Category: Guest Authors

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

Case For Pat Meehan

Case For Pat Meehan

By Don Adams

The Independence Hall Foundation, the largest independent conservative grass roots organization in the tri-state region, is questioning the conservative credentials of congressional candidate Stan Casacio, a former Republican Cheltenham Township Commissioner running for Congress in Pennsylvania’s 7th Congressional District.

Case For Pat Meehan
Congressman Pat Meehan

The Casacio campaign is airing 60 second spots on 1210 WPHT-AM which roundly accuses his opponent, US Representative Pat Meehan, of being an Arlen Specter Republican and a RINO (Republican in name only)–an outrageous charge which the conservative Independence Hall Foundation flatly rejects.

The ad falsely implies that Pat Meehan supports Planned Parenthood and is somehow not pro-life, when, in fact, Meehan has consistently voted to defund the nation’s largest abortion provider.   In addition, Meehan has been endorsed  by the National Right to Life .Committee in every general election cycle since 2010 and will receive their endorsement this fall.

The 20-member Foundation Board voted unanimously to endorse Pat Meehan because of his consistent votes, over the years, to defund Planned Parenthood; repeal ObamaCare (over 60 votes); lower taxes; decrease spending; expose corrupt practices of the Veterans Administration; hold the Obama Administration accountable on the Benghazi and Fast and Furious scandals; stop Obama’s Executive Order on Immigration, and support our nation’s defense.  Meehan has also been a staunch advocate of local law enforcement communities.

That is a very strong conservative record,. We wish, however, the same could be said for Stan Casacio.

During his tenure as Cheltenham Township Commissioner (Montgomery County) in the 1980’s, Casacio, who served on the township’s finance committee, voted to increase the township’s budget by 80 percent and raise property taxes by 42 percent to cover the deficit he helped create.

Casacio has not refuted the official record–instead, he and his defenders dismiss his record as something from the distant past.

But this is Casacio’s official public record–and Casacio’s record of taxing and spending is much more in line with RINO Arlen Specter.

We certainly hope voters in the 7th District consider all the facts before voting.

The Pennsylvania 7th Congressional District comprises most of Delaware County, along with parts of Montgomery, Chester, Berks, and Lancaster Counties.

Mr. Adams is a member of the Independence Hall Foundation

Case For Pat Meehan

Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

By Chris Freind Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

Politics has always been a soiled business, but given the movements underway – both defending and pushing against laws governing which bathrooms transgender people can use – it’s gotten even messier.

So in an ode to the commode, let’s avoid a dirty scene and keep the bathroom debate clean.

It’s amazing that with so many problems facing Americans, from terrorist threats to astronomical college tuition, the dominant national debate recently has centered on which bathrooms adults can legally use.

Make no mistake: This won’t be relegated to an issue that will be flushed quickly from the headlines, but is in fact a steamy election debate that will lead to a judicial logjam as newly passed statutes – known as “religious freedom” laws – are dumped in the court’s lap. And given the Supreme Court’s current makeup, which side ends up in the outhouse remains to be seen.

While this may seem like a joke, it’s a debate that will result in serious legal precedents. The stakes are extremely high.

More than 30 states have passed or attempted to pass so-called religious freedom measures. These laws range from mandating that people use the bathroom corresponding to their biological gender, to allowing private business owners to refuse service on the basis of religious belief or moral conviction.

And they have come with a price. Big business, professional sports teams, Hollywood, rock stars and even other state governments have criticized them as discriminatory, with some pulling their business ventures from those states, and others threatening to do the same.

Like most issues, this one has devolved into the bowels of divisiveness because a small but vocal minority refuses to see that the law is rooted in common sense and safety, not bigotry. Instead of amicable dialog, many extremists are deliberately employing hateful rhetoric in the hopes of igniting a flashpoint, emboldened by the misguided support of well-known entities.

Those tactics are counterproductive, and serve only to divide, widening the gulf between those who have already shown themselves to be tolerant, from support for gay marriage to an ever-evolving “live and let live” philosophy.

But enough is enough.

Here’s a look at the broader context of the bathroom law, and why it is needed.

