Category: Guest Authors

Tom Corbett and GOP Fail Pennsylvania — Again

 

If you strike out two of every three times at bat, you’re a Hall of Famer. One out of four gives you a long career. But go 0 for the season and your contract won’t be renewed.

On that last point, welcome to the lives of Gov. Tom Corbett and the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania legislature.

Once again, the pols have recessed for the summer with zero success passing any major initiatives, keeping Pennsylvania stuck in the dark ages. So where does that leave us? Do we carry the torch of hope that lights the way to a better tomorrow? Do we still possess the faith that each successive generation will fare better than the one before it?

Nope.

And because Corbett, who had a 10-point victory in 2010, and the Republican legislature, which enjoys historic majorities in both houses, lack the courage to fix our once-great commonwealth, Pennsylvania further plummets into the oblivion of mediocrity.

If things were peachy, doing nothing would be acceptable. But they aren’t, and “business as usual” — the endless routine of committee meetings, press releases, and little substantive action — won’t break the logjam created by years of inaction.

Our politicians don’t understand — or don’t care — that this crisis has put the economic health of our state in serious jeopardy. Too many hide and duck or are just flat-out incompetent, breeding a climate of cynicism and mistrust — toxic to the optimism so necessary for growth.

Not all that long ago, Pennsylvania was the leading industrial state in the country — and a leader on the world stage. It was a powerful magnet for companies to locate here, and with them came the best and brightest workforce in America. Our children were educated in the state, and actually stayed in Pennsylvania because of the jobs created by a booming economy.

But now, with our well-deserved reputation for corruption and a government seemingly hostile to all but the insiders, we stand at the brink.
And yet with everything in their favor, including widespread support on a number of issues, the Governor and legislature dropped the ball — again. Consider:

1. Liquor privatization: Despite the vast majority of Pennsylvanians favoring the state getting out of the liquor business — with the reasonable expectation that consumer choice would rise and prices would fall — nothing happened. Given the Republicans’ total control, this abysmal failure must be laid at the feet of Corbett. Saying “I want privatization” but not lifting a finger to get it is pathetic. There was no barnstorming the state, no use of the bully pulpit, no playing hardball with recalcitrant Republicans. In fact, he all but ignored the legislature until the 11th hour, and even then screwed the pooch. But what else is new?

The only silver lining is that the privatization bills were ill-conceived, as none eliminated the whopping 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax (of 1936) levied on every bottle of wine and liquor. Failure to do so in the future (and the odds are long that anything will happen in the fall) will only serve to lessen choice and raise prices, making “privatization” a bad word. Leave it to Corbett to take a great idea and turn it to dung. Bottom line: Do it right, or don’t do it at all.

2. Pension reform: The problem of massively ballooning pension payments over the next several years is so monumental that it threatens the very stability of the state. Given that Corbett has demonstrated an inability to handle even the most basic matters, the assumption that he could tackle such a pressing problem was a fairy tale. But he and the legislature punted on even the most fundamental reform: requiring all future state employees be given a 401k plan rather than a pension. A no-brainer, to be sure, and one that no reasonable person could oppose, since public employees should never have a hands-down advantage over those in the private sector. But nothing was done.

And the next generation will thank Corbett for this massive debt load by fleeing as soon as they can. Brilliant.

3. Transportation: This is yet another issue that, while long overdue, thankfully didn’t happen. Incomprehensibly, the Senate passed a bill that would have placed a 37-cent-per-gallon gas tax on Pennsylvanians to fix roads and bridges. Thankfully the House nixed that, but here’s the kicker: Corbett wanted upward of a 75-cent-per-gallon tax, which would have made Pennsylvania’s gas tax the highest in the nation.

Since when is breaking the backs of Pennsylvanians the path to prosperity? Instead of raising taxes, here’s an idea: Why not increase revenue by instituting pro-growth policies? It’s really not that hard. If you make Pennsylvania a viable place to do business, companies will come, as will their employees — and a whole boatload of revenue follows. The more money pumped into the economy, the more state coffers fill. But that remains a foreign concept, with Pennsylvania maintaining one of the most hostile business climates in the nation.

