 20 actors nominated for an Oscar this year, none are black, for the second consecutive year.

Now director Spike Lee (whose movie wasn’t nominated) and actress Jada Pinkett Smith (whose husband Will Smith was not nominated) are boycotting the award show and asking others, especially the black acting community, to do likewise.

And here is where this saga jumps the rails. Lee and Smith are shooting from the hip more than John Wayne, ignoring the concept of “presumed innocent,” and insinuating that the men in black simply have the wrong creed to win an Oscar. Their arguments are so mind-numbingly off-base they could give you a concussion.

Let’s take a look at Tinseltown’s latest controversy:

1. Did the academy, admittedly an organization shrouded in secrecy, deliberately snub black actors two years in a row simply because of skin color?

Don’t know. Translation: Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. But that’s the whole point. Labeling one of the preeminent Hollywood institutions racist, and by extension calling its members bigots, are mighty powerful charges to be leveled without a shred of evidence beyond the “sight” test. As such, it should be incumbent upon those making such accusations to back up what they allege.

But they didn’t. No leaked internal documents showing racism, no secret recordings of backroom deals to keep the blacks out, no smoking gun. Just their opinions.

As a result, their message, especially to our youth, is that it’s OK to shoot your mouth off and demonize anyone you choose – lack of facts notwithstanding and people’s reputations be damned – just because you don’t like the way something pans out. (Of course, it’s a whole lot easier to do such things when you’re wealthy and powerful, a lesson surely lost on their followers who risk job and security when acting similarly.)

Using one’s platform to draw attention to a cause is admirable, but only when it doesn’t impugn the character and reputation of others without justification.

Smith and Lee’s actions are highly questionable, since they reinforce the do-and-say-whatever-makes-you-feel-good entitlement attitude sweeping America. Good role models, they are not.

2. If there is such strong institutional racism within the academy, how to explain the numerous black actors who have been nominated for past Oscars? That includes Will Smith – twice. And Spike Lee – twice, as well as being the recipient of an honorary Oscar just last year. The same Oscars, incidentally, that are being hosted by a black comedian (Chris Rock) and overseen by a black producer (Reginald Hudlin).

These pesky facts have, apparently, been forgotten by Smith and Lee. How convenient.

And how to explain, for the second consecutive year, a record number of black nominees and winners, especially black women, for the Emmy awards? It was a 64 percent gain from the previous year, which itself had been a record.

The Golden Globes have had no shortage of black nominees and winners, nor do any of the other awarding institutions, including the Black Reel Awards, the Black Film Awards, the American Black Film Festival, and Black Entertainment Television.

So let’s get this straight. Despite black actors being nominated by the academy for years, it’s acceptable to cry “racism” because your film, your husband, and other black actors didn’t happen to make the cut this time?

Too many actors in Hollywood become insulated from real life, leading many to forget where they came from, and how they got there. But this is too much, even for Tinseltown. With all the problems we face, from terrorism to hunger to real racism, we’re supposed to care about whining millionaires who didn’t win yet another award? Please.

3. So why did no black actors get nominated? Who knows? Maybe their performances simply weren’t that good, or that their films didn’t measure up. Maybe some were beaten out by better actors in better flicks in a year that simply didn’t go their way. Guess what? That’s called life, and it isn’t always right or fair, especially when human subjectivity is involved. But is complaining and using divisive language the answer? Do these narcissists really believe they have a right to be coddled, and that we should jump every time they feel slighted?

4. Some are claiming that the Oscar ratings were down 16 percent last year because of the alleged racism. They are wrong.

The reason people aren’t tuning is much simpler: Besides many bad movies, the Oscars have become long and boring, featuring self-aggrandizing actors reading incoherent speeches and thanking people we’ve never heard of. Throw in corny hosts telling painfully unfunny jokes, and it has all grown very old. There’s an invention called cable TV, and people are using it to turn the channel. To paraphrase “Field Of Dreams:” If they change the content, viewers will come. But they haven’t.

5. One of two things is true:

– If racism is involved, it would show those in Hollywood to be ultimate hypocrites. They talk the talk by using liberal pyschobabble buzzwords such as tolerance, inclusion and diversity, but when it comes time to walk the walk, they run the other way.

– Or racism played no part in the academy’s decisions, in which case they chose what they believed to be merit over skin color, knowing their actions, while correct, would nonetheless create controversy. A gutsy move – who’d have thought?

6. Where does the push for “diversity” end? Will we see quotas for minority actors next year? And will there be ones for ethnicity, gender and sexual preference, too? And what happens to those deserving of an award but who get shafted because they happen to be the wrong skin color, since overt reverse discrimination would be the new rule?

It is not without irony that the Oscar controversy was raging on the holiday celebrating Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps the boycotters would do well to recall his timeless words about what America should be, instead of hurling racial barbs around the town that gave them fame and fortune: “… a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Unfortunately, this fight looks to get uglier before it gets better, as the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences president is already caving in to the boycott. And that means for this story, there won’t be a happy-ever-after Hollywood ending.

Rich Black Hypocrisy In Tinsel Town.

Chris Freind — Obama Gun Orders Sensible

 Obama Gun Orders Sensible By Chris Freind Obama Gun Orders Sensible

It’s not exactly taking a shot in the dark to predict that the sniping over President Obama’s executive orders on guns will intensify. As the elections draw near, both sides will aim to put the issue directly in their sights and blast away at those who disagree.

