Category: Guest Authors

Convict Mellow Wants $240 G Pension Back

Convict Mellow Wants $240 G Pension Back

By Leo Knepper

In 2012, former Senator Robert Mellow was sentenced to 16 months in prison, three years parole, and ordered to pay nearly $150,000 in fines and restitution. Now he wants his $20,000 per month pension back.

Although one lawmaker having a pension of $240,000 per year is one of the causes of the pension system’s $74 billion unfunded liability, lets focus on Mellow’s legal argument. According to Pennsylvania state law, a state employee forfeits their pension if convicted of any one of 23 specific state crimes. The law also stipulates, “no public official…shall be entitled to receive any retirement or other benefit or payment of any kind except a return of the contribution paid into any pension fund without interest, if such public official or public employee is convicted or pleads guilty or no defense to any crime related to public office or public employment.” (Emphasis added)

According to an article published by the Philadelphia Inquirer, Mellow’s lawyers are arguing that since he was convicted of the federal charge of conspiracy and conspiracy is not one of the crimes listed, he should have his pension restored. According to the same Inquirer article:

“A similar argument has worked before. In 1999, Commonwealth Court reversed the pension forfeiture of a corrections officer who pleaded guilty to a federal charge of making a false declaration before a grand jury, finding that SERS was wrong to conclude the crime was “substantially the same” as the Pennsylvania crime of perjury.”

With this legal precedent in hand, Mellow’s lawyers would be negligent not to argue that he should have his pension restored. However, that doesn’t mean that they have a good case. As with most things legal, the devil is in the details. According to the press release from the FBI announcing Mellow’s sentencing:

“Mellow, in his capacity as a state senator and the Democratic Leader during 2006 through 2010, conspired with others to misuse the staff and resources of the Pennsylvania Senate for political fund-raising and campaign purposes.

“As part of the scheme, Mellow caused and knowingly permitted, through willful blindness, the submission to the chief clerk of the senate of false job classification and reclassification forms and memos for senate staff who performed political fundraising and campaign work while being compensated by the senate.

“Mellow conspired with others to misuse senate staff and resources to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars for an organization known as the Friends of Bob Mellow and the Democratic State Senate Campaign Committee and to support political candidates and causes throughout Pennsylvania.”

Based on the emphasized text, it sounds like Mellow clearly violated the clause in the forfeiture law highlighting crimes “related to public office.” The state employee pension board will vote on whether or not to restore Mellow’s pension. Regardless of that decision, someone will be appealing it to the courts and judges will ultimately decide the fate of Mellow’s pension.

We will keep you posted as the process moves forward, but you should not expect a speedy resolution.

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

Convict Mellow Wants $240 G Pension Back

Convict Mellow Wants $240 G Pension Back

Paycheck Protection Simple Justice

Paycheck Protection Simple Justice

By Rep. Bryan Cutler
During my time serving the 100th District, a handful of well-meaning residents have walked into my taxpayer-funded Lancaster County district office and requested campaign lawn signs. They have always walked out empty handed. In fact, if I tried to conduct campaign activities from my legislative office, I’d end up in jail—as other politicians have. And that’s how it should be.

Likewise, just think if I requested that the House payroll system be used to deduct voluntary campaign contributions for my re-election campaign from my staff’s paychecks. You can imagine the response: Absolutely not.

The objection would not be over the staff’s desire to contribute, or the cost of deducting the money. Instead, the request would be denied as a matter of ethics: Public resources cannot be used for politics.

That’s because taxpayer-funded government resources should not be used for politics. Unfortunately, there’s a big loophole in state law.

State and local governments across Pennsylvania regularly use public resources to collect campaign funds for a special group of political players: Government union leaders. These funds are used for lobbying and political fundraising and even given directly to candidates. And government unions are the only organizations in Pennsylvania that can use public resources to raise their political dollars.

This is an insult to Pennsylvanians who deserve better from their government.

That’s why for the past few sessions I have introduced and championed legislation called paycheck protection, which would restore the integrity of public resources by ending the use of government systems for political fundraising.

As commonsense as this reform is, some still oppose it, relying on myths and scare tactics to misrepresent what this legislation does—and does not—do.

I believe Pennsylvanians deserve the truth.

The truth is Pennsylvania government union leaders use taxpayer-funded payroll systems to collect money from public employees for three purposes:

  1. Union dues and fees used for representational activities
  2. Union dues used for political activity such as lobbying and radio/TV ads
  3. Political action committee contributions given directly to candidates

The latter two are explicitly political.

The truth is, since 2007, Pennsylvania’s government unions have spent nearly $100 million on politics—most of which they collected via automatic deduction from workers’ paychecks using public resources.

The truth is this immoral practice, which would land any elected official in jail, has gone unchecked for years.

