Category: Guest Authors

One-for-Four Equals Legitimacy

In my opinion, most sane, mature Americans would not abolish the Constitution. Most certainly they would not fool around with the Bill of Rights—those first 10 precious guarantees of individual freedom.

There are of course attempts to attack one or the other sections of the Bill—most notably the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right of citizens to arm themselves, and the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly…

Minutes after some madman uses a firearm illegally in this country, there is normally a well-organized chorus assembled to sing out the evils of the tool he misused, while excusing his temperament, demeanor, or lack of basic humanity.
And should we ban (or even condemn) a religious movement because of its dogmatically-held beliefs—beliefs that may run counter to pop culture or the trending political bias?

My answer would be to judge the person for his action, regardless of the tool being used or the doctrine espoused. Indeed, Article Three of the Constitution establishes our judiciary and levies the authority to apply the law and to issue punishment.

Seems simple: The courts decide what (if any) crime has been committed and what price must be paid by whom. The government attorney states their case and the accused’s attorney states theirs. Beneath it all is a battle for rights—rights of the accused, rights of the public to be safe in their homes, rights of the individual to hold onto and profess solemnly-held spiritual beliefs.
Thank God (and our Founding Fathers) for that Bill of Rights. And here’s more good news…the expense of hiring a judge, jury, attorneys—that can be paid for from our taxes. Even the accused can be represented by government-funded counsel.

And if all else fails, there’s always the ACLU. How they work can be illustrated by two recent examples.

The ACLU defended religious freedom when they joined with the Council on American-Islamic Relations in 2011 to sue the FBI for allegedly violating the civil rights of Muslims in Los Angeles by hiring an undercover agent to infiltrate and monitor mosques there.

So the Administration (our Administration) excludes mosques from being monitored for terrorist support and encouragement. But they keep a close eye on those fanatical Christians, even though, according to Investor’s Business Daily, independent surveys of American mosques reveal about 80 percent preach violent jihad or pass out violent literature to worshippers. Perhaps the ACLU believes that literature is not quite as violent as the Sermon on the Mount.

The ACLU also is considering defending the right to assemble (I guess) by instituting litigation against the City of Wildwood, New Jersey, which recently passed an ordinance that would ban what they see as indecent dress on their boardwalk—clothing that is worn so loose that undergarments or even bare bottoms are displayed.

It’s comforting to know that the ACLU uses its donations to defend our rights, especially the right to preach violence against innocent law-abiding citizens, and the right to walk about in public with your gochies (or more) exposed.

Does it make anyone else wonder what the hell this outfit thinks is important?

(Jim Vanore is a former newspaper editor, middle school teacher and Philadelphia police officer. The article above is excerpted from his website, Good Writers Block.)

Case For Corbett’s Tax Reform

By Nathan A. Benefield

Pennsylvania’s small business owners face a daunting challenge: How can you invest and expand your business while paying the second highest corporate tax rate in the country?  If you can believe it, combined with the federal tax rate, Pennsylvania businesses pay the second highest tax on their profits in the entire industrialized world.

And the sluggish economy isn’t making things any easier.  The good news is that Governor Corbett has proposed tax reform to alleviate some of this burden and make Pennsylvania more competitive. This reform plan will boost the economy—growing jobs and raising personal income across the state.

A new analysis sponsored by the Commonwealth Foundation and conducted by economists at the Beacon Hill Institute demonstrates exactly how the Governor’s tax reform plan will put Pennsylvania on the path to prosperity. Specifically, the plan examines the Governor’s call for reducing the state’s corporate income tax.

The report finds that if these reforms pass this year, the state would see over one billion dollars in additional business investment by 2018.  More investment means more jobs.  The analysis concludes that more than 1,200 additional private sector jobs would be created in five years as a direct result of these tax reforms.  And as investment grows in future years, job growth would accelerate.

Increased employment and investment also lead to wider benefits for families.  Based on our projections, Pennsylvania’s real disposable income would grow by $460 million as a direct result of business tax reform.

This is a real stimulus.  Businesses would be able to invest more and expand their operations, in turn creating additional tax revenue and more jobs and income for the working Pennsylvanians who have suffered in recent years.

Given these benefits, tax reform is a no-brainer.  That’s why Pennsylvania isn’t alone in pursuing this path.  This year, Louisiana, Nebraska, Kansas, and North Carolina have all considered comprehensive tax reform, with each state taking a slightly different approach.  Moreover, in recent years, other states of varying political persuasion—ranging from Washington to Texas to Ohio—have also taken proactive steps to improve their economies by reducing or eliminating onerous corporate income taxes.

The timing couldn’t be better.  Pennsylvania consistently lags the nation in job and income growth.  Contrary to its nickname, the Keystone State ranks among the 10 worst states for businesses, according to a survey of business leaders by CEO Magazine, and 39th in state competitiveness, according to the Beacon Hill Institute.