But like most important issues, there’s too much rapid-fire rhetoric and not enough common sense, which serves only to move the debate off-target. If the politicians truly care about reducing violence, both sides would holster their weapons and keep their powder dry, and instead hone in on the real problems with sharpshooter precision.

Let’s look at the smoking guns in this latest firestorm:

• Policy: The president, stating he was fed up with a Republican Congress that he saw as doing nothing to tackle gun violence, announced executive orders to increase the scope of background checks for prospective gun buyers, including sales conducted online and at gun shows. Anyone selling firearms would be required to obtain a federal license, and the loophole allowing individuals to buy weapons through a trust or corporation without a background check would be closed.

The GOP, predictably, has been shooting from the hip about how such measures violate Second Amendment freedoms.

One question: How?

How does requiring a criminal background check using the FBI’s database in any way violate one’s rights? Put another way, do these people really believe we shouldn’t have background checks at all? Talk about firing blanks.

Contrary to claims by conspiracy theorists, background checks are not federal gun registries. Neither do they lead to them.

For those who believe that expanding background checks will lead to gun registries, where have they been for the last decade? Background checks aren’t new, so, by definition, if we are simply expanding and modernizing an existing system, then under the critics’ rationale, wouldn’t we already have such a registry? They can’t have it both ways.

Background checks are not a conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat issue. And since they do not infringe upon a law-abiding citizen’s right to own a firearm, it’s not “gun control.” It’s criminal control.

Undeniably, such checks work. There have been 1.8 million denials since 1998. In 2010, half of those denied had felony convictions or indictments, almost 20 percent were fugitives, and 11 percent had violated state laws.

To allow convicted felons or the mentally ill to buy a gun with quasi-legal impunity is crazy, since savvy criminals will choose the no-background-check loophole rather than risk getting caught in an undercover sting. It’s a no-brainer.

But while background checks are useful, they are not a panacea. The FBI database is only as good as the information it receives from states. If criminal and mental health records aren’t routinely sent and/or updated, it won’t be as effective, which is why the administration is boosting its efforts to have states increase their records reporting. It’s also why the president is mandating the FBI upgrade its NICS database system, and providing for additional manpower to staff it. That modernization will greatly reduce the number of gun applicants who, by law, are permitted to take possession of a gun if their background check isn’t completed within three days.

Background checks certainly aren’t perfect, but that’s not a reason to opposes expanding them. Nothing will ever fully prevent lunatics from engaging in a shooting spree, but a background check system is a solid first line of defense.

Political: While idiocy is not illegal, it would behoove some gun-rights people to get a shot of common sense. For example, don’t show up at a gun rally or counter-protest with AK-47s on full display, as some routinely do. And don’t blame the “liberal media” when they post that shot on the front page. Do you want to look cool by touting guns in public, or do you really care about protecting gun rights?

The two never go hand-in-hand. Leave the guns at home, wear something that isn’t camouflage, and articulate a reasonable message with a calm demeanor. You’d be surprised how much more effective you’d be at convincing the Great American Middle – and it is they who will ultimately decide this issue.

Take it to the bank, expanding background checks is a winning political issue.

• Principle: Here’s the problem: President Obama’s executive orders may well get shot down by the courts faster than a speeding bullet – as they should. The Constitution makes it abundantly clear that presidents are elected to implement laws passed by Congress – not do end-runs around the legislative branch.

By no means is that criticism leveled simply at Mr. Obama, since both Republican and Democratic presidents have used executive orders. But wrong is wrong.

The GOP would do well to remind itself of that the next time one of its own occupies the Oval Office, as many will undoubtedly shelve their criticism of executive orders when it happens to be on an issue near and dear to them.

(As an aside, the most egregious executive order of this administration was its agreement with Iran. What is clearly a treaty – which legally should have been subject to ratification by the Senate – was accomplished instead by executive fiat. While the GOP-controlled legislature tried to kill this via legislation, they were unable to muster enough Democratic support to overcome the 60-vote cloture rule in the Senate. Having said that, the question remains why Congress has not filed suit to undue the usurping of its powers.)

• Practicality: Whether executive orders or Congress-passed laws, these measures, while valuable, will simply not stop terrorists and mass killers, and to think otherwise is stunningly naïve. From the San Bernardino terror cell to the Sandy Hook shooter, these people have no regard for laws in the first place, and won’t be deterred by gun restrictions or background checks, especially when they know they won’t live to see another sunrise. All too often, they steal and kill in their quest to obtain weapons.

The answer to stopping these attacks isn’t rooted in limiting magazine size or types of weapons. It’s finding out what we’ve done that has destroyed empathy in many of our young people and fostered a mentality that killing with abandon is somehow a viable option.

Remember that this mass violence didn’t happen in the 1950s – or even the 1980s or most of the ‘90s – when access to guns was considerably easier than now. We didn’t bolt school doors a generation ago, we didn’t have lockdowns, we didn’t whitewash everything, we didn’t constantly coddle our kids, and we didn’t get a trophy even when we lost. And we didn’t kill people when something didn’t go our way or we had hurt feelings in a warped but somehow romanticized outlook of going out in a “blaze of glory.”

There is no single cause for these mass shootings, and it will take a comprehensive effort to stop such tragedies, from increasing efforts to identify and assist the mentally ill to stemming the entitlement mentality of coddled youth.