But what do you expect from lawyers/politicians with virtually no real-world business experience? Who have never encountered innovation-stifling and job-killing rules and regulations? Who have never had to meet a payroll? Who don’t know what it’s like to look a longtime employee in the eye and issue a pink slip because the government forces his hand?

We should expect exactly what we get. Nothing.

4. Second-highest corporate tax: One way not to attract business is by maintaining the second-highest corporate net income tax in the country. Lowering it is an issue both business and labor could and should agree upon, and it should have been done on Day One. Creating jobs floats all boats, union and otherwise. But nothing was done.

Astoundingly, the Corbett plan recently unveiled is to lower that rate by just three points — but over 12 years! Seriously? What savvy CEO will jump on the “opportunity” to come to Pennsylvania on the off-chance that the state will lower its tax by 2025? That level of obtuseness is so great that I am, for once, at a loss of words.

OK, that’s not true. But the words are unprintable.

5. Philadelphia’s schools. The way not to bail out the black hole called Philly schools is by throwing more taxpayer money at the problem and holding onto jobs that need to be eliminated. Shedding 3,800 school district positions isn’t a travesty — it’s a good start. Cutting art and music isn’t the answer, however — increasing revenue is. But rather than force Mayor Nutter and Philadelphia to live within its means, however, like families and businesses do, Corbett and the legislature just perpetuated a failed system.

The chance to fix education through school choice, competition and other reforms came and went. So things will only get worse, if that’s even possible. However, if city revenue were increased by attracting business and residents, then at least the rest of the state wouldn’t yet again be funding Philadelphia’s bad habits. But it’s a case of chicken and the egg. How do you entice companies when you are the cumulatively highest-taxed city in the nation with skyrocketing levels of crime, homeless and poverty?

Common sense dictates that the answer isn’t throwing money, with no accountability, at the problem, nor extending the city’s 8 percent sales tax. But that’s exactly what they did.

After the Hurricane Katrina debacle, there was absolutely nothing George W. Bush could do to save his presidency or his party. With reelection numbers in the 20s, Tom Corbett is in the same position. (Republicans already lost 10 percent of their Senate membership in 2012, and the first-ever Democrat was elected as attorney general, Corbett’s prior position.) The only difference between Bush and Corbett is that it only took our
governor two years to achieve such a distinction.

If there were All Star voting in politics, Tom Corbett wouldn’t even be on the ballot.

 

Tom Corbett and GOP Fail Pennsylvania — Again

Real Country Showed Up On The Fourth

Although I’ve been a journalist for more than 20 years, I am in no way a “news junkie.” I seldom watch TV news, nor do I listen to news on the radio (except the traffic report when I’m in the car). I read newspapers sparingly—that is to say, selectively. And of course, I have been trained to pick out the bias in all reporting (yes, it’s there; believe me, some more so than others!).
Most who do watch, read, and listen to mainstream news (and entertainment) media will no doubt tell you that the tendencies in today’s culture are to tolerate everyone’s point of view, celebrate (whatever the hell that means) everyone’s lifestyle, and crusade for what you believe i —i.e. speak your mind.
Undeniably you’ll travel a smoother road as long as your
point of view, your crusade, and your speech tows that cultural line: The one
painted so stealthily through our social conscience by the media.
So you should join the overwhelming majority (if media tendentiousness
is to be believed) of Americans who:
• Tolerate casual sex, infanticide, and animal worship.
• Celebrate homosexuality, bisexuality, and nature worship.
• Speak out against all outdated ideals, such as theism and patriotism.
Then you’d be well on your way to conforming to the contemporary
norm. You’d be solidly in line to becoming a secular humanist. (Sounds great
doesn’t it—Secular humanist? It’s one
of those hip phrases that pretty much means whatever the hell you want it to
mean. Stalin and Hitler would both have loved it!)
Not that I was ever seriously tempted to trust media predisposition
to their vision of the new American society,
but I had my faith physically and spiritually reinforced this Independence Day
at the parade in Pitman, New Jersey.
As a Christian, I’ve always been taught that Faith, Hope,
and Charity are the three cardinal virtues upon which true humanism, if you will, is based. Those three facets of our uniquely
human nature were obvious the morning of July 4th all along Broadway
in Pitman.(Excerpted from Good Writers Block)

