In his article of August 7th Mike Argento was attempting to bad mouth the Tea Party...surprise, surprise. However, Mike inadvertently related that the liberal views of the Democrat Party are actually socialist "values." He did that by explaining the views of "Independent" (liberal) Senator Sanders of Vermont as follows:

"Sanders is the Hugo Chavez of the Senate, a socialist, which means that he believes that government has a moral obligation to its most vulnerable citizens and shouldn't exist to make rich people richer. He also believes that working people and the middle-class have gotten a raw deal over the past, oh, four decades. He also thinks working people should not have to subsidize hookers and private jets for big oil companies, Wall Street thieves and the other masters of the universe who are leading us in a race to the bottom of the world economic food chain."

There you have it...Hugo Chavez is the hero of modern-day liberalism in America. Mike tells us we need to be more like Venezuela. The way to save America is to become Venezuela. You know the government that, every other day, takes control of another private industry in the name of the people.

Mike also wrote the following:
"What the entire episode proved is that the world economy has fallen into the hands of a group of people who know nothing about anything and are proud of that fact. Of course, we're talking about the tea party people."

Really Mike? You are talking about the tea party people? You are proposing we become a socialist nation in the mold of Venezuela and you think the tea party people "know nothing about anything?"

I guess it all comes down to what mom always said, "Consider the source." She must have had Mike Argento in mind when she came up with that.

Profession of Politics

Response to President Obama's press conference today:

In his press conference today concerning the spending limit President Obama hit the nail on the head. The problem is, as he has been prone to do during his White House tenure, he hit the wrong nail. After all, he was aiming for lower unemployment and a booming economy when he forced stimulus spending on us…wrong nail. Health care for all was the cry with Obamacare…not quite. At least the nail he hit today was actually profound and points out the problem with the way our government is run.

President Obama said, “The difference between professional politicians and the public at large…” Read that statement again.

You might wonder what came next. But, that’s not what is important. What is important is the fact that in our government today there is a difference between politicians and the public at large. Our government was designed to run efficiently if, and only if, it were run by its citizens, not professional politicians.

President Obama later pressed the point that this budget deal must be done now in its entirety. He said we cannot put it off three months, six months, or more…it has to be done now. He continued that difficult decisions need to be made to solve this problem and these decisions will only get more difficult if they are pushed down the road a few months. The President explained his logic for the increased difficulty. He said the biggest problem in a few more months is elections. The longer ‘professional politicians’ wait to make these tough decisions, the closer the next election gets. The career politician doesn’t want to be making tough choices just before an election. That is the crux of the problem!

Professional politicians worry about the next election more than they worry about principled decisions.  That has to change if we want a smaller, more efficient government. Do we really want to have individuals represent us who are interested in their career more so than they are in voting with their principles?  That is what has brought us to where we are today and that is what has to end if we ever hope to fix our government.

Professional politicians answer to their Party leaders before they answer to the voters who sent them there. If you don’t do what the Party wants you will have no help getting reelected or getting any meaningful legislation passed. If you do what the Party wants, and it happens to be different than what your voters want, you have the power of the Party machine behind you at election time. It’s a win-win for the professional politician and the political Party machines. It is lose-lose for the rest of us.

Voting out professional politicians is a virtually impossible task. But, it can happen in one of two ways. One would be term limits. While it seems career politicians have no problem passing such legislation for the executive branch, they don’t go anywhere near it for their own branch of government. Term limits is an unlikely alternative. And, many opponents, from professional politicians to the ‘public at large’ contend that elections are term limits. The problem with that argument is that, not only do professional politicians oppose term limits, but they also stack the deck heavily in their favor for reelection. Therefore, the other alternative is election reforms.

Barriers to challengers are built into the system every step of the way. The number of signatures needed is a major challenge to anyone who does not have a political machine behind them. Professional politicians argue that it is done to make certain that any candidate on the ballot is a legitimate, sincere candidate. That sounds nice, but the reality is it is designed to stop challenges to incumbent officials. Gathering signatures just to get on the ballot is a daunting task that many good people just throw up their hands and decide not to ‘bother.’ That is only the beginning. The cost is prohibitive. The incumbent uses his office to gain votes just by doing his job. The political machine of the Party is there every step of the way using their experience and expertise in guiding the election effort.

Because of this I will say that I have reached a point in my life where I will find it very difficult to “pull the lever’ for any candidate who has a degree in public administration (an indication of wanting a career in politics), has ‘served his time’ with the Party, or has held that particular office for more than two or three terms (depending on the length of the term). That is easier said than done, but it is a philosophy I only hope more will adopt.