A good start would be would be to stop sniping at each other, and instead keep our eye on the real target – the bad guys.

Obama Gun Orders Sensible

Kathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of Absurd

Kathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of AbsurdKathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of Absurd By Leo Knepper

Under the Pennsylvania Constitution, the Governor can request the removal of certain “civil officials” outside of the impeachment process. After the suspension of Kane’s law license, and refusal to resign, a Special Committee on Senate Address was convened to determine if Kane should remain in office without her law license. On Tuesday, (Jan. 12) the Special Committee on Senate Address held its final hearing on Attorney General Kathleen Kane.

The hearing was eye-opening, to say the least. Although Attorney General Kane did not testify, her Chief of Staff, Jonathan Duecker, addressed the Committee in her stead. Duecker was frequently backed into a corner, mainly because his positions defied logic and were self-contradictory. When his statements didn’t put him into a corner, they were hedged and revealed how little Duecker knew about the operations of the Attorney General’s office. For example, Duecker had no idea what Kane’s day to day schedule was and couldn’t say for sure when she had last worked in Harrisburg. He also didn’t know if Kane had provided written instructions to the Attorney General’s legal staff about changes to procedure after she had her law license suspended. Duecker also was unable to answer fundamental questions about the contracting process Kane went through when she appointed a “Special Prosecutor” related to her investigation into pornographic emails. His unfamiliarity with the details of this contract comes as a surprise considering its high profile and the controversy it caused among the legal staff in the AG’s office.

If you have two and a half hours and want to watch the testimony, it can be found here. However if you wish to maintain any confidence in the operational capacity of the Attorney General’s office, you should probably skip it.

Rounding out the hearing was testimony from Ed Rendell. He didn’t exactly speak in defense of Kane. Rather, he talked about his time as the Philadelphia District Attorney and how a large part of his work did not require him to have a law license. Although Rendell seemed to enjoy his walk down memory lane, his testimony was only marginally relevant because District Attorneys are not subject to the Commonwealth Attorneys Act. The Act defines the role of the AG as an elected position and what legal responsibilities it has in the Commonwealth. Despite Rendell’s commentary, his experience as a District Attorney is hardly relevant to Kane’s ability to function with a suspended law license. He also urged the General Assembly to go through the impeachment process, instead of the Senate utilizing the Special Committee on Senate Address to resolve the issue of Kane’s suitability for office.

The Senate Committee will issue its final report by the end of January and make its recommendation to the full Senate.
Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Kathleen Kane Hearing Theater Of Absurd

Biggest Losers 2015

Biggest Losers 2015 By Chris Freind Biggest Losers 2015

It’s time to name 2015’s biggest losers. Not surprisingly, this list is always much longer than the “winners,” and, truth be told, a lot more fun:

•

Bill Cosby: Sure, he’s innocent until proven guilty. But one verdict is already in: Cosby is truly one of Hollywood’s most smug, arrogant and despicable stars – and that’s really saying something in Tinseltown. However, while his star will continue to fall, and with it his storied career, Cosby will more than likely be a “winner” when his trial in Montgomery County is said and done. His case was the centerpiece of newly-elected District Attorney Kevin Steele’s campaign, which will draw not-without-some-merit “politically motivated” arguments from the defense. Throw in the fact that successfully prosecuting a 12-year-old case is extremely difficult in the best of circumstances, and Cosby’s chances for an acquittal are high.

But that won’t make him any less of a creep. Too bad Dr. Huxtable was only a TV character.

•

Charlie Sheen: Just because.

•

Philadelphia Eagles and owner Jeff Lurie: The NFL wanted parity, but it got mediocrity, as 19 of its 32 teams finished the season at .500 or below. Yes, the Eagles were one of them, which is especially disappointing given the legitimately high pre-season hopes for the team. And why were expectations high? Because now-fired coach Chip Kelly had turned around Andy Reid’s disastrous 4-12 showing in 2012 by compiling consecutive 10-6 seasons, including a division title. Kelly pushed for and received control over player personnel at the beginning of 2015, so undeniably, many of this team’s shortcomings landed on his shoulders. But fair is fair: Kelly shouldn’t be held responsible for many of the bush-league mistakes his players made, from blown coverages to a seemingly unprecedented number of dropped passes. If those errors aren’t made, resulting in the Eagles winning just one or two of their close games, then Kelly would be entering playoffs with a team capable of big surprises. Instead, he was booted by an ungrateful owner.

It was Lurie who gave Kelly his power, and he should have allowed the coach at least one more year to fine-tune his system. If at that point the Iggles fell short, fine – “Chip’s Ahoy,” to quote the Daily Times headline. But given Kelly’s significant success in just two seasons – especially in light of how long Reid was allowed to hang around despite never winning The Big One – Chip deserved another shot.

You fumbled, Jeff. Now, watch for the Eagles to be mired in mediocrity for the foreseeable future.

•

The personal touch: No one wants to stand in the way of progress, but there’s a fine line between convenience and laziness. Take Christmastime. Not long ago, people spent many frustrating, but eminently worthwhile, hours going “Clark Griswold” with outside decorations and penning short notes on their Christmas cards.

