Meeting the People of Mercer County One Door at a Time

Written by Roberta Biros

This has been a very interesting week in our household. This was the first full week that I was able to devote to my run for the office of Mercer County Treasurer. Our first task has been to gather signatures on my petitions, and I’ve preferred to do it the old fashioned way . . . door-to-door visits to the people of Mercer County.

Sunday, 2/22/2009:

We started on Sunday. Sunday is generally not the best of days for door-knocking, but it was the first day that we had a block of time to devote to it. The weather made it more difficult as the expected snowfall was to be between 3 and 5”, but that didn’t slow us down. After all, that is why The Good Lord invented All Wheel Drive! We spent several hours on our trip, but most of the time was spent inside visiting with our neighbors. It was a very nice start.

Monday, 2/23/2009:

The weather on Monday wasn’t much better. I did a walking tour of northwest Greenville in the afternoon, and finally stopped when the snow started to blow just a little too much. It was another good day, but I ended up with black and blue knuckles for the experience (door knocking is pretty tough work).

Tuesday, 2/24/2009:

Tuesday weather was a little better, so my husband and I set off in opposite directions. I chose a walking route and he selected the driving route. We put in several hours in the late afternoon and evening, and met up at Perkins in Greenville to celebrate “National Pancake Day” for dinner.

Wednesday, 2/25/2009:

Wednesday started off as a day like any other. I woke up and turned on my Blackberry and was met with congratulations regarding my front page story in the Sharon Herald. My copy wasn’t delivered yet, so I had to sneak on-line to take a look. You can read the full story HERE.

I couldn’t stick around long as I was out the door to visit the Business Expo in Greenville. I returned later in the afternoon in time to change and head out to “walk the streets” again. I had a funny experience in my travels on Wednesday afternoon as I happened upon the home of a local on-line newspaper writer. I’ve since described my experience in the Herald Forum (HERE), but the guy was good enough to post a nice article (with photo) about me in his on-line paper HERE.

The day ended up like most of the others . . . my husband and I met at the Greenville Dinor before heading home for the evening.

Thursday, 2/26/2009:

Thursday was more of the same. Different neighborhoods, different doors, and different people, but this time with a twisted ankle from Wednesday afternoon. Walking door to door is fun, but it is a bit less fun with an ankle brace on. We made it through and met at Bob Evans before heading home.

I JUST WONDERED, ARE YOU SEEING THE TREND HERE? My husband thinks that I’m running for office just so I can get out of cooking for the next nine months . . . I assure him that it simply isn’t the case . . . but I’m not complaining about it either!

Friday, 2/27/2009:

Today, Friday, was the first day that we haven’t gone visiting with petitions. It seems that I got a nail in my tire some where earlier in the week, and we had to go get the tire repaired before it ended up "flat on both sides". Yes, we still ended up at Pizza Hut for veggie pizza for dinner, but that is to be expected on a Friday . . . isn’t it?

End of Week Summary:

We’ve met lots of nice people, I’ve been invited into many lovely (and warm homes), and I’ve visited several local eateries . . . I guess you could say that it is all in a week’s work. Most of all, we had a good time meeting the fine people of Mercer County. I thank them all for their time and the good conversation, and I look forward to meeting more of them between now and November.

I’ll keep you all posted in regular updates to the “Campaign Diary”.

Unfriendly Mail: Mercer County Conservatives Accused of “Dirty Politics”

Written By Roberta Biros

Most of my readers realize that the posts on this blog site are fact based. I gather data and attempt to present that data in a fair and informative manner. I analyze information regarding local issues, I present the data in an easy to understand format, I provide easy links to my data sources, and I offer some commentary regarding the data in order to tie everything into a neat package.

I often receive comments on this site. Some are sent to me using the “comment feature”, and some are sent directly by email. All comments regarding this blog site are considered “part of the conversation”, and I post all comments with complete disregard to whether they are positive or negative toward me or my opinion. I simply ask that the content be “on topic” and “free of falsehoods and/or profanity”. I received a rather negative communication today, and I feel it worthy of a full response as a blog post here.

The comment was sent to me by email titled “your blog”, and the content of the message is posted in full below (the name of the submitter has been concealed for privacy):

Roberta,

I read with interest, and I must say, distaste, your comments on elected officials receiving farm subsidies. Everyone of the people you mentioned is a legitimate farmer and therefore has every right to farm subsidies. If you really want to squabble about that government program, you should aim a little higher, as millionaire Ted Turner, several of our esteemed federal senators and congressman, as well some guy living in the middle of Brooklyn, also receive farm subsidies, most of which far outweigh the measly amounts folks around here are getting. Personally I think you're being petty. The Richardsons, who made their living off their farm for many years, are entitled to that money as much as the next guy. I hope you know what you're doing by trying to use this against them, as many, many of the voters in Mercer County are farmers themselves.

As for Bob Robbins campaign expenditures at Sam's Club and other grocery stores, they are legit. He holds fund raising dinners and other events where refreshments are served and the groceries for these events are campaign expenses.

And that brings us to Ken Seamans. first, I'm appalled that you would attempt to trash a man who dying from cancer! Second he is now, and will always, a Mercer County farmer. And third, he may signed the Woodland place bond, but he didn't really have a choice. The vote was taken and passed before he took his seat as commissioner and the process was far enough along at that time that he couldn't do anything but go along with it.

The real blame for the Woodland Place fiasco goes further back. It was indeed Gene Brenneman and Olivia Lazor, but the third commissioner involved in that ridicules financial disaster was Dick Stevenson. Let's put the blame where the blame is due.

I suggest you leave out the dirty politics, as most of us in Mercer County have had all we can stand of that sort of thing.

All we want to know is what you will do to make things better, not what the others
are doing in their personal lives.

Thanks.
Anonymous

My Response

It seems that my recent move into Mercer County politics has brought some loyal Robbins/Richardson supporters out of the closet in an effort to set me straight and stifle my right to free speech and opinion. I make this comment public as I’d like everyone to understand my stance on these topics . . . for the record.

In General . . .

The stories published in my blog have always intended to be "news stories". Like any news reporter, I've attempted to be fair and non-partisan in my approach to interesting issues. I've been equally supportive (and equally critical) of both Republicans and Democrats, and I'm more interested in pointing out important topics as they relate to Mercer County and Pennsylvania tax payers. That said, allow me to respond to specific issues.

First, regarding Farm Subsidies:

I have no problem with hard-working farmers accessing Farm Subsidies because they need assistance to get through tough times. I have a problem, however, with anyone that considers Farm Subsidies to be an “entitlement” (as referenced in the statement that “The Richardsons . . . are entitled to that money”).

The Farm Subsidies post that I published presents facts that were gathered from a public database. The purpose of the article was to bring attention to the fact that Farm Subsidies are not all going to needy farmers, but are going to people that simply know how to work the system to get free money. It is my opinion that there are probably plenty of “needy farmers” that don’t get the aid because they don’t know what buttons to push or how to cut through the red tape.

I do not apologize for my post as the information was presented with the purpose of bringing the issue to the attention of the people of Mercer County and the State of Pennsylvania. I provided links to the necessary websites so that interested individuals could research data on their own and formulate their own opinions.

It was also implied in the above message that I somehow selected to publish data regarding Ken Seamans because he is ill. My apologies go out to the Seamans Family as I meant no personal disrespect to Ken or his family. Having experienced difficult health issues within my own family, I am completely sympathetic to the personal stresses that one goes through. However, to twist my analysis of financial data into some corrupt attack or an “attempt to trash” is a clear assault on my integrity as a responsible human being. The facts regarding the payments received by Mr. Seamans are a matter of public record, and I simply restated the applicable data. I take extra time and effort when presenting data to make sure that the information is complete and correct. I also attempt to remain politically neutral and non-partisan when presenting my data and opinions. Unfortunately, this ruffles feathers on “both sides of the fence”, but I stand by the fairness of my presentations, and I assure you that I would NEVER publish content for the specific purpose of causing personal distress to an individual or their family.

Second, regarding the campaign finances of Bob Robbins:

It seems that the author of the above comment is a fan of Mr. Robbins. It seems that she is also in favor of the way that Mr. Robbins spends and reports his campaign expenses. Again, this is a matter of my taking data from public sources and presenting it so that people can better understand it. Please allow me to be clear . . . I never stated that Mr. Robbins expenses were illegimate or illegal. I simply stated that sizeable sums of money were spent by Mr. Robbins under very general and non-traceable categories (unlike the records of other Legislators). If I were contributing to Mr. Robbins campaign, I would be disappointed that he could not provide a better accounting of how my money was spent on specific campaign expenses. There are some that say “it is his money and he can spend it any way that he wants”, but I take exception to that. The money was donated to his campaign with the understanding that Mr. Robbins needed the money to pay for “campaigning”, he owes it to his supporters to be fastidious about his bookkeeping and reporting.

Third, regarding Woodland Place:

I’ve written extensively regarding the problems at Woodland Place. Just recently I was presented with a very complete history of the background of Woodland Place prior to the signing of the bond in 2002. It was in that most recent communication that Dick Stevenson’s name was mentioned for the first time regarding the nursing home. All of my posts were based on information that I was able to identify through on-line research (1999 to present), and the available data did not reach back to Dick Stevenson’s involvement as County Commissioner (1997 and 1998 as I understand it). I appreciate the sharing of facts, but I’m more concerned about what the County will do with Woodland Place from this point forward. Reaching back beyond the 10 years that I recorded seems a bit off topic.

