Category: Guest Authors

Harambe Death Was Necessary

Harambe Death Was Necessary

By Chris Freind Harambe Death Was Necessary

Well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if we ever discuss the issues that actually matter, such as skyrocketing college tuition, a broken health care system and illegal immigration.

But we don’t. Instead, we get sucked into vitriolic national debates on preposterous issues (i.e.: transgender bathrooms).

In that regard, the latest firestorm dominating headlines is animal rights extremists going ape because a gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo was killed in order to rescue a human being.

After a 4-year old boy fell into the primate enclosure, Harambe, a 17-year old, 450-pound male silverback gorilla, hovered over the toddler – at times appearing threatening – and dragged him like a rag doll through the water-filled moat. Zoo Director Thane Maynard, fearing for the boy’s life, ordered the special response team to shoot the animal.

This should have been a one-day story about the heroic efforts of zoo officials, the tragic loss of Harambe notwithstanding. But since “rationality” and “animal rights extremists” are mutually-exclusive, the airwaves have been filled with loudmouths throwing a monkey wrench into what should have been a celebration of common sense.

Since we can’t let the loudest voice win, here is a sober look at the situation:

1. Above all, innocent human life comes first. Always. Humans clawed their way to the top of the animal kingdom, and deserve first priority. Is it sad that Harambe died? Absolutely. Is it doubly tragic that Western lowland silverbacks are highly endangered in the wild, and there are relatively few in captivity? No question. But when you cut through the fur, Harambe is still an animal. And when human is pitted against animal, there are no points for second place.

Caveat: the key word is “innocent” human life. If an adult decides to be a moron and voluntarily jumps into an animal exhibit, all bets are off. Sure, efforts should be made to save him, but killing the animal should be off the table. Actions have consequences, and animals should not be penalized for someone’s idiocy.

In the same vein, too many animals, from alligators to bears to mountain lions, are hunted and killed after attacking a human in the wild. No healthy animal should be killed in its natural domain for behaving as nature intended. Again, actions have consequences, and if people want to swim and hike in areas known to harbor dangerous animals, they should be willing to take the risks – or stay home.

2. Many extremists are busy protesting the killing, creating online petitions and memorializing Harambe. But what’s not clear is what they’re actually protesting.

For those outraged that the gorilla was shot, here’s a simple question: if officials didn’t act quickly by shooting Harambe, what was the alternative?

Should they have sung Kumbaya with him in the hope that he would join them and forget about the child? Strike one.

How about sending a team in to distract Harambe? Sorry, but that didn’t work. Officials used special calls to successfully remove other gorillas from the exhibit. But Harambe, who was “clearly disoriented” and “acting erratically,” according to Director Maynard, didn’t respond. Any attempt by humans to approach Harambe could have, and likely would have, been perceived as a threat by the behemoth, who, as a reaction, could have deliberately or inadvertently hurt or killed the boy. Remember, this is an animal so immensely strong that it can crush a coconut with one hand. Strike two.

Then why not tranquilize him? Because, as primate experts pointed out, A) it would have taken time to take effect – time zoo officials didn’t have, and B) because Harambe was already stimulated, any tranquilizer likely would have made him more agitated. Combined with the screams of onlookers, some of whom were on the wall seemingly ready to jump into the exhibit, a tranquilized gorilla may well have lashed out violently, killing the boy. Strike three.

So the question stands: if shooting the gorilla was wrong, then what was the viable alternative? Anyone?

Admittedly, there is one more option that was not utilized: tasering the gorilla. Likely, the taser operator would have had to get uncomfortably close for an effective shot, and in doing so, would have jeopardized the boy’s safety. Nonetheless, that is a question that deserves an answer.

Bottom line: We would all be a lot better off protesting the things that truly matter, such as the senseless violence wreaking havoc in our cities (more than 40 shootings occurred in President Obama’s hometown of Chicago over the holiday weekend).

The justified killing of an animal to save an innocent child is protested, but the silence is deafening when countless young Americans die on our streets. Go figure.

3. The mother should not face criminal charges, as many are demanding. What parents haven’t lost momentary sight of their child, especially when caring for several children? Four-year olds are naturally curious, and have no fear climbing barriers. That’s called “being four.” Is the mother ultimately responsible? Yes. But having almost lost her son right before her eyes is punishment enough. Criminal charges would solve nothing.

By the same token, she should not sue. The barrier was reportedly up to code, and met safety guidelines of both the federal government and the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The mother’s mistake – one which could happen to anyone – nonetheless occurred on her watch; therefore, the zoo, and by extension its patrons, should not be penalized because of an individual’s momentary lack of responsibility.

On a related note, several media publications have detailed the father’s criminal past (even though it appears he has turned his life around). That’s disgraceful, since it has absolutely no relevance to the situation. Dragging someone through the mud illustrates why the media is regarded with such disdain.

4. Extremists are criticizing the zoo for not having a second barrier between people and gorillas. But under that rationale, why not have three or four? And while we’re at it, let’s keep all animals at least 500 feet from zoo-goers. Of course, if that happens, people will no longer go to the zoo, forcing closures.

And that’s precisely their goal, as they believe zoos to be evil incarnate.

Of course, the extremists conveniently duck the fact that zoos keep animals healthy; conduct valuable, lifesaving research; and actively breed, keeping bloodlines alive. The last thing officials would want is for one their family members, especially an endangered gorilla and star attraction, to be harmed.

Every year, someone falls from a stadium’s upper deck, almost always the result of irresponsibility. In the aftermath, there is a deluge of nonstop coverage about how stadium officials will reevaluate their railings to make them “safer.” But that’s the wrong answer, as we shouldn’t be changing things that work solely because of a freak accident or acts of monumental stupidity.

