Category: Guest Authors

Chris Freind: Duchess Kate: May we have another?

By Chris Freind

Dear Duchess Kate,

Congratulations on your new baby — and our new hope!

We know you have your hands full, but at the risk of sounding anxious, please do us a favor — have another child. Quickly. And two or three more after that. Perhaps more than anyone else on the planet, you hold the key, by your position and charisma, to lead us out of our literal death spiral. The negative birthrates of Europe, Japan, and yes, America, have placed us on a collision course with the end of an empire — not colonialism, but the greatest, most benevolent civilizations the world has ever known. Not to heap any more pressure on you, but freedom, respect for the rule of law, and the spirit of nationalism hang in the balance.

Oh, in case you’re having trouble agreeing on a name, Prince Christopher has a nice ring to it.

Sincerely,

The West

Interestingly, the bankruptcy of Detroit and the new royal baby — assuming William and Kate are not one-and-done-ers — are interrelated. If the royal couple can inspire those in negative-birthrate countries to once again go forth and procreate, tragedies like the one in Detroit could be avoided in the future.

Detroit, like most big American cities (and many European countries), has been horrifically managed for decades. As despair increased due to lack of jobs, productive workers left for greener pastures, such as Texas and Arizona, where job growth has been explosive. Those left behind, from retirees to those unwilling to start a family (thus no future workers), could not afford the escalating pension obligations and other costs that always accompany the promise of a “guaranteed” social safety net.

The result? Collapse.

It’s no different in Western nations whose economies are hanging by a thread — tragedies of their own making because of ill-advised cultural, economic and political decisions. As a result, birthrates have been steadily plummeting, and all have fallen well below the 2.1 children per family threshold necessary just to achieve zero population growth.

For nations in this precarious situation, there are three courses of action, but only one true solution:

1. They can import labor, typically from Asia, Africa and the Middle East. This massive immigration flow, particularly in Europe, produces a destabilizing effect in those countries because most permanent foreign workers have no desire to assimilate and become “European.” Instead, they often view Euro-culture with outright disdain, despite enjoying freedoms most would never even dream about in their home countries. It is similar, but not quite as pronounced — yet — in America, with millions of illegal immigrants swearing allegiance to countries other than the United States.

The underlying tensions between indigenous populations and the workers they import continue to simmer just below the surface, occasionally bursting through, but for the most part, held in check by misguided labels of xenophobia. Too often, political correctness is employed to assuage the “offended” immigrants, swinging the pendulum unfairly away from Europeans and their hallowed traditions and cultural norms. Adding fuel to this “Balkanization” powder keg is when relatively well-heeled immigrants living in Europe engage in terrorism, such as when they bomb trains in London and Madrid.

If this policy continues unabated, Europe will either fade away without so much as a whimper, becoming unrecognizable in fifty years as its indigenous population declines by several hundred million, or it will engage in an ultra-nationalistic backlash of immense proportions, with bloodshed on a grand scale. European history all but guarantees it.

2. Countries such as Japan can continue to abhor immigration while starving itself to death. Japan has the most elderly population on Earth, and the most negative birthrate, yet absolutely eschews immigration, for mostly cultural reasons.

So a country that in the mid-19th century spectacularly entered the world stage, eventually becoming the second-largest economy on Earth in 1990 (despite being smaller than California), is now a sad shadow of itself, with half as many children than in 1950, yet having eight times as many senior citizens.

Anyone care to look at how Japan is faring? While the tsunami/nuclear issues haven’t helped, Japan has been significantly diminishing for decades, a pace which is only accelerating.

3. Countries can take a hard look at their anti-family policies and correct them. And if dynamic world leaders like William and Kate choose to make family life and having children their priority issues, the situation can be reversed. But both must go hand-in-hand, as neither one by itself can be successful.

And it’s no easy task, as there are many reasons for negative birthrates.

While not apologizing for capitalism, for it is the fairest economic system on earth, it is inarguable that too many in the West have succumbed to materialistic gluttony, coupled with “it’s all about me” and “do whatever makes you feel good” attitudes.

Such mentalities are anathema to getting married, having children, and being diligent parents, for it is much easier to go with the flow without the commitment and cost — aka “baggage” — of children.

And since many countries offer lavish, “guaranteed,” government-funded retirement plans, the incentive for having children to eventually take care of the parents is washed away.

