State House Candidate Discusses State Budget . . . Can We Count on His Support to Discuss Township Budget?

During the liaison reports at the July Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Donahue presented his finance committee update.  In advance of the 2011 budget discussions, Donahue suggested that the township schedule two public budget meetings prior to the traditional November  budget talks.  His suggestion supports transparency in the township budget process and encourages the residents input.  

As a result of Chairman Lamina’s absence at the July BOS meeting, I am guessing the decision to move forward with the suggestion was placed on hold until the August BOS meeting.  The August supervisors meeting is this Monday so I assume there will be a formal motion to schedule these public budget meetings.  Scheduling the budget meetings in September and October will allow necessary time for the residents to weigh in before the traditional November budget discussions. It is important for community members to be part of the budget process — thank you Supervisor Donahue for your suggestion of public meetings and I look forward to their scheduling!

 
I actually was reminded of the township public budget discussions by Supervisor Kampf.  Yesterday, Kampf posted the following article on his campaign website in regards to the state budget.  Kampf takes to task the government’s handling of the state budget and the passage of a  “fiscally irresponsible budget”.   Understanding the need for responsible economic forecasting at the state level certainly underscores the need as Kampf says, to “bring the hens home to roost”  for our township’s 2011 budget process. 
 
Based on Kampf’s discussion of the Commonwealth’s 2010-11 budget process, I am certain that he will support a thorough and open discussion of our township’s 2011 budget.
 
Below is Kampf’s article in its entirety:
The 2010-11 Budget: Taxpayers Are Already in the Hole
August 13th, 2010

During this year’s budget negotiations — during which the Governor and his allies in the House Democrat caucus tried to raise spending billions of dollars — one thing was made clear to all legislators: the federal government was NOT going to come through with $850 million in funding that they were considering in their revenue projections.

Despite this warning, and the fact that the proposed budget included tens of millions of dollars in borrowing to “balance,” Paul Drucker and his political bosses forced through a fiscally irresponsible budget.

This week, the “hens came home to roost” as they say, and the federal government — as warned and expected — provided Pennsylvania with $250 million less funding than Mr. Drucker’s budget counted on.  The fiscal year has already begun, and taxpayers are already a quarter-billion dollars in deficit.

As a result of the state not receiving this funding, the State Senate is now leading the effort to consider cuts to the irresponsible budget that Paul Drucker voted “yes” to passing.   And what are Paul Drucker and his House Democrat bosses doing?  Attacking others for wanting to cut spending on government programs that they passed knowing the state couldn’t pay for them.

I will bring a different way to state government — just as I did here at home.  I will make sure budgets are based on REAL economic forecasts and that the state doesn’t spend what it can’t pay for.  That’s called fiscal responsibility, and it’s what we need now more than ever in Harrisburg.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

39 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. ” . . . I will bring a different way to state government — just as I did here at home. I will make sure budgets are based on REAL economic forecasts . . . ”

    OK Warren, you will have your chance on Monday to show us – ‘REAL economic forecasts’ for Tredyffrin’s budget – let’s bring those hens home to roost in Tredyffrin.

  2. Which do you all want? Real forecasts and taxes to fund them, or fake forecasts and taxes to underfund them, or ambitious forecasts, higher taxes and everything you can want. We can say no more cardboard checks, but we have to be prepared to ante up….
    The fire companies just did a campaign. I know I upped my donation for this year — did everyone else? No cardboard needed — if you can afford to give them more, and believe that some people cannot afford higher taxes, then step up and take care of it yourself….then there won’t be any “cuts” because the requests won’t be as high.
    I think there is a lot of bravado in Kampf’s statements, but he’s running against an incumbent. He can only run on his own experience vs. Drucker’s performance….and this is not one where you can attack him. It’s all complicated — and I am ready to hear about the increase in sewer revenue offsetting the “no tax increase” …..but the reality is they did not increase revenue streams and thus did not increase spending streams….the state hasn’t done that. That’s the point.

    1. Local Mom,

      What I want (and what I think that this township deserves) is honest government which I hope that the public budget meetings will allow.

      The residents are not stupid, we realize that expenses have gone up and revenue has gone down, we just want to be part of the process. If that means we must pay higher taxes to cover the differential, than so be it –but we need to see all the numbers before anyone can get to that conclusion.

