Category: Guest Authors

Attorney General Without Law License

By Leo Knepper Attorney General Without Law License

Pennsylvania finds itself in the unenviable position of having an Attorney General, who is not only under indictment but whose law license is going to be suspended in thirty days. The Supreme Court unanimously decided to suspend Kathleen Kane’s license as the result of the ongoing criminal case against her. Although she can appeal the Court’ decision, her attorneys have not indicated whether or not they are going to take that path. Without a law license, Kane will be unable to carry out basic tasks like signing legal documents. However, Kane is (still) not resigning as Attorney General.

It is not clear exactly how Kane will function as Attorney General without a law license, it is clear that she is going to release “thousands” of pornographic emails. The emails were sent by “government officials, including law enforcement officials and judges” according to the Attorney General’s office. Where the issue of releasing emails becomes a little murky is Kane’s arguments only a couple of days ago that she was not going to release the emails…and that is after calling for the emails to be released a couple weeks ago. Confused? You are not alone. The Philadelphia Inquirer characterized her position as “elusive”.

That same article noted that Kane had so far only highlighted emails sent by a “group of political foes and state officials with ties to them.” The disconnect between how Kane treats friends versus her foes is highlighted by her Chief of Staff, Jonathan Duecker. Prior to being promoted, the Attorney General’s personnel office recommended firing Duecker over sexual harassment claims.

There will certainly be more news coming out of the Attorney General’s office. However based on Kane’s disparate treatment of staff and schizophrenic attitude toward emails, it is questionable how much of the activity will be related to the administration of justice. Will Kane make all of the inappropriate emails public? Or, will she be selective and use them to fulfill a vendetta? It would be in the public’s best interest for all materials to be released, but the public’s best interest does not appear to be one of Kane’s top priorities.

Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Attorney General Without Law License

 

Unions Spending Big On Pa Supreme Court

By Leo Knepper Unions Spending Big On Pa Supreme Court

Leading up to the May primaries we noted that organized labor had made significant contributions to the campaign of Judge Kevin Dougherty. (Note: Dougherty’s brother was just made the head of the Philadelphia Building Trades Council.) The spending did not stop after the primaries ended; it expanded. According to a Philadelphia Inquirer article, organized labor has now made over $1.3 million in direct contributions to candidates for the Supreme Court.

Unions see the composition of the Supreme Court as being of critical importance in the near future:

“‘For us right now, the Supreme Court is ground zero,’ said Joe Battaglia, treasurer of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local 1, representing about 3,000 workers in Southeastern Pennsylvania and Delaware.”

The article outlines how unions see the Supreme Court as a bull work against any legislation that affects whether or not the government will act as a union collection agent for dues and political contributions. Supreme Court elections are generally sleepy affairs. However, this year’s elections will impact what ability the Legislature has to address issues like liquor store privatization and pension reform for decades.

If the Supreme Court races have flown under your radar up until now, you had better start paying attention. Otherwise, Pennsylvania may find itself with a court more interested in affecting policy than being interested in what the laws and state constitution actually say.

Mr. Knepper is with Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania, anon-profit organization founded to raise the standard of living of all Pennsylvanians.

Unions Spending Big On Pa Supreme Court

Blame America For Europe’s Problem

By Chris Freind Blame America For Europe's Problem

If only paprika repelled refugees the way garlic does vampires.

But it doesn’t. So Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orban, is doing everything else in his power to stop the unchecked flow of Middle Eastern refugees into Hungary, and in doing so, is protecting his people.

And you know his tactics are on the right track when the rest of the nauseating politically correct European Union roundly criticizes his actions as barbaric and inhumane.

But there are other, much more appropriate terms for leaders like Orban: Gutsy, bold, smart, and most of all, visionary. And that last one is the most important, because it shows that Orban sees what will happen if he opens the floodgates and allows his country to be inundated with refugees.

So let’s cut through the name-calling and irrational demands of the open-borders crowd by dispassionately analyzing the situation:

1. Blame for the sake of blame is pointless, but blame so that mistakes aren’t repeated is priceless. So let’s cast blame onto whom it belongs: The United States.

Indisputably, America caused this crisis. And before the partisans holler “it’s Obama’s fault,” let’s be clear that it is the result of very bad decisions by President Obama and President George W. Bush, along with a complicit Congress.

Iraq, when ruled by the iron fist of Saddam Hussein, was stable. Conditions were often brutal, but stability reigned. There were no car bombs, no suicide bombers, and above all, no chaos. Since Iraq had no involvement in 9/11, it should never have been invaded, an action America’s leaders naively believed would bring “democracy. “ In fact, it produced anarchy, and an unprecedented terror threat. And it was a colossal waste of American blood and treasure, since nothing was accomplished except giving our enemies a huge foothold.

