The $16 Billion Dollar Dump

Seemingly unnoticed in the new budget, is the incredibly giant leap in state spending on Public Welfare from $8.8B to $11.2B. This budget has obligated Pennsylvania taxpayers to permanently sustain a standard of living for welfare recipients that had been made 'temporarily' possible by one-time Federal stimulus dollars, and no one is batting an eye. It's a $2.4B increase in state spending, overnight. Just like that.

Last year, and the year before last, Pennsylvania received $2B per year in Federal stimulus grants for welfare, and $1.5B each year for K-12 Education. This year, with the Federal Government tightening its belt, Pennsylvania was not issued those previously enjoyed stimulus funds.

Governor Corbett's proposed budget created quite a stir when he allowed state spending on Education to return to pre-stimulus levels--even though he had executed exactly what was necessary and he encouraged school districts to do the same: operate within available means. Unfortunately, however, Governor Corbett did not apply the same principle he'd preached to the Education community when he laid out his proposal for spending on Public Welfare.

Last year, $25.2B was spent on Public Welfare in Pennsylvania, but most of that amount was funded by the Feds who gave roughly $16.4B. Pennsylvania taxpayers were obligated for the other $8.8 Billion. This year, however, rather than $16.4B from the Feds, Pennsylvania received only $14.4B because the Feds did not include the $2 Billion in stimulus funds as they had the previous two years. The lack of stimulus funds would have reduced spending on Public Welfare in Pennsylvania from $25.2B to $23.2B--that is if Governor Corbett had allowed spending to return to pre-stimulus levels as he did with Education, but he didn't. Instead, Governor Corbett made up for the lack of Federal stimulus dollars by allowing the PA taxpayer obligation to leap from $8.8B to $11.2B. That's a $2.4B spike. It's $2.4B added to the General Fund Budget. Without it, the General Fund budget would have come in at $24.7B rather than the $27.1 that passed on June 30.

To put the gravity of this $2.4B increase in perspective, it took former Governor Ed Rendell eight years to boost the taxpayer burden for Public Welfare by $2.4B. When Rendell took office, the taxpayer obligation to Public Welfare was $6.4 Billion. Eight years later, when he left, the taxpayer’s obligation had risen to $8.8 Billion. Governor Corbett and this Legislature have accomplished an increase of the same amount in less than one half of one year, of Corbett's first term. It's simply amazing.

Rather than return spending to the level that existed before the federal government’s one-time enticement, as he did with Education, when confronted with the choice, the Governor proposed to obligate the taxpayers to a gargantuan increase, for years and administrations to come--and the legislature voted to allow it.

With this budget now passed, as presented by the Governor, the taxpayers of the Commonwealth are now obligated to $2.4B in additional spending this year, next year, the year after and the year after that. Spread over Governor Corbett's four-year term, that's increased spending that adds up to more than $8B--and if Corbett secures a second term, the increase adds up to $16B assuming there is no increase. That’ll be $16 Billion not available for meeting known state debt. It's $16B Governor Corbett might have allowed us to keep in our pocket or put back into our businesses. It's $16B literally dumped on Pennsylvania taxpayers. Astounding.

PA 2010 State Budget Passes Senate and House: An Example of Spending Money that We Don’t Have

For the first time in his ‘reign’ as Governor, Ed Rendell has a budget that passed through the State House and Senate before the June 30th deadline. Congratulations Governor Rendell! Congratulations, too, to the 37 Senators and 177 Representatives that signed on to that “pile of garbage” that they called a State Budget.

Why is it a pile of garbage? . . . Because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Our legislature is REQUIRED BY LAW to pass a balanced budget. The budget that passed the House and Senate yesterday is balanced on federal funds that don’t yet exist and a tax on the extraction of Marcellus Shale natural gas that has yet to be passed. In essence, “the budget stands for nothing” . . . which is appropriate since that is also the case with many of our legislators.

Who is to blame?

The opportunity to STOP the budget was in the Republican controlled Senate. The budget bill passed the State Senate by a vote of 37 to 13. There were only 13 Senators that did the right thing by voting NO to this example of fiscal irresponsibility. What about the Senate leadership? Here are their votes . . . for the record.

REPUBLICANS

YES - Joseph B. Scarnati III (President of the Senate)
YES - Dominic Pileggi (Majority Floor Leader)
YES - Michael Waugh (Majority Caucus Chair)
YES - Robert Robbins (Majority Caucus Secretary)
YES - Jake Corman (Majority Appropriations Committee Chair)
YES - Patrick M. Browne (Majority Caucus Administrator)
YES - Edwin Erickson (Majority Policy Committee Chair)

DEMOCRATS

YES - Roberta Mellow (Minority Floor Leader)
YES - Michael O’Pake (Minority Whip)
YES - Vincent Hughes (Minority Caucus Chair)
YES - Sean Logan (Minority Caucus Secretary)
YES - Jay Costa (Minority Appropriations Committee Chair)
YES - Christine Tartaglione (Minority Caucus Administrator)
YES - Richard Kasunic (Minority Policy Committee Chair)

THIS PROVES that the Senate leadership MUST change . . . one way or another!