Unfortunately, some fail to see the benefits of tax reform and suggest we hold off on cutting tax rates. Due to lower than expected tax revenue collections for the state this year, some lawmakers are calling for higher taxes to “invest” in their own spending priorities.  Others suggest we need to increase tax credit programs—that benefit some businesses, but not all—to make it easier for businesses to compete in Pennsylvania.

If creating jobs is our top priority, these ideas need to be scrapped in favor of broad tax relief.  Tax increases impede economic growth, while tax relief unleashes it.  Ending targeted tax breaks and corporate welfare programs would allow Pennsylvania to lower its tax rate for everyone.  To realize these economic benefits even more quickly, lawmakers in Harrisburg should look to accelerate the Governor’s tax reductions.

At a time of heightened partisan bickering, sensible reforms like this are worth pursuing, especially when the benefits are so clear.  Tax reform will give Pennsylvania a competitive edge over its neighbors while encouraging business investment and job growth.

# # #

Nathan A. Benefield is director of policy analysis with the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org).

Security Is No Excuse For Spying On Americans

By Chris Freind

“I don’t care if the government reads my mail or tracks my phone calls — I have nothing to hide … if it makes us safer, I am for it.”

Such naïve pronouncements might be expected from average folks. But you know it’s bad when a U.S. senator — a Republican, no less — feels the same way. As South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham stated, “I’m a Verizon customer. I could care less if they’re looking at my phone records. … If you’re not getting a call from a terrorist organization, you got nothing to worry about.”

Really, Lindsey? Nothing to worry about? Hmmm. Try telling that to those illegally targeted by the IRS. Since they hadn’t done anything wrong, they shouldn’t have had anything to “worry about.” But that wasn’t the case, was it? And tell that to Associated Press reporters whose constitutional protections were callously cast aside by the government on a witch-hunt. Turns out those who thought they had “nothing to worry about” were wrong. Very wrong.

And for the record, the government that did those things is the exact same one that is, and has been, poring over private phone and email data of American citizens via the National Security Agency. Not just a few targets for which it had probable cause, mind you, but untold millions who never received “a call from a terrorist organization.”

So forgive the majority of Americans who aren’t exactly comforted by assurances that they have nothing to worry about from Big Brother snooping through their personal lives. And excuse their skepticism that the government isn’t engaged in much more intrusive activities that have yet to be revealed.

And what is the government’s rationale for spying on innocent Americans?

That’s easy. It’s the nebulous, catch-all buzz phrase of “national security.” But who will protect us from our overzealous national security protectors? Who is watching the “watchers?”

As President Obama said in defense of these programs, “It’s important to recognize that you can’t have 100 percent security and also then have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience.”

Thank God, he cleared that up.

Of course, anyone in their right mind would never believe that we could be 100 percent secure or have 100 percent privacy, as there are no absolutes in life. But this level of domestic spying is way out of bounds.

Are our leaders so insulated as to believe spying on American citizens is the best way to “prevent a terrorist attack?” That trampling over the Constitution is acceptable to beat al-Qaida? And that disregarding the fundamental rights of freedom, privacy and the protection from unreasonable search and seizure is OK, since it’s in the name of “protecting the people?”

Frighteningly, the answers are yes. And with every revelation, Americans become more fearful of their government — one that has seriously deviated from being of the people, by the people and for the people.

Here’s a newsflash. If we continue down our incremental path to totalitarianism, jettisoning unique American safeguards in the name of “security” — whatever that means — we might as well throw up the world’s biggest white flag. America will have become just like the very enemies it proclaims to abhor.

We are infinitesimally better than our foes, so why are we punishing our own in the name of fighting them?

Let’s review:

1. Spying on American citizens without probable cause is, or at least used to be, illegal. Yet, this is nothing new. The NSA has been doing this for decades, as certain microwave towers in its Fort Meade, Md., facility in the 1980s had only one purpose — domestic electronic surveillance, according to reports. The big issues now are that a.) it has finally become widely known that the NSA is engaging in such activities, and b.) their technology, which is exponentially more advanced than anything on the private market, has intrusion capabilities beyond comprehension, allowing them free reign over every informational aspect of our lives.

2. Are we really to believe that the government won’t take its activities to the next level, assuming it hasn’t already done so? Sorry, but that doesn’t pass the sniff test. Has there ever been a government that hasn’t eventually abused expanded powers, even those granted legitimately? And would the American people really have consented to such intrusions had they known the reach of these programs?

3. Is it even working? Beyond the always-vague and conveniently unverifiable “we stopped a domestic terrorist attack” line, is this destruction of privacy worth the cost? Did all their phone records searches and data mining programs stop 9/11? Nope. You know what could have? A competent FBI supervisor in Washington using old-fashioned common sense and brainpower. But instead of listening to the Minnesota agent begging for action because well-funded Muslims fitting a terrorist profile were taking flying lessons, yet refusing to learn how to land the plane, nothing was done. And the rest is history.

Ditto for the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber — both foiled not because of NSA spy programs, but terrorist incompetence and courageous passengers. Did the NSA prevent any of the mass shootings or the Boston bombing? No.