It’s the same with the Cincinnati Zoo. Its officials acted responsibly in an extremely rare situation, and saved a human life, for which they should be commended. So without further delay, let’s end this ridiculous debate, reopen the exhibit, get another gorilla in there, and keep alive the wonderment of seeing animals up close and personal.

After all, this isn’t Planet of the Apes. At least not yet.

Harambe Death Was Necessary

They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

By Chris Freind They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

I’m the ‘enemy’ because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who would sit in a greasy restaurant and wonder, ‘Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?’ I want high cholesterol. I want to eat bacon, and butter, and buckets of cheese, OK? I want to smoke a Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in a non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because maybe I feel the need to, OK?

– Denis Leary’s character in the movie ‘Demolition Man’

Another Memorial Day is here, and with it the requisite cookouts, flags, and all things red, white and blue. What’s not to love?

Two things, actually.

Not to rain on the parade, but why does it seem that fewer and fewer Americans (especially the younger generations) have even the slightest clue as to what they are supposed to be celebrating? To them, Memorial Day is solely about going to the shore and living it up, to the point where “Memorial Day” are just words associated with partying.

They shouldn’t be.

Here’s a refresher: Memorial Day is the special observance where we honor those who fought to achieve – and later preserve – the unique freedoms that have made America the envy of the world for 250 years.

But even more disturbing is that America has turned into a nanny state at every level, an ever-restrictive society where we are voluntarily allowing our rights to be eroded.

And that is a stinging slap in the face to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in defense of liberty. Translation: that’s not what people fought – and died – to protect.

Rather than embrace our pioneering heritage predicated on pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps, with the innate understanding that we the people – not government – know best, we have morphed into a citizenry wholly accepting of being told what to do, and how and when to do it – or else. What’s not yet clear is if a majority agrees with nanny state orders, or if the silent masses oppose them, but are paralyzed to act due to complacency or fear of being labeled offensive, insensitive – or, God forbid, a Free Thinker.

Just look at where things stand:

• We can’t even get into our cars without being told what to do. Don’t buckle up, and you’re greeted with the non-stop beeping demanding you comply – or face insanity, as the alarm never stops. If you own a vehicle that doesn’t have a God complex, you still face significant fines if you choose not to wear your restraint. And ignorance isn’t an excuse, as we are threatened with punishment via multi-million dollar government-sponsored commercials – courtesy of the forgotten taxpayers.

Mandating seatbelts for children is one thing – they are too young to make an informed decision. Fine. But in the same way that not wearing a motorcycle helmet should be a rider’s choice, not buckling up should be the driver’s decision, as any adverse consequences will be limited to that person.

And no, we shouldn’t favor mandates under the false premise that they save on insurance premiums, as A) insurance companies can charge more for higher-risk behavior, and B) at the risk of appearing callous, unprotected driving leads to higher death rates, thereby reducing costly long-term medical care. Bottom line: adult drivers should be able to make their own decisions without Big Brother constantly looking over their shoulders.

• Helicopter parents have taken the nanny state mentality to a new level, corrupting our youth in the process. Instead of fostering an atmosphere of discovery, too many are hell-bent on hovering over their kids’ every action – and our children are losing their childhoods because of it.

The result? We have warped a generation, producing manic children conditioned to fear everything, from walking to the bus, to playing cops-and-robbers, to banning tag and kickball. Everything is so precisely orchestrated that creativity and curiosity has been erased, replaced with a structure so unnatural that social skills are nonexistent.

Worse, under the pretense of avoiding “hurt feelings,” nanny state coaches and league officials often don’t keep score, and standings are frequently taken off-line so as to not offend the lower-ranked teams. Instead, everyone gets a trophy because we have mandated a homogenous society, and individual achievement is all too often frowned upon.

Our attempt to whitewash all that is “bad and unfair” – things that often teach children about life – has produced a generation that naively floats through life believing everything must be guaranteed “safe,” labeling anything not to their liking “offensive.” The result? A sense of entitlement so warped that it may never be brought in line with reality.

• Banning smoking in public buildings is one thing. But when government bans people from engaging in a legal activity in private restaurants (if you don’t like the smoke, patronize another establishment) and in outdoor public places (Times Square, beaches, parks, etc.), it’s clear government is out of control. Many people don’t realize it, but these laws hurt everyone, because they are never rescinded, and almost always lead to more regulations – such as how many ounces of soda can be dispensed at restaurants. Once the nanny door is opened, it never shuts.

• Perhaps most unfathomable is New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s recent edict that, should an employer or landlord not use preferred gender-neutral pronouns and titles – ze/hir instead of he/her, whatever that means – they can be fined $250,000. No, that’s not $250 bucks, but a quarter mil forked over to the city. Beyond the fact that this law absolutely incinerates freedom of speech, the practical aspects are sheer lunacy.

So if Caitlyn Jenner lives in the Big Apple, and someone addresses him/her with a non gender-neutral pronoun, they could be subject to a gargantuan fine, despite there being no way to verify what gender he/she is – and no way to know what identify is “preferred” on any given day. When is enough enough?

•

When did we go so astray of common sense? How did we devolve to such a low point that our national debates are about transgender bathrooms and “misgendering” people? What the hell is wrong with people who feel entitled to their “right” to do and say whatever they want – so long as it’s a one-way street?

Things have become so utterly exasperating that it’s all too easy to just give up. But in remembrance of those who battled for the “Land of the free and home of the brave,” we owe it to them to keep fighting the good fight so that the wings of liberty stop losing feathers.

