As a follow up to Jennifer Learn-Andes and Steve Mocarsky's Times Leader article one should look at how many State Representatives lay claim as the solons of Luzerne County. There are seven:
Eddie "Day" Pashinski
John Yudicak
Todd Eachus
Karen Boback
Mike Carroll
James Wansacz
Phyllis Mundy
Why do we need to pay seven salaries just for Luzerne County? As of 2007 the base amount paid to PA. State Representatives was $73,613.00. That figure for 2009 is $78,315.00. That means, just looking at base salary, the cost to Pennsylvania's taxpayers for Luzerne County's House representation in the Pennsylvania legislature is $469,890.00. It is actually more since Todd Eachus as House Majority Leader is paid over $114,000 per year. Those figures do not include the legistative staff supporting the Representatives which is another story, parts later in this piece.
By comparison, the state’s median household income is $50,173.
Tim Potts of Democracy Rising PA noted that $12 million was cut from a program that provides aid to the state’s poorest citizens, including many who are disabled, elderly or blind.
Meanwhile, the Legislature sat on a $200 million reserve and increased the number of high earners on the payroll, he said.
If you want a real eye opener look at the salaries of some top legislative staff wage earners.
By the numbers
Number of House staffers making $100,000 or more — 47
Number of Senate staffers making $100,000 or more — 36
Number of state legislators making $100,000 or more — 14
Number of House staffers — 2,200
Number of Senate staffers — 907
Number of House staffers making more than rank-and-file representatives — 125
Number of Senate staffers making more than rank-and-file senators — 108
Salary of rank-and-file member of House and Senate — $78,315
In partiucluar let's look at what Todd Eachus's Chief of Staff is paid.
Laura Kuller
Majority Leader Todd Eachus’ chief of staff — $144,004
If that isn't out of control nothing is. Mr. Eachus should take a momemt to explain to the residents of the 116th why he is so generous with OUR money. He should also explain why to this day he has never returned his illegal pay raise yet tried to portray Lou Barletta as doing something illegal.
Folks but it gets better. After that story appeared Mr. John Micek of the Allentown Call updated Kuller's figure to $161,000.00. If you read that article Mr. Eachus is paying $393400.00 to just three employees. What do small businesses pay for their entire payroll? Mr. Eachus needs to get off his elitist pedestal and come back to earth.
Showing posts with label Barletta. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barletta. Show all posts
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Rep. Ted Poe On Undocumented Guests At White House
For those who have attacked the movement against illegal alien entry into our country:
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Myths About The Proposed Sale of Hazleton City Authority Water Department Dispelled
In articles that appeared in local publications this week several myths planted among the public to scare them were dispelled by reporters.
The first myth was launched by an unknown, Chris Paige, in an attempt to discredit an opponent who he will be unable to overcome, Mayor Lou Barletta. He stated that a Pennsylvania law passed by the legislature would derail Barletta's proposed plan to consider the sale of the water department of the HCA. Being an unknown must also mean being naive.
You see, Mr. Paige is an attorney. We must assume he read the law before launching his missle. If he did and also performed a little research he would have known that former Senator Brightbill wrote the law specifically for the City of Lebanon in its attempted takeover of its authority. Putting aside that Todd Eachus publically stated you cannot create a bill for a specific entity because it would be unconstitutional one of the provisions of the Brightbill law was that it pertained to a third class city with a home rule charter. Hazleton is a third class city but it does not have a home rule charter therefore the law does not apply to Hazleton.
The next myth was that the Public Utilties Commission would need to approve Hazleton's sale of the water department prior to any such sale. According to this article by Jill Whalen Jennifer Kocher, a press secretary for the PUC said the PUC wouldn't have to approve the city's decision to sell the water authority, as some have claimed.
As to the "hike in water rates" scare tactic used by opponents of the plan Ms. Kocher also revealed something interesting. She said if the authority is sold to a private company, the PUC will regulate rates and accept comments and complaints from customers about the private company. The authority currently sets rates. Right now consumers of HCA Water Department have no protection from HCA hiking rates by any percentage. With a private entity the PUC would regulate the rates.
The detractors made claims that the other municipalities would have to approve the sale. This article by Jill Whalen dispelled that myth.
Municipalities other than Hazleton served by the Hazleton City Authority likely won't have a vote on whether the water authority is sold.
"In this case, the distinction is that even though the authority serves 13 other municipalities, they don't have a say in it because the city incorporated it," said John Brosious, deputy director of the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, a group representing more than 2,600 municipal authorities across the commonwealth. "The city never entered into an agreement to make it a multi-municipal authority where every municipal authority represented had a seat on the board.
Brosious said transferring municipal authorities isn't uncommon.
Looking back to Mocarsky at the Times Leader his article he highlights the point that selling authorities have become a popular tool to help financially challenged cities like Hazleton.
The director of an agency that helps financially distressed municipalities regain footing said Mayor Lou Barletta’s proposal to sell the city’s municipal water system is a plan that has gained popularity in the state.
“You will see this much more often as municipalities struggle to finance their operations under the broken system municipalities have to operate under,” said Gerald Cross, executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League Central Division.
“In a general sense, as long as the money is not being used as a one-time revenue source and it is held (in a trust), then it’s a logical thing,” Cross said.
And that’s what Barletta said he wants to do. He said the Hazleton City Authority’s water system is worth about $60 million and the city can see about $30 million in profits from a sale after debt is paid.
Mocarsky went on to explain how the sale of Coatesville's authority was a boon to its residents. (I remeber traveling on the train that stopped at Coatesville as a college student.)
Pennsylvania American acquired Coatesville’s water and wastewater systems for $48.2 million in 2001. The systems served 8,600 water customers and 6,500 wastewater customers in 16 municipalities.
Funds from the sale, which exceeded $39.5 million after the debt was paid, were placed in a reserve fund. The city was given a $10,000 credit for future water usage and a $10,000 credit for sewage treatment. In addition, rates for water and sewer were frozen for three years and Pennsylvania American was to contribute annually to the city’s economic development fund.
Coatesville Council President Martin Eggleston said Pennsylvania American has “proven very capable of managing the water system,” and the sale has helped the city grow tremendously.
“The city put the sale proceeds in a trust and earns millions of dollars in interest every year. At one point, at its peak, the city of Coatesville earned about $2.6 million in annual interest. If everything is managed properly, this could be of great benefit to the city of Hazleton,” Eggleston said.
Eggleston said interest from the sale revenue “gave an opportunity for (Coatesville) to expand its base and make it more comparable to other third-class cities of its size, provide more amenities to its residents, better police protection and recreation.”
Eggleston said Coatesville officials wanted “to see the city develop and grow, so they just decided to go ahead with the sale.”
As time goes on the myths about poor water quality will also be dispelled by representatives of companies doing a combined $3.5 billion in revenue with researchers, scientists, biologists, microbiologists, and lab facilities in house.
In a previous post the issue of leasing Authority land was uncovered. The point was made about taxation. When the Authority bought the land it was removed from the tax rolls due to the Authority's tax-exempt status hurting the municipalities where the land is located. If the Authority is sold to a private entity the properties will revert back to taxable status resulting in a windfall for some municipalities. However, due to the leases the value of the land may be diminished because the land will not be available for development until the leases expire. The possiblity of development cannot occur before 2028. Taxpayers in those municipalities are suffering due to the actions of the majority of previous board members of the HCA.
People can talk about the tax-exempt status of the Authority as a positive. In reality it is a negative due to lost property taxes to the municipalities.
The first myth was launched by an unknown, Chris Paige, in an attempt to discredit an opponent who he will be unable to overcome, Mayor Lou Barletta. He stated that a Pennsylvania law passed by the legislature would derail Barletta's proposed plan to consider the sale of the water department of the HCA. Being an unknown must also mean being naive.
You see, Mr. Paige is an attorney. We must assume he read the law before launching his missle. If he did and also performed a little research he would have known that former Senator Brightbill wrote the law specifically for the City of Lebanon in its attempted takeover of its authority. Putting aside that Todd Eachus publically stated you cannot create a bill for a specific entity because it would be unconstitutional one of the provisions of the Brightbill law was that it pertained to a third class city with a home rule charter. Hazleton is a third class city but it does not have a home rule charter therefore the law does not apply to Hazleton.
The next myth was that the Public Utilties Commission would need to approve Hazleton's sale of the water department prior to any such sale. According to this article by Jill Whalen Jennifer Kocher, a press secretary for the PUC said the PUC wouldn't have to approve the city's decision to sell the water authority, as some have claimed.
As to the "hike in water rates" scare tactic used by opponents of the plan Ms. Kocher also revealed something interesting. She said if the authority is sold to a private company, the PUC will regulate rates and accept comments and complaints from customers about the private company. The authority currently sets rates. Right now consumers of HCA Water Department have no protection from HCA hiking rates by any percentage. With a private entity the PUC would regulate the rates.
The detractors made claims that the other municipalities would have to approve the sale. This article by Jill Whalen dispelled that myth.
Municipalities other than Hazleton served by the Hazleton City Authority likely won't have a vote on whether the water authority is sold.
"In this case, the distinction is that even though the authority serves 13 other municipalities, they don't have a say in it because the city incorporated it," said John Brosious, deputy director of the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association, a group representing more than 2,600 municipal authorities across the commonwealth. "The city never entered into an agreement to make it a multi-municipal authority where every municipal authority represented had a seat on the board.
Brosious said transferring municipal authorities isn't uncommon.
Looking back to Mocarsky at the Times Leader his article he highlights the point that selling authorities have become a popular tool to help financially challenged cities like Hazleton.
The director of an agency that helps financially distressed municipalities regain footing said Mayor Lou Barletta’s proposal to sell the city’s municipal water system is a plan that has gained popularity in the state.
“You will see this much more often as municipalities struggle to finance their operations under the broken system municipalities have to operate under,” said Gerald Cross, executive director of the Pennsylvania Economy League Central Division.
“In a general sense, as long as the money is not being used as a one-time revenue source and it is held (in a trust), then it’s a logical thing,” Cross said.
And that’s what Barletta said he wants to do. He said the Hazleton City Authority’s water system is worth about $60 million and the city can see about $30 million in profits from a sale after debt is paid.
Mocarsky went on to explain how the sale of Coatesville's authority was a boon to its residents. (I remeber traveling on the train that stopped at Coatesville as a college student.)
Pennsylvania American acquired Coatesville’s water and wastewater systems for $48.2 million in 2001. The systems served 8,600 water customers and 6,500 wastewater customers in 16 municipalities.
Funds from the sale, which exceeded $39.5 million after the debt was paid, were placed in a reserve fund. The city was given a $10,000 credit for future water usage and a $10,000 credit for sewage treatment. In addition, rates for water and sewer were frozen for three years and Pennsylvania American was to contribute annually to the city’s economic development fund.
Coatesville Council President Martin Eggleston said Pennsylvania American has “proven very capable of managing the water system,” and the sale has helped the city grow tremendously.
“The city put the sale proceeds in a trust and earns millions of dollars in interest every year. At one point, at its peak, the city of Coatesville earned about $2.6 million in annual interest. If everything is managed properly, this could be of great benefit to the city of Hazleton,” Eggleston said.
Eggleston said interest from the sale revenue “gave an opportunity for (Coatesville) to expand its base and make it more comparable to other third-class cities of its size, provide more amenities to its residents, better police protection and recreation.”
Eggleston said Coatesville officials wanted “to see the city develop and grow, so they just decided to go ahead with the sale.”
As time goes on the myths about poor water quality will also be dispelled by representatives of companies doing a combined $3.5 billion in revenue with researchers, scientists, biologists, microbiologists, and lab facilities in house.