The budget bill passed the State House by a vote of 117 to 84. This is not a shock seeing that the House is controlled by Rendell Democrats. What is shocking in this number, however, is that 16 Republicans voted WITH the Rendell Democrats in order to achieve a supermajority which was required to waive a rule requiring 24 hours’ notice before a bill is voted.

If you would like to see how your Senators and Representatives voted, please refer to the voting records below:

June 30 Budget Vote in Senate is HERE
June 30 Budget Vote in House is HERE

What about Northwest PA?

MOST of the legislators from our region in Northwest Pennsylvania agree with my views on the budget, and MOST of them voted against the budget bill yesterday. Specifically . . .

Mercer County Legislators

Representative Michele Brooks (R) - NO
Representative Dick Stevenson (R) - NO
Representative Mark Longietti (D) - YES
Senator Bob Robbins (R) – YES

Crawford County Legislators

Representative John Evans (R) – NO
Representative Brad Roae (R) – NO
Representative Michele Brooks (R) – NO
Senator Bob Robbins (R) – YES

Republican Representatives (and Conservatives) Michele Brooks, Dick Stevenson, John Evans, and Brad Roae all did the RIGHT thing and voted NO to the budget.

Rendell Democrats Bob Robbins and Representative Mark Longietti voted YES to the budget. Representative Mark Longietti did what his caucus told him to do . . . in the end he supported his Governor and his Caucus (right or wrong). Republican Senator Bob Robbins PROVED his allegiance to the Democrats that WROTE HIM IN in the Primary (all 800 of them) and he also supported his fellow Democrat Governor and his new Caucus.

As a Republican LEADER in the Senate, Bob Robbins should be ashamed of himself. Even more important, his CONSTITUENTS should be angry with him. It shows that he was more concerned with getting rid of the “budget problem” in an election year that he was with standing on principles of good government and fiscal responsibility.

In press releases that were sent out last night, Bob Robbins fellow legislators from this area made their thoughts about the budget clear . . .

Representative Michele Brooks stated:

“Although this budget was passed on time – as it should be – it falls short to earn my support. I have many serious concerns about funding allocations and the source of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.”

“Many of us have concerns regarding whether this budget is constitutionally balanced as it relies heavily on $850 million in funding from the federal government, which has not yet been approved by Congress and there are some doubts whether it will be approved. It also has a structural deficit of approximately $3 billion.”

Representative Brad Roae stated:

“State budgets are about priorities,” Roae said. “This budget sets the wrong priorities for Pennsyvlania.”

“This budget literally spends money the state doesn’t have,” Roae said. “This budget is based on the hope of a federal bailout for the state. If the federal government runs up the deficit to pay for this bailout, taxpayers will be paying for it for years to come.”

“This budget doesn’t reflect my priorities and it certainly doesn’t reflect the wishes
of the people I represent,” Roae said. “We needed to reduce spending due to the recession, but the cuts in this budget weren’t applied fairly. This budget sets up huge tax increases or painful spending cuts for next year. I simply could not support a budget that is this irresponsible.”

According to these statements, it seems to me that the conservative legislators that represent our area need help to fight for fiscal responsibility in Harrisburg . . . and they are not getting that from their own Senator. Hmmmmmm.

Where do I stand on the subject?

Anyone that voted FOR this budget made a conscious effort to pull the wool over the eyes of taxpayers. This is not a VALID budget . . . no matter how you look at it.

It is the responsibility of our legislators to make certain that the state government does not spend beyond its means. If we don’t have the money, we ought not to be spending it. Federal dollars that simply aren’t there should not be considered in the calculations, and tax revenues from Marcellus Shale should NOT be considered in the equations either. IF the tax on Marcellus Shale extraction is pushed through (in October), it will be the worst fiscal decision in Pennsylvania . . . ever!

If I were the Senator in Pennsylvania’s 50th District, I would have voted NO to yesterday’s budget. I would have continued to vote NO until the budget was actually balanced on REAL numbers. More importantly, I would have been pushing for these changes back in February and March . . . when budget negotiations SHOULD have been taking place. Waiting until the 11th hour so that they can push through the equivalent of a legislative joke is shameful.

I usually sign off by stating "as alway, just my opinion". Today it is important that I sign off by stating the following:

This is not just my opinion. It is my official statement.

Roberta Biros
Editor, Mercer County Conservatives

Attorney General Tom Corbett Says 'Justice Has Been Served"

I just don't understand why Attorney General Tom Corbett has to continue to hold a press conference for every single thing. It's like Corbett is here, over there, and everywhere. Did Corbett really need to hold a press conference to comment on the verdict in this case. Ridiculous! So he is celebrating a case that has taken him 3 years to investigate.