Now? They are remnants of a bygone age, casualties of our aversion to anything that takes effort. First, we had the way-too-easy icicle lights (which look nothing like icicles) that took mere minutes to hang. Then net lights came along, which involved nothing more than heaving a few sets haphazardly over some bushes. And now, lasers, the point of which still eludes, as they are just a bunch of spots in the trees and have nothing remotely to do with the holiday season. But shove them into the ground, flip the switch, and – voila! Back to Reality TV in less than two minutes!

And a handwritten note on cards, or God forbid, people actually signing them? No surprise, since we can’t even talk to each other at the dinner table or coffee shop because our heads are buried in phones, breathlessly following every one of Caitlyn Jenner’s updates. The personal touch seems gone forever, and with it much of our humanity.

•

“Star Wars:” To quote C3PO, “Oh dear!” With an unlimited budget and unprecedented fan base, there was no excuse for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” to be anything but stellar. But Harrison Ford’s performance notwithstanding, it’s a boring re-telling of the first film, which succeeds only in blasting the film into the orbit of mediocrity. A new hope will be for the directors to awaken and use some good old-fashioned creativity to make high-caliber films worthy of the “Star Wars” name. And may the force be with them – please!

•

Carly Fiorina: Here was one of the few promising Republican candidates, a successful businesswoman with presidential gravitas who was positioning herself to be the year’s big surprise. Yet she abandoned all good sense – and shattered her credibility – by pandering to the Iowa caucus vote. No, it wasn’t flipping on ethanol subsidies or a farming issue. It was worse – she disavowed her alma mater Stanford, and publicly rooted for the Iowa Hawkeyes in the Rose Bowl.

In doing so, she got the worst of all worlds: infuriating Stanford alumni – many of whom have big bucks – and gaining nothing but contempt from Iowans for her naked political calculation. It also gave pause to many GOP undecideds who now view Fiorina as just another pol who will say anything to win, and who compounded the situation by claiming it was a joke, when everyone knows it wasn’t.

People may not understand deficits or trade agreements, but they intuitively know when someone lacks sincerity, and it’s often a deal-killer. Some will laugh off such criticism as irrelevant, but it’s often the little things that have the biggest impact. And if that’s the case, the joke’s on Fiorina.

And by the way, Carly, here’s something to stick in your ear (of corn): If you’re going to pathetically pander for a team, you better be damn sure they don’t get humiliated, as Iowa did, 45-16. Ouch.

•

Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf: You call yourself the “education governor,” yet it took six months to release funding for our schools, including aid to the non-publics for much-needed textbooks? Shame on you, Guv. You almost make Tom Corbett look good. Almost.

•

Donald Trump: Sure, he also made the “Winners” list for his unique ability to change the political landscape. But had he exhibited even a modicum of restraint by not insulting damn near everyone, he could have been a viable contender. America needs a businessman to shake up the failing status quo, and Trump could have been that guy. But instead, he valued making a mockery of the process – and his issues – over being a serious candidate. As a result, voters are about to send Trump a familiar message: “You’re fired.”

Biggest Losers 2015

Funeral Bill Called Conflict For Tomlinson

Funeral Bill Called Conflict For TomlinsonFuneral Bill Called Conflict For Tomlinson

By Leo Knepper

In Harrisburg, most people know Robert “Tommy” Tomlinson as a state senator from Bucks County, serving his fifth four-year term representing the 6th District. A career politician, he also represented the people of the 18th House District from 1991-94.

But most people back home in his district know him primarily for his other career – as a full-time funeral director and owner of Tomlinson Funeral Home in Bensalem, which was opened by his father in 1945.

These two careers shouldn’t interfere with each other, but Sen. Tomlinson’s role as chairman of the Senate of Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee is putting his two jobs in conflict, raising profound ethical questions that should concern Pennsylvania taxpayers.

Despite no documented consumer complaints, his committee and the Senate have approved SB 874, pushed by Sen. Tomlinson and his fellow funeral directors to stop legitimate competition with cemeteries in the area of pre-need sales. The name of the committee is ironic since the legislation would create less competition and higher prices for families burying loved ones.

While he isn’t the prime sponsor of SB 874, Capitol insiders refer to it as “Tommy’s bill.” Many are rightly calling this bill a product of a “turf war” between southeastern Pennsylvania funeral homes and a company called StoneMor.

Here’s a brief primer on pre-need sales and the incarnation of SB 874: In May 2014, StoneMor entered into a lease to operate eight of the diocesan cemeteries of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and a management agreement for the remaining five diocesan cemeteries in the Philadelphia area. Before StoneMor assuming operational responsibility of the cemeteries, the archdiocese didn’t offer customers the option of purchasing vaults and caskets directly from the cemetery. As a result, those products were purchased only from funeral directors, with no competition from cemeteries. When StoneMor entered the market, it started selling cemetery merchandise in competition with the funeral directors.

Senate Bill 874 would force cemeteries to adhere to the 1982 Federal Trade Commission’s Funeral Rule, even though the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has refused to include cemeteries due to a lack of consumer complaints. The FTC reviewed this legislation and concluded Senate Bill 874 could result in potentially higher prices and less consumer choice, without producing any benefits for consumers.