They Did Not Fight For Political Correctness

Pennsylvania Baseline Budgeting Must End

Pennsylvania Baseline Budgeting Must End

By Leo Knepper Pennsylvania Baseline Budgeting Must End

Some Pennsylvania legislators are proposing revolutionary changes to the state budget process.

And, by revolutionary we mean doing something that the private sector has been doing for decades.

On Tuesday, the “Taxpayers Caucus” released a report highlighting over $3 billion dollars in potential savings this year. Many of the items have been discussed separately in the past, but this is the first time anyone has compiled them in one place. In reviewing the report, there were items related to the budget process that stood out in terms the scope of the changes proposed.

The most interesting thing was the proposal to modify the budget process completely. Although this change did not have a dollar amount attached to it, following the report’s recommendations could save taxpayers billions over the medium term. Specifically, the report called for Pennsylvania to shift from “baseline budgeting” to a hybrid budget process comprised of performance-based budgeting and priority-based budgeting. Discussions about budgeting processes are usually enough to make one’s eyes glaze over, but switching to a hybrid budgeting process would represent a radical shift in how the Commonwealth spends your money.

Baseline budgeting is a simple (and terrible) way to allocate resources. What it means is that an agency or department looks at what their budget was this year and assumes that they will get a certain percentage more next year. Baseline budgeting means that spending will essentially never decrease. Furthermore, it is how agencies can claim that their funding got cut even though they got more money year over year.

Let’s say Agency X received $1 million last year. Their assumption is that they will get 5 percent more this year, or $1.05 million. Instead, the legislature increases Agency X’s budget by “only” 3 percent, to $1.03 million. Under baseline budgeting Agency X would now state that their funding was “cut”, but in reality, they just got a smaller increase.

In contrast, performance- and priority-based hybrid system eliminates the assumption that Agency X will automatically get more money, and more importantly it raises the possibility that the funding might go away entirely if the programs it administers aren’t performing as well as alternatives or if the priorities of the Commonwealth change. Most programs run by the state and federal government do not have a clear objective, or if they do there is very little information available on what progress is being made to achieve that goal. Economic Development, i.e. corporate welfare, and social welfare programs are notoriously bad at setting objectives and measuring performance. A real world example would be for a business to invest in all new servers to reduce downtime, but never measuring the downtime to see if it worked.

Priority-based budgeting is what CAP called for during the last few budget cycles. It is similar to how families budget. They know their income and make financial decisions based on the amount of money they have, which is a stark contrast to how government typically operates. The government generally decides how much to spend and then tries to figure out where to get the necessary money.

The changes proposed by the Taxpayer Caucus would drastically alter the culture of government from one of entitlement to one of results. The budgeting process is not particularly exciting and does not make good headlines. However, the basic assumptions underlying the allocation of resources affects Pennsylvanians in a profound way, and it is worth examining carefully.

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

Pennsylvania Baseline Budgeting Must End

Tobash Plan Bad Pension Reform

Tobash Plan Bad Pension Reform Tobash Plan Bad Pension Reform

By Leo Knepper

There are times when we can almost repost an old blog verbatim, and this is one of those times. On May 17, the House State Government Committee voted HB 1499 out of committee to the floor of the House; this is the third iteration of bad pension legislation.

As we noted last year:

“The Tobash plan was introduced last year [2014] 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.”

The current version of the Tobash plan has all of the same problems and does not address the pension problem in any meaningful way. Instead, it is a reform in name only.

By their very nature defined benefit pension plans leave employees at the mercy of politicians. The current pension systems have a combined unfunded liability of more than $60 billion because elected officials are loath to make hard decisions when it comes to paying for the promises that they’ve made. HB 1499 does nothing to protect new employees or members of the current system. It creates an illusion of reform designed to avoid making government union bosses too angry and appease taxpayers who don’t have time to look into the legislation beyond the “pension reform” headline.

In their analysis of the legislation, the Commonwealth Foundation found further problems with the plan design:

“Moreover, this model provides poor plan design for workers. Public employees should be contributing more toward a defined contribution plan at the front end of their career to give their investments time to grow. Under a stacked hybrid, workers invest more in a defined contribution plan as they near retirement.

“Research shows defined contribution plans provide stable and substantial retirements when workers invest over their career.”

If Tobash’s “reform” is the best the General Assembly can muster, taxpayers are in for a double-dose of trouble. Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R-34) has indicated his willingness to trade a tax increase for an “overhaul” of the pension system. There is no need for a tax increase. The Legislature needs to prioritize spending. Furthermore, taxpayers should be livid that Corman would trade their hard earned money for reform that, at this point, will do little to nothing for solving the pension problem now or in the future.
Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Tobash Plan Bad Pension Reform

Freind Bearish On The Donald

Freind Bearish On The Donald

Freind Bearish On The DonaldBy Chris Freind

In 2012, rank-and-file Republicans told party leaders, “Anyone but Romney.” Yet, to no one’s surprise, the hierarchy coronated Mitt Romney anyway, punting an election that should have been a slam-dunk.

The silver lining for 2016 was that, after four more years of President Obama, America seemed ready for a change. Even better for the GOP was that Hillary Clinton seemed certain to be the Democratic nominee.

Make the election a referendum on Hillary, and the White House would be theirs. After all, Hillary was unlikable, even within her own party (evidenced by her inability to put Bernie Sanders away); the consummate insider for a quarter century, she was the antithesis of the outsider whom voters were seeking; she was irrevocably linked to the president in a year many felt Obama-fatigued; and perhaps most damaging, she was the target of several investigations, facing possible indictment.