In a previous post the issue of leasing Authority land was uncovered. The point was made about taxation. When the Authority bought the land it was removed from the tax rolls due to the Authority's tax-exempt status hurting the municipalities where the land is located. If the Authority is sold to a private entity the properties will revert back to taxable status resulting in a windfall for some municipalities. However, due to the leases the value of the land may be diminished because the land will not be available for development until the leases expire. The possiblity of development cannot occur before 2028. Taxpayers in those municipalities are suffering due to the actions of the majority of previous board members of the HCA.
People can talk about the tax-exempt status of the Authority as a positive. In reality it is a negative due to lost property taxes to the municipalities.
Are Authority Run Boards The Best Deal For The Taxpayer?
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta has announced a plan to sell the Hazleton City Authority's Water Department as a possible solution to the financial crunch being felt by the City of Hazleton. In today's Times Leader an Opinion headline reads "Debt Crisis Needs Creative Solutions". It addresses the financial debt of Luzerne County.
The commissioners have to work through it with a medley of creative programs and innovative thinking – coupled with painful cuts and probably some tax bumps – to harness and bring that liability down.
We’ve seen glimmers of that this week.
The commissioners’ idea to seek proposals for someone or a firm to take over operations at the county-owned Moon Lake Park has the ingredients of making lemonade out a bucket of lemons.
A creative solution is exactly what Barletta proposed in looking at the city's dire finanacial straits. Hazleton is not bankrupt or close to bankruptcy by any means. A term called cash-flow bankruptcy would more accurately describe the situation facing the City and its residents. The fixed costs like insurance, heat, electricity, and obligations like pension liability are leading to an intolerable situation for the taxpayer.
The City could opt to go ACT 47 which would negate all labor agreements among other things to solve the current crisis. The City could raise millage beyond the current increase to an exhorbitant amount that would hurt many homeowners who could not afford the property taxes.
However, Barletta introduced a plan that would include the sale of the assets of the Hazleton City Authority-Water Department to create a long term solution that would not affect taxpayers to the same magnitude relying on property taxes as a means of funding the budget.
The Authority is taking the position that "they are the best run authority in the state". Here is a prime example of what can happen with part time persons running a $68 million asset.
Look at the court case between the Beaver Dams Outdoor Club vs. Hazleton City Authority. If you read the case you will find that past(not present) majority members of the Hazleton City Authority executed a lease with this club for 487 acres of HCA property at a rate of $1 dollar for 25 years.
The Authority further asserts the Board majority’s bad faith was reflected in the terms of the lease: 487 acres at one dollar per year for 25 years.
Now that is what I call one hell of a deal for the taxpayers. First the lease means that no other persons other than those who are members of the Beaver Dams Outdoor Club have use of 487 acres. Secondly since the HCA owns the acreage taxpayers in Carbon County are being cheated out of revenue because the property is being used by private, and can only be used by private people, but it is tax-exempt because the Authority owns it.
Oh but it gets better. The Board executed four other leases in that same year.
Board Vice Chairman did not ask for a copy of the lease at the December 8 meeting because he previously reviewed the lease, which replicated the format of the previous four hunting club leases executed that year.
Id. at 41; R.R. at 246a. With the exception of the property description, the Club’s lease was identical to the other four hunting club leases. Id.
The case does not state how many acres are contained in the four other leases but if they are anywhere close to the amount in the lease at hand there could be almost 2500 acres leased out for 25 years at $1 dollar per year.
This case clearly demonstrates what can happen to public assets when managed by part time board members who received political appointments.
That statement does not mean that every board member would act in a way that would harm the public but again, this case demonstrates the potential. One does not have to research far to look what happened in Luzerne County with all of the arrests of board members for bribes or passing bribes.
The Hazleton City Authority members seem to forget how they got their positions. Mr. Andras threatened to harm the Mayor's plan by seeking legislative relief. He and the entire board must remember that their seats are at the pleasure of City Council. As it stands right now there are three more appointments before the terms of this Council are up. Be careful of the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.
The public outrage over Barletta's plan to sell the water deparment for a potential $60 million or more is interesting since you never heard a word about the "essential taking" of almost 36% of the authority land for $1 per year. The leases will be up in the year 2028.
One may argue that at the end of twenty five years the Authority would still owe the land. But at present calculations of the rise and need for additional property taxes to cover ever rising costs in the City's budget property owners would have forked over at least $6,600.00 per homeowner. Under Barletta's plan there would be no increase. There may be an increase in water rates but they could never equal the rise in property tax.
The commissioners have to work through it with a medley of creative programs and innovative thinking – coupled with painful cuts and probably some tax bumps – to harness and bring that liability down.
We’ve seen glimmers of that this week.
The commissioners’ idea to seek proposals for someone or a firm to take over operations at the county-owned Moon Lake Park has the ingredients of making lemonade out a bucket of lemons.
A creative solution is exactly what Barletta proposed in looking at the city's dire finanacial straits. Hazleton is not bankrupt or close to bankruptcy by any means. A term called cash-flow bankruptcy would more accurately describe the situation facing the City and its residents. The fixed costs like insurance, heat, electricity, and obligations like pension liability are leading to an intolerable situation for the taxpayer.
The City could opt to go ACT 47 which would negate all labor agreements among other things to solve the current crisis. The City could raise millage beyond the current increase to an exhorbitant amount that would hurt many homeowners who could not afford the property taxes.
However, Barletta introduced a plan that would include the sale of the assets of the Hazleton City Authority-Water Department to create a long term solution that would not affect taxpayers to the same magnitude relying on property taxes as a means of funding the budget.
The Authority is taking the position that "they are the best run authority in the state". Here is a prime example of what can happen with part time persons running a $68 million asset.
Look at the court case between the Beaver Dams Outdoor Club vs. Hazleton City Authority. If you read the case you will find that past(not present) majority members of the Hazleton City Authority executed a lease with this club for 487 acres of HCA property at a rate of $1 dollar for 25 years.
The Authority further asserts the Board majority’s bad faith was reflected in the terms of the lease: 487 acres at one dollar per year for 25 years.
Now that is what I call one hell of a deal for the taxpayers. First the lease means that no other persons other than those who are members of the Beaver Dams Outdoor Club have use of 487 acres. Secondly since the HCA owns the acreage taxpayers in Carbon County are being cheated out of revenue because the property is being used by private, and can only be used by private people, but it is tax-exempt because the Authority owns it.
Oh but it gets better. The Board executed four other leases in that same year.
Board Vice Chairman did not ask for a copy of the lease at the December 8 meeting because he previously reviewed the lease, which replicated the format of the previous four hunting club leases executed that year.
Id. at 41; R.R. at 246a. With the exception of the property description, the Club’s lease was identical to the other four hunting club leases. Id.
The case does not state how many acres are contained in the four other leases but if they are anywhere close to the amount in the lease at hand there could be almost 2500 acres leased out for 25 years at $1 dollar per year.
This case clearly demonstrates what can happen to public assets when managed by part time board members who received political appointments.
That statement does not mean that every board member would act in a way that would harm the public but again, this case demonstrates the potential. One does not have to research far to look what happened in Luzerne County with all of the arrests of board members for bribes or passing bribes.
The Hazleton City Authority members seem to forget how they got their positions. Mr. Andras threatened to harm the Mayor's plan by seeking legislative relief. He and the entire board must remember that their seats are at the pleasure of City Council. As it stands right now there are three more appointments before the terms of this Council are up. Be careful of the dog who bites the hand that feeds it.
The public outrage over Barletta's plan to sell the water deparment for a potential $60 million or more is interesting since you never heard a word about the "essential taking" of almost 36% of the authority land for $1 per year. The leases will be up in the year 2028.
One may argue that at the end of twenty five years the Authority would still owe the land. But at present calculations of the rise and need for additional property taxes to cover ever rising costs in the City's budget property owners would have forked over at least $6,600.00 per homeowner. Under Barletta's plan there would be no increase. There may be an increase in water rates but they could never equal the rise in property tax.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Water Rates vs. Property Taxes In Hazleton
According to this article by Steve Mocarsky water rates in Hazleton are about $10.00 per month lower than comparable water rates with private firms. It makes a great argument for the naysayers. Well my dad always taught me to look at the big picture.
This year alone property taxes in Hazleton are going up an $98 dollars for every $100,000.00 in property assessment. At the very least that means almost a wash on the surface.
The rise in property taxes will not stop there. Hazleton was forced to layoff personnel to keep the tax increase at that level. In order to bring those employees back and fund 2011's projected deficit property taxes would have to go up at least 2 more mills or $200.00 per $100,000.00 assessment.
Are taxpayers willing to protect a $10.00 per month rise in water rates and pay $298.00($24.83 per month) more per year in property taxes. Seems like a no brainer. And it doesn't stop there. Each year, forget any increases the City is behind at least $1.5 million. A mill represents approximately $900,000.00 to the City. Just to break even the City needs to add 1.667 mills to property tax each and every year it falls behind. That equals at least another $167.00 each and every year thereafter.
It is the people who want to get Barletta that are not looking at the big picture.
This year alone property taxes in Hazleton are going up an $98 dollars for every $100,000.00 in property assessment. At the very least that means almost a wash on the surface.
The rise in property taxes will not stop there. Hazleton was forced to layoff personnel to keep the tax increase at that level. In order to bring those employees back and fund 2011's projected deficit property taxes would have to go up at least 2 more mills or $200.00 per $100,000.00 assessment.
Are taxpayers willing to protect a $10.00 per month rise in water rates and pay $298.00($24.83 per month) more per year in property taxes. Seems like a no brainer. And it doesn't stop there. Each year, forget any increases the City is behind at least $1.5 million. A mill represents approximately $900,000.00 to the City. Just to break even the City needs to add 1.667 mills to property tax each and every year it falls behind. That equals at least another $167.00 each and every year thereafter.
It is the people who want to get Barletta that are not looking at the big picture.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Cap And Trade In Practice- Kanjorski and Union Workers Take Note
Cap and Trade in Practice
How to get paid for laying off workers.
Since Paul Kanjorski voted FOR Cap And Trade it is time to educate the public about its dangers. Did anyway tell Kanjo that the biggest energy industry in his district is COAL? Here are his comments on why he voted YES.
"By no means is this energy bill perfect, but today, refusing to act was not an option. We need to begin the process of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, creating clean energy jobs in America, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Change in our energy economy will not happen overnight, but it is clear that in this situation, the positives outweigh the negatives. The University of Massachusetts estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created by transitioning to a clean energy economy.
"I deeply understand the real concerns regarding the additional costs for consumers and businesses that are essential to the economy, especially during these difficult economic times, and I hope that the bill which emerges in consultation with the Senate will further address these concerns. I believe that the small incremental costs associated with this bill are a small sacrifice that we can all make to ensure the well being of this country in the long-term.
So Paul, two questions? Do you support and are you willing to back Mayor Barletta's plan to construct a clean, green solar power plant at the Hazleton Municipal Airport property? Since you are willing to force consumers to pay additional costs how would you rationalize attacking Barletta for raising property taxes for one year as a temporary budget stop-gap measure? Unlike the federal government that can "print paper" anytime it needs money municipalities like Hazleton do not have that luxury.
From The Wall Street Journal:
The world's carboncrats are beavering away this week on a vast new global cap-and-trade scheme that President Obama wants the U.S. to join. But before we do, maybe Americans should understand how this already works in practice. Union workers, take note.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 required signatories to reduce their carbon emissions, and the European Union in 2005 launched its own cap-and-trade system. The program sets a limit on carbon emissions, and companies are issued free carbon allowances that they can buy or sell based on their emissions needs.
Fast forward to this month's news that Corus, Europe's second-largest steel producer, is shuttering a giant U.K. steelmaking plant at Redcar, cutting 1,700 jobs. Corus blames the recession that has cut steel demand and says the British government hasn't done enough to help it.