(The Times Tribune) Despite acquittal on charges of per diem abuse, a jury convicted former Rep. Michael Veon and two aides on the most serious public corruption charges of conspiring to defraud the people of Pennsylvania, state Attorney General Tom Corbett said Tuesday.

"We believe justice has been served by the verdict," Mr. Corbett said at a press conference.

With the first landmark case in the three-year "Bonusgate" investigation into legislative corruption behind him, the attorney general outlined a series of court hearings and trials for other defendants in the next two months that should keep the investigation in the news.

Click Here To Read More

This press conference should have been more about where do we go from here and what cases are going to be prosecuted next not a lecture on how Pennsylvanians should hold their legislators more accountable. Garbage!

Also: Pa. AG outlines legal challenge to health care law (Forbes)

Uncontested Races Troubling

Guest Column By Denny Bonavita

So, the Tea Party folks are going to force the national government to change its ways, are they? Hot air. Ditto for screamers in Internet chat rooms, for strident espousers of Second Amendment gun rights, for the people who claim our government is spending us into bankruptcy.

We yak about that, but it's simply lip-flapping. Nobody will change the current system of government, despite all the jaw-jabber. Why do we say that?

Look at who is running for election this year: Mostly, it's incumbents, or former incumbents. In area races for the state House of Representatives, there is not one contested race in the May 18 primary election, according to the filings with the Department of State. Matt Gabler (R), Kathy Rapp (R), Sam Smith (R), Martin Causer (R), Donna Oberlander (R), Bud George (D) are all assured of renomination.

Rapp, Causer and Oberlander are all but assured of re-election. No Democrats filed against them, so there probably won't be any major contests in November, either.
On the federal level, first-term incumbent Glenn Thompson, a Republican, is unopposed in both the primary and in the general election. So is Altoona-area Rep. Bill Shuster.

Sure, incumbent U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter is opposed - but by a current member of the federal Congress in the primary, and by a former member of Congress in the general election. More incumbents.

To hear the critics of government tell it, the state and federal governments are poorly run. But the critics are lip-flappers, only. Otherwise, some would have joined in the campaigns.

It doesn't take a lot of money, either. Gabler won the Republican nomination two years ago on a write-in basis. In our system of government, it is impossible to vote "No," or "None of the above," except in judicial retention elections. We can't vote people out of office if there is no opponent to vote in. Don't blame the incumbents. It isn't their fault if they do not have opponents. That is our fault.

Even the best incumbents benefit from having opponents - for the same reason that we learn something best when we know we have to teach about it. When an incumbent knows that he or she will be called to account on an issue, the incumbent rethinks the issue. Sometimes, the incumbent even changes positions, because the circumstances surrounding the issue have changed.

But that won't happen this year. We just don't care enough about our system of government to help to lead it. So the incumbents can just keep on doing what they have been doing.

Tom Corbett, A Contradiction In Terms

GOP gubernatorial front-runner Tom Corbett seems to be getting a little too comfortable as things begin to heat up on the campaign trail this election year. Corbett's gubernatorial campaign has brilliantly masked Corbett's Harrisburg insider status by depicting him as a good government crusader/reformer. Despite the fact that Corbett has been a major political force in Pennsylvania politics since the start of the Ridge administration.

In 1994 Corbet was asked to provide criminal law and policy expertise to the gubernatorial campaign of then-Congressman Tom Ridge. Once Ridge was elected Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Corbett was asked to fill several key roles in service to the Commonwealth which eventually led to his appointment as Attorney General.

Despite his campaign finance connections to state GOP power players like Governor Ridge, former President Pro Temp Bob Jubelirer and former House Speaker John Perzel, Corbett himself has managed to distance himself from all the political corruption scandals that have plagued many state lawmakers by indicting 12 democratic members of the state legislature and two of their aids who received illegally $4 million in bonuses for campaign work. Despite the pending indictments Corbett still accepted campaign contributions from the very same people he he was indicting. Former Speaker of the House John Perzel even held a campaign fundraiser that Corbett attended weeks before Perzel was indicted.

Perhaps the most laughable pillar of Corbett's my hands are squeaky clean gubernatorial campaign is how he has manage to distance himself from the illegal 2005 pay raise scandal. Corbett has even gotten away with criticizing his primary opponent state Representative Sam Rohrer for voting for both the 2005 pay raise and the 2001 pension legislation. At a recent gubernatorial forum in Philadelphia he blasted his republican primary opponent Sam Rohrer for his support for the pension increase.

From the Philadelphia Daily News: "The only political shot of the night came from Corbett, when asked about the state's burgeoning public-pension crisis. He noted that some of the participants in the forum had voted to raise state pension benefits - a veiled reference to Rohrer."

His criticism of Rohrer's legislative voting record on the pension issue and the pay raise issue is laughable because Corbett himself benefited from both of Rohrer's votes. Corbett gladly accepted the pay raise that Governor Rendell negotiated for executive offices in 2005 knowing full well the pay raise was illegal and that it violated the state's constitution.