Fourth, regarding “Dirty Politics”:

Anonymous states “I suggest you leave out the dirty politics, as most of us in Mercer County have had all we can stand of that sort of thing. “

In response, I’d like to say that Anonymous seems to be the one trying to turn my comments into “Dirty Politics”. I’ve stated facts. If my facts are incorrect, please feel free to set me straight with new and substantiated data. I cannot, however, be blamed for the records of elected officials. If Senator Bob Robbins doesn’t like that I’ve re-stated his “record” here because it makes him look bad, then perhaps Senator Robbins should have made different choices in the past. If Mrs. Richardson is angry that I published that her husband was in receipt of Farm Subsidies, then perhaps Mr. and Mrs. Richardson should have through twice before applying for the money.

Lastly, my blog comments vs. my political platform:

Anonymous states “All we want to know is what you will do to make things better, not what the others are doing in their personal lives.”

I’d like to respond as follows:

The commentary on my blog is simply personal opinion regarding political issues in Mercer County (as well as across the state). The information that is stated is not a review of “what others are doing in their personal lives”. The information that I’ve provided is an outline of the public record regarding elected officials that represent the people of Mercer County. I’ve never discussed the personal lives of any elected official . . . I’ve only addressed their political and public records.

In closing, the comments stated on my blog are not intended to be considered "my platform for election". If you'd care to find out more about me and my qualifications for the elected position of Mercer County Treasurer, please refer to my election website at http://www.electbiros.com/.

I’d like to thank Anonymous for her comments, and I hope my responses clarify any questions that Anonymous or others might have regarding my “opinions”. The goal of my blog has always been to share data and information with interested citizens. If the “facts” that I present seem to make an elected official “look bad”, realize that you need to “blame the facts (or the elected official)” . . . don’t attempt to “blame the messenger”.

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Are There Any Lawmakers That Want to Save Money in Harrisburg?

Written by Roberta Biros

It seems that all we hear about in the news are the ways that government wants to spend money. I find it disturbing that we aren’t hearing anything about how to cut costs and save a buck or two. I was delighted to receive an automated email message from Representative Brad Roae (a fiscal conservative Legislator from neighboring Crawford County) that outlines ways that our own State Legislature might tighten their belt.

I received the email on February 13, so I first have to apologize for my delay in responding . . . I’ve been a little busy lately. Anyway, in his newsletter [read the full text HERE], he announces four bills that he has introduced in an effort “to cut legislative spending by $4 million per year”. I like the idea, but I have some opinions regarding each of the proposed bills that I’ll outline in detail below:

House Bill 167

This Bill mandates that only vehicles that meet a suggested retail price of less than $20,000 and with a fuel economy rating of at least 30 miles per gallon could be provided to a legislator who uses a state-provided car.

Rep. Roae states “about half the legislators use state furnished cars and the vehicles are mostly large sport utility vehicles (SUV) and high-end sedans”. He also states “Driving a $40,000 SUV to Harrisburg that only gets 15 miles per gallon does not make sense”.

My Comments:

I applaud the suggestion of Rep. Roae to set a requirement regarding the cost and MPG of state-provided vehicles. The idea is wonderful. Unfortunately, I think the specifics that he has set makes the Bill unrealistic.

I agree that Legislators should be forced to select “affordable vehicles” as well as ones that are fuel efficient. However, the 30MPG and $20,000 price tag limitation is a difficult one to meet.

When I purchased my own vehicle, I was concerned about fuel efficiency and cost. My extensive research put me into a 4-cylinder Saturn Vue. It was everything that I needed plus good gas mileage and a low price. My vehicle selection was not a “luxury vehicle” by any means, but it still did not meet the criteria of Rep. Roae’s Bill. My Saturn Vue had a suggested retail of roughly $22K and a stated MPG of approximately 27 Highway.

In being realistic, I understand that some Legislators may be forced to spend 10 or more hours in their vehicle on a round trip visit to Harrisburg. I’ve done my fair share of traveling, and I wouldn’t ask anyone to make that trip without a few not-so-extravagant accessories (AC, power windows, automatic transmission, cruise control, etc.). If you spend any amount of time on long drives, you realize that these options are not "luxury", but a matter of safety and comfort. I want Legislators to be limited to affordable vehicles, but I don’t expect them to ride around like “Fred Flintstone” in the process.

It is my opinion that such tight restrictions make the Bill seem utterly unrealistic. Looser restrictions like a $25K price tag and a minimum of 25MPG would be a better first attempt, and would give the Bill a chance for acceptance.

The bigger question is, which option saves the State more money . . . State-provided vehicles or the use of personal vehicles. Which ever option is more cost efficient should be the one that is used across the board for all Legislators.

House Bill 170

This bill would “move unspent money from individual legislators’ expense accounts and transfer it to the state’s General Fund.”

As per Rep. Roae, “When my first term ended, I had $19,000 I did not spend left in my legislative account and House rules prevented me from transferring it to the General Fund. There is currently more than $200 million in the leadership-controlled legislative surplus account and this is where the $19,000 went. The money I saved for the taxpayers may be given to another legislator to spend.”

My Comments:

Again, a great idea . . . but unrealistic. Allow me to make an analogy or two to explain . . .

Years ago I worked for a company that had a “sick day” policy that allowed for 5 sick days each calendar year. If you did not use the sick days before December 31, you lost them and started with 5 fresh days on January 1. My experience showed that employees RARELY had sick days left on December 31, and, oddly enough, there were lots of folks "not feeling well" in the month of December.

The “use it or lose it” rule generally backfires. Few Legislators would be willing to “lose the money” from their expense accounts, so they would find a way to spend it. In an effort to provide “the other side of the coin” allow me to outline another analogy:

I once worked for a company that provided 5 sick days per calendar year. At the end of the year, employees were paid the equivalent of one-day’s salary for every two sick days that were left unused. Employees had an incentive to not use their sick days because they got something for it at the end of the year. The same “incentive” should be used in House Bill 170.

Instead of ALL of the unused money being put into the General Fund, perhaps half could go to the general fund with the remaining half going into the “rainy day fund”. It may not seem as lucrative, but the end result would be more successful. It is simply a matter of taking human nature into account. Allow the "rainy day fund" to exist, but, at some point, address the maximum allowable balance that can be kept in the fund before monies are then transferred out to the General Fund

House Bill 165

House Bill 165 would put a one-year moratorium on public service announcements (PSA) that taxpayers pay for. Some legislators spend more than $60,000 a year on PSAs, and they are usually used when members are involved in difficult reelection campaigns. “The legislature spends approximately $1 million a year on these self-promoting PSAs,” Roae said.

My Comments:

Excellent. No further comment required.

House Bill Unknown – COLA Repeal

The Repeal of Act 51 COLAs is an issue that I’ve been following since early December of 2008, and I’ve been hopeful that a responsible Legislator would grab this cost saving measure and push for its passage. It is good to know that such a "responsible Legislator" exists in our neighboring County of Crawford.

I caught word of this particular bill through the office of Representative Michele Brooks. I was told that the bill existed (and that Rep. Brooks was supporting it), but I had no explanation of the "angle" by which the raises would be eliminated. I was waiting to see something in writing before getting too excited. The bill has not yet been assigned a number as Roae will introduce the Bill when House sessions resume in March, but Rep. Roae describes the bill as, “Whatever the salary is when a person decides to run for an office is what it should be for that term in office”. In the proposed bill, the salary would be set prior to the first day petitions are circulated to seek the office. Roae states “This is similar to how it is done on the county level”.

My Comments:

Bravo! This rethinking of the “raise process” is something that should be executed across the board in all elected offices. Regardless of a term length, I think that all elected positions should be for a stated salary for the entire term. Raises should be assigned prior to each election cycle. You would only “qualify” for the raise if your “contract is renewed” by the voting public through re-election.

I like it.

In Closing

Overall, I think that these House Bills are great attempts at saving money in Harrisburg. I’ve supplied my comments and suggested improvements as a way to give “my two cents”, but I still applaud the efforts of Representative Brad Roae. It is refreshing to see a Legislator that is actually making an honest effort to change the way things are done in Harrisburg. He has taken the time to author Legislation that makes an impact. I am hopeful that his hard work will pay off!

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Fairness: A One-Way Street

Written by Roberta Biros

Everything I've published in this blog has been clearly stated as "my opinion". I base my "opinions", however, on data. I'm an analyst by birth, so every opinion that I formulate is based on the data available to me at the time I write a post. As you all may have seen in the past, my opinions also change based on the input of new data.

I’ve often been criticized for my opinions. Depending on which side of the fence you are on, you may have thought I’ve been too hard or too soft in some of my commentary. I’ve always tried, however, to be fair. Unfortunately, it seems that fairness is a one-way street!