But then something unexpected happened: Donald Trump became the GOP nominee, and all bets were off. In an ironic twist, those in the Republican establishment became the ones pleading – “anyone but Trump” – but paybacks are hell. After years of ignoring their base, the party elites finally “got theirs.”

Intra-Party strife aside, the big question now is: “Does Trump have a path to victory?”

Consider:

1. The only person who could have shifted the referendum from Hillary to her opponent was Trump. And for good reason: despite Clinton’s high disapproval ratings, Trump’s are considerably worse. No candidate has insulted so many, so often, so offensively. And in the age of 24/7 news, those comments never go away.

The Clinton strategy is simple: Spend hundreds of millions to keep Trump’s negatives front-and-center. Combine that with the Democratic Party’s natural Electoral College advantage, and the path to a Trump victory, while possible, is extremely narrow.

2. National polls are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the Electoral College.

A winning candidate needs 270 votes. Hillary, as with any Democrat, starts off with a decisive advantage. Eighteen states are virtual “gimmes,” with Democrats having won every one over the last six elections, including the big prizes of California, Illinois, New Jersey and New York. Add New England, Pennsylvania and the upper Midwest, and Clinton sits at 242. At that point, win Florida, and it’s over. But even if the Sunshine State rains on Clinton’s parade, there are many other combinations that would put her above the threshold.

For Republicans, the nation’s shifting demographics create a significant problem. Add the extremely controversial Trump to that electoral equation, and it gets even more difficult.

One of the constituencies Trump has most alienated is Hispanics, with a recent Gallup survey showing him with a staggering 77 point unfavorable rating. Trump is poised to lose them in record numbers. And that likely puts states with ever-increasing Hispanic populations out of reach, such as New Mexico (over 40 percent Hispanic), Nevada, Colorado, and even Florida (which, combined with Trump’s low-blow thrashing of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, could prove very difficult to win).

Of the small handful of states in play, Trump faces an uphill battle in many more than Clinton. And the more red states Trump must defend, such as Arizona, North Carolina, and even Nebraska, the less time he has to campaign in other must-win places.

3. The existence of white, working-class, “Reagan Democrats” that Trump’s campaign claims to be wooing is largely a myth. In reality, those people left the Democratic Party decades ago. The number of Democrats still in that demographic, including union members, are likely not large enough to carry the day in the crucial Rust Belt states Trump needs to win.

4. Much has been made about a new poll showing Trump and Hillary statistically tied in the battlegrounds of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio. Newsflash: The pollsters missed April Fool’s Day.

These polls are sheer lunacy, good only to reinforce the insane notions of those who believe Trump will garner 370 electoral votes in a landslide — the same “experts,” incidentally, who guaranteed a Romney landslide, including Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Dick Morris and George Will.

How is it possible for Trump to be tied when he is viewed unfavorably by two-thirds of Americans, and three-quarters of women? And how is it remotely plausible that Pennsylvania, which voted against non-offensive “nice” guys John McCain, Mitt Romney and George W. Bush (back when demographics were more favorable to the GOP), will do an about-face and vote Trump? Factor in that Philadelphia suburbanites will vote overwhelmingly for the first woman candidate (irrelevant of Trump), and one can plainly see that polls showing the Keystone State in play are utter fantasy.

5. Another dark cloud over Trump is the fractured GOP, with numerous leaders (all the Bushes, McCain, Romney) withholding their support.

Given that endorsements are the least transferrable commodity in politics, does any of that really matter?

Yes. Big time.

If even 3 percent of Ted Cruz supporters, and 3 percent of the Romney/Bush faction stay home, Trump cannot win, because there’s simply no way to make up that margin, no matter how many Independents he garners.

Think disgruntled Republicans will come around because “Hillary will be worse?” Think again. Millions stayed home four years ago, despite the-sky-will-fall predictions if Obama won a second term.

And let’s be honest: Is there really a single Democrat who voted for Obama the second time, who will now vote for Trump?

There seem to be just three paths for a Trump presidency:

Millions of Democrats stay home, despite knowing they could hand the White House to someone they see as the devil incarnate (very unlikely).

Bernie Sanders or Michael Bloomberg runs third party, splitting the Democratic vote (unlikely).

Hillary Clinton gets indicted (possible but increasingly unlikely).

He won’t do it, but for Donald Trump to possibly be successful, he needs to look in the mirror, blame himself for the obstacles he faces, and do a genuine mea culpa. Most tragic is that his negatives are entirely self-inflicted – and completely avoidable. But because of them, the Republican Party is on track to lose not just the election, but quite possibly control of Congress – not to mention a possible civil war within the GOP. And all because Donald Trump couldn’t respect the two issues that still matter most in American politics: Character and civility.

If that prediction holds true, the message to the Grand Old Party will be the same as the Ringling Brothers Circus: Will the last “elephant” to leave please turn out the lights?

Freind Bearish On The Donald

Donald Trump Defied Expectations

Donald Trump Defied Expectations

By Chris Freind Donald Trump Defied Expectations

It ain’t over ‘til the fat lady sings. So while Rosie O’Donnell – a favorite target of Donald Trump – would love nothing more than to belt out a tune signaling the end of Trump’s presidential run, it would be premature.

If we’ve learned nothing else during this cantankerous election season, The Donald knows how to defy expectations.

First, Trump was written off as simply a novelty, providing entertainment during the slow summer news cycle. Yet his poll numbers stated to climb. Then he was viewed – and dismissed – as a one-man reality TV act, sure to fade once the debates commenced. But his poll numbers continued climbing. In a “sure-fire” way to knock him out, he was labeled “bully” and “bigot” by his opponents and the media. And yet they went up some more.