Big Government Party Blocks Reforms

Big Government Party Blocks Reforms
By Matthew J. Brouillette

Why haven’t liquor privatization and pension reform passed yet here in Pennsylvania? Not why you think.

Most answers to this question begin with the fact that one party controls all branches of government in the Keystone State—the Republicans. Many people then posit that free-market ideas such as these should therefore be slam dunks. But this analysis is far too simplistic.

The reason Gov. Tom Corbett hasn’t signed either of those measures is that the true divide in the General Assembly is not between the Republicans and Democrats, but between the Big Government Party and the Taxpayer Party.

And while the Republicans may have a numerical majority, the Big Government Party—the coalition of interests that profit from higher taxes, more spending, cumbersome regulations, state contracts, and special privileges—has a functional majority. It just wielded it.

That’s how liquor privatization fell apart, in spite of bipartisan voter majorities favoring it. Special interests—both those profiting off the state monopoly and those seeking to keep out competition—worked to obstruct and water down privatization proposals.

Government unions representing the state store workers spent big bucks advertising against privatization and countless hours lobbying. Moreover, the union representing liquor store managers worked to hold transportation funding hostage if Senate leadership didn’t kill liquor privatization.

Not only that, the opposition to a longtime Republican priority was aided and abetted by a former Republican Senate leader and a team of former Senate Republican political operatives-turned-lobbyists. This is a case in point: The Big Government Party has adherents among both Republicans and Democrats.

Despite historic progress on liquor privatization in the House, the Senate struggled to get enough votes to join the other 48 states that don’t run complete government wine and spirits monopolies. And once transportation tax and fee increases fell through in the House, it became clear the Senate would make us wait longer.

Similar attacks thwarted pension reform.

The school employees’ union leadership launched a massive campaign to thwart any pension reform plan. They had both current teachers and retirees calling lawmakers saying, “Don’t take away my pension”—even though proposals wouldn’t touch retirees’ benefits or affect benefits already earned by current employees.

They used misguided analyses to argue that changing plans for new hires would cost more, but analysts from Pew Trust and the Public Employees Retirement Commission pointed out their flaws.

The most egregious myth perpetuated by opponents of reform is that pension investments will earn 7.5 percent every year, and that lawmakers will keep making full payments. These assumptions have proven wrong for years, creating our $47 billion and growing pension debt.

Indeed, if switching from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution plan costs an employer more, not less, then why hasn’t the private sector reversed its decades-long move to 401(k) retirement plans?

While both the House and Senate advanced pension reform bills in June, special interests that benefit from the costly status quo created enough confusion to keep any bill from passing either body.

With a state legislature paralyzed by special interests—both internal and external—Pennsylvanians will see the bill for government services climbing without any sign their government is actually working for them.

They’ll simply continue to see rutted roads, endure an extra stop (or two) to buy wine and beer, and watch their property taxes rise to pay for escalating pension costs.

Voters want to see meaningful reform that uses their hard-earned taxpayer dollars wisely, and they don’t want to wait forever. The good news is, they won’t have to. Yes, the Big Government Party has a majority—but it’s a slim one, and more and more people are seeing how the game really works.

The Commonwealth Foundation was far from the only voice in these battles, but in our efforts alone, thousands of citizens wrote to their lawmakers urging that they side with the Taxpayer Party.