At the time the pay raise was passed I didn't hear of any outrage radiating from the Attorney General's office. I don't remember Tom Corbet, the state's chief law enforcement officer, holding press conferences saying hey wait a minute we need to investigate the legality of these unvouchered expenses. We never seen any grand jury indictments from the Attorney General's Office resulting from the overwhelming evidence of collusion between the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government.

Corbett is a candidate that seems to love having his cake and eating it too. At a recent state budget hearing Corbett warned state lawmakers of potential layoffs if the Attorney General's office budget wasn't increased despite his gubernatorial campaign calling for dramatic cuts in state spending.

But these contradictions are only the tip of the iceberg for Tricky Tom Corbett. I just cannot allow myself to support a candidate where the more you learn about him the more confused you become.

Continuity & Change: Pennsylvania in the New Century

By Dr. G. Terry Madonna, Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College

New centuries can be messy affairs to chronicle, often taking a decade or longer to hit their stride. By any measure, however, the 21st century is now well under way. It seems a good time, therefore, to assess the leading trends exhibited in Pennsylvania politics early in the new century.

What's new and not so new in state politics? And where does the state seem to be heading?

One way to answer these questions is to examine six macro trends that now dominate state politics. Certainly Pennsylvania's major trends comprise a blend of old and new. Three of them point toward continuity with the state's sometimes rigid political heritage, while three others point to transformative changes now underway.

1. Continuing Resistance to Change: Certainly the slow-to-change, innate conservatism so familiar to state history remains an important dynamic in state politics. Pennsylvania has been an anti-reform state throughout its modern history, and although the currents of change flowed sometimes vigorously over the past decade, the state's standpatters continue to be influential.

2. Continuing Urban-Rural Fault Lines: Also familiar across the state's political landscape is the continuing rivalry between rural and urban areas. The state still has one of the largest rural populations in the nation, while its two urban behemoths, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, are among the nation's largest cities. The consequent urban-rural fault line continues to polarize state politics as it has for more than a century and a half.

3. Continuing Divide Between the West and the East: Back to the days of Benjamin Franklin, Pennsylvania has been almost two distinct states: one western, rural, more sparsely populated, and more politically conservative; the other eastern, urban, more densely settled, and less politically conservative. Western Pennsylvania is more culturally akin to the Midwest, while eastern Pennsylvania is more culturally similar to the East Coast. These historical distinctions now include major demographic and economic differences. Increasingly the east is growing and prospering economically, while the west's population growth is stagnant amid a struggling economy. These sharpened differences have produced a geographic dimension in state politics that often plays out in statewide elections as well as in Harrisburg policy battles.

4. Growing Dissatisfaction with Government and Politicians: Historically, Pennsylvanian's have often exhibited indifference verging on apathy toward state government-but no longer. Indeed, the first decade of the new century unleashed a dramatic new awareness bordering on contempt for Harrisburg and its politicians. Pennsylvanians discovered state politics and by and large didn't like what they saw. An ill-advised legislative pay hike, succeeded by a series of legislative public corruption scandals, drove some of the dissatisfaction. And part of the rising dismay is attributable to a darkening national mood of frustration and anger, in part caused by the current recession. As Pennsylvania approaches the second decade of the new century, its citizens are arguably as dissatisfied with state government and its politicians as any period in modern times.

5. A Rising New Generation of State Politicians: Through much of state history well-known politicians trading on famous family traditions dominated statewide elections. Particularly prominent in modern times have been fabled family names like Casey, Flaherty, and Scranton. But the 21st century has seen a gradual movement away from familiar names in the state's electoral politics. Increasingly throughout the decade, a new generation of state politicians emerged in the congressional delegation as well as in legislative and gubernatorial politics. Probably nothing portrays this changing of the guard more than the 2010 governor's race. Indeed, the upcoming gubernatorial primaries largely feature electoral contestants unknown to most voters.

6. Legislative Turmoil and Pressure for Reform: The new century has brought both drama and trauma to the legislative branch. Perhaps the signal event of the decade was the abortive pay raise that occurred in July 2005. The resultant furor brought 31legislative retirements and 23 incumbent defeats in 2006. The pay hike also unleashed a plethora of protest movements, shaking the normally placid legislative culture to its foundations and generating a reform impulse not seen in state politics in more than a century. Compounding this, Attorney General Tom Corbett announced in 2008 the first of 25 prosecutions in the so-called "bonus gate" public corruption scandals, inevitably raising the question of whether systematic corruption had returned to Harrisburg. Amid the turmoil, repeated calls were made for reform, perhaps even a constitutional convention, to comprehensively restructure state government. Should a general constitutional convention be convened, it would be the first in nearly a century and a half.

