The Mercer Conservative Index: Grading Lawmakers and Candidates on a Simple Scale of Fiscal Conservatism and Public Service

Written by Roberta Biros
Yes, I’m a blogger. Yes, I’m admittedly opinionated when it comes to politics, political issues, and issues of good government. I am, however, also an analyst. I enjoy parsing data, analyzing it at a very basic level, and then making summaries based on the results of my research. Sometimes all of these interests overlap. The Mercer Conservatives Index is an example of that.

The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) will use a basic grading system to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. I will begin my analysis by examining legislators that represent Mercer County in Harrisburg and in Washington DC. I will then continue the analysis over the next 7 – 10 days as I examine all of our incumbent lawmakers and the candidates that are challenging them in the Primary and General Elections. This analysis will include Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and the six candidates that are challenging her from the Republican Party.

I’ll warn you now that you may not all agree with my grading system. You also may not agree with my conclusions. Unfortunately, it is MY index and it reflects my findings. If you’d care to start your own index, I invite you to do so. This project is, after all, an attempt to generate interest in our legislators and in candidates running for public office. It is intended to spark conversation and debate. It is not intended to serve as an endorsement of any public official or candidate.

The Grading System

Each candidate (as well as the incumbents) are graded on a set of 10-11 categories (depending on their current elected status). For each category, the candidate will receive a score based on the information that I’ve collected (through my personal exchanges with each of the individuals). The score assigned will be a number from 0 to 5 with 0 being the lowest score . . . and 5 being the highest. The scores for each candidate will be tallied and a total score will be provided. That total score will then be converted into a letter Grade (A, B, C, D, F) based the common grading scale below:

Grade A = 90-100%
Grade B = 80-89%
Grade C = 70-79%
Grade D = 60-69%
Grade F = 0-59%

Analysis Categories

Below is a brief description of each category and how the score for that category was determined.

Record

For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues. For candidates for office, this score is based on their published stand on issues and their professional resume.

Leadership

Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.

General Intellect
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.

Capability

Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire.

Likeability
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.

Electability (applied to candidates in current races only)

Electability is defined as the candidates ability to win the election in November. This takes into account the individual against whom they will be running.

Transparency and Accountability

This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.

Public Service

Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.

Desire to Represent “The People” of their District

This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?

Scrappy Factor

I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.

Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test

During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.

Who will be evaluated?

Initially, grades will be assigned for the state legislators that represent Mercer County. Evaluations for Senator Bob Robbins, Representative Michele Brooks, Representative Mark Longietti, and Representative Dick Stevenson will be published first (and in that order). Their evaluations will provide an example of how my grading process works.

Next will be my evaluation of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper.

Detailed evaluations will be published through my blog and on my standard website for historical purposes. I will publish one blog post for each individual to provide an equal promotional platform for every official and candidate that is involved in the analysis.



Below are the results for the State Legislators that represent Mercer County. An individual article was published for each as follows:
Senator Bob Robbins
Representative Michele Brooks
Representative Mark Longietti
Representative Dick Stevenson

OVERVIEW SUMMARY OF RESULTS SO FAR:



As always, these results are based on my opinions. ~Mercer Conservatives

Senator Bob Robbins receives an “F” on the Mercer Conservatives Index

The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.

Senator Bob Robbins (R-50th)
Grade: F (Scored 20 out of 50 = 40%)

The Details of Senator Robbins Grade

Record:
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues.

Score for "Record": 0
If you take a close look at the voting record of Bob Robbins over the 20 years that he has been in office, you will be hard pressed to categorize his record as “fiscal conservative”. Senator Robbins voted himself a pay raise in 2005, which breaks one of the key rules for fiscal conservatism. Finally, a review of Senator Robbins’ record on the Liberty Index (libertyindex.com) shows that Senator Robbins has struggled with grades ranging from a D to an F when examining his record.

Leadership:
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.

Score for Leadership: 3
Senator Robbins scores moderately in the Leadership category. He has managed to lead the Mercer County GOP as a group for years, but some would say that he has done so forcibly. Those that followed have not always done so by choice, but some have been forced to follow due to fear of being “thrown off the island”. Senator Robbins tends to lead more like a “King” than a “General”. He takes his power for granted and uses it at his whim. He does not lead by inspiring others.

General Intellect:
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.

Score f or General Intellect: 2
I met the Senator for the first time in the summer of 2006. I didn’t know who he was and had no idea that he was an elected official until he told me so. My first impression of him was that he was just “a guy” that showed up for a free dinner at a local event. My husband and I actually referred to him as “hobo Bob” as we saw him as a bit of a “Box Car Willie” character . . . not a State Senator. His intellect or intellectual capabilities have never impressed me.

Capability:
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?

Score for Capability: 4
The Senator has managed to do well for himself in his political “career”. He has done so through sheer determination, drive, and effort. I’ll give him high points for that.

Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.

Score for Likeability: 3
I’m trying to be fair on this one. I, personally don’t like the Senator for a number of reasons, but the people that do like him are quite loyal. I, therefore, have given him a split vote to be nice.

Transparency and Accountability:
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.

Score for Transparency and Accountability: 0
I have contacted Senator Robbins more times than I can count. He only responded once by letter. His response, however, did not answer the questions that I asked. To firm up this score, Senator Robbins has a history of hiding from the press too. He would prefer to not draw attention to himself for fear of being recognized as a career politician who is only concerned about himself.

Public Service:
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.

Score for Public Service: 0
Senator Robbins is not the type of guy to go the “extra mile” for his constituents. He might help out his political friends and partners in crime, but he makes no attempt to bridge the gap between Harrisburg and Mercer County.

Desire to Represent “The People” of his District:
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?

Score for Desire to Represent: 3
Senator Robbins is concerned about the people of the district only in as far as he is concerned about them re-electing him. Technically, therefore, he is concerned about representing them (so he they won’t fire him).

Scrappy Factor:
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.

Score for Scrappy Factor: 5
I would certainly describe Senator Robbins as Scrappy. He will roll up his sleeves to help his political friends. I’ve seen that first hand. Mr. Robbins receives high ratings here.

Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test:
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.

Score for the Litmus Test: 0
No thank you. I have no interest in sharing a cup of Joe with the Senator, and I would assure you that the feeling is mutual.

In Closing . . .

It is no surprise that Senator Bob Robbins (a.k.a. Coconut Bob) came in with a rating of only 40%. That is a Grade of “F” in any book. So, I’ll ask AGAIN . . .

Why will no one step up to run against this man and force him to prove his value to the people of the 50th District?

Why is he squeaking by with a mediocre record of public service and a less than mediocre voting record in Harrisburg?

Are people that complacent with “business as usual” in Harrisburg? OR is everyone just afraid to take on the head of the Republican Party in Mercer County?

As I’ve said numerous times in previous blog posts, there are only 826* signatures required (by August 2nd) to get onto the ballot as an Independent candidate against Bob Robbins [* - it should be noted that a recent call to the Pennsylvania Department of State clarified that the number is actually 827 signatures]. The cost to file nomination papers is only $100, and a list of registered voters is available (also from the Department of State) for a minimal fee of $20. All of the necessary paperwork is sitting on my desk right now, and the list of registered voters is due to arrive in a few days. Is anyone is interested in taking on the challenge?

If Bob Robbins were forced to actually RUN for his office, he might realize who it is that makes his “career” possible.

It is just something to think about.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

HERE ARE THE COMBINED RESULTS OF ALL STATE LEGISLATORS (that represent Mercer County):

Representative Michele Brooks receives a “B” on the Mercer Conservatives Index

The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th)
Grade: B (Scored 44 out of 50 = 88%)

The Details of Representative Michele Brooks’ Grade

Record:
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues.

Score for "Record": 5
As a fiscal conservative, Representative Michele Brooks receives my highest marks. She has received my highest rating on my list of fiscal conservative Representatives. This score is a no-brainer.

Leadership:
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.

Score for Leadership: 2
Representative Brooks receives a 2 in this category. Rep. Brooks is a positive force in her community and in Harrisburg, despite her limited years in office. She is a “respectable” and “respected” representative of the people of her district . . . She has not, however, established herself as a leader. I’ve discounted her in this category because she has proven to be a “follower” within County politics. Rather than taking a lead, she has chosen to take a back seat to louder voices, and for that lack of strong character I discount her three points.

