Is The Caucus System Responsible For Our State Deficits?

The Grand Jury hearing the Bonusgate allegations as well as the misuse of taxpayer monies issued a scathing report of the party caucus system in Harrisburg as highlighted in this report from Robert Swift. In Karl Rove's book, Courage and Consequence, he writes "We saw that politics is not about power or status, but about ideas and ideals. To view it as about power was to treat it as a game, cynical and ultimately meaningless and cruel. But to understand that it was about great principles was to understand that politics could be hopeful and important exercise at the center of our democratic experience."

In the Grand Jury report anaymous members leveled their harshest criticism in a 34-page report against the legislative caucuses, which they said exist "in the shadows of the law, as the years go by eating up more and more taxpayer resources with little or no tangible benefit to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania."

While many, including lawmakers themselves, have proposed reforms during the five years since the controversial legislative pay raise, the caucus system hasn't come under much scrutiny until now.

The grand jury report cites examples of duplication of activities in the House Democratic and Republican caucus printing shops and information technology departments and overstaffing as problems, but has relatively little to say about the respective Senate caucuses. This omission occurs despite repeated statements by state Attorney General Tom that his Bonusgate investigation is looking at the illegal use of taxpayer dollars for political activities in both chambers.

Mr. Rove's words resonate loud and clear with what is wrong with the caucus system in Harrisburg. Both parties clearly view it as about power, not principles. Swift writes "From the day a new lawmaker is elected to office, the caucus system is a fixture. Members attend caucus orientation sessions before they take office, are assigned seats on the floor with other caucus members and meet every session day in closed-door caucuses to hash out policy issues."

As a result of that failed and flawed system we are faced with a $1.2 billion deficit in Pennsylvania this year and its not over.

The bad fiscal news comes with a month remaining before the June 30 deadline for enacting the fiscal 2010-11 state budget. The House and Senate return to session Monday to start a prolonged period in session leading up to the deadline.

A month ago, key lawmakers said Pennsylvania was headed to a revenue gap above $1 billion.

Lawmakers like House Majority Leader Todd Eachus wanted to make us believe he would be able to deliver a budget on time for next year.

"We are projecting a $500,000 shortfall in the 2010-11 budget," Eachus said to a Greater Hazleton Chamber of Commerce Red Carpet Breakfast audience at Capriotti's in Tresckow. "There is an $800,000 medical assistance payment due from the federal government. If that is paid, we will be within range of our two-year budget planning process." Mr. Eachus you are not within your projections and the caucus system is partly to blame.

As the Grand Jury stated The jury members find the roots of the illegal campaign activity that happened at least through 2006 in the patronage hiring done by the caucuses. Many of the legislative staffers were hired regardless of qualification due to the intercession of a lawmaker, they suggested. Their positions are secure even if they cannot do their jobs adequately, so additional staffers have to be hired.

"That process, over time, has contributed to the existence of hundreds of legislative employees who, although paid by the taxpayers to do legislative work, do campaign work on state time or with state resources, or other non-legislative work," the jurors wrote.

The real problem are the career legislators in Harrisburg. They view their position as their primary job. One does not go to college to become a legislator. There is no degree awarded to be a legislator. Their viewpoint is causing them to work the system for themselves. Their per diems, their pay raises, their retirement, every benefit they bestow upon themselves violates every principle of public trust.

Will the caucuses do the right thing? If they forget about the power and winning elections they will truly understand politics. Until then the pubic will view them as cynical and ultimately meaningless and cruel.

Janet Napolitano- Quit Being A Huge Embarassment To The U.S.

In the wake of the latest terrorist incident Janet Napolitano proved she is the wrong person to head Homeland Security. Her flip-flop statements signal two things. One, the flow of information up the ladder is seriously flawed. Two, once the information reaches the top nothing but garbage comes out of the mouth.

Karl Rove was on Hannity last night outlining how this administration blew a chance to interrogate the suspect. Instead they allowed him to lawyer up and shut up as a criminal and not treated as a terrorist. We lost the opportunity to find out who trained him, who sent him, who funded him, who fed him, and who he answered to.

Right now Fox News is reporting there were 17 full body scanners at Amsterdam airport. An Israeli spokesperson stated he would not use full body scanners on Muslims due to their faith. He made a compelling and convincing argument that Muslim distrust of the western world would only be heightened if goverment mandates a full body scan of their women and children.

This mess points to a systemic failure in our security policies. Profiling behavior, not skin color or faith, is a much better approach than scanning. Terrorists come in all forms and styles. Behaviors will be easier to spot.