And need we ask if the spooks’ super-computers stopped the Times Square bomber? Remember him? He tried to bomb New York City, fled to the airport, bought a one-way ticket to the Middle East (Red Flag One), in cash (Red Flag Two), fit a terrorist profile (Flag Three), and here’s the kicker — boarded the plane despite being on the Government No-Fly List. Which, I think, qualifies as Red Flags Four through 100.

We have relegated human intelligence, in all its forms, to the back burner, choosing an over-reliance on technology. It’s bad enough it doesn’t work anywhere near advertised. But to lose our freedoms because it? No way.

4. We violate the inner sanctum of American lives in the name of stopping terrorism, yet refuse, because of an allegiance to political correctness, to do the one thing that, hands down, does more to thwart terrorism and gain intelligence than anything else — profiling. Go figure.

5. Everyone has something “to hide” because anything can be taken out of context and used by an unscrupulous agent for extortion and blackmail. Financial records, email conversations, photos, phone calls — you name it. The potential for abuse is astronomically high — a price Americans should not have to pay. Ever.

It’s time to use our intelligence the right way, through the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court replete with added oversight, to protect us without destroying who we are and what we hold dear: Our inalienable rights that make us the envy of the world.

Ben Franklin said it best: “Those willing to give up liberty for security gain neither and will lose both.”

How right he was.

Freindly Fire Recap

Freindly Fire Recap
By Chris Freind

It’s been another banner week for battering common sense, but what else is new? However, there was one bright spot, and that leads off our weekly recap:

Tom Corbett’s NCAA Lawsuit Folly: Honest to God, Corbett acts more like Adam Sandler’s deer-in-the-headlights characters every day – slow, clueless, out-to-lunch. The only differences are that 1) People are laughing at Corbett, not with him, and 2) Sandler always wins at the end of the movie. In Tommy Boy’s case, the final scene is coming quickly, and there will be no contract renewal for a sequel.

The latest scene in The Tom and Jerry (Sandusky) Show was the common sense ruling – a no-brainer to everyone but Corbett – by federal Judge Yvette Kane. By her throwing out Corbett’s baseless lawsuit against the NCAA for its sanctions levied against Penn State, the governor gets the worst of both worlds: his crass political move spectacularly backfired, further tanking his already basement-dwelling approval rating.

Were the sanctions an outrageous over-reach? Absolutely. But remember that Gov. Corbett, as a Penn State trustee, agreed to and approved of the sanctions. In an overtly calculated effort to show he “cared” about Penn State – and to improve his abysmal approval rating – he sued the NCAA over those very same penalties.

And what are the reviews for Corbett now? Well, a Quinnipiac poll conducted right before the court decision found that six of 10 Pennsylvanians think Corbett, as then-attorney general, mishandled the Sandusky investigation – a significant reason why a majority (by a whopping 20 percentage points) do not believe he deserves reelection.

Any guesses as to how his embarrassing NCAA-lawsuit thumping will affect those numbers? Single digits, here he comes!


* * *

 

Chrysler Rejecting Jeep Recall: In some respects, this case has the potential to be just as disconcerting as the IRS and AP phone record scandals. The government, via the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, is threatening a federal lawsuit against Chrysler if it doesn’t recall nearly three million Jeeps, alleging that those vehicles’ gas tanks pose a safety issue in rear-end collisions.

Forget the fact that the government’s data is very sketchy (37 accidents and 51 deaths, for Jeeps going back as far as 1993, which, Chrysler states, is about one fatality every one million miles driven).

The big issue is that the vehicles in question meet federal safety requirements – which the government does not contest! In other words, if you accomplish everything you are mandated to do, meeting or exceeding all requirements, the government can still completely disregard that compliance on the whim of bureaucrats seeking a mega-power trip. And for the record, the NHTSA stated the Jeep’s gas tank design “may”, not “does,” pose a safety issue. Way to try to spend other people’s money, in this case hundreds of millions.

When a government is above the very law that it creates, everyone and everything is at risk. Kudos to Chrysler for having the guts – rare indeed – to shove it right back up the government’s tailpipe.


* * *

 

Major League Baseball’s Insane Lawsuit: Speaking of lawsuits with absolutely no merit, the action of Major League Baseball regarding the latest steroid saga is downright foul.

Don’t forget that baseball, and Commissioner Bud Selig in particular, have been the sporting world’s biggest hypocrites when it comes to banning steroids. For years, they officially condemned such substances while not lifting a finger to outlaw them, (having done so only several years ago), instead cashing in big-time on players clearly using “juice.”

Now it wants to appear “tough,” but is vastly overstepping its bounds. In an action that should have no legal standing whatsoever, the League filed a lawsuit accusing Anthony Bosch, owner of Biogenesis, a now-closed anti-aging clinic, for “intentional and unjustified tortious interference” with contracts between MLB and its players by providing them with steroids and possibly other banned substances.

There are frivolous lawsuits, and then there is this.

How can Major League Baseball possibly have grounds to sue a private individual for interfering with the contracts of players?