Make no mistake: Those people have had it, and they aren’t going away.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation

 

Big Government Party Blocks Reforms

No Sugary Drinks For Food Stamps

No Sugary Drinks For Food Stamps

We recently experienced a “super moon,” an event where that celestial body is at its closest point to Earth all year.

As everyone knows, full moons bring out eccentric behavior in people. But this super moon was an extra doozy for me. Against all odds, I found myself agreeing with not just Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter (first time ever), but 17 other big city mayors. Talk about strange bedfellows.

This Gang of 18 sent the federal government a letter requesting that soda and sugary drinks become ineligible purchases for those in the food stamps program (known as SNAP — Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). And since more people (47 million) receive food stamps than the population of Spain, that’s a big deal.

The mayors have the right idea, but to some extent, are pushing it for the wrong reason.

They are making their case to combat obesity and other health-related diseases, citing the huge health care costs associated with that enormous problem. While it’s noble trying to take a chunk out of obesity, this issue is much more basic.

When you’re on the public dole, there are strings attached. Period. And that’s exactly how it should be.

It’s totally irrelevant whether soda causes or contributes to diabetes, heart disease or obesity. Inarguably, there are no nutritional aspects to sugary drinks; So, given that the word “nutrition” appears in the program’s very name, allowing soda is contradictory.

Not surprisingly, many in the food stamp program have expressed righteous indignation with the mayors’ proposal, as have numerous advocacy groups. (Help me out with that one. Why do we need advocates for people receiving free food? Only in America.)

Talk about an entitlement mentality. Taxpayers foot the bill, and that’s still not enough. The expectation is that the recipient — not the donor — should be calling the shots.

Common sense tells us that those receiving generous SNAP benefits, courtesy of those who actually work for a living, should have no say whatsoever in what they can and cannot buy with food stamps. But too often they do, evidenced by the fact that this soda debate has raged for years with no action.

The same rationale applies to why welfare recipients should have to pass a mandatory drug test before receiving benefits. If those reaping taxpayers’ largesse don’t like the criteria by which they must comply, that’s fine. There’s a very simple alternative. As “The Big Lebowski” says, “Condolences. The bums lost. My advice is to do what your parents did. Get a job!”

Food stamp recipients aren’t the only ones opposed. The American Beverage Association has been whining that sugary drinks shouldn’t be singled out, stating that obesity is “a complex health condition that affects Americans of all income levels.” Hey, diet soda doesn’t contribute to obesity, but has no nutritional value, so it too should be banned from SNAP.

“Targeting struggling families who rely on (food stamps’) vital safety net will not make America healthier or reduce government spending,” it also stated.

Fantastic. If only that made any sense. But it doesn’t.

First, soda isn’t being singled out as the cause for obesity. We all know it’s the “thyroid problem” that all members of the fat brigade seem to have. Well, that, and the infinite supply of cheap, fattening comfort foods (along with soda) and the fact that it’s a lot easier to don sweatpants (as George Costanza says, a sign you’ve “given up”), and sit in your chair watching reality TV shows instead of going outside for a walk or, God forbid, work out once a week.

Attempts have also been made to ban candy and other zero-nutrition items from the food stamp program, to no avail, so the beverage folks need to sit down and shut up on this one. It’s not about soda. It’s about taxpayer money being spent unwisely.

And for the record, reduced government spending has nothing to do with it. The cost of the food stamp program won’t change because soda is banned. It just means people will have to use their gift card — and it is a gift card — on nutritional food.

Oh, and of course we’re “targeting” families on food stamps, because we can. Whom else should we target? Free market consumers using their own money? Notwithstanding New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s insane attempts to restrict soda portions, no one is doing that, nor should they. Sure, obesity is a national epidemic, and we are all paying for it at a skyrocketing rate, but you will never stop it with government bans. Personal responsibility, individual choices and suffering the consequences of bad decisions will, and should, rule the day.

But those things don’t apply, or at least they shouldn’t, when public assistance is involved.