Next, he was dubbed a spoiler for the “anointed” candidates. And his numbers increased again. Soon, his opponents were dropping like flies, and Donald Trump went from cocktail party joke to bona fide contender. And now, against all odds, he is indisputably something else: The Republican nominee for president. In his rise to the top, Trump neutralized – or was it neutered? – 16 opponents, and now stands tantalizingly close to winning the White House. Love him or hate him, he deserves credit for one thing — continually proving the “experts” wrong.

But accolades and party nominations don’t win general elections, especially when the baggage Trump carries is the highest of any candidate in history. Here’s a look at the real reasons behind Trump’s victory, and the obstacles he faces:

1. In winning millions of votes, Trump successfully tapped into a massive vein of discontent. But labeling Donald a brilliant political strategist, as some have, is going overboard.

There are three primary factors as to why Trump was effective: A. he told a disgruntled conservative base, in blunt, politically incorrect language, what it wanted to hear, B. he was the only candidate, past or present, to do so, and C. the competition was weak.

Perhaps the most puzzling aspect of Trump’s ascension is the unapologetic about-face executed by many conservatives. In point of fact, the GOP base, comprised mostly of conservative voters (conservative-labeled candidates have routinely won more than 70 percent of the primary vote this year), jettisoned its normal “purity” litmus test to support someone who talked the talk, but had absolutely no history of walking the walk.

For decades, the conservative wing held candidates to such stringent standards that a bipartisan vote cast 20 years prior on a meaningless bill was more than enough to disqualify the “offender,” earning him condemnation as a moderate.

Yet, due to voter anger, that all went out the window, with Trump earning an unprecedented free pass from conservatives, with many looking the other way on Trump’s personal life, insults, prior liberal positions, and his past support of Democrats, including Hillary Clinton. In fact, some of his supporters were so blindly loyal that when Trump inadvertently insulted them – “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose voters” – it was taken as a badge of honor.

In reality, Trump had virtually no “conservative credentials,” so the $64,000 question is whether he has “evolved” into a true conservative, or is simply an opportunist who utilized his TV skills to whip an angry GOP base into a frenzy. Time will tell, though if it’s any indication, Trump’s tack to the Left on numerous issues, including minimum wage and taxing the rich, is an ominous harbinger for true conservatives.

If his move to the center continues, will those who gave him the nomination feel betrayed – and abandon him? “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me,” may become the mantra of disaffected conservatives who took a chance on The Donald and got burned.

And let’s be honest about the other reason for Trump’s victory: He got lucky by competing in a very weak field (a problem for the GOP going back decades). Granted, it wasn’t easy winning the nomination, but if not Trump, then who? Who was the bona fide standout contender that could have carried the GOP mantle? There was none.

The lower tier, from Rick Santorum to Mike Huckabee to Jim Gilmore (wait … who?), ran to make a point. The next level had name recognition, but no base (Rand Paul, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie). Others ran to bolster their comedic resume (Rick Perry, Ben Carson).

And the “frontrunners?” Marco Rubio imploded, showing the country that with his lack of gravitas, he wasn’t ready for prime time. Jeb Bush, the establishment’s $100 million “sure bet,” saw his coronation go up in flames even before Trump got going. Ted Cruz was arguably the most unlikable candidate in modern political history (was he born with that scowl?). And John Kasich, who, despite standing the best chance of beating Hillary, was doomed by the perception of being a moderate in a conservative-dominated primary.

It was reminiscent of Bill Clinton’s 1992 primary when he found himself in hot water over the Gennifer Flowers affair. The pundits declared him dead, but who was capable of stepping up as a legitimate frontrunner? Paul Tsongas, an ex-senator from Massachusetts? (Fellow Bay Stater Michael Dukakis getting crushed four years earlier didn’t help). Crazy Californian Jerry Brown? Ex-Sen. Eugene McCarthy? Since none was viable, the charismatic Clinton, despite his difficulties, was a shoe-in because the competition was so weak.

Combine that with the fact that Trump dominated news coverage because of his bombastic style and insults (via an all-too-willing media), and excelled at throwing red meat to the base, and you had the recipe for the perfect political storm.

2. The two people most responsible for Trump’s ascendancy are former House Speaker John Boehner and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

For years, rank-and-file Republicans asked, begged and eventually demanded that their leaders do their job: Promote the GOP agenda. From tackling illegal immigration to passing a balanced budget to coming up with a viable alternative to Obamacare, the base had a reasonable expectation, especially with Republican majorities in Congress, that these issues would be addressed.

But they weren’t. Instead, lip service and impotence ruled the day.

The mounting perception was that Boehner and McConnell, as the consummate Beltway insiders, were conflict-averse, entirely too comfortable in their positions to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work. Instead, they endlessly complained about their conservative members, criticized without acting, and, worst of all, made “deals with the devil,” giving in to the president and Harry Reid without a fight, despite holding the cards.

The result? After years of saying “do something – or else,” the shoe finally dropped. The “or else” manifested itself as the establishment’s worst nightmare: Donald Trump as the party’s presidential nominee.

All of which places the fractured GOP in unprecedented territory, as numerous leaders have publicly stated their intention not to support Trump.

How ironic that those not willing to do anything for fear of losing an election, are now the same ones willing to throw away an election. Whether Trump can capitalize on that hypocrisy remains to be seen.

Donald Trump Defied Expectations

Corruption Caused Pension Crisis

Corruption Caused Pension Crisis

By Leo Knepper Corruption Caused Pension Crisis

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, investment performance, 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 $63.3 billion in unfunded liabilities, 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. This “loan” has a 7.5 percent annual rate. In Year 1, the principal is $63.3 billion. If no payments are made, the amount due increases to $68 billion next year, then $73.2 the following year and so on. 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 (R-79) introduced HB 900 last year to address the unfunded liability. In his co-sponsorship memorandum, McGinnis states:

“Right now, just the annual interest on the pension debt is over $4 billion, equivalent to the full yearly salary and benefits for over 50,000 teachers.  The situation is so dire that 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.