Here is an editorial from the Tribune Review out of Pittsburgh.

Flight 253: Failure
Buzz up!Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Welcome back to reality, America. Nasty people seeking to do nasty things in any nasty way possible remain alive and despicably well as we put the wraps on 2009.

Witness the passenger-foiled attempt by a Nigerian man to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight on Christmas Day. But witness first the horrible failure of a very expensive worldwide security apparatus to keep Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab off Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit.

The suspect was on terrorist watch lists in the United States and Great Britain. He was refused a student entry visa to the U.K. in May after applying for a bogus college course. He paid cash for his Northwest ticket. He had no checked baggage. There's a report that he didn't even have a passport. The explosive he carried in his underwear is supposed to be easily detectable through screening. The terrorist's father even warned authorities that his son was a risk.

Thus, it was outrageous when Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano went on TV on Sunday to claim "the system worked." She was in full retreat Monday, claiming her contention was taken out of context. Hardly. Her boss, President Obama, has ordered a full review of security measures. He should fire Ms. Napolitano as a start.

The Flight 253 debacle is a sobering reminder that the world remains a dangerous place requiring eternal vigilance. The people know that. Sadly, government doesn't.

Politics aside, let's get the system fixed to restore the faith of the travelers. If government can accomplish that goal then maybe, just maybe, politics on both sides can cease fire and get on with the business of putting people back to work so our economy will recover.

Commentary By Karl Rove- The President Is No B+

My Democratic friends are so passionate when one mentions George Bush's name that this commentary should give pause and make them reflect on the necessity to watch all government officials whether they be Republican or Democrat.

By KARL ROVE
Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

There are many factors that explain it, including weakness abroad, an unprecedented spending binge at home, and making a perfectly awful health-care plan his signature domestic initiative. But something else is happening.

Mr. Obama has not governed as the centrist, deficit-fighting, bipartisan consensus builder he promised to be. And his promise to embody a new kind of politics—free of finger-pointing, pettiness and spin—was a mirage. He has cheapened his office with needless attacks on his predecessor.

Consider Mr. Obama's comment in his interview this past Sunday on CBS's "60 Minutes" that the Bush administration made a mistake in speaking in "a triumphant sense about war."

This was a slap at every president who rallied the nation in dark moments, including Franklin D. Roosevelt ("With confidence in our armed forces, with the unbounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph"); Woodrow Wilson ("Right is more precious than peace and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts"); and John F. Kennedy ("Any hostile move anywhere in the world against the safety and freedom of peoples to whom we are committed . . . will be met by whatever action is needed").

This kind of attack gives Mr. Obama's words a slippery quality. For example, he voted for the bank rescue plan in September 2008 and praised it during the campaign. Yet on Dec. 8 at the Brookings Institution, Mr. Obama called it "flawed" and blamed "the last administration" for launching it "hastily."

Really? Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner designed it. If it was "flawed," why did Mr. Obama later nominate Mr. Bernanke to a second term as Fed chairman and make Mr. Geithner his Treasury secretary?

Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the help" of Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a Dec. 9 letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which went to small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush administration lent banks. Does Mr. Obama really believe his additional $7 billion forestalled "the potential collapse of our financial system"?

Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the problem," he insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their part" and pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from putting us in this kind of pickle again."

But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005 filibuster of a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot of shame" that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory system" that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the first place.

The president's rhetorical tricks don't end there. Mr. Obama also claimed his $787 billion stimulus package "helped us [stem] the panic and get the economy growing again." But 1.5 million more people are unemployed than he said there would be if nothing were done.

And as of yesterday, only $244 billion of the stimulus had been spent. Why was $787 billion needed when less than a third of that figure supposedly got the job done?

Mr. Obama also alleged on "60 Minutes" that health-care reform "will actually bring down the deficit" (which people clearly know it will not). He said his reform reduces "costs and premiums for American families and businesses" (though they will be higher than they would otherwise be). And he claimed 30 million more people will get coverage through "an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses" to purchase insurance (though 15 million of them are covered by being dumped into Medicaid and don't get private insurance).

Mr. Obama may actually believe it when he says, "I think that's a pretty darned good outcome" and congratulates himself that he could succeed where "seven presidents have tried . . . [and] seven presidents have failed."

But voters seem to have a different definition of success. And they are tiring of the president's blame shifting and distortions.

Mr. Obama may believe, as he told Oprah Winfrey in a recent interview, that he deserves a "solid B+" for his first year in office, but the American people beg to differ. A presidency that started with so much promise is receiving unprecedentedly low grades from the country that elected him. He's earned them.

Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).