Yet, unclear amid the mix of continuity and change is where the new century ultimately leads. Not in more than a century has there been more agitation for change and reform in the Keystone State. Nevertheless, the forces for the status quo still loom powerfully. What does seem clear is that the new century will continue to witness the institution shaking conflict seen so often in the last ten years-conflict likely to continue long after the new century isn't so new anymore.

This article has been adapted from Madonna & Young's forthcoming book Political Pennsylvania: The New Century.

Politically Uncorrected is published twice monthly. Dr. G. Terry Madonna is Professor of Public Affairs at Franklin & Marshall College, and Dr. Michael Young is Managing Partner of Michael Young Strategic Research.

TEA for Two? Should the TEA party movement be co-opted by the government?

Guest Column By Lowman Henry

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement over the past year has developed into a major force in American politics. So much so it lifted a little known state senator in Massachusetts into the U.S. Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy, and last month held a national convention that attracted Sarah Palin and other big names as speakers.

But where does the TEA Party movement go to from here?

TEA activists, in Pennsylvania and nationwide, will undoubtedly have a significant impact in a number of statewide, congressional and even legislative races. There will also likely be an inflow of TEA activists into the official Republican Party structure as seats on both the state and county committees are up for election this year.

How closely though should the TEA Party movement bind itself to the Republican Party? When it adheres to its principles, which it sometimes does not, the Republican Party is clearly more ideologically in step with the TEA activists than the Democrats. In fact, is the Leftist Democratic agenda pushing for nationalized health care, Cap and Trade, excessive spending and massive deficits which have awakened and energized TEA partiers causing them to become involved or more involved in the political process.

Despite that, there is good reason for the TEA Party movement to not allow itself to be co-opted into the establishment Republican Party. It would be far better for the movement to exist as an independent political force, making common cause with the GOP when interests coincide.

The debate is running both ways. Establishment Republican leaders are divided over how to deal with the TEA Party movement. Some are politically savvy enough to understand many of the TEA partiers are part of the conservative base of the GOP that became disaffected with the party's straying from its principles over the past decade.

Other Republican officials are scared of the TEA Party types. One Republican county chairman recently called a congressional candidate to berate him for speaking at a TEA Party rally. State Republican Chairman Rob Gleason was the master of ceremonies at a TEA Party candidates' night, and then branded as rebels anybody who opposed the party's endorsed candidates - all in the same week.

There is no doubt that when the TEA Party movement and the Republican Party are united they are unbeatable. But, that unity should only exist around candidates who deserve it. TEA partiers should remain free to boycott those Republican candidates who don't reflect their ideals - or even to support conservative Democrats who do.

If the TEA Party movement is co-opted into the mainstream Republican Party its influence will wane. The movement is powerful precisely because it cannot be counted on: it must be courted, and candidates must prove they deserve its support. If the TEA Party activists are assimilated into the establishment GOP they will simply be taken for granted much in the same way the conservative Republican base has been in recent years.

This is not a broadside at the Republican Party. It simply is the natural order of things. In the Democratic Party, for example, the African-American vote is taken for granted because party leaders know 90% or more will vote for the Democratic candidate in any given election. Thus, elected Democrats tend not to be overly responsive to the needs of that community.

The same fate will befall the TEA Party movement if it allows itself to be incorporated into the Republican Party. For now, at least, the TEA Party is best developing as an independent movement, and the GOP would be wise to court its support. That will allow the TEA Party movement to keep alive its activist fervor, while making the Republican Party toe the ideological line.

It is best if the Republican Party is forced to earn the support of the TEA Party activists. Or perhaps, as happened in Massachusetts, the TEA Party movement can earn the support of the mainstream Republican Party. After all, the GOP had written off Scott Brown and it was the TEA Party movement that put him in a position to win. Only then did the Republican machinery kick into gear and help to put him over the top. The bottom line there is that Republicans and TEA Party activists worked together - and won.

The formula for success has been discovered, and there is no reason to fix what isn't broken.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Pennsylvania Lawmakers Don't Want 'Real' Reform

In today's editorial the Harrisburg Patriot-News asks whether or not state lawmakers have the "courage" to push for real reform by cutting state spending. I had to chuckle after reading the editorial. I couldn't help but think to myself just how much legislative leaders in Harrisburg actually hate reform.

For years state lawmakers were allowed to pass expensive legislation and increase state spending without much oversight or accountability. They voted themselves lavish pension increases, illegal pay raises, and bloated budgets that has put us in our current fiscal mess. And the lack of accountability by the voters has resulted in Pennsylvania having one of the largest, most expensive, and most corrupt state legislature's in the country.

How large is our state government? The following is a passage from the article that pretty much sums up the situation.

With 253 seats, our Legislature is the second largest in the United States, but that doesn’t tell the real story. The largest is New Hampshire; its 424 citizen-legislators are paid $200 for a two-year term.

One can only dream.

By contrast, Keystone lawmakers are the second-highest paid in the nation, according to the Pennsylvania Economy League. And California, with the highest salaries, has 120 seats for nearly three times our population.