Ditto for Libya, where America betrayed Moammar Gadfafi by eliminating him on behalf of the impotent Europeans. Now, Libya is ruled by the same thugs who fought America in Iraq (giving them billions in oil revenue with which to “play,” and spawning an exodus of refugees across the Mediterranean).

And perhaps most significant to causing the refugee exodus was America’s interference in Syria’s sovereign affairs, where we destroyed that nation’s stability by attempting to oust President Assad from power – an action that gave rise to the marauding ISIS.

The lessons for America are: A) stop playing policeman to the world; B) stop trying to force our values (democracy, human rights, etc.) on other countries in ways that always – always – backfire; C) become energy independent so that we can once and for all extricate ourselves from the Middle East quagmire that has us bent over a barrel. Enough is enough.

2. “A nation that cannot control its borders is not a nation.” So were the prophetic words of Ronald Reagan, who knew a thing or two about handling crises.

To be clear, most of the Middle Eastern refugees are not “vampires” looking to suck the lifeblood out of European countries, and the majority must be assumed to be good, hard-working people who faced severe hardships in their home countries. But where does it end? Are Western nations obligated to take in everyone facing adversity? If so, that amounts to most of the globe.

Who will pay the billions to house and feed the hundreds of thousands streaming into Europe? (There have already been nearly 400,000 this year alone). And what’s next? With many European countries already facing high unemployment rates (France, for example, is just below its all-time high, and the number of people seeking work is at a record level), where will these refugees find jobs? If there is a job market at all, since many are surely low-skilled. And when they can’t find work, they will become recipients of Europe’s social safety net, which is so obscenely generous (aka unaffordable and unsustainable) that the refugees will soon “play the game,” no longer incentivized to find employment, instead content to live off the taxes paid by productive citizens.

That’s a recipe for massive resentment and an inevitable violent backlash, which we are already seeing. And while violence can’t be condoned in a civil society, the critics fail to see that it is not rooted in xenophobia, but simple economics, and a sense that fair play has been jettisoned, with favoritism now shown to noncitizens, while those whose blood, sweat and tears built (and rebuilt) their country are left out in the cold.

Most people’s natural tendencies to protect their families, culture and country should not be cavalierly discounted by armchair analysts who live in ivory towers, far from the real life struggles of hard-working Europeans.

Temporary humanitarian assistance is one thing, but affording permanent status is quite another.

3. There is the charge against Hungary, which has erected barbed wire along its border with Serbia, that its people are inappropriately wary of Muslims entering their nation.

To many, they have good reason to be. Hungary’s Christian population clashed with the Muslim Ottoman Empire, which ruled their nation for 150 years in the 16th and 17th centuries. And if the situation were reversed, it would be perfectly natural for Muslims to be wary of Christians occupying their lands. In fact, the presence of America and its Western allies in the Middle East is a major reason why they are (legitimately) viewed with contempt by the indigenous peoples. And no, the East Germans who fled into Hungary after the Iron Curtain was lifted are not comparable to the current migrants streaming in, for obvious cultural and historically ethnic reasons.

Let’s be honest. There will undoubtedly be a considerable contingent of refugees who care nothing for European culture and traditions, as evidenced by the behavior and outrageous demands of many who have previously emigrated to Europe, from advocating Sharia law to rejecting showing their faces for state-issued IDs, to, yes, terrorism. And there are those with ISIS sympathies who are using the crisis as an excuse to gain intelligence and secure a foothold for future operations against European targets. Even if that’s one-half of 1 percent, it still amounts to thousands more that the already overburdened security services have to monitor.

And the tragic attacks in England, Spain and France proved that doing so is impossible.

4. This crisis shows why the EU should be disbanded, at least for everything but a common currency. No nation should have its sovereignty – its domestic and foreign policy decisions – usurped by the dictates of clueless Europeans who have no knowledge of history nor any foresight. Instead, they value political correctness above all else.

5. As detailed in prior columns, the solution is for the West to fund and fully equip regional anti-ISIS fighters so that stable governments can once again gain the peace. They may not be the most benevolent regimes, but the situation would become infinitely better, and the refugees would be able to do what is most important: return home.

Anything less, and the powder keg of Europe, which already caused two world wars, will move closer to detonating.

Blame America For Europe’s Problem

Sue Obama To Stop Iran Deal

By Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. and Lee S. Bender, Esq. Sue Obama To Stop Iran Deal

When Congress returns from recess after Labor Day, one of the most pressing issues on the agenda is the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), known commonly as “the Iran deal.” Much has been discovered since the Corker-Cardin-Menendez bill was enacted, including the White House’s and State Department’s deceit without which the Senate likely would not have abandoned its constitutionally-provided role regarding treaties.