Yet, there are millions who want several children, but are forced to have none or just one because of immoral tax codes. And make no mistake; when the government takes more than half of what people and businesses earn, even from the grave via inheritance taxes, that is absolutely immoral.

If crushing taxes were reduced, placing a higher level of income back where it belongs — with the people — more families could survive on one salary, allowing them to afford their dream of a larger family and reversing the negative birth trend.

Healthy populations in Western nations will produce more than they consume, and become a rising tide that lifts all boats. But it’s not just lost productivity that is a casualty of negative birthrates, but the loss of those who will never exist: Brilliant scientists who will never find a cure for cancer or discover other planets; teachers who will never inspire their students to believe that the sky’s the limit; doctors who will never comfort and cure their patients; and artists who will never leave their audiences breathless, searching for words to describe out-of-this-world performances that bring out the humanity in all of us.

It is inevitable that nationalistic spirit dies when a nation experiences population decline. While nationalism has unfortunately become a dirty word for some, to be beaten back at every turn, it is nonetheless mandatory for the cohesiveness of a people. In the same way that the Olympics bring out the very best in folks, where love of country and pride in one’s national identity makes for peaceful rivalry, hearty camaraderie and great sportsmanship, nationalism on a political scale drives the engine of innovation, creation and competition. And that’s the way it should be.

But as the spirit of optimism disintegrates, a new threat rises in the East, as enemies sworn to oppose freedom multiply by the millions, menacing what is left of the West. One can only hope that smarter leaders will emerge, unshackling the bonds holding population growth hostage. And with that, a royal family that is royally large.

Duchess, congratulations, and please keep them coming!

Medicaid Expansion Failure A Win For PA

Medicaid Expansion Failure A Win For PA
By Matthew J. Brouillette

Editor’s note: A version of this commentary previously appeared on Forbes.com

When is the most humane decision the one that seems just the opposite? In refusing to expand the state’s Medicaid program, Gov. Corbett and the General Assembly have been vilified as cold and uncaring. But despite the critics, both the economic and moral arguments are on the side of those seeking to reform Medicaid, not those pushing the expansion of a broken program.

President Obama’s government health insurance overhaul, the Affordable Care Act, calls for states to expand their Medicaid programs to those up to 133 percent of the poverty line—about $15,000 for an individual or $31,000 for a family of four. But even without expansion, Pennsylvania’s program already consumes 30 percent of the state budget and is one of the most generous in the nation.

Expanding Medicaid would add close to a million new beneficiaries, resulting in fully one-quarter of the state’s population being eligible for coverage. The cost to Pennsylvania’s taxpayers through 2022 could reach $5 billion. That’s enough to give any governor or state legislature pause. It’s no surprise, then, that Pennsylvania isn’t alone in its opposition to Medicaid expansion.

So far, 20 other states agree that expansion is not a good solution for their most vulnerable citizens, despite the federal government’s offer to pay all associated costs for the first two years. What makes turning down “free” federal money so popular? Look no further than the strings attached: the results of the Medicaid program themselves.

Decades of academic research show the program has consistently failed the working poor. From greater chances of cancer recurrence, to higher in-hospital mortality rates for strokes, heart attacks, and pneumonia, to limited options for many medical procedures, Medicaid has proven unable to provide patients the care that they desperately need and deserve.

One in three doctors won’t even accept new Medicaid patients at all—that’s the difference between what Medicaid does provide, a health insurance card, and what it doesn’t, quality health care.

Unfortunately, such a harsh indictment of Medicaid hasn’t stopped politicians on both sides of the aisle from pushing for expansion instead of pursuing reforms that will better serve the working and non-working poor. What’s luring them is that promise of “free” federal money.

This same promise has broken the wills of politicians in other states who at one time opposed either Medicaid expansion or the Affordable Care Act as a whole. This list includes Florida’s Governor Rick Scott as well as Ohio’s John Kasich, who have both gone to great lengths to push expansion in their states. But once state lawmakers saw the plan’s costs and failures, as they have in Pennsylvania, they strongly resisted the push to expand the broken program.

Accepting this bribery is a short-sighted move, at best. States should have learned from experience that Washington doesn’t exactly set its promises in stone. President Obama has already proposed cutting the federal reimbursement of state Medicaid costs—twice. That was the very promise that enticed several states to jump on the expansion bandwagon in the first place.

If reimbursement rates are cut, state taxpayers will be footing the bill. Compounded with the ACA’s $500 billion price tag–a cost equal to $6,300 per family–the funding shortfall would hit every Pennsylvanian’s wallet.