Whatever the truth of that, there's little doubt that cap and trade made the closure much easier. The decline in steel production means European steelmakers have surplus carbon allowances. According to Carbon Market Data, a European research firm, in 2008 Corus had the second largest surplus of EU carbon allowances—7.5 million.
The EU is looking for ways to drive today's depressed allowance price of about $21 apiece back up to former highs of about $50, so Corus has the potential for a $375 million windfall. By closing Redcar's annual capacity of three million tons of steel, Corus will produce six million fewer tons of CO2. That means more carbon allowances, which could translate into about $300 million a year if credits hit $50. Corus is essentially being paid to lay off British workers.
Corus will also profit if it moves the production to India. As part of Kyoto, the United Nations created the Clean Development Mechanism to encourage Western companies to invest in developing-world factories. Participants are financially rewarded based on the amount of carbon they "save" with more efficient plants.
Corus was bought in 2007 by Tata, India's largest steel company. The Indian steel industry is set to more than double production to some 124 million tons a year by 2011-2012. Were Corus to move production to a "clean" Indian factory, it could receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Clean Development Fund. The kicker is that none of this results in fewer carbon emissions. A Corus plant in India might be more efficient by Indian standards, but it will be no more efficient than Redcar.
We should add that all of this is precisely what Kyoto envisioned. The idea is to tax Western industry and then send the proceeds to developing countries as an incentive to join the anticarbon crusade. But unless governments close their borders to foreign investment, business will flow to where the carbon tariff is least punishing. China and India understand this, which is why they won't agree at Copenhagen to anything that reduces this advantage.
The Corus story also shows that cap and trade isn't really a free market. Markets develop to efficiently allocate resources and capital. Carbon cap and trade is a government-rigged market, in which carbon allowances are dispensed based on political influence. Such a system is ripe for manipulation, and Corus is merely the latest example.
To summarize: Cap and trade is a scheme that would impose heavy carbon taxes and allowances on U.S. industries, which would then have an incentive to move overseas themselves, or to sell those allowances to overseas companies that could use them to become more competitive against U.S. companies. Like the 1,700 Brits at Redcar, American workers would be the big losers.
How to get paid for laying off workers.
Since Paul Kanjorski voted FOR Cap And Trade it is time to educate the public about its dangers. Did anyway tell Kanjo that the biggest energy industry in his district is COAL? Here are his comments on why he voted YES.
"By no means is this energy bill perfect, but today, refusing to act was not an option. We need to begin the process of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions, creating clean energy jobs in America, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Change in our energy economy will not happen overnight, but it is clear that in this situation, the positives outweigh the negatives. The University of Massachusetts estimates that 1.7 million jobs will be created by transitioning to a clean energy economy.
"I deeply understand the real concerns regarding the additional costs for consumers and businesses that are essential to the economy, especially during these difficult economic times, and I hope that the bill which emerges in consultation with the Senate will further address these concerns. I believe that the small incremental costs associated with this bill are a small sacrifice that we can all make to ensure the well being of this country in the long-term.
So Paul, two questions? Do you support and are you willing to back Mayor Barletta's plan to construct a clean, green solar power plant at the Hazleton Municipal Airport property? Since you are willing to force consumers to pay additional costs how would you rationalize attacking Barletta for raising property taxes for one year as a temporary budget stop-gap measure? Unlike the federal government that can "print paper" anytime it needs money municipalities like Hazleton do not have that luxury.
From The Wall Street Journal:
The world's carboncrats are beavering away this week on a vast new global cap-and-trade scheme that President Obama wants the U.S. to join. But before we do, maybe Americans should understand how this already works in practice. Union workers, take note.
The Kyoto Protocol of 1997 required signatories to reduce their carbon emissions, and the European Union in 2005 launched its own cap-and-trade system. The program sets a limit on carbon emissions, and companies are issued free carbon allowances that they can buy or sell based on their emissions needs.
Fast forward to this month's news that Corus, Europe's second-largest steel producer, is shuttering a giant U.K. steelmaking plant at Redcar, cutting 1,700 jobs. Corus blames the recession that has cut steel demand and says the British government hasn't done enough to help it.
Whatever the truth of that, there's little doubt that cap and trade made the closure much easier. The decline in steel production means European steelmakers have surplus carbon allowances. According to Carbon Market Data, a European research firm, in 2008 Corus had the second largest surplus of EU carbon allowances—7.5 million.
The EU is looking for ways to drive today's depressed allowance price of about $21 apiece back up to former highs of about $50, so Corus has the potential for a $375 million windfall. By closing Redcar's annual capacity of three million tons of steel, Corus will produce six million fewer tons of CO2. That means more carbon allowances, which could translate into about $300 million a year if credits hit $50. Corus is essentially being paid to lay off British workers.
Corus will also profit if it moves the production to India. As part of Kyoto, the United Nations created the Clean Development Mechanism to encourage Western companies to invest in developing-world factories. Participants are financially rewarded based on the amount of carbon they "save" with more efficient plants.
Corus was bought in 2007 by Tata, India's largest steel company. The Indian steel industry is set to more than double production to some 124 million tons a year by 2011-2012. Were Corus to move production to a "clean" Indian factory, it could receive hundreds of millions of dollars annually from the Clean Development Fund. The kicker is that none of this results in fewer carbon emissions. A Corus plant in India might be more efficient by Indian standards, but it will be no more efficient than Redcar.
We should add that all of this is precisely what Kyoto envisioned. The idea is to tax Western industry and then send the proceeds to developing countries as an incentive to join the anticarbon crusade. But unless governments close their borders to foreign investment, business will flow to where the carbon tariff is least punishing. China and India understand this, which is why they won't agree at Copenhagen to anything that reduces this advantage.
The Corus story also shows that cap and trade isn't really a free market. Markets develop to efficiently allocate resources and capital. Carbon cap and trade is a government-rigged market, in which carbon allowances are dispensed based on political influence. Such a system is ripe for manipulation, and Corus is merely the latest example.
To summarize: Cap and trade is a scheme that would impose heavy carbon taxes and allowances on U.S. industries, which would then have an incentive to move overseas themselves, or to sell those allowances to overseas companies that could use them to become more competitive against U.S. companies. Like the 1,700 Brits at Redcar, American workers would be the big losers.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
State probing Hazleton for its resale of untaxed gas- Who's Probing The Reporting?
There was a movie which starred Paul Newman and Sally Field called "Absence of Malice". It was great drama depicting corruption in the Justice Department intending, on the surface, to solve a crime, but, beneath the waters, to further political careers.
James Wells (played by actor Wilford Brimley) had some great lines that made the famous quote section. "Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase."
The New York Times published a movie review by Janet Maslin. Here are some excerpts from that article. "Its heroine, Megan Carter, violates so many basic rules of journalism—from neglecting to check her story to sleeping with the man it is about—that it becomes impossible to view her behavior as representative. And yet, through Megan, the movie is able to raise a number of questions about reportorial tactics and the difference between what is accurate and what is true."
Megan (Sally Field) erroneously reports that Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman), a Florida liquor wholesaler whose father was a gangster, is implicated in the disappearance of a local labor leader. She has been tricked into doing this by a too-eager Government investigator (Bob Balaban) who knows that Gallagher is innocent but would like to pressure him into naming names.
So what does that movie have to do with the headline? Steve Mocarsky wrote an article in the Times Leader yesterday without fully checking the facts, misreporting the facts he did have, adding flare to the description of his source, and overall violation of the basic rules of journalism.
He reports that the Department of Revenue is "investigating" the City of Hazleton "sale of untaxed gasoline and diesel fuel to for-profit companies". That fact is almost true. There is no investigation. The Department asked for information from the City which fully cooperated in providing that information to help the Department determine whether a practice that has been ongoing since at least 1999 was according to its rules. Had Mocarsky checked the facts he would have realized this practice by the City of Hazleton was occurring way before Lou Barletta took office.
In 1999 under former Mayor Michael Marsicano the City of Hazleton was supplying Operation Overcome, a non-profit, with fuel from its purchasing contract without collecting any taxes owed on the sale. The Administrator for the City allowed the non-profit to purchase the fuel. The Admininstrator was not the same person who is administrator under Lou Barletta's terms as Mayor.
As part of a continuing practice the Hazleton Community Ambulance Association was allowed to purchase fuel under the City of Hazleton's fuel agreement during Barletta's administration. The ambulance association lost the right to be first responder under the Barletta administration. Members of the association were not happy with the Mayor, opposed him at election time, yet the City allowed the sale of fuel to continue as before. That fact should dispell any notion that the sale of fuel was based on political considerations although Mr. Mocarsky wants his readers to believe it was.
He describes his source this way. "City watchdog Dee Deakos said she believes the two private companies received an unfair advantage over their competitors." Dee Deakos ran against Lou Barletta for Mayor and garnered a whooping 84 votes. Folks, it takes a hundred signatures to get on the ballot.
A more correct description of Dee Deakos might be "political operative", "political opponent", or "political detractor" but certainly not a watchdog. Dee, are you violating Hazleton law by renting to a church in a zoning district that does not permit that type of rental? Dee, did you allow political signs in the last election to be posted in front of your Broad Street property in violation of a Hazleton Ordinance? Mocarsky why don't you check those situations out? Some watchdog, political opportunist is more like it or political pendejo.
In response to charges by Dee Deakos that political contributions were the motive for the fuel purchase Dr. William Pavlick, current president of APTS, said that if Deakos “bothered to get her facts straight,” she would have found that APTS was first responder for basic and advanced life support “long before we bought the company.” He issued a written statement stressing that APTS will no longer buy fuel from the city. Mocarsky, why did you print her comment when it was plain wrong? It gives a slant to the article that is totally inaccurate.
In another inaccurate statement Deakos said former city administrator Sam Monticello “should have known it was illegal.” Go back to my paragraph where I describe the Administrator before Monticello who started the practice. Why would Monticello question it when there seemed to be no problem for a previous administration?
Mascaro was the only bidder for the 2008-2012 contract. The city received a letter from competitor Waste Management of Pennsylvania declining to bid for the contract. Mocarsky, did you ever see the scope of the Hazleton contract? Do you know that its size prevents many companies from bidding because they do not have the bond capacity or the manpower to meet the terms of the contract? Did you bother to see if Mascaro donated to Barletta? Here, I did it for you. Why slant the story otherwise??
Deakos said the companies were “cheating the state” and “cheating us because we get part of the gasoline tax for highway aid. When it’s not collected, there’s less money for pothole repairs,” Deakos said. Since the investigation has not concluded and no determination has been made how does Deakos know her statement that the companies CHEATED is true? Mocarsky how can you print such a statement that is not factual? Are you innocent until proven guilty in this country or does that rule not apply to Republicans?
Luzerne County Commissioner Steve Urban said the county was also “being short-changed” because the county receives liquid fuels money from the state based partly on fuel sales. Both companies have agreed to pay any monies owed plus penalties. In the end no one is going to be short-changed or cheated.
Finally, Mr. Mocarsky answer these questions? If you purchase an item out of the state of Pennsylvania and fail to pay the sales tax due is it up to the retailer to collect the sales tax due or do you have to voluntarily submit the tax to the state? Have you ever heard of the Use Tax Volutnary Program or the Voluntary Disclosure Program? Some of the laziest reporting I ever saw, slanted for a political purpose is my opinion.
James Wells (played by actor Wilford Brimley) had some great lines that made the famous quote section. "Now we'll talk all day if you want to. But, come sundown, there's gonna be two things true that ain't true now. One is that the United States Department of Justice is goin' to know what in the good Christ - e'scuse me, Angie - is goin' on around here. And the other's I'm gonna have somebody's ass in muh briefcase."