Last week, I announced my intended candidacy for the office of Mercer County Treasurer. I hoped to keep the matter quiet for a little while, but after signing for the petitions at the Mercer County Courthouse, word began to spread quickly. To stay ahead of the curve, I though it appropriate to contact some of my friends and colleagues personally to alert them to my intentions before they heard the news elsewhere. As most of you realize, I try to be transparent and open to everyone . . . friend or foe. I thought that my effort to inform would be accepted as it was offered . . . an attempt to be honest and straight-forward.

I wrote personal email messages to the people that I thought should be informed. The reactions that I received were mixed. Most of my friends and professional acquaintances emailed back and offered congratulations and support . . . even if they could only offer “moral support” due to obvious party loyalties. Others, however, were not so quick to offer a friendly response. The silence spoke volumes.

Colleagues that I’ve treated fairly in this forum seem to be disinterested in returning the “fairness” favor. This recent experience has me seeing things in a new light. Perhaps my extra effort to be fair and balanced was foolish and short-sighted. Politics is, after all, NOT a “gentlemen’s sport” (regardless of my attempts to make it so). Career politicians and politicos may all be no good “so and so’s” after all, and maybe they didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt that I offered. It been suggested that I’d regret my decision to be overly fair to some. I was told that I’d be “used” if I had value, but I’d be disposed of at the moment my usefulness ceased. It seems that these comments were actually “words of wisdom”.

It appears that my change in party and my attempt to run for office has been misconstrued by some as "overly ambitious" . . . or . . . should I say it . . . "threatening". I’m no longer seen as a “team player” . . . instead, I’ve been fired from the “team”. My usefulness to some has obviously expired . . . personally and politically . . . and I've been "voted off the island".

Yes, there are times when silence speaks volumes, and this is one of those times. Fairness may not be a two-way street, but I’ll just consider it a lesson learned and move on. Realize, however, that I don’t ever make the same mistake twice.

So how does this impact all of you . . . my loyal readers? For starters, my commentary from this point forward will be based on the new data that I’ve gathered, and it may show a change from some of my past opinions.

Will I still be fair? Absolutely.

My goal on this blog has always been to inform the Mercer County community of important news related to government policy and politics, and I will continue that work as time permits. The good news is that my new decision to NOT hold back may bring a refreshing edge to my commentary. Change is good.

I hope you all enjoy it!

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

The Hurry Up Stimulus Plan

Written by Roberta Biros

I’ve been wrestling with how to convey my opinions about the Obama Stimulus Plan that has managed to rush through Congress at absolute break-neck speed.

As a fiscal conservative, my initial concern has been “How on Earth do we plan on paying for this?” I was also concerned, however, with how quickly it all happened. I’ve heard it stated by many that it was impossible for Lawmakers to even read the darn thing . . . let alone to fully understand what it was that they were signing onto. Regardless of my numerous concerns, I still couldn’t figure out how to express my opinion in a simple and clear capsule . . . but then I heard a statement by Steven Moore as he was interviewed on Glen Beck recently. Steven Moore’s statement regarding the Stimulus was:

"Our children and grandchildren will have to pay the cost of this. It’s fiscal child abuse.”

“Fiscal Child Abuse” . . . Absolutely Brilliant. I wish I had said it.

I think that our modern “entitlement society” has finally caught up with itself. People expect everything that they WANT, and they don’t worry about who is going to pay for it. People “supposedly” WANTED the Stimulus . . . they WANTED a quick fix to a very complex problem . . . they WANTED it regardless of the cost. Well, they have gotten what they WANTED. Unfortunately, our children and our children’s children will be left to foot the bill. Does anyone see this as irresponsible?

That is all I have to say about the Stimulus Plan!


As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

It’s Times Like This When You Find Out Who Your Friends Are

Written by Roberta Biros

My recent move from the Republican Party to my new home as a Democrat has been met with some mixed emotions and reactions from my readers.

• There are some folks that have lost their faith in my decision making skills and question if I am a “conservative” at all. They don’t understand why any right-minded individual would ever leave the GOP, and they are waiting to see if I’ve changed in other ways too. It is as though they think I’ve lost my mind or something. Believe me when I say that I have not.
  


• There are others that were confused by my decision, but they were kind enough to ask me about it directly in an effort to understand my motivation. They gave me the benefit of the doubt, but they wanted to hear it “straight from the horse’s mouth”.
  


• There are those that have simply gotten “very quiet”. It is as though they are trying to ignore the “elephant in the room” (no GOP reference intended). I personally find it humorous that I've managed to make seemingly intelligent people speechless with one simple personal decision.
  


• Then there are those who have supported me at every turn because they have taken the time to understand the rollercoaster ride that I’ve had with the Mercer GOP. They understand my frustration and they have faith in my judgment. Perhaps they also have confidence in my ability to hold true to my convictions, and maybe (just maybe) realize that I can be a “Good Democrat” because it is the “Good” that defines me.

It is times like this when you really find out who your friends are . . . which brings me to a shameless musical reference.

For those of you that don’t know me very well . . . I love music . . . all kinds of music. I make more musical references than I should because it comes naturally to me. I grew up listening to and playing country and bluegrass (I’ve been a guitar player since age 10, although I’m still not very good). Back in the 80s, I spent my free time as a Disc Jockey. Yes . . . just picture it . . . on any Friday or Saturday night you could find me entertaining crowded dance halls with “The Electric Slide” or “Old-Time Rock and Roll”. Oh how I miss the days of “big hair” and line dancing . . . but, I digress.

My point was a musical reference. I found a great song that really explains my personal perspective over the past few days. The song is “Find Out Who Your Friends Are” by Tracy Lawrence. If you haven’t heard it, you can watch the video on YouTube HERE. A general point that I take from the song is that when you are on top it is easy to have friends, but when things get tough you find out who your ‘real’ friends are. A few lines from the lyrics tell the story:

Everybody wants to slap your back
wants to shake your hand
when you're up on top of that mountain
But let one of those rocks give way then you slide back down
look up and see who's around then

This ain't where the road comes to an end
This ain't where the bandwagon stops
This is just one of those times when
A lot of folks jump off

You find out who your friends are
Somebody's gonna drop everything
Run out and crank up their car
Hit the gas, get there fast
Never stop to think 'what's in it for me?' or 'it's way too far'
They just show on up with their big old heart
You find out who your friends are

I’m at that point in my life when “some folks have jumped off”, but I’m finding out who is gonna “hit the gas, get there fast and never stop to think ‘what’s in it for me?’”. It is a milestone that we all come to at some point in our lives, and some of us have been there many times.

With the Political Primary Season getting into full swing, I thought that this was a good time to remind all of us that “it’s politics . . . it isn’t personal” . . . but it doesn’t hurt to know who your friends are.

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

More Closed Door Politics in Mercer County?

Written by Roberta Biros

For those of you that haven’t been keeping up with the latest local election news, there has been a bit of a stir in Mercer County lately. On February 5th, the Sharon Herald published an announcement of an upcoming public meeting to be held today, February 17th. The meeting was being organized by Democratic Greenville Mayor Richard H. Miller and Republican Greenville Councilman Brian Shipley [READ HERE]. The purpose of the meeting was to gather people that might have an interest in running for office in the Spring Primary.

I read the article, and I found the concept interesting. It was a meeting that they were offering as a public service, but I was skeptical of the “non-partisan” nature of the meeting. Politics (being what it is) generally isn’t a place where Ds and Rs gather in the same room to discuss the prospect of running for office. My initial impression was that it was a way for the incumbent Ds and Rs to find out who the upcoming competition might be. I couldn’t quite sign on to the “Kum Ba Yah” experience. I dismissed it.

The excitement came on February 11th, when the Herald published a follow up story titled “Some aren’t welcome at political meeting”. It seems that after the initial announcement of the meeting, the planners decided to “limit” the people that could attend. The Herald portrayed it as “banning” certain people from the meeting, but I think the twist was a little unfair. The Herald went on to explain who was “not welcome” at the meeting, and their references were pretty harsh.

I again dismissed the story. My personal opinion was that it was a good idea to try to keep the meeting limited to only those people that were actually interested in running for office. I thought that the concept of keeping “looky lou’s” and press out of the meeting would make legitimate candidates feel more comfortable. It seemed like a fair attempt to protect the privacy of those that wanted to attend. I still questioned the motivation for having the meeting in the first place, but I didn’t have a problem with attempting to limit the attendees. Unfortunately, the way that the “dis-invite” was presented turned into a train-wreck. I woke up on the morning of the 12th to multiple email messages from my readers regarding the issue. People wanted to know what I thought and they wanted me to jump on the bandwagon. I really wanted to keep my distance from this one.

Unfortunately, it didn’t go away. The Herald wrote yet another story this past weekend criticizing Greenville Mayor Dick Miller. The opinion piece was titled “Does Miller want to exchange mayor’s gavel for a crown?” and it used the “closed door meeting” topic to open a whole laundry list of complaints against the Mayor. This, of course, just added fuel to the fire for the people that were mad in the first place. I’ve been receiving email communications about the issue, but I stuck to my guns and didn’t comment. Not until today.

This afternoon I received an email asking if I had heard about the “invite only” meeting that was being held in Greenville. It was an honest question, but it was based on a story told to a friend . . . told to a friend . . . told to a friend. My reader finally came to me to ask about it as they figured that I’d have the facts and "the whole story". I explained the details that I outlined above, and he was satisfied with my explanation. It was at that time that I realized that I needed to take a public stand on the issue for the sake of clarity and fairness.