But by refusing to expand Medicaid, states like Pennsylvania have helped reduce the federal deficit by an estimated $459 billion. To some, the promise of free federal funding may seem too good to pass up, but the suffering that people will endure from an expansion of Medicaid should not be so easily forgotten.

Thankfully, Pennsylvania lawmakers’ steadfast refusal to trade our neediest citizens and taxpayers for temporary political gain and uncertain federal cash is a sign that other difficult reforms may yet be on the horizon.

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

Medicaid Expansion Failure A Win For PA

Boston Bombings: Coming to a City Near You?

By Hillel Zaremba

The tragic events of April 15 have justifiably reignited public concern about the nature and extent of domestic Islamist radicalization. Because the surviving bomber has been   Mirandized by the Obama Department of Justice, it may be years before we know exactly what or who prompted Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to take the lives of innocent Americans. However, there is enough evidence to indicate that the mosque with which they associated may have played a role in their descent into depravity. And if their mosque somehow influenced them in this fashion, do other mosques in America present a similar danger?

What  we know about the marathon bombers is that “The mosque attended by the two brothers (the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center-Cambridge [ISBCC]) …has been associated with other terrorism suspects [and] has invited radical speakers to a sister mosque in Boston…”

Both mosques are affiliated with the  Muslim American Society (MAS) an American arm of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB ), the group that spawned Hamas and al-Qaeda and which seeks to   curtail civil liberties in Egypt and   impose Sharia on all.
None of these disturbing signs from Boston, which critics had pointed out for years, had any effect on the way these mosques were treated by those who run the Bay State. To the contrary, ISBCC was the recipient of tax-payer generosity in the form of a bargain-basement sale price on prime real estate for its new home as well as formal displays of friendship from  Gov. Deval Patrick and  Mayor Tom Menino.

Nor were prominent spiritual leaders of Boston concerned by statements of intolerance cloaked in the garb of “religious expression.” When Charles Jacobs, head of  Americans for Peace and Tolerance, brought inflammatory remarks by of one of the mosque’s leaders to the public’s attention, he was savaged by the Boston interfaith community, including  70 area rabbis.

Is such willful blindness unique to Boston or Massachusetts? Sadly, it is more likely that such attitudes are par for the course in every major American city with a sizable Muslim population. It certainly is the case in Philadelphia.

There are approximately 40 mosques in the City of Brotherly Love and its surrounding suburbs, as well as active branches of Brotherhood affiliates like CAIR and MSA, many of which are warmly welcomed by the  Mayor’s Office of Faith Based Initiatives (MOFI), as well as a prominent local NGO, the Interfaith Center of Greater Philadelphia (ICGP). No one in either office has apparently sought to inquire just whom they are partnering with.

“We don’t have to endorse you to work with you” stated MOFI’s interim director, Reverend Malcolm Byrd, when asked if he vetted his constituent Muslim groups. He explained further that one ought to “trust the government to have the objectivity and integrity to scope out involvement with a community.”

Tell that to the families of 29-year old Krystle Campbel or 8-year old Martin Richard who lost their lives to the Boston bombers.

Abby Stamelman Hocky, ICGP’s executive director, sounded a similar tune. Despite being presented with sourced documentation of some of her Muslim partners’ disturbing actions and pronouncements, the author was assured that if I really knew the leaders of these groups, I would be convinced they were, in truth, moderates.

To illustrate the dangerous naiveté that pervades the city’s elites, let us examine just one of the mosques that feels at home in Philadelphia, the Quba Institute (QI).

QI grew out of an  organization founded by an African-American convert to Islam named Muhammad Ezzaldeen, who spent time in Egypt in the 1930s at precisely the same moment when Egyptian Hassan al-Banna was establishing the global  Muslim Brotherhood. Ezzaldeen’s group eventually grew into, and was renamed, the International Muslim Brotherhood, Inc. (IMB ) in Philadelphia in 1949.

Is this shared name just a coincidence?

In the late 1960s, the Philadelphia-based IMB  forged partnerships with the Muslim Student Associations [MSA] of local Universities. The MSA is, according to a  document seized by authorities and entered into evidence in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial, one of the Brotherhood’s 29 likeminded “organizations of our friends” sharing the common goal of teaching Muslims “that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands … so that … God’s religion [Islam] is made victorious over all other religions.”