Click Here To Read More

Pennsylvania voters and good government advocacy groups continue to put tremendous pressure on state lawmakers to reform state government and stop the wasteful spending. A great example of this occurred in July 2005 when state lawmakers got too greedy and passed a middle of the night pay raise that would have raise some legislators salaries by 30%. The outrage by voters ended up forcing legislative leaders to repeal the pay raise four months later.

Although the pay raise repeal was a success, I think Pennsylvania voters need to ask themselves this election year what really has changed since the repeal of the pay raise in Harrisburg? Most efforts to reform state government have been basically ignored by legislative leaders.

The state budget has continued to increase more than the rate of inflation at a time when working Pennsylvanians are struggling to keep their jobs and pay household bills. The current "bonusgate" corruption trial has brought to the forefront how legislative leader's in both parties used the power of their offices for personal and political gain.

The real truth is that most state lawmakers don't want reform in Harrisburg. State lawmakers love things just the way they are. They like the per diems and perks paid for on public dime. They like the lavish pensions they will receive when they retire. They like that Pennsylvania taxpayers pay for their health care plans with no personal out of pocket cost to them.

It's funny that most state lawmakers even after the repeal of the pay raise still believed they deserved it. So I asked this question to the Patriot-News Editorial Board, do you really think our current state lawmakers want "real reform"? It's not a question of courage when the entire legislative process is controlled by greed.

Franklin & Marshall Poll Says Pennsylvanians Support The Tea Party Movement and Tea Party Candidates

More: Tea party power (Lancaster New Era)

Poll: Tea Party could be midterm spoiler (Tribune-Review)

Also: Summary of findings of Franklin & Marshall College poll

Specter Refuses To Debate Primary Challenger, Rep. Joe Sestak On Meet The Press

The Plum Line is reporting that Senator Arlen Specter has declined an offer by Meet The Press to debate primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak. This just goes to show you how a political snake like Specter as manage to survive all these years in Washington D.C.

Producers for Meet the Press invited Specter and Sestak to debate on the air this Sunday, according to Sestak spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. But last night, the Sestak camp was informed by the show that Specter had declined to appear, Dworkin says.

“Arlen Specter’s sense of entitlement is typical of a 30-year Washington insider,” Dworkin emails. “His refusal to defend his views on the most influential national news program in the country says it all.” (Click Here To Read More)

This has been Specter's strategy for a longtime, Evade and Conquer. He did this to republican primary challengers all the time. Specter leads Sestak by double digits in the polls so he does not need to debate. Sestak knows that.

But will Specter's strategy work in the long run when a national movement like the Tea Party is agressively campaigning to return to our country to it's founding principles. A movement that wants open debate and new ideas. I think PA republicans and democrats can find common ground here. It is time for voters to show Specter the door! I urge all the Tea Party memberes to urge Specter to be held accountable and debate his challenger Joe Sestak.

Update From The Daily Kos: Sestak challenges GOP frontrunner Pat Toomey to a debate on Meet The Press to take Specter's place.

In a clever gambit, Team Sestak fired off a press release on Thursday inviting likely GOP nominee Patrick Toomey to debate Sestak in Specter's place, arguing that "Arlen Specter and Pat Toomey's policies are interchangeable. Debating Pat would be just like debating Arlen Specter."

More: Specter declines "Meet the Press" debate (Early Returns Blog)

PA Sixth Congressional District Drama: Schroder to Get Nominated From Floor?

Did anyone else read Chris Freind’s post about the prospect of Curt Schroder getting nominated to Congress from the floor of the ChesCo GOP Convention tomorrow? I have talked to enough people today to confirm there is a legitimate grassroots movement afoot to do just that. Hard to say how large this movement is.

But just think of it this way:

Curt was close to securing enough commitments to win the endorsement over a month ago. If just half of those people decide to go ahead and vote for Curt event though he’s still not formally running for this seat, that could split the whole affair into a three-way tie. Depending, of course, on which existing candidate– Welch or Gerlach– experiences more desertion.

Of course, it is also possible that Curt gets nominated from the floor and doesn’t get many votes at all.

But seeing how the chair of the Chester County Republican party decided to send an e-mail just yesterday re-emphasizing his support for Gerlach…well…the necessity of that e-mail certainly wouldn’t comfort me if I was Jim.

Now is the time, Sam is the man, and we are the people!

An 18-year veteran of the PA House of Representatives from Berks County, Honorable Sam Rohrer is above all else, a Christian whose pro-family agenda is capturing great attention, and loads of support among grassroots activists, and many many constitutional conservatives across the state.

A constitutional conservative himself, Sam has spent the last six years attempting to eliminate property taxes altogether, and has garnered the support and endorsement of Pennsylvania Tax Payer's Coalition. Sam's view is that we should not have to pay rent to the Government for property we've purchased in good faith. We are essentially buying our home three and four times over. Sam has fought tirelessly against this, and as Governor, he will make it right.