If we care about ethics and integrity in government, we cannot let this continue.

My bill would transition the collection of political money back where it belongs—outside the scope of public resources and into the hands of government union leaders.

These unions would still be free to use public resources to collect non-political union dues and fees used for collective bargaining and representational work. However, government unions would no longer enjoy the special privilege of using public resources to collect money used for political activity. Just like every other private organization in Pennsylvania, they would begin collecting political money directly from those who donate it, without using taxpayers as their middleman.

Opponents of this reform claim they are fighting to protect workers’ voices, but the truth is this reform will give public workers greater voice in how their money is spent on politics. Because government unions will collect their political dollars directly from members, they will be more accountable to members regarding how those dollars are spent.

Opponents also argue they are working to preserve government unions’ ability to collectively bargain, but this reform does not affect collective bargaining rights or prevent unions from engaging in political activity. It simply separates taxpayer resources and electoral politics.

The state Senate passed similar legislation in February.

It’s time my colleagues in the House also make this good government reform a priority.

The law should apply equally to everyone. Paycheck protection would be a major step toward making this principle a reality.

Rep. Cutler (R-100) is the Pennsylvania House Majority Whip.

Paycheck Protection Simple Justice

Paycheck Protection Simple Justice

SERS Lowers Estimated ROI But Not Enough

SERS Lowers Estimated ROI But Not Enough

By Leo Knepper

Last week the State Employee Retirement System (SERS) took a baby step toward reality and lowered their estimated return on investment (ROI). SERS moved their estimated ROI from 7.5 percent to 7.25 percent. The SERS change matches a move made by the other state-managed retirement fund, PSERS, last year. Adjusting the estimates added about $3 billion to Pennsylvania’s unfunded pension liabilities. These changes don’t go far enough, unfortunately.

A 2014 “Blue Ribbon” report from the Society of Actuaries stated that the rate of return for public sector pension funds would be closer to 6.4 percent for the next 10 years. Actuarial assumptions may sound dull and boring. However, the assumptions that the state-run pension plans make in valuing their assets have real world consequences for taxpayers and reflect a major problem with the defined benefit (DB) model.

Because the assumptions used to determine the value of the pension plan assets and liabilities are influenced by politics, it is easy for politicians to make generous promises and then make legal whatever flawed assumptions they want to use to improve the outlook. Furthermore, they can change the laws to purposely underfund pension contributions (something they’ve done twice in the last 15 years) to pass a “balanced” budget.

By assuming an unreasonable ROI, SERS and PSERS are hiding over $15 billion in additional unfunded liabilities from taxpayers and lawmakers. An accurate picture of how challenging the pension funding situation is is a necessary part of discussing how to solve the problem. Imagine having a broken leg but asking a doctor to fix the problem using an x-ray of your arm, and that is what the state pension funds are doing by being overly optimistic about their ROI.

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

SERS Lowers Estimated ROI But Not Enough

Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

By Chris Freind Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

Ahh … spring. The time of year for renewal, flowers, baseball games – and sheer panic for many parents.

Why? Because May is college-decision month.

Sadly, instead of marveling about the possibilities that lay ahead, parents are left fretting about their children’s future – and their own.

While college has always been sold as a path to success, its staggering costs have resulted in a far different reality.

Truth is, the current system has outlived its usefulness, being directly responsible for increasing despair, destroying the earning capital of young people, and demoralizing an entire generation of college graduates living in their parents’ basements because of insurmountable debt – their liberty and dignity stripped away.

The numbers bear out the crisis:

• Student loan debt now stands at nearly $1.5 trillion (that’s trillion with a “T”). By the end of the next decade, that figure will be almost $3.5 trillion. The amount owed is now more than the total debt on credit cards, auto loans and mortgages.

• The average debt of 2016 graduates exceeds $37,000. And that’s not including graduate/law/medical school debts, which can easily be six figures.

• Not surprisingly, the default rate is skyrocketing. The balance defaulted on exceeds $137 billion – for which the taxpayers are on the hook, since the federal government subsidizes many of those loans. The similarities to the housing crisis are eerie.

Naturally, many are wondering if college is worth the investment. The majority believe otherwise, largely because so many college grads face a significant underemployment problem. Yet parents and students continue taking the plunge. To what end?

All their lives, children are told that they can achieve the American dream, with college playing a big part in that equation. But for so many, the truth crashes down hard after graduation, with massive debt and mediocre job prospects crushing hopes and dreams, often for decades.