Critics cry that the bathroom law discriminates against transgender people, as well as anyone who “identifies” with their opposite biological sex.

First, a word about “discrimination.” Does the law discriminate? Of course! And it should, in just the same way that we “discriminate” – a dirty word in today’s society, but one that simply means “choose” – a thousand times a day. We discriminate about what clothes we wear, what toothbrush we buy, where we work, what car we drive, and what kind of latte we order. And yes, we discriminate, as we always have, about which bathrooms we allow each gender to use. It’s always worked before, so why the big controversy now?

Second, this law is, above all, about safety and security, especially for women. What parents in their right minds – Republican and Democrat, gay or straight – would feel comfortable sending their young daughter into the ladies’ bathroom where a man, acting on “feelings” alone, might be using the same facility? A father out with his 5-year old daughter can take her into the men’s room, but when she is 8 or 9, that doesn’t cut it. So what then? Will the father have to enter the women’s bathroom to keep a watchful eye on possible voyeurs, pedophiles, and other predators?

And what about locker rooms? While high school boys would love nothing more than legally accessing the girls’ locker room – after all, who can prove their feelings of “identity?” – it would create an environment of fear and anxiety in a place that should be private and secure. And while an assault or rape there would still be illegal, the liability that now exists should an entity willfully allow the opposite sex to access bathrooms and locker rooms would go out the window.

And how could such a regulation possibly work in the military? Or the workplace, for that matter? How can a woman who feels threatened by that creepy guy habitually inside the women’s bathroom file a sexual harassment lawsuit? Guess what? She can’t, because legally he would be entitled to be there.

But since extremists always push it way beyond common sense (and common decency) to prove a point and garner headlines, watch for them to do an end-run around these laws by lobbying for a third bathroom in public and private facilities. Crazy? Of course, but since the entitlement mentality sweeping America is in full swing – fueled by people’s silence in opposing such ludicrous political correctness – it will happen. If men and women can each have their own bathrooms, the transgendered community should be entitled to one, too, at taxpayer expense, no less! And let’s have another for bisexuals. And gay people. And pet lovers. And private bathrooms for those with a phobia of other people.

Is this debate for real?

Is this really why Bruce Springsteen won’t perform in North Carolina? This is why PayPal won’t locate there? Why some people think the NBA should never hold an all-star game in the Tar Heel state, or the NFL its Super Bowl? It’s too bad these people can’t discriminate between ignorance and common sense.

The beauty of America is the ability to choose. If those entities want to boycott North Carolina, so be it. That’s their right. But they would be wise to fear the much greater backlash that will occur when people see their blatant hypocrisy.

Is PayPal also going to “boycott” the millions of dollars its business generates from consumers in North Carolina? Will the NFL refuse to play its Super Bowl there – the same “morally conscious” league, by the way, that doles out stiffer penalties for steroid use (which affects no one except the user) than it does horrendous domestic assaults?

And Springsteen, self-proclaimed liberal man-of-the-people who derides the “disparity of wealth” in America (code-speak for taking money from those who work and giving it to those who don’t), conveniently doesn’t mention that he takes advantage of a New Jersey tax loophole allowing his 200 acres to be labeled “farmland.” What about the millions in property taxes he avoids that could help fund all those welfare programs? With a loophole like that, perhaps Bruce should be boycotting his home state instead.

No one is saying you can’t be transgender. No one is saying you can’t be transgender in public. All the North Carolina law says is that you must use the bathroom corresponding to your gender at birth (or currently are). That’s it. No bigotry. No hatred. No nonsense.

Just good old-fashioned common sense. If we used that a little more, we wouldn’t have such a mess.

Selfish Bullies Cause Real Issues To Be Ignored

DEP Math Doesn’t Add Up

DEP  Math Doesn’t Add Up

By Leo KnepperDEP Math Doesn't Add Up

 

First, a little background. In 2010, the EPA in Washington, DC imposed regulations governing nutrients that made their way into the Chesapeake Bay. The Susquehanna River is part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed; giving the EPA authority over nearly half of Pennsylvania’s landmass due to the various tributaries feeding into the Susquehanna. The cost to Pennsylvania taxpayers to meet the EPA’s mandates will be nearly $5.6 billion over the next 10 years under the current reduction system. Here is where the Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), John Quigley comes into play.