The meeting is taking place tonight, and I hope it goes off without incident. My opinion? I think it was a good concept. I would have liked it better had the Democrats and Republicans had held separate meetings and leave the “Kum Ba Yah” at home. I’m not sure who is to blame for the train-wreck regarding the “closed door” announcement, but it was unfortunate. It is just another sign of the changing political climate . . . people don’t trust politicians at all, and politicians seem to stumble over their own feet at every turn when dealing with the press. I’m not judging anyone on this one, as I think there is definitely more than one side to this story. I comletely understand the heated opinions on both sides . . . but I remain in the middle.

Some of you may like my opinion . . . others may think that I’m being too soft . . . hopefully many of you will realize that I’m just trying to be fair and call it as I see it.

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

UPDATE: Pay Raise “Give Back” and COLA Repeal

Written by Roberta Biros

I apologize for taking so long to get back on-line, but I’ve been pretty busy for the past few days. As many of you know, I officially changed my Political Party affiliation last week [READ DETAILS HERE]. My new experiences as a Democrat have been quite interesting and exhilarating. My experience has made it very clear to me how the Republicans lost so horribly in 2008. The Democratic Party actually has their act together . . . they are organized . . . they are friendly . . . and they are open to anyone that has a desire to get involved. One email to a contact within the Party in Mercer County caused an immediate chain of events. I’ve since spoken with Party leaders and representatives by phone and email, and I’ve been invited to a number of meetings of sub-groups within the Party. I’ve experienced nothing but “open doors” and friendly encouragement.

I realize, however, that I’ve been a little quiet on the “blog front”, so this small installment will let you all know that I’m “still kickin’”.

On February 2nd, I published a post titled “My Final Word on the PA State Legislator COLA “Give Back”: Stick a Fork in Me – I’m Done!”. Unfortunately, it seems that it won’t be my “final word” after all. I received multiple comments to the post [READ HERE]. The most recent comment came on February 12. What was the question? Well, the reader asked “What proof is there that Senator Robbins and Representative Brooks actually gave the money back - their word?”. I’d like to respond to that question in full now.

First, as far as Senator Robbins, the information regarding his pay raise “give back” was published by WGAL and referenced on our blog HERE. In that case, I was simply taking WGAL’s word for it.

As far as Rep. Michele Brooks, the information that I published came from Representative Brooks directly by phone. Did I simply take her word for it? Well, to be completely honest with you . . . Yes. Ms. Brooks has never provided me with a reason to distrust her, and I believe in taking a person at their word. I'm one of those few people left in this world that still takes people at their word and does business on a hand shake unless I have a reason not to.

I did, however, have every intention of following up on the details of the "give backs" through a little “research project”. After speaking to Representative Brooks on Friday, February 6, I placed a call to the Pennsylvania State Treasury. My goal was to gather the specific details regarding the pay raise “give backs” for Senator Robbins, Representative Brooks, and Representative Stevenson (Representative Longietti was not included in the query as his “give back” was given to charity rather than the State Treasury).

The call was humorous. It was a typical call to any government office . . . I was transferred numerous times, and I was eventually transferred to the voice mail of an “unnamed individual”. I left a message on Friday afternoon, February 6, stating that I was wanting to know if the pay raises for the Legislators representing Mercer County had, in fact, been returned. I also asked when they were returned and how much had been returned. I did not receive a return phone call until Tuesday, February 10th. At that time I was told that all inquiries for information needed to go through the “Right-to-Know Officer”. I was directed to the Treasury website and was provided the phone number of the Right to Know Officer, Geraldine Williams. I took the information and set it aside with every intention of filing the necessary request.

On February 12, the Sharon Herald published an article titled “Lawmakers return money; U.S. rep may do likewise”. In it, the Herald verified the information that I had already previously published, and they stated that the State had confirmed the "give back" data as well. The State would not, however, verify the amounts that were returned. I have to admit that the Herald story did take the wind out of my sails, but I’m glad that they finally caught up with the rest of us.

What the experience has shown me is something very valuable, though. The “Right-to-Know” policy is actually going to have the opposite impact of its original purpose. The original idea of “Right-to-Know” was to increase transparency. Unfortunately, it has actually added an additional layer of hoops for concerned citizens to jump through when seeking the truth. Lawmakers can now hide behind the “Right-to-Know” shield and put off inquiries (in hopes that they will eventually go away). Lawmakers that wanted a way to hide have found themselves a very handy tool that will be used often. Fortunately, there are still Lawmakers out there that are willing to do business the “old fashioned way” . . . through honest discussion.

Representative Michele Brooks wasn't required to answer my questions, and she wasn't required to answer the questions of the Sharon Herald. She could have simply referred us to the “Right-to-Know Officer”. She didn’t.

I try to call things as I see them . . . in this case, it is my opinion that more government officials need to be honest, accountable, and transparent on their own. At the moment I see someone “hide” behind “Right-to-Know”, I'll immediately know there is a problem.

As always, just my opinion.

A SIDE NOTE REGARDING THE REPEAL OF ACT 51 COLAs:

I received notification from the Michele Brooks office that she has, in fact, signed on to legislation that will Repeal the Act 51 COLAs. Details regarding the legislation (House Bill #, etc.) are not yet available, but I will keep track of this issue as it moves forward. I'd like to thank the office for keeping me posted regarding this issue.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

I’m Still a Conservative, but I’m OFFICIALLY No Longer a Republican

Written by Roberta Biros

As of today, February 12, 2009, I am no longer a Mercer County Republican. My afternoon visit to the Mercer County Courthouse made the change of my political party affiliation official. I am now a registered Democrat in Mercer County.

As most of my loyal readers realize, I’ve been doing a considerable amount of soul searching recently. My conservative roots make me want to hold true to the Republican Party, but the shenanigans of the Mercer County GOP leave me with the absolute certainty that the Republican Party doesn’t represent me or my values any more.

I received a post comment this morning (READ HERE) regarding the Mercer GOP. My response (below) summarizes my feelings pretty well:

Thank you for your heart-felt and public comments. Few Republicans are willing to come forward “publicly”, and I commend you for your openness and honesty.

I, too, was once a registered Democrat. As my husband and I discussed our political philosophies, we felt that the Republican Party best represented our fiscally conservative values and concerns. It was at that point that I switched to the Republican Party, and I’ve been a proud Republican for 18 years. It was with my “proud Republican” enthusiasm that I approached the Mercer County GOP in September and October of 2008. Since our move to Mercer County in 2006, we had been sitting back and watching, but we hesitated to get involved. I originally contacted the Mercer County GOP in an effort to help the McCain campaign (or the “Palin Campaign” as I prefer to refer to it). I was extremely disappointed by the obvious “closed door” policy, but I was determined to try to “help” as a public servant in some way.

I have gone as far to offer my assistance and loyal commitment to individual candidates, but have been refused on that front too (although in a more polite manner). I find it frustrating that an intelligent, energetic, and willing worker can be turned away on repeated attempts. Based on my own personal history with the Mercer GOP, and combined with the way that they handle themselves with the press and with other volunteers, I’m beginning to wonder if the Republican Party (especially in Mercer County) does actually best represent my values and concerns any more. To use your words, I, too, have become “disillusioned”. A Party that not only excludes, but attacks and shuns, is not a Party for the people. They appear to be more concerned with "themselves" than with public policy and the good of the people that they represent.

“Disenfranchised” is a word that has been used quite a bit lately, and I think it applies at this point specifically. The Mercer County GOP has purposely and systematically disenfranchised people with new and fresh ideas, and it has left outsiders with very few options. You can either "suck it up", or "you can leave".

I hate to say it, but I don’t know if I can continue to be a “proud Republican” in Mercer County anymore. I can't say that they, as a Party, represent my values anymore.

A change in party affiliation is something that I’ve been pondering for a while, and it is a decision that my husband and I have taken very seriously. I’ve defined myself as a “Republican” for so long that the thought of a change has been difficult. I analyzed all of my options carefully, but I recently realized that the ONLY way that I can truly be INVOLVED in local politics is to move to a Party that will accept my help . . . and that Party is CLEARLY NOT the Mercer County Republican Party.

On one hand it breaks my heart to leave the Party of Ronald Reagan. However, on the other hand, the Republican Party (especially in Mercer County) is not the Republican Party that I committed myself to almost 20 years ago. While it saddens me to leave, I’m equally excited by the opportunities that stand before me as a Democrat . . . a Conservative Democrat, but still a Democrat.

I am not the first to leave the party, and I will most certainly not be the last. There will be other “Blue Dog Democrats” that follow me “to the other side”, and I am hopeful that we will find our “new home” to be warm and comfortable.

Does the change in Party change me as a person? No.

Does the change in Party change my values and my priorities? No.

I’m still a fiscal conservative through and through? Yes.

Will I continue to research the same fascinating political issues in my Blog? Yes.

Will I continue to be a watch-dog for local Conservatives in Mercer County? Yes.

Will I still be a “Mercer County Conservative”? Yes.

So, what’s the difference? I’m hopeful that the Democrats in Mercer will accept my FREE HELP. The same FREE HELP that the Republicans in Mercer have turned down . . . repeatedly.