Last legislative session, a similar House bill received a hearing by the House Consumer Affairs Committee.  Shockingly, Sen. Tomlinson, a funeral home owner whose business would benefit greatly by the legislation’s passage, was permitted to participate in the panel during the hearing and ask questions. The transcript of the hearing reads like an attack on StoneMor by Sen. Tomlinson and Rep. Micozzie.
At one point, former Pennsylvania Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association President Guy Saxton testified: “I know you don’t like StoneMor, but I’m not StoneMor. And this bill puts me out of business. And everything I’ve heard today tells me that this bill is not in good faith. It’s not trying to help the consumer, it’s attempting to put StoneMor out of business, and we’re collateral damage.”

Why should Pennsylvania taxpayers care?

Taxpayers from Bensalem to Bethlehem to Butler should worry when a powerful, five-term senator is using the legislative process to protect his family business by eliminating the competition.
The state Senate must answer serious ethical questions on how Sen. Tomlinson is allowed to chair a committee that directly impacts his industry. Further scrutiny is required to understand how Sen. Tomlinson was permitted to vote on the Senate floor for this legislation.

If Sen. Tomlinson were interested in what’s best for consumers, he would reduce the regulatory burden for funeral homes. There is a disparity between how funeral homes and cemeteries are treated under the law. Cemeteries have few restrictions on who can sell preneed products and how the funds from preneed sales are allocated. Pennsylvania government has created an environment that increases costs for consumers. Instead of working to make it easier for funeral home operators and thereby reduce the cost for consumers, Thomlinson is advocating for policies that will increase funeral costs for consumers and hurt his competition.

SB 874 is an excellent example of crony capitalism and a perfect illustration of how government increases the cost of living, or in this case dying, in Pennsylvania.
Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Funeral Bill Called Conflict For Tomlinson

2015 Winners By Chris Freind

2015 Winners By Chris Freind 2015 Winners By Chris Freind

Finally! It’s time to name the year’s biggest winners. Here’s a spotlight on those who won, though not always in the conventional sense:

Nurses: Freindly Fire’s unsung heroes for 2015, nurses are on the frontlines in the war against pain and suffering. They are our constant companions in good times and bad, always there to administer medicine, assist with therapy and keep a watchful eye on those needing care. But infinitely more important — as this writer knows firsthand because the nurse he knew best was his mother — nurses offer something more: unrestrained love and kindness. From a reassuring look — to both patient and family — that everything will be OK, to holding a scared child’s hand from beginning to end, they are the humanity and light in an otherwise sterile and jargon-filled world. In an age where not getting personal with your patient seems to be standard operating procedure, nurses gleefully break that rule.

And for some, a smiling nurse’s face is the last thing they will see in this world. If you have to go, I can’t think of a better way. Thank you to those who heal not just our ailments, but our spirits.

•

Kate and William: More than anyone else on the planet, the Royal Couple, by their position and charisma, hold the key to leading the West out of its literal death spiral. The negative birth rates of Europe, Japan, and yes, America, have placed them on a course to end the most benevolent civilizations the world has ever known. Because of ill-advised cultural, economic and political decisions, birth rates have been plummeting, and all have fallen below the 2.1 children per family threshold necessary just to achieve zero population growth.

This, while the threat in the East continues to rise, as enemies sworn to oppose freedom multiply by the millions, menacing what is left of the West.

So Duchess, congratulations on Charlotte Elizabeth! Thank you for your example, and please keep them coming! Or else …

•

Ahmed the Clockboy: Well, it’s apparently acceptable to “build” your own alarm clock – a device replete with timer, protruding wires and electronic circuitry, and which makes beeping sounds — and bring it to class. And shame on teachers, administrators and law enforcement who thought it might have been a bomb and acted accordingly. After all, it’s not like we’re at war with terrorists, or that we’ve been attacked here in the homeland.

So because Ahmed was “wronged,” he was invited to the White House and became the celebrity du jour to everyone from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to Twitter to MIT. (But despite all that, the disenfranchisement was just “too much” and he moved to Qatar).

So the blueprint for becoming a winner in today’s America is to cry foul every time someone legitimately calls you out on something, assert racial bigotry, play up the victim role ad nauseam, and, of course, sue. What a country!

•

Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner and the Kardashians: Whether it’s being boosted by Millennials — the most narcissistic generation in history — living vicariously through these ultra-materialistic, do-whatever-makes-you-feel-good “Reality” TV celebrities, or the rest of America, tuning in to reassure themselves that their lives are “normal” compared to these Hollywood whackjobs, they are still “winners” because we’re still talking and gawking over them. But the really scary thought is that when they fall out of favor (and they will), who will take their place? Somehow Donald Trump comes to mind…

•

Trump: Love him or hate him, Donald is the ultimate showman. He has blown up what would have been an incredibly boring field of GOP candidates, and entertained the world with his off-the-cuff — albeit often nasty — remarks, especially when ripping Jeb Bush to shreds.

Will he win the nomination? No. And he’ll blame everyone and everything for his loss, except himself (sometimes life isn’t “fair,” even to a multi-billionaire). But if you think he was restrained even a tiny bit as a candidate, just wait until we see Trump Unleashed during the general election as a “commentator.” The word’s biggest ego needs to be fed, and there’s no better time than during a presidential election. Since addressing serious issues is a thing of the past, replaced by our insatiable desire to be entertained 24/7, Trump is in the right place, at the right time. The bigger question is: What’s he planning next?