Earlier in March, Quigley was questioned about the cost savings Pennsylvania taxpayers might enjoy if the nutrient reduction targets were achieved using competitive bidding via the private sector versus the current model that is driven by large-scale government infrastructure spending. A rebuttal from The Coalition for Affordable Bay Solutions (CABS) neatly summarized the duplicity of Quigley’s response:

“…[I]f $2 per lb. nitrogen reduction credits from riparian buffers are available to meet the Bay mandate . . . [then] the total cost to meet the 24 million lbs. of nitrogen mandates would be $48 million annually. Yet the Secretary continues to state that the most reliable estimate of the resources required to meet the mandate is $5.6 billion including operations and maintenance through 2025.”

The numbers that Quigley uses to argue against competitive bidding total $480 million over 10 years, but at the same time, he is stating that the DEP needs more money because the cost will be $5.6 billion in the same period. Both statements cannot be true.

In further researching the subject, we reviewed a 2013 report completed by the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LCBF) that found using a competitive bid process would reduce the cost to taxpayers by 80-85 percent versus maintaining the status quo. It is no surprise that the competitive bidding option would save taxpayers money. However, it is unfortunate that the Secretary of the DEP would oppose a more cost effective method for complying with a federal mandate.

Unless the EPA reverses course on Chesapeake Bay Watershed requirements, Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to pay to comply. The question is how much money it will take to comply. To reduce costs, Pennsylvania must embrace a competitive bidding program. Currently, there is legislation in the Senate (SB 724) that would set up the necessary legal framework. We will monitor the legislation and keep you informed on its progress.
Mr. Knepper is executive director of Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

DEP  Math Doesn’t Add Up

Wolf Accepts Reality

Wolf Accepts Reality

By Leo Knepper

Wolf Accepts Reality
Gov. Tom Wolf

At a press conference Wednesday (March 23), Governor Wolf begrudgingly accepted reality and announced that he would allow the recently passed budget to become law. He will not sign the budget, but the Pennsylvania Constitution allows legislation passed by the General Assembly to become law ten days after passage if it is not signed or vetoed.

Initially, the Governor stated he would veto the budget, yet again, and drag the nearly nine-month saga out even longer to force the General Assembly to raise taxes. Wolf’s strategy was met with widespread criticism from within the Democratic caucuses and the usually friendly news media. On final passage, Democrats in the House and Senate joined with their Republican colleagues in voting for passage of the budget. Media reports also indicated that there would be widespread defections in the House and Senate among Democrats leading to a veto override if Wolf went down that path again.

While the budget could have done more to reign in out of control spending, it is a far cry from the Governor’s original proposal that would have required a multibillion-dollar tax increase to pay for even higher levels of spending. The enactment of this budget has an impact broader than funds being released to schools. Wolf’s 2016-2017 proposed budget had, in a flight of fancy, assumed that he would have gotten his way from the General Assembly in the 2015-2016 budget. By finally accepting lower spending for the current year, the baseline for the next budget decreases substantially. This would not have been possible without CAP members in the General Assembly, and other conservatives in Harrisburg.

We hope Governor Wolf learns some long-term lessons from his budget battle. However given his previous pronouncements about spending levels, we won’t be holding our breath.

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

Wolf Accepts Reality

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

By Chris Freind Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

Does this sound familiar?

1. A terrorist attacks occurs.

2. Trite, boilerplate statements are released: “Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims;” “This aggression will not stand;” “We will bring the perpetrators to justice;” and, “This is not just an attack on (fill in the blank), but on all of humanity.”

3. “Thorough” investigations begin (code for law enforcement starting to do the job they should have been doing all along).

4. Arrests are made within 24 hours. A testament to outstanding police work, or the result of officials finally acting on intel that had already determined who and where the terrorists were? If you answered the former, go back to living under your rock.