QI/IMB has  boasted about its association with two Brotherhood luminaries: Abu Sulaiman and Hassan Turabi. Saudi-born Abdul-Hamid Abu Sulaiman (var. “Sulayman”) is a founding member of the MB’s intellectual beachhead in the U.S., the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). From 1973-1979, he was the Secretary General of the Saudi-based  World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY) which publishes anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Shi’ah literature; as the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism, put it: “WAMY [is] the Saudi equivalent of the Hitler Youth: a hate-mongering, ultra-extremist group.”

The other Brotherhood bigwig associated with QI/IMB, Hassan Turabi, helped bring the National Islamic Front (NIF) to power in the Sudan and, once installed in power, established Sharia as the law of the land by force. Turabi was both a champion of Saddam Hussein and a longtime mentor, friend, and host to Osama bin Laden during his stay in Sudan.

According to Oliver Revell, the FBI’s former top counterterrorism official, “anybody who brings in Hassan Turabi is supporting terrorists.”

We do not know exactly when QI/IMB hosted Sulaiman and Turabi and perhaps current leadership has turned over a new leaf, making past connections irrelevant. Perhaps not.
Quba’s current spiritual leader and CEO,  Anwar Muhaimin was born in the U.S. but grew up in Wahhabi-dominated Saudi Arabia with his brother, Anas (also an imam). When the brothers returned to America, they opened QI as a full-time non-public, non-licensed day school (pre-K-8)  eligible to receive public funds through the school district of Philadelphia.

The brothers have a reputation for moderation within the local “dialogue” community yet in a (now scrubbed) February 2010 Facebook posting, Anwar Muhaimin favorably cited an   article which dismissed claims that Anwar al-Awlaki was a terrorist, months after it had become clear that the Fort Hood massacre perpetrated by Major Nidal Hasan had been inspired in part by Awlaki’s teachings and correspondence. A few months later, in July 2010, the imam spoke up for reporter Octavia Nasr, whose support for Holocaust-denying and suicide bombing booster Ayatollah Fadlallah led to her dismissal by CNN. Other Facebook postings include condemnation of the Peter King congressional hearings on radical Islam (March 2011), characterization of researcher David Yerushalmi as a “White Supremacist” (April 2011) and letting his Facebook “friends” know that “Nationalists pose [a] bigger threat than al-Qaeda.”

Should we then take seriously brother Anas Muhaimin’s mystified reaction to the March 2010 arrest of Sharif Mobley, who grew up and studied at QI/IMB? Mobley was arrested in Yemen for ties to Anwar al-Awlaki and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. American law enforcement officials said they had been keeping their eyes on him for some time. When questioned by reporters, Anas  declared that he had “strongly discouraged him from going to Yemen. I told him Yemen was very, very unstable.”

Muhaimin’s protestations of puzzlement sound strikingly similar to those   uttered by ISBCC’s leaders after the Boston bombings. In the face of public revulsion and subsequent media scrutiny, mosque leaders profess to be as clueless as the next guy as to where these young men could have picked up their ideas. Perhaps they need to take a closer look at their own teachings.
An older version of the QI/IMB mosque’s website is illustrative. Patrons of Masjid Quba are told to “specifically reject terrorism as method for forwarding any Islamic or Muslim cause” but there is one important caveat: QI/IMB’s members can engage in jihad al-saif (armed warfare) “in the context of self-defense or guarding the sacred, holy lands of Islam” (author’s emphasis).

What constitutes the “sacred, holy lands of Islam” is open to some interpretative leeway. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch considers the entire state of Israel “sacred, holy lands of Islam,” legitimating its murderous attacks on innocent civilians on that basis. Osama bin Laden justified his attacks against the U.S. because he viewed the American presence in Saudi Arabia as an infidel occupation of “of the Two Holy Places.”

We  now know that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev viewed his crime as standing up for Muslims all over the world (“When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims”). In the Islamist view, all Muslims are part of a universal ummah and any action taken against Muslims anywhere becomes a provocation for retaliation by a fellow-Muslim anywhere else.

Which view dominates in the confines of the Quba Institute or the other Muslim worship centers of Philadelphia and other American cities? Do Muslims in these places truly learn to consider their fellow citizens as brothers and sisters regardless of their faith? Or do they adhere to their prophet’s injunction – “O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends!” (Qur’an 5:51)

When asked to help apply Justice Brandeis’ “disinfectant of sunshine” to all area faith-groups by asking them to open their doors, sermons and curricula to public scrutiny, Philadelphia’s Interfaith Center demurred, citing more pressing issues. Whether an examination of what is taught and preached in area mosques would produce a greater sense of comfort or its opposite remains to be seen. But greater transparency is long overdue, and may help ensure that there will be fewer Tsarnaevs lurking in our midst.