The New York Times published a movie review by Janet Maslin. Here are some excerpts from that article. "Its heroine, Megan Carter, violates so many basic rules of journalism—from neglecting to check her story to sleeping with the man it is about—that it becomes impossible to view her behavior as representative. And yet, through Megan, the movie is able to raise a number of questions about reportorial tactics and the difference between what is accurate and what is true."
Megan (Sally Field) erroneously reports that Michael Gallagher (Paul Newman), a Florida liquor wholesaler whose father was a gangster, is implicated in the disappearance of a local labor leader. She has been tricked into doing this by a too-eager Government investigator (Bob Balaban) who knows that Gallagher is innocent but would like to pressure him into naming names.
So what does that movie have to do with the headline? Steve Mocarsky wrote an article in the Times Leader yesterday without fully checking the facts, misreporting the facts he did have, adding flare to the description of his source, and overall violation of the basic rules of journalism.
He reports that the Department of Revenue is "investigating" the City of Hazleton "sale of untaxed gasoline and diesel fuel to for-profit companies". That fact is almost true. There is no investigation. The Department asked for information from the City which fully cooperated in providing that information to help the Department determine whether a practice that has been ongoing since at least 1999 was according to its rules. Had Mocarsky checked the facts he would have realized this practice by the City of Hazleton was occurring way before Lou Barletta took office.
In 1999 under former Mayor Michael Marsicano the City of Hazleton was supplying Operation Overcome, a non-profit, with fuel from its purchasing contract without collecting any taxes owed on the sale. The Administrator for the City allowed the non-profit to purchase the fuel. The Admininstrator was not the same person who is administrator under Lou Barletta's terms as Mayor.
As part of a continuing practice the Hazleton Community Ambulance Association was allowed to purchase fuel under the City of Hazleton's fuel agreement during Barletta's administration. The ambulance association lost the right to be first responder under the Barletta administration. Members of the association were not happy with the Mayor, opposed him at election time, yet the City allowed the sale of fuel to continue as before. That fact should dispell any notion that the sale of fuel was based on political considerations although Mr. Mocarsky wants his readers to believe it was.
He describes his source this way. "City watchdog Dee Deakos said she believes the two private companies received an unfair advantage over their competitors." Dee Deakos ran against Lou Barletta for Mayor and garnered a whooping 84 votes. Folks, it takes a hundred signatures to get on the ballot.
A more correct description of Dee Deakos might be "political operative", "political opponent", or "political detractor" but certainly not a watchdog. Dee, are you violating Hazleton law by renting to a church in a zoning district that does not permit that type of rental? Dee, did you allow political signs in the last election to be posted in front of your Broad Street property in violation of a Hazleton Ordinance? Mocarsky why don't you check those situations out? Some watchdog, political opportunist is more like it or political pendejo.
In response to charges by Dee Deakos that political contributions were the motive for the fuel purchase Dr. William Pavlick, current president of APTS, said that if Deakos “bothered to get her facts straight,” she would have found that APTS was first responder for basic and advanced life support “long before we bought the company.” He issued a written statement stressing that APTS will no longer buy fuel from the city. Mocarsky, why did you print her comment when it was plain wrong? It gives a slant to the article that is totally inaccurate.
In another inaccurate statement Deakos said former city administrator Sam Monticello “should have known it was illegal.” Go back to my paragraph where I describe the Administrator before Monticello who started the practice. Why would Monticello question it when there seemed to be no problem for a previous administration?
Mascaro was the only bidder for the 2008-2012 contract. The city received a letter from competitor Waste Management of Pennsylvania declining to bid for the contract. Mocarsky, did you ever see the scope of the Hazleton contract? Do you know that its size prevents many companies from bidding because they do not have the bond capacity or the manpower to meet the terms of the contract? Did you bother to see if Mascaro donated to Barletta? Here, I did it for you. Why slant the story otherwise??
Deakos said the companies were “cheating the state” and “cheating us because we get part of the gasoline tax for highway aid. When it’s not collected, there’s less money for pothole repairs,” Deakos said. Since the investigation has not concluded and no determination has been made how does Deakos know her statement that the companies CHEATED is true? Mocarsky how can you print such a statement that is not factual? Are you innocent until proven guilty in this country or does that rule not apply to Republicans?
Luzerne County Commissioner Steve Urban said the county was also “being short-changed” because the county receives liquid fuels money from the state based partly on fuel sales. Both companies have agreed to pay any monies owed plus penalties. In the end no one is going to be short-changed or cheated.
Finally, Mr. Mocarsky answer these questions? If you purchase an item out of the state of Pennsylvania and fail to pay the sales tax due is it up to the retailer to collect the sales tax due or do you have to voluntarily submit the tax to the state? Have you ever heard of the Use Tax Volutnary Program or the Voluntary Disclosure Program? Some of the laziest reporting I ever saw, slanted for a political purpose is my opinion.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Kanjorski Saw No Urgency In The Financial Sector
I am reposting this post from October, 2008. Paul Kanjorski and his fellow Democrats knew there was a huge problem in the financial services sector and downplayed its significance. Better yet, he admitted that when you do things in haste you can leave some awfully large holes in the mission. And that is exactly what happened and is happening with TARP, the Porkulus Spendulous package, and healthcare. Only a small part of the stimulus package is going to roadwork and bridges.
On September 25, 2003 the Committee on Financial Services held a hearing including the Financial Services Roundtable. As part of the financial modernization and deregulation the organization evolved from predecessors. "In early 2000, the first members from the securities, investment, and insurance sectors joined their banking brethren as founding members of The Financial Services Roundtable."
Mr. Steve Barlett, President and CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable, and their newly formed Housing Policy Council offered testimony at the hearing. He was engaged by several Congressional panel members over the mortgage industry, its health, and the need for better regulation.
Listen to Paul Kanjorski in this video. We are smack dab in the middle of the biggest financial crisis to hit this planet in a 100 years and this was Kanjorski's assessement.
MR. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listening to that discussion, I tend to agree that this is a very delicate area on how we handle mission and how we deal with what really independent strong role plus regulation will be and to tailor those two situations to these particular entities, not counting the fact that we have some earlier testimony about throwing in the Federal home loan bank system, which creates an entirely different problem we would have to address.
First of all, is anyone on the panel aware of a crisis situation where we have to do this in the next two or three weeks? Do you really believe that some of the issues that have been raised here in the discussion with this panel, that this can all be accomplished with deliberative speed in a short period of time, like two or three weeks?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Kanjorski, our organization and our companies have been quite concerned about this from a safety and soundness as well as a mission for the last several years. We have communicated that concern. But recently, that concern seems to have been highlighted by a number of factors.
So, yes, sir, I believe there is an urgency that is to the tune of some $3.3 trillion that is either owned or guaranteed by these two agencies that all the testimony that you have heard today bring in some question as to whether they are being properly regulated. So we think they are not being properly regulated. And we believe that with $3.3 trillion, you do not want to wait too long. And now is the time to act.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I would not suggest that everyone has questioned whether or not we can construct a better regulatory authority than what we presently have. I do not know whether we want to put a qualitative standard on what has existed. But my question is, we have so many fundamental questions, particularly missions and what is a strong independent regulator.
It seems to be we are going to have to wrestle a lot of things. Somebody suggested we write the mission. I think it was Mr. Raines. I venture to say I could anticipate taking weeks and weeks and weeks hammering that around and just what that description in statute should be of what the mission is so that it can be more readily applied.
My problem is I think we have a lot of haste here. We are going to run down and, Steve, having served on this committee before, you know what happens in haste. We sometimes do not dot all of our i's and cross all of our t's. And we can leave some awfully large holes in this mission.]
Paul, you were given notice to protect the public. What happened?
On September 25, 2003 the Committee on Financial Services held a hearing including the Financial Services Roundtable. As part of the financial modernization and deregulation the organization evolved from predecessors. "In early 2000, the first members from the securities, investment, and insurance sectors joined their banking brethren as founding members of The Financial Services Roundtable."
Mr. Steve Barlett, President and CEO of the Financial Services Roundtable, and their newly formed Housing Policy Council offered testimony at the hearing. He was engaged by several Congressional panel members over the mortgage industry, its health, and the need for better regulation.
Listen to Paul Kanjorski in this video. We are smack dab in the middle of the biggest financial crisis to hit this planet in a 100 years and this was Kanjorski's assessement.
MR. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Listening to that discussion, I tend to agree that this is a very delicate area on how we handle mission and how we deal with what really independent strong role plus regulation will be and to tailor those two situations to these particular entities, not counting the fact that we have some earlier testimony about throwing in the Federal home loan bank system, which creates an entirely different problem we would have to address.
First of all, is anyone on the panel aware of a crisis situation where we have to do this in the next two or three weeks? Do you really believe that some of the issues that have been raised here in the discussion with this panel, that this can all be accomplished with deliberative speed in a short period of time, like two or three weeks?
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. Kanjorski, our organization and our companies have been quite concerned about this from a safety and soundness as well as a mission for the last several years. We have communicated that concern. But recently, that concern seems to have been highlighted by a number of factors.
So, yes, sir, I believe there is an urgency that is to the tune of some $3.3 trillion that is either owned or guaranteed by these two agencies that all the testimony that you have heard today bring in some question as to whether they are being properly regulated. So we think they are not being properly regulated. And we believe that with $3.3 trillion, you do not want to wait too long. And now is the time to act.
Mr. KANJORSKI. I would not suggest that everyone has questioned whether or not we can construct a better regulatory authority than what we presently have. I do not know whether we want to put a qualitative standard on what has existed. But my question is, we have so many fundamental questions, particularly missions and what is a strong independent regulator.
It seems to be we are going to have to wrestle a lot of things. Somebody suggested we write the mission. I think it was Mr. Raines. I venture to say I could anticipate taking weeks and weeks and weeks hammering that around and just what that description in statute should be of what the mission is so that it can be more readily applied.
My problem is I think we have a lot of haste here. We are going to run down and, Steve, having served on this committee before, you know what happens in haste. We sometimes do not dot all of our i's and cross all of our t's. And we can leave some awfully large holes in this mission.]
Paul, you were given notice to protect the public. What happened?
Friday, February 20, 2009
Hazleton mayor lights fire under county GOP
Read the article online at the Pittsburgh Tribune Review website.
"Some believe the key to our future lies in moderating," he said. "With all due respect, those who believe that could not be more wrong."
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Ed Mitchell Admits Paying Camerman to Follow Lou Barletta
But does the story end there.
My peer, Gort, once requested in his blog that if anyone knew Lou Barletta's campaign whereabouts let him know and he would post it. I was almost tempted to answer that request from May 21, 2008. However, circumstances known to me prevented releasing information ahead of time.
Lou Barletta was confronted by at least five camera-toting persons during this election at any given time at his campaign office, City Hall, Funfest, Scranton City Council, various speaking engagements like the American Legion in Wilkes Barre, and fundraisers including one at Damon's in Hazleton(I will post a special story on this one) plus a private, invitation only affair at the Stegmaier Manson.
It appears Ed Mitchell was so desparate in his quest to get Paul Kanjorski re-elected that he allowed and permitted himself to transcend levels lower than a snake. His first political commercial proffered Paul was a family man with "middle class values". Ed didn't waste any time to destroy the Barletta family, the DeAngelo famly, and all the friends and employees involved with subsequent commercials. Ed, those are not the values my parents taught me. The first question to Ed Mitchell...Did Paul know you paid someone to harass, videotape, and follow Lou Barlettta?