General Intellect:
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.

Score for General Intellect: 4
Michele Brooks is smart. Some would argue that she is not “book smart”, but I disagree. When challenged, Ms. Brooks proves that she can get up to speed on any topic quickly. She accumulates “book smarts” as needed and continues to expand her intellect in the process. I would give myself a “4” in General Intellect . . . and I will give Representative Brooks the same for the same reasons.

Capability:
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?

Score for Capability: 5
What Rep. Brooks lacks in the General Intellect category, she makes up for “in spades” in the capability category. If I could have given her a 6, I would have. She is more than capable and her use of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire provide her with a high mark here.

Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.

Score for Likeability: 4
I like Representative Brooks. Unfortunately, it is not only my opinion that matters in this category. Unfortunately, there are many (mostly Democrats) that “have a strong dislike” for Ms. Brooks. For that reason I must discount her one point.

Transparency and Accountability:
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.

Score for Transparency and Accountability: 4
Representative Brooks is always responsive to questions, but that is covered under “Public Service” (below). In the category of “Transparency and Accountability” I give her a one point discount. While she generally answers all of my questions openly, sometimes I need to push to get those answers. Her first responses are generally guarded, but follow up questions will usually provide the necessary details.

Public Service:
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.

Score for Public Service: 5
Representative Brooks has responded to every request that I’ve ever had of her. She has contacted me personally by phone or email, and she generally does so within a day or two of my request. She is a public servant . . . through and through.

Desire to Represent “The People” of her District:
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?

Score for Desire to Represent: 5
Michele Brooks is not stupid. She knows that her constituents elected her, and she takes her orders directly from them. She usually votes with her Caucus, but those votes also represent the very conservative views of the people in the 17th District. She represents her people well.

Scrappy Factor:
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.

Score for Scrappy Factor: 5
She may not look it, but Michele Brooks defines “Scrappy”. She considers going the “extra mile” to be her job, not a bonus to the people of her District. I don’t see her ever being UNwilling to roll up her sleeves to get the job done.

Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test:
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.

Score for the Litmus Test: 5
I made an open invitation to Representative Brooks in 2008 (in a similar Litmus test). I’ve got a pot of coffee ready and waiting for her anytime she wants to stop by. For the record, she has never accepted the offer.

In Closing . . .

Representative Brooks faired well in my unscientific test (although I’m sure that she would complain that a “B” grade is unfair). While she falls short in some categories, she rates high in those areas that determine her ability to do her job. That job is to represent the people of her district in Harrisburg, and she has done that well. I find it difficult to harp on Rep. Brooks too harshly because the truth is that we need more fiscal conservatives like her in Harrisburg.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

HERE ARE THE COMBINED RESULTS OF ALL STATE LEGISLATORS (that represent Mercer County):

Representative Mark Longietti receives a “C” on the Mercer Conservatives Index

The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.

Representative Mark Longietti (D-7th)
Grade: C (Scored 37 out of 50 = 74%)

The Details of Representative Longietti's Grade

Record:
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues.

Score for "Record": 0
You don’t have to look far to find that Mark Longietti is no fiscal conservative. If you asked him he would never claim to be. Representative Longietti votes straight party in almost every instance. This score should not be a shock.

Leadership:
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.

Score for Leadership: 4
Representative Longietti is a leader in a passive sort of way (does that make sense?). He isn’t the type to give orders or to stand in the front of a group and march them into battle. Rep. Longietti has very simply gained the affection and respect of the people in his district by just being a nice guy. His constituents would follow him to the end of the Earth.

General Intellect:
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.

Score f or General Intellect: 5
I’ve had many conversations with Mr. Longietti. He is one smart cookie. He is an attorney, and when you talk to him you’ll know it immediately. I find debate with him to be particularly interesting. He gets a 5 for “smarts”.

Capability:
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?

Score for Capability: 5
What Rep. Longietti has in “book smarts”, he also has in hard-work, commitment, and dedication. He has managed in a few short years to establish himself in his Caucus as a team player. He is more than capable.

Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.

Score for Likeability: 5
I like Representative Longietti. I don’t always agree with him politically, but that has no part in this score. He gets a 5.

Transparency and Accountability:
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.

Score for Transparency and Accountability: 2
Representative Longietti is always responsive to questions, but that is covered under “Public Service” (below). In the category of “Transparency and Accountability” I would need to score him lower due to his refusal to answer many questions completely. He often hides behind terminology (like any attorney would do).

Public Service:
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.

Score for Public Service: 5
Representative Longietti has responded to every request that I’ve ever had of him. He has contacted me personally by phone or email, and he generally does so within minutes of my request. He is a public servant . . . through and through.

Desire to Represent “The People” of his District:
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?

Score for Desire to Represent: 2
I am forced to give Mark a low-moderate score in this category. In my conversations with him I’ve often found that his decisions are based on “what he thinks” is best for his constituents . . . even if it does not match what his constituents have specifically told him. He feels that as an elected Representative it is his responsibility to make decisions “for us”. I disagree. I think that many of his decisions and votes are based on what his Caucus has told him to do . . . not what his constituents have told him to do.

Scrappy Factor:
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.

Score for Scrappy Factor: 4
Mark Longietti isn’t really “Scrappy” in the traditional sense. He is, however, a very hard worker and would definitely go the “extra mile”. It is only fair to provide him with a 4 in this category.

Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test:
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.

Score for the Litmus Test: 5
Mark is a good guy, and I’d have coffee with him any time.

In Closing . . .

For a not-so-conservative legislator, Rep. Mark Longietti faired very well in my unscientific analysis. Rep. Longietti is a good guy. People like him. For that reason, he can hold his elected office for as long as he would like because it would be ridiculous to attempt to run against him. You only need to experience (from the sidelines) Mark marching in a parade to realize that he is "Superman" in the Valley. People cheer his name as though he is a rock star. In a way, Rep. Longietti is a rock star . . . in the 7th District anyway. People don't know or understand his record (as he doesn't publicize it much), but they will continue to vote him into office because of who he is . . . Superman.


As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

HERE ARE THE COMBINED RESULTS OF ALL STATE LEGISLATORS (that represent Mercer County):

Representative Dick Stevenson receives a “D” on the Mercer Conservatives Index

The “Mercer Conservatives Index” (hereby referred to as “The Index”) is a basic grading system designed to compare and rate candidates, elected officials, bills, etc. on a simple scale of fiscal conservatism and public service.

Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8th)
Grade: C (Scored 32 out of 50 = 64%)

The Details of Representative Stevenson's Grade

Record:
For elected officials, this score is based on the person’s proven record as an elected candidate from a fiscal conservative standpoint. It is completely based on their recorded votes and their public position on specific issues.

Score for "Record": 3
Representative Dick Stevenson is pretty conservative. He generally votes for issues of sound fiscal policy. I would have given him a 4, but he does not stand out on my list of Fiscal Conservative Representatives. He receives a bit of a deduction in that area.

Leadership:
Leadership is defined at the person’s ability to lead others and their ability to inspire others to follow them. This score is based on my personal interactions with the individuals and the impressions that they left me with.

Score for Leadership: 3
Rep. Stevenson is a positive force in his community and in Harrisburg. He is a “respectable” and “respected” leader to some. I’ve discounted him in this category because he has proven to be a “follower” within County politics (like Representative Michele Brooks). Rather than taking a lead (and stepping up to a higher office), he has taken a back seat to louder voices.

General Intellect:
Based on personal conversation, public presentations, and platform details, General Intellect rates an individual on their level of intelligence. “How Smart” does the person seem.

Score for General Intellect: 5
Based on what I know from experience, what I’ve read, and what I’ve witnessed through video and audio feeds, Representative Stevenson is a smart guy. I have no complaints.

Capability:
Capability differs from General Intellect in that it takes into account the ability of the individual to learn and adapt. Will they be able to step up to the position for which they have been or will be elected using a combination of intellect, hard-work, commitment, and desire?

Score for Capability: 5
Representative Stevenson has proved that he is a capable Representative

Likeability:
Likeability is a simple term. The grades are based on MY impression of the individual, but it also takes into account the way that others may view them.