Now it might take a lawsuit spearheaded by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to reverse not only the damage to the Constitution but also potential military damage to America and our allies as a result of the provisions of the Iran nuclear-deal.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has overwhelming justification to sue President Obama over the JCPOA, which is actually a treaty and thereby must be ratified by a 2/3-vote of those senators present prior to implementation.

Such a suit could ultimately prompt the Supreme Court to disclaim Obama’s portrayal of this document as an “executive agreement.” It could also sustain the overwhelming will of the American people–according to polling data—to trash this “legacy” effort, for reasons that have been exhaustively detailed.

Blocking implementation of the Iran nuclear-deal would thereby necessitate the legislative branch triggering a confrontation between the judicial and the executive branches.

Two essays {authored by RBS} published in The Hill explored the legalities of this initiative, focused on its “treaty” [July 29] and “rule-of-law” [August 25] components.

In the interim [USA Today, August 5], Professor Alan Dershowitz recognized that a Supreme Court opinion challenged the president’s power to enter into long-term deals with foreign powers without the consent of Congress. A president cannot avoid congressional oversight by simply declaring an important deal with foreign powers to be an executive agreement rather than a treaty [Gibbons v. Ogden]: “[G]eneral and permanent commercial regulations with foreign powers must be made by treaty, but…the particular and temporary regulations of commerce may be made by an agreement of a state with another, or with a foreign power, by the consent of Congress.”

Two other authors, legal-authority Andrew C. McCarthy [National Review Online, July 17] and accomplished-author Caroline B. Glick [Jerusalem Post, July 21] also claimed the deal is a treaty, but neither of these columnists nor Dershowitz proposed a remedy that would halt this out-of-control Obama Administration. Writer Jerry Gordon has comprehensively detailed “How Best to Overturn the Iran Nuclear Pact” [New English Review, August].

The drip-drip-drip of news about details of the deal as well as “secret” side arrangements that has emerged this summer congeals into two major rationales for such litigation, addressing both specifics and lack of transparency. Leaks unveiled multiple side-deals between Iran and the IAEA that satirize the concept of “anytime, anywhere surveillance” but, perhaps more important, Obama and his cabinet-members “inexplicably” failed to reveal this information to Congress as secrets. Moreover, the Administration also misled Congress and the American public about the nature of the deal and the resulting preservation of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and right to continue advanced research that will facilitate a bomb when the pact expires in a mere decade to 15 years.

The “legislative intent” of the Corker-Cardin bill (Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015) was focused exclusively on Iran’s nuclear program, contrasting with the final pact the Administration concluded lifting conventional-weapon sanctions. Iran sought—and was granted—this specific concession reportedly at the very end of the negotiations. This was outside what the Administration had originally advised Congress about the parameters of this deal: that it was focused solely on nuclear-weapons capability and not conventional weapons (or ICBMs). Thus, the final version of the Iran nuclear-deal encompassed issues, such as weaponization, that the Administration did not disclose to Congress before it debated and passed the Corker-Cardin Bill.

(Other facets of the negotiation were also misrepresented by the Obama Administration prior to when Kerry inked the deal. For example, although release of American prisoners was not ultimately achieved, Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 21, 2015 that the Administration’s negotiators “continue to insist” that Americans held in detention be released.) John Bolton recently elucidated additional major concessions (National Review, August 24).

This deception started before the Corker-Cardin Bill was passed in May. It was even maintained by Iran when the Tasmin News agency reported [June 15] “Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) Ali Shamkhani reiterated that negotiations between Tehran and six major world powers solely focus on nuclear topics, dismissing any talk of military subjects in the talks.”

Evidence of the ongoing deception was manifest when Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey testified during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on July 7—only one week prior to when the deal was signed [July 14]—that the arms embargo, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1929, was not to be lifted.

Thus, overall, absent the ability to review all relevant data, the Senate (1)—cannot render an informed judgment, consistent with its “advise/consent” role, and (2)—cannot be viewed to be facing a 60-day deadline, for the Corker-Cardin Bill mandates that this “clock” start “ticking” only after the database has been completed.

Refusal to provide copies of side-agreements to Congress continues unabated, as per testimony on August 5 by chief-negotiator Wendy Sherman and IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano. We now know why normally-sedate Senator Corker exploded (“We cannot get him to even confirm that we will have physical access inside of Parchin”) because such inspections have been serially outsourced by Obama to the IAEA and then, we learned more recently, by the IAEA to Iran.

The “toughest inspections-regime in history” forces America (and the world) to allow Iran to provide proof that Iran is not making nukes in Iran.