I will publicly name the photographers that went after Lou because I have photographs of them to back me up. The first person to approach Lou with a camcorder was identified as Mike Quinn, a bartender at The Bog in Scranton. You can see his work as LoserLou2008 on Youtube.com. Unfortunately for Mike an employee of Lou's campaign readily recognized him when the campaign captured pictures of him. There's a CIA saying. Don't worry about who you are watching, worry about who is watching you.
Ed Mitchell made the claim that these people were only sent to fundraisers. As you will see videographers showed up at official City Hall business which had nothing to do with the campaign.
If you visit Mike's Youtube page you will see a girl who I refer to as Lucy Lu. She claimed to be an aspiring journalism student but, wow, did she have her facts screwed up. You can read a post on the Youtube site that expalins the meaning of that sentence. She was the second to confront Lou in her failed attempt to get a "gotcha" moment. It was curious that both of them throughout the rest of the campaign remained in obscurity.
One young man showed up at Scranton City Hall to videotape Lou during a speaking engagement. The campaign has pictures of him but were unable to identify the videographer.
The next person, who is featured in the Times Leader story, was Joseph Van Wie, part owner of Agapic Films. Ironically the company's first film was titled "Gentleman Jack." Mr. Van Wie filled out a volunteer card and asked for a yard sign as part of his infiltration into the Barletta campaign. Watergate comes to mind.
At the Stegmaier event Joe was noticed hiding in some bushes. Campaign personnel brought Lou's car around the back of the mansion to try to avoid him. When Joe noticed Lou was leaving by a different route he jumped out of the bushes and proceeded to chase after Lou's car. He shouted "Mayor, Do you think you are sexy?" I would say not Joe's brightest moment in filming.
One late afternoon Lou and Vince Galko, his campaign manager, were driving in Scranton coming from an event when they noticed Van Wie sitting at the counter of a local eatery. He spotted the car outside the window and pretended he was videtaping them with his hands. It was a light-hearted moment for both as each took it in stride. Lou and Vince both smiled and laughed at Joe's humor. Joseph Van Wie commented to Vince at one point in the campaign that his candidate was good because he was not finding the "gotcha" moment he NEEDED.
Here are two pictures from Funfest 2008 in Hazleton showing Joe Wie following Lou. Joe is seen at the immediate left of Lou's left shoulder wearing the yellow hat. Take notice that Joe was following Lou at the Funfest event, yet another example of Lou acting in his official capacity of Mayor of Hazleton. These pictures do not corroborate Ed Mitchell's story. At the end of this piece I am posting more pictures so the reader can get a real flavor for Ed Mitchell's lies.
If you go to Open Secrets at this link you will see a campaign expenditure for AGAPIC Films for $9,420.00. Let's hold Paul's feet to the fire. Paul, why would you let your media guy stoop to such a distasteful tactic? Lou's wife was with him at times. If you weren't a part of this I believe it is time you come out and say so. Otherwise, to me, you were as complicit as all get out. How is this episode going to play out among your peers in Washington? Was this tactic their suggestion? Did Nancy Pelosi grant permission for a tracker to be deceiving including wearing the opponents campaign button? Or was Rahm Emanuel the strategist?
In the next edition I will write about Accountability Moments, Michael Stark, and his visit to Damon's restaurant after coming all the way from Virginia.
Here are the pics.
My peer, Gort, once requested in his blog that if anyone knew Lou Barletta's campaign whereabouts let him know and he would post it. I was almost tempted to answer that request from May 21, 2008. However, circumstances known to me prevented releasing information ahead of time.
Lou Barletta was confronted by at least five camera-toting persons during this election at any given time at his campaign office, City Hall, Funfest, Scranton City Council, various speaking engagements like the American Legion in Wilkes Barre, and fundraisers including one at Damon's in Hazleton(I will post a special story on this one) plus a private, invitation only affair at the Stegmaier Manson.
It appears Ed Mitchell was so desparate in his quest to get Paul Kanjorski re-elected that he allowed and permitted himself to transcend levels lower than a snake. His first political commercial proffered Paul was a family man with "middle class values". Ed didn't waste any time to destroy the Barletta family, the DeAngelo famly, and all the friends and employees involved with subsequent commercials. Ed, those are not the values my parents taught me. The first question to Ed Mitchell...Did Paul know you paid someone to harass, videotape, and follow Lou Barlettta?
I will publicly name the photographers that went after Lou because I have photographs of them to back me up. The first person to approach Lou with a camcorder was identified as Mike Quinn, a bartender at The Bog in Scranton. You can see his work as LoserLou2008 on Youtube.com. Unfortunately for Mike an employee of Lou's campaign readily recognized him when the campaign captured pictures of him. There's a CIA saying. Don't worry about who you are watching, worry about who is watching you.
Ed Mitchell made the claim that these people were only sent to fundraisers. As you will see videographers showed up at official City Hall business which had nothing to do with the campaign.
If you visit Mike's Youtube page you will see a girl who I refer to as Lucy Lu. She claimed to be an aspiring journalism student but, wow, did she have her facts screwed up. You can read a post on the Youtube site that expalins the meaning of that sentence. She was the second to confront Lou in her failed attempt to get a "gotcha" moment. It was curious that both of them throughout the rest of the campaign remained in obscurity.
One young man showed up at Scranton City Hall to videotape Lou during a speaking engagement. The campaign has pictures of him but were unable to identify the videographer.
The next person, who is featured in the Times Leader story, was Joseph Van Wie, part owner of Agapic Films. Ironically the company's first film was titled "Gentleman Jack." Mr. Van Wie filled out a volunteer card and asked for a yard sign as part of his infiltration into the Barletta campaign. Watergate comes to mind.
At the Stegmaier event Joe was noticed hiding in some bushes. Campaign personnel brought Lou's car around the back of the mansion to try to avoid him. When Joe noticed Lou was leaving by a different route he jumped out of the bushes and proceeded to chase after Lou's car. He shouted "Mayor, Do you think you are sexy?" I would say not Joe's brightest moment in filming.
One late afternoon Lou and Vince Galko, his campaign manager, were driving in Scranton coming from an event when they noticed Van Wie sitting at the counter of a local eatery. He spotted the car outside the window and pretended he was videtaping them with his hands. It was a light-hearted moment for both as each took it in stride. Lou and Vince both smiled and laughed at Joe's humor. Joseph Van Wie commented to Vince at one point in the campaign that his candidate was good because he was not finding the "gotcha" moment he NEEDED.
Here are two pictures from Funfest 2008 in Hazleton showing Joe Wie following Lou. Joe is seen at the immediate left of Lou's left shoulder wearing the yellow hat. Take notice that Joe was following Lou at the Funfest event, yet another example of Lou acting in his official capacity of Mayor of Hazleton. These pictures do not corroborate Ed Mitchell's story. At the end of this piece I am posting more pictures so the reader can get a real flavor for Ed Mitchell's lies.
If you go to Open Secrets at this link you will see a campaign expenditure for AGAPIC Films for $9,420.00. Let's hold Paul's feet to the fire. Paul, why would you let your media guy stoop to such a distasteful tactic? Lou's wife was with him at times. If you weren't a part of this I believe it is time you come out and say so. Otherwise, to me, you were as complicit as all get out. How is this episode going to play out among your peers in Washington? Was this tactic their suggestion? Did Nancy Pelosi grant permission for a tracker to be deceiving including wearing the opponents campaign button? Or was Rahm Emanuel the strategist?
In the next edition I will write about Accountability Moments, Michael Stark, and his visit to Damon's restaurant after coming all the way from Virginia.
Here are the pics.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Paul Kanjorski, Rahm Emanuel, and Freddie Mac
The ink isn't dry on this election before we start to hear the horror stories. Here is the latest about Rahm Emanuel.
Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
November 7, 2008
New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme
President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.
According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.
Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."
Paul Kanjorski is part of the fraud perpetrated on American citizens. It is not coincidental that all the players live in the same House.
Emanuel Was Director Of Freddie Mac During Scandal By BRIAN ROSS and RHONDA SCHWARTZ
November 7, 2008
New Obama Chief of Staff, Others on Board, Missed "Red Flags" of Alleged Fraud Scheme
President-elect Barack Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot "red flags," according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.
According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002.
Emanuel was not named in the SEC complaint (click here to read) but the entire board was later accused by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) (click here to read) of having "failed in its duty to follow up on matters brought to its attention."
Paul Kanjorski is part of the fraud perpetrated on American citizens. It is not coincidental that all the players live in the same House.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Lou Barletta Represents The Gentle Wind of Change
Nothing I am going to write today will influence any voter at this point. I believe the mission now is to convince the people that their vote does matter.
Thomas Friedman over at the New York Times opined this column with the following words.
"Since the last debate, John McCain and Barack Obama have unveiled broad ideas about how to restore the nation’s financial health. But they continue to suggest that this will be largely pain-free. McCain says giving everyone a tax cut will save the day; Obama tells us only the rich will have to pay to help us out of this hole. Neither is true."
"We are all going to have to pay, because this meltdown comes in the context of what has been “perhaps the greatest wealth transfer since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917,” says Michael Mandelbaum, author of “Democracy’s Good Name.” “It is not a wealth transfer from rich to poor that the Bush administration will be remembered for. It is a wealth transfer from the future to the present.”
"We wasted a huge amount of time pretending that we could punish Wall Street without punishing Main Street — when, in fact, they are intricately intertwined."
In the end it doesn't matter whether you believe that greedy people from Wall Street are at the nexus of the financial crisis. There are plenty people to blame including every day people. Learning fiscal responsiblity is more important than espousing we need it. The road to recovery will be a long one regardless of what ANY politician t(s)ells you.
Ralph Nader said it right about this bailout. “There are no bailouts for the working people of this country!" We will fund this bailout; Congress and the President pledged it.
“Oh yeah, it’s got everything,” Mr. Nader said in an interview after the rally. “Taxation without representation, no public hearings. This is the worst yet, procedurally and substantively.”
According to Tom Freidman "We are all going to be paying the government more and getting less until we grow out of this hole."
When you go to the polls tomorrow please realize we need leaders in Washington. They are so desparately lacking. Washington has lost its way and we need to remind them of that fact. They have their own culture and their own rules. If we send the same people there we can only get the same results.
Whether the issue that inspires your passion is the economy, healthcare, finances, student loans, or mortgages one thing is for certain. Those in Washington brought us to the brink of these disasters. They would be the last persons I would "hire" if I were an employer to help my company(country) out of this mess.
If you are a passionate Democrat and believe its the Republicans' fault I feel you are wrong. If you are a passionate Repbulican and believe its the Democrats' fault you are equally wrong. It is our fault as voters for letting Washington drift out to sea and not reeling them back in.
The long road ahead should not come without consequences. WE NEED TO SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE. We need people to hold us together as we try to recover, not the people who sent us to the emergency room in the first place. We need leaders who can inspire us once again to stand behind America, not rip its fabric apart. Keeping us separated is what our enemies want. Don't be so disillusioned that our enemies are not within our borders for they are. After the election it is not time to hear what's wrong with our country, it is time to hear what we are going to do about it. The road will be a collaborative one.
When a person needs help it is a lone voice that alerts us and sets the wheels in motion. It is our lone voice that tells our children why they can or can't do something. Have you ever gone to a concert where the lone voice starts the chorus? Don't be afraid of a lone voice. The lone voice starts the gentle wind of change. Once it starts everything will fall into place. It was one lone voice that talked about illegal immigration. That voice is now known nationally.
VOTE FOR LOU BARLETTA FOR CONGRESS! "I believe the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth."- Lou Barletta, 2008
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Paul Kanjorski You Did Vote To Give Illegal Aliens Social Security And Amnesty
The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 HR 4437 was voted on by the House of Representatives on December 16, 2005 at 10:33P.M. Paul Kanjorski is running a commercial stating that Lou Barletta is lying when he states Kanjo voted to give illegal aliens Social Security benefits.