Score for Likeability: 4
Dick is a nice guy. He is not overwhelmingly friendly, which explains my discount of one point. He is, however, friendly whenever you meet him. Everyone that I talk to agrees.

Transparency and Accountability:
This is an important category for me. It judges each candidate based on my experiences with them thus far. High points are given to those candidates that have been forthcoming with detailed information and who are willing to discuss issues openly and honestly. Low points are given to those candidates that have failed in their ability to communicate and provide specific answers in response to the questions that were asked.

Score for Transparency and Accountability: 0
Representative Stevenson does not answer questions. Instead he claims that all questions are “political”. His refusal to answer gives him a score of 0.

Public Service:
Public Service is somewhat tied to Transparency and Accountability. Public Service specifically rates each candidate on their record of responding to requests. It grades each candidate on their willingness to “go the extra mile” for their constituents. High marks are given for making an effort to communicate by phone, email, social networking, and personal meetings.

Score for Public Service: 2
Representative Stevenson’s low score is based on his unwillingness to respond to constituent inquires. I’ve provided him with 2 points, however, as it seems that he address issues directly to people other than myself. He makes himself accessible at public gatherings (even if very briefly). He deserves higher than a zero, but not much higher.

Desire to Represent “The People” of his District:
This is a very important element of the Index. Based on my discussions with the individuals (and their public remarks), each candidate is graded on their concern for the taxpayers of their District. Are their interests specifically focused on the people of the District, or are they looking at a broader base of constituents?

Score for Desire to Represent: 5
I get the impression that Dick works hard for the people of his District. Of ALL of the Districts, I’m probably the most disconnected from the 8th, so I’m not a particularly good judge. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Scrappy Factor:
I made this one up. Scrappy is hard to describe, but it rates each candidate on their “stick-to-it-iveness” (yes, I made that up to). I wanted to rate each candidate on whether or not they seem like the type that is willing to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that will be required of them. Are they willing to do the “not-so-glamorous” work that is part of public service, or do they tend to delegate responsibility so as to keep a distance from the more demanding tasks.

Score for Scrappy Factor: 0
Dick Stevenson isn’t “Scrappy”. I think he does what he needs to do to get his job done, but I don’t see him as “going the extra mile”.

Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test:
During the 2008 General Election, I invented the Mercer Conservatives Litmus Test. This score was based on one simple question. “Would I like to sit down and have a cup of coffee with this candidate?” My answer is based on the individual’s ability to impress me as being a “normal person” or the “guy or gal next door”. . . not just a politician.

Score for the Litmus Test: 5
Dick is a good guy, and I’d have coffee with him any time.

In Closing . . .

For a conservative legislator, Rep. Dick Stevenson falls short in my unscientific analysis due to his history of hiding from questions . . . ducking queries . . . and ignoring communications. By refusing to communicate, he demonstrates a complete lack of transparency and accountability and he ignores his responsibilities as a public servant.


As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

HERE ARE THE COMBINED RESULTS OF ALL STATE LEGISLATORS (that represent Mercer County):

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper responds to constituent concerns

Written by Roberta Biros

This blog seems to be the conduit for sharing information about Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper. I received multiple email messages today . . . all containing the same thing. Each email message (received from various individuals) contained a forwarded email message from the office of Congresswoman Dahlkemper. In an effort to "share and share alike", I'm posting the content of the email message below so that we can all enjoy this valuable information together . . . like a family:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about H.R. 3590, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This is an important issue, and I take your comments very seriously. While we may not agree on the nature of every solution,
I think we can all agree that the American health care system is in need of reform.

As you may know, affordable and reliable health care is essential to the long term well-being of the people and economy of our district. Approximately 11% of the population in Pennsylvania's 3rd District is uninsured. This amounts to approximately 71,000 of our neighbors at risk of being financially handicapped by the skyrocketing costs of health care. Over 172,000 families and 13,200 small businesses will receive tax credits to help them afford coverage. That's going to make health care coverage more affordable for hundreds of thousands of people in Western Pennsylvania. Under this legislation every resident in the 3rd District will be guaranteed to find health insurance regardless of a pre-existing condition. People with diabetes, children who were born with a birth defect, cancer survivors?"they will have guaranteed access to care.

The Young Adult Healthcare Coverage provision which I authored was included in this legislation to allow young adults in the district the option to stay on their parents' plans up to their 26th birthday. This year, children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance coverage. Insurance companies will no longer be able to discriminate against women because this bill prohibits gender disparities in rates and coverage. It also ensures that you cannot be dropped from coverage due to an illness, creates an out of pocket max, and offers no lifetime limits on coverage. This bill outlaws these practices for all health insurance plans.

This legislation would also have a positive effect on the elderly population in our
region. This bill starts to close the Medicare Part D donut hole in 2010 by providing a $250 rebate to Medicare beneficiaries who hit the gap in prescription drug coverage. And beginning in 2011, the bill institutes a 50% discount on prescription drugs in the donut hole. This bill eliminates co-payments for preventive services and exempts preventive services for seniors from deductibles under the Medicare program.

Without this bill, the steadily rising cost of health care would become unsustainable. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House bill is fully
paid for and will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years. About half of the cost of the Affordable Health Care for America Act is paid for by targeting waste, fraud, and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid. The other half of the cost of the bill is paid for through a surcharge on a portion of the income on the wealthiest of Americans. This surtax would not affect 99.5% of taxpayers in our district.

I would also like to address some misinformation about the bill that has been circulating over the past few months. First, you should know that my staff and I have read and reviewed this legislation multiple times since it was introduced in December. There was some concern this summer that Members of Congress were specifically exempting themselves from the health care bill. H.R. 3590 requires that Members of Congress enroll in the exact same plan as constituents that decide to enroll in the state exchange plan. Also veteran's health care programs for both the
military and our veterans will not be undermined or compromised in any way by this health care reform legislation.

Some have suggested that this bill is not pro-life and will allow for federally funded abortions. That is simply not true. As you know I am pro-life, and I insisted upon strong pro-life language to fix the Senate bill. The President has signed an executive order that closes loopholes in the Senate abortion language to ensure that no federal
funds pay for abortions. The executive order from the president has the full force of law and maintains the status quo of the Hyde Amendment. No federal funds or taxpayer dollars will pay for abortions because of this executive order.

Finally for your review, I have attached a timeline of what and when, specific portions of the health care bill will begin working for you. Thanks again for taking the time to share your views with me. I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of your views on this and other issues of interest to you. If you would like to receive my E-newsletter, please sign up at my website at www.dahlkemper.house.gov. If I can be of any further assistance, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Kathy Dahlkemper
Member of Congress

It is good to know that we are in the good hands of the federal government. AND, YES, I'm being sarcastic!

If you have comments, please post them. If you have questions, please address them to the Congresswoman.

My Comments?

Oh, you all want to hear what I have say about the email message? OK, I'll make a few official statements.

1. Regarding her statement "Under this legislation every resident in the 3rd District will be guaranteed to find health insurance regardless of a pre-existing condition", I'd like to correct the Congresswoman and edit the statement to read "Under this legislation every resident in the 3rd District will be REQUIRED to find health insurance regardless of a pre-existing condition. If they do not they will be fined."

2. Regarding the Young Adult Healthcare Coverage provision that she authored which will allow young adults in the district the option to stay on their parents' plans up to their 26th birthday, I'd like to explain that the "Slacker Mandate" simply allows young adults to put off "adult" responsibilities far too long. Are we doing our "young adults" a disservice by letting them rely on Mom and Dad until they are nearing 30 years of age?

3. Regarding the $250 rebate to seniors to help to fill the "donut hole", I'd like to state that no government program would be incomplete without a direct payment to seniors. Once again the Federal Government has it wrong. Some people are affected by the donut hole, but others are not . . . but we are just going to give $250 to everyone? Sigh . . . .

4. Regarding the fiscal responsibility issues that were outlined, I'd like to know . . . IS YOUR CALCULATOR BROKEN?

Do I need to go on?

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

Gov. Rendell’s take on State’s Rights and Health Care

Written by Roberta Biros

Regardless of who wins the General Election in November, we can all look forward to Ed Rendell’s reign as Governor ending at the end of 2010. Can I hear an Amen!