When it comes to education, Sam believes the ultimate responsibility for our children's education lies with the parent--not Government. One has only to take a look at how our students stack up against other nations, and other states, and it becomes clear Government has not done such a great job.

Sam will seek to bring about educational choice for parents. I had a teacher friend of mine, now a principal, scoff at Sam's educational policy. Despite that my friend is a democrat, he is extremely interested in Sam and the majority of his principles. We talked about Sam's proposal, and he realized that Sam is talking about choice for parents (providing a set of tools), but that what this creates is competition. Competition is good for everything and everyone who truly wants the best. It raises the bar on standards, and no teacher or administrator that takes his or her position to heart need worry in time of higher standards and competition. On the other hand, those that are merely putting in time until pension day kicks in may experience slight anxiety with Sam as Governor.

Sam is unequivocally pro-life, and is truly a man of honor and integrity--well-worth our support. He will bring about the fiscal responsibility our state, which is currently dreadfully insolvent, has lacked for so long. Sam knows we cannot afford more taxes. Sam will cut Government spending instead, by carefully inspecting every state program including welfare and ask simple questions like "what was your original mission and have you strayed from it?" "Do we need this program and this many employees?" "Are we wasting money on this program?" "Where are necessary employees wasting money?" Where our current Governor punts these issues away, Sam will face them head on.

Sam is first and foremost a sound, decent man, who really "gets it." He gets that government has grown large, and arrogant toward us. He knows that with the relationship so severely fractured and abused, politicians must move forward with great care as there is no room for even the slightest breach of trust. Sam will not spend his four years seeking re-election. That's not what he's about. He's passionate, and when elected, Sam will use every second of the time available to him focused on righting what is so wrong in our good state. He is integrity through and through.

Never before has the movement on the ground been so active. Sam has created quite a stir. The GOP, however, has sought to silence the Sam Rohrer movement, and forge ahead with their machine politics.

They would have us believe that Corbett's name recognition is the only chance we have of defeating the democrats in the general election. But the fact is when the underdog, a much lesser known defeats the Attorney General (a self-titled moderate republican) because of a silly little grassroots movement, he'll have plenty of name recognition, publicity and momentum to take with him to the election.

If Scott Brown were running against Corbett, after the attention he gained recently, my money says Scott Brown would have the name recognition and the momentum to defeat Corbett. It was the people of Mass. that elected Scott Brown. Not the machine.

Likewise, we the people believe we have the power to rise above the political machine when we assemble on the ground for what is right and good. Tom Corbett belongs to the machine that supports and endorses him. Sam Rohrer belongs to the people. He owes nothing to the machine. Now is the time, Sam is the man, and we are the people!

Rendell Approval Ratings Hit New Low

snip...Governor Ed Rendell (43%) and President Barack Obama (44%) similarly struggle with low approval ratings in Pennsylvania although Rasmussen has consistently tracked both lower than in other polls. Seven in ten (71%) claim anger over the current policies of the federal government and similar to national polling a significant majority (58%) in Pennsylvania also believe neither Democratic nor Republican leaders in Congress know what the country needs to do in order to get back on the right track. The anti-incumbent sentiment for 2010 is reflected by the nearly two-thirds (66%) of Keystone State voters who believe the country would be better off if the current status quo was defeated. By a margin of 44-34% more voters also believe their own local representative should be defeated for reelection.
Source: http://www.examiner.com/x-13600-Philadelphia-Opinion-Polls-Examiner~y2010m2d17-Poll-Little-change-in-Pennsylvania-as-Republicans-continue-to-hold-lead-in-races$

Union County Republican Committee Votes To Not Endorse Candidates In Defiance Of PA GOP State Committee

Source Sam Rohrer's Facebook Page:

Billy Allred a member of the Union County Republican Committee is reporting that committee members voted unanimously tonight not to endorse any GOP candidates running in the statewide races during the Primary Election.

This vote is a major victory for GOP candidates Stat Representative Sam Rohrer and Peg Luksik and puts the committee in direct defiance of the State Republican Committee's directive of only allowing the endorsed candidates to attend official committee events.

If you are a local county republican committee member, please contact your county chairman and urge your committee to follow Union County's lead. Join fellow republicans around the state who are calling for an open primary election.

LETS SHOW CHAIRMAN GLEASON AND THE STATE PARTY THAT IT IS TIME TO DO THE RIGHT THING FOR A CHANGE!

UPDATE:

The local GOP county committee revolt continues as I found out today that the Bradford County Republican Committee bucks has voted to buck the state party's endorsement. David Baldinger on Sam Roher's Facebook page is reporting that the Bradford County Republican Committee has voted 19 to 11 against endorsing a GOP candidate in the gubernatorial primary race and 18 to 15 against endorsing a GOP candidate in the US Senate primary race. This is more great news. Once again, I urge other local GOP county committees do the same. A comment today on this blog suggested that the Perry County Republican Committee has done the same.