“The right approach is to follow the recommendation of the 2014 Blue Ribbon Panel on Public Pension Funding commissioned by the Society of Actuaries and commit ourselves to paying off the current UALs [unfunded accrued liabilities] of SERS and PSERS over 20 years with level dollar funding.  It is not just the responsible thing to do after more than 10 years of serious underfunding–it is absolutely necessary to prevent substantial and irreversible harm to the future of Pennsylvania.”

We can avert the fiscal catastrophe. However, every day the General Assembly does not act, the unfunded liability grows. HB 900 is currently in the House State Government Committee. Please, contact your representative today at this link and urge them to take action.

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

Corruption Caused Pension Crisis

Sad Celebrities Get No Sympathy

Sad Celebrities Get No Sympathy

Sad Celebrities Get No SympathyBy Chris Freind

Given the huge implications of the recent presidential primaries, this column could easily have been about the newly shaped presidential race.

Instead, it’s about something more important: The need to call out arrogant celebrities whose sense of entitlement is perversely affecting our children. Rather than living up to their responsibility as role models, these “stars” are teaching all the wrong lessons about how we should conduct ourselves when things don’t go as planned.

And let’s be honest: in our 24/7 social media culture, people – especially kids – emulate pop culture icons substantially more than they do the president of the United States, sad as that may be.

Granted, it’s the nature of the business for celebrities to exhibit a certain level of conceit, born from big fan bases and the ever-present sycophants. But the level of pretentiousness is out of control. And that expectation of privilege, with accompanying tantrums, will only grow if we don’t stop excusing their reprehensible behavior. Since 99.9 percent of our children won’t have multi-million dollar paychecks on which to fall back when they storm out of a situation not to their liking, we better get ready to reap the whirlwind.
Advertisement

Consider these recent gems:

–“Live” talk show host Kelly Ripa reportedly threw a fit and stormed out of the studio after discovering that co-host Michael Strahan would be departing to take a full-time position with Good Morning America. She left the show (for which she is paid $20 million annually) and was unable to be reached, leaving network execs scrambling to find replacements for the four days she was MIA. And why her diva antics? Ostensibly because she wasn’t informed of the Strahan decision earlier.

ABC’s reaction? A free pass, with a nice cover story that she was on a “previously-scheduled vacation.” Sure she was.

Outside of a few criticisms from anonymous sources (the height of cowardice), there was no pushback from the network. Instead, she’s back to work and continues to rake in the dough. Since she didn’t apologize, Ripa must think she did no wrong, and was fully entitled to act in such an unprofessional way.

Sure, Ripa has a fan base, and exudes some, albeit not much, charisma. But no one is irreplaceable, especially when the hardest job requirement is reading a monitor – for 20 mil, no less. The network’s coddling effectively condones Ripa’s prima donna attitude, making her actions seem not only justifiable, but admirable to many young people.

–Last month, Chicago White Sox player Adam LaRoche walked away from a guaranteed $13 million (for what amounts to a six-month work year) because the team simply asked that his 14-year old son Drake not spend so much time in the clubhouse. Not only was Drake with him (and the team) virtually every day, but he even had his own locker.

So because the organization (and some players) expressed concern that the locker room should be, first and foremost, for the privacy of the players, and was not always an appropriate place for a child, LaRoche decided to quit, walking out on his team in the process.

Sure, sharing part of a dream job with a family member is admirable, and many players do – now and then. But every day? LaRoche took advantage of a generous situation afforded him by team officials and fellow players, and exploited it past all bounds of common sense.

Far from carrying the mantle of “most committed parent,” LaRoche instead became the poster boy for the “you-offended-me, so-I’m-quitting” movement. He sent the message to every young ball player that if your coach (or leader, teacher, or parent) asks you to do something you don’t like, it’s OK to walk out on your teammates, friends, and family, with no regard for anything but your “hurt feelings.”

What’s next? Should an office worker be allowed to bring his child to work every day? And at what age? Eighteen months? Fourteen years? Newsflash: that’s why God made daycare and school. In the real world, such an action would never be considered by a rational person because of the sheer ludicrousness of it.

As a coddled celebrity, LaRoche obviously thought he was entitled to do as he pleased, and upon not getting his way, he quit like a petulant child. But what happens when people follow LaRoche’s example in a real world job, without the cushion of millions to make such a decision possible?

— Perhaps worst of all, we have Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Sam Bradford. Just two months after signing a $36 million dollar contract (with $22 million guaranteed), he’s demanding a trade and telling the organization he won’t be attending the “voluntary” workout camps.

Why the outrage? Was he relegated to third string? Placed on the practice squad?

No. Much worse: The Eagles decided to select a quarterback in the NFL Draft.

Yep. That’s it. Despite assurances from the Eagles that he would, in fact, be their starting QB – and one would hope so, given the eyebrow-raising contract he was just given – Bradford threw a fit, causing needless disruption amongst his players.

Bradford is no Joe Montana, as evidenced by his underwhelming 7-7 performance last season. And his health has always been an issue, evidenced by this being the first spring since 2013 where he is able to practice at 100 percent. Bottom line: The Eagles made a sound business decision. (And since when is a little competition a bad thing?)