Let’s be honest. Governor Rendell is nothing short of a Socialist. Please realize that “Socialist” isn’t a term that I’ve ever used in this blog to describe ANYONE. The term was only used once, and it was used by the Chairman of the Mercer County Democrat Committee (Bob Lark) to describe ME (for a good laugh and some insight on my political background on this topic read HERE), but I’ve never used it to describe anyone else. So understand that I don’t make this remark light-heartedly. I make the statement today in direct response to an interview that Governor Rendell had on Fox News this morning, March 29, 2010.

The topic of the interview on Fox and Friends was “Is it unconstitutional for the Federal Government to mandate that people buy insurance?” Governor Rendell’s response was as follows (and I quote):

“There is no legal question. These lawsuits are frivolous. There is no legal
merit. It’s just grandstanding by Attorney Generals. Why would you want to take
the immediate short-term benefits away from your citizens.”

Governor Rendell went on to explain that this is just a political game being played by the Attorney Generals across the country and in his own state.

If I could talk to Governor Rendell directly I would say . . . “No legal merit? What about the laws that are defined in the single most important document of law in the Country.” I would ask . . . “have you ever heard of the Constitution?” I would probably need to be more specific and expand on my question with . . . “have you ever heard of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution?” While you would think that the Governor would be familiar with the Bill of Rights, you really can’t “assume” anything in this case. If I could talk to Governor Rendell I would offer him a pocket edition of the Constitution for reference.

What the Governor fails to understand is that it is the RESPONSIBILITY of our state lawmakers to defend the rights of their constituents in our state. Failure to do so would be a breach of their “contract” with us as our elected officials. His only argument against the constitution is a reference to “short-term benefits”. “Short-term benefits” is the only carrot he could find for his stick. In an attempt to lure people away from the Constitution, Governor Rendell is offering “short-term benefits”.

I am hopeful that after this storm blows through, the Constitution survives . . . intact. Not for the “short-term benefits”, but for the long-term freedom of the people of the United States.

.

3rd Congressional District Candidates Face Off

Written by Roberta Biros

Energy levels were high as the crowd squeezed into the Schict Auditorium at Grove City College on Thursday night. The event was a candidate debate hosted by the Grove City College Republicans. The forum made it possible for concerned citizens to compare the six Republican candidates that are vying for the 3rd Congressional seat against Congresswoman Dahlkemper in 2010.

At the start of the presentation the room was cramped. Co-moderator, Michael Coulter, announced that additional seating for the event was available in pour-over rooms that had a live feed of the event. The high attendance was a testament to the fact that this is a VERY IMPORTANT election. Interest is high and that is always a good thing. The stage was set for a heated debate.

The format of the debate was simple. There were a few questions from the moderators that were directed to all candidates. Additionally, each candidate was given the opportunity to direct a question to another in the group. The decision of who would question whom was decided by a draw from a hat.

In the end, the forum allowed each candidate to enjoy a high point or two . . . some experienced more high points than others. Below is a quick breakdown of those highlights (and maybe a “low light” or two). My analysis would be incomplete if I didn’t also provide my opinions, which are scattered in for flavor.

The Candidates

Seated from left to right on the stage were Dr. Marta Moore, Steve Fisher, Paul Huber, Ed Franz, Mike Kelly, and Clayton Grabb.

Opening Remarks and Sound Bites

Each candidate was given the opportunity to introduce themselves. Below are some of the interesting sound bites from each.

Dr. Martha Moore:

“Why do I want to run for congress? Three words . . . enough is enough.”

Steve Fisher:

“People in Washington are not paying attention to what the citizens want. The difference is in listening to what is being said.”

“I’ll be as visible for you in Washington as I am in this district during this campaign.”

Paul Huber:

**While I have no specific sound bite for Mr. Huber, he overviewed his numerous qualifications and outlined his business background. **

Ed Franz:

“I think that Washington has been tone deaf to the 3rd District and the citizens of Pennsylvania.”
“Kathy Dahlkemper and the rest of the Democrats including Barack Obama aren’t concentrating on putting Americans back to work.”

Mike Kelly:

“I know what it takes to run a business. Wouldn’t it be nice if the people that run the Country knew how to run a business?”

Clayton Grabb:

“We The People”. Three simple words. Three powerful words. Three words that are divinely inspired.”

“They (in Washington) are our servants. They are no different than you or I. That is why I’m running.”

Highlights (or lowlights) for each Candidate:

Based on everything that was said throughout the evening, I’ve selected a few interesting remarks that summarizes the performance of each candidate.

Dr. Martha Moore:

The first question to all candidates asked when they would be willing to compromise on issues. Dr. Moore (who seems to have a quote for everything) referred to the quote “In issues of style, go with the stream . . . in issues of principle stand like a rock”. That was a pretty cool response.

Another highlight from Dr. Moore was not in her responses but in the question that she offered Paul Huber. Dr. Moore finally asked the question that everyone has been tip-toeing around. She asked “You started as a Democrat but now you sound like a Reagan Republican. Are you going to get to Washington and turn into a Democrat again?” It was a great question and it needed to be asked. Unfortunately, the response ended up being one of Paul Huber’s highlights (see below).

Steve Fisher

One of the highlights of the evening for Steve Fisher was his response to a question regarding what government program he would reduce and/or eliminate. Unlike some of the candidates, Steve Fisher made the bold statement that he would “reduce Welfare”. Bravo! Mr. Fisher, however, refused to commit to one program that he would eliminate. Like most of the candidates, he explained the he would need to look at all of the programs in more detail before he could make a determination like that.

Another highlight for Steve Fisher was in his question from Mike Kelly. In may have been a softball question on Kelly’s part, but he asked what suggestions Fisher could make to fix the Health Care problem from the private level. Fisher is an insurance professional and handled the question expertly. He has a firm grasp of the Health Care issue, and the question from Kelly gave him an opportunity to show that off.

A final highlight from Fisher came in his closing remarks. The question (to all candidates) was “Why do you feel that you are the most electable candidate over Dahlkemper?” Fisher’s response was “I think Kathy Dahlkemper is vulnerable.” He explained that he is drastically different from Mrs. Dahlkemper because, in his words, “I’m going to listen to what the people are looking for.” Fisher’s response stated the obvious . . . Kathy Dahlkemper ISN’T listening. Fisher positioned himself as the candidate that will do the people’s business.

Paul Huber

One highlight for Paul Huber was his suggestion of what Federal programs should be reduced or eliminated. He agreed with Steve Fisher’s choice (welfare). Mr. Huber also picked out the program of Agricultural Subsidies. Many of you may know that this is an area of specific interest to me. I’ve written about Farm Subsidies in the past, and I’m against them. While he didn’t take the opportunity to discuss the matter on Thursday night, he did describe his concerns in more detail last Sunday. At that time he explained that he was raised on a farm and still farms to this day. He explained that in all that time “he has never accepted subsidies”. This pushes on a point that I’ve debated for quite sometime. It is often the case that subsidies don’t actually go to people that need them. Instead, they simply go to people that know how to use the system. I found this interesting and I like his stand on it.

The second highlight for Mr. Huber came in his response to a question from Dr. Moore. As stated above, Dr. Moore questioned Huber’s recent change to the Republican Party. I find this issue of particular interest because I’ve seen a similar argument in my own political background. Paul Huber had a wonderful response that struck a chord with me. He stated “labels belong on jars . . . not on people”. I thought that was particularly well said. Mr. Huber then went on to explain his conservative beliefs and background.

A lowlight moment for Mr. Huber was in his question to Ed Franz. Mr. Huber’s question was “What would you do regarding tax policy, regulatory policies, and employment policy that would help manufacturers get people back work?” It is my opinion that Mr. Huber comes off as an intellectual elitist. His question was asked in such a way that it seemed as though he was intending to belittle Ed Franz in some way. Ed Franz’s initial response was one of his highlights (see below).

Ed Franz

As mentioned above, the question from Paul Huber to Ed Franz came off in a bad way. After Huber asked his question, Ed Franz simply paused and said “well, thanks for that question Paul”. There was a hint of sarcasm in his voice and it was noticed by all attendees. The response received chuckles across the room. It was a very funny and light-hearted moment.