Read More:

Hey, GOP bosses: We don't need no stinkin' endorsement (PhillyBurbs)

PA GOP Facebook Deletions Continued.....New Strategy To Squash Dissent Is To Insult People

From Vonne Andring, GM of TJ Development Co, & Supporter of Sam Rohrer...

I was at the Mobilize for Liberty event when it was announced that comments referencing the GOP's Corbett endorsement, were deleted on the GOP's Facebook page.

I was incensed! While probably not politically brilliant, I did send message to Glitch and Gleason, received several responses and responded in kind. All thus far, is copied in the thread below:

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 2:21 PM, TJDCo wrote:

"the PA GOP cannot support comments that slanderize our process or our candidates"

Mr. Glick when you make reference to "your process," and "your candidates," you show just how far from reality the GOP has strayed. This is not YOUR process, and neither are these YOUR candidates. Both are OURS, and despite the gross liberty the GOP has unilaterally awarded itself, you have no exclusivity toward either.

Vonne Andring, GM
TJ Development Co.
Phone: (412) 527-2759
Fax: (412) 246-7235
Email: tjdvlp@mac.com

On Feb 15, 2010, at 2:41 PM, Michael Glick wrote:

Sir, I work for the Republican Party of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania has voted to endorse candidates for US Senate, Governor and Lt. Governor. I will do my job to the best of my ability. While I have many responsibilities as an employee of the PA GOP, the primary mission of this organization is to elect the candidates the State Committee chooses to endorse. I will advise you that the State Committee who has voted to endorse these candidates are also elected officials. They were elected by you. They are your representatives for the Republican Party.

So, I will do my job as well as I possibly can. As I am sure you do the best job you can as the GM for TJ Developement Co. Since you so adamantly believe that State Committee has made the wrong decisions. I encourage you, as a passionate individual, to become involved, run for State Committee if you feel so inclined. I truly hope that your anger over something like a party endorsement (of candidates who I truly believe are unbelievably qualified) does not blind you to the injustices that are being perpetrated in Washington by the extreme liberal agenda of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi.

I hope that we can find common ground instead of just pointing fingers at each other. I believe that we believe in the same core principals. We may simply have different beliefs on the best way to get there. I truly hope those differences can be reconciled.

I stand behind Toomey and Corbett 100%. I believe they are absolutely the best candidates to win in November. The Members of State Committee, your elected representatives, have chosen to stand behind them as well. Thus, I will do my job to the absolute best of my ability to ensure that they are elected. It is not only my job. It is my passionate belief.

Thank you.

J. Michael Glick

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:55 PM, TJDCo wrote:

Mr. Glick,

I am not a sir, but a woman. I appreciate your response just the same. I do believe the State Committee has made the wrong decision. It has, with its clout, and despite repeated requests from vocal constituents, (a group larger than the committee itself), denied republican voters the right to fair representation, and the process of vetting.

We elected you to represent we the people, not yourselves. You ignored us instead and have effectively committed all that we've given you to further your agenda, and a process so many oppose.

Where there is open, pre-endorsed debate, the people can make sense of your eventual endorsement whether they agree or disagree. Where there is only your endorsement, you are shutting the people out altogether.

And as we voice the opinion we elected you to consider and represent, you erase it. You are shutting out the very people that elected you--erasing us as though we don't exist. It's false representation, an abuse of position, and a misappropriation of resources. Not only do you refuse to represent us, you stand in the way of letting us represent ourselves on a platform that belongs to us. Shame on you all.

As you ignore, and delete the will of the people, you grow and strengthen the resolve of the effort unfolding on the ground.

I don't know if a run for State Committee is the best route, but I will surely move forward with my focus trained on the goal, and will seek the best way to accomplish it. You can be sure of that.

Regards,

Vonne Andring, GM
TJ Development Co.
Phone: (412) 527-2759
Fax: (412) 246-7235
Email: tjdvlp@mac.com

On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:12 PM, Michael Glick wrote:

Apologies Mam.

As I said, you are not speaking to an elected official. You are speaking to an employee, who is hired by your elected officials. I am paid to do a job. And I will do this job to the best of my ability. I work for people like yourself, indirectly, as I work directly for the Republican representatives whom you and your Republican friends have elected.

I wish that you would not simply discount the decision of the committee as irrelevent, simply because you do not support it. If you do not like the way the people you elected have voted, I advise you to vote in a different direction this May. That is your right as a Republican. It is also your right as a Republican to vote for an alternative candidate in the primary. It is also your right as a citizen to volunteer as you see fit to defend the candidates you support.

As I said, I think anger and finger pointing within the Republican Party will only lead to a division of resources that could otherwise be used to defeat the real threat, President Obama's euro-socialist agenda. I do not have a doubt in my mind that the candidates who were endorsed by the party are absolutely the best route we can take to help defeat this threat. I know what I am doing and the principals I am fighting for is the right thing to do.

As an employee