To my Conservative Friends, I hope you don’t fault me for my decision (and I hope you don't kick me out of the "Conservatives Club") . . . and . . . I invite you to join me.

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Politicians and Corruption: Am I Painting With Too Broad a Brush?

Written by Roberta Biros

My recent experiences with the Mercer County PA GOP have me wondering if corruption and complacency are simply a result of politicians being in office for too long. The Republican Party in Mercer is, for lack of a better description, an example of the “old guard run amuck”. They are the “same old faces in the same old places”, and they like it that way. They feel comfortable and they have a sense of invincibility and entitlement . . . two characteristics that are nothing to be proud of (in my opinion, of course).

I thought it was just me . . . but then I started talking to all of you. I started hearing the same opinions admitted openly and with the same distain. Normal tax paying citizens who are sick and tired of being sick and tired . . . Honest, hard-working Joes frustrated by the same old same old. I’ve heard it in Mercer County and I’ve heard it across the State of Pennsylvania. My analytical brain has been busy counting and processing the data. My findings? Corrupt and power-drunk politicians are everywhere! (you’re all shocked by this revelation, right? I didn’t think so)

Are they all bad? No . . . at least I don’t think so. Are there honest, hard-working ladies and gentlemen out there that are really trying to make a difference? Yes. I’ve witnessed it with my own eyes, so I know it too be true. It is my opinion that the longer someone holds a powerful office, the more likely they are to become complacent. It is also my opinion, however, that the propensity for evil needs to be there in the first place (sort of like saying that you are either born with a conscience for “right and wrong” or you’re not). Deep stuff, right? Well, let me get a little deeper for you . . . to quote Lord Dalberg-Action,

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

A simple statement, but oh-so true! Lord Action’s quote is from the late 1800’s, but it is timeless. The same thoughts are being spoken today.

Earlier this week, I was watching Glenn Beck on Fox News and he was doing a great interview with Jason Chaffetz, a freshman Congressman from Utah. Glenn mentioned that he’s interviewed the young Congressmen a few times, and he likes interviewing him because he has a fresh perspective. Glenn Beck made a statement that I had to grab onto (I had to rewind the DVR a few times to get it completely). Here it is:

“I have a new theory. I don’t think I’ll take any more applies from the barrel. I’m gonna start pickin’ them from the tree. I’m gonna start listening to the freshman class because you guys, hopefully, haven’t been corrupted yet!”

Did you get that . . . “corrupted YET”. Young faces and fresh ideas are healthy. My feeling is that we should give new faces a chance . . . give them a chance to prove themselves. Let them prove that they are “good guys” or “bad guys”, BUT if they start to stink up the joint, boot their “doopa” to the curb too.

To quote Lord Action again:

"There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

The Pennsylvania General Assembly: Important Lawmakers or Pencil Pushers?

Written by Roberta Biros

I’ve always tried to stay “in tune” with political issues. Lately, I’ve “turned up the volume” a little with respect to my political “education”. In order to stay informed on ALL political issues, I’ve subscribed to lots and lots of email lists. Some of the subscriptions are to other blogs, some are for press releases from State Legislators, and ONE subscription is to the Pennsylvania General Assembly Daily Session Report [if you are interested, you can SUBSCRIBE HERE]. The Daily Session Report is amazing as it outlines all of the Legislation that is handled by our well-qualified and well-paid (tongue in cheek) Legislators on a daily basis.

If you read the Daily Session Report carefully, you will be disappointed to see how useless some of the Legislation seems to be. Now I realize that there is some amount of silliness to be expected, and I don’t mean to be over critical, but some days I just wonder “what are they thinking”. I read a WONDERFUL commentary from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on-line HERE. Please take a minute to read it. It is one of those commentaries that I wished I had written first . . . it is smart, it is completely truthful, and it is very funny. It left me PIMP (for those that don’t know text messaging abbreviations, PIMP stands for “peeing in my pants”). It outlines a typical day in the Pennsylvania Legislature, and it had me “laughing out loud” (yes, “LOL” for those texters out there).

With all silliness and criticisms aside, I was VERY interested to read my Daily Session Report for Wednesday, February 4th. For those of you that aren’t familiar with the daily occurrences in the Legislature, I think that an overview of Wednesday, February 4th is a great “learning tool”, so I’d like to examine it in detail with some additional commentary and bits and pieces from other sources. This might help you to understand why the selection of good Legislative leadership is so important for all of us.

An Overview: Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Governor Ed Rendell’s Budget Address

Wednesday, February 4, 2009 was a big day in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. First, the Senate and House of Representatives were to meet in a Joint session (at 10:30am) to hear an address by Governor Ed Rendell. The address was the presentation of the Governor’s 2009-2010 Proposed Budget. If you didn’t get an opportunity to see it, you missed a really good time. The “boooos” and “jeers” from the House floor in response to some of the Governor’s statements were very entertaining. It was similar to a response that you’d expect from Steeler Fans as the Cleveland Browns enter Heinz Field . . . very funny.

House Resolutions

The House then started their day by voting on two “less important” pieces of Legislation as follows:

House Resolution 46 -- A Resolution recognizing February 7, 2009, as "National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day" in Pennsylvania.. Passed unanimously, 198-0.

Comments: Realize that resolutions like this are a common occurrence in the PA House. On one day alone, the House passed resolutions for February 6, 2009, as "Wear Red Day for Women"; January 2009 as "Cervical Cancer Awareness Month"; congratulating the 2008 Philadelphia Phillies who won Major League Baseball's World Series on October 29, 2008; congratulating the Pennsylvania Young Farmers Association for its outstanding contributions to this Commonwealth; January 2009 as "School Director Recognition Month"; the month of January 2009 as "Radon Action Month"; January 29, 2009, as "Thomas Paine Day"; January 25 through 31, 2009, as "Catholic Schools Week"; and congratulating Wilkes University on the occasion of its 75th anniversary. Enough said?

House Resolution 49 -- A Resolution congratulating the National Football League champion Pittsburgh Steelers for winning Super Bowl XLIII and becoming the most successful franchise in NFL history with their record sixth Super Bowl title. Passed unanimously, 198-0.

Comments: You really need to read the text of the resolution to grasp the full drama. So many “WHEREAS” stuffed between football statistics is very comical. I actually read the whole thing out loud to my husband to provide the full effect.

After the passing of the “less than important” Resolutions, the House moved to more important issues . . . the House operating rules for the 2009-2010 term.

Roll Backs of Reform Rules

First,there were a few “roll backs” of reform rules that I find to be particularly disturbing. The reforms were put into place in 2005 after the “middle of the night pay raise controversy”, but they have been “rolled back” by Democrats in a grab for power in the House of Representatives. This issue is outlined in detail in the article from the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal [HERE]. According to the Intelligencer Journal, the three main changes were as follows:

• Expanded power by the House Rules Committee, dominated by the Democratic leadership team, to amend bills that come out of the state Senate for concurrence. GOP legislators say it gives the Democratic majority the ability to dramatically gut the bill.

• Making it easier to extend debates and votes past the 11 p.m. deadline. The previous 11 p.m. rule was put in place two years ago to prevent middle-of-the-night votes while most residents are sleeping.

• Requiring what's known as a "constitutional majority" to challenge a ruling by the Speaker of the House or to allow bills to be voted on less than 24 hours after the Senate has approved them. During the previous legislative session, challenging a ruling took only a majority of House members present on the floor. Motions to suspend the rules, however, required a two-thirds majority.

It is clear that the Democrats, with their slight majority (104-99), are taking advantage of their power to make it nearly impossible to stop any of Governor Rendell’s plans. As per the statements of Rep. Bryan Cutler (R) in the Intelligencer article:

"That's what we're effectively setting up for here, the same kind of ramrodding of bills," Cutler said. "We're really consolidating power into the majority and specifically into the leaders, because that's who makes up the rules committee. This is merely setting up the stage to put the budget and (possible) tax increases through. It's going to effectively limit debate."

These changes are disturbing and, in my opinion, a step backwards. VERY IMPORTANT CHANGES FOR ALL OF US TO BE AWARE OF.

Legislators Working For Lobbying Firms

The second, and very important issue that was discussed by Legislators on Wednesday, February 4th was one regarding Legislators receiving pay from Lobbying firms. This issue was discussed beautifully in the Philadelphia Inquirer [READ HERE], but allow me to summarize:

(1) During the discussions regarding the House Rules, an amendment was proposed by REP REICHLEY. The amendment was very simple, actually. You can read the entire text HERE, but it makes one simple and brief statement. “Members may not receive compensation for affiliating with or being employed by a lobbying firm registered with the Department of State”.

(2) At 8:47PM, the House voted to vote on the just-drafted (and very brief) amendment (193-5)

(3) At 8:48PM, Members unanimously voted to accept the simple restriction (198-0)

(4) AFTER the amendment was accepted, the Democrats decided to actually read the one sentence amendment, and they realized that it meant “no moonlighting for Lobbying firms”.

(5) At 9:06PM, the House voted to revote on the measure.

(6) In a vote of 98 – 100 (straight down party lines), it was determined that the measure was “unconstitutional”.

According to numerous news reports, the House remained in session until nearly 10:30PM that evening while all of the “wrangling” was going on. Later, Republicans were accused of “trying to pull a partisan fast one”?