For the record, in April 2010, Muhaimin responded favorably to an  article repudiating al-Awlaki by fellow Philadelphian Abu Laith Luqman Ahmad.

Hillel Zaremba is associate director of  Islamist Watch,
a project of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, which seeks to
combat the ideas and institutions of non-violent Islamism in the United
States and throughout the West.

Boston Bombings: Coming to a City Near You?

Boston Bombings: Coming to a City Near You?

Race Relations Worse Than Ever In USA

OK, let’s get it out of the way. I wholeheartedly agree with the outcome in the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco. So to those who felt entitled to a “guilty” verdict, I am undoubtedly insensitive, heartless and uncaring. Oh, I almost forgot the most important, albeit vastly overused labels: Racist and bigoted.

Spitballs off a battleship.

The real tragedy that has been lost in all the white noise surrounding the verdict is the true victim: Race relations in America, as our goal of a color-blind society now stands at its lowest point in modern American history.

Never mind that the jury did the only rational thing — find Zimmerman not guilty — and that in doing so actually followed that ever-eroding thing called the law (read the manslaughter statute — Zimmerman may have used poor judgment, but he clearly did not intentionally commit an act that caused the death of Trayvon).

It’s an indisputable fact that had this been black-on-black or white-on-white, there never would have even been a trial. And equally true, a national media starved for ratings, and advocacy groups desperately trying to affirm a relevance they never had, created this entire debacle on the false premise that it was all about “race.”

Because some Trayvon supporters thought they were entitled to a guilty verdict, regardless of facts or legal statute, anything less was a travesty of justice, racist, and a tacit endorsement for rioting and death threats against Zimmerman.

Welcome to an America that revels in its path of racial regression.

There is no better illustration of how badly we botch race relations than the differences in the Paula Deen and Trayvon Martin cases.

On the one hand, we demonize Paula Deen for words she was honest enough to admit using years ago, mainly in the context of jokes. It’s bad enough Americans have lost their sense of humor in favor of getting offended by absolutely everything, but honestly, who among us — of all colors — hasn’t used or laughed at “racial” words in jokes (including black comedians who openly use the “N” word). Does doing so make one a bigot? Of course not. Is Paula Deen by extension a racist? Based on everything we know about her, no. While some of what she said clearly isn’t defensible, the piling-on reaction of talking heads and gutless companies who know nothing of loyalty and forgiveness was disgraceful.

There is a very simple reason we took down Paula Deen in the name of “race relations.” Because it was easy. That’s it. No hard work or effort was required to put her on a dartboard and destroy such an easy target. Those who did so chalked up a “win” in their personal agenda column, lying to themselves and the public that it was done in the name of improving race relations. In reality, such actions set the whole debate backwards.

And yet, we barely mention that virtually every big- city mayor and police chief nationwide felt it necessary to urge calm, pleading with Trayvon supporters not to riot and incite bloodshed in the event of a “not guilty” verdict. All for a case, by the way, where most people, both white and black, didn’t have the foggiest idea of Florida law and how it, and nothing else, dictated the outcome.

The inconsistencies are mindboggling, but not surprising.

Race relations had a rocky road in this country, but as we look back, it was clearly a right-versus-wrong struggle, a fight where the oppressed eventually triumphed. Through their perseverance, and the support of millions of fair-minded whites, blacks ultimately achieved legal equality — a monumental feat realized more quickly than even the most optimistic could have hoped.

And yet now, by our own choosing, the pendulum has swung back. We are separate once more. And our nation is divided again — ironically, after it had come such a long way to heal the wounds of the past.

Unconscionably, too many on all sides accept that situation, and even embrace it.

In all the recent media coverage, was there any mention of the thousands of blacks killed each year in urban war zones, primarily by other blacks? Or of the staggeringly high percentage that die, or will go to prison, or be on parole or probation, while still so young? Was there a conversation about what could be done to reverse that trend?

Was there any serious debate about why our American cities are in such a tragic state, where murder, violence, drugs, homelessness, poverty, crushing taxes and horrendous education kill all hope and create a bitter divide between the haves and the have-nots? And about how, despite all the billions spent and feel-good reforms, things are only getting worse? Were the roots of these problems discussed? Any viable solutions offered?