What’s next? Will baseball sue the Netherlands in World Court if players smoke pot in Amsterdam, which, while legal there, would undoubtedly be interfering with player contracts here?

Stay tuned, as this subject will be revisited.



* * *

 

Chris Christie’s special election: Taxpayer-friendly? New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has always fashioned himself an advocate of taxpayers, eliminating wasteful spending. He has done a fantastic job, which makes his latest action somewhat troubling.

Upon the death of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Christie used his power to schedule a special election. The problem is that he did so for this October, just a month before the November election, in which he is on the ballot for re-election.

Millions in taxpayer money are used to process a statewide election. So the obvious question stands: Why not save that dough and just have the special election on the same date as the general? Common sense, it would seem. And since New Jersey is already being represented in Washington by the new interim senator, it’s not be like there was an urgency to fill a vacancy.

The real reason, obviously, is that Christie does not want to share the ballot with Cory Booker, the popular mayor of Newark who will undoubtedly be the Democratic candidate for Senate. It’s not that Christie himself is in danger of losing, as he is the most popular governor in the country with a stellar track record. (Anyone listening in Pennsylvania? Anyone?) But most observers believe he wants his reelection margin to be as large as possible, since winning big would help him in 2016 infinitely more than edging out a lesser opponent.

Is this a sound move? In most places, it wouldn’t be, as the political motivations are obvious. But Christie is Christie, and New Jerseyans, used to the roughest, most callous politicians in the nation, won’t even bat an eye. So while Christie will get a free pass on this one, it is nonetheless disappointing to see such a blatant compromise of political principles for such an openly political reason.

We can only hope that’s where Christie’s slippery slope ends.

Successful Pa. Lobby Day

By Whitey Coyne

The Delco Patriots joined Americans for Prosperity ( AFP ) in a successful Lobby Day in Harrisburg on June 4.  A busload of Delco and King of Prussia Tea party members rallied in Harrisburg for a day of speeches, meetings with  local representatives and a powerful explanation of the “Common Core” educational issue by Dr. Peg Luksik. They were joined by patriots from Butler, Berks, Lehigh and Westmoreland counties.

The Common Core initiative is another effort by the federal government to control something that should remain a state and local responsibility.  In education, one size does not fit all and standards should not be reduced to the lowest common denominator. Local teachers and school boards should be the judge of what is appropriate, not federal bureaucrats.

Other issues discussed included “Pension Reform”, “Paycheck Protection” (No coerced union dues), “Prevailing Wage” and tax cuts for Pennsylvania businesses.

Pennsylvania has the second highest corporate tax rate in the United States at 9.99 percent. This high tax added to the federal and local tax burden  discourages employers from locating in Pennsylvania AND encourages PA businesses to locate in other states or overseas.

The Tyranny That Has Become Youth Sports

Another Mother’s Day has passed, and with it the usual activities: Brunch, cookouts, a walk in the park with Mom. And sports games.

No, not a family outing at the Phils, but youth sports: Baseball, lacrosse, field hockey, soccer. You name it, they’re playing it. Do mothers love watching their children play? Sure. But is it really necessary to play on Mother’s Day? Is nothing sacred?

Have we lapsed so far into vicariously living through our children that common sense — and common courtesy — are now nonexistent? Are we so far gone that we can’t even assign a few sports “blackout” dates when family should come first? Sadly, yes.

And while coaches and league commissioners are largely responsible for these warped priorities, the ultimate blame must be placed on parents. As upset as some are that their Mother’s Day, Independence Day and Memorial Day holidays are blown to accommodate sports schedules, most refuse to say “no.” Instead, they go along with the insanity, which only serves as an enabler, ensuring that things will get worse.

And they have. Much worse.

Playing sports is wonderful for children, but it can be carried too far, such as parents who permit their child to play three and four sports per season. Not only does this rip apart families, but it deprives children of the one thing they need, and want, the most: Just being a child. As important as organized sports are, it is even more valuable to play Wiffle ball, capture the flag, cards, and cops and robbers — though they better do that last one quickly, before it’s outlawed, but that another story.

Worse than the hyper-schedules is the inexcusable behavior of some coaches and parents, and the politically correct social-engineering that is ever more prevalent in youth sports. Consider:

Extreme Coaching: Recently, I was witness to a rotund, loud-mouthed head baseball coach chewing out a player so intensely, 3 inches from his face, that the berating could be heard three towns over. That humiliating barrage didn’t teach the player anything, since he was in tears and only 7. But the show had just begun. The coach then proceeded to publicly scream at his “third base coach” (aka volunteer parent) for not sending a runner home. To his credit, that guy exercised self-control, choosing not to knock out fatboy’s teeth.

Then there are those who play “Daddy” and “Mommy” ball, becoming coaches just to ensure their child makes the “A” team, starts every game, gets the most playing time and wins the awards. Merit and ability sit the bench while favoritism wins the day, poisoning what should have been a fruitful and fun experience.