      It’s called fiscal responsibility and transparency in government

      — based on Kampf’s stance on the state budget, it seems he agrees.

      1. Mom —

        I don’t quite understand your comment about “we need to see all the numbers.” Are you implying they weren’t shown in the past, because as I remember it they were — sparking the debate over fire funding, fireworks and more.

        If you want more time, that is one thing. If you are implying that the public didn’t see numbers in the past, that is another.

        1. Not my phrase West — that came from Tred. Voter….
          I actually laugh at the angst over the need to see “all the numbers” as monthly reports on the websites pretty much uncover anything you want to look at — and any simple request for information would produce MORE than anyone needs to know.
          We heard a lot from former school board people about the ugliness when they proposed any kind of tax programs — fiscal restraint drowned out by “no new taxes.” For some reason — which I truly cannot understand — people agonize and nitpick the township budget when the whole budget is probably less than a year or two of school district increases… 5% of 100 is 5; 20% of 10 is 2….figures lie and liars figure….
          We can sculpt anything we want out of any decision they make….I just want it all to stay respectful to the extent possible, as I remind you again — we elected a “block” to this BOS — and they really don’t need to care what any of us think. Lamina and Olsen aren’t likely to ever run again….Kampf either moves on or moves away…and EJR has already learned that she is in over her head….so these people can do what they want.

    2. Actually, there was somewhat of a simultaneous plan to cut another $200+ million. It was a plan that was driven by the Senate Republican caucus and a plan that the Democrats in the House and the Governor refused to let go through.

      The “responsible” thing to do would have been to pass that plan through the state’s fiscal code as the Senate R’s wanted so that the public knew what would happen — DEFINITELY — if this funding, as expected, didn’t come through.

      Instead, you can talk all you want about a “plan” but there really isn’t one — which is going to turn this into a nasty, campaign-issue type battle that could have been avoided had the House Dem leaders and the Governor passed it up front.

      1. flyersfan:

        FYI, John Petersen ran for Magisterial District Justice in 2005 and lost. He was appointed Tredyffrin Supervisor in October, 2005 and ran for that seat in the November, 2005 special election – he lost to Paul Drucker.

  3. Agreed. The problem with doing the whole dance in public – I think — is that the loudest voices are often the no more taxes voice — who generally mirror the folks who vote demographically…..so we need to be part of a public that respectfully listens to the information before we jump to any conclusions….especially since with a block of 4, they don’t really need our input…..:(

  4. Pattye,
    You proved your critics wrong! In the interest of fairness and balance, you gave Mr Kampf a platform to make his case – even if some of us view his statement as nothing more than overheated campaign rhetoric laced with deliberate “untruths”.

    First, Gov. Rendell’s “allies” passed a compromise budget that is less than 1% higher than last year’s, containing many painful cuts and only two real increases – for basic education and business research and development. Not exactly profligate spending.

    The budget passed 37-13 in the Republican- controlled Senate, and 117-84 in the House with Republican votes as well. In fact, Republican Senate Majority leader Dominic Pileggi voted for it.

    Hardly a case of “Paul Drucker and his political bosses forc[ing] through a fiscally irresponsible budget.”

    Clearly, the Governor and our state legislators did NOT know that the federal state aid bill would come through with less than the anticipated $850 billion for PA.’ s Medicaid program. In fact, Pennsylvania is one of twenty plus states that included anticipated federal aid to the states in their 2010-11 budgets.

    But during July, after PA’s budget was passed, Congress trimmed the state aid bill so that it was fully paid for, but provided less relief to the states.

    Since our state budget must BY LAW be balanced, the cuts will be made. And of course Warren knows this, but he counts on uninformed voters “seeing red” when they read his press release.

    I had to laugh….Just as Warren referred to “Mr. Drucker’s budget” – as if one legislator controls its fate, Mr. Kampf claims he will go to Harrisburg to make sure ” the state doesn’t spend what it can’t pay for.” Really?

    And he will “bring a different way to state government”. How many times have we heard that before?

    The system stinks and is full of waste. Privatizing government functions leads to corruption and waste as well. Ordinary people have little influence while big corporations and monied special interests block out the sun.

    But we have an honest, responsive representative in Paul Drucker. He knows that reforming the system takes more than a cape and a speech. He has been working with like-minded legislators of both parties to press for change. He is in touch with his constituents and knows what they care most about .