Until the two major Parties are put in their place, we will have politicians voting to please the Party leaders rather than the voters in order to keep their jobs. It is time to put an end to the idea of a profession of politics.

Politics as Usual

From: http://www.ydr.com/ci_18430494

If I sat down in a room with Michael Helfrich to discuss politics, I have very little doubt that there would be very little upon which we would agree. However, one thing I am certain we would agree upon is the “game” of politics. The experience Michael was put through by the Democrat Party leaders is appalling, yet not surprising.

Typically, it is the Republican Party that gets the rap for being closed-minded and shutting out those who present a threat to their power. While, as a member of the Republican State Committee, I can confirm that attitude among our leaders, however, it is obvious that the leaders of the Democrat Party are just as guilty. We saw it by the way they treated our former governor, Bob Casey, at the Democrat National Convention years ago, among other examples. Now, it has hit home.

In my view, Michael Helfrich is highly qualified for the York City Council. He would have made a great addition to that group. While he is guilty of some youthful indiscretions, he has more than demonstrated in recent years his commitment to the York community. As I said, Mr. Helfrich and I are likely polar opposites when it comes to political views, but I would have voted for him in a heartbeat if I were a citizen of York City.

The fliers that Ms. Smith mailed, with the approval of Cameron Texter, a Party insider, had nothing to do with the troubles of Michael’s youth. The fliers had everything to do with Michael’s status as an outsider of the Democrat Party. He has not paid his dues, so to speak. He has not demonstrated a loyalty to the leaders of the Party. He has not spent years going door-to-door for other candidates. He has not put in his time on the phone banks or recruiting new Democrats. While Michael has clearly demonstrated a true love for the York community he has not demonstrated that same commitment to the Democrat Party. Therefore, in the eyes of Party leadership, he is not qualified to serve and he is a threat to their control.

This incident only highlights the problems with political Parties. Our elections are no longer about average citizens trying to make a difference to improve the lives of their neighbors. They are about a small, select group of people maintaining control in any manner needed. We all are familiar with the major advantage that incumbents have at election time. The entire system is designed to prevent an individual citizen from running for office. If an individual does not have a small army to assist in the process it is virtually impossible to get on the ballot or to run a legitimate campaign. The incumbents have a built in campaign machine…their political party.

It is past time that we change our system to make it feasible for individuals to run for office without having to sell their soul to the Party leaders.

1.       We need a State version of the Hatch Act. This will prevent all state employees from being involved in elections. That will eliminate some of the campaign advantage elected officials have by preventing staff from soliciting signatures or standing at the polls on election day.

2.       The signature requirements for candidates must be lowered. The political parties will claim the numbers are needed to make sure that anyone on the ballot is a serious candidate. The reality is, as stated above, the average Joe does not have the political machine to go out and gather those signatures. Therefore, your average Joe needs to pay his dues to the Party before he has any hope of running a legitimate campaign.

3.       Open Primaries: scary stuff to the Democrats and Republicans. But, in York County especially, our elected officials are almost solely Republicans. That means that our representatives are chosen in the Republican Primary without any input from independent voters.

4.       Campaign Spending Caps: Without limits on spending the incumbent can easily outspend the average Joe in any campaign. However, if the amount spent is limited based on the office, then your average Joe can compete. In fact, he might have an advantage. I say that because a spending cap would require the incumbent to actually manage his funds intelligently. Most have little experience with that as the money they spend isn’t theirs.

5.       Term Limits: We need politicians who are willing to make the tough decisions. Nearly all of our elected officials are career politicians. Therefore, their votes are not designed to do what is best for society as whole, but for what is best for their reelection.

6.       State funding for political Parties must end!

No doubt you could come up with other ideas. This is just a start to the discussion. But, corrupt activity like that we saw in the York City Primary has to be stopped. The only way to stop it is to take the power from the Party leaders and return it to the citizens.

“MOMMY, HELP ME, HELP ME!!!”

http://www.ydr.com/ci_18412426?IADID=Search-www.ydr.com-www.ydr.com

The above link will give you the story. The below blog will enlighten you to the real issue.

Text ‘help me’ to I’mHelpless.gov if you don’t like receiving unsolicited spam text messages and are incapable of solving the problem yourself.

That seems to be the message our government sends us every time we turn around. Are Americans no longer capable of taking care of themselves?