It goes something like this: Work hard to impress colleges (get good grades, play three sports per season, pay for individual coaching, volunteer 30 hours a week, join 17 clubs, and open a nonprofit making flipflops for the world’s poor); graduate with a boatload of debt; discover that you need an advanced degree, which incurs more debt; realize that your expensive MBA landed you a job at a 1990s salary level; get married – but no kids until you move out of the 700-square-foot apartment; spend years paying down the debt, then several more building up equity for a house; be cash-poor for years thereafter; and end up having just one child despite wanting more – all while watching your marriage dangle precariously from the cliff (if you’re not already divorced) because of the stress trying to make ends meet.

Welcome to the generation with the dubious distinction of not doing better than their parents. And it’s only getting worse, as incomes are growing more slowly than the rate of tuition increases.

What can be done? Here are some ideas:

1. The college tuition/student debt situation, just like the nation’s $20 trillion debt, is a house of cards that will, with mathematical certainty, collapse. It’s not a question of if, but when, as the system is unsustainable. But since these problems are always pushed off to future generations, that point serves only as a harbinger of what to expect.

2. The problem lies in basic economic theory. The more something is subsidized, the more its price increases. Therefore, until the federal government’s gushing student loan spigot is turned down, colleges have no incentive to hold the line on tuition. And obviously, they haven’t. Since 1978, college tuition costs have risen 12-fold – more than 1,200 percent, compared with just 250 percent for food. Tuition even outpaced medical costs by a factor of two, which is really saying something. Between 2008-2010, public universities jacked up their rates an average of 15 percent, with some private colleges increasing even more. Time to break universities’ addition to the federal trough by restricting how much is loaned.

3. Since most colleges are nonprofit, and thus tax exempt, their lavish endowments should lose tax-free status unless two provisions are met: A) tuition costs do not increase by more than 2 percent per year, and B) the endowment does NOT grow by more than 6 percent in a given year. If either requirement is not met for that specific year, they would pay taxes on all gains and income – thereby creating an incentive to use such funds to control costs.

4. If colleges banded together to lower tuition, it would be illegal, with administrators likely prosecuted. Time to revisit that law so that collusion doesn’t apply to price reductions.

Without that reform, almost no school will reduce tuition for fear of being labeled “inferior.” Sure, applications would surge in the first year or two, but would decrease soon thereafter. How ironic. Despite our anger about college costs, we would feel that a lower-priced college wouldn’t be up to snuff. Don’t believe it? Gauge people’s reactions to the lowest-priced Mercedes or Porsche – right or wrong, many sneer (even if they can’t afford one), viewing them as a diluted “poor man’s” luxury car.

5. More college-level courses, both online and in high schools, should be offered, and colleges should be pressured to more readily accept the results. Yes, many high schools offer AP courses, but colleges, fully aware that they reduce a student’s tuition, often create needless obstacles for students to gain credit. And colleges should offer more competency tests to incoming freshmen so that they can “test out” of courses not related to their field, such as math courses for English majors. Striving for well-roundedness is one thing, but mandating pointless standards as a thinly-disguised money grab is unacceptable.

6. How about making highly compensated professors teach more than just a few hours per week? Seriously, how much “research” can they possibly be doing? It’s salt in the wound for parents paying $45,000 per year to learn that their child is being taught by a boring teaching assistant simply regurgitating slides, with students learning nothing except how to best sleep in classroom chairs.

7. Time to control the purse strings. This author is not a big advocate of federal mandates, but since virtually every college in the country accepts federal aid – in addition to federal student loans – there should be common sense stipulations. No federal loan should be used for a university’s capital projects. Dorms and salaries are one thing, but unlimited taxpayer money should not be spent on lavish, and often unnecessary, pet projects – costs that are then passed on to future students. Colleges must always improve to compete, but making them do so with non-federal money would generate a heretofore nonexistent accountability.

8. Tax breaks should be offered to companies sponsoring students specializing in fields beneficial to that business; in turn, students would commit to working for that company for a pre-determined time. Everyone wins: company, university, economy, and most of all, student.

Numerous other areas should be explored: Tuition-free community college; public universities selling assets not related to their core business; outsourcing services to the more efficient private sector; capping salaries and administrative costs; and employing graduates in public service programs to forgive debt. We could even consider a program where universities that fund students’ education would be entitled to a future cut of a graduate’s earnings – thus motivating the school to produce a superior product.

Congress has thus far earned an “F” when it comes to reining in exorbitant college tuitions. If our children, indeed our future, are going to have any shot at realizing the American dream, reforms must be implemented. And you don’t need a college degree to understand that.

Student Loan Debt $1.5 Trillion

Philly Taxed City And Why Can’t We Save The SS United States?

Philly Taxed City And Why Can’t We Save The SS United States?

By Chris Freind Philly Taxed City

In 1979, Chicago’s streets weren’t adequately plowed after a snowstorm. As a result, Mayor Michael Bilandic lost his bid for re-election. After similar snowstorms in Philadelphia, where the streets were deplorable for days, almost 80 percent of voters said “job well done” to then-Mayor Michael Nutter, and rewarded him with another term.