5. People stage candlelight vigils, often more for the cameras and social media “Likes,” than for the actual victims.

6. Any attempt to affix blame — not for the sake of blame, but to ascertain exactly how and why the attack occurred, what went wrong in preventing it (or at least knowing about it), and developing plans to stop future attacks — is immediately criticized by the politically correct crowd. “Not now,” they say. “It’s callous and way too soon to talk about such things. They’ll be time for those discussions later.”

7. Time passes, people move on, and “those discussions” never occur. Complacency sets in again, and more ominously, the insensitivity that comes with increasingly frequent attacks.

8. Surprise, surprise. Another attack.

9. Go back to Point One.

* * *

When will we learn?

When will we learn that appeasement and burying our heads, in the naive hope that the threat will simply vanish, will never work?

And “our” refers to everyone except those doing the killing.

Quite frankly, it’s amazing that Islamic terror is as vibrant as it is, considering that five of the most powerful entities in world history share the goal of rooting out and destroying that festering threat.

America; Europe/NATO; Russia; China; and India. While each have differences in why they oppose radical fundamentalism — and different agendas in how the war on terror should be prosecuted — they nonetheless should be united in opposing ISIS and Al Qaeda. But they’re not — not even the U.S. and its European allies. Instead, bureaucracy, incompetence and the desire to placate political correctness allow the threat to gain a stronger foothold, especially in Europe.

Blame for that failure falls on each entity, but the United States (especially the George W. Bush administration that squandered the world’s good will after the 9/11 attacks), shoulders the most. As the only superpower, we could have taken the lead though common sense strategy, but instead embarked on a disjointed, wholly ineffectual policy that has allowed terrorists to blossom.

Enough with the meaningless tough-talk rhetoric. It’s time for a comprehensive strategy that keeps terrorists on the run, destroys their communication and financial networks, and jettisons political correctness.

Here’s how:

1. First and foremost, close the European (and American) borders, and end the refugee exodus. That’s not inhumane; it’s self-preservation. European countries have been languishing under socialist polices for years, stagnating their economies and putting tremendous strain on governments hell-bent on funding every social program imaginable. Throw millions of refugees — many uneducated and unskilled — into that malaise, where they are given extravagant housing and welfare, and you have the recipe for economic collapse. Such largesse not only kills the incentive for refugees to work and assimilate, but allows many to disparage Western culture and laws, while demanding unwavering respect for theirs.

Add that none of the refugees can reliably pass a background check because no one in the war-torn countries can verify anything, and you have another impossible task: Trying to keep tabs on a huge population, some of whom are undercover terrorists gaming the system (evidenced by the Paris attackers). These masquerading terrorists are salivating at the chance to upstage their compatriots’ “success” in Paris and Brussels; we may not be able to stop all of them, but let’s not roll out the red carpet.

Europe has been more than generous, but its open-borders policy must end immediately.

2. The goal should be to train refugees, in both military and civilian capacities, so that they can return to their countries, fight to win the peace, and effectively administer whatever government is formed. This cannot be an open-ended vacation; there must be an end-date to their stay in Europe. That way, European soldiers could guard their borders and not shed blood in the Middle East.

In that regard, all boots on the ground must be “locals.” We should train and arm them, and provide logistics, intelligence and air support, but America and the West cannot become entwined in yet another Middle Eastern quagmire where victory is impossible. Not only does it breed resentment (crusaders occupying their lands), but it has never worked. And it certainly won’t work now.

3. Assuming that countries like Syria can be “liberated,” the West cannot dictate what type of government should be established (a mistake made time and again by the Bush Administration that sought to impose “democracy).” Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad and Muammar Gaddafi may have been tyrants, but they kept the peace (there were no car bombs — ever — under Hussein’s reign). If Middle Eastern countries need to be ruled by strongmen who keep the terrorists at bay, so be it.

4. Can someone please tell the NSA to shift its priorities? Either their operations have been fatally curtailed by blowback from domestic spying (which would be insanity, since honing in on terrorists is what they should be doing), or their resources are focused on who has the best March Madness brackets.