Was there any leader willing to look at the big picture, unafraid to incur the wrath of the loudmouthed, name-calling brigades, to point out that Black Caucuses and Black Parents’ Weekends at colleges do not celebrate diversity and culture, but serve only to drive a sharp wedge between people — people who should, at this point in our history, view themselves as just “Americans” — with no hyphens?

None to all. But as long as we rally around “race cases” that serve no meaningful purpose in advancing race relations, that’s all that matters.

Too many of all colors look the other way when race is injected, fearful of being labeled if an opinion is expressed. And for good reason, as Bill Cosby knows all too well. After a speech several years ago in which he expressed blunt opinions, though with noble intent, about improving the state of young blacks, he was vilified by black leaders and called an “Uncle Tom.” Blowhards got their airtime, and the status quo remained intact.

That’s not a solution. That’s a tragedy.

Things won’t change until our leaders, the media, and most of all, ourselves, demand it. But since we keep being treated to pictures of Trayvon as a boy instead of a man, and racist phrases such as Zimmerman being a “white Hispanic” (what does that even mean?), don’t expect progress anytime soon.

So long as America chooses to look through the black and white prism while ignoring the one that eliminates color, race relations and tension among fellow countrymen will continue to erode, erasing so much of what courageous leaders of the past, both black and white, achieved.

The only colors Martin Luther King, Jr. saw were red, white and blue. It’s truly pathetic that nearly half a century later, we now have made race relations brown. And that doesn’t refer to skin color.

Race Relations Worse Than Ever In USA

Race Relations Worse Than Ever In USA

Why Does Agribusiness Give To Rep. Pat Meehan?

By Tom Flocco

“It’s a life of hell for people who are illegally trying to work…”  Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-7-PA—The Philadelphia Inquirer—7/9/2013

“I believe we still need the special skills and talents of foreign workers coming into the country.”  Patrick Meehan—9/10/2010—Valley Forge Tea Party Meeting

Speaker John Boehner led a House Republican Conference meeting last Wednesday (July 10) to discuss how to handle the increasing frustration of its party base regarding the looming prospect of illegal immigration amnesty and whether any bill should be sent to a House-Senate Joint Reconciliation Conference where amnesty would likely be guaranteed.

Questions are being raised as to why GOP members would even consider the ultimate legalization of some10-40 million new U.S. workers and their “chain immigration” relatives plus foreign professionals to compete with an already staggering number of unemployed Americans for the few job scraps still available.

Constituents or Immigration Interests?

One answer could lie in the western suburban Philadelphia counties of Delaware, Chester, Montgomery and Bucks surrounding the city which have been traditional GOP strongholds with serious Tea Party involvement—but with increasing Democrat registrations due to redistricting sections of Philadelphia which occasionally tips the balance of power.

In the 7th Congressional District, however, campaign finance dollars could also be playing a quiet role as Patrick Meehan, a respected former Delaware County DA and United States Attorney, faces on the surface a third easy race and no primary opposition in 2014—since former Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak left for a losing Senate race against Patrick Toomey.

Meehan’s Democrat opponent will likely be weak enough so that he would have a large enough victory margin to vote for a House Immigration bill loaded with “Tea-Party-style” conservative goodies to be sent over to a compromised House-Senate reconciliation conference ready to do the dirty work.

At that point Meehan and other GOP House members would have political cover to blame Sen. Marco Rubio and his “gang of ocho” for legalizing 11-40 million new workers but also stripping out e-verify job protections, defunding sanctuary cities, ending chain immigration, limitations on foreign visa professionals and ending foreign birthright citizenship, etc.

Meehan told The Philadelphia Inquirer on July 9  that “It’s within my contemplation that we’ve got to figure out some kind of earned legal status for people who are here,” indicating that he is intent on providing 11-40 million more workers to compete on an even playing field with millions of currently unemployed American citizens. [http://mobile.philly.com/news/?wss=/philly/news&id=214696841]

Unemployed 7th District constituents—let alone all Americans out of wok–may take issue with Meehan’s ‘expressions of sympathy for people who came here illegally but are striving for a better life,’ as the Inquirer phrased it.

Meehan then added, “It’s a life of hell for people who are illegally trying to work.”
Many Delaware County families are also going through a life of unemployed hell—and they are all citizens who did not break United States laws.