Another highlight in the evening for Franz was his response to a question regarding how he would “compromise” in Washington. Ed Franz went in a perfect direction when he stated “The death tax needs repealed. A compromise is to lower it. As long as the compromise helps, I’m okay with it. Where I won’t compromise is in deficit spending.” This simple statement managed to position Franz as a fiscal conservative. In my opinion, Franz needs to concentrate on this issue in order to pull himself away from the pack as a focused fiscal conservative.

The final highlight from Ed Franz came from his response regarding his electability against Kathy Dahlkemper. Franz made the bold move to state “(Kathy Dahlkemper) ran on the issue of Pro-Life. 14 months later she proved that she is not a friend of the unborn . . . she voted for a bill that will pay for tax funded abortion. We can’t afford to send fakes to Washington.” Wow. Those sound like fighin’ words to me. He took a bold stand, and I applaud him for his direct attack at the Congresswoman. It was refreshing.

Mike Kelly

A highlight for Mike Kelly came in his response to a question from Steve Fisher. The question was regarding the GM bailout. Fisher asked Kelly, a GM Dealer, how he would have voted on the government bailout. Kelly said “If you can’t make it on your own, how do you expect to make it on someone’s back?” He went on to say “I would have voted No. Your tax dollars should not have gone to keep a company alive that couldn’t make it on their own.” Those have been my thoughts regarding the bailouts, and it was nice to hear them clearly stated by one of the candidates. Mike gets extra credit for that one.

Kelly’s final highlight was, unfortunately, also a lowlight for him. During the closing question regarding his electability against Dahlkemper, Kelly started by explaining that “we’ve all had it with politicians”. He continued with “don’t blame the government. . . blame the people that we have sent to Washington” and he used great sound bites like “Say what you mean and mean what you say”. Unfortunately, as he was presenting his worthy sentiments, his voice was rising and he took on a very mean and angry tone. I realize that this might be part of Mike Kelly’s “schtick”, but he left me (and others in the room) with a sense that he is just a very angry man. In my opinion, it was an unfortunate ending to his performance. In an argument about why he is the best person to defeat Dahlkemper in November he managed to demonstrate why he may not fair well against her when it comes time to take her on face-to-face.

Clayton Grabb

Clayton Grabb had numerous highlights throughout the evening. Mr. Grabb seems very sincere and he genuinely speaks from his heart. While he may not be the most polished “politician” of the group, that is exactly what makes him appeal to the “anti-government/anti-incumbent” crowd.

One specific highlight from the evening was Grabb’s response to the question about which Federal programs should be eliminated or reduced. Grabb is the ONLY candidate that provided an example of a program that he would eliminate. Grabb stated “Eliminate the Department of Energy. We need energy independence and that department is not getting it done.” In a question that was ducked by many, Grabb stood out with his bold comment. Grabb also commented that there should be a “freeze on all government hiring”. I say “Amen” to that.

A second highlight came for Grabb in his use of humor. When discussing ways to improve health care, Grabb made the reference “You can’t have a night watching TV without seeing a caveman or a gecko.” This was an obvious reference to the fact that insurance companies have plenty of money for advertising. As a follow up he stated “Open up the markets and let there be competition”. His use of a bit of humor was a great way to bring attention on the issue. It was a light-hearted moment.

The most memorable highlight for Clayton Grabb was in his closing statements regarding his electability against Dahlkemper. Realize, first, that his comments followed those of Mike Kelly, which were very angry and loud. After a brief silence Grabb first stated “I know in my heart that I’m going to win the Primary in May and I feel confident that I’m going to beat Kathy Dahlkemper in November.” Clayton Grabb has the ability to inject emotion in his words, and it is moving. He then went on to make a statement referencing his military background and the explanation of what occurs when there is a “breach in the wall”. He used the same words last night as he did at a similar forum last Sunday, but it is a REALLY GOOD speech. I won’t even attempt to quote it here as it simply wouldn’t do it justice. Let me simply say that if you haven’t heard Clayton Grabb speak you should make it a point to make it to one of his upcoming functions.

In Closing . . .

Those were the notable highlights and lowlights of the evening . . . from my perspective, of course. I’m sure that everyone in the room left with different impressions of the events of the evening, but that is what makes this Country so great. One thing that we can all agree on is that formal debates like this one are an important part of the political process. It was encouraging to see so much interest from the community. I can only hope that everyone went home more informed than when they arrived.

As always, just my opinion.
~Mercer Conservatives

BLOG POST UPDATE:

Based on a reader request, I've compiled a list of links to the candidate websites for your reference. Please use these links to due further research regarding each candidate.

Dr. Martha Moore
Steve Fisher
Paul Huber
Ed Franz
Mike Kelly
Clayton Grabb

The Definition of Irony?

Written by Roberta Biros

If you have ever wondered how you could define irony in one simple picture or one no-nonsense example, I think I’ve found an answer.

The screen shot to the right illustrates the advertisement that was running on my blog site today. Google is great for running related advertisements based on content. Unfortunately, I may have found a weakness in their algorithm. In this case, the ad was running on my blog post titled “Employees of Congresswoman Dahlkemper Campaigning “On Company Time”?

I urge you all to visit the article link above and click on the advertisement (if it is still available). First, I’d like for you all to send Congresswoman Dahlkemper an “appropriate” thank you message. Second, I get PAID for each referral.

Ain’t the internet great?

.

Spend, Spend, Spend: PA Budget Passed in the House

Written by Roberta Biros

Governor Rendell is in a hurry to pass a budget before the June 30th deadline (for the first time in his career as Governor I might add). That is a GOOD THING.

Unfortunately, the piece of garbage that passed the House today is a mess. I don’t usually allow legislators to put words in my mouth, but in this case I’ll make an exception. I’d like to quote Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th District), whose official email announcement stated that “this spending plan is a fiscal train wreck”.

Wow! I wish I had written it myself! In a way, I guess I just did. It was absolute plagiarism . . . plain and simple but I digress. Regardless of WHO said it first . . .

Calling the budget a "fiscal train wreck" is some strikingly straight talk from a Harrisburg insider. In response, I say “It’s about time”.

I received numerous email messages from Pennsylvania legislators today. Each one explained that the idea of passing a budget quickly (and well before the deadline) is a great idea. Every legislator hopes to have a budget passed before the end of June this year . . . especially those legislators that have opponents in the General Election. However, the obvious fiscal irresponsibility of House Bill 2279 is poor policy. We can all tiptoe around the fiscal quagmire that IS the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, but all of the icing in the world can’t sweeten this poison pill that they call a State budget.

Here are a few excerpts from the legislator email messages that were received in my “In Box”:

Representative Dick Stevenson (R-8th)

“At a time when state revenues have not yet rebounded, Pennsylvania needs to look to other states and follow their lead to reduce spending, not increase the state budget by $1.2 billion or 4 percent,” said Stevenson, a member of the House Appropriations Committee. “Neighboring states like Maryland, New Jersey and New York have all taken steps to decrease expenses. They face the same financial obstacles we do, but they realize their taxpayers cannot afford a penny more in increased taxes and fees.”

Representative Brad Roae (R-6th)

“I voted ‘no’ because there is too much spending in the budget bill. Spending has increased by more than $8 billion since Governor Ed Rendell took office. We cannot afford to spend more than a billion dollars more than last year’s budget.

Representative Karen Boback (R-117th)

“I am greatly concerned about the overall spending number of this budget. The 2009-10 budget used all of Pennsylvania’s reserve accounts, and we are facing another deficit at the end of the year. To increase spending by $1.2 billion, which is 4 percent growth, is not wise. We should continue to look for ways to allocate our resources prudently, and we should remain cognizant that federal stimulus funds we have received for the past two years will soon run out. This is just not the time to increase state spending. “

Representative Sam Rohrer (R-128th)

“The current administration has led Pennsylvania down the path to fiscal insolvency,” Rohrer said. “The budget approved today by the House is simply a continuation of the fiscally irresponsible practices of the last eight years. It spends too much, disregards financial reality and ignores the wishes of Pennsylvanians.”