On the surface, legislation to ban unsolicited text messages appears to be a good idea. Nobody likes to be bothered with that type of advertising on their cell phones. And, as the article states, depending on your cellular plan, it might even be costing you money. But, delve a little further and you will see why it is an unnecessary intrusion of government into our lives and why this type of legislation is turning Americans into helpless babies who need their Nanny Government to do all for them.

This type of legislation reminds e of a commentary by Rush Limbaugh from just last week. He was discussing the increase in ridiculous calls to 9-1-1. You know what I am talking about. The caller who had her order messed up at McDonalds and wanted the police to fix it. Or, how about the gentleman who called 9-1-1 to ask what day of the week it was? Rush’s point was that, as the Nanny-State Government increase its role in our lives, people become more and more dependent. Citizens begin to expect the government to fix every problem for them just as a four year-old child expects from his mommy.

It is time to take responsibility for our own lives and do the ‘dirty’ work ourselves without waiting for the government to fix our every problem. We already have ways of making these companies stop sending the text messages without having the government to pass a law. In fact, the very article touting the legislation includes information on how to solve the problem yourself.

Anyone who is savvy enough to use a cell phone should also be wise enough to learn how to put an end to unsolicited text messages without needing the government to do it for them. Instead of passing a law, our representatives should use a little ‘tough love’ and tell us to take care of it ourselves!

Thorn Cuts the Wrong Person

Find the original article here: http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_18416876

An excerpt from the Pennsylvania Secretary of Education on July 1, 2011 concerning the new state budget:

“The 2011-12 state budget, signed yesterday by Corbett, provides $10.1 billion for

the sustainment of public education and educational programs in Pennsylvania.

The state’s contribution to Basic Education Funding, which primarily supports school

district operations, was increased from last year by $233.3 million, or 4.56 percent.”

Strangely, this press release does not tell us the new state budget reduced state spending by the one-billion dollar amount the media keeps citing. So where does that number come from? Why do the media insist that Governor Corbett reduced school spending by one billion dollars when it is plainly obvious that this year’s budget spends $233.3 million more than last year? You tell me! Could it be that the media makes this claim in news reports, as they have repeatedly done over the past months, to garner an emotional reaction? Are they targeting conservative lawmakers who are attempting to be fiscally responsible with this misleading reporting?

The media can get away with this type of reporting because the claim they make is not factually incorrect. School districts across Pennsylvania will be receiving about one billion fewer dollars this coming school year compared to the last school year. However, that reduction is not the result of the Corbett budget. It is the result of the failure of the temporary stimulus money that the federal government, under the leadership of Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi, provided.

You remember the plan; the one that resulted in the ultimate demise of our liberal, former Republican (RINO) senator, Arlen Specter. The nearly $800 billion plan that was to create millions of jobs around the country, but ultimately it ended in higher unemployment (with Specter among the numbers who lost their jobs). The plan that provided temporary federal money designed to create all of those “shovel-ready” jobs and included funding for education. One of the many problems with the plan is that, while everyone knew it was temporary money, school boards did not treat it as such. The end result is that thousands of school district employees across the state are now unemployed.

Back to the thorns: Who deserves the thorns for this mess? Is it the person who increased school spending by 4.56% over last year? Or, do the thorns belong to the individuals who did not plan for what they all knew was coming down the pike? I know, the question is so obvious that it is silly. But, I need to answer it anyway. I mean, people couldn’t figure out that temporary funding meant that they wouldn’t get it every year and look at the mess they brought on all of us as a result.

So, THORNS to school directors and administrators across the state for failing to plan for the inevitable and continuing to take a “money grows on trees” attitude when it comes to school funding.

Welcome to the Twenty-First Century!

Based on the article "More Districts Offering Online Summer School: http://www.ydr.com/ci_18398710?IADID=Search-www.ydr.com-www.ydr.com

Well, well, well, I must say it is with great pleasure that I welcome York County school officials into the twenty-first century. The same group of people who have continually bemoaned the existence of cyber schools as an unfair competitor that drained needed financial resources from their districts are now singing its praises.

Some of the comments from these newly enlightened leaders include:

"It seemed appropriate to provide the opportunity (for students) to use talents and skills they learned in school with regard to making use of the computer in a real positive manner.” -Shelly Merkle, York Suburban

The move toward online was both an economic issue and a way of trying to provide every student an opportunity… -Phil Livelsberger, Dover

"It just provides a more flexible learning environment that's really reaching out to the kids," – Sandra Lemmon, Southern York County

Interestingly there were plenty of other educational ideas that came to mind to our newly enlightened leaders. They have suddenly realized that the cyber educational setting provides opportunities for “enrichment courses,” “credit recovery,” “flexibility,” and “can be tailored to students’ needs.” I suppose that just maybe, cyber school is so bad after all. In fact, based on this article, I am looking forward to our local school districts promoting the idea to the student body.