Interestingly, some of the Right don’t agree with the mayors’ push, arguing that it is too paternalistic, too Big Brother for the government to tell people what they are permitted to buy. Others argue that such restrictions would discourage the needy from joining the program.

Really?

A. If you don’t apply for food stamp subsidies because you can’t buy grape soda, great. Don’t let the door hit you in your large posterior on the way out.

B. So what if it’s paternalistic? It obviously needs to be. You aren’t permitted to buy alcohol or cigarettes (though some still do), and you shouldn’t be hauling live lobsters home either. No one is saying you can’t buy sugary drinks — you just shouldn’t be able to do so with other people’s money.

This will be a fascinating political development to watch, as it is Democrats imploring other Democrats to put in place what is ultimately a Republican idea.

Knocking back the sense of entitlement, instilling accountability into a government program, teaching personal responsibility, and even making people a little healthier. Hopefully, all it will take is a spoonful of sugar to make that medicine go down.

No Sugary Drinks For Food Stamps

Mandated Public Sewers Should Be Unconstitutional

Mandated Public Sewers Should Be Unconstitutional

First, a disclaimer: “Obamacare” is about to be referenced, even though today’s topic is not regarding health care. So for those opposed, don’t immediately use this column as toilet paper.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Obamacare was constitutional on the grounds that it was a tax. Had it been a mandatory purchase, where government required citizens to buy something, it would have undoubtedly not passed legal muster.

Which makes the situation occurring in, but not limited to, Upper Providence Township, Delaware County, absolutely mind-blowing. The local government, via its sewer authority, has been mandating residents pay huge out-of-pocket costs to connect to the new public sewer system being installed throughout the township — even if one’s septic system is working flawlessly.

In other words, if your house is less than 250 feet from the road, which the vast majority are, you are required by a duty-to-connect ordinance to shell out big bucks for something you might not want, need, nor can afford (despite already paying substantial taxes). There are no opt-outs, negotiations, exceptions. You buy in, or else.

And “or else” is staggeringly severe.

But first, a brief primer:

While the sewer authority is officially a “separate” entity from the township, we’re going to dispense with the legalese and consider them interchangeable. The township council created the authority and chooses its members, so without question, if it disagreed with the program, forced sewers would have been a non-starter. Bottom line: They’re all in this cesspool together.

Several years ago, it was determined by paternalistic Upper Providence leaders — who obviously know what is best for the people — that building public sewers was the way to go. So they enacted ordinances requiring residents to participate in what amounted to a double-whammy initiative. (Disclaimer No. 2: I am not an Upper Providence resident, so am not affected).

The first step is to pay for the sewer line that runs along the street, known as the “tapping fee.” The bill? Six thousand dollars per household. (Technically, the fee is $5,700, but the sewer authority rubs salt in the wound by tacking on a $300 “permit application fee.” That’s great — making you pay for a permit after having a $5,700 bill shoved down your throat. Real classy.)

Here’s a thought for the township council and sewer authority: As stewards of the people’s money — and it is their money, not yours — you shouldn’t forge ahead on unnecessary projects, especially if the municipality can’t afford them. That’s a lesson Chris Christie has been teaching, and it’s paying huge dividends. Passing the buck to residents because you want a pet project is unconscionable.

And what if you don’t play ball? What if you don’t have an extra $6,000 lying around? What if you are a cash-strapped new homeowner, or have several tuition bills? What if your job is on shaky ground, or you already lost it? What if you are a senior on a fixed income, just trying to live your golden years, but are now forced to choose between medicine, food, heat (all skyrocketing in price), or forking over money to the government for something you don’t need?

In case you’re wondering, no financing is offered by Upper Providence. So for many, good luck getting a loan, since banks aren’t exactly lending to the under- or unemployed and retired seniors. And if you can’t foot the bill, the government can place a lien on your home, robbing you of your right to sell your most valuable asset. Where are we? Venezuela? Hugo Chavez, eat your decomposing heart out!