Representative William Adolf (R-165th)

“While I am pleased to see us debating the budget this early in the process, I believe the spending plan that was passed today is taking us in the wrong direction,” Adolph said. “This budget spends far more than we can afford, and it sets us up for some major financial problems in the near future.”

Representative Michele Brooks (R-17th)

“I agree that government should be listening to the people it serves and address the numerous calls to live within its means. This spending plan is a fiscal train wreck that does not reflect the priorities of the people who are paying the bills and who have told us government must operate more efficiently and effectively.

In Closing . . .

HERE is a link to the budget document, and HERE is a link to the House Vote (which ended at 107 to 89 . . . pretty much along party lines).

My father used a saying when I was a kid. I never had a purpose for it until today. He would say “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sows ear”. I find that analogy to be perfect in this situation. House Bill 2279 is a sows ear. It will be the job of the State Senate to transform it into a silk purse before June 30th.

Unfortunately, my faith in the ability of the Senate to bend and twist this sows ear into something attractive is limited. Our State Senators are concerned about having their names tethered to another delayed budget. That concern will make them hold their nose and vote FOR this “train wreck” with hopes of not drawing attention to themselves. They are crossing their fingers, closing their eyes, and praying for this election year to blow over without incident.

Time will soon tell.

Congressional Candidate Debate in the 3rd District (Thursday, March 25): Comparing Apples-to-Apples

Written by Roberta Biros

For those of us concerned citizens that reside in the 3rd Congressional District, the upcoming debate of the Republican Congressional Candidates is a MUST SEE. The details were published by my friends at The Herald HERE. Here are the specifics:

Date:

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Time:

7PM

Where:

Grove City College, Schict Auditorium of the Hall of Arts and Letters

Why:

This meeting with give the six candidates that are trying to de-thrown Congresswoman Dahlkemper the opportunity to pit themselves against each other. It will provide us with the ability to compare apples-to-apples in this very heated race. We need to get to the details, and this debate MIGHT just do that.

Who will be there?

Attendees will include concerned citizens like myself. I urge you all to attend.

The six candidates that are running in the May Primary on the Republican ticket are . . .

• Steven M. Fisher, 52, Cochranton, a health insurance salesman.
• Ed Franz, 48, a Conneautville hourly worker at General Electric Corp. in Erie.
• Mike Kelly, 61, a Butler car dealership owner.
• Clayton Grabb, 47, a Butler pharmaceutical salesman.
• Dr. Martha Moore, 52, a Sandy Lake family practitioner.
• Paul Huber, 65, a Meadville businessman.

In Closing

I've had an opportunity to speak with all of the candidates personally. I have had at-length discussions with three . . . Steven Fisher, Mike Kelly, and Ed Franz. I like all three. Fisher, Kelly, and Franz all have "a backbone" and "a clear and fiscal conservative vision" for the people of the 3rd Congressional District. Most importantly, these three all get points in the "likeability" column.

Clayton Grabb seems to be a stand up guy. I like his "independence from Party" stand, and I think his military background is a bonus. He also gets points in the "likeability" column.

Dr. Martha Moore and Paul Huber leave me empty.

For additional details regarding these candidates, please review my article titled "Anyone for a game of political hot potato (Part One)?: Misuse of Legislative Resources ".

I will attend the event, and I will report the highlights back to you in this forum.

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

Anyone for a game of political hot potato (Part One)?: Misuse of Legislative Resources

PART ONE OF A TWO PART SERIES
(read PART TWO HERE)

Written by Roberta Biros

Politics are funny. Wait. STRIKE THAT. Let me start again.

Politicians are funny.

They are all the same. Democrat or Republican . . . it doesn’t matter. They all follow a code. That code can affectionately be referred to as CYA (yes, Cover Your Arse). As a general rule, once an individual has been elected to public office, they will live and die by the CYA code. I’ve seen it in action for years, but never quite so obviously as over the past few weeks.

Today’s issue actually began at the beginning of March. On March 1st I published an opinion post. Nothing unusual. On March 2nd I received a nasty comment to my opinion post. Again nothing unusual . . . not on the surface anyway. I receive positive and negative comments all the time. I write political commentary in an effort to educate and to stimulate. If I don’t stimulate conversation, then I simply haven’t done my job. It is my belief that more people need to “care” about politics and government, and I’m doing my part to increase interest and attract attention to important issues. The comment that I received on March 2nd was particularly personal. When I researched its origins I found that the comment was generated from a computer in a U.S. House of Representatives office. Based on a review of all of the data available, it was clear that the comment was submitted by a member of Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper’s staff. I did what I do best . . . I published the information and contacted Mrs. Dahlkemper, the current candidates for Congress in the 3rd Congressional District, and my current state legislators to find out where they stand on the issue of congressional staff using taxpayer resources to grind a personal axe. Letters and email messages went out on Thursday, March 4, 2010.

The responses (or lack thereof) to my direct questions were interesting. In this post, which is PART ONE of a two part series, I will outline the response that I received from Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and those that are challenging her politically this year in the 3rd Congressional District. Here is a detailed break down of "who said what":

Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper

On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, I received a phone call from Congresswoman Dahlkemper. The call came in at 5:40pm from the US Capitol (202-226-9928). I was not home and the call went to voice mail. Congresswoman Dahlkemper left the following message:

“Hi Roberta. This is Congresswoman Dahlkemper calling. I was following up with you on the letter that you sent me. I will try to call you later this evening just to touch base with you on that.”

I received a second call from Mrs. Dahlkemper’s private cell phone at 7:30pm. She left no message.

I received a third call from Mrs. Dahlkemper’s private cell phone again at 8:59pm. Because I was still not home, she left the following message:

“Hello Roberta. This is Congresswoman Dahlkemper calling again. I was hoping to connect with you. I will try again. If you have a chance you can call me at my office tomorrow at 202-225-5406. Thank you.”

I called Mrs. Dahlkemper’s office on Thursday, March 11, 2010 as instructed. She was unavailable and I left a message. I never received a return call. I emailed the Congresswoman’s office once again on Tuesday, March 16th. I received no response.

Mrs. Dahlkemper found it important enough to attempt to call me three times in three hours on one evening. However, the interest quickly faded and things returned to business as usual. It is unfortunate that I was not available to receive Mrs. Dahlkemper’s calls. I would have enjoyed the opportunity to discuss the matter with her personally and to find out exactly where she stands on the issue of her staff’s misuse of time and resources. Lack of a concrete response leaves me with no other choice than to say that Mrs. Dahlkemper didn’t find the issue important enough to take a stand “for” or “against” her staff. I find her behavior weak. I have no respect for an elected official that “stands for nothing”. If she had at least explained her opinion in the matter, I would have respected her for taking a stand. Instead, she tossed the hot potato.

Mrs. Dahlkemper receives high points in her ability to follow CYA protocols.

Candidates for Congress in the 3rd District

I sent letters and/or email notifications to the candidates for Congress in the 3rd District. Who responded to my query?

Steve Fisher (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

I received an immediate response from only ONE of the candidates listed above. Steve Fisher contacted me personally by email and promised that he would provide official written responses to my questions. In response to the three questions that I posed to all recipients of my letter, Mr. Fisher responded as follows:

Question #1:
Do you condone the use of federally-funded equipment on federally-funded time to defend your image as a Congressperson?

Response to Question #1 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
As an elected official, I would not condone any of my staff members for using such equipment or time to defend my image in a manner such as this. First of all, it was a blatant attack on your character. And second, it was done without any identification. My staff would be instructed to respond accordingly to letters, complaints, etc. using all professional methods necessary. If we were made aware of a Blog, Twitter account, etc. that is seeking information regarding my position, they would be responding without personal attack and would use factual documentation and they would be identified by name and position. If detailed information was required, I would have those requests directed to me. I would also personally follow-up as much as possible to meet with the concerned citizens. I understand that covering seven counties can make this difficult, but a letter like what you wrote would definitely receive a personal phone call or visit.

Question #2:
Do you actively request that your employees seek out negative information about you (on Federally-funded time and equipment) on the internet with the intention of personally attacking the individuals that are responsible for the posts?