•

The Pope: What’s not to love about Francis? Sure, some of his critics rail against his positions as too “liberal.” But they are misguided, twisting his words into Right Vs. Left partisan politics when, in reality, the pontiff is masterfully bringing issues to the forefront in a way no one has done in decades. Basic human rights; climate change; eradicating poverty; and advocating tolerance and compassion. How can anyone argue that tackling these things is wrong? The debate should be about the best approaches to solving our problems — as they affect us all — but too often, it devolves into politics of derision.

Yet the Pope keeps forging ahead with his unprecedented salt-of-the-earth touch, and the contagious energy of someone half his age. Thank you, Your Holiness, for being a much-needed beacon of light, and a special thanks for visiting the City of Brotherly Love. We could not be prouder!

•

The Philadelphia 76ers: They are winners because of how pathetically inept they really are. After all, who wants to be just bad when you can be record-book awful? The all-time worst record in NBA history belongs to, of course, another 76ers team, who went 9-73. But given this team’s 2-31 showing thus far, barring a miraculous turnaround, they are poised to go down in the annals of sports lore. And it’s only fitting that it’s a Philly team, given that the Phillies have the most losses in human history (over 10,000), the Eagles have never won a Super Bowl, and the Flyers last won a Stanley Cup during Gerald Ford’s presidency.

At least we have Rocky.

•

Big Oil: Finally! America has finally begun its reawakening by responsibly drilling its way toward energy independence. In doing so, we are accomplishing a triumvirate: extricating ourselves from the Middle East quagmire, putting significant money into people’s pockets through vastly lower gas prices (the average household saved $1,100 in 2015, equating to over $130 billion pumped backed into the economy), and revitalizing our moribund manufacturing base (which creates good-paying jobs).

Anytime we aren’t bent over a Middle Eastern oil barrel makes for a very good year. Drill, baby, drill!

•

Pharma: The advances made by our pharmaceutical companies this year simply boggle the mind. From drugs that are combatting melanoma to injecting biologics into DNA that repair mutated (and cancer-causing) strands, pharma is quickly marching toward the day when diseases that have taken so many of our loved ones prematurely will be eradicated. Shame on those so quick to criticize these companies as the Evil Empire, when there isn’t a single American whose life, or that of someone they know, hasn’t been made better, lengthened — or saved — by the work of the smartest people on Earth. Pharma research is America’s best medicine. Keep it up!

•

TJ Maxx/Marshalls/HomeGoods: For years, this column has hammered stores that opened on Thanksgiving, ripping families apart and placing profit over principle. But this year, not only did the above stores remain closed, but produced a fantastic commercial that talked about focusing on what really matters: Our families.

Bravo for having the guts to ignore the competition and do the right thing!

Happy New Year!

Look for the Biggest Losers next week.

2015 Winners By Chris Freind

Trump Does Not Want Presidency

Trump Does Not Want Presidency By Chris Freind Trump Does Not Want Presidency

Virtually no pundit believes Donald Trump will win the GOP nomination, let alone the presidency. Half think he’ll fall short because he doesn’t get it, and the others think he can’t sell it.

They’re both wrong.

Trump absolutely gets it, and, more than any other candidate on either side, he could sell it.

The reason he won’t win is far simpler: He doesn’t want it.

Trump’s ideas are resonating, and not just with Republicans. From common-sense border security to exiting the Middle East to taking on political correctness, his bold vision is exactly the kind of leadership people have been seeking. So with a roadmap for success, why would someone deliberately deviate from a winning course, jettisoning any chance to occupy the White House?

Trump wants the best of both worlds, coming oh-so-close, but just short enough that he doesn’t inherit the awesome responsibilities and frustrations that come with the Oval Office.

Trump’s outrageous statements show him to be serious, but as a world-class headline grabber and conversation piece, not a bona fide presidential candidate.

Let’s analyze The Donald and his candidacy:

1. For starters, running for office while not really wanting it is nothing new. Mitt Romney’s son Tagg told the Boston Globe, “(Mitt) wanted to be president less than anyone I’ve met in my life … if he could have found someone else to take his place, he would have been ecstatic to step aside.”

And it showed. Romney never caught fire because people sensed that his heart wasn’t in it. Similarly, George H.W. Bush lost re-election because he demonstrated utter disinterest. Trump supporters are starting to see him in the same light, since people will not give blood, sweat, tears (and money) to a candidate who doesn’t appear to fully believe in what he’s doing.

Voters don’t want someone to do them “a favor” by running; they desire a leader with the passion and energy to see it through to the end — all effort, no excuses. Trump’s not doing that.

2. The “How” of the Trump Explosion: Say what you will about Trump: Arrogant, egomaniacal, even nasty. Maybe. But one thing is unquestionable: he’s an extremely smart man. Trump speaks intelligently without talking points because he has core beliefs, and, while not knowing the minutiae of every issue (and no president does), he is able to articulate his positions with clarity and charisma.

More important, he eschews the boring and often politically correct approach of his colleagues. Rather than tiptoeing, he tackles tough issues head-on, taking the bull by the horns and calling out those too afraid to speak their minds. That refreshing approach has bolstered Trump’s support, even among those who don’t agree with many of his positions but respect his candor.

All of which makes his crazy statements seem all the more calculated. Granted, anytime one has the guts to speak off the cuff, there will inevitably some hyperbole and misstatements. But that’s why God invented whiteout — so we can rectify our mistakes, clarify our points and move on. But Trump has never done that.