That type of passive neglect has been pervasive in Philadelphia for decades, cementing the city’s reputation as one with virtually no promise of a renaissance-like turnaround. And the numbers bear that out.

A study by the Pew Charitable Trust found that many with the means to leave the city do, as almost 300,000 white residents (one-third of that population) have fled over the last 25 years. Another Pew study showed that, by a large margin, more families with children are leaving the city than coming in. Those who can’t flee get further crushed by an incompetent government.

This is Philadelphia, birthplace of America. It doesn’t, and shouldn’t, have to be this way.

An acquaintance from London recently arrived in Philadelphia for the first time. Like any good tour guide, this author whisked him off for cheesesteaks at both Pat’s and Geno’s in South Philadelphia. They did not disappoint.

But so much else did.

Since it’s human nature to gloss over that which has become all too familiar, it often takes someone else’s perspective to “see” what’s really there. And after driving around the city, what’s “there” was, on the whole, undesirable. Graffiti. Homelessness. Unkempt houses. A dearth of green space. Malfunctioning parking meters. Trash. Poverty. Incompetence. And trash.

It’s downright embarrassing. And quite frankly, people should be sick of it.

Try talking about how “great” Philadelphia is, and truth be told, it feels more like we’re convincing ourselves rather than impressing guests. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but one that has plagued us for years.

We should have boldly emerged from the shadow of our big brother to the north and the nation’s capital to the south to become a unique destination in our own right, not an also-ran town that serves merely as a pit stop on the way to “better” places.

We should be a world-class city. But we’re not.

Will things ever change? Can people jettison their inferiority complex born of perpetual malaise, and replace it with bona fide pride? Hopefully, but not likely, because Philadelphia has, for so long, been victimized by a toxic disease that destroys the very essence of its people: Impotent leadership.

Since London is in a class by itself, let’s look at Boston – another older, East Coast city – to see why it’s a thriving, vibrant metropolis, while Philly remains stagnant. And for the record, you know things are bad when you’re getting whipped by a city that happens to be in the most liberal state in the country.

Above all, Philadelphia kills itself by being the highest-taxed city in America (cumulatively), levying taxes on sales (2 percent higher than the rest of Pennsylvania), amusements, parking, business income and receipts, hotel rooms, cigarettes, liquor, use and occupancy, net profits, vehicle rental, outdoor advertising, trash, real estate, and, of course, the city wage tax. And let’s not forget the new soda tax. It’s already cost hundreds of jobs, with thousands more to follow, because people are now shopping outside the city – not just for soda, but for all their food needs, decimating the city’s mom-and-pop grocery stores.

Higher taxes result in fewer residents, businesses, and jobs, and, therefore, produce less revenue. In turn, that leads to diminished city services, including an underfunded fire department – which, we just learned, was the primary reason why a firefighter tragically died.

Philadelphia owns the highest or near-highest rates of poverty, homelessness, violence and murder; its education system produces abysmal results; its city pension is catastrophically underfunded; and opening a business is fraught with bureaucracy, and, some say, extortion – both “legal” and otherwise.

Philadelphia doesn’t have the luxury of being Washington or New York, where being downtown is a necessity, so the margin of error for Philly’s leaders is extremely small. And for those empty nesters and white-collar types who enjoy living in Center City, they are one mugging away from packing it up and moving back to the suburbs.

But rather than embarking on a course that would revive the city, Mayor Jim Kenney and City Council have done what the politicians always do: Put the screws to the residents who can’t afford to vote with their feet.

Compare that to Beantown. Sure, it has its share of taxes, but it educational product is significantly better, and its crime rate lower. Granted, it’s a smaller city, but comparatively, the rates are light years apart.

Boston has made huge strides in preserving green space and cleaning up pollution (such as the now-pristine Boston Harbor), with parks throughout the city. Its public transportation is top notch, and its infrastructure is being improved at an aggressive pace. And the entire downtown area is remarkably clean.

Knowing that quality of life is critical to maintaining a productive workforce, Boston has made its waterfronts safe meccas for entertainment, dining, shopping, and a host of outdoor activities. Contrast that to Fairmount Park, which while beautiful, is shady in many parts – and not from the trees. And for decades, we’ve heard nothing but empty promises from Philadelphia’s leaders about how both the Schuylkill and Delaware rivers – Penn’s Landing in particular – would be fully developed. The failure to do this has resulted in a colossal waste of prime space. And the bike/walking path that was finally constructed along a stretch of the Schuylkill? Plagued by muggings and violence.

So how is it that so many other cities successfully develop much smaller waterways, making them fantastic tourist magnets, such as in Cincinnati and San Antonio, yet Philadelphia, with not one but two major river systems, hasn’t done squat with either one?

