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

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