Instead, he constantly doubles down on his controversial positions, making even faithful followers question him. Banning Muslims; calling Mexican immigrants rapists; insulting debate moderators; engaging in feuds with TV networks; and stating John McCain wasn’t a war hero — these are just a few examples of Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric. But it’s his refusal to admit he misspoke, let alone was wrong, which makes it almost impossible to believe that such as savvy as he could be so inadvertently bumbling.

Bottom line: Donald Trump knows exactly what’s he doing, and he’s in control, all the time.

3. The “Why.” The presidency isn’t for anyone. An effective president must exhibit immense patience and restraint, have the ability to work with adversaries and allies, employ grace under pressure, and hone the skills of diplomacy and tact. That doesn’t mean the Commander-in-Chief can’t be tough as nails, as both Roosevelts and Ronald Reagan proved. But they had qualities that made them suitable for the office — attributes that Trump probably has, but doesn’t want to display.

The Donald, in his businesses, reality TV career, and campaign, has a simple rule: His word is first, last, and immutable. Fine. As boss, that prerogative is eminently his. But that would not be the case at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Obviously, as head of the executive branch, the president wields enormous power, and many serve at his pleasure. But Congress and the government bureaucracy is a whole different animal. A strong leader can help influence Congress, but push too hard, embarrass them too much, and they’ll make you pay — even those from within his own party. And that’s particularly true for someone viewed as a “Washington outsider,” as Trump would be.

It’s one thing to insult rivals, excoriate the media and blast foreign heads of state on the campaign trail. But try that as president, and your demise will be clocked with an egg timer.

For someone used to sycophants jumping whenever he enters the room, Trump would be in for a rude awakening. Presidents come and go, but the Washington culture is slow to change. Trump is smart enough to realize that, and knows his frustration level would quickly go through the roof, begging the question if gaining the presidency is worth what he would have to give up — namely, being himself.

Donald Trump, who was world-renowned before his candidacy, has seen his profile skyrocket. Unquestionably, he is enjoying every minute as flamboyant flamethrower, a role he will continue to embrace as the primaries approach.

It’s not inconceivable that his plan is to fall short, blame the media and political establishment for their institutional corruption, threaten to run as an independent, and, being the master performer that he is, storm out, leaving the world in suspense as to how he will top his campaign exploits. And make no mistake: Trump will surely not disappoint.

Donald Trump relishes one thing above all else: The swagger that comes with being one of the most successful and brash leaders in the world. About the only thing that could knock him off that pedestal is a stint in the Oval Office.

So with all the benefits — and no responsibilities — of being “almost” the victor, it seems clear that Donald being Donald trumps being Donald being President.

And you don’t need a casino to make that bet.

Trump Does Not Want Presidency

WAMS Back In Senate Budget

WAMS Back In Senate BudgetBy Matthew Brouillette

Yesterday, Dec. 7,  the Pennsylvania Senate passed budget-related legislation: SB 1073 and SB 1082. Now, taxpayers can finally see what’s in Gov. Wolf’s “framework” for a new budget. Here are five things we know:

1. Excessive Spending Growth. The $30.8 billion budget represents record spending and a 5.4 percent increase over last year’s budget. Even including items shifted off budget last year, this amounts to an increase of $500 million more than inflation and population growth.

2. WAMs are back. The Senate budget includes a $103 million increase in Community and Economic Development spending. This includes several line-items identified as WAMs (or “walking around money”)—slush funds used for special projects. In the past, they’ve been used to buy votes and foster rampant corruption.

3. Problematic pension reform. The revised pension bill includes a side-by-side hybrid, with a smaller defined benefit pension and a defined contribution component. While a step in the right direction, it doesn’t get the politics out of pensions.

The proposal further underfunds teachers’ and state workers’ pensions and lacks transparency. It suspends a provision that requires pension bills to have an actuarial note explaining long-term impact before a vote.

4. No privatization in “liquor privatization.” The Senate liquor plan—which has been reported on but not yet passed—would retain the government monopoly over wholesale distribution. That means every retailer would continue to buy wine and spirits from the PLCB. There would be a “study” to recommend whether the state should privatize. On the retail side, state stores would remain open in perpetuity.

5. Higher Taxes. The Senate plan requires higher taxes. We know this will include some broad-based tax increase to generate the $600-$700 million needed to pay for the spending.

We don’t know what taxes will go up. There is no agreement on a tax plan; that is, the Senate passed a budget without the revenues to pay for it. It’s unclear if there is support in the Senate to pass a tax hike, but there are very clear signs there isn’t support in the House for a tax hike of this magnitude.

To see how your senator voted, here is the roll call for SB 1073 and SB 1082.

It’s not over yet. To voice your concern to your Senate and House members, email them today.

Mr. Brouillette is president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation.

WAMS Back In Senate Budget

Chris Freind: Thanksgiving Day 2015

By Chris Freind Chris Freind: Thanksgiving Day 2015

Another Thanksgiving is here, which means too many lists of things for which to be thankful. Certainly, there is much to appreciate, but we’ll leave that commentary to the flowery romantics, for whom I am thankful, so that I can be the flame-throwing Grinch.