    Let the naysayers throw darts at regional transportation projects, but they are at least worth a serious look. and have the potential to bring prosperity. Meanwhile, Rep. Drucker appreciates the difference between the “need to haves” and the “want to haves”. He understands businesses are hurting, people need jobs and neither can afford tax increases.

    78 days until the election….

    1. Kate brings up interesting facts to the discussion; “The budget passed 37-13 in the Republican- controlled Senate, and 117-84 in the House with Republican votes as well. In fact, Republican Senate Majority leader Dominic Pileggi voted for it. Hardly a case of “Paul Drucker and his political bosses forc[ing] through a fiscally irresponsible budget.”

      I would like Warren to engage in this discussion and learn from him how he will “make sure budgets are based on REAL economic forecasts and that the state doesn’t spend what it can’t pay for.” Unfortunately I don’t see that happening but hope I am wrong.

      I agree that tonight’s BOS meeting and possible budget discussions could give us a small indication as to how Warren will possibly serve us in Harrisburg.

      1. How does tonite equate to Harrisburg?

        Kampf helped pass 6 budgets so far…4 with no tax increase and one with a 15% cut in government. I think that record tells you more about what he will do in Harrisburg than a single BOS meeting.

        He did this through budget hearings where the public had input and by apparently using forecasts — conservative ones? — that showed the township not bringing in as much revenue and therefore either needing to cut spending (which they did) or raise taxes (which they didn’t).

        I understand that people may not love last year’s final budget — in particular the fire company funding — but I don’t see how tonite in some way will be more revealing than 6 years worth of budgets?

        The problem here seems to be a basic difference in philosophies between Kampf and a lot of people posting:

        Kampf seemed to believe there was room to cut and avoid a tax increase while others seemed to believe that certain programs are untouchable and taxes should be raised.

        From his comments, it seems he believes there is room to cut at the state level too.

        I don’t think a long series of budget meetings will serve a lot more purpose than the regular budget meetings, other than to give a stage for political posturing on both fronts — and I thought that was something everyone here was against.

        1. When did we ever have public budget meetings in this township? Maybe you think that budget meetings wouldn’t serve a purpose — but I’m one resident who would like to know where the township stands on 2010’s budget plus I want to have planning for 2011’s budget. i don’t want to receive a budget status report at the 11th hour in November/December. (post election)

        2. From the West wrote: “How does tonite equate to Harrisburg?”

          Simple; To bring up budget discussions as an elected official before an election is risky. If there is enough projected tax revenue for next year’s budget to cover expenses the risk is small; you don’t need to raise taxes. However, if said tax revenue doesn’t cover the expenses, a tax increase may be necessary. The “revealing” part about tonight is, is the BOS willing to start the budget process prior to the election. Talk of necessary tax increases can be poison for a candidate.

          Which brings us to the next point where you wrote: “Kampf helped pass 6 budgets so far…4 with no tax increase and one with a 15% cut in government. I think that record tells you more about what he will do in Harrisburg than a single BOS meeting.”

          To me that is campaign BS. Warren voted yes to approve the 2010 budget yet voted no on a sewer fee increase that went into the general fund. That did eliminate the need for a real estate increase but the net result was a “stealth tax” because it provided the needed general fund revenues. To vote for a budget that you know isn’t balanced, and vote against the sewer fee that brings the budget into balance, is disingenuous at best.

      2. John —

        Why do you seem to believe that all Republicans need to march in lock-step?

        If that is the case, why is it any different to lump Drucker in with the Dem caucus — especially when so many more of them voted for the budget than against (particularly in contrast to the Republican caucus)?

        It is that kind of thinking that has led to the highly-partisan and charged environment we see in our elections, in Washington and in DC.

        Some Republicans supported the budget (mostly those in leadership who were at the bargaining table) while more opposed it — including a number who are up for election this year. Does that mean every one of those Republicans has an “interesting campaign tactic?” Or does this just give you another chance to bash Kampf?

        Does this mean Drucker is a right-wing GOP type since he voted with some Republicans on the budget?

        This isn’t a game, and it shouldn’t be about highly partisan efforts, but that is what you make everything.

  5. Thanks for weighing in Ken —

    I agree that tonight’s BOS meeting could be very telling of the future; at least as it relates to Kampf’s possible service in Harrisburg. Wanting to believe that our supervisors are interested in keeping the residents in the loop – here’s hoping the supervisors vote in favor of public budget meetings and set a meeting schedule.

    Tonight presents an opportunity for Kampf to show leadership and be an advocate on behalf of the community.

  6. Interesting editorial in yesterday’s Inquirer, “Easier Money” – $200 million
    in WAM – Walking Around Money – in Pa. Pretty certain this was the source of the $1,000,000 for the Paoli Transportation Center, courtesy of Dwight Evans and Mr. Drucker and supported by the “deliberate untruth” that this project will create 2000 permanent jobs.

    1. Mike,
      You know well that the number given for permanent jobs at the future Paoli transportation center is a good faith estimate based on federal guidelines and NOT a “deliberate untruth”.

      The number was provided by Peter Monaghan, head of Strategic Realty, the Paoli project’s developer. He submitted the project details in hopes of getting funding – public and private. Rep. Drucker had no reason to question Monaghan’s numbers. They were good news worth reporting, along with the $1 million seed funding.

      Bringing resources to the 157th is part of Paul’s job.
      The jobs number may well turn out to be optimistic, but it was not inflated in an effort to sell the project’s benefits to the locals or pull the wool over voters’ eyes in an election year. . . as i think you are implying.

      First, you question the jobs numbers, then suggest the project is a boondoggle and waste of taxpayer money. Today you suggest the $1 million in state aid for the Paoli railyard is from Dwight Evans’ slush fund . . . unaccountable taxpayer money used to shore up voter loyalty and votes, or for whatever the legislator wants.

      I’d like to think your zeal regarding the prudent use of taxpayer money has no partisan basis…..but something tells me it is triggered only under certain circumstances. …

      Maybe it takes one to know one…

      1. OK, bringing resources to the 157th may be part of his job, but if you look deeper you will find that this project actually benefits willistown more than tredyffrin and that is in Duane Milne’s district.

        1. And yet — Duane Milne was not part of the cardboard check moment…wasn’t even aware it was happening….sounds like WAM to me!

  7. Kate:

    You’re right – the jobs number did come from the developer, who clearly has a self-interest in this matter – for that reason and contrary to your assertion, Mr. Drucker had EVERY reason to question Monaghan’s numbers. First of all, it’s 1753 jobs, not 2000. Further, my concern is that any reasonable person who actually read the “analysis” would see the fallacy of the assumptions. Mr. Drucker either repeated the claim without reading the analysis or read it and still repeated the claim – I’m not sure which is scarier. The big announcement, photo op with Dwight Evans, $1,000,000 cardboard check, “2000 jobs” WERE to sell the project’s benefits to the locals and voters for Mr. Drucker.

    My zeal regarding prudent use of taxpayer money is “equal
    opportunity” – I’m an absolute fiscal conservative. It’s been said on this board that many Republicans favor the 422/R6 project – doesn’t change my thoughts one bit. My hope is that all, Ds and Rs, will apply a very rigorous financial analysis to the project. Don’t borrow $1 billion+ with no reasonable idea how it’ll be paid back. If it can pay for itself, preferably with tolls, go forward with the planning and evaluate the benefits versus those costs. You’ll note that I am in favor of the 29 slip-ramp as it is paid for by those that will get the benefit, through tolls. To the extent that Mr. Drucker was involved, job well done.

  8. To Mr. Petersen…

    1. i have no idea what you mean about a quota. Don’t really care.

    2. You are funny — so Kampf says something that puts him (in your analysis) at odds with other Republicans and you basically call him dumb. But then you claim someone else who does basically the same is “independent.”

    I know you hate Kampf, but maybe he is showing some independence too.

  9. Mr. P, I don’t know how much Mr Kampf really has, and he may win and he may lose, but my suspicion is since he has won elections where you have not, he may be a bit smarter, or should I say “nuanced” than you, who is a hot head and someone we obviously don’t need in our government. I enjoy your outrage from without!

    1. While it may not win a debate with you about IronRuby or IronPython,since you have taken the position as legal provacateur here, these are the facts IN EVIDENCE:

      Mansfield College – BS
      Saint Josephs – MBA
      Rutgers – Camden – JD
      Lost two elections that we know of…..

      Yale University
      Emory School of Law
      Partner, White and Williams
      Won two elections (and a primary or two) that we know of….

      None of this is about qualifications — but there is a possibility of calling this prima facie evidence….

      1. And so township reader, your point is what? What does your comment bring to the discussion – most of us know how to use Google.

  10. ***
    To me that is campaign BS….
    ***

    Appreciate your feedback Mr. Buckwalter, but that kind of statement coming from you at this point is counter productive. It belonged in your own campaign against Warren — and unless you support Mr. Drucker and his ilk vs. Kampf and his, why introduce it now?

    1. TR — Just as you have your opinion, Mr. Buckwalter is likewise entitled to his own opinion. Personally, I respect Mr. Buckwalter. And unlike most people making comments on this blog – Mr. Buckwalter has ‘walked in the shoes’ as a State House representative candidate. I am interested in Ken’s viewpoints on the campaign and any other subject that he would like to weigh in on. Ken Buckwalter is not afraid to comment under his own name — he takes credit for his opinion. Mr. Drucker and Mr. Kampf are also encouraged to comment . . . who knows . . . maybe they are . . . anonymously.

    2. pattye, I think you need to have mr P cool it with the personal attack…”are you that stupid?”

      The fact is that Republicans, more than Democrats as far as I can see are more inclined to be critical of their own, while Democrats on all levels are more inclined to “drink the Kool Aide” and circle the wagons around their own liars, thieves and scoundrels. Just my thoughts.

      Mr Buckwalter is entitled to his opinions of course, just as mr P is and the rest.

      1. Mr P.. YOU stand down and be quiet. We are tired of your one subject bashing Kampf. I suggest you make a new point or YOU stand down and keep quiet. I don’t have to question your motives.

  11. Now you are defining terms to fit your purpose: WAM is walking around money. There is up to $100M of it in this year’s state budget….

    “The problem is that the money is controlled by legislative leaders who use it to reward the lawmakers who are faithful to the caucuses, who give them the floor votes they need.

    And the process by which legislators decide the worthiness of each project is as clear as mud. If you go looking in the budget document, you won’t find a list of where the money’s going, either.

    Doling out grants in their districts, though, gives the lawmakers an advantage the next time an election rolls around. It’s incumbency protection.

    “We call it press-release economics,” said Nathan A. Benefield, director of policy research for the conservative Commonwealth Foundation.

    He identified more than $93 million in WAMs — $10.6 million for “urban development,” for example, and $2.4 million for “cultural activities.” Another $500,000 will go to zoos.

    Fine initiatives, all of them.”

    The cardboard check from Mr. Evans and Mr. Drucker was WAM…..whether or not it suits your point Mr. Petersen.

    Read more: http://articles.lancasteronline.com/local/4/265435#ixzz0wucUs1Pq

    1. Mr Petersen, one of the fallacies of your many arguments is that you think Mr Kampf has to accept your “dare”. You are in the schoolyard, how juvenile. it is obvious he doesn’t really care about you. You are rooting too hard against him. I am impressed that you are counting HIS money, and constantly remind us of it. Pathetic.

  12. Actually, Mr. P, WAM is a term used exactly for official government stuff — nothing to do with campaigns. It stands for Walking Around Money which is the “grants” that legislators control to give to local groups, civic organizations, fire and police companies, etc.

    You may be right that the $1,000,000 isn’t a WAM, in that it isn’t from that pot of money, but it is still a big check to a campaign contributor. And it isn’t a lot different than the more than half-billion Harrisburg borrowed this year to pay for things like the Murtha Library in Western PA, the Specter Library in Philadelphia, a hotel in California, PA and more.

    One way or the other, it is our money though — the taxpayers.

    Street money is campaign dollars and is used to pay poll workers, etc, as you noted. But that is campaign and WAMs are government (not good government). On that you are just plain wrong.

    1. We can thank both Township Reader and In the West for their mini-lectures on WAM. Love that always-more in-the-know attitude….Apparently, keeping current and availing onself of research are exclusive passtimes…

      Note there’s no mention of WAM’s questionable uses by Republicans. Their comments are coming from the spin room. And my guess is that Township Reader (and whatever other names he/she posts under) is now on the official “payroll.”

      The amount of discretionary funds available to our legislators is troubling, but it is an equal opportunity abuse. Some WAM has gone to worthy causes, I’m sure, but there’s a lack of accountability for its use, and clearly many taxpayers have a probem with it. There is bi-partisan voter consensus on this.

      Re Township Reader’s pathetic need to contrast JVP and Warren’s alma maters, you, TR, are a snob making assumptions without regard to other circumstances that affect school attendance. You may believe that Kampf’s good fortune to have benefitted from family wealth – providing the means to attend an exclusive prep school and universities – make him somehow superior to a Rutgers Law grad. Your suggestion is offensive to me, and i believe, to most people.

      Ironic how on a national level Republicans like to criticize the Democratic Party as run by the liberal elite from Harvard, while claiming Republicans are “regular people” . Meanwhile you worship at the altar of wealth and privilege.

      If you believe Warren is more worthy of his candidacy than others bc he graduated from Yale and Emory – without regard to his actions and decisions while a a supervisor, you will find little support for this view beyond “Kampf’s sycophantic base.”

  13. I chuckled, too, at how Mr lamina, under the heat and length of the meeting seemed to get more and more desheveled as the meeting went on, reminding me of barney fife in an episode where he deteriorated from orderly and neat to, well desheveled!!! LONG meeting !

    LOL

  14. I am a reader of this blog who finally felt appalled and disgusted enough to comment. Excuse me, “Township Reader”, but, who do you think you are? Your disgusting comparison of Warren Kampf and John Petersen’s educational background is pompous and completely uncalled for.

    I suppose Warren would make a good state rep simply because he came from a wealthy background and went to Yale? (hmm….who does that remind us of?) So, anyone whose mommy or daddy couldn’t afford to send them to a prep school like Exeter in New Hampshire shouldn’t apply? Who are you, and where did you go to school, Township Reader? Why don’t you tell us? Then I’ll decide if I think you are worthy of me even reading your pompous, disgusting comments.

    And if Warren was SO smart and went to Yale, why couldn’t he get in to a top 20 law school? Why, despite throwing his hat into every race over the past few years he could find, is he only a township supervisor – a position he didn’t even really have to run for? There he is – sitting right next to EJ Richter! Did she go to Yale? Just curious.

    There is no doubt in my mind John Petersen would blow Warren Kampf away in the IQ department. You too, for that matter.

  15. I have to say that I love how easy it is to annoy this forum…now I see why JVP does it so often. It’s like throwing a match on gas rags….

    I obviously am not a fan of Mr. Kampf or Mr. Drucker — and my comments about Mr. Buckwalter criticizing Mr. Kampf has more to do with the fact that I believe that key state democrats ARE corrupt and I don’t want any more rubber stamps being elected. Does it mean that I think Republicans are all good? Not even close. I just don’t like any party to have too much power — which is why the township frustrates all of us so often.

    Does that mean I think Mr. Kampf is the best candidate? Not really. I voted for Mr. Buckwalter. But I found the cardboard check from Dwight Evans as a classic example of WAM — regardless of your claim that it is not….because otherwise, Duane Milne would have been part of the presentation. What did Dwight Evans have to do with it? What does Drucker do to earn that kodak moment? We defeated Specter — he brought more money to PA than Sestak or Toomey can fathom in the near future. It’s called power.

    As to being a snob — I take great delight in thinking that even people new to this blog don’t see my post as nothing more than a TIC response to John VP who consistently lectures us on legal issues and had stated in response to the hypothetical that “warren might be smarter” that it presumed facts not in evidence. What evidence does he want us to draw from? I included the obvious….the only facts that could be in evidence….because I rely on people being just cocky enough to have to recognize how easily we are all impressed by non-credentials as well as credentials, and how easily comments like Kate’s can try to reduce someone’s educational pedigree to “wealthy upbringing.” The people who are bashing Mr. Kampf are doing so for whatever reasons — and it seems that any contrary position is in violation of the liberal bias that you want us to maintain.

    Berwyn Resident: As to the shot that “all Warren could become is a township supervisor” — that only marginalizes Mr. Petersen further. Is that your intention? He was APPOINTED to the BOS seat by Warren and his pals …yet lost the election to teh Democrat, Drucker. What races are you referencing that Kampf has thrown his hat into …until he got the position he “didn’t even really have to run for? ” Not sure his opponent in that race would agree…. Let’s temper your horror at my comments with a little information — a relevant fact or two. I didn’t post anything that was’t public information. Then you continue with your presumption – wait – “No Doubt in my Mind” about JVP blowing anyone away in an IQ test –possibly the most juvenile response to a debate point you could provide. What could you possibly know about either Mr. Petersen or Mr. Kampf, much less my IQ. Hey — I’ll bet my father could beat up your father!!!

    So folks….pompous and disgusting is a rather large leap to make when the banter on this site is so pedantic….politics are broken. I believe I have said that many times. This blog is reduced to name-calling and fake defense of non-issues….why don’t we discuss things — give background and share information. I found Mr. Petersen to be very helpful back when he was producing HRC material. Why don’t we debate the wisdom of putting a mosque at ground zero? I’m sure there aren’t differing opinions on that? Or how about the death penalty for the mentally disabled?

    From JVP: “This is priceless.. Kampf votes to violate the HRC and yet, you disparage those who support Paul. Are you that stupid??? Are you that much of a kool-aid drinking Kampf sycophant???? ” …. I think this kind of rhetoric comes perilously close to crossing the line of sanity? WHY is this so personal to you? WHY must you defame and try to crush people who do not share your abject hatred of Warren Kampf. “ARE YOU THAT STUPID” makes a presumption that my finding issues with Mr. Drucker and his “ilk” makes me imcompetent. This is POLITICS — it’s about choices that may actually go beyond St. Davids….is THAT so hard to understand???

    Could we give this Give it a rest. I plan to. All those in favor of letting people vote their choice, raise your hands……..good. Now let’s stop being so singleminded in trying to change minds that are set in concrete. Clever phrases and legal jargon to the contrary — none of us knows more than anyone else here….because in the end, IT IS ALL OPINION. Any fact “not in evidence” has to be assumed…..and don’t even try to introduce a fact….someone will say it’s uncalled for. (For the record — I am never impressed by academic credentials, and find that Mr. Petersen’s efforts to accumulate degrees while working full-time and raising a family to be incredibly impressive….so there!) I was simply being “sardonic” about facts in evidence….suggesting that there were none to offer.

    To Mr. Buckwalter and Pattye– I apologize if my comments asking why KB was slashing at Warren were seen as disrespectful. As a member of the Republican Committee and a former candidate for a Republican seat, I made what I thought to be an obvious (but clearly wrong) assumption that you would support the Republican candidate for Harrisburg — even if you did not agree with him — because you would prefer to see the democratic numbers reduced. I’m sorry addressing that assumption in this forum. It was a poor choice. I voted for you — and wish that politics would generate better choices for all voters.

    1. TR believes that key state Democrats are corrupt. and that’s a good reason to limit their control in Harrisburg.

      But only the lemmings in the Republican base claim the ethically challenged populate one party and not the other in Harrisburg.

      Let’s not forget that we have a Republican attorney general who has been running for governor for years – shoring up his political base by engaging in a righteous witch hunt – focusing a disproportionate amount of taxpayer resources digging into the activities of elected Democrats and their staffs.

      I think we can agree that there’s no shortage of backroom dealing and questionable use of taxpayer funds on both sides of the aisle. Comprehensive ethics reform is so long overdue……

      But it is our responsibility in November to judge who has the experience and the integrity to best serve the 157th. I think there is no question Paul Drucker has worked hard, brought resources to our distrcit, and served as an advocate on important issues like the turnpike expansion and Paoli redevelopment.

      I value his service and want to see it continue.
      ********************************************************
      Re TR’s interpretation that I have reduced a person’s educational pedigree to a wealthy upbringing”( re Warren’s credentials), I implied no such thing.

      The point I was making? That some people start from third base, while others have to struggle to get there. I don’t question that Mr. Kampf’ met Yale’s stringent entrance requirements. He may have benefitted by legacy points, but if so, that was not his doing. I merely suggested that some very bright, deserving students do not go to top-tier colleges for reasons beyond their control . They may have attended high schools that did not offer them adequate preparation and the right “profile” to compete. They may have been accepted but lacking of financial resources.

      In short, college credentials do not make the man/woman. It is much more about how much a person contributes as a result.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Community Matters © 2020 Frontier Theme