Philadelphia obviously isn’t going to bulldoze skyscrapers to make way for green space and riverwalks. But in areas where its leaders could have exercised bold vision, they failed. One of their biggest blunders was ignoring the immensely successful model of “neighborhood” ballparks, where fans stream into local pubs and shops before and after games, creating a lucrative spinoff effect – such as Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and newer ones in Baltimore, Cincinnati and Denver. Instead, Philly’s leaders chose to build in the middle of nowhere. As a result, the majority of fans never spend a dime outside the ballpark. A new baseball stadium near 30th Street should have been the goose that laid the golden egg, but leaders were too chicken to do the right thing.

Same for the Navy Yard, which, with its vast acreage, could be developed into a world-class entertainment facility, connected to Center City by monorail or ferry. Yet it sits unused, just another dream floating away while the competition gets it right.

Another missed opportunity is the brimming-with-potential S.S. United States – once the fastest ocean liner in the world. Other cities’ leaders would have done whatever was necessary to make her a first-class attraction, such as the Queen Mary in Long Beach, Calif. She could be a mega casino hotel, or filled with museums, shops and restaurants. But instead, she rusts away on the Delaware, seemingly destined for the junkyard while political leaders do nothing.

It is beyond frustrating to visit other cities that have their act together, knowing that Philadelphia’s potential outranks damn near all of them. But potential doesn’t get the job done. Rolling up the sleeves and putting in the hard work does. Contrary to the fairy-tale fluff spewed at press conferences, Philadelphia is not on a path to prosperity. And because of its failed leadership – and a population that no longer demands greatness – more folks will leave, and Philadelphia will continue its sad decline.

Philadelphia is better than that, and Philadelphians deserve more. It’s time to demand backbone from our leaders so that Philly can be the world-class city it was born to be.

As Benjamin Franklin so presciently said: “Without continual growth and progress, such words as improvement, achievement, and success have no meaning.”

Hey City Hall – anyone listening?

Philly Taxed City And Why Can’t We Save The SS United States?

Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

By Chris Freind Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

Dear President Trump:

On behalf of many Americans, I am passing along my hope that you make America’s economy great again – really quickly. Otherwise, the Treasury will have to print trillions more in “funny money” to fund your surprising new interventionism – a “quantitative easing” for foreign policy.

After all, it appears that you, in direct contradiction of your crystal-clear campaign promise, are hell-bent on playing policeman to the world. Given what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson just said – “We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world” – that’s going to be an expensive proposition, and an unprecedented political quagmire.

But before America’s global gun-slinging commences, I respectfully ask that you consider the following:

1. Where will you start? So you aren’t accused of “continent-bias,” I suggest simultaneously tackling Venezuela, Myanmar, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Chad, Nigeria, Qatar, and Libya. France, too – just because it’s France.

And that’s just on Day One.

Given that around, oh … 80 percent of the world’s nations have people committing crimes against innocents – including not-so-insignificant China and Russia – the initial engagements against those abusers should be wrapped up by June. That’s the “easy” part. It’s American troops being stationed indefinitely “in-country” for nation-building and regime change where things get really complicated.

Caveat: I often implore people to “look in the mirror.” So, in truth, that list of offenders also applies to us. One look at our cities – Chicago, Philadelphia, even your hometowns of New York and Washington – shows the staggering number of innocents slaughtered daily in what are, without question, war zones. The atrocities, including the murder of babies and young children, continue unabated, leading to unimaginable suffering.

Tomahawks won’t work. However, Americans just voted for “regime change,” believing you to be the leader who instills order. Perhaps the president’s time would be better spent solving those escalating domestic problems, rather than creating more quandaries overseas.

2. We’ll have to build a lot more Tomahawk cruise missiles. But at nearly $2 million a pop, they get very expensive. Here’s something to consider: The Syrian attack was more than 1 percent of the cost to build your border wall, so your funding dilemma on that initiative will likely get even dicier.

But when the bombs don’t achieve the objective – actually, what is the objective? – we’ll send military “advisers” into Syria. And of course, troops to defend them. But it won’t end there, because it never does. Never. That’s not speculation, but hard fact. Then come bases, deployed troops, and air wings. (Even more concerning, what happens when we engage the Ruskies in a firefight, shoot down one of their aircraft, or vice versa?)

Mr. President, that strategy hasn’t worked too well for us. As Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly yet expecting a different result.

Further intervention in the world’s most ignitable powder keg, where Mother Russia is firmly entrenched and standing opposed, is insanity.