But that’s only the beginning. After the tapping installation is completed, homeowners are required, again on their own dime, to connect to the sewer line via private contractor within 90 days. The financial toll of that whopper? It varies, but another $6,000 to 8,000 is not uncommon (including yes, another permit fee!).

In addition to liens, homeowners also face a summary offense and fines of up to $1,000 per day for not connecting, and no, that’s not a misprint. So now the government can bankrupt you and render your house unsellable, all for the high crime of using an operational septic system that isn’t legally banned in a situation where there are no aggrieved parties.

And what if you just forked over $20,000 or $30,000 for a new septic system? Tough excrement. You get a minimal reprieve of a few years before you are required to hook up, but that’s it. Those unlucky people get doubly flushed down the toilet, losing their investment and paying for a totally unnecessary sewer connection. To top it all off, residents also must pay to have their septic systems professionally pumped out, have holes punched in the bottom prior to backfilling, and remove lids from the existing tanks. Not cheap.

How can the government be so utterly callous with the hardship they cause? The answer, directly from its website, is nauseating:

“From a philosophical view, if government and industry continue to put off spending, the recession will only continue. Projects such as this sewer project are in fact good for the economy and provide jobs for companies and employees.”

Gee, what a great rationale for upending people’s lives! Seriously! What planet are these nincompoops living on? Uranus?

Do they have any idea how the local economy could really be booming if residents didn’t have to shell out $15,000 for a project that is no more ecologically sound than the septic systems it replaces? How many home improvement projects of real value could have been constructed? Or new businesses that may have started? Or new cars that would have been purchased? Nights out on the town? All curtailed or completely kyboshed because of Big Brother.

Yet the free market could have easily solved the problem. If most people on a given street opted for public sewers, they would be able to sell their houses for substantially more than those who remained on septic. Prospective buyers, anticipating they might want to connect at a later date, would factor that into their lower offer price. A win-win, as individuals, not the government, would have chosen what was best for them. Case closed.

Instead, for those who don’t connect, the government snatches away the right to sell their house, while potentially fining them incalculable sums, creating immense animosity where there should be harmony.

The only thing more surprising than this in-your-face bullying is that too few expressed public outrage or tried to stop the program in court. It’s too late now for Upper Providence residents, but perhaps not for others in the region, such as those in Edgmont Township, where their government is moving in the same forced-sewer direction.

But give Upper Providence credit for one thing. On the “History” section of its website, it states that the area once “was an open and free land.”

At least they got the tense correct.

Mandated Public Sewers Should Be Unconstitutional

Philly Archbishop Gives Dire Warning

 

“IRS officials have, of course, confessed that they
inappropriately targeted conservative groups — especially those with
‘tea party’ or ‘patriot’ in their names — for extra scrutiny when they
sought non-profit status. Allegations of abuse or harassment have since
broadened to include groups conducting grassroots projects to ‘make
America a better place to live,’ to promote classes about the U.S.
Constitution or to raise support for Israel.

“However, it now appears the IRS also challenged some individuals
and religious groups that, while defending key elements of their faith
traditions, have criticized projects dear to the current White House,
such as health-care reform, abortion rights and same-sex marriage.”

Terry Mattingly, director, Washington Journalism Center; weekly column, May 22

Let’s begin this week with a simple statement of fact. America’s
Catholic bishops started pressing for adequate health-care coverage for
all of our nation’s people decades before the current administration
took office. In the Christian tradition, basic medical care is a matter
of social justice and human dignity. Even now, even with the financial
and structural flaws that critics believe undermine the 2010 Affordable
Care Act, the bishops continue to share the goal of real health-care
reform and affordable medical care for all Americans.

But health care has now morphed into a religious liberty issue
provoked entirely – and needlessly — by the current White House.
Despite a few small concessions under pressure, the administration
refuses to withdraw or reasonably modify a Health and Human Services
(HHS) contraceptive mandate that violates the moral and religious
convictions of many individuals, private employers and religiously
affiliated and inspired organizations.