5. Since we continually raid places that we clearly know are terror hotbeds, but only after attacks, maybe we should pretend it’s “Opposite Day” and hit them before they act. How novel.

6. Bring back torture. It works. Period. Despite the protestations of armchair academics sitting in their ivory towers, inflicting pain, physical and otherwise, on those with critical information works. No man is unbreakable. When thousands, or perhaps millions, of innocent lives hang in the balance, the “rights” of an animal go up in smoke. Perhaps literally.

If we don’t, it’s like fighting with one hand tied behind our backs. And no, Geneva Convention rules should not apply, since this is not a traditional war. We are fighting opponents who will never respect such protocols, and who gleefully target innocent civilians. Gloves-off is the only way to deal with such barbarians.

7. Finally, not only do we need to aggressively profile, but profile the right people without regard to “offending.” It is our first, best, and sometimes last line of defense in catching wind of a plot. How effective is it? Ask the Israelis, whose El Al, the most-highly targeted airline in the world, has only been hijacked once. Profiling works, and should be instituted immediately. Any whiny American who doesn’t like it can take the bus to Europe.
* * *
Employ common sense, and the terror threat can be hugely mitigated. But keep engaging in ineffective feel-good tactics and unwinnable Middle Eastern wars, and the attacks will continue. Time is running out, and that ticking you hear is most definitely not a clock.

Trite Terrorism Responses Only Make Things Worse

PSERS Loses Money

PSERS Loses Money




PSERS Loses Money

By Leo Knepper

The Pennsylvania Public Schools Employee Retirement System (PSERS), released its 2015 performance results last week, and they weren’t good. PSERS assumes a 7.5 percent rate each year to avoid appearing even more underfunded than its publically stated $44 BILLION in unfunded liabilities. For 2015, PSERS lost nearly 1.8 percent. When we’re dealing with billions of dollars, the difference between the pension plan’s expected returns and actual returns is a substantial amount of money.

Last year’s loss comes despite PSERS spending a small fortune on “active” fund managers who are supposed to anticipate future market conditions and invest resources accordingly. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer:

“PSERS’s extra losses reflected its unusually large bets on commodity fund managers. The system posted a 33 percent loss for funds invested in “Master Limited Partnerships” (typically oil and gas investments), an 18 percent loss for commodities investments, and an 8 percent loss in “risk parity” investments, which can look a lot like hedge fund strategies.”

No fund manager can outperform the market every time, and this isn’t just the opinion of CAP. It a position widely held by well-respected academics and folks like Warren Buffet.

The previously mentioned Inquirer article notes that Montgomery County adopted a low-cost index fund investment approach two years ago. Last year, they substantially outperformed PSERS with a modest .3 percent return on investments. Montgomery County’s performance was not a fluke. In his book “Future Forsaken”, John McGinnis compares PSERS performance (and the others SERS system) to an index fund approach. He found that the low-cost option outperformed the current actively management funds across a thirty-year time horizon.

On top of outperforming active managers, switching to lower cost index funds could save taxpayers $750 million per year. Given the facts, there is no reason for the state’s pension systems to maintain the status quo and every reason to explore alternatives to protect taxpayers and future retirees.

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

PSERS Loses Money

Wolf Pension Commission Reversal

Wolf Pension Commission Reversal By Leo Knepper

One of the casualties of Governor Wolf’s budget veto was a little-known agency that independently reviews proposed changes to pubic pensions and regulates municipal pensions. The Public Employee Retirement Commission (PERC) was established by law in 1972, and its duties were expanded by two separate laws subsequently. Despite its statutory basis, Governor Wolf decided he could eliminate PERC with the stroke of a pen.

Representatives Stephen Bloom and Seth Grove disagreed and filed a lawsuit to keep PERC open. The Governor continues to argue that he has the authority to eliminate the agency without any input from the legislature. However, the administration entered into an agreement with the lawmakers to keep PERC open, and it was approved by a court.