While there are still many coaches who do their best to teach fundamentals in a “normal” way, it seems that an increasing number get into coaching not for the children, but themselves. A power trip, they are either reliving their glory days or, more likely, making up for the glory days they never had. To those folks, a piece of advice: Screaming at little children, having a heart attack on the sidelines and otherwise acting like a jackass doesn’t make you a jock. And it’s a horrible example for the children — the only ones who matter.

Extreme parenting: Orthopedic surgeons will tell you that children should never play the same sport for more than three consecutive months, since that invites injury to their still-growing bodies.

Yet, the number of sports-related injuries, such as torn rotator cuffs, is rising substantially. Why? Because too many parents live in la-la land, convinced their child is the next Roy Halladay, Pele or LeBron James. So they sign up their “star” for several leagues (simultaneously), often hire a personal trainer and run their children ragged all year-round. And then have the gall to get angry when an injury sidelines their child.

Additionally, many place immense pressure on their children to win sports scholarships to high school and college. So when 9-year-olds talk about such things, you know it’s gotten out-of-control.

Political correctness: Opposite coaches running up the score just to humiliate an opponent and make themselves feel superior, we have coaches and leagues that immediately jump to “mercy rules,” turning off scoreboards and telling players not to score when an opponent falls behind by several goals.

Talk about confusing young players. Practice diligently, execute on the field, yet do the opposite of all you’ve learned — simply because you were successful? That is the antithesis to what sports are supposed to teach.

There are, of course, ways to be sporting when beating an opponent. Prolific scorers can be placed on defense or in goal (though cutting their playing time, solely because they are good, is wrong). A classy football team will not pass the ball when up big, but it doesn’t give up. And the game doesn’t end prematurely just because of a lopsided score. To do so would be grossly unfair to both teams.

But we have become a society where “everyone gets a trophy.” Individual and team achievements are whitewashed so as not to hurt the feeling of nonchampions. Everyone and everything must be homogenized, a “spread the wealth” mentality whereby awards are doled out not by merit — by who is best — but by who hasn’t won yet. Far be it for a player to win MVP in two sports, as that is deemed “unfair.” There’s a term for mandating equality: Communism. And all along I thought we beat the Soviets.

The end result is a closet full of dusty trophies, statues with absolutely no meaning.

The longer-term effect is more chilling: A dysfunctional generation, expecting everything yet prepared for nothing. When faced by that thing called The Real World, they respond dismally. America cannot fight a war without bowing to political correctness. Business is suffering as jobs are outsourced to those not expecting entitlements. College graduates, expecting six-figure salaries, find themselves adrift, lost because of an inability to cope with life’s challenges after discovering that the “trophy days” are over.

Sports used to teach children priceless lessons to make them successful in life. How to win graciously. How to lose with one’s chin up, a motivation to work harder to achieve victory the next time. The message that reward only comes with effort and that healthy competition makes us better.

Life is a series of wins and losses, of passing and failing. You pass or fail in school, your job, marriage, as a parent. But those lessons are being sidelined and we are losing the game.

Free of political correctness, asinine coaches and “helicopter” parents hovering over their children, sports, in its purest form, is the best teacher. Teamwork, camaraderie, competition, and the incentive to be the best — these are the values America once embraced and they made us the envy of the world.

Somewhere along the way, we have lost that playbook and if we don’t find it soon, starting with youth sports, we will be watching the rest of the world from the penalty box.

 

The Tyranny That Has Become Youth Sports

When Did We Become British?

I have great admiration for our British cousins, so I was sincerely flattered when asked to speak at Oxford University. I of course accepted, and look forward with great anticipation to this fall, when I’ll visit England for the first time.

The seminar will concentrate on higher education and how it is evolving, but I’ll also be interested in doing a little snooping while I’m over there.

I’m going to see if I can find some clues as to why we here in America seem to be reverting to being a part of Britain once again.

Perhaps I’m overreacting, but notice, if you will, that at Wal-Mart stores (at least the ones around south Jersey) you are directed to enter and exit to your left, sort of like driving on the left side of the road as they do in England. But we keep to the right in this country and pass on the left. Don’t we?

I’m starting to notice this tendency in many other places, particularly at Wawa and my local post office, where people increasingly enter and exit using the left side of the double-door. It’s even happening in my church, where the right hand door is often left closed—that is, until I reach the exit. That’s when I go through the right side, which, in this country, is the right side.

I’ve even had (many) people hold the left hand door open for me as I enter a Wawa. Imagine how disappointed they are when I ignore their misguided courtesy and pull the right-hand door open for myself. (Well, somebody’s got to take a stand for American Independence!)

This disturbing, bogus/foreign trend has now reached the entertainment and news media—the two wannabe national style-setters. Movie and television scripts are now peppered with the British police phrases, “He went missing,” or “The child has gone missing.”

As a long-time devotee of British TV, I’m familiar with this syntax. As a long-time American police officer, I can tell you indisputably that that phraseology was never used in Philadelphia.

(Excerpted from Good Writers Block)

No Cheers For Corbett In Alcohol Sting

No Cheers For Corbett In Alcohol Sting

The season has finally arrived!

Memorial Day weekend ushered in the unofficial start of summer when people relax with family and friends, enjoying what little leisure time is left in America.

But Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett made it abundantly clear he wasn’t interested in that season.

For him, it was all about making it Open Season — on Pennsylvanians.

In a move that defies every ounce of common sense for a governor touting the lowest popularity in the nation, Corbett had his state police slip across the border over the weekend to engage in sting operations, targeting Pennsylvanians for the capital crime of buying liquor in Delaware and crossing back into the Keystone State.

And what was the mammoth haul of Tommy’s troopers?

The equivalent of 17 cases of beer, 10 cases of wine, and 15 bottles of liquor.

At least Pennsylvania has no other pressing problems to which its increasingly limited resources should be allocated. Oh, wait. It does. A lot, actually.

That was made readily apparent watching the local news when, immediately after the liquor confiscation story, it was reported that Pennsylvania had the worst, most dangerous bridges in the nation (while Delaware’s were second best).

How can the governor reconcile those things? Despite having historic Republican majorities in both legislative chambers, Corbett has made zero headway fixing our crumbling infrastructure, yet prioritizes undercover operations (which nab three people) buying alcohol in another state. Going out on a limb here, but wouldn’t the substantial resources spent on operations in Delaware be better utilized elsewhere? Like in Pennsylvania?

How much taxpayer money was wasted on logistics, fuel costs, and troopers’ salaries, compared to the miniscule tax Pennsylvania “lost?” The numbers aren’t even in the same ballpark, so what were they doing? Squandering resources just to make a point — whatever that point is?

Try explaining that to the family who loses a loved one to a drunk driver who maybe, just maybe, could have been stopped had the state police been patrolling in-state. Or to those victimized by burglary, assault and numerous other crimes while their police were busy making out-of-state, small-time liquor busts.

On a holiday weekend where there is always an upswing in driving while intoxicated (there were five fatal DUI crashes, according to state police), the governor unleashed his dogs on those simply trying to avoid the whopping 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax of 1936 (plus the additional sales tax) that Pennsylvania levies on wine and liquor.

Is this his way of strong-arming his liquor privatization plan? A kind of “pass my bill or it’ll be like this until you do” message?

Great, except that his bill wouldn’t keep people from flocking to other states to buy liquor, as Freindly Fire explained in a prior column. No one is a bigger privatization proponent than I, but do it right or not at all. But since neither Corbett’s nor the Legislature’s plan eliminate the Johnstown tax, prices will remain high or, quite likely, further increase, if either proposal passes.

And if Delaware stings aren’t about liquor privatization, then what are they about? And why?

Give Tom Corbett credit for one thing: If he’s trying to attain a single-digit approval rating, he is succeeding better than the Democrats ever dreamed.

Aside from the sheer stupidity of engaging in such an operation, several questions are worth asking:

1. Are Pennsylvania State Police legally permitted to operate in other states? If so, why? A call to the Delaware State Police yielded no information, as two individuals had no knowledge of Pennsylvania’s actions. Which makes sense, since it is not in Delaware’s interest to put a damper on legal Delaware commerce.

2. How is this not a violation on the Interstate Commerce Clause? It should be, but the 21st Amendment has a provision allowing states to regulate alcohol almost any way they want. It should be changed.

3. Since random, empty liquor boxes are used to package alcoholic and non-alcoholic bottles at the checkout counter, do the police have probable cause to search one’s trunk after the border crossing is made? How do the police know that the Grey Goose box doesn’t contain soda and non-alcoholic beer? As long as we’re talking about amendments, the governor and police should read the Fourth one. It’s kind of important.

4. When Corbett’s liquor privatization plan doesn’t pass this month — and it probably won’t — will the number of search and seizures escalate? Bet you a case of Delaware liquor they will.

Corbett continues to rationalize why his Jerry Sandusky investigation took so long. One excuse was that he didn’t have the necessary resources, since as attorney general, he didn’t control the state police — the governor did. Under that rationale, Tom Corbett as governor is, and must be, responsible for all operations of the state police under his command, so the buck stops with him on these heavy-handed liquor stings.

As the backlash grows, it has become yet another reason why next year’s re-election chances looks very sobering for Tom Corbett.

 

No Cheers For Corbett In Alcohol Sting

Totally Nutter Tax Policy

Totally Nutter Tax Policy
By  Chris Freind

I swore I was done.

I promised I would never waste another column writing about how pathetic Philadelphia is. And how its complacent residents and businessmen get exactly what they deserve. Washing my hands of all things Philly, I pledged, most importantly, to never again comment on Michael Nutter, who is, without a doubt, America’s most obtuse, clueless and excruciatingly boring mayor.

But I failed.

It is simply impossible not to rip into Tweedle Dee and his latest efforts to drive the final stake into the heart of a once-great city by trying to impose, yes, more taxes! But this isn’t a column about how astronomical taxes actually decrease revenue and further a city’s demise. Michael Nutter has never, nor will ever, understand that, so why bother?

It’s much more fun to look at the mayor’s “legacy” and marvel about how bad he really is.