3. After we further destabilize Syria, culminating in regime change by toppling President Bashar Assad (as some in your administration are advocating), is that when we “declare victory?” And what will that mean? If it’s anything like Iraq and Libya, when America deposed two secular dictators, only to see massive instability and new governments comprised of even worse people, there will be a lot of scratching our derrieres. Being clueless about next steps after creating a dangerous power vacuum is not the path to the presidential Hall of Fame. Just ask W.

4. When will we learn that interventionism and regime change, especially in the Middle East, always produces catastrophic results?

Saddam Hussein was no angel, but an iron-fisted secular leader. He kept extremists at bay; maintained a regional balance of power; was an American ally during the Iran-Iraq war; and, most noteworthy, was a bitter enemy of Osama bin Laden. But we took him out anyway.

Since ousting Hussein, there have been thousands of car bombs in Iraq; yet while he was leader, there were none. Deposing Hussein, the only man capable of maintaining order, was possibly the greatest blunder in a very long list of American mistakes in the Middle East.

Then America took out the non-fundamentalist Moammar Gadhafi, who had been working with U.S. intelligence against terrorists. Alarmingly, it didn’t dawn on us that the rebels we assisted were the same folks who comprised the largest foreign fighting force battling Americans in Iraq. Libya devolved into chaos (remember Benghazi?) after America’s handiwork allowed thugs to gain power.

And now, we are blindly supporting rebels in Syria. True, Assad is a ruthless dictator, but as an avowed secularist, he provided stability by keeping fundamentalists in check. His drawn-out battle with the rebels has provided a safe haven for terrorists in areas captured from the Syrian government. The biggest irony: ISIS fighters in Syria (and Iraq) are using American weapons.

The United States keeps trying to impose its will in the Middle East, and it keeps blowing up in our faces, literally.

5. Not to appear conspiratorial, but what do we really know about the chemical attack? Could a conventional bomb have hit a rebel chemical weapons factory? Definitely plausible. Was it your “Deep State” nemesis, where agents arranged for the attack as a way to drive a wedge between yourself and Vladimir Putin? Or was it Occam’s Razor – the simplest explanation? Were chemical weapons loaded by accident?

Who knows? But clearly, the deliberate use of chemical weapons makes no sense from Assad’s perspective. Just days after the U.S. said it wouldn’t hold him accountable for war crimes, and that the Syrian people would determine their own fate, Assad is then going to gas people and incur the wrath of the world, with amplified calls for his ouster? Seems highly unlikely.

6. Not to insinuate that your military hierarchy and intelligence “experts” are off-target, but A) you have made criticizing them an art form, and B) their trustworthiness leave much to be desired. Many experts think that we actually sunk the USS Maine to spark hostilities with Spain (which in fact led to the Spanish-American War). The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the catalyst for our engagement in Vietnam, was faked. And more recently, the guaranteed claims of yellowcake uranium and WMDs in Iraq – our “justification” for invasion – were totally bogus.

The American people’s healthy skepticism of the intel community’s “findings” is well justified, especially since America has not won a war since 1945.

Minding our own business and not engaging in regime change is not isolationist. It’s common sense.

Americans don’t want another war. Sure, chemical weapons killing 70 are horrifying, but is that worse than conventional bombs killing thousands? Are we, already perceived as “crusaders,” really engaging yet another Middle Eastern country? And after the fact, just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, will we build state-of-the-art infrastructure for another country, while Americans continue to see their bridges collapse, roads crumble and water mains break?

Mr. President, it would be wise to heed the words of Sir Edmund Burke in formulating an exit strategy for Syria before ever entering it: “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

Trump Syria Concerns Expressed

SEIU Gets $134.9 Million State Pact

SEIU Gets $134.9 Million State Pact

By Leo Knepper

Suppose that a business owner gave a politician nearly $1 million in campaign contributions and then received a $134.9 million contract. What kind of reaction would expect from the media? Most people would expect wall to wall news coverage and calls for an investigation. If the dollar amounts stayed the same, but instead of a business, the contract went to a public sector/government union why should the public be any less outraged?

Late last week, Service Employees International Union Local 668 (SEIU) signed off on a lucrative three-year contract that they negotiated with Governor Tom Wolf last year. Over three years, the contract will cost taxpayers $134.9 million. When you consider additional pension payments and resulting liabilities from the deal, the price goes up even further over the long term.

The SEIU’s PAC was the largest union contributor to the Governor’s 2014 election campaign. Direct spending and contributions by the PAC totaled nearly $1 million. If you add in the “volunteer” work and get out the vote efforts by the union, the value of the SEIU’s contributions are even greater. SEIU members will see a $5,000 salary increase per year under the new contract. Because the union dues are a based on a percentage of the member’s salary, the SEIU will financially benefit from the new deal as well. If this contract comes as news to you, you’re probably not alone. Despite the union’s generosity in terms of time and financial contributions to Governor Wolf, the labor agreement generated very little press.