Perhaps more ominous is the dismissive posture adopted by Secretary of State Kerry [July 28] when confronted by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. The innocent hypothetical was unambiguous: Would he “follow the law” governing existing congressional sanctions if Congress voted to override a veto? Kerry’s elitist reply challenged the rule-of-law: “I can’t begin to answer that at this point without consulting with the President and determining what the circumstances are.”

Could Obama go rogue?

The ability of the Supreme Court to exercise “judicial review” is rooted in the Supremacy Clause, was affirmed in 1803 [Marbury v. Madison], and has never been tested again.

But, because the Supreme Court does not command any enforcement capability the remedy for potential lawlessness is unclear. Indeed, this concern would extend to any nullification effort by the President related to the prospect that the Supreme Court would declare the Iran-Nuclear Deal to be a “treaty” rather than the “executive agreement” the President has potentially improperly considered it to be, to skirt congressional oversight and approval.

These concerns were predicted [May 7] and corroborated [July 23] in essays that presage the current crisis [by RBS, both published in The American Thinker]. They were confirmed in an e-mail exchange by noted constitutional scholar, Dr. John C. Eastman [the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service at the Dale E. Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and Founding Director of The Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence]: “First, because only a ‘treaty’ is the Supreme law of the land, a mere executive agreement could not overturn statutorily-imposed sanctions,” Eastman wrote in an e-mail. “And neither, in my view, could a change in the constitutionally-mandated default rule for adopting a treaty. Second, if that is true, then members of the Senate who, collectively, had the votes to prevent ratification of a treaty would have standing to challenge the process that negated their vote. That’s the Coleman v. Miller case on all fours.” This 1939 landmark decision ensured that Congress was empowered to specify a deadline by which an external entity was to affirm proposed legislation, such as a Constitutional amendment.

The Ottoman-Islamic defeat at the “Gates of Vienna” in 1683 is on the verge of being reversed by Obama/Kerry and their P5+1 partners, again in Vienna. The irony is that the West is validating Iranian-Islamic supremacism. It seems only the U.S. Senate can rescue (Judeo-Christian) Western Civilization from the Administration’s collaboration and perfidy.

The Senate must definitively impose a limit to the President’s executive lawlessness before a constitutional crisis erupts. Resolution by the courts may be the most effective way to check and to balance the scales that Obama has usurped.

Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D. is a physician-activist and may be contacted at rsklaroff@gmail.com. Lee S. Bender, Esquire, is an attorney, activist and co-author of the book, “Pressing Israel: Media Bias Exposed From A-Z.”

Sue Obama To Stop Iran Deal

Failing Schools Enabled By Gov. Wolf

By Leo Knepper Failing Schools Enabled By Gov. Wolf

“…I’m in this spot where I have to call the school that failed my kids and re-enroll them…I’m heartbroken over this.”

That quote comes from Amy Millar via a Philadelphia Inquirer story on the State Education Department’s recent action to “clarify” what services cyber-charter schools can offer. According to the article, two of Ms. Millar’s children have special education needs. However, her children have flourished at the Education Plus Academy Cyber Charter School (Ed Plus).

What did Ed Plus do to bring the wrath of the state education bureaucracy down on their heads? They offered their students services like art, gym, and “face-to-face” learning opportunities at their learning centers. In other words, they looked at the needs of their students and provided for them. The State Department of Education evidently frowns on the hybrid model used by Ed Plus. As a result parents like Ms. Millard will be forced to send their children back to schools that were failing to meet their needs in the first place.

Although the Governor purports to want “quality” education for all. His administration’s actions in this and other cases clearly illustrate that is not entirely accurate. The Governor’s interest is in making sure that his patrons at the teachers’ union are happy and that there is as little competition as possible in the public education sphere.

If the Wolf administration was interested in ensuring every child received a quality education, they would be applauding Ed Plus. Furthermore, they would be examining what that school is doing differently and seeing how it might be replicated in other schools. The Department of Education should be looking at how they could make it easier for others schools to provide the same education experience. Instead, they seem more interested in erecting barriers to a quality education.

Mr. Knepper is with Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania

Failing Schools Enabled By Gov. Wolf

State Redevelopment Projects Exposed

By Leo Knepper State Redevelopment Projects Exposed

We have long been critical of “economic development projects”. Many times, the projects amount to little more than corporate welfare. Project backers frequently over promise, and under deliver in terms of jobs and an impact on the local economy. Using state funds to benefit private interests is a breeding ground ripe for crony capitalism and corruption. A project in Montgomery County provides an example of another problem, the bait-and-switch.

In 2008, the General Assembly and Governor Rendell authorized an expenditure of $15 million for the “[a]cquisition, infrastructure, rehabilitation, construction and other costs related to the redevelopment of the Ardmore Train Station, including the abatement of hazardous materials.” Seven years later the project has yet to break ground. Making matters even worse, the redevelopment of the Ardmore Train Station no longer includes redeveloping the actual train station.