Coupled with the White House’s refusal to uphold the 1996 Defense of
Marriage Act, and its astonishing disregard for the unique nature of
religious freedom displayed by its arguments in a 9-0 defeat in the 2012
Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court decision, the HHS mandate can only
be understood as a form of coercion. Access to inexpensive
contraception is a problem nowhere in the United States. The mandate is
thus an ideological statement; the imposition of a preferential option
for infertility. And if millions of Americans disagree with it on
principle – too bad.

The fraud at the heart of our nation’s “reproductive rights”
vocabulary runs very deep and very high. In his April 26 remarks to the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the president never once used
the word “abortion,” despite the ongoing Kermit Gosnell trial in
Philadelphia and despite Planned Parenthood’s massive role in the
abortion industry.

Likewise, as Anthony Esolen recently noted so well,
NARAL Pro-Choice America’s public statement on the conviction of
abortionist Gosnell was a masterpiece of corrupt and misleading
language. Gosnell was found guilty of murdering three infants, but no such mention was made anywhere in the NARAL Pro-Choice America statement.

None of this is finally surprising. Christians concerned for the
rights of unborn children, as well as for their mothers, have dealt with
bias in the media and dishonesty from the nation’s abortion syndicate
for 40 years. But there’s a special lesson in our current situation.
Anyone who thinks that our country’s neuralgic sexuality issues can
somehow be worked out respectfully in the public square in the years
ahead, without a parallel and vigorous defense of religious freedom, had
better think again.

As Mollie Hemingway, Stephen Krason and Wayne Laugesen
have all pointed out, the current IRS scandal – involving IRS targeting
of “conservative” organizations – also has a religious dimension.
Selective IRS pressure on religious individuals and organizations has
drawn very little media attention. Nor should we expect any, any time
soon, for reasons Hemingway
outlines for the Intercollegiate Review. But the latest IRS ugliness is
a hint of the treatment disfavored religious groups may face in the
future, if we sleep through the national discussion of religious liberty
now.

The day when Americans could take the Founders’ understanding of religious freedom as a given is over. We need to wake up.

American Catholics are called to observe a second annual
“Fortnight for Freedom” through July 4. For  information, see
the website of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Hat tip Cathy Craddock

 

Philly Archbishop Gives Dire Warning

Americans Becoming Prisoners To Fear

“Fear stifles our thinking and actions. It creates indecisiveness that results in stagnation. I have known talented people who procrastinate indefinitely rather than risk failure. Lost opportunities cause erosion of confidence, and the downward spiral begins.” — Pastor Charles Stanley.

It is without question that we find ourselves in the middle of a downward spiral. There are of course many reasons for America’s decline — the death of manufacturing, dependence of foreign oil, political correctness — but there is one that overrides them all, a cancer so insidious that it eats away at the very essence of this nation’s life force.

Fear.

It has grown at an exponential rate largely due to the 24/7 super-hyped news cycle, and now that fear threatens to destroy the very fabric that holds America together.

Its latest victim was the NFL, which this week banned pocketbooks and bags from all its games in the name of “security,” a move largely in response to the Boston bombings. (Although, not surprisingly, it is selling its own NFL clear tote bag as an acceptable alternative.)

How many bombings have there been at NFL games? None. For that matter, how many terrorist bombings have there been in the nation during the Age of Fear (post 9/11)? One. And, no offense to the victims, that was amateur night.

So given the infinitesimally small probability that there will be any bombing, let alone one at an NFL game, why the overreaction?

Because that’s the society in which we have chosen to live, naively believing that we can be “100 percent” safe.

Sure, most fans are upset at the NFL’s new rule, but that ire will fade, stadiums will still be filled (with concession revenue way up), and we will accept yet another stupid regulation based on nothing but a myth, succumbing to fear once again. And every time we give in to fear, it becomes further embedded in the next generation as “normal.”