Response to Question #2 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
Absolutely not. As an elected official, one must understand that there will always be some negativity in the media, on the internet, or in social activities. I am sure that people would make me aware of such personal attacks, but we would not be spending tax-payer dollars seeking them out. As to how we would respond, I believe I addressed that in the first question but can assure you that I would not allow any personal attacks such as what you received. In my opinion, such an attack would be cause for discipline and possible termination.

Question #3:
Do you encourage your staff members to speak on your behalf regarding issues of policy, issues of politics, and issues of personal-decisions and personal preferences?

Response to Question #3 from Mr. Fisher’s perspective:
Knowing that I will not always be available, I believe that my staff should have a strong understanding of my position on issues and would be able to reflect my position to constituents. If specific questions are asked that go beyond the basic information, my preference would be for them to refer those directly to me for my personal response. Part of the problem that we have had in Washington is that our elected officials have distanced themselves from the voters. I do plan to make myself more available in all seven counties on a regular basis. This may require me to hold meetings at night and on weekends, but that would be acceptable if it allowed me to better serve the District.

Steve Fisher took the time to respond personally, and he put forth an effort to be clear about his opinions of the incident. He took a stand, and he put his opinions in writing. He demonstrated that he would not waiver on how he makes decisions. He is a candidate worthy of support in his race against Mrs. Dahlkemper in November. He demonstrated intestinal fortitude, which is refreshing.

Ed Franz (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

I had the opportunity to have a one-on-one discussion with Ed Franz. I attended a meet-and-greet which was held on his behalf on Tuesday, March 9th in Linesville, PA. I was encouraged to attend by a friend (and an Ed Franz supporter). I had heard that Ed was a great guy, but I wanted to make my own judgment on his qualifications as a candidate. I had an interesting conversation with Mr. Franz, and in response to the 'Dahlkemper issue' he stated that he would provide me with a written response by email. We exchanged contact information. Unfortunately, Mr. Franz never bothered to take the time to put his responses in writing and he did not contact me to complete our conversation. He was quick to make 'the promise', but he did not follow through with 'the action'. He did the one thing that ALL people hate about "politicians" . . . he made a promise that he did not keep. Tisk . . . tisk . . . tisk. For this reason, the value of Ed Franz stock has dropped in my book. I don't want to be too quick to judge, but Mr. Franz has not made a good first impression with me. He is a nice guy, but he hasn't demonstrated his ability to take on the task of Congressman in the 3rd.

Mike Kelly (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

I received a personal phone call from Mike Kelly. He called to thank me for my work as a blogger and my efforts to shine a light on the political issues of the area. While he did not call to specifically discuss the issues related to Mrs. Dahlkemper, he found the allogations regarding the actions of her staff to be embarrasing. He stated in general terms that Mrs. Dahlkemper has abandoned her original stand as a non-politician and business person by quickly becoming a very entrenched politician. Our conversation was brief but we managed to discuss our opinions on many different issues. We both agreed that a longer discussion at a later date would be useful. He stated that he would call me back in the near future to schedule a personal meeting.

I give Mr. Kelly credit for taking the "personal route". The effort was all his, and he earns extra credit for that. I was curious to see if Mr. Kelly would keep his promise by scheduling a face-to-face meeting. My question was answered on Saturday, March 20 when I received another call from Mr. Kelly and he scheduled to meet me for coffee and further discussion. What did I discover?

Mr. Kelly is less interested in "politics" than he is in "policy". He is less interested in the "political back biting" that IS the Mercer County GOP than he is interested in bravely representing the 3rd District in Washington DC. He gracefully manages to side step "political" questions by focusing on the issues. He explained his view on Health Care Reform by citing specific examples that he has experienced as a business owner. He explained is support for keeping I-80 TOLL FREE by citing a childhood experience and his common sense view. He illustrated his firm support of smaller government and fiscal conservatism by expressing his own personal concerns as a "person" and not a "politician".

I'll admit that some of the rumors that I read and heard about Mike Kelly had me somewhat concerned. The gossip put him "in the pocket of political insiders", and that worried me. After meeting with him personally, I can say that Mike Kelly is his own man and he seems genuine in his desire to bring bold representation to our area. He is a candidate worthy of support in his race against Mrs. Dahlkemper in November.

All Other Candidates

Paul Huber (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
Clayton Grabb (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)
Martha Moore (Candidate for US Congress, 3rd District)

The remaining candidates on the list had no response to my inquiry. Hmmm. Hot potato anyone?

I had the opportunity to meet all three remaining candidates at a townhall meeting today. Here are some additional comments:

Clayton Grabb knew me when I introduced myself, he perfectly recalled the letter that I sent, he noted that he had posted my blog article on his Facebook page, but he never thought to respond. Hmmm.

Martha Moore knew me when I introduced myself. I asked if she received me letter and she said "yes". I asked if she wanted to respond to my questions and she said "should I?". Hmmm.

Paul Huber seems to be the most intelligent and well-versed in the group. However, when I introduced myself he had no idea who I was. I explained that I had sent a personal letter to his campaign and he responded "I've receive a lot of correspondence and I've been really busy". Hmmm.

In Closing . . .

This is a simple example focused on one straightforward set of questions.

Out of seven candidates for a very important elected position in the of U.S. Congress, only four made ANY attempt to respond.

Congresswoman Dahlkemper made an attempt but she lost interest and focus quickly. The “hot potato” was completely hers and she failed to handle it. She is no leader.

Candidates Steve Fisher and Mike Kelly stepped up to show that they are not afraid of questions. They both made clear statements of who they are and what they believe. I would be willing to give either one a shot at being my Congressman.

Candidate Ed Franz is a really nice guy. I'd have coffee with him any time. He failed, however, to illustrate his ability to lead or make hard decisions. He'd make a great buddy, but I don't know that he's ready to be a Congressman.

What about the other candidates? I ask you "What other candidates?"

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

.

Anyone for a game of political hot potato (Part Two)?: You say Hot POTATO I say Hot POTAHTO

PART TWO OF A TWO PART SERIES
(read PART ONE HERE)

Written by Roberta Biros

I'll start PART TWO of this story in the same way that I started PART ONE . . .


Politics are funny. Wait. STRIKE THAT. Let me start again.

Politicians are funny.

The Basis of The Story


The original "story" is related to an opinion post that I published on March 1. The opinion snowballed into a bigger issue when a congressional employee submitted a nasty comment to my post. I contacted Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper regarding her thoughts on the problem that occurred, and I contacted state legislators to get their opinions on the same issue.

In PART ONE of this two part story, I outlined the responses from Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper and her opponents on the Republican ticket in the Congressional race in the 3rd District. In this Part Two of two parts, I'd like to review the State angle on this issue.

In the case of the State Legislators that represent Mercer County, I realized that this particular “political hot potato” was a bit too hot for any of them to touch. For that reason, I decided to reframe my specific questions to them in an effort to find their individual legislative opinions regarding a more general topic. To that end, I sent them a follow up email stating the following:

As I am sure you are aware, the Pennsylvania Attorney General, Tom Corbett, is currently involved in a public corruption investigation. The charges that have been brought against members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly are very serious and specific. While the problem that was outlined in my correspondence (regarding Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s staff) does not rise to that level, the basic questions that I ask are important in understanding your perception of “good government” as an elected official representing Mercer County. As a matter of discussion, I’d like to take a direct quote from the Pennsylvania State Grand Jury presentment (which can be downloaded HERE):

"Numerous past and present members of Representative DeWeese's legislative staff from his district offices testified before the Grand Jury. These staffers described the type of work that should be performed by legislative district office employees. This
legitimate work was primarily in the field of constituent services. The district office employees would assist people with forms, issues and concerns arising out of constituent interactions with state agencies.

Staff members would also assist constituents with questons about state employment. Additionally, staffers discussed and noted the concerns of constituents about legislation and legislative concerns. These would be forwarded to Harrisburg staff for any required attention and response. All of the district office staffers who testified before the Grand Jury stated that they knew the difference between legitimate legislative work and improper campaign work. They all stated that their work was never limited to the aforementioned appropriate legislative work.