A "Partisan Fast One"? What the **%$#???? That is so funny I’m speechless for just a minute . . .

. . . OK, I’m back. “A Partisan Fast One”? You’re kidding me, right? PLEASE take just a minute to look at the ONE PAGE amendment that was the center of the “Partisan Fast One” HERE. Believe me, this is not a complicated scheme by any stretch of the imagination. It is essentially ONE SENTENCE, and the Democrats failed to read and understand it? I’m not a specialist in “Constitutional Law”, but this particular amendment isn’t exactly “rocket science”.

Silly, silly, and did I mention SILLY?

So What Does All Of This Mean For Us, The Tax Payers?

I hope that this little summary gives you some idea of the things that go on in Harrisburg on a daily basis. So much plotting, so much political wrestling . . . but, deep down, VERY IMPORTANT STUFF. Sure, there is a certain amount of "Pencil Pushing" that goes on . . . but deep down there are very important decisions being made that will eventually affect all of us.

Regarding the changes made to the House Rules, I find some of them bothersome. The Democrats in the House have essentially set themselves up to push through anything of their liking . . . in the middle of the night and all. This is not good public policy.

Regarding allowing Legislators to work for Lobbying Firms, I find this particular topic also bothersome. In a blog post that I will publish in the next few days, I will explain why it is my opinion that Legislators should be working full-time for their “full-time pay”. IF, they feel a need to work other jobs in addition to their Legislative duties, I think it is absolutely wrong that they can work for and receive payments from any Lobbying firm. Again, poor public policy.

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

UPDATE: Has the GOP Lost its “Brand”

Written by Roberta Biros

Back on November 6, 2008, I wrote a blog post titled “Where Does the Road Lead for the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party? “. In it I outlined where I thought the GOP went wrong in the 2008 Election. Later, on December 1, 2008, I did a bit of a follow up in my post titled “Has the GOP Lost its ‘Brand’”. Again, I outlined my thoughts on what should be the new direction of the GOP.

As many of you know, last week Michael Steele was selected as the New RNC Chair [READ ABOUT IT HERE]. This change for the party is being seen as VERY PROMISING by many of us. I, for one, have admired Michael Steele as a “good conservative” for quite some time, and I find his selection to lead the RNC to be exciting. I believe that he is capable of breathing new life into the Republican Party (before it dies entirely).

Michael Steele did a great interview on “Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace” on February 1, 2009. If you’d care to see the full interview, CLICK HERE to view it on YouTube. In it, he specifically refers to re-establishing the “GOP Brand”, and he outlines the basics of his “plan” for the Party. It is very informative if you are interested (and have the 10+ minutes to devote to it). What he says is very important for anyone that is concerned with the future of the GOP.

I read numerous articles this weekend that show that the GOP in Pennsylvania is finally realizing that its numbers are dwindling too [READ ARTICLES HERE and HERE]. It seems that Muhlenberg College’s Institute of Public Opinion did a survey that found that there appears to be a surge of former Republicans moving to the Democratic Party. A quote in the Patriot-News states:

"The results of this research indicate that the Republican Party's losses have been largely among more moderate middle- to upper-income voters who have been lifelong Republicans," said Chris Borick, the director of Muhlenberg's Public Policy Institute.

This is just another indicator that the GOP is losing its following at the State level in PA, which mirrors what I’m experiencing at the County level in Mercer County. People are abandoning the Party because they feel that the Party doesn’t represent them any more. This is a great time to separate the “men from the boys” (or the “women from the girls” depending on your perspective).

Legislators in Mercer County and across the State are going to start to feel heat from their constituents as people become more concerned about how the State and the Country are being run. It has actually already started (as some of you may have noticed). People are starting to see problems with some of our elected officials and they are no longer turning a blind eye. People are no longer willing to accept the same "business as usual". There will be those that abandon the GOP because of it. They will jump ship and move to "the other side", but there will also be those of us that stick around to clean up the mess.

I’m hopeful that Conservative Republicans take this opportunity to step up to the plate and demonstrate some real leadership in Harrisburg. We are all looking for leaders that represent our values. I’m hopeful that a few True Conservatives will have the guts to stand up for “change” and embrace the new direction of the Republican Party . . . before they are swallowed up by the “old regime” and the Party disappears forever.

The GOP may be on life support, but it looks like help (and hope) are on the way.

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Mercer County PA Doesn't Have a Fancy Digital Sign Like Fayette County PA

Have you seen that those "fancy folks" down in Fayette County PA have a high tech digital sign at their Fairgrounds. I'm jealous! I suppose Pepsi is a "proud sponsor".

Is there anyone that knows how to spell anymore?

My Final Word on the PA State Legislator COLA “Give Back”: Stick a Fork in Me – I’m Done!

Written by Roberta Biros

I’ve been fielding questions and comments about this issue since it was originally announced in early December. On December 12, 2008, I repeated information that was published in the Sharon Herald regarding the “promise” of State Legislators to give back their automatic Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) that went into effect on December 1, 2008. In response to constant queries, I’ve continued to follow the trail of the “promises” of each of our four State Legislators (Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson).

Earlier this week, I published a blog post titled COLA UPDATE: Who HAS and Who HAS NOT Returned Their Raise? In it, I re-published a list of Lawmakers who had officially returned their pay raises as of Monday, February 2, 2009. In that post, it was verified that COLAs had been returned by Senator Robbins (to State Treasury), Representative Longietti (to a charity), and Representative Dick Stevenson (to State Treasury). I would like to UPDATE the story with new data.

I spoke with Representative Michele Brooks today by phone. I asked specifically if she had returned her COLA to the Pennsylvania State Treasury as promised. Representative Brooks stated that she had hand-delivered her COLA to the State Treasury this past week while in Harrisburg. She asked that I not publicize the “give back” as it was not her intention to gain publicity from the action. I explained, however, that I hoped to simply put an end to the repeated questions received by this office. She agreed . . . with some gentle persuasion. I hope this puts this issue to rest . . . "Stick a Fork in Me 'Cause I'm Done".

With this final detail in place, I can now clearly state that all of the State Legislators representing Mercer County that have “promised” to return their raises have, in fact, done so.

Lastly, I’d like to state that I have received numerous comments regarding this issue and others . . . some have been publicly posted to this blog. I have rejected comments that made outrageous allegations regarding any of our elected officials, and I’d like to remind my readers that I will not tolerate any submitted comment that makes unfounded accusations. I will, however, publish any comment that meets the following criteria:

(1) it is ON topic
(2) it is NOT obscene
(3) it is NOT a mistruth (or unfounded accusation)
(4) it does NOT include a link to another unrelated website

All other comments are fair game and welcomed by this blogger.

"Thanks" to all of you for your interest in this topic. I will continue to report regarding the issue of the REPEAL OF ACT 51 COLAs if there is any progress in that area.

BLOG POST ADDENDUM:

This post is a continuation of a conversation from a post that was dated a few days earlier titled COLA UPDATE: Who HAS and Who HAS NOT Returned Their Raise? Be sure to check out the original post to see the long conversation that has occurred regarding this important topic. [CLICK HERE TO VIEW]

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Governor Rendell Wants to Put the Screws to Casino Owners

Written by Roberta Biros

We've all heard the news by now. Pennsylvania's Governor Ed Rendell is proposing legalizing video poker machines in Pennsylvania. His thought is that by doing so he could raise money for students entering community college and state universities.

Can you believe it! Let me get this right . . . Ed Rendell is willing to put the screws to his “Best Buds” (the casino owners) to help kids? Based on Rendell's proposal, any establishment with a liquor license would be eligible to have as many as 5 “legal” video poker machines.

OK, Just imagine it! Why would I ever drive an hour to Erie or an hour and twenty minutes to the Meadows if I could simply walk to the infamous “Locust Grove” in good old Mercer County? Why would senior citizens load up by the bus full to go to Presque Isle Downs when they could “scratch their gambling itch” by stopping in at the Alley Cat or the VFW. What use is there for these multi-million dollar facilities?

Well, folks I'm skeptical. “Uncle Ed” has something up his sleeve on this one. The Governor states that he is concerned about the estimated 17,000 illegal video poker machines that are in operation in the state already. I’m sorry, “Uncle Ed”, but Video Poker Machines (as you call them) have been operating illegally in PA since the early 80s. Actually, illegal gambling machines have been around far longer than that. Allow me to explain . . .

Illegal gambling machines have been around since the 60s and 70s (and probably before that). Local taverns usually had one or two "Six Card / Bingo Machines" around. They were simple mechanical machines that looked like a pinball game, but they were designed for the sole purpose of gambling. Video Poker machines became popular in the early 80s and into the 90s. They became so popular that illegal "gambling parlors" cropped up all over offering rooms full of machines in a "speak-easy" type atmosphere. In the early 90s, video poker machines were replaced with video slot-like machines (often referred to generally as “Cherry Masters”). I've personally seen them all.

While the machines are not seen so much in the Mercer County area, they were a VERY FAMILIAR site in my old “home-County” of Westmoreland (and neighboring Allegheny). People that wanted to gamble would frequent local illegal establishments regularly. When West Virginia built their casinos, gamblers had the option to take a short drive to Wheeling or Mountaineer, but the local illegal options were always still available too.