I must say though, the article did end with a bit of humor. Cyber schools have been a legitimate and popular option for years however Bryan Tayman of Southwestern School District commented that, “"We're trying to be more proactive than reactive." Well, it’s a little late for being proactive.

While that comment is humorous in light of the circumstances, the following comment is sad, and a clear indication of why our public schools are in such disarray.
“The online programs put the responsibility for completion largely on the students, school officials said.”
Really? The responsibility for completion is largely on the students in the online program? Whose responsibility is it for the brick and mortar students? Don’t tell me the teachers. It is always the student’s responsibility!

No Hope in Washington

See the original, http://www.ydr.com/opinion/ci_18392144 then read the rebuttal:

Appropriately, whether knowingly or not, Jon Clark, in his commentary of July 3^rd, used quotation marks around the words “effective and fair” when referring to a policy that will institute a carbon fee and dividend. The use of quotation marks sends the message that the policy will be neither effective nor fair.

Mr. Clark explains this plan by telling us that, “This approach would place a steadily rising fee on carbon-based fuels and return all the revenue to American citizens in the form of a monthly dividend payment. Most families would receive more of a dividend than they would pay for in increased energy costs, depending on their consumption. This proposal would not increase the size of government, as it is revenue neutral, and would send a clear price signal to markets to shift investments away from polluting, fossil fuels and toward clean energy and energy efficiency.”

The flaws in this theory make it both laughable and downright scary. It is a policy that could have come directly from Ayn Rand’s classic “Atlas Shrugged.” Punish the producers and reward the looters. Seriously, the more you produce for the benefit of society, the greater your use of carbon fuels will be and, under this policy, the greater your punishment. The less you produce, the lower your use of carbon fuels and the greater your reward.

While the above point is reason enough to oppose such a policy, I also must question his logic in stating that ‘most families would receive more of a dividend than they would pay for in increased energy costs.” The dividend might more than offset increased energy costs, but does Mr. Clark really believe that corporations paying this carbon tax (sorry, fee, not tax) are going to absorb that cost? Of course they aren’t. They can’t if they want to remain in business. This new tax will be passed on to the consumer through higher prices for everything we need. Therefore, what good would a monthly check do you if it doesn’t offset the increased cost of living?

This brings me to my next point, which concerns Mr. Cark’s assertion that “this proposal would not increase the size of government.” This comment calls for another use of the word seriously. I mean, seriously? It won’t increase the size of government? Please explain how that is possible. The government will be collecting this ‘fee’ and distributing monthly checks to 115 million households every month without increasing the size of government? Not likely. It’s much more likely that the federal government would create the Department of Carbon-Fuel Fees. Politicians would appoint family and friends to these jobs, paying them six-figure salaries and then this new bureaucracy would redistribute the funds minus the 80 or 90 cents per dollar initially collected. Please explain how the collection and distribution of this money can be done at zero cost. It can’t.

Mr. Clark concludes that he was pleasantly surprised at the positive response he received from Republican lawmakers as he presented this plan to members of Congress. Obviously Mr. Clark had a preconceived idea about the GOP. However, I believe Mr. Clark placed his concerns with the wrong group of representatives. A supposedly revenue neutral plan is going to receive serious consideration from Republicans. However, history shows us that it is the liberals in Congress who would have a difficult time with this. Good luck convincing the leaders of the Democrat Party to collect tax dollars from citizens and then return it without utilizing that money as a tool to gain favor with one group or another. Democrats have shown us time and again that they believe they know better how to use our money than do we.

While Mr. Clark’s goal is noble, his strategy for achieving it is counter-productive. The government should not be mandating our lives to that extent. We must let the natural laws of a free-market society play out. Already, through education, improved technology, and the rising cost of fuel we see society shifting its use of carbon fuels. More people are choosing, of their own free will, to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles. Solar panels on private homes are becoming more common. It is not unusual to see windmills as you travel. All of this has happened without government interference. Adding the fees as suggested by Mr. Clark will only result in a higher cost of living, fewer jobs, and less investment in new technologies. This plan will only delay the inevitable, which is a world in which we can all drive to Washington in electric cars charged with power made from wind.