Representative DeWeese's legislative staff and campaign staff were virtually one in the same. Michael Manzo detailed for the grand jury how DeWeese had no campaign apparatus beyond his legislative staff. Practically every aspect of his campaign, whether fundraising, mailers, advertisements, signs, or door to door canvassing, was performed by legislative employees. The core group in this effort was the staffers in DeWeese's district offices. "

In the statement above, the types of “legitimate” work that should be handled by staffers is clear. Based on those statements, please answer the following additional
questions regarding the incident of March 2nd that was outlined in my original
email message:

Do you believe that the “comment” that was posted to a public forum by a federal employee falls under the category of “legitimate work”?

Do you believe that there is room for any “grey area” when determining “legitimate work” of government employees?

Additionally, please respond to the following questions regarding the general concept of staffers mixing legitimate work and campaign work:

Should paid staff members be involved in campaigning at all (even on their personal time)?

In an effort to avoid the perception of impropriety, would you support legislation that would draw a firm line between legislative staff and campaign staff?

I emailed these follow-up statements and questions to Mercer County’s legislators on Tuesday, March 16. Below are the responses that I received (and those that I did not).

Representative Mark Longietti

I've never been disappointed by Mark Longietti’s level of energy or commitment to his constituents. He always responds to my queries . . . even if to say “I don’t want to respond to your query”. In this case, Representative Longietti called me from his personal (and privately funded) cell phone . . . a point that he stressed. First, he wanted to make it clear that I should not “assume any response based on his non-response to my query”. Rep Longietti then went on to explain that it is “hard to define what is political and what is not”, and in this particular instance it is his feeling that “this is part of a political discourse” and that in exercising his “best judgment” he chooses to “not use legislative resources to respond” to my query. He asked that I “respect his judgment in this matter”.

I explained that because he is an elected official in my district, I felt it his responsibility to respond to issues of legislative opinion. Specifically regarding the last questions posed, I asked his “legislative opinion” (not “political” opinion) regarding these specific questions. He refused to respond.

Rep. Longietti and I have had discussions regarding this matter in the past, and we argue the details each time. It is always an intelligent and heated debate. I asked Representative Longietti that since ANYTHING can fall under the category of “political”, did he feel that using the label of “political” as a guise to hide behind was unfair to his constituents. Again, he refused to answer and asked that I simply respect his right to not respond.

Once again, I respect Representative Longietti for getting back to me quickly and respectfully. I do not, however, support hiding behind words. He says potato and I say potahto . . . he says the question is "political" and I say a question is "policy". We will always disagree on this issue. He clearly senses the “hot potato”, and he reacted by backing into CYA mode. Unfortunately, that is just what politicians do. Representative Longietti is very much a “politician” . . . and a very good one at that. He is, however, also a pretty good guy. I’ll give him a pass on this one. He always has a right to refuse to answer a question, but I will continue to reserve the right to argue with him about it.

Representative Michele Brooks

Representative Michele Brooks is a hard-working public servant that burns the candle at both ends without complaint. The people of Mercer County can count on Ms. Brooks to respond to their inquiries . . . even if they do not reside in the 17th District (I am proof of that). Representative Brooks contacted me by phone (also using her personal cell). Like Representative Longietti, she made it very clear that she would not comment on the issues specifically related to Congresswoman Dahlkemper. Aware of the hot potato aspect, she felt it was “inappropriate to comment”.

When I specifically asked about Ms. Brooks legislative opinion regarding “legitimate work” and possible legislative reform in that arena, Representative Brooks provided a brief explanation. She stated that she has “supported reform legislation” in all areas. She explained that while many of the problems that are currently under investigation by the Attorney General took place before she was elected in 2006, many changes have already occurred to prevent potential problems in the future. While she made it clear that things are much better than they were, she also stressed that she would support further reforms in that area if they were to be presented. Representative Brooks has proven her stand as a "dedicated reformer" by her actions in Harrisburg over the past three years (which is why she is one of only ten members of our "PAGovWatch Honor Roll").

Regarding the rules that are already in place regarding legislative staff, Representative Brooks made a general statement that the members of her staff adhere to all rules regarding their positions.

I respect Representative Brooks for always responding to my questions and concerns. While she passed on the “hot potato” question related to Congresswoman Dahlkemper, she still showed “testicular fortitude” when responding to issues of legislative reform and good government (two areas in which Representative Brooks is both familiar and particularly active). Of the four state legislators that represent Mercer County, I find it funny that the ONLY woman in the pack is also the ONLY one in the whole lot of them with any “testicular fortitude”. The irony makes me giggle.

Representative Dick Stevenson and Senator Bob Robbins

As two of the original writers of the CYA code, Representative Stevenson and Senator Robbins did what they always do. They ignored my inquiry. In their case, it had nothing to do with a “hot potato”. For them it was easier than that. For Rep. Stevenson and Sen. Robbins it is simply a matter of ignoring their constituents consistently at every turn. Explain to me again why no one runs against these two? Neither one has any sort of “fortitude” . . . testicular, intestinal, or otherwise.

In Closing . . .

My experiences of the past few years have proven to me that I am not alone in my opinion of "what makes for a good public servant". There was a great letter to the editor in The Herald on Friday, March 20. In it a reference was made to our "so-called representatives". The individual wrote:

"We believe they are called public servants. We think each one should look up
the definition of a servant."

I've talked about the issue at great length with MANY MANY people in Mercer County, and my findings are always the same. As taxpayer . . . voters . . . concerned citizens, we all long for elected representatives with GUTS. I've used the terms "intestinal fortitude" and "testicular fortitude" interchangeably to represent this illusive characteristic. Is it so much to ask a person in office (or running for office) to stand for SOMETHING? Is it so ridiculous to think that people who are holding or seeking office should be required to clearly state an opinion when asked?

Trying to get a straight answer out of some of these people is like "pushing a rope". Should it really be that hard? Have the concepts of public service, transparency, and accountability been replaced with the "CYA Code" and "the game of political hot potato"? Sometimes I wonder, and it is becoming increasingly obvious that I am not alone in my concerns.

To that, I offer you (again) the following STATISTICS FOR REFERENCE:

The following is a quote from my article titled 2010 Petitions are IN: A Political Summary (published on 3/10/2010). It makes reference to the legislative offices that are open for election this year.

Third party, minority party candidates, and non-affiliated candidates can run for ANY of these offices. To do so, interested parties need to file nomination papers by early August. Until that time, interested candidates would need to begin gathering signatures in the quantities required by the State. That number is calculated by determining “2% of the largest entire vote cast for an elected candidate at the last election within the district”. Those numbers are computed below:

• To run against State Senator Bob Robbins, third party candidates must gather 826 signatures in 6 months (41,302 x .02).
• To run against Representative Mark Longietti, third party candidates must gather 519 signatures in 6 months (25,941 x .02).
• To run against Representative Dick Stevenson, third party candidates must gather 488 signatures in 6 months (24,389 x .02).
• To run against Representative Michele Brooks, third party candidates must gather 337 signatures in 6 months (16,844 x .02).

Summary Thoughts:

All you need is 826 signatures by August to run against Senator Bob Robbins? That would actually be pretty easy for anyone that's done that sort of thing before . Do you know anyone that fits the description?

They would, of course, need to be registered as "non-affiliated" or as a member of a third-party. Do you know anyone that fits the description?

They would also need to be dedicated to the concepts of good government and government reform . . . not to mention the fact that they would need to have a tireless desire to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions. Do you know anyone that fits the description?

Hmmm. Once again, the irony makes me giggle.

As always, just my opinion.

~Mercer Conservatives

BLOG POST UPDATE:

I contact our legislators regularly as I feel that it is the responsibility of "we the people" to hold our elected officials to the highest standard. Last week I sent the above list of questions regarding "legitimate legislative use" to the legislators representing Mercer County. Although I received some responses (2 out of 4 responded), my questions were not well received by any of those elected officials. I am not the only one in the State of Pennsylvania (or Mercer County) that is concerned about the inappropriate use of legislative staff. There was an interesting AP article (that was also published in The Herald on 3/21) which proves that. The article (read the full text HERE) provides a list of questions that we should ALL be asking of EVERY LEGISLATOR in Pennsylvania. I've sent the list of questions to those legislators representing Mercer County, and I will publish their responses if they decide to submit them.

I URGE ALL OF YOU to do the same!