♦

In 2011, the end of Nutter’s first term, Philadelphia enjoyed the dubious honor of owning the highest murder rate of any large American city (a feat it has accomplished with stunning regularity) – a staggering 32 percent above second-worst Chicago. But in a move that can only be characterized as deceptive, Nutter continues to compare the murder rate each year to 2007, the high water mark for killings.

So when the police department states that murders in 2012 are “down 15 percent,” a reasonable person would assume that was compared to the prior year. It’s not. In reality, 2012 had more murders than any year since 2007. If a CEO didn’t readily disclose to shareholders that 2012 earnings were being compared to financial numbers from five years prior, he would go to jail. But when you’re Michael Nutter, it’s called Business-As-Usual.

Not content to be first in just one category, Philadelphia under Nutter’s direction is also the champion for highest poverty level. And as a bonus, it also leads in “deep poverty,” which is people living on less than half the poverty-line income level.

Then there’s the violent crime rate, the homeless rate, the illiteracy rate, the unemployment rate, the dropout rate, the graduation rate, and the rate of high schoolers not going to college.

Is there anyone who doesn’t know whether these rates are good – or horrendous? Anyone? Bueller? Nutter? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

And what is Nutter’s go-to explanation, and the only method he uses to “solve” problems? It’s always a two-parter, and it goes like this:

“Cities are hard-pressed to fight (these problems) by ourselves, and we really need partnerships from the state and federal governments as well.” That was his response to the poverty issue, but it’s the same for everything. Look to the state and feds for bailouts and handouts.

For years, the funding flowed, and while the problems only got worse (no surprise there), Nutter could at least spin the tale that the money would make everything rainbows and lollipops – so long as that spigot was kept open.

Well, the Piper came calling, and taxpayers’ largesse has slowed dramatically. So what’s a beleaguered mayor to do? Show initiative by freeing up private enterprise so that it can grow and add jobs? Employ creativity in the way our children – our future – are educated? Demonstrate leadership by making the city operate efficiently and within its means – the same as hardworking families and well-run companies?

Of course not. Because doing so would require courage and a brain. The Wizard of Oz, Michael Nutter is not.

So, like all politicians who never held private sector jobs, Nutter has once again gone to the only playbook he knows: tax, tax, and tax some more.

This time, he wants to raise the liquor-by-the-drink tax to 15 percent and implement a whopping $2 per pack tax on cigarettes so that he can – you know this one by heart – help fund the black hole called Philadelphia schools.

The biggest problem, after you stop laughing, is figuring out which is more insane: the high probability that these taxes will be enacted, or that he actually thinks they will generate a fraction of the $70 million he predicts.

Reasonable people might be asking how Nutter could actually believe these taxes will work, and how they won’t accelerate the already significant exodus from the city.

In Nutter’s case, the answer is easy. When you are proud your city has the highest cumulative tax burden in the nation, more taxes is always the answer.

Nutter’s new taxes would certainly have lots of company, as his cherished revenue streams include taxes on: amusements, parking, business income and receipts, sales and use, hotel, tobacco and tobacco-related products, liquor, use and occupancy, mechanical amusement (distinct from amusement, of course), valet parking (again, different from regular parking), net profits, vehicle rental, outdoor advertising, trash, real estate, and, of course, the infamous city wage tax.

And he tried to get a soda tax, too, because he apparently cared about how fat people were becoming. But his sugary tax soiree was just too saccharine, and it failed.

Of particular interest is that Philadelphians pay not 6 percent sales tax like everyone else, but 8. Yep, that was part of the deal Nutter made with the state Legislature several years ago so that the “extra” revenue that tax would supposedly provide, along with suspending payments to the bankrupt pension fund for two years, would allow the city to regain its financial footing. The plan was to then pay $800 million into the pension to save its retirees from financial ruin.

Ummm, does anyone think that happened, given that the payment was due several years ago. Anyone? Nutter? Anyone?

Didn’t think so.

So many taxes are levied in the name of furthering “public education.” You know, the school system that perpetually runs massive deficits, has zero accountability, and has to cheat on standardized tests to pretend that it’s not the toxic waste dump everyone knows it to be. And despite all the billions spent, how many Philadelphia students pass basic proficiency tests? Here’s a hint. The percentage is much lower than Tom Corbett’s approval rating. And that’s pretty low.

♦

In presiding over the inexcusable lack of snow removal, innumerable police department scandals, violent flash mobs, endless taxation and regulation, and the bottomless pit called Philadelphia schools, Mayor Nutter has taken incompetence to a new level.

Unparalleled history. Ethnic neighborhoods. Great sports fans. Two major river systems begging for development (like the immensely successful riverwalks in San Antonio and Cincinnati). With what had been a world-class city at his feet, Nutter had the opportunity of a lifetime. Had he accomplished just a fraction of what he could have, the sky was truly the limit.

Instead, he crashed and burned on Day One. And it’s gotten worse ever since.

As Clint Eastwood says in Heartbreak Ridge, “You can love me, or you can hate me. Just don’t bore me.”

It’s tough to accomplish two of those three, but Michael Nutter has done so splendidly. Anyone not know which two?

Anyone? Mayor?

Didn’t think so.

 

Totally Nutter Tax Policy

Gaddafi Would Have Prevented Benghazi

Gaddafi Would Have Prevented Benghazi

Nine months ago most people would have guessed “Ben Ghazi” was the name of a professional basketball player. Now, of course, we know it as the Libyan city where four Americans, including our ambassador, lost their lives when terrorists stormed the U.S. consulate on Sept. 11, 2012.

Predictably, both sides have been spinning their version of what “really” happened (while conveniently omitting key facts), what went wrong, and who is to blame.

Since our political climate is now ultra-partisan, we probably will never know the real story of Benghazi. But cutting through the hype, here’s a reasonable analysis:

1. Violent attacks on U.S. diplomatic missions are not rare. There were 13 during the George W. Bush presidency, including a brazen assault on the consulate in Saudi Arabia that left nine dead, and major attacks in Tanzania and Kenya under Bill Clinton. Given that history, then, why is Benghazi still in the headlines? To highlight Obama administration incompetence? To score political points against Barack Obama, and, possibly, preempt a Hillary Clinton run in 2016? To show that American interests need to be better secured? All of the above.

2. Was the budget for diplomatic security cut, in part by the Republican Congress? Yes. Does that make some GOP critics of Benghazi’s security appear inconsistent? Yes. Does that make them responsible for the attack? No, though this is what happens when both parties spend like drunken sailors — not enough money is available for the truly important things because so many trillions are utterly wasted. The piper has been calling but Congress isn’t listening.

3. Was the attack precipitated by an anti-Islam movie made in America? Uh, no. That film may have added to the problem, of course, but while it was used as an excuse to riot and loot throughout the Arab world, it certainly was not the primary reason for the attack. To suggest otherwise, as some administration officials did, belies a gross naiveté, since many Muslim protestors had never heard of YouTube, let along owned a computer or smartphone capable of viewing the “offensive” movie. Being naïve isn’t a crime, but it doesn’t help matters.

4. Is there credence to the view that Obama wouldn’t label Benghazi a “terrorist” act and didn’t respond with more force because it would shatter his narrative that terrorism had been contained under his watch — and that such an attack would help Mitt Romney? That’s laughable. Romney wasn’t going to win, period. Benghazi (along with Hurricane Sandy and Chris Christie) had absolutely nothing to do with Romney’s loss — he took care of that feat all by himself. And quite frankly, the opposite would have occurred. Had U.S. forces beaten back the attack, saving lives in the process, Americans would have overwhelmingly approved of their commander in chief’s actions, totally ending what little chance Romney had of eeking out a victory.

So why wasn’t there a quicker response? Why didn’t the intelligence agencies see the attack coming? And who is ultimately to blame?

For all the blabbering from the talking heads, they still don’t get it.

Obama is solely to blame, because he, and he alone, willfully eliminated the best security system America had in Libya. One that, had it not been changed, would have almost certainly prevented the attack and saved lives.

Muammar Gaddafi.

The minute Barack Obama made the Bush-esque decision to engage in nation-building/regime change in Libya, there was no going back.

You reap what you sow, and the seeds of that ill-fated decision grew into Benghazi. There’s no sinister conspiracy behind why we didn’t act upon intelligence on the ground in Libya — for the simple reason that we didn’t have intelligence in Libya. That went out the window when Obama took out Gaddafi.

The rebels Obama armed in 2011, who gleefully executed Gaddafi in front of the world, are now running the country. Unfathomably, these very same folks were the largest foreign fighting force to engage the U.S. military in Iraq. A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in the Obama administration bother to think about that before participating in regime change of a sovereign nation?

Apparently not. And we just paid for that mistake in blood.

Did we really expect the new Libyan government to provide adequate defenses and intelligence to protect our diplomatic missions? For all we know, the attack could well have been coordinated by the thugs whom we put in power, using the very weapons we supplied — not to mention the 20,000 surface-to-air missiles missing since Gaddafi bit the dust.

Let’s be very clear here. Muammar Gaddafi was never an angel. But he became a leader with whom the West could work, even if his transformation was born of self-preservation. He was told to shape up or face the consequences, and he played ball. He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing, paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, stopped harboring terrorists, and kept the oil spigots flowing. As a result, Libya was removed from the Terrorism List by the Bush administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice praising it for its “renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S.”

But that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t enough. America broke its word when President Obama eliminated a leader who had done everything the United States had asked. Worst of all, there was no benefit to America in doing so, as the U.S. fought Europe’s oil war (85 percent of Libyan oil flows there).

In March 2011, Freindly Fire wrote: “The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that did not harm America, sets a dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and with no endgame, further endangers our security. Playing into the mentality of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only inflame anti-American feelings … the result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country.”

If a not-too-bright commentator saw what was coming, why didn’t the president?

Obama may weather the IRS and AP scandals, but he will have Benghazi blood on his hands forever. And that’s an unimpeachable prognostication.