In fact, the SEIU contract is only the latest in a long line of campaign contributors who have negotiated with the Governor. Every major government union in Pennsylvania supported the Governor, and will likely support his reelection. Under the current system, unions are on both sides of the negotiating table. Franklin D. Roosevelt opposed government employee unions for this very reason.

The media rightly scrutinizes government contracts with most private vendors who are political donors. Why don’t they pay the same attention to government unions who happened to be the biggest political spenders in the state?

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

SEIU Gets $134.9 Million State Pact
Who cares about the taxpayer? Ha ha, not me.
SEIU Gets $134.9 Million State Pact

 

New Civil War As Compromise Becomes Impossible

New Civil War As Compromise Becomes Impossible — Joanne Yurchak sent us the below article from Daniel Greenfield’s blog Sultan Knish. It’s worth repeating. The original can be found here.

By Daniel Greenfield

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

New Civil War Makes Compromise Impossible

New Civil War As Compromise Becomes Impossible

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

By Leo Knepper

No matter what pension plan design reforms the legislature enacts for future employees, the Commonwealth will still have a massive unfunded liability. The unfunded liability is the result of over-promising retirement benefits, poor investment performance, optimistic investment return assumptions, but mostly a willful redirection of necessary pension contributions by the Pennsylvania government to other purposes. This gross negligence on the part of elected officials has been bipartisan. It started with the 2001 pension increase signed into law (Act 9) by Governor Ridge and continued through the Rendell years when he signed legislation that purposefully underfunded the pension systems (Act 40 in 2003 and Act 120 in 2010).

Decades of mismanagement have resulted in a combined unfunded liabilities currently estimated at over $75 billion, based on the market value of assets. The longer the unfunded liability persists, the worse it becomes. It’s helpful to look at the unfunded liability as a loan. The annual interest cost on this “loan” is over $5.4B per year. In other words, the unfunded liability grows year after year unless the payment made exceeds interest and the cost of newly earned benefits.  And, just like any other loan we need to be making payments on the principal.

The loan example conveys the basics of the problem. Rep. John McGinnis introduced HB 778 this year to address the unfunded liability. In his co-sponsorship memorandum, McGinnis states:

When Act 120 was passed, the liabilities of PSERS exceeded the market value of its assets by $33.4 billion with a corresponding funding ratio of 57.8 percent. At the close of FY 2016, the PSERS unfunded liability was 50 percent larger at $50.1 billion with a funding ratio of 49.9 percent. Similarly, the liabilities of SERS exceeded the market value of its assets at the end of 2010 by $13.3 billion, with a corresponding funding ratio of 66.1 percent; five years later, the SERS unfunded liability had grown to $20.3 billion, with a funding ratio of 56.2 percent. 

There are likely scenarios where the pension assets will become exhausted in the next 8 to 15 years.  When that happens, benefits paid to retirees may well consume 40 percent  to 50 percent of the general fund.  The consequences for our future only get worse as we delay dealing effectively with this problem. Unless funding reform like HB 778 is included with pension reform, it is unlikely that Pennsylvania will avoid this looming fiscal catastrophe.

Every day the General Assembly does not act, the unfunded liability grows. HB 778 is currently in the House State Government Committee. Please, contact your representative today and urge them to take action.

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

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

Pension Reform Must Include Funding Reform

 

Fatties Must Bear Cost For Health Care Reform

Fatties Must Bear Cost For Health Care Reform

By Chris Freind Fatties Must Bear Cost

Three things about health care are universally true:

• It ranks near the top of “important” issues.

• It’s really expensive.

• Damn near no one understands it.

The combination of ignorance and health care’s ever-expanding complexities has resulted in a history of bad policy, where premiums have skyrocketed and coverage has declined. Obamacare, passed in 2009 and upheld by the Supreme Court, was supposed to change that by providing affordable care to every American.

It didn’t.

Despite promises to the contrary, many were unable to retain their preferred physician, experienced unacceptable wait times, and often did not receive the medical care to which they had been accustomed. And instead of physicians primarily focusing on patients – the very reason they chose the medical profession – too many were forced to deal with mountains of bureaucratic paperwork, decimating the personal doctor-patient relationship. Salt in the wound was watching premiums and deductibles continue to climb while health care became ever more labyrinthine.

Despite the broken system, Obamacare ruled the day and reform wasn’t an option. But all that changed with Donald Trump’s surprise victory. Now, repealing Obamacare is legitimately on the table. Or is it?

So as to not put this column’s readers to sleep more than normal, we won’t delve into the technical minutiae of health-care legislation, but instead look at the major areas where reform can, and must, be achieved.