It’s time to take the gloves off as to what is really behind the mass shootings in our country, since too many continue to blame extraneous things.

It’s not guns — not “assault weapons,” magazine capacities or the availability of firearms, since all were more restricted at the time of the Columbine massacre, and less restricted before, when there were no such attacks. It’s not violent video games and television, though these things don’t help when coupled with complacent or out-to-lunch parents. And it’s not because mental health has been hijacked by political correctness.

They are all Band-Aid solutions on a gaping wound.

As Pogo famously said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We are the problem.

We have warped a generation, producing manic children conditioned to fear everything — can’t walk to the bus stop alone because you’ll be kidnapped; can’t ride a bike because you’ll get hit by a car (despite a Kevlar helmet and 78 protective pads); can’t play sports because you might get injured; can’t play cops-and-robbers because you might become a mass murderer; can’t settle your own disputes on the playground, so parents must pick their children’s teams. Everything is so precisely planned and organized — what the hell is a “play date?” — by helicopter parents obsessively hovering over their children. The creativity and curiosity that comes with being a child has been erased, replaced with a structure so unnatural that social skills are nearly nonexistent.

But it doesn’t stop there. We have ingrained such an irrational fear of suffering “hurt feelings” that many teachers don’t grade tests (some would do better than others, so it’s best to make everything equal and tell everyone “good job”), we don’t keep score at sports games and league standings are often taken offline so as to not offend the last-place team. Everyone gets a trophy because we have mandated a homogenous society, and individual achievement is often frowned upon if not outright ridiculed.

We have attempted to whitewash all “bad things,” which, not that long ago, were known as something else: Valuable life lessons.

We have become so fearful of risk — God forbid someone might not succeed at something — that children don’t know how to fail.

And when they don’t learn how to fall down — an inescapable human trait, by the way — they don’t know how to pick themselves up and try again. Instead, they are growing up in an artificial world of absolutes that we created — that everything must be 100 percent guaranteed safe.

We no longer encourage, let alone teach, entrepreneurship and self-reliance, having relegated “no risk, no reward” to the trash heap. The result? Many of today’s job seekers, fearful of being on their own, go on interviews with their parents! Mom and Dad negotiate salaries, ask the questions, take over the process and ream out the hiring manager when Junior doesn’t get the job to which they think he was entitled.

Many end up merely dysfunctional until the real world shatters the protective cocoon that has surrounded them for so long.

But for some — a small fraction, thankfully — they snap when something finally doesn’t go their way. Someone doesn’t like them, they get fired, a teacher or boss disciplines them, and they go on a rampage. They kill whatever is in their way, and, usually themselves, because of their complete inability to deal with Life.

Just a generation or two ago, children walked home from school, even at lunchtime. School doors were never locked. Fights in the schoolyard were quick, and the “combatants” were friends again 15 minutes later. Children played ghost-in-the-graveyard until they were called in, and all survived. Scoreboards weren’t turned off in a rout, and losing teams always worked harder to get better, which served them well in school and, later, the workplace. And you know what? There were virtually no shootings, and no one lived in fear. Imagine that.

Since the nation’s beginning, Americans’ courage has been exceptional. Our Founding Fathers risked (and many lost) everything, when they could have done nothing and enjoyed the good life. Americans engaged themselves in ferocious wars to save the world from tyranny, yet never flinched. Civil rights leaders, at risk to life and limb, overcame unimaginable hurdles to achieve freedom and justice.

With such a legacy of success, why have we become so scared of our own shadow, impotent to build upon that history and forge ahead in arguably the most exciting time in human history?

The real world doesn’t change — it has been and always will be filled with risk and danger. Managing those things without being a prisoner of fear is the only way for a nation, and a people, to prosper.

It’s time for the helicopter parents to come in for a permanent landing, or soon we will all crash and burn.

Chris Freind can be found at http://freindlyfirezone.com/

 

Americans Becoming Prisoners To Fear

 

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.