Governor Wolf’s position is that the work performed by PERC can be performed by other agencies. He may be correct. PERC’s role might be able to be filled by non-dedicated employees at substantial savings to taxpayers. However, Wolf does not have the authority to eliminate an agency created by law on a whim. Instead, he should go through the legislative process and respect the separation of powers.Wolf Pension Commission Reversal

Governor Wolf is taking a nice leisurely stroll down the road toward authoritarianism and taking a page out of President Obama’s playbook on executive overreach. Limitations on the authority of the executive branch does not seem to be something the he is inclined to observe. Wolf is in the process of creating a constitutional crisis by vetoing prison funding and then requesting the same funds to be distributed by the Treasurer. Finally, he unilaterally raised the minimum wage for state employees.

We are just over a year into Wolf’s tenure. It will be interesting to see what he tries to get away with next.

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

Wolf Pension Commission Reversal

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems By Chris Freind Leigh Anne Arthur

Pop quiz: Your house is left unlocked, and an intruder enters. The trespasser rifles through your private belongings and steals compromising information, which he then uses to incriminate you. With ample evidence of his crimes, he is caught red-handed.

Should you expect:

A. The perpetrator to be immediately brought to justice, or

B. To be publicly scolded by the authorities for leaving your door unlocked; blamed for enabling the invader to enter your premises; get fired from your job; and face possible charges for your “indiscretion” – all as the perp goes unpunished.

No, it’s not an April Fool’s Day question. Instead, it’s an analogy to a situation playing out right now in a Union County, S.C., public school district.

The only problem? It’s just not true.

On Feb. 18, teacher Leigh Anne Arthur stepped out of her classroom for a few minutes to monitor students in the hallway. She left her unlocked cell phone on her desk.

In her absence, a 16-year old student accessed Arthur’s phone without permission and, after navigating through several apps, opened the picture gallery. There he found a semi-nude photo of Arthur (who said it was a Valentine’s Day present for her husband. and widely distributed it.

Arthur, told she would be subject to disciplinary proceedings, resigned. Ever since, she has been blasting the administration, and Superintendent Dr. David Eubanks in particular, for ignoring the invasion of her privacy, claiming she was punished despite being the victim.

The problem for Ms. Arthur, as is so often the case, is that she seems to be ignoring those pesky little things called “facts.”

Sunshine is the best antiseptic, so let’s shed some light on what happened:

1. First and foremost, Arthur was not fired, nor was she “forced” to resign, as was widely reported. She resigned of her own free will. Period. And it wasn’t like she was put on the spot “resign now or you’re fired,” but had ample time to mull her decision. Most damning for Arthur is that, under South Carolina law, she had the right to appeal to the school board whatever action was taken against her, as that body is the final arbiter. And why wouldn’t she? After all, if she were truly the victim, one would think that she would welcome her “day in court.”

But instead of fighting the superintendent, she chose to resign. That bears repeating: She chose to leave. Case closed.

2. It is fascinating to note that, despite all the claims of victimization, Arthur apparently never actually reported the incident. Arthur apparently never said a word to the administration. In fact, it was Dr. Eubanks who immediately launched an investigation (including contacting law enforcement. as soon as he was made aware of the incident – which was brought to his attention by staff and students four days after it occurred.

Bottom line: It’s kind of hard for Arthur to make the case that she was wronged when A. she voluntarily left, and B. she never even reported what had occurred.

3. “The whole premise of my privacy being invaded is being ignored, and that’s what’s wrong,” Arthur stated.

While Arthur may think it sounds good to frame this as privacy-rights-gone-astray issue, it’s nothing of the sort.

For the record, there is no bigger privacy advocate in the media than this columnist; if this case were actually about that, “Freindly Fire” would have jumped to Arthur’s defense. But it’s not.

The invasion of Arthurs’s privacy most certainly is not being ignored, as the student is being held accountable by both the school and law enforcement. He faces an expulsion hearing on March 14. More ominously for him, he has been arrested and charged with computer crimes and aggravated voyeurism. And according to reports, he is being detained at the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice.

If Arthur would care to explain how that’s “ignoring” the alleged privacy violation, the country is all ears.

4. Let’s cut to the chase. Arthur would have faced disciplinary action because she violated school procedures, according to Dr. Eubanks, and clearly exercised very bad judgment.