From the Wikipedia link above: It would allow illegal immigrants who later become legal to collect Social Security benefits based on social security credits earned while they were illegal.
From the GovTrack.us link above recording that vote:
Pennsylvania
Aye PA-11 Kanjorski, Paul [D]
Paul Kanjorski is running a commercial stating that Lou Barletta is lying when he states Kanjo voted to give illegal aliens amnesty. His statement in the only debate was recorded over at the LuLac Political Letter.
The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. This legislation (S. 1200) granted amnesty to roughly three million illegal immigrants for the stated purpose of solving the immigration problem and securing our border. The enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) dramatically eroded border control not only by granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants but by encouraging millions more to enter into the United States illegally in the hope that they too would eventually receive legal status.
Here is how Paul Kanjorski voted:
11 Kanjorski(D) Y
Paul is incapable of thinking, Paul is incapable of governing, Paul is incapable of telling the truth.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Kanjorski and Murtha Finding Political Life Difficult These Days.
Let's address those pundits who predict a Democratic Red Tide sweep. Remember Kanjo's buddy John Murtha who was instrumental in helping secure funds for the failed Cornerstone Technologies.
Michelle Malkin reports Murtha is behind 48 to 35 in the latest poll. Just like Kanjorsk who refused to appear in the Poconos with Lou Barletta before the NAACP Murtha likes cancelling debates.
Murtha and Kanjorski will enjoy their cruise together.
Michelle Malkin reports Murtha is behind 48 to 35 in the latest poll. Just like Kanjorsk who refused to appear in the Poconos with Lou Barletta before the NAACP Murtha likes cancelling debates.
Murtha and Kanjorski will enjoy their cruise together.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Barletta-Kanjorski Debate and Entitlement
I attended the Barletta Kanjorski debate last evening. I waited until today to write about the experience. First, it made me proud to be an American and witness our election process. The audience represented both sides of the aisle but kept their partisan acolades to themselves at the request of the moderator.
When Bill Kelly did his "State of Pennsylvania" show on January 31st he asked Chris Carney, Tim Holden, and Paul Kanjorski whether they would come back in the fall to debate their opponents. Paul Kanjorski spoke first and asked Bill Kelly "Did you say 180 debates"? As we now know Kanjorski only agreed to one. I talked to Bill after the show. He told me at the time he had no idea WVIA would be hosting the only debate of the election. I must say that Bill and the entire staff at WVIA were nothing short of the great professionals we all know them to be.
Many issues were discussed during the debate which I had my wife record on our DVR. The following account compiles the information from that recording.
Lou Barletta won the toss and chose to make the opening statement. He thanked WVIA and Paul Kanjorski for hosting and participating in the debate. What you didn't see off camera was Kanjorski's refusal to acknowledge Barletta like most gentlemen do. October 29th represents the anniversary of Mary Grace and Lou Barletta's wedding. He acknowledged that celebration. He talked about events that led him into the national spotlight but made the case that while illegal immigration was that issue it could have been any issue. He talked about going to Washington looking for help. I remember that trip. Washington provided education but no dollars to ramp up the police department. Hazleton was left to figure that out for themselves. That situation is similar to what Luzerne County is doing by asking the state for assistance with its budget problems.
He highlighted the crisises Americans are facing today. And that folks is where I am going with this post. I am amazed at the conclusions I read on other blogs about who is going to do what for us. Do you honestly believe that the energy crisis, the healthcare crisis, the mortgage crisis, the college affordability crisis, the Medicare crisis, and the crisis where each raise in Social Security is more than offset by Medicare premiums-A, B and D will be solved by those that are presently in Washington, Republican or Democrat? DemaRepubagogues want selfish longevity, not what is right for Americans.
Is the American public asking to change America OR are we saying we want the American vote to change Washington? It is a line Barletta used during the debate but it highlights the frustration Joe the Plumber, Pat the Hairdresser, Tony the Mechanic, Julio the grocery owner, or Jim the factory worker has with American politics.
If you really study the rhetoric coming out of Washington here is what is said for consumption. It's the Republicans. It's the Democrats. Folks these are intelligent people wagging the dog hoping we will buy it hook line and sinker.
I read how much money Paul Kanjorski brought into this district. I am disappointed that the patch town political ideology still prevails in sections. They are willing to "forgive" a Congressman that steered and continues to steer money to his family because they "think" he also brought some for them. They are willing to "forgive" a Presidential candidate who has ties to not only a known terrorist but to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Think folks, think. When was the last time you ever heard those alliances uttered about a Presidential candidate?
It is a fact that Chris Carney, a Democrat, brought three times the amount of money back to his district this past year than Paul Kanjorski. He did that with a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Do you know that history has a way of repeating itself? Paul Kanjorski was elected in 1984 under a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a Republican controlled Senate 55-45. Yet, I will see this argument used against Lou Barletta in predicting a red tide sweep of Washington. Balderdash.
Lou made himself known on the national scene. I would say he will do the same in Washington but he is already known there. He doesn't have to make alliances; they already exist. He received 90% of the vote for Mayor last year. Not only did he do that he received a 2 to 1 ratio on the primary write-in on the Democratic side to shut out a contender. The fact that most of you know about Lou just demonstrates his ability to make himself heard. This district won't have to start over for every new beginning means some other beginnings end. Ask Frank Harrison.
Kanjorski has a relect in the polls that never surpassed 40%. The "Is it time for a change?" question has polled consistently over 50%. Lou Barletta has lead all credible polls by as high as 9%. Yes, quick, run. Point out the "undecideds". For you see that qestion has already been answered. A heavy Democratic district means people owe others for their jobs, their kids' jobs, or some sort of favor. But not all of us are Charmaine Bieda. Paul Kanjorsk did not try to get each one of us $10 million dollars. So the allegiances only go so far. But like Joe the Plumber initially they are not willing to tell a stranger on the other end of a phone how they will vote.
In the end the most common statement I hear traveling this entire district, and believe me I have, is "He has been there long enough." Kanjorski lost this election but only after he sacrificed his integrity for condescending entitlement.
When Bill Kelly did his "State of Pennsylvania" show on January 31st he asked Chris Carney, Tim Holden, and Paul Kanjorski whether they would come back in the fall to debate their opponents. Paul Kanjorski spoke first and asked Bill Kelly "Did you say 180 debates"? As we now know Kanjorski only agreed to one. I talked to Bill after the show. He told me at the time he had no idea WVIA would be hosting the only debate of the election. I must say that Bill and the entire staff at WVIA were nothing short of the great professionals we all know them to be.
Many issues were discussed during the debate which I had my wife record on our DVR. The following account compiles the information from that recording.
Lou Barletta won the toss and chose to make the opening statement. He thanked WVIA and Paul Kanjorski for hosting and participating in the debate. What you didn't see off camera was Kanjorski's refusal to acknowledge Barletta like most gentlemen do. October 29th represents the anniversary of Mary Grace and Lou Barletta's wedding. He acknowledged that celebration. He talked about events that led him into the national spotlight but made the case that while illegal immigration was that issue it could have been any issue. He talked about going to Washington looking for help. I remember that trip. Washington provided education but no dollars to ramp up the police department. Hazleton was left to figure that out for themselves. That situation is similar to what Luzerne County is doing by asking the state for assistance with its budget problems.
He highlighted the crisises Americans are facing today. And that folks is where I am going with this post. I am amazed at the conclusions I read on other blogs about who is going to do what for us. Do you honestly believe that the energy crisis, the healthcare crisis, the mortgage crisis, the college affordability crisis, the Medicare crisis, and the crisis where each raise in Social Security is more than offset by Medicare premiums-A, B and D will be solved by those that are presently in Washington, Republican or Democrat? DemaRepubagogues want selfish longevity, not what is right for Americans.
Is the American public asking to change America OR are we saying we want the American vote to change Washington? It is a line Barletta used during the debate but it highlights the frustration Joe the Plumber, Pat the Hairdresser, Tony the Mechanic, Julio the grocery owner, or Jim the factory worker has with American politics.
If you really study the rhetoric coming out of Washington here is what is said for consumption. It's the Republicans. It's the Democrats. Folks these are intelligent people wagging the dog hoping we will buy it hook line and sinker.
I read how much money Paul Kanjorski brought into this district. I am disappointed that the patch town political ideology still prevails in sections. They are willing to "forgive" a Congressman that steered and continues to steer money to his family because they "think" he also brought some for them. They are willing to "forgive" a Presidential candidate who has ties to not only a known terrorist but to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Think folks, think. When was the last time you ever heard those alliances uttered about a Presidential candidate?
It is a fact that Chris Carney, a Democrat, brought three times the amount of money back to his district this past year than Paul Kanjorski. He did that with a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Do you know that history has a way of repeating itself? Paul Kanjorski was elected in 1984 under a Republican President, Ronald Reagan, and a Republican controlled Senate 55-45. Yet, I will see this argument used against Lou Barletta in predicting a red tide sweep of Washington. Balderdash.
Lou made himself known on the national scene. I would say he will do the same in Washington but he is already known there. He doesn't have to make alliances; they already exist. He received 90% of the vote for Mayor last year. Not only did he do that he received a 2 to 1 ratio on the primary write-in on the Democratic side to shut out a contender. The fact that most of you know about Lou just demonstrates his ability to make himself heard. This district won't have to start over for every new beginning means some other beginnings end. Ask Frank Harrison.
Kanjorski has a relect in the polls that never surpassed 40%. The "Is it time for a change?" question has polled consistently over 50%. Lou Barletta has lead all credible polls by as high as 9%. Yes, quick, run. Point out the "undecideds". For you see that qestion has already been answered. A heavy Democratic district means people owe others for their jobs, their kids' jobs, or some sort of favor. But not all of us are Charmaine Bieda. Paul Kanjorsk did not try to get each one of us $10 million dollars. So the allegiances only go so far. But like Joe the Plumber initially they are not willing to tell a stranger on the other end of a phone how they will vote.
In the end the most common statement I hear traveling this entire district, and believe me I have, is "He has been there long enough." Kanjorski lost this election but only after he sacrificed his integrity for condescending entitlement.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Paul Kanjorski You OWE Lou Barletta and The DeAngelo Brothers An Apology
This editorial appeared in today's edition of the Standard Speaker in Hazleton. It is pretty much self-eplanatory. Ed Pane has the highest regard of the community.
Editor,
I have always refrained from commenting on political matters. However, the recent Paul Kanjorski commercial in which he has attempted to cast Lou Barletta as a friend of drug dealers is so inaccurate that I must respond. This letter is written with the authorization of the Serento Gardens Board of Directors.
At the outset, let me say that I like Paul Kanjorski and consider him a friend. He spoke at our Agency’s 30th anniversary dinner. He has been to my home. Paul has supported Serento Gardens and all drug education and treatment initiatives whenever I’ve called on him. I like and respect the man.
But this isn’t about Paul, the man. This is about an ad he should have never “approved.” There is not a word of truth in the message, that Lou Barletta, and Paul and Neil DeAngelo are bad men, dangerous men; drug dealing men who should never be trusted. They are fine men and deserve everyone’s respect.
I am the president and CEO of Hazleton Area’s largest substance abuse treatment and education center. Each year we touch tens of thousands of lives. A lot of our work would not be possible without the aid of Lou Barletta, and Paul and Neil DeAngelo, the targets of this ad. Beyond my upset at the ad’s inaccuracy is my hurt for three people who are among the strongest advocates for substance abuse prevention, education and treatment I know. Even more than that, the injury inflicted on their families, especially their children was nothing short of cruel and is utterly inexcusable.Imagine being one of their children and hearing that about your father who you know is a good person. Imagine being one of those children, going to school and hearing your friends. An apology is in order.