It didn’t matter to Sam that the Eagles are acting in the best interest of the team (and Sam) by preparing for all contingencies. Nor did it matter to Sam that his childish antics have been detrimental to team cohesion, with players wondering whether he will stay and be their leader, or is just buying time until he gets shipped off. Uncertainty leads to turmoil, which leads to toxicity. And toxicity always – always – kills any chance for a serious playoff run.

And just like that, the cautious optimism in the post-Chip Kelly era has been replaced by a wholly avoidable cancer. But instead of calling Bradford out for being a rich brat, and telling him to get his derriere in gear, the Eagles, unsurprisingly, are responding with fluff, and likely entertaining offers to trade him. And if that’s true, why sign him to such a lucrative contract in the first place?

All appeasement does is lower the bar for the next disgruntled mega-millionaire athlete to disregard contracts and jettison loyalty in favor of even more outrageous “it’s all about me” demands.

Pouting over things that are “unfair” (things that, incidentally, often teach children about life) is imbued in the young generation. They have been coddled by their parents so much that they don’t know how to fail. And since they haven’t learned how to fall, they can’t pick themselves up to try again. Instead, they are growing up in an artificial world of absolutes where everything must be to their liking – or they sulk away.

If we are to ever break the harmful cocoon into which we are placing our children, their role models must be called out when they act like privileged jackasses.

Otherwise, we might as well just punt because it will soon be game over.

Sad Celebrities Get No Sympathy

Andrew Jackson Defended

Andrew Jackson Defended

By Chris Freind Andrew Jackson Defended

Move over, Jerry Maguire.

When Treasury Secretary Jack Lew says, “Show me the money!” he means it. Literally.

Since changing who’s on our currency clearly ranks as one of today’s most pressing issues, Secretary Lew decided to boot President Andrew Jackson off the front of the $20 bill, replaced by Underground Railroad abolitionist Harriet Tubman.

So what prompted this move? And why now?

Let’s take a look:

1. Some will claim that race was the driving factor, with a former slave eclipsing a onetime slave owner.

If race entered into the equation, it shouldn’t have. Slavery was wrong, as we know. But do we condemn, for all of eternity, those who owned slaves – a common practice of that era? Do we disregard, and even whitewash from history, a person’s decent qualities and accomplishments, solely because of that?

If that’s the case, every monument to Thomas Jefferson – by far America’s biggest hypocrite on the slavery issue – has to go. The man who threatened to derail the Declaration of Independence if an anti-slavery clause wasn’t added was himself an avid slave owner. As a crusader against the practice – so long as he could keep his slaves – Jefferson is perhaps America’s most overrated “hero.”

But does that mean we should blast his face off Rushmore and dismantle the Jefferson Memorial? Should we close the University of Virginia, which he founded? Same for George Washington, who also owned slaves. And do we shutter the Ivy League’s Brown University, founded on profits from the slave trade?

Of course not. Hopefully, we are mature enough to discern mistakes from accomplishments, celebrating the significance of the latter while not endorsing the former.

Tubman trumping Jackson, while a bad idea for many reasons, has no place in the race debate.

2. President Jackson’s accomplishments – from defeating the British at the Battle of New Orleans, to founding the Democratic Party, to preserving the Union when South Carolina threatened succession – earned him a place on the $20 (perhaps the most widely viewed denomination, since it’s the predominant bill dispensed by ATMs). That honor should not be revoked, regardless of someone else’s accomplishments. One has nothing to do with the other.

3. In the same vein, Harriet Tubman’s courageous achievements obviously merit recognition. Fine. But do it in such a way that it doesn’t diminish a former president.

Build a monument in her honor. Construct a museum. Name a congressional wing. Or yes, place her on U.S. currency, but make it an original denomination, be it a newly minted coin or a $15 bill. But don’t denigrate her and that for which she fought – equality and fairness – by creating a controversy where there needn’t be one.

Both she and President Jackson deserve better.

4. Jackson’s fate was widely expected to be the same for Alexander Hamilton, who was slated to be wiped from the $10 bill. But credit for saving his portrait from the monetary dustbin is being given to – are you ready for this? – the Broadway play “Hamilton.”

Seriously?

It’s bad enough that the Treasury Department is meddling where it shouldn’t be, but to base a monumental decision – right or wrong – on a fleeting musical is crazy.

Secretary Lew certainly seems to have a lot of time on his hands.

5. At the risk of sounding conspiratorial, is it just coincidence that this news, heralding “women” and “diversity,” comes right as Hillary Clinton is about to be the first woman presidential nominee?

And the new bill design will be unveiled, to mammoth fanfare, in 2020, the year in which Mrs. Clinton may well be running for re-election. Another coincidence?

6. So long as we’re discussing fairness, how is it right to honor Martin Luther King Jr. with a national holiday – which he certainly deserves – by marginalizing George Washington and Abraham Lincoln? Sorry, but two of history’s – not just American history, but all of history’s – greatest figures each deserves his own special day. And while we’re at it, God spare us from the car and furniture companies’ “President’s Day” sale ads, which take desecration to a whole new level.

7. Perhaps most tragic is that so few care about this issue, especially the narcissistic millennials. Broad stroke of the brush, to be sure, but it’s nonetheless true that too many simply disregard our history with a cavalier shrug, despite the ease of learning that technology has provided. All the blood, sweat and tears that went into making America the greatest nation in world history is being whitewashed and forgotten, replaced by a gluttonous, I-don’t-care-about-that-stuff attitude. And that disdain doesn’t stop with history, as there is an equally glib antipathy toward such things as manners, correct grammar and common courtesy.

But so long as they can “like” the stupidest things imaginable on social media – while being incapable of holding a basic thirty-second human-to-human conversation — life is good.