But first, let’s address the white elephant that no one else is: There is no true solution to reforming health care so that it’s affordable for all Americans. None. There are many reasons for this, from our entitlement mentality to costs that simply cannot be controlled. But like our nation’s $20 trillion debt, it is a house of cards that will eventually implode. The best we can hope to achieve is slowing the inevitable and preparing a better system for when the current one collapses.

Two plus two always equals four – whether people choose to believe it. And the hard truth is that America simply cannot afford its astronomical health care costs. Most tragic is that, while everyone talks a great game about “protecting future generations,” so few walk the walk, preferring to “get theirs” as much as possible, to the detriment of our children and grandchildren.

For the last seven years, Republican leaders vowed, above all, to “repeal and replace Obamacare.” When the opportunity finally presented itself, the GOP found itself in complete disarray, with nothing to show but contentiousness within its ranks. Leaders somehow caught off-guard were forced to cobble together legislation that has unflatteringly been labeled “Obamacare-lite,” and which the Congressional Budget Office stated will cost significantly more than Obamacare.

One would have thought that, with so much time, the Republican Party’s best and brightest would have already crafted a bill of common-sense reforms that the whole caucus supported. But they didn’t, and, frankly, still don’t, as the current bill faces stiff opposition on several fronts. And it doesn’t help that President Trump is saddled with an approval rating of just 37 percent – a situation entirely of his own making. Squandering so much political capital in the first 60 days is not a recipe for success.

That said, here are several reforms that would inject market forces into the system to improve care and slow the meteoric rise in costs.

By far, the number one issue that must be on the table is addressing the obesity epidemic. And “epidemic” is exactly what it is, as 36 percent of Americans are obese, and an additional 34 percent are categorized as overweight. It is the largest factor in the spiraling costs that continue to devour ever larger slices of the health care pie. To get our arms around this, consider that more than $200 billion per year – yes, staggeringly, that’s per year – is spent on obesity-related, preventable chronic diseases. In other words, by the next presidential election, we will have spent a trillion dollars just on obesity costs alone. Chew the fat on that, because not even America’s economy can absorb such a monstrosity. And it will get considerably worse as more Baby Boomers – the most overweight generation on record – enters the period where health issues are most prevalent.

Obesity has already caused a massive upswing in cancers, heart disease, diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, bone issues and arthritis, just to name a few. Vaccines are not as effective in the obese, which compounds health care costs and increases risk to the general population. And obesity results in not just high rates of job absenteeism, but “presenteeism” – lower work productivity when employees do show up. In just a decade, the cost for this decreased and lost productivity is estimated to be upwards of $500 billion annually.

There are a host of other negative effects costing billions more – wider seats and doors in stadiums, amusement parks, and public transportation; larger and stronger toilets in hospitals and buildings; airline lawsuits and countersuits over whether the obese should be required to purchase two seats; and yes, even costs associated with building larger coffins. Perhaps most startling, a study found that one billion gallons of fuel are wasted every year (1 percent of the nation’s total) just to haul Americans’ extra pounds. Given that the average American weighs 24 more pounds than in 1960, airlines are using roughly 175 million more gallons of jet fuel per year just to accommodate our mass. From creating more carbon emissions, which in turn causes more health problems, to increasing business costs, the price of obesity is simply unacceptable.

Taxing foods and sugary drinks is not the answer, as that hurts manufacturers, businesses and employees, while penalizing healthy consumers.

So how do we cut the fat from these massive obesity outlays? For starters, since obese individuals incur 42 percent more health care costs than healthier people, they should bear the bulk of those costs.

This author does not typically favor government mandates, since they often lead to a “government-knows-best” nanny state.

However, a mandate that insurers must screen every individual, every year, to gain health assessments and establish baselines, makes sense. With that information, premiums can be adjusted so that those with self-induced obesity conditions pay more. And that is only fair, since healthier Americans are now mandated to subsidize the unhealthy behavior of the obese. Without incentives to become healthier, the problem will continue to expand faster than America’s waistline.

Some will call this a bigoted “fat tax,” while accusing this author of fat shaming. Wrong.

The obese can have their cake and eat it, too. They’d just pay more to do so. In reality, this wouldn’t be a tax at all, but a reduction in the taxpayer subsidy that they currently receive. How is that any different from life insurers making smokers pay more? Or auto insurers charging young drivers higher rates? Higher risk behavior begets higher premiums.

Those who become healthier by hitting reasonable benchmarks would earn a premium decrease, while those who choose to continue an obese lifestyle would be forced to put more skin in the game. No one is mandating what they can and can’t do, but no longer would their lifestyle choices – notwithstanding the “99 percent” who claim it’s a “thyroid problem” – be swallowed by taxpayers hungry for health care premium relief.

Take a bite out of the trillion-dollar obesity epidemic, and the rest is gravy.

Fatties Must Bear Cost For Health Care Reform