Teachers monitoring hallways are instructed to do so from their doorways so they can keep an eye on both the corridor and the classroom. But numerous witnesses state she was in a completely different room. So clearly, had she followed the established monitoring protocols, the incident likely would have never taken place.

Arthur apparently routinely allowed students to access to her phone, both for calling and Internet purposes. In the age of technology, that’s not a very prudent decision, however well-meaning it may have been. Should 16-year olds understand the difference between using her phone with, and without, permission, and know right from wrong while on the phone? Sure, in theory. But in the real world, you simply cannot assume that will be the case. Teachers in particular can never lose sight of the temptations that come with students holding more computer power in their hands than the Apollo spacecraft.

But for God’s sake, if you are going to allow students to use your phone, you cannot, under any circumstances, have wildly inappropriate material that could be accessed with a few clicks. It’s not a backwards-Southern-evangelical mindset, as many have been so quick to say. Instead, it’s simple common sense – a belief that a teacher’s nude selfie is out of bounds to have on an unlocked phone that students use.

5. Once again, much of the media has shown its true colors: Laziness, aversion to doing its homework, and above all, chasing the most sensational headlines, truth be damned.

Calling on journalists and editors to become more responsible is another column (which this writer has pointed out numerous times.. But indisputably, the more they speed recklessly down the path of hype over substance, of shoddy work over diligent reporting, the more that people will tune out, as declining ratings and readership levels clearly demonstrate. The future of the Fourth Estate is at stake.

Union County, S.C., is a slice of Americana: A small, quaint place that adheres to the values that made America great — accountability, responsibility, courage. The last thing its people, and Superintendent Eubanks in particular, would have wanted is to be the epicenter of a national firestorm. But despite coming under withering attack from the uninformed, they have stood their ground and taught the rest of the country the most valuable lesson of all: The truth shall set you free.

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

By Chris Freind Romney Makes GOP A Joke

Only one of two things is true:

A. Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment found their true calling in the comedic arts, or

B. They are, without a doubt, the dumbest people in America. And in a culture that values all things Kardashian, that’s saying something.

But given how serious Romney was Thursday – playing the role of elder Republican statesman in trashing Donald Trump – it is painfully obvious that stupidity “trumps” comedy in the GOP.

Too bad they didn’t do this before the Oscars. If they had, there would have been a plethora of movie remakes for this melodrama: “Dumb and Dumber,” “The Phantom Menace,” “Failure To Launch,” “Revenge Of The Nerds,” “The Jerk,” “Quantum Of Solace,” “Fury Road,” or even “Divine Secrets Of The Ya Ya Republican Sisterhood.”

But truth be told, even Hollywood couldn’t script this farce.

Trumpeting his own horn during the “big announcement” speech, Romney referred to Trump supporters as “suckers” in a desperate attempt to derail Trump and deny him the nomination. In doing so, Romney and the GOP hierarchy personified another movie: “Psycho.”

Let’s take a look at the how this epic blunder will completely backfire:

1. Granted, the list of credible Republican statesmen is short (a fault of the party’s own making because, ever since Ronald Reagan, it has focused solely on coronating candidates “whose turn it is” rather than developing charismatic leaders), but the single worst person to deliver such a message was Romney – especially since he sought, and received, Trump’s endorsement and money during his presidential runs.

Surprised? Don’t be. After all, Romney was the worst candidate that GOP elites could have chosen to take on President Obama in an election that should have been a slamdunk for the Republicans. Yet that’s exactly what they did.

The proof was in the pudding. Despite spending millions after his unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to secure the GOP nomination, Romney was still routinely losing seven of 10 Republicans in the 2012 primaries, even after he had all but locked up the nomination – and that was with a weak field. In other words, despite competing against a rag-tag cadre of opponents who had virtually no money or organizations, and who mathematically couldn’t win the nomination, he was faring worse than four years prior.

But did paternalistic party leaders listen? Nope. They, not the rank-and-file, knew “best,” and the coronation proceeded.