Unless we cash in that attitude quickly and buy a dose of common sense, the problem will never be solved, no matter how many Harriet Tubman $20 bills we print.

And you can take that to the bank.

Andrew Jackson Defended

Donald Trump Open Letter

Donald Trump Open Letter

By Chris Freind Donald Trump Open Letter

Dear Mr. Trump:

From your business acumen to your sense of humor to your unprecedented ability to “tell it like it is” where others fear to tread, you are a man of many admirable qualities – qualities, not coincidentally, that are requirements for a successful president.

Which is why it’s so frustrating to watch you continue to implode – a feat entirely of your own making. Despite being firmly in the driver’s seat just a short time ago, controlling your destiny and potentially that of the nation’s, you now find yourself flailing, unable to regain your once-unstoppable momentum. Sure, you won your home state of New York, and will likely do well in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, but barring a miraculous finish, you’ll come up short, forcing a contested Republican convention.

Open convention or not, if you don’t get your head in the game quickly – assuming you truly want to win – not only will you be flushing your chances for the GOP nomination down the toilet, but with it, the hopes of many Americans.

And that’s unfortunate. Donald Trump will land on his feet, no matter what happens. But what about the millions who expended blood, sweat and tears fighting for you, and defending you when your antics were indefensible?

What will you say to those who, justifiably cynical for so long, had given up on representative government and succumbed to apathy? And yet, because of you, they found themselves daring to believe. They rediscovered hope.

How will you look them in the eye and tell them you tried your best when you refused to stop hurling insults and belittling all who oppose you, despite knowing that such behavior has been the major reason for your decline?

Given that your staff seems to be filled with “yes men,” and in spite of an apparent hearing problem that precludes you from listening to common sense, here are a few “Freindly” suggestions, on the eve of the crucially important Pennsylvania primary:

1. Stop whining. No one likes a chronic complainer, and to many (even some supporters), that’s exactly what you’ve become. Adding salt to the wound is that many of your outbursts are filled with considerable inconsistencies, which make you look eminently unpresidential.

Take the delegate situation. When you lose a state and/or its delegates, you typically engage in an insult-laden tirade (often on Twitter because you refuse to hold a press conference), whining about how you’re being cheated, and that the nomination is being stolen from you.

Yet when you win, as you gloat and call opponents third-grade names while telling the world that you have the nomination locked up, we hear none of those complaints. Which is it, Mr. Trump? Because it can’t be both. Granted, the primary system needs significant revision, but you should have known the rules of each state going in. You can’t pick and choose based on how well you perform in a particular state.

2. Be consistent. From the get-go, you had the resources to hire the best and brightest campaign strategists to navigate the labyrinth of rules, but given that Ted Cruz is outmaneuvering you, it’s clear you didn’t pull the trigger and put the proper team in place. Fine. That was a costly mistake, and there’s no such thing as a perfect campaign. Admit it, rectify it, and move on.

But blaming your delegate losses on a grand conspiracy by the party elites to defraud you is make-believe. The rules have not changed since you decided to run, so stop acting like they were. The fact that you got caught unprepared is no one’s fault but your own. Americans want humility in their leader, and will reward those with the ability to admit mistakes (as well as win, and lose, graciously). A dose of such humility would serve you well.

3. Take a lesson from the Boy Scouts: Be prepared. Every candidate makes gaffes on issues, and the American people will overlook them, so long as they’re about trade deal minutiae or the name of the president of Guyana. But stumbling on major issues, such as abortion and visas for skilled foreign workers, ostensibly because you were unprepared, is a killer. Right or wrong, the American people see those mistakes as the result of a cavalier approach to the issues. If you aren’t sure about an issue, saying the magic words, “I don’t know, but will do my homework,” works wonders.

Few expect (or want) their president to be an expert on every issue. But giving bush-league answers on issues that have been around for decades, and then taking multiple positions in rapid succession in a misguided attempt at damage-control is a recipe for disaster.

Learn the issues, and advocate with poise and grace, and you win hearts and minds. It’s late in the game for such advice, but heed it, because it will only get harder from here.

4. Stop playing the victim. The prevailing perception of Donald Trump right now is that of a nasty, mean-spirited bully who can dish it out like a champ, but can’t take an iota of criticism. Instead, he resorts to hurling insults, threatening lawsuits and boycotting people who have “offended” him.

Americans look at your ongoing feud with Fox’s Megyn Kelly and your refusal to participate in debates not to your liking as an ominous harbinger of a Trump administration. Will you walk out on China during trade negotiations because you don’t like a question they ask? Will you boycott media organizations that criticize you? Will we go to war because you refuse to employ diplomacy, tact and, God forbid, restraint when it’s warranted?

People won’t elect a president whom they view as unpresidential, and that will never change.

5. Finally, start spending your own money. Now. As this columnist wrote back in October: “Trump made a huge error by not spending $100 million on a nationwide ad campaign showing a kinder, gentler Donald Trump. Since he is the only one who could afford such a blitz, he could have defined the campaign, leaving his opponents powerless to respond. Incomprehensibly, he did the opposite, putting away his checkbook and accepting campaign contributions. In doing so, he lost his biggest trump card.”

No better time than the present, Mr. Trump.

The ultimate winner will be one who can appeal to a broad GOP constituency. Right now, that leaves you out in the cold. But if The Donald opens his wallet, stops hurling insults, demonstrates a firm grasp of the issues, and eats some humble pie by admitting his mistakes – all while being the only one on the national airwaves telling the Trump narrative – we could see the most exciting convention in history.

And who knows? You might turn out to be the best “Trump card” the Republican Party has had in a long time.

Donald Trump Open Letter