When the issue of legalizing gambling came along in Pennsylvania, I have to admit that I didn't have a problem with it. Knowing that gamblers are going to gamble anyway, I see no problem in regulating it, controlling it, and taxing it. Gambling falls into one of the few categories of “taxing” that I don’t have a problem with. Some people refer to them as “sin taxes”, but I refer to them as “taxes on the stupid”. I include gambling, cigarettes, and liquor in that category.

The point that I find surprising today is that the Governor now decides that it is time to do something about these “illegal” gambling machines? AND, in doing so, he takes business away from his pals (the casino owners)? I don’t get it. Therefore, I think it is not as simple as the Governor makes it out to be. I'm sure that there is something more to it. I question the Governors motivation, and I have a problem with the management of such an undertaking.

First, it seems odd that the State (who has put so much effort into issue of legalizing Casino Gambling) would now simply abandon the casino owners and legalize gambling across the state. It just doesn't "smell right". Mark my words on this, after bar owners invest in machines and licenses for their establishments, the Governor will come through with some sort of DEAL for the Casinos again. It will be table games, or free liquor, or even full smoking facilities---something substantial . . . and the cycle will continue. He has no intention of abandoning his friends who own Casinos. It just won't happen. I don’t trust that Governor Ed Rendell is doing this without some motivation for the casino owners at some later point.

Second, I want to know how in the world the State would intend on managing and validating thousands of new machines that are spread through every small community in the State. How many NEW State employees would be required to “manage” that bureaucracy? It seems ridiculous to me. Currently, the few Casinos in the State each have a staff of State Gaming Employees. All of the regulation, control, and oversight is managed through a few centralized facilities. Does the Governor realize the enormous staff that would be required to maintain and validate gambling machines, control payouts, and maintain the legality of these mini gambling parlors spread across the State? Perhaps he does . . . and maybe that is why he wants to do it. It would make the Pennsylvania Gaming Board one of the largest bureaucracies anywhere.

Governor Rendell has something else in a hidden agenda here, and I’d love to know what it is. Besides, HE IS A POLITICIAN! How do you know if he is lying? His lips are moving!

What do Local Legislators think of the Governor’s Plan?

In an interview with WKBN-27 (Youngstown), Representative Michele Brooks (R-17) made the following statement:

“We need to help families and address rising college tuition costs, but gambling for kids? . . . That just isn’t appropriate.”

I understand Representative Brooks’ stand, but I don’t see this as an issue of simply being “inappropriate”. I simply see it as a bad business move . . . period. It cannot be permitted to go forward. It needs to be stopped . . . now.

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Representative Michele Brooks Speaks Out Regarding the 2009-2010 Pennsylvania State Budget

Commentary by Roberta Biros
Official Statement by Representative Michele Brooks

I was getting ready to write my heart-felt response to Governor Ed Rendells Proposed 2009-2010 Pennsylania State Budget this evening when I received a "gift" in my email In Box. I received an automated email message from Representative Michele Brooks (R-17) where she makes a formal statement regarding her response to the Budget.

I read her official statement, and I found that it perfectly articulated my thoughts. So, I apologize to my readers, but I'm going to publish her response her in its entirety, AND (I know that this is a first for me, but) I have absolutely nothing that I can add or tweak to improve it.

I have to admit that I couldn't have written better myself! (and that isn't something that I say very often . . . believe me!)

Brooks Says Budget Proposal Does Not Include Belt-Tightening Necessary in Current Economic Climate
February 4, 2009

HARRISBURG – Rep. Michele Brooks (R-Crawford/Mercer/Lawrence) today issued
the following statement in response to the governor’s proposed $29 billion state budget for 2009-10.

“Pennsylvania government must live within its means and lead by example. The additional spending, borrowing and tax increases proposed today do not represent the belt-tightening and fiscal responsibility residents deserve."

“The administration is projecting to receive $3.5 billion from the federal government. As this issue is still being debated in Washington, D.C., I believe that budgeting based on revenues that we may not receive is poor public policy. We need to face the facts and work with the hard numbers we have and not hope the federal government will bail us out because ultimately, it’s still the people’s money."

“The theory that government can operate on over-inflated revenue projections, bailouts and unsustainable revenue sources for spending and borrowing its way to prosperity needs to end. Spending at a rate faster than revenue is coming in does not represent sound public policy. All this does is lead to future tax increases which the hard-working people of Pennsylvania cannot afford."

“Families throughout the Commonwealth have already tightened their own budgets and are forced to make do with less, and this overspending in the budget proposal shows lack of respect for the people of Pennsylvania."

“Make no mistake about it: this budget and its increased rate of spending – which could inevitably lead to future tax increases do not reflect the sacrifices already being made by our families. Pennsylvanians deserve better.”

Rep. Michele Brooks
17th District, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

If you'd care to read Rep. Brooks' version on her website (of if you'd like to subscribe for email updates), CLICK HERE.

You can go ahead and call me lazy on this one, but I find no reason to re-invent the wheel in this case. I read numerous statements by various State Legislators, but this one got my vote. Representative Brooks has said everything that I would say . . . exactly as I would say it . . . at this stage of the game.

As you all know, I will not let this story end here. I will begin to pick apart individual line items from the proposed budget in upcoming blog post, so I'm not signing off on the subject that easily.

PROPOSED BUDGET DETAILS

For those interested in reading the 2009-2010 budget in its entirety, it is available for download from the Pennsylvania State website HERE.

QUESTION TO MY FRIENDS

I know I might seem like a very "electronic only" sort of person, but nothing beats "getting personal" with numbers like a hard copy of a document like this. Does anyone out there know where I can purchase a hard-copy of the Proposed Budget? If you do, please email me.

(I have the PDF, and I'd love to print it out, but the 901 page document will jam up my printer 50 times before I get a complete set. It just isn't worth it. I've got my red pen out and nothing to use it on.)

As always, just my opinion.

~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

COLA UPDATE: Who HAS and Who HAS NOT Returned Their Raise?

Written by Roberta Biros

BLOG POST ADDENDUM:
CLICK HERE for an UPDATE to this story.

I was asked by email last night if there was any additional information about who HAS and who HAS NOT returned their Cost of Living Adjustments to the State Treasury. Specifically, the reader asked if Senator Bob Robbins or Representative Michele Brooks had sent back their pay raises yet.

I’ve written about the Pay Raise “Give Back” as well as my support for a Act 51 COLA Repeal [READ HERE]. During the last update, it was publicized by the Sharon Herald that Rep. Stevenson had given his raise back and Rep. Longietti had donated his raise to a local Charity. At that time, Bob Robbins was still “waiting” to decide what to do, and Michele Brooks had not had an opportunity to send her money back.

According to WGAL.com (Channel 8 in the Susquehanna Valley), the following is a list Pennsylvania lawmakers and executive branch employees who have made arrangements to return their 2009 cost of living raise to the state treasury as of Feb. 2. It was noted that those lawmakers who are giving their raises back through a donation to charity are NOT included on the list.

CLICK HERE to read the story on WGAL.com

CLICK HERE to view the VIDEO on WGAL.com

State Senators

Baker, Lisa
Browne, Patrick
Brubaker, Mike
Corman, Jake
Costa, Jay
Eichelberger, John
Farnese, Lawrence Jr.
Folmer, Michael
Greenleaf, Stewart
Logan, Sean
O'Pake, Michael
Orie, Jane Clare
Pileggi, Dominic
Pippy, John
Robbins, Robert
Scarnati, Joseph
Smucker, Lloyd
Stout, Barry J
Vance, Patricia
Ward, Kim
Waugh, Michael
White, John
Wozniak, John

State Representatives

Adolph, William
Argall, David
Baker, Matthew
Barbin, Bryan
Boback, Karen
Boyd, Scott
Brennan, Joseph
Buxton, Ronald
Carroll, Michael B.
Casoria, James E.
Causer, Martin
Civera, Mario
Daley, Peter
Denlinger, Gordon
Depasquale, Eugene
Eachus, Todd
Evans, John
Fabrizio, Florindo
Fairchild, Russell
Freeman, Robert
Gabler, Matthew
George, Camille
Gerber, Michael
Gibbons, Jaret
Gillespie, Keith
Gingrich, Maureen
Goodman, Neal
Grell, Glen
Hanna, Michael
Harhai, Ted
Harkins, Patrick
Harper, Kate
Helm, Susan
Hutchinson, Scott
Josephs, Babette
Killion, Thomas
Kortz, William C. III
Kula, Deborah
Manderino, Kathy
Mann, Jennifer
Markosek, Joseph
Matzie, Robert
Murphy, Kevin
Myers, John
Pallone, John
Pashinski, Ed
Peifer, Michael
Petrarca, Joseph
Petri, Scott
Pyle, Jeffrey
Rapp, Kathy
Reed, David
Reese, Michael
Ross, Lewis
Santarsiero, Steve
Scavello, Mario
Schroder, Curtis
Shapiro, Joshua
Siptroth, John
Smith, Kenneth
Smith, Matthew
Smith, Samuel
Stevenson, Richard
Turzai, Michael
Vulakovich, Rudolph
Walko, Don
Watson, Katherine
White, Jesse

Executive Branch
Ed Rendell
Estelle Richman
Steven Kaplan
Robert Lam
Pedro Cortes
James Creedon
Bernard Labuskes
Thomas Renwand
Gerald Zahorchak
Richard Kriebel
Luke Brubaker
Barbara Grumbine
Jack Wagner
Stephen Stetler
Patrick Stapleton
Thomas Goldsmith
Robert Marcus
James Carley
Kimellen Pizzingrilli
Allen Biehler
Thomas Michlovic
Steven Irvin
Jeffery Beard
Michael DiBerardinis
Frank Pawlowski

Where Do Mercer County Legislators Stand as of February 2, 2009?:

For the record, Senator Bob Robbins IS ON this list as he has obviously decided to go ahead and make arrangements to give back the raise. Representative Dick Stevenson IS ON the list, which mirrors the information that had been previously published.