Follow Congressional Dollars

U.S. corporations and smaller businesses expect something in return for the gobs of green grease donated to encourage the GOP to betray both their unemployed and working constituents with some curious political shenanigans.
Millions of newly legalized workers will drive down salaries and wages through increased competition—from those breaking into the country illegally and those coming in legally with the help of immigration law firms and very liberal visa policies.

An examination of Patrick Meehan’s campaign finance records available on OpenSecrets.org reveals that two of his top five contributors, Cozen-O’Connor and Pepper-Hamilton—individual law firms with sizable immigration practices — gave a combined $100,000.from a total $867,000 contributed by other U.S. law firms and lobbyists handing out cash during Meehan’s first two terms.

Many of the other law firms also have substantial immigration practices throughout the U.S.

Interestingly, Cozen O’Connor is one of many large law firms providing counsel to the detainees at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.

A 2008 Pew Research report said 17 percent of all American construction workers were not U.S. citizens while Rep. Meehan received $292,000.in contributions from the Construction Industry during his two terms in Congress.

The same Pew report listed 25 percent of all American farm workers as illegal and undocumented while the 7th District suburban Philadelphia representative received $74,000 from the Agri-Business industry, also according to Open Secrets.org.

A key example as to where Meehan may lean on immigration came in a May 2012 House amendment to prohibit the use of funds to be used by Obama Attorney General Eric Holder to originate or join in any lawsuit that sought to overturn, enjoin, or invalidate Immigration Enforcement Laws in Oklahoma, Missouri, Arizona, Utah, Indiana, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia.

The amendment passed 238-173 with most Republicans supporting it and most Democrats opposing it.

However, Patrick Meehan voted against the amendment and no one in Delaware County has asked him to explain why he voted to allow Holder to use taxpayer funds to help overturn immigration enforcement laws in 10 states.

Immigration website NumbersUSA.com lists Meehan’s stances as virtually  unknown and a blank slate from his questionnaire regarding such key issues as amnesty, mandating E-verify to protect American jobs, limiting worker importation, ending chain immigration, and defunding sanctuary cities for illegals across America.

While Speaker Boehner attempts to craft something palatable to his base and his large contingent of revolting conferees, some GOP members are looking for cover from the Senate after they send a bill to conference which will ultimately placate wealthy contributors needing cheap labor from legalizing those entering illegally but also those coming in legally—albeit with the help of immigration law firms handing out congressional dollars.

Special Skills And Talents Of Foreign Workers

This reporter’s own experience questioning Meehan came on Sept. 10, 2010 at about 8:45 p.m. during an evening campaign stop at a Valley Forge Patriots Tea Party meeting in Phoenixville, PA, attended by some 300 voters.

During the Q&A this reporter asked Meehan whether Congress should reduce or perhaps institute a moratorium on H-1b and L-1 visas which bring highly-skilled professionals into the country to take American jobs at a time when millions of U.S. professionals are already jobless.

Meehan’s face turned red as he replied, “I believe we still need the special skills and talents of foreign workers coming into the country.”

There was a smattering of applause while most of the 300 voters sat in stunned silence—so much so that Meehan’s aides walked about assessing the political damage previously unreported by any news organization—but those in attendance will remember.

Meehan took no more questions and immediately excused himself, saying to the crowd, “Thank you for coming. Now I have to get to a 10:30 p.m. coffee meeting in Springfield,” (40+ minutes away) while his aides stayed long after attempting to smooth over the comment about foreign workers.

While Rep. Meehan has previously served honorably and capably in Delaware County law enforcement, serious concerns can be raised as to whether the congressman and so many of his GOP cohorts—also beholden to immigration-oriented campaign finance benefactors—can navigate the murky waters of loyally representing the job interests of their own constituents when so much corporate money is riding on their upcoming amnesty vote to drastically increase the labor pool—and competition for jobs.

Perhaps voters will confront GOP House members regarding amnesty and its effect on unemployment at upcoming summer recess events in home congressional districts as they did a few summers ago after the taxpayer bank bailout—which led to the Tea Party.

Or perhaps American citizens have just had enough—disgusted with lawbreakers demanding legalization and amnesty, but also with GOP congressmen who don’t understand the employment hell their own constituents are experiencing nation-wide.

Maybe it’s time for an electoral Tea Party.

 

 

Why Does Agribusiness Give To Rep. Pat Meehan?

 

Why Does Agribusiness Give To Rep. Pat Meehan?

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