After staggering to the nomination, Romney ran an abysmal campaign. Despite Obama presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, voters – including Republicans – still rejected Romney, as three million fewer voted for Romney than for John McCain. And the exit polls showed what common sense had already told us: A majority of voters believed 1. America was on the wrong track, and 2. government was too large. Yet more pulled for Obama. Why?

Because Romney ran to win an election, not the argument. He was incapable of relating to the middle class, and thus never sealed the deal. The “Anyone But Obama” strategy backfired, because it’s never enough to run against something. The Romney/Paul Ryan ticket was wholly unable to articulate what it stood for, resulting in, ironically, an “Anyone But Romney” backlash.

Throw in his numerous flip-flops, monumental gaffes (the $10,000 bet; talking about how many NASCAR team owners he knew; telling the unemployed he knows what it’s like despite a $300 million net worth; stating that companies are people, too; criticizing the “47 percent”), late release of his tax return, pandering to minorities, and an unprecedented aloofness, and his landslide defeat was easily predictable.

And yet, what did Romney and party leaders (including GOP “experts” Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, George Will and especially Dick Morris) do after that crushing defeat? They blamed Chris Christie, because he worked with the president in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. You simply can’t make this up.

Oh, and they came up with ways to “reinvent” the party and “win elections.” So it’s not without a bit of irony that the very same people who not only championed the abysmal 2012 campaign but guaranteed a Romney “landslide” were writing the playbook for how to win in 2016 – and who are now telling voters whom not to vote for.

Is it any wonder that the party that championed insomnia-curing candidates Bob Dole, McCain, Romney, and Jeb Bush is now being ignored by a majority of Republicans? The establishment’s credibility gap had never been wider than before Romney’s speech. But after his debacle, it has expanded into an almost unbridgeable chasm. Brilliant, Mitt.

2. Forgetting everything else, Romney looks like a jealous malcontent. First, his money, while substantial, is dwarfed by Trump’s fortune, and in that world, size matters. Second, Mitt is green with envy at the reception lavished on Trump – fervent crowds, standing-room-only arenas, passionate supporters. Romney never came close to inspiring Americans the way Trump has. But rather than looking inward, he instead feels compelled to criticize Trump for the success he never garnered. As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher said, “The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”

3. Romney’s speech may have been a trial balloon to gauge whether he should enter the race, especially if Marco Rubio loses his home state of Florida. While the filing deadline has passed in most states, Romney could still get on the ballot in several states, including moderate-leaning California (the biggest prize of all) and New Jersey. According to the strategy, Romney might be able to siphon enough delegates to deny Trump the magic number for victory, leading to a brokered convention, where all bets are off.

If that were to occur, it would, without exaggeration, be the end of the Republican Party. There would be a massive civil war, millions would permanently leave the GOP, and an inevitable third party candidate would assure a Democratic victory.

If Mitt Romney’s goal is to become the most reviled man in modern American history, jumping into the race would be his path forward.

3. Sound crazy? Sure, but since when has that ever factored into the establishment thinking of both parties? It has been a long-held rule, especially in big city machines, that it’s better to lose an election than lose control. That mindset, while warped, is nonetheless becoming the de facto policy of a Republican National Committee hellbent on stopping Trump at any cost – President Hillary notwithstanding. 4. Romney’s pomposity will backfire, as such theatrics always do. It will cause Trump’s base to dig in, motivating them even more to crush the establishment they feel has betrayed them so often. And it will cause many undecideds to break Donald’s way – not necessarily because they wholeheartedly support him, but that they despise arrogant leaders giving marching orders.

Donald Trump has substantial baggage, from his business practices to outlandish insults. Maybe a Trump candidacy assures a Clinton victory, and maybe The Donald as GOP standard-bearer leads to big Republican losses in Congress. But with a wildly unpredictable electorate, and Hillary Clinton being the ultimate insider at a time when anti-Washington feelings are at a fever pitch, it would be a mistake to write off Trump.

The smartest course for the GOP would be to let the chips fall where they may, stop playing God, and take a hard look in the mirror. If it doesn’t, the “elephant” in the room may be on the verge of extinction.

Romney Makes GOP A Joke