This is politics at its absolute worst and its ugliest. The ad is unconscionable.
Lou Barletta helped start the Hazleton Area Drug Free Task Force while still a councilman, 10 years ago. He championed a municipal ordinance that forced every store selling drug paraphernalia to get the items off their shelves or face a fine. He helped the Task Force take that resolution to every municipality in the Hazleton Area and with his encouragement all passed it.Today there isn’t an item associated with the use of illegal drugs on any store shelf in the Hazleton area. If I have a substance abuse related concern, I have but to pick up the phone and Lou is there with the full support of his administration.
Neil and Paul DeAngelo? Let me tell you something about both. Both made a mistake many years ago and both paid for it. No problem leaves a person where it finds him, either he is better or worse because of it. Both became better men and are examples of the good that becomes possible when people turn their lives around.
Today, DeAngelo Brothers Inc. is the presenting sponsor of the Hazleton Area’s largest drug free event, “Seasons Change.” They opened their hearts, their entire company and wallets to an event dedicated to drug prevention so no child ever walks down the road they did so many years ago. hey are community heroes, and business leaders providing employment and support for other local businesses. They started a Fortune 500 company.
I said at the outset, I know and like Paul Kanjorski. However, I am angry and disappointed with what his he has done and the inaccurate picture he’s attempted to paint of three fine individuals.
Edward A. Pane, MBA, President and CEO,
Serento Gardens, Hazleton
Editor,
I have always refrained from commenting on political matters. However, the recent Paul Kanjorski commercial in which he has attempted to cast Lou Barletta as a friend of drug dealers is so inaccurate that I must respond. This letter is written with the authorization of the Serento Gardens Board of Directors.
At the outset, let me say that I like Paul Kanjorski and consider him a friend. He spoke at our Agency’s 30th anniversary dinner. He has been to my home. Paul has supported Serento Gardens and all drug education and treatment initiatives whenever I’ve called on him. I like and respect the man.
But this isn’t about Paul, the man. This is about an ad he should have never “approved.” There is not a word of truth in the message, that Lou Barletta, and Paul and Neil DeAngelo are bad men, dangerous men; drug dealing men who should never be trusted. They are fine men and deserve everyone’s respect.
I am the president and CEO of Hazleton Area’s largest substance abuse treatment and education center. Each year we touch tens of thousands of lives. A lot of our work would not be possible without the aid of Lou Barletta, and Paul and Neil DeAngelo, the targets of this ad. Beyond my upset at the ad’s inaccuracy is my hurt for three people who are among the strongest advocates for substance abuse prevention, education and treatment I know. Even more than that, the injury inflicted on their families, especially their children was nothing short of cruel and is utterly inexcusable.Imagine being one of their children and hearing that about your father who you know is a good person. Imagine being one of those children, going to school and hearing your friends. An apology is in order.
This is politics at its absolute worst and its ugliest. The ad is unconscionable.
Lou Barletta helped start the Hazleton Area Drug Free Task Force while still a councilman, 10 years ago. He championed a municipal ordinance that forced every store selling drug paraphernalia to get the items off their shelves or face a fine. He helped the Task Force take that resolution to every municipality in the Hazleton Area and with his encouragement all passed it.Today there isn’t an item associated with the use of illegal drugs on any store shelf in the Hazleton area. If I have a substance abuse related concern, I have but to pick up the phone and Lou is there with the full support of his administration.
Neil and Paul DeAngelo? Let me tell you something about both. Both made a mistake many years ago and both paid for it. No problem leaves a person where it finds him, either he is better or worse because of it. Both became better men and are examples of the good that becomes possible when people turn their lives around.
Today, DeAngelo Brothers Inc. is the presenting sponsor of the Hazleton Area’s largest drug free event, “Seasons Change.” They opened their hearts, their entire company and wallets to an event dedicated to drug prevention so no child ever walks down the road they did so many years ago. hey are community heroes, and business leaders providing employment and support for other local businesses. They started a Fortune 500 company.
I said at the outset, I know and like Paul Kanjorski. However, I am angry and disappointed with what his he has done and the inaccurate picture he’s attempted to paint of three fine individuals.
Edward A. Pane, MBA, President and CEO,
Serento Gardens, Hazleton
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Kanjorski's Camp Telling Media Team America Ad Is Untrue
Paul Kanjorski's campaign is attacking Team America's ad. Kanjorski et al claim he voted against amnesty and the content of the radio ad is wrong.
Kanjorski needs a memory check. In 1986 the Immigration Reform and Control Act was passed by a vote of 238-173. If one were to visit this site referencing an article from the New American published in June, 2006 one would see that Paul Kanjorski voted "YES" on this bill that gave amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens. "The enactment of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) dramatically eroded border control not only by granting citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants but by encouraging millions more to enter into the United States illegally in the hope that they too would eventually receive legal status."
Kanjorski is listed as voting for the IRCA amnesty bill in the book “Anatomy of a Public Policy: The Reform of Contemporary American Immigration Law,” which was written by Michael C. LeMay and published in September 1994. Kanjorski’s vote is listed in Appendix B: The Roll Call Votes Enacting IRCA. LeMay was professor and chairman of the Department of Political Science and director of the National Security Studies Program at California State University, San Bernardino.
A local blogger, Gort42, posed the question about illegal immigration to Paul Kanjorski in 2006. Kanjorski admitted he voted for amnesty of illegal aliens: "In 1986, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act with my support."
In his own press release Kanjorski issues the following statement "I have consistently supported legislation to secure our borders and enforce our current federal immigration laws."
Team America documented the contents of the radio ad on their website. NumbersUSA gives Paul Kanjorski a D+ career rating on illegal immigration issues. On the subject to "Reduce Enticement For Illegal Immigration" he received an F-.
This article explains the unintended consequence regarding amnesty. "This particular hot insight, found in a report entitled "Understanding the Future of Californians' Fertility: The Role of Immigrants”: amnesties have unexpected repercussions that echo for years. It turns out that the 1986 amnesty for illegals set off a big baby boom among its beneficiaries - inevitably worsening the subsequent crowding in schools and emergency rooms."
When Paul Kanjorski claims to be solid against illegal immigration it only takes a review of his record to determine it isn't supported by the facts. Borys was wrong when he stated"On illegal immigration, Kanjorski, Barletta agree".
Captain Renault is among those who feel illegal immigration is off the radar screen for now. I ask the question- Do you talk about your mortgage payment or do you think about it to yourself? Ask the question about illegal immigration in your neighborhood and see what type of response you get. If illegal immigration wasn't an issue why did the media point out that illegals started going home when our economy started to tank?
The American Thinker wrote on the Center For Immigration Studies report with some interesting highlights. I want you to keep in mind that MS13 IS IN HAZLETON.
"# Transnational immigrant gangs have been spreading rapidly and sprouting in suburban and rural areas where communities are not always equipped to deal with them.
# A very large share of immigrant gang members are illegal aliens and removable aliens. Federal sources estimate that 60 to 90 percent of the members of MS-13, the most notorious immigrant gang, are illegal aliens. In one jurisdiction studied, Northern Virginia, 30 to 40 percent of the gang task force case load were removable aliens.
# MS-13 activity was found in 48 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
# The immigrant gangsters arrested were a significant menace to the public. About 80 percent had committed serious crimes in addition to their immigration violations and 40 percent were violent criminals.
# While immigration law enforcement is a federal responsibility, ICE cannot do the job effectively without assistance from state and local law enforcement, particularly when it comes to immigrant gangs."
Gordan Hanson conlcuded the following statements in his paper "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration.
"In the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,Congress voted to increase enforcement without creating a mechanism for the continued legal inflow of low skilled labor. Under steady pressure from business, immigration authorities ultimately gutted or redirected IRCA’s major enforcement provisions. The end result was that illegal labor has continued to find a way into the country. As Congress again wrestles with immigration reform, one would hope that it will pay heed to the failures of IRCA by designing a framework that allows for the dynamic participation of legal immigrant workers in the U.S. economy. Otherwise, the United States is likely to find itself with even larger illegal populations in the very near future."
The Right Wing Whiz Kid may be onto something regarding this race. However I feel the NRA may have shot itself in the foot.
This issue will come back to the forefront. The Presidential candidates are not that far apart in their positions. McCain will LET it happen and Obama will MAKE it happen. Opponents to allowing undocumented law breakers and the problems inherent with having to support a fluctuating population of unknowns will once again be highlighted and addressed. Do you want Lou Barletta or Paul Kanjorski making the decisions?
.
Paul Kanjorski Will Sell You A Set of Encyclopedias
Paul Kanjorski admitted to "stretching the facts" in an attempt to win an election. Ed Mitchell's strategy to attack Lou Barletta over healthcare is a perfect example. His salted distortion of Lou Barletta's position begs correction.
I attended a seminar on Friday. One of the lecturers was talking about Medicare. Here is her analogy to demonstrate what is wrong with government run programs.
"I sell encyclopedias. I come to your house, knock on your door, and tell you that I have a set of encyclopedias that cost $500.00. You tell me that you can't afford them and close the door.
I come back the next day to your house, knock on your door, and tell you that I have a set of encyclopedias that cost $500.00. Only this time I tell you that the government will pay for the set of encyclopedias. You know you are going to say "if the government is willing to pay sure I will take them."
How many people on medical assistance go to emergency rooms for routine medical condtitions, the common cold for example? It is a fact that people are acutely aware to cost but the government hasn't figured out that out. Look at the price of Lasik surgery as an example. When the consumer shops around competition works the way it was designed. Its price has declined over the last several years.
With government and insurance companies setting the reimbursement rates for physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers why does the price go up each year? It isn't due to a rate increase. Reimbursement rates have declined. Where is the money going? More and more people are using the service because they don't have to pay the full rate.
Here is what happened to the Medicare program. When it was first proposed the scope of coverage was limited. It also assumed that retirees wouldn't live that into their 90's. Along the way coverage was expanded. Liver transplants are now covered which is no cheap procedure. Read Lou Barletta's comments from the Pocono Record.
"I remain opposed to government-run universal health care, which is the question I was answering in the quote my opponent has taken out of context in this ad," Barletta said in a written statement Monday. "The federal government is the main culprit for the current financial, energy and health care crises. Do we really want to give it more control? Besides, if we think there is an illegal immigration problem now, just try to control the border once we announce free health care for everyone."
But Barletta says he supports current government health programs, such as the Veterans Administration program covering those who served in the U.S. armed forces.
"I remain a staunch supporter of veterans and the VA health care system," he wrote. "Just last week I was endorsed by the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition."
Kanjorski said during an appearance Monday in East Stroudsburg, "I don't do the ads," and he wasn't familiar with the specific ad content. But he defended the ad's assertion that Barletta is opposed to government health care programs of any kind.
"He's taking the philosophical position he wants the government out of health care," Kanjorski said. "Then any health care business the government's in, you're saying you're against it." - If that isn't stretching the facts then I missed something.
Paul, be honest with the people. You are an attorney. Well I guess I just contradicted myself. From your ad- "I am Paul Kanjorski and I approve this message." You really want to tell the people you aren't familiar with its content. Have at it but I don't think that record will play in a CD player.
If you don't know the difference between government funded programs and government actually in the business of healthcare then you need to vacate your congressional space.
Universal healthcare is wrong for this country for many reasons. I know people think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare, something I not opposed to but know that what is being said and what it actually means are two different things. Its my business. Universal healthcare would NOT mean the same healtcare options for all. There would be elitist healthcare and entry level healthcare; no different than what is happening today.
Paul, tell the people about your triple bypass surgery. You went to Boston for the procecdure at Brigham and Women's Hospital. You recouperated at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Most people I know have to recoup at home. Their insurance will not pay for a rehab stay.