While in the planning stages, Lower Merion Township drastically expanded the scope of the project to include the creation of “mixed use” property and a parking garage adjacent to the train station. Because of funding issues the train station project and mixed-use project were separated. As time went on less emphasis was placed on rehabilitating the train station, and more attention went into the private development. However, the state funding source never changed.

Although the funds were earmarked for redeveloping the train station, the township ultimately approved using the funds for a parking garage. In December of 2013, Governor Corbett’s Office of the Budget rescinded $12 million in funding. As noted by an extensive article from the Main Line Times, the Office of the Budget correctly recognized that the scope of the project had shifted markedly and, as a result, the funding would be reduced and made for the train station only.

The Office of the Budget was correct in its decision. Although the rehabilitation of the train station would have had a minimal impact on the economy of the area, it was at least a project for the “public good”. In contrast, the bulk of the benefit from the multi-use and parking portion of the project would have been to the bottom line of the property developer: Dranoff Properties. The decision to rescind the money did not stand long. After lobbying from Dranoff, the project had $10.5 million in funding reinstated by the Office of the Budget.  As an interesting coincidence, Carl Dranoff made $10,000 in campaign contributions to Governor Corbett’s re-election campaign over the course of 2014.

The legislative language explicitly tied the original funding to the rehabilitation of a train station. However, the project has shifted focus entirely to a private development, and that is a wholly inappropriate use of public funds. A local organization, the Save Ardmore Coalition, has filed a lawsuit against the township and Governor Wolf regarding this matter. They were also kind enough to bring this issue to our attention. We will monitor the lawsuit as it progresses, and we would also encourage members of the General Assembly to revisit the appropriateness of the project given the explicit authorization language.

State Redevelopment Projects Exposed

Bad Pension Legislation Lives

By Leo KnepperBad Pension Legislation Lives

Bad legislation never dies in Harrisburg, and it doesn’t even slowly fade away.

So the Tobash plan for changing the design of pensions for certain classes of new employees is getting another push. The Tobash plan, HB 1499, is sponsored by Rep. Mike Tobash (R-Schuylkill), but it was originally the idea of folks at the Public Employees Retirement Commission (PERC). It is their duty with respect to the state pensions systems “to assure their actuarial viability through a review of any proposed legislative changes in those plans.”

When reviewing HB 900 this past June, which really does “stop the bleeding” and would eliminate the unfunded liabilities of SERS and PSERS over 20 years, PERC decided that it was more important for legislators to consider other budget priorities. In other words, the institution, whose sole purpose is to assure the soundness of public employee pensions, instructed legislators in PERC’s review of HB 900 to continue their dreadful and harmful 12 year policy of diverting funds from pensions to other purposes.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that four of the nine members of PERC’s board are legislators, and one of them is Rep. Tobash. The other five members are gubernatorial appointees. What incentive do they have to assure that pensions will be adequately funded when the last three governors, including the current one, wanted no such thing?

The Tobash plan was introduced last year as an amendment to HB 1353. At that time, it set up a “stacked” retirement benefit system. The first $50,000 in state employee pay is eligible for a traditional pension; beyond that there is a 401(k) style plan. It is worth noting that the average state employee salary was $52,655 for 2014. In other words, the Tobash plan as introduced last year would have had impacted very few future employees. According to actuarial analysis done last year, 98.8% of the “savings” projected under the Tobash plan is 15 years or farther into the future, which is a pretty big problem since SERS and PSERS are on course to be bankrupt in 15 years.

While some of these same criticisms certainly apply to SB1, the Senate’s pension reform plan, Tobash’s plan goes completely in the wrong direction. Rather than addressing the unfunded liabilities and pension costs of current employees, the Tobash plan would merely provide lawmakers the ability to say they passed pension reform without actually addressing anything.

Politicians are very sensitive to current and near-term costs because the next election is less than 2 to 4 years away. But the massive harm heading toward the commonwealth in less than a generation-well, that’s someone else’s problem apparently.

And so, another Rube Goldberg device will be trotted out, debated, lobbied, perhaps even voted on (and if passed, vetoed) and all the while the unfunded liability which impends doom for the future of the commonwealth remains unaddressed. It’s simply the politicians’ usual play: bait and switch-promise changes later and call that savings. Then use the phony savings to justify continuing to underfund the pensions and divert monies to other places in the budget.

The priority is always less pension funding today, and when tomorrow comes, the priority will be less funding then too. It might get politicians re-elected, but it’s not exactly anyone’s definition of statesmanship.