Now, the list of things for which we should not be thankful:

1. Million-Dollar Clock Boy: Actually, make that $15 million, because that’s how much 14-year old Ahmed Mohamed is demanding from the city of Irving, Texas, and the Irving School District (along with a written apology), because he was “publicly mistreated” and, of course, remains scarred. And what caused him to suffer so much “trauma” that he had to move to Qatar to continue his education? Americans doing their jobs. Imagine that.

You might remember Ahmed. He’s the one who brought a “homemade clock” to school – in blatant violation of school policy, a fact still being ignored by his ill-informed defenders, including President Obama, who invited him to the White House. The device, built inside a briefcase, had a timer, protruding wires, electronic circuitry – and was beeping during class.

Upon discovering the device, the teacher did what anyone with an iota of common sense would do: Notify school officials, who in turn contacted law enforcement. Was it a clock – or a hoax bomb? No one knew, and in these times, you can’t take any chances, which is precisely why the authorities were called to investigate. It made no difference that Ahmed was Muslim, as it would have been handled the exact same way no matter the ethnicity or gender of the student. Timothy McVeigh and American-born mass shooters have proven that homegrown terrorists are just as dangerous as foreign ones.

So what’s the legal standing to sue? There is none. Instead, it’s a perfect example of malicious abuse of process. The fact that this case is even seeing the inside of a courtroom is an indictment of a judicial system continually overstepping its bounds and encouraging the next travesty of justice. Ahmed’s case is a frivolous lawsuit on steroids, and it’s only going to get worse until someone has the backbone to take on unethical trial lawyers (sorry, that’s redundant) – political correctness be damned.

Here’s hoping we can be thankful to Irving for fighting to the end by not settling for a single penny, refusing to admit wrongdoing, and standing up for true justice.

2. Not Being Charlie Sheen: When Sheen actually acted, as in the hit movies “Wall Street” and “Platoon,” his charisma made him an A-lister in a sea of Hollywood mediocrity. But when he got fired from the TV show “Two and A Half Men,” and subsequently had a public meltdown – by endlessly tweeting indecipherable messages about “winning” and showcasing his high-risk lifestyle – he showed his true colors.

Now he’s being made out as “brave,” and “courageous,” a “hero” with the guts to tell the world he has HIV.

Are these people serious?

No one “deserves” to contract a disease like HIV, but outside of a blood transfusion gone terribly wrong, you don’t get that virus by accident. Translation: Sheen’s extremely risky behavior – especially his drug use and significant sexual promiscuity, choices entirely of his own making – vastly increased his chances of meeting an unfortunate fate. Sheen’s past finally caught up with him, and, while tragic, was entirely predictable.

Yet Sheen’s sycophants want us to believe his disclosure was a selfless act of courage, and we should look to him as a role model. Wrong. Let’s be honest: He’s had HIV for over four years, and the only reason he went on TV now was to jump in front of the story, since someone was apparently going to tell the world of his condition. And Sheen now faces multiple lawsuits from ex-partners who claim he never told them of his HIV status.

Either way, Americans should be thankful that they’re not Charlie Sheen, as he has proven that money can’t buy everything – most of all, class. Sheen could have been one of the great ones, but instead, has relegated himself to the bin of Hollywood has-beens who have become cocktail party jokes.

3. Playing for an NBA Team that isn’t the 76ers: There have been lots of good teams in NBA history, and a few great ones. But since it’s impossible to compare legendary teams from different eras, it’s also impossible to pick the greatest one.

But there can only be one “worst” team in history – baddest of the bad, lower than the bottom of the barrel. So if you play for the Philadelphia 76ers – off to an astounding 0-15 start – you should most definitely be thankful that you’re not on any other team, since there is the distinct possibility that you will be part of the worst team ever, surpassing the record of another – you guessed it – Philadelphia 76ers team. As you may recall, that was the only team in the history of professional sports to have a single-digit win column, with a 9-73 record. As the bad guy Belloq says in “Raiders Of The Lost Ark:” “We are simply passing through history. This, this IS history.” So true. The rest of the NBA is passing through yet another forgettable season, but this 76ers team continues to make history. Hey, if you’re going to be bad, you might as well go all the way. 0-and-82, here we come!

4. An ISIS parent: Give ISIS fighters credit – they believe in something. Warped and demented, but nonetheless, something real.

Great. So do a lot of people.

The biggest difference between us and them is how we view not just life, but family. Sacrificing for a cause is one thing, but when it involves watching your own kin blow themselves to smithereens – while the ringleaders, ever so conveniently, never strap on the suicide vest – it becomes crystal clear why ISIS can never win. Successful civilizations are built upon the principle of protecting their people. When the value of those lives becomes meaningless, those societies eventually collapse.

Bombs and bullets aside, be thankful that we celebrate our children by showering them with love, enjoying them at their recitals and T-ball games, instilling in them the wondrous sense of discovery that awaits them, and relishing the sparkle in their eyes as boundless curiosity takes hold and grows to new heights. Their light fuels America’s torch of tomorrow, keeping the beacon lit, which shows the world that the United States will always – always – be the home of the brave and land of the free.

Despite our differences in America, and there are many, we must never forget what we are capable of accomplishing. We live in the most generous nation the world has ever known, made possible by the most compassionate people who have ever lived. On this Thanksgiving, especially in the wake of tragedies hoisted on the world by godless heathens who survive solely on hate, let’s be thankful for who we aren’t, and infinitely more important, who we are.

Happy Turkey Day!

Chris Freind: Thanksgiving Day 2015