I attended a seminar on Friday. One of the lecturers was talking about Medicare. Here is her analogy to demonstrate what is wrong with government run programs.
"I sell encyclopedias. I come to your house, knock on your door, and tell you that I have a set of encyclopedias that cost $500.00. You tell me that you can't afford them and close the door.
I come back the next day to your house, knock on your door, and tell you that I have a set of encyclopedias that cost $500.00. Only this time I tell you that the government will pay for the set of encyclopedias. You know you are going to say "if the government is willing to pay sure I will take them."
How many people on medical assistance go to emergency rooms for routine medical condtitions, the common cold for example? It is a fact that people are acutely aware to cost but the government hasn't figured out that out. Look at the price of Lasik surgery as an example. When the consumer shops around competition works the way it was designed. Its price has declined over the last several years.
With government and insurance companies setting the reimbursement rates for physicians, hospitals, and other healthcare providers why does the price go up each year? It isn't due to a rate increase. Reimbursement rates have declined. Where is the money going? More and more people are using the service because they don't have to pay the full rate.
Here is what happened to the Medicare program. When it was first proposed the scope of coverage was limited. It also assumed that retirees wouldn't live that into their 90's. Along the way coverage was expanded. Liver transplants are now covered which is no cheap procedure. Read Lou Barletta's comments from the Pocono Record.
"I remain opposed to government-run universal health care, which is the question I was answering in the quote my opponent has taken out of context in this ad," Barletta said in a written statement Monday. "The federal government is the main culprit for the current financial, energy and health care crises. Do we really want to give it more control? Besides, if we think there is an illegal immigration problem now, just try to control the border once we announce free health care for everyone."
But Barletta says he supports current government health programs, such as the Veterans Administration program covering those who served in the U.S. armed forces.
"I remain a staunch supporter of veterans and the VA health care system," he wrote. "Just last week I was endorsed by the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition."
Kanjorski said during an appearance Monday in East Stroudsburg, "I don't do the ads," and he wasn't familiar with the specific ad content. But he defended the ad's assertion that Barletta is opposed to government health care programs of any kind.
"He's taking the philosophical position he wants the government out of health care," Kanjorski said. "Then any health care business the government's in, you're saying you're against it." - If that isn't stretching the facts then I missed something.
Paul, be honest with the people. You are an attorney. Well I guess I just contradicted myself. From your ad- "I am Paul Kanjorski and I approve this message." You really want to tell the people you aren't familiar with its content. Have at it but I don't think that record will play in a CD player.
If you don't know the difference between government funded programs and government actually in the business of healthcare then you need to vacate your congressional space.
Universal healthcare is wrong for this country for many reasons. I know people think that everyone should be entitled to healthcare, something I not opposed to but know that what is being said and what it actually means are two different things. Its my business. Universal healthcare would NOT mean the same healtcare options for all. There would be elitist healthcare and entry level healthcare; no different than what is happening today.
Paul, tell the people about your triple bypass surgery. You went to Boston for the procecdure at Brigham and Women's Hospital. You recouperated at Bethesda Naval Hospital. Most people I know have to recoup at home. Their insurance will not pay for a rehab stay.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Kanjorski Voted Against Medicare Part D For Seniors
If you listen to the "Affordable Medicine" commmercial aired by Paul Kanjorski he states that a Bush law prevented the government from negotiating the price(rebate) of prescription medications from drug manufacturers for Medicare Part D plans.
First Truth: Yes the law did that.
First Part Left Out: Prices are negotiated. The companies that are marketing the Medicare Part D plans like BlueRX, AARP, Community Care RX, Amerihealth, etc. negotiate rebates from the drug manufacturers on those medications. If the government negotiated the price(rebate) not all medications would be covered by the program. Manufacturers give rebates because a plan choses one medication over another. For example, Prilosec, Prevacid, Protonix, Nexium, and Aciphex all work the same way. The makers of Prevacid would give a rebate if the plan chooses their medication over the rest. That would mean patients who get relief from Aciphex or Nexium would have to pay a higher or full price if they wanted the medication because of the rebate agreement on Prevacid.
Second False Statement: The ad goes on to state that "Kanjorski voted so seniors could buy affordable medicine."
Second Truth: Folks, Paul Kanjorski VOTED AGAINST Medicare Part D for seniors. You see, the same law that Kanjorski says prevented negotiation is the law that created Medicare Part D for seniors. It was called the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003(MMA). The MMA passed by a vote of 216 to 215. If one other Congressman voted like Paul Kanjorski seniors probably would not have a benefit today.
If you read this press release from his office he admits voting against Medicare Part D. " Congressman Kanjorski voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug bill in 2003."
His vote against Medicare Part D also meant that the PACE program in Pennsylvania would not be saving money because the PACE + Medicare Part D legislation would be a non-event.
Now I understand why the person did the Dueling Kanjo commercial. Paul Kanjorski, why would you mislead seniors about your vote against their prescription benefit?
First Truth: Yes the law did that.
First Part Left Out: Prices are negotiated. The companies that are marketing the Medicare Part D plans like BlueRX, AARP, Community Care RX, Amerihealth, etc. negotiate rebates from the drug manufacturers on those medications. If the government negotiated the price(rebate) not all medications would be covered by the program. Manufacturers give rebates because a plan choses one medication over another. For example, Prilosec, Prevacid, Protonix, Nexium, and Aciphex all work the same way. The makers of Prevacid would give a rebate if the plan chooses their medication over the rest. That would mean patients who get relief from Aciphex or Nexium would have to pay a higher or full price if they wanted the medication because of the rebate agreement on Prevacid.
Second False Statement: The ad goes on to state that "Kanjorski voted so seniors could buy affordable medicine."
Second Truth: Folks, Paul Kanjorski VOTED AGAINST Medicare Part D for seniors. You see, the same law that Kanjorski says prevented negotiation is the law that created Medicare Part D for seniors. It was called the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003(MMA). The MMA passed by a vote of 216 to 215. If one other Congressman voted like Paul Kanjorski seniors probably would not have a benefit today.
If you read this press release from his office he admits voting against Medicare Part D. " Congressman Kanjorski voted against the Medicare Prescription Drug bill in 2003."
His vote against Medicare Part D also meant that the PACE program in Pennsylvania would not be saving money because the PACE + Medicare Part D legislation would be a non-event.
Now I understand why the person did the Dueling Kanjo commercial. Paul Kanjorski, why would you mislead seniors about your vote against their prescription benefit?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Kanjorski's False Issues and Smear Tactics Part 2
Kanjorski recently aired a new ad first viewed on WNEP-TV 16 making some claims that are blatantly false. The ad concerns the sale of Interstate Road Marking Corporation to DeAngelo Brothers Inc.(DBI), a corporation.
The ad asks the question "Would you sell you company for millions to a company owned by people once entangled in a cocaine distribution ring?" The ad has Lou Barletta's picture with the statement "Lou Barletta Did" under it.
First False Statement. Lou Barletta never owned Interstate Road Marking Corporation(IRM). IRM was owned by Lou Barletta's wife, MaryGrace, as a Women-Owned Business Enterprise(WBE). One of the requirements for ownership include "the distribution of risks and profits must substantiate that the minorities and/or women applying for certification really own the business." As I stated, Lou Barletta never owned any part of IRM. His capacity in the company was an employee. The last time I checked Mary Grace Barletta is not running for office.
Earlier in the year Kanjorski's camp tried to say that MaryGrace was treasurer of Interstate Road Marking. An error on the part of the Department of State mistakenly listed MaryGrace as treasurer. As you can see from the link that error has been corrected.
Second False Statement: It should also be pointed out that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there never was any "cocaine ring" as alleged in the ad. "This evidence demonstrates that Belletiere on one occasion sold drugs to Forte in a deal also involving the DeAngelo brothers. It does not show that Belletiere exerted leadership, control or influence over Forte or the DeAngelo brothers on this or any other occasion, or that these people were "answerable" to Belletiere in any way. The offense was a simply buyer/seller drug transaction. "The evidence, however, clearly shows that Belletiere made a series of unrelated drug sales to these people that constituted separate offenses for purposes of section 3B1.1(a). None of the buyers were "led" or "organized" by, nor "answerable" to, the defendant."
Later in the ad it states "Barlettas receive up to $100,000 a year from DBI."
Third Misleading Statement. This statement is know as lying by ommission. "One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception." The money received by the Barlettas is rent for the physical location and property where the IRM operations are located in Hazleton. The Barlettas still own the property but Mary Grace sold HER business to DBI.
As an incidental to that property, the Barletta's donated a portion of their holdings to the Helping Hands Society so the organization could build a playground for special needs children.
The ad goes on to state "And his campaign still takes thousands from the company's owners."
Paul, let's talk about IRM vs. Cornerstone Technologies. Since the purchase of IRM by DBI the company has added 3 new offices and 90 employees. When Cornerstone received almost $10 million dollars from the taxpayers of the United States we are still looking for 2 pumps,all the money is GONE and so are the employees' jobs. One employee, Marian Mazurkiewicz, is listed as a creditor with a loss of $600,000.00.
You say you did nothing wrong. You violated the public trust. As a lawyer I would expect your response. As a citizen I loath it.
The ad asks the question "Would you sell you company for millions to a company owned by people once entangled in a cocaine distribution ring?" The ad has Lou Barletta's picture with the statement "Lou Barletta Did" under it.
First False Statement. Lou Barletta never owned Interstate Road Marking Corporation(IRM). IRM was owned by Lou Barletta's wife, MaryGrace, as a Women-Owned Business Enterprise(WBE). One of the requirements for ownership include "the distribution of risks and profits must substantiate that the minorities and/or women applying for certification really own the business." As I stated, Lou Barletta never owned any part of IRM. His capacity in the company was an employee. The last time I checked Mary Grace Barletta is not running for office.
Earlier in the year Kanjorski's camp tried to say that MaryGrace was treasurer of Interstate Road Marking. An error on the part of the Department of State mistakenly listed MaryGrace as treasurer. As you can see from the link that error has been corrected.
Second False Statement: It should also be pointed out that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled there never was any "cocaine ring" as alleged in the ad. "This evidence demonstrates that Belletiere on one occasion sold drugs to Forte in a deal also involving the DeAngelo brothers. It does not show that Belletiere exerted leadership, control or influence over Forte or the DeAngelo brothers on this or any other occasion, or that these people were "answerable" to Belletiere in any way. The offense was a simply buyer/seller drug transaction. "The evidence, however, clearly shows that Belletiere made a series of unrelated drug sales to these people that constituted separate offenses for purposes of section 3B1.1(a). None of the buyers were "led" or "organized" by, nor "answerable" to, the defendant."
Later in the ad it states "Barlettas receive up to $100,000 a year from DBI."
Third Misleading Statement. This statement is know as lying by ommission. "One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception." The money received by the Barlettas is rent for the physical location and property where the IRM operations are located in Hazleton. The Barlettas still own the property but Mary Grace sold HER business to DBI.
As an incidental to that property, the Barletta's donated a portion of their holdings to the Helping Hands Society so the organization could build a playground for special needs children.
The ad goes on to state "And his campaign still takes thousands from the company's owners."
Paul, let's talk about IRM vs. Cornerstone Technologies. Since the purchase of IRM by DBI the company has added 3 new offices and 90 employees. When Cornerstone received almost $10 million dollars from the taxpayers of the United States we are still looking for 2 pumps,all the money is GONE and so are the employees' jobs. One employee, Marian Mazurkiewicz, is listed as a creditor with a loss of $600,000.00.
You say you did nothing wrong. You violated the public trust. As a lawyer I would expect your response. As a citizen I loath it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)