Mr. Knepper is with Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Bad Pension Legislation Lives

Trump Excites For A Reason

By Chris Freind Trump Excites For A Reason

Bout time!

It’s been 31 years since the Republican Party had a real, honest-to-God candidate running for president. Someone with charisma and a sense of humor, a natural communicator whose populist message resonates and transcends party lines, gender and age. And, God forbid, someone who actually knows what he stands for, and isn’t afraid to say it.

Better late than never.

Thank you, Donald Trump.

With all those attributes packaged into one person, versus many candidates possessing only one or two, you’d think the Republican hierarchy would be thankful for Trump’s candidacy. But rather than embracing it, too many are criticizing, even demonizing, it.

Donald Trump is the best thing for the Republican Party, but the GOP leadership is too dumb to see it.

The GOP field is crowded, ranging from libertarians to Big Government Republicans. Given that the party has been shut out of the White House for eight years, and the odds (electorally) are not exactly in their favor in 2016, the exchange of bold ideas in a drawn-out primary is exactly what is needed. Yet, that’s precisely what the GOP hierarchy abhors.

After the 2012 debacle, they wanted a neat, quickly wrapped-up primary that they could better control, where their “anointed” one could take the nomination with as little intra-party battling as possible. So new rules were adopted by the Republican National Committee, designed to tip the process, even more than it already was, in the Establishment’s favor.

Now, they naively think that will smooth the way for Jeb Bush, who embodies business as usual.

They are wrong.

How hard is it to see that orchestrating coronations over elections, strong-arming nominations for those with big wallets and whose “turn it is,” doesn’t work?

How have they fared since Reagan and his 49-state near-sweep in 1984? Bob Dole and John McCain were pathetic. George Bush I was elected only because of Reagan’s legacy, and the Democrats put up an even weaker candidate (Michael Dukakis). George W. Bush lost the popular vote, and was the unmitigated disaster that led to Barack Obama. And Mitt Romney, despite the imbeciles who blame his loss on the “liberal media” and Chris Christie’s praise for President Obama in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, may have been worst of all.

Given the president’s dismal performance the last eight years, this election is eminently winnable for Republicans. But with the party’s new rules, and small states still playing God, honest debate takes a back seat, and party bosses largely retain their ability to choose whom they like, will of the people be damned.

The lesson is to embrace primaries. Contrary to conventional “wisdom,” protracted primary battles are good for, not detrimental to, the eventual nominee. They make candidates measurably sharper, and ready them for the bruising general election.

Bottom line: When you run boring, business-as-usual hacks, you lose. McCain, Dole and Romney personified that, as did Al Gore and John Kerry. And the lesser of two evils wins. Just look at 2012. Despite a dismal economy, runaway spending, real unemployment over 15 percent, a world on fire and a pervasive pessimism, Obama routed Romney. That election should have been a home run for the Republicans. Instead, they struck out before coming to bat. But even more inexcusable is that the exact same scenario is, by design, playing out right now.

At least it was, until The Donald showed up.

When Trump first announced, he generated huge headlines, more because of the novelty of who he was, rather than his vision for America. His candidacy made for great late-night TV jokes, sassy editorials, and snickers among the “elite,” who looked at Trump as an egomaniac who would fade quickly after his latest “publicity stunt” went up in flames.

They were right about one thing. There were flames — his candidacy caught fire. All of a sudden, despite a number of gaffes, “Trumpmania” started overtaking America. He is generating the largest crowds of any candidate, exhibiting great poise on talk shows, and is showing a depth of real-world knowledge that surpasses that of “seasoned” politicians.

It was a level of success that probably even surprised Trump himself, and with it, a different Donald Trump has emerged. Each day, the bragging billionaire with the flair for the dramatic — honed by hosting an incredibly successful reality TV show — is slowly morphing into a serious candidate, one who has catapulted from joke to contender. But why?

Is it because he can’t be bought? Partly. And even though the political graveyard is littered with wealthy candidates (Ross Perot, Mitt Romney), people have the sense that Trump is different. Perot came across as a flake, and Romney was perhaps the most out-of-touch candidate in memory. Neither one could pass the “could you have a beer with this guy?” test. Trump does, with flying colors, as he genuinely seems to have his hand on the pulse of the people.

Is it because Americans realize that government is failing at virtually every level, and that electing career politicians only makes matters worse? And that it is finally time to run the federal government like a business, instilling accountability and tightening the belt, just as families and businesses do? And that Trump’s business acumen could right the ship? Partly.

But the big reason Trump has ignited a firestorm is because finally someone has the guts to call things as they are, political correctness be damned. He doesn’t worry about “offending” people’s hypersensitivities, and naturally gravitates to taking on the “white elephants” in the room that virtually every other candidate avoids. He isn’t driven by pollsters, and he doesn’t need focus groups to advise him on tie color, hairstyle, or the Middle East. And while his brash style will continue to earn him scorn from the pundits and the “I’m-offended-by-everything” crowd, his style of talking to people (not above or down to them) has generated significant support. Trump understands that you can’t be all things to all people, and that by being himself, he will win over hearts and minds.

Granted, he made some mistakes (hit John McCain on his policies, not war record, and talk about how to solve the immigration issue with an iron will and compassion, rather than being perceived as anti-immigrant), but people will forgive him so long as they believe he is speaking from the heart and maintaining the courage of his convictions.

The more Trump calls out his opponents — Democrat and Republican — without reverting to a canned script of non-answers, the more he will shake up the entire presidential field. And what a breath of fresh air that would be.

Donald Trump doesn’t “need” the hellacious road that accompanies a run for president. The fact that he chose to place himself, his family and his entire life under the microscope on the world’s biggest stage, is proof enough that his candidacy isn’t a stunt.

Like him or not, America, and the Republican Party in particular, could do a whole lot worse that someone who tells the truth and articulates a “City on a Hill”-type vision for the nation. By his nature, Trump is a gambling man. And while maybe The Donald won’t be the last guy standing, his candidacy is turning out to be the best Trump card the Republican Party has had in a long time.

Oh, and Hillary: Be careful what you wish for. You just may get it.

Trump Excites For A Reason

Mullen Hangs Up

Mullen Hangs UpBy Joseph B Dychala 

In the April 3, 2015 Daily Times it mentions a news reporter getting hung up on upon reaching the Mullen household to inquired about a possible run for the seat in the 161st Legislative District vacated by Joe Hackett.

Around the same time, local 654’s own Business Report for Q1 2015, Paul Mullen solicited members to increase their funding for money earmarked to go directly to political candidates. Mr Mullen is quoted, “Relations within the political realm is important and helping candidates get elected is vital to us. ”

Mr Mullen has actively campaigned for Joe Sestak in his failed bid to unseat incumbent United States Senator Republican Pat Toomey. Mr Mullen also campaigned for Democrat John Kane. Kane, who happens to hold the same position as Mullen at his local, lost to Republican Tom McGarrigle in 2014. Kane now fully endorses Mullen complete with requisite yard signs. There have been accusations of misconduct and what happened remains unclear.

This raises many very important questions. The two most pressing however, is there some Quid Pro Quo involved with these campaigns, and why does Paul Mullen, a nearly two decade Republican, continually lend his endorsement and personal support to Democrats on a local and national level.

Paul Mullen has been very silent on his positions – liquor privatization, paycheck protection,property tax, pension reform, the Pennsylvania 10% corporate tax and the Governor’s plan to increase personal income tax and sales tax. These are the issues facing our great commonwealth today. He only provides vague platitudes on natural gas taxation and educational funding with no concrete stance. His opponents have made themselves not only clear and consistent but available to speak with the folks unlike the reclusive Mullen.

How are the voters of the 161st District supposed to to entrust their representation at the state house to Paul Mullen when he has been evasive on his positions and his intent since this house seat first opened.

 Mr. Dychala lives in Aston.

Mullen Hangs Up

Wolf Plan Unpopular With Public

By Chris Freind Wolf Plan Unpopular With Public Wolf Plan Unpopular With Public Wolf Plan Unpopular With Public

Who’s afraid of the big, bad (Tom) Wolf?

Not the Republican Legislature.

Pennsylvania’s new governor submitted a budget proposal that would raise taxes by a whopping $4.5 billion. That plan was promptly bitten in half by the GOP, with both sides now light years apart. And since the June 30 deadline has passed with no resolution, the Keystone State finds itself in a drawn-out budget stalemate.

Good.

What the governor does not yet understand is that he has little public support for his plans, making him a lone Wolf on the impasse. And so long as the Republicans don’t cave, they will win the day, and by extension, so will the people.

Let’s review the major sticking points:

1. Taxes: Raising taxes is never the answer. Doing so takes money from productive citizens and businesses — who would spend it as they saw fit in the economy, generating more jobs and, ultimately, more tax revenue — and throws it into the never-ending black hole of government spending. It’s bad enough that our taxes are so high — Pennsylvania already has the nation’s 10th-biggest tax burden and will soon have America’s highest fuel taxes — but to make the sin mortal, whatever money raised would be completely squandered, especially on education. High taxes can never be justified, but the pill might not be so bitter if at least the money was wisely spent. But we all know otherwise.

Wolf wants to raise the income tax, sales tax (and greatly expand the list of items covered by the that tax), and tobacco tax, and single out the natural gas companies for its own tax.

America’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. Add in state and local taxes, and the burden becomes onerous. So in Pennsylvania, a company pays the highest federal corporate tax on the planet, on top of the nation’s second-highest state corporate net income tax (9.9 percent), on top of local taxes. (Philadelphia, which is always crying poor and which the rest of the state is always bailing out, is, cumulatively, the highest-taxed city in America).

Rather than lowering the sky-high rates that stifle innovation, cause job cuts, place a cap on new hires, and take capital from the free market, Wolf wants to expand such draconian policies. Instead of understanding why companies flee (and along with them Pennsylvania’s best and brightest), and figuring out what can be done to halt the exodus, the governor instead advocates penalizing the people and companies even more.

As an incredibly successful businessman, Wolf should understand the adage, “If you want less of something, tax it.” But he doesn’t.

2. Property Tax Red Herring: This is the biggest joke of all. Wolf’s tax hikes would allegedly provide some measure of property tax “relief.” The only problem is that it won’t work.

Even if taxpayers received a $1,000 rebate on their property taxes, how long do you think it will take counties and local school boards to raise property taxes after that? Try about five minutes. So Pennsylvanians would receive a small amount of temporary relief, yet be stuck with forever-higher sales and income taxes, all while watching their local property taxes continue to rise to fund a public school system that is failing our children.

Great plan, governor.

3. Education Black Hole: How many times does the obvious have to be stated, namely that throwing good money after bad isn’t just stupid, but ineffective.

Unless the teachers’ unions are reined in once and for all so that accountability can finally be instilled, thereby paving the way for reforms and competition, no amount of money will change a single thing. And this isn’t just a Philadelphia problem, but a statewide one.

There is no education funding “emergency.” The only crisis is the lack of educational achievement for the only ones who matter: our children.

The numbers tell the story:

School spending is over $25 billion annually, averaging nearly $15,000 per student (more than 39 other states), an amount that has doubled since 1996. Additionally, school district reserves grew by $445 million in 2013 to nearly $4 billion.

All this while the number of students has declined.

Despite a drop of 35,510 students since 2000, the public school system has added 35,821 employees in the same period. Therefore, by definition, increased funding, more personnel and decreased class size have not improved student achievement.

From SAT scores to literacy, Pennsylvania students rank near the bottom. Scores on standardized exams have not improved, and nearly one-third of all 11th-graders are not proficient in reading, while 40 percent do not achieve math proficiency on the dumbed-down PSSA tests. Yet, teacher salaries and benefits rank among the highest, and Pennsylvania leads the nation in school strikes every year.

So instead of fighting over more funding, which will produce squat, the governor and Legislature should focus on reforming the antiquated tenure and seniority rules and eliminating forced union dues that are used to wage multimillion dollar political campaigns to keep the status quo intact.

Then, and only then, will things start to improve.

4. Gov. Wolf vetoed bills that would have privatized Pennsylvania’s liquor stores and reformed the state’s exploding pension system. Both would have produced immense savings (negating the “need” to raise taxes), and, significantly, both had widespread public support. But taking a lesson from his incompetent predecessor (the other Tom), Wolf kicked the can down the road to our children. What a legacy after just six months on the job.

5. Taxing natural gas drillers: Once again, we’re told the energy industry needs to pay its “fair share,” an example of never letting facts stand in the way of fanciful political rhetoric.

First, taxing a particular industry is flat-out wrong. Second, that proposal implies the gas industry isn’t already being taxed. So the $600 million from the impact fee and over $2 billion in corporate taxes it has paid is make-believe? Imposing a job-killing severance tax on the grounds that other states are doing it is simply asinine. It would result in a production decline (thereby decreasing revenue) as the industry finds greener pastures elsewhere. And like all business taxes, it would be passed onto consumers.

Instead of penalizing the industry that has the best chance to revive Pennsylvania, Wolf should be embracing it. It has invested billions in capital projects, paid royalties to thousands of landowners, and created countless ancillary businesses, all of which produce jobs and fill government coffers.

If the GOP doesn’t stand its ground here, the goose that laid the golden egg will fly away.

Tom Wolf’s company makes cabinets efficiently and profitably, which is why it’s so disappointing to see the governor kowtow to special interests, forgetting all the lessons he learned in business.

If he had produced inferior cabinets, failed to hold his employees accountable, and lost money, CEO Wolf would have either gone out of business or changed things. That’s common sense. So why, as CEO of what should be a powerhouse state, has Wolf jettisoned those innovative ideas in favor of 20th-century “solutions” to 21st-century problems?

Tom Wolf has shown himself to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing. If he doesn’t start playing his cards right, he will soon be joining Tom Corbett in the one place he doesn’t want to be: the “One-Term Tom Club.”

Wolf Plan Unpopular With Public