Also for the record, Representative Mark Longietti HAS given a donation, but is NOT on the list as his “give back” (in the form of a donation to a local charity) is simply not included on the list according to the standards of the list.

Lastly, and also for the record, Representative Michele Brooks IS NOT on the list. I had a brief discussion with Rep. Brooks last week and I mentioned the raise “give back”. She stated that she intended to send it back, but still had not done so. I mentioned my published (and criticized) opinion regarding delaying a “giving back” until the Repeal of COLAs issue had run full-circle. Rep. Brooks did not agree nor did she disagree with my statement. I, therefore, have no choice but to let her actions stand on their own merit. If I receive new information, I will pass it along to you here.

Because this is an issue of interest to my readers, I will continue to follow up to see what happens. I’ll keep you all posted.

As always, just my opinion.~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives

Mercer County Farm Subsidies: A Leg Up for the Little Guy or Welfare For the Un-Deserving? Find Out Which Local Leaders Received Money

Written by Roberta Biros

I spend a considerable amount of my “spare time” reading other blogs. Please pardon my language, but I find it amazing how much crap is out there (polite enough?). Sure, there are plenty of us that take pride in our work and invest hours of time and effort into presenting intelligent, interesting, and compelling opinions. We may not be perfect, but at least we try. But then there are the “others” . . . which I strive to learn from.

I found one local Mercer County blogger that likes to portray himself as a “news outlet”. Unfortunately, the truth is that he is simply an illiterate hack who likes to spew vulgarities for the sake of gaining the attention of elected officials . . . AND it works. It seems that “the squeaky wheel does get the oil”. I, on the other hand, find that I don’t get “oiled” as much as I get “handled”. Elected officials “handle” me in one of two ways. They either ignore me (in hopes that I will disappear . . . forever) - or - they act friendly in an attempt to keep me at a safe and “manageable” distance (just in case they need me later). It is a disappointing glimpse at human nature but it is, sadly, “what politicians do” (please feel free to let me know if I’m wrong on this one).

In another example, there is a blogger here in Pennsylvania that likes to attack specific issues on a very rudimentary level. I appreciate the concept, but I’m disappointed with the lack of analysis. Recently he published a series of snippets regarding Farm Subsidies. Unfortunately, he simply makes grossly broad statements regarding the total payments received by each County in Pennsylvania, but he provides no further explanation regarding his findings. To just throw numbers around is pointless unless you can wrap up your findings with a purpose or complaint. It just muddies the water and tends to hide the real story.

In response, I decided to do my own investigation of Farm Subsidies as they relate to my fine rural County . . . Mercer County, Pennsylvania.

The process of digging up the details is a bit convoluted. The website that I used is http://www.ewg.org/. If you dig far enough, you will find two databases of Farm Subsidies. The first database summarizes Subsidies for 1995 through 2006, and the second includes only Subsidies for 2007 (2008 numbers are not yet available on-line). Allow me to summarize my findings.

Farm Subsidies are payments made by the Federal Government to farms and farming operations as either “commodity payments”, “payments for conservation practices”, or “disaster aid”. Ken Cook, president of EWG, stated:

“Over 60 percent of the subsidy was pocketed by 10 percent of the recipients-the largest and generally wealthiest subsized farming operations in the country.”

“Congress is about to be grotesquely generous to big, subsidized farms that are now enjoying unprecedented prosperity, including double-digit increases in farmland prices,” said Cook.

The first big issue is that a program that should be used to level the playing field for small farmers to compete with large commercial operations has become a boon for commercial operations. This is a problem nationwide, and not specific to Pennsylvania (or any County within Pennsylvania). It seems that this huge Federal giveaway is open to corruption by large commercial farming outfits. The “Big Guys” are getting all of the money.

This obvious “cash cow” (no pun intended . . . ok, maybe it is a “pun intended”) made me wonder, however, what other corruption is buried underneath. I decided to dig a little deeper to find out what dirty little secrets were hiding under the surface. This is where my investigation got FUN.

The ewg.org site database is very detailed, and I decided to read the details line by line. Specifically, I examined the list of recipients from Mercer County for the period from 1995 through 2006. There were 1,083 names listed that received a total of $24,609,000 in subsidies. I also examined the list of recipients from Mercer County for the period of 2007. There were 435 names for a total of $734,000 in subsidies. I read every single one of the 1,518 names. A quick perusal of the list provided me with the names of some prominent local leaders. Allow me to share my findings:

Donald Whiting, New Wilmington, PA

Who is He? :

Donald “Duke” Whiting was the 2008 Democratic candidate for State Representative in the 17th District (parts of Mercer, Lawrence, and Crawford Counties) against Republican incumbent Rep. Michele Brooks (R). He lost.

How Much Did He “Take”:

“Duke” Whiting, an auctioneer, was a recorded recipient of subsidies totaling $384 in 2007. Small potatoes? Perhaps. However, I have little respect for an individual that takes the time to apply for free money simply because it is available and they think they can get something for nothing.

Kenneth R. Ammann, Greenville, PA

Who is He?:

Kenneth Ammann is a current Mercer County Commissioner (a Democrat). He took office in January of 2008. What were Kenneth Ammann’s qualifications for the much sought-after position of County Commissioner? Ammann ran for public office three times previously (and lost), and he was County’s Chief Clerk for more than two years before he was fired from the position in 2005. Regardless of his past embarrassments, he was elected to the County Commissioner seat in 2007.

How Much Did He “Take”:

According to the ewg.org databases, Mr. Ammann received $6,431 in subsidies between 1995 and 2006, and an additional $286 in 2007. Still small potatoes? Not necessarily. It was a nice chunk of change to look forward to on an on-going basis. I’m anxious to see the published numbers for 2008 to see if our County Commissioner continued to rake in free money from the Federal Government while also pulling down a $56,315 salary from Mercer County for his “job” as County Commissioner.

Kenneth Seamans, New Wilmington, PA

Who is He?:

Kenneth Seamans (a Republican) was a Mercer County Commissioner from 2001 to 2003 and again from 2006 to 2007. He was named to the position in 2001 to replace Brian W. Shipley when he resigned under heated circumstances (related to a county credit card and an office computer). He was also named to the position in 2006 after Michele Brooks resigned her seat as Commissioner to take her elected position as State Representative. What was Kenneth Seamans’ most notable contribution to Mercer County? He was one of the three infamous County Commissioners who were responsible for signing onto the 2002 Bond Loan for Woodland Place (the three contributors were Ken Seamans, Gene Brenneman, and Olivia Lazor, to be exact).

How Much Did He “Take”:

According to the public record, Mr. Seamans received $22,040 in subsidies between 1995 and 2006, and an additional $1,052 in 2007. Small potatoes? Not in my opinion. A free grab of over $23,000 from the Federal Government makes Mr. Seamans the “biggest taker” in this group. It is worth noting that while Mr. Seamans was holding the office of County Commissioner he received payments of $2,161, $1,624, $1,407 for the years 2001, 2002, and 2003, and $2,338 and $1,052 for 2006 and 2007. Remember, this was in addition to his $50K+ County-paid salary.

Walter Richardson, Grove City, PA

Who is He?:

Walter Richardson is a PA GOP State Committeeperson representing Mercer County (an elected position). Walter Richardson is also the husband of Mercer County Treasurer, Ginny Richardson (also a Republican).

How Much Did He “Take”:

Farm Subsidy Database records show that Walter Richardson received a commodity subsidy in the amount of $436 in 2003. Small potatoes? Maybe. However, it again goes to show you what steps people will take to get free money when they think they can get away with it. I find it hard to believe that the Richardsons needed a “leg up” as a “poor and struggling farm”. You would think that the generous salary of the County Treasurer position ($50K+) should be sufficient for Walter and Ginny Richardson to make ends meet. Or, is this another example of taking advantage of a system because “they could”.

IN SUMMARY:

These were just four names that I picked out of 1,518 names listed from Mercer County. I didn’t need to look far to find obvious flaws in the system. It seems that the Farm Subsidy system is being exploited from the top-down by large commercial farming operations, and it is being further exploited from the bottom-up by greedy folks that are looking for any easy source of free money (the four names presented here are examples of that).

I’m certain that there are worthy recipients in the list . . . somewhere; however, I’m concerned that this Federal give-away is another example of public welfare run-amuck. The Farm Subsidy Program seems to be just another Bail-Out program that isn’t working.


As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives