PA State Representative 157 Race – Candidate Question #4 and Response

This is the Candidate Question & Response Forum for the Pennsylvania State House 157 candidates.  As previously stated, candidate Warren Kampf declined to participate in the question and response forum.  Candidate Paul Drucker’s response follows the question.  Each Monday for six weeks, a new question and response will be posted.  The candidate forum will end the week before the election.

Question #4: Looking past the 2011 state budget, what are your recommendations to close future budget gaps and still meet the needs of the residents? Until the national economy improves, where do you propose making cuts in future state budgets?

Paul Drucker’s Response

I look at the state budget the same way I look at my family budget. It’s a matter of setting priorities and making difficult decisions.

While the 2010-2011 budget included some very painful cuts, I felt it was important to pass a responsible, balanced and timely budget. I will continue to feel the same way as long as the voters of the 157th district send me back to Harrisburg.

While the volatility of the economic climate makes future revenue estimates unreliable, there is no doubt that some very difficult decisions remain ahead of us. It is my hope that we can put aside partisanship and work together to produce a budget that is in the best interests of our constituents.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmail

34 Comments

Add a Comment
  1. Paul:
    Your answer does not gel. Here is what you said:
    “I felt it was important to pass a responsible, balanced and timely budget.”
    But when every legislator knew that there was a $250 Million Dollar budget shortfall, the budget was still passed. In conjunction with this, you voted to raise taxes and you voted for $600 Million in additional debts to be raised (HB2279 and HB1416). This is neither “responsible” nor “balanced” and this budget only looks timely compared to what the house did last year!
    Paul I like that you use the tag line – Use the State Budget like the Family budget – but all evidence points that what you do with your family budget is open up a new credit card or five (raise debt) and increase spending for the household. I am sorry; you had two years, but that is a good enough sample to see exactly what you can do. Raising taxes, raising debt, raising spending were NOT what we wanted to see…

    [Reply]

  2. I totally whiffed on one other point, sorry for two posts to make the point, but I had to fact check something…

    In addition to my earlier points, I also find it interesting that Paul voted to cut funding to libraries across the state (a painful cut) then he immediately turned around and voted to authorize expenditure of borrowed monies in the amount of $20 million for an Arlen Specter Library and a John Murtha library. That money would have fully funded almost every library cut made.

    that makes no sense… I worked in the publishing field for awhile and know the tenuous state of libraries across the State, the cuts are like a death blow.

    [Reply]

    Chesterbrook Resident Reply:

    Warren Kampf cut library funding in the 2010 township budget.

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    Sean D. said–I worked in the publishing field for awhile and know the tenuous state of libraries across the State, the cuts are like a death blow.

    Sean, how does working in the publishing field give you special insight into library funding? It appears to me that libraries are already running close to, if not at the bone. They have had to cut hours, staff, programs, etc. I think most folks realize that additional cuts are difficult. 

    As Chesterbrook Resident said, Warren cut local library funding. He also cut funding for the local fire departments (but kept the fire works funding in place). I find it odd that you would attack Paul for pruning the budget. If Paul had voted to keep the funding in place or to increase funding, you no doubt would have attacked him for not making the difficult choices. Also, it is improper to make the comparison you make. Library funding is operational in nature. The Specter and Murtha Libraries are examples of capital projects that  have a ways to go before that funding could ever kick in. Just because you see an item listed, it does not mean it will see the light of day. I called Paul’s office about the resort project by Albert Greenfield in southern chester county. While there is money targeted for that project, according to his office, Paul has no intention of ever voting to release $’s for that project as there are other priorities. 

    While I’m sick and tired of hearing about St. David’s, some of the points up here ring very true. And given Mr. Kampf’s “righteous indignation” as to Route 422, taxes, etc., I still am forced to go back to the fact on one hand, Mr. Kampf voted to cut fire funding, keep fire works, and at the same time, vote to cut a private country club a deal at the expense of the rest of us. Whether you want to admit or not, that act was in violation of established rules and procedures. Michelle Kichline and John DiBuonaventuro said as much. Unless of course, you are claiming they were lying and mis informed?

    Speaking of 422, I also asked about this 422 business you seem to be making an big issue of. According to Paul’s office, Paul won’t vote for any toll plan that does not have a local resident exemption. They directed me to read Paul’s commentary:

    http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2010/07/11/opinion/doc4c3930ee4c4ba705921126.txt

    I think his position is pretty clear. I also think that Mr. Kampf is grossly mis-representing Mr. Drucker’s record and position. If Mr. Kampf is willing to misreprepresent Mr. Drucker’s position, perhaps he is misrepresenting his own position. I get it that political opponents will throw shots over the bow. I’m forced to reconcile Mr. Kampf’s claims and promises with what he has done here as a supervisor. He claims things that are false and that makes his promises ring hollow.

    Then, there is the business of whether Mr. Kampf depleted the rainy day fund. Mr. Kampf claims he didn’t. At the same time, evidence was offered up here that supports the claim that the rainy day fund was depleted. With no responses to that post, it must be accepted as true.

    I’m a Republican who will vote for just about every other Republican Candidate, with the exception of Mr. Kampf. I supported Ken Buckwalter because I think he is the genuine article. He is exactly the kind of Republican our party needs. When given the choice, while I’m a Republican, it does not mean I’ll support a dishonest Republican Candidate like Warren Kampf. I don’t agree with everything Mr. Drucker has supported. Nevertheless, honesty, integrity and ethics are about internal character, not party affiliation.  

    [Reply]

  3. Sean D. you really know how to chase people away. Everytime there is an Q & A, you are the first to jump. With a lot of very one sided points. People like you make it really hard to have a good debate about anything.

    Like it or not “BOTH SIDES” have done things that are not good for anyone. We need to fix the mess not make it any worse then it is. And you don’t help. Your are part of the problem. One more thing, I am a registered independent voter!!!

    [Reply]

    flyersfan Reply:

    If you are a registered independent then you must vote for change you can believe in again.

    You accused Sean D of all but darkness after sundown… why don’t you give us some facts on the other side. Your post didn’t sound independent, really. thanks!

    [Reply]

    Toshiro Takashi Reply:

    “Everytime there is an Q & A, you are the first to jump… with a lot of very one sided points. People like you make it really hard to have a good debate about anything. ”

    What, exactly, are you trying to say here? Do you think that Sean Dshould make two sided points?

    Could someone give me an example of what a ‘good debate’ would look like?

    Sean D pointed out the fallacies in Drucker’s response to the question. Now it is a Drucker supporter’s turn to defend what Drucker said. Isn’t that what debate is all about?

    Are you equally upset with Chesterbrook Resident for making his partisan point about Kampf cutting library funding? What are people supposed to write???

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    Actually, Sean didnt point any fallacies out. Also, you can’t debate when you ignore the rebuttal.

    [Reply]

  4. Version:
    This is not about me. Paul’s own words and actions have opened this up and I feel a responsibility to take up for the truth. Past Examples:
    Paul said he is a fiscal conservative, he is not,
    Paul said he never voted to raise taxes, he has.
    Can we not agree that it is healthy that someone point out these facts?
    This is not about me, this is about Paul being held to a standard and not misrepresenting his history.
    He wants to Toll 422, I do not like that.
    He has voted to raise taxes by One Billion Dollars, I do not like that.
    He has voted to increase spending by almost One Billion Dollars, I do not like that.
    He has voted to raise debt in PA at the worst time, I do not like that.
    He votes for pork projects that have no place in a budget during the worst post-depression time in our history, I do not like that.
    Thus the issues that draw my ire, if he is not going to be honest about them I am going to comment on them.
    Pattye posted her story at 7 AM, no one commented for two hours. My points are not one sided, they are facts and I have attribution for all of them either in news articles or HB or SB notes.

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    Sean D. said–this is about Paul being held to a standard and not misrepresenting his history.

    Okay, as long as your candidate has clean hands. What about holding your own candidate to the same standard, which includes not misrepresenting history.

    For example:

    – Mr. Kampf claimed to a small business owner; he’s not.

    – Mr. Kampf claimed to not deplete the rainy day fund; he did.

    – Mr. Kampf ran on a record of not raising taxes; as soon as he was re-elected, he raised taxes.

    – Mr. Kampf claims Harrisburg is broken; at the same time, Mr. Kampf broke Tredyffrin by violating the Home Rule Charter

    Looking at your claims concerning Mr. Drucker:

    Sean D said – 

    – He wants to Toll 422, I do not like that.

    Fact: Mr. Drucker won’t support any tolling plan that does not exempt local residents.  http://www.timesherald.com/articles/2010/07/11/opinion/doc4c3930ee4c4ba705921126.txt

    As to your other claims, there is no increase in personal income tax in the PA budget.

    Sean D said – Thus the issues that draw my ire, if he is not going to be honest about them I am going to comment on them.

    Really? I think when it comes to requiring honesty, you better look in the mirror, and then look to your candidate. The budget you cite is a budget that many Republican’s voted for. You keep throwing shots toward Mr. Drucker, but yet, you never confront the issues that concern your own candidate. At best, your issues with Mr. Drucker are differences in policy, although I’m not sure because you really don’t have a full grasp of the issues. The issues with Mr. Kampf begin with honesty and character. It’s interesting what draws your ire. You don’t live in Tredyffrin. Therefore, it makes sense that you don’t know the facts. And the more of your posts I read, the more I realize that you don’t care about the facts. Instead, you are simply interested in getting a Republican elected, even if it is a dishonest Republican. 

    Your laughable Mr. Dempsey because you do a poor job of representing your candidate. The aggressiveness you display in defense of your candidate is off because of the documented issues with your candidate. You have been asked several time to confront Mr. Kampf’s rainy day fund claims. And to date, you have not. 

    Here’s a question you can ask Mr. Kampf – Is he a member of the Phoenixville Chamber of Commerce? Did he ever apply?  

    Allow me to save you the trouble. Mr. Kampf is not a member of the Phoenixville Chamber. He applied. However, when he received his membership dues invoice in the mail, he quietly withdrew his application. 

    That’s quite a candidate you support Mr. Dempsey.

    [Reply]

    Sean D Reply:

    Tredyffrin Republican:
    I have never heard a word about the Phoenixville Chamber/ Warren issue you raise. I would ask you to offer proof of your assertion… Otherwise you are doing exactly what folks have done here for weeks… Once you are out of your three tired bullets about Warren, you start making up these stories about him and the folks around him.

    Back to the real ISSUES you raised —

    Small business owner – FACT! Warren was a partner of a firm that at that time was considered a small business by the DOL. The fact that he helped grow a small business into a larger, successful business is not a black mark. Not by my standards anyway.

    Home Rule Charter – In the end Not broken, FACT! If the HRC was broken there would have been real lawsuits et al. The fact that the BOS got it right, how can this be held against anyone? They got it right, that is the epitath (spelling?).

    We covered the Warren Kampf tax increase – the whopping $35 sewer fee increase per household per year, to his credit Warren has not shyed away from that.

    Okay so you want to Toll 422 but exempt locals… I want to eat ice cream and not get fat, sorry can not have both! That is really walking the dog backwards!

    If you stick to the shear side by side, I know what Warren stands for. I have seen positive pieces of mail and heck his TV ads might as well be titled – Meet Warren Kampf. All I know about Paul is that he attacked/smeared Guy and now Warren without ever telling me what he is for. You can not just be for winning the seat… Tell me what YOUR for. But it has to jive with what you do… You can not be for smaller taxes and then vote to raise taxes by ONE BILLION DOLLARS. If Paul told me what he was for, then did that… I may have felt differently.

    I have gladly voted for Democrats before, give me a Lynn Swann and yep I vote for an infinitely more qualified Democrat.
    But in this election I am very happy that the Superior candidate, without question, just happens to be a Republican!

    Look at the last two years – Paul and Warren had the same economic mess –
    Paul voted to raise spending, raise taxes and increase debt.
    Warren kept taxes at bay, cut spending and decreased debt. Come on… this is easy.

    [Reply]

    Mike in Berwyn Reply:

    A few points – first of all, Mr. Drucker’s position on 422 tolling is “evolving”. His original position, stated in an April interview, was not well-defined. John Petersen said on this Blog on 4/10, “Paul suggesting this idea is probably one of the most politically misguided suggestions I have heard in quite some time.” So the backpedal began…

    TR says today, “Fact: Mr. Drucker won’t support any tolling plan that does not exempt local residents.” Not necessarily – he would include long-distance users – so my friend who lives in Wayne and commutes
    to his business in Reading would pay a toll (BTW, in my view, he should not be exempt, as a heavy user of that road).

    The larger, more important issue is the financial viability of 422 expansion and/or light rail plans. In evaluating large infrastructure projects like 422/SVM (and the Paoli Transportation Center, as well), you might find the work of Bent Flyvberg of Oxford University interesting. Describing his research :

    “It started seven years ago, when he published the first large study of cost overruns in 258 mega-transportation projects (worldwide). He
    found that nine out of 10 came in over budget, and that the average cost overrun was nearly 30 percent. Rail systems had an average cost escalation of 45 percent. …He concludes the backers of these projects suffer from two main maladies. One is “delusional optimism” — they want it so badly, they can’t see its flaws. …The second is worse: They knowingly are lying to the public.”Delusion and Deception in Large Infrastructure Projects,” was the title of Flyvbjerg’s most recent paper, published in January(2009). He details through interviews with public officials how the pressure to get a project approved politically and under construction almost invariably leads to deception — a lowballing of costs and an exaggeration of benefits.” Sound familiar, considering
    Mr. Drucker’s 2000 jobs created claim?

    Another issue of note in this election, briefly discussed on last week’s thread, is the Marcellus Shale taxation. Natural gas in the Marcellus Shale has been an economic boon in many parts of Pennsylvania – both the payments to landowners for drilling rights and the new jobs created in the tens of thousands. The House last week passed, and Mr. Drucker voted for, a bill which would levy a tax on natural gas extracted in PA at $.39/mcf (thousand cubic feet). This would be the highest tax in the nation and the proceeds would be used not only to support the infrastructure and environmental needs created by this
    activity but 40% of the revenues would go into the PA general fund. Natural gas currently sells for less than $4.00/mcf, so the tax is about 10% of the value of the gas and would be a direct cost to producers.

    In my “day job”, I met with the CEOs of a small Exploration and Production company and a seismic company in the past 60 days. At current nat gas prices, even without the tax, production is modestly profitable. This tax will clearly reduce natural gas production and the associated economic activity and job creation in PA. Others have suggested a more modest tax – for example 1.5% for the first five years and 5% thereafter – rather than “kill the golden goose”.

    When I look at Mr. Drucker’s House voting record, I simply don’t see any sign of fiscal conservatism, on either taxes or expense control.

    [Reply]

    Hockeypuck1987 Reply:

    and there will be an increase in the federal gasoline tax to fund our hopefully one term president’s “infrastructure” plan.

    tax tax tax with no brakes on spending spending spending, and waste waste waste… Who else is just sick of all this?

  5. Warren Kampf cut library funding and fire funding

    ——————————-

    This is true. Kampf has made no bones about it.

    One factual point: the fireworks funding was not included in the final budget, so that is a red herring.

    I think the point is that Drucker did the same thing (actually in both budgets since has been there) and not a peep from anyone on these cuts.

    The second point is that while making these cuts, he chose to increase debt by $600 million and use it on projects like an Arlen Specter Library and Murtha Policy Center — and at an amount that would have restored those funding cuts.

    Whether you agree with the debt vote or not, I think we can all agree there were better uses for that money (fixing roads and bridges, restoring library funding, etc., etc.)

    Finally, I think Sean is right about passing a budget that included revenue the state was warned would not come. That was irresponsible and it was not a “balanced” budget. That said, a pox on everyone who voted “yes” to such a budget, regardless of their party affiliation.

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    From the West said – Finally, I think Sean is right about passing a budget that included revenue the state was warned would not come. That was irresponsible and it was not a “balanced” budget. That said, a pox on everyone who voted “yes” to such a budget, regardless of their party affiliation.

    Right, and depleting the rainy day fund also amounts to a budget that is not really balanced. The problem for Mr. Kampf is that he denies depleting the rainy day fund. That makes him a liar. Should there not be a pox on that as well? Or, are there two sets of standards here?

    [Reply]

    Howard in Daylesford Reply:

    The fireworks funding and the cut to the fire and library funds were approved by Mr. Kampf and the rest of the board when they approved the draft budget.

    It was only AFTER the draft budget was approved did the uproar occur. The online petition of over 500 people would not have been signed, and the “Cardboard Check” garbage never would have taken place.

    At the end of the day, Fireworks and Fire Funding were BOTH cut in the 2010 budget.

    The Cardboard Check moment despite having the benefit of helping the fire companies was still ethically questionable.

    [Reply]

  6. I watched the initial interview where Paul Drucker first talked about 422. He clearly states it was his understanding local users would be exempt – those that travel short distances. His position has not “evolved”. Warren Kampf is playing dirty politics. And he is crying foul over Paul Drucker doing it?

    [Reply]

    Sean D Reply:

    Do not parse words, Drucker is in favor or tolling 422. That is the headline – everyone agrees that is gospel. His thought of making local residents exempt… How would he do that exactly?

    If you were a person who lived in paoli or phoenixville and drove to say Reading every day (as some folks do), you are not exempt – that would be covered under the long distance express lane and you would be tolled.
    If you lived in Phoenixville and got on 422 at Collegeville and off at Royersford, as an on/off driver you could be exempt.

    I do not think anyone is misrepresenting his position. He favors tolling 422. There are some specifics to work out to see who would pay that tax every day, but he is in favor of it.

    Its not dirty politics to make someone stick with their own words (Read my lips no new taxes…). The original issue was Paul and his statements regarding the budget. Should he continue to raise spending and debt, no doubt this will not be the last new revenue enhancer we will see…

    I have not seen Warren cry foul, I have not seen his team cry foul… I have seen people legitimately concerned with additional financial burdens.

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    Sean D said – I do not think anyone is misrepresenting his position.

    Really? You never acknowledge Mr. Drucker’s full position. That results in a mis-representation. 

    [Reply]

  7. Sean D continues to charge that Rep. Drucker voted to raise taxes.

    In fact, the only TAX he voted FOR was a tax on gas drilling in the Marcellus shale.

    Mike points out that at .39 per thousand cubic feet , it would be the highest severance tax in the nation. But all who voted for it – including a good number of Republicans – understood it represented a first pass.

    The Senate will surely put forward a different bill with a more modest tax. But the House bill succeeded in setting the stage and establishing a fair split of tax revenues between the state’s general fund, municipalities and the environment . The Senate will have to take this under consideration to pass a final bill

    Ultimately , few legislators – Democrat or Republican – will pass up the opportunity to capture this revemue stream and the thousands of new jobs drilling will bring to the state.

    Re 422, Tredyffrin Republican is correct that Kampf’s campaign continues to misrepresent Paul’s position on tolling, no doubt hoping that low information and base voters won’t know or care what the truth is.

    The truth is that Rep. Drucker and other colleagues are only considering tolling for an express lane to be used by long-distance travellers. According to Drucker, “I would not support a tolling structure that forces daily, on/off drivers to pay tolls.”

    And tolling is only one of a number of funding sources being considered for road improvements and a possible light rail system from Reading into Philadelphia.

    This is a long-term project, but some people have the vision to plan for it. When you consider that over the next 20 years, an estimated 30,000 new jobs will be added along the 422 corridor (according to the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission). how should the state and the region help to spur this growth?

    Paul Drucker believes regional planning is an important part of his job. I agree.

    He rightly reminds constituents thart he has an obligation to seriously consider “plans that can improve the lives of people in our region and address our serious budget and transportation challenges”
    but that he will keep our “wallets in mind” as he represents us.

    See his opinion piece in July 7th’s Main Line Suburban Life at:

    http://www.mainlinemedianews.comarticles/2010/07/07/main_line_suburban_life/opinion/doc4c34ac7c4e650753427086.txt

    Regarding the additional $1 billion in spending in next year’s budget, most of that is mandated spending for safety net programs, public safety, and the state correctional system. Legislators have no line-item control., which Paul believes is partly responsible for the broken budget process, and would like to work to change it.

    Sean, you can keep claiming Paul voted to raise taxes by $1 billion, but each time you will be WRONG. There
    are no increases in personal or sales taxes for beleaguered Pennsylvanians. in the budget passed this summer. NONE.

    Did the legislature vote to increase their debt? Yes. Given their options and the fact that interest rates on borrowing are at record lows, it was seen as the lesser of two evils.

    Read Rep. Drucker’s June 6th piece in Main Line Suburban on needed reform, budget and otherwise, in Harrisburg. His sincere interest in making needed changes and lowering the cost of govvernment: are clearly articulated.

    http://www.mainlinemedianews.com/articles/2010/06/08/main_line_suburban_life/opinion/doc4c0ea00bb5ba5589753425.txt

    Voters will make up their minds in the next few weeks, But they should know the facts and understand the stakes.

    [Reply]

    From the West Reply:

    In fact, the only TAX he voted FOR was a tax on gas drilling in the Marcellus shale

    ———————————–

    Rep. Drucker voted FOR a billion dollar tax increase. That’s a fact. See House Bill 1531, 10/2/2009.

    The Senate rejected this tax amount, cut it down and then sent it back to the House at which time Drucker voted no.

    If the Senate had concurred, the billion dollar tax would have been enacted.

    My question continues to be: did Mr. Drucker play politics by first voting for the tax, then against it? or did he believe the lower tax was too little and voted against it?

    Regarding Reform, the House Republican caucus offered several pieces of legislation which all addressed reform issues Rep. Drucker claimed to support in 2008 and continues to claim to support today. Mr. Drucker’s Democrat Leaders refused to put this bills to a vote — and Mr. Drucker has not once called for them to be released to a vote.

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    What kind of tax? Could you point to specific language? What was the difference with the 10/2 and 10/7 votes?

    Another question, why does the point about Mr. Kampf and his false Rainy Day Funds keep getting ignored?

    [Reply]

    Sean D Reply:

    Kate wrote:
    Sean, you can keep claiming Paul voted to raise taxes by $1 billion, but each time you will be WRONG

    Kate please read and review HB 1531 from October 2009. Pauls vote is listed…

    Make up your own mind – you have attacked me pretty fervently, but sticking to the issue I present fact and attribution of my position.

    Paul voted for a Billion Dollars in Tax Increase. Its not wrong its a fact,

    [Reply]

  8. How do exempt local users? What is a local user? Kind of like what is “rich”? And if this is all worked out, will you discourage non local users, whatever that means?

    This is all theatre of the absurd. And you can bet that around the corner, when revenues fall short, everyone will be in on the toll…

    [Reply]

    TredyffrinRepublican Reply:

    You apply for the exemption based on criteria TBD. If approved, your EZ Pass account would be marked accordingly. It’s actually a trivial issue. The claims by the Kampf campaign that traffic would increase are curious because toll booths have not been used in years.

    [Reply]

    flyersfan Reply:

    Hey Tredyffrin Rep, if thaat is what you really are, lets just do it right, and everyone pays the toll. I don’t get this idea of group identification and if money is needed, why not just be upfront and make tolls for all? Otherwise,there is too much room for shenanigans…

    [Reply]

  9. Again, more anti-Kampf commentary in support of Drucker. Can we have some Drucker commentary in support of Drucker. Was I missing something in his answer —
    Question: Looking past the 2011 state budget, what are your recommendations to close future budget gaps and still meet the needs of the residents? Until the national economy improves, where do you propose making cuts in future state budgets?

    Answer (after the family reference and the hope that the 157 will send him back)
    While the volatility of the economic climate makes future revenue estimates unreliable, there is no doubt that some very difficult decisions remain ahead of us. It is my hope that we can put aside partisanship and work together to produce a budget that is in the best interests of our constituents.

    So: Question as to what the candidate recommends to close future budget gaps? A: “Some very difficult decisions”

    and QUESTION: Where do you propose making cuts in future state budgets? A: Work together to produce a budget….our constituents.

    WOW — now I understand. No wonder you support Mr. Drucker. He cannot fail with that kind of commitment. Change you can believe in….

    Let’s face it friends — those who want to vote for Drucker just WANT to — those who want to vote for Kampf likewise just WANT to.
    Kampf cut library funding — and claims to be a fiscal conservative. He ticked off a whole bunch of folks but making cuts.
    Drucker voted for a budget that he knew was not balanced — feds told them the revenue would fall short. That’s my issue all along — don’t pretend to be a fiscal conservative when you are not one. “In the best interest of our constituents” is like saying I don’t want anyone mad at me. Again, if you truly want to see a fiscally conservative representative, then the new voice in Harrisburg has to be WK, not someone whose claim of fiscal conservatism is clearly not borne out by his actions. Complain all you want about the fire funding and the cardboard check moment, but Mr. Drucker’s cardboard check was made out to a developer, and he chose to share that moment with the private sector beneficiary of the check and political king Dwight Evans, a man who controls $200M without any legislative oversight.
    Don’t pretend to want to vote for Mr. Drucker because of integrity. He may have it, but he doesn’t stand on it any more than any politician who wantsthe voters of the 157th to send him back to Harrisburg — which was part of his answer on “tough budget cuts.” Who are we all kidding? Vote the way you want. Don’t make up reasons. Kampf is a fiscal conservative — Drucker cannot afford to be and stay afloat in the circle he counts on. It’s that simple.

    [Reply]

  10. You know what, Andrea? You’re right. People on this blog KNOW whom they’re voting for and why, and they feel strongly about their choices. This exercise in “discussion” feels Sisyphean.

    The irony is that Warren chose not to participate, so readers/ voters have no idea what his responses would have been. He felt it necessary to belittle CM as an unworthy forum and instead use a proxy/pawn in Sean D. …..refuting, misleading, insisting he’s right and no doubt committed to continuing his efforts until the polls close on November 2.

    Pattye, I applaud your effort to provide the community with information that would inform their voting. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if your readers have been able to decide what is true or what Kampf and Drucker stand for.

    I hope I am wrong..

    [Reply]

    Hockeypuck1987 Reply:

    sisyphean.. GREAT word!!!!
    As has been stated before, Warren does not owe us, nor Pattye despite here good intentions, an appearance on this blog. For that matter, Paul would have been better off staying away too. Yep, mind made up.. Empty headed?

    [Reply]

    Andrea Reply:

    I don’t have access to any candidate to determine why or why not participate — but I think considering the way the campaign literature has deteriorated, it’s just a smart move to keep away from any place where the candidate only comments once. I found Mr. Drucker’s answer today somewhat unworthy of any effort — but what else to say when you are facing a faceless crowd.
    I echo Kate in her appreciation for your efforts Pattye. I don’t know what the solution is to approach an election with energy and information…..seems where signs are planted matters too much — and opposition research bears at least as much fruit as pro-active campaigning. Too confusing and too discouraging.

    Didn’t know Sisyphean was a word — but I like it.
    I too — am tired.

    [Reply]

  11. I agree with Kate. I’d say the majority of people in general, as well as 100% of people who follow this blog, have made their mind up long ago as to whom they are supporting.
    The question is, does Drucker believe that his generalized, non-committal dribble of an answer will really sway anyone?

    [Reply]

Leave a Reply

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

Community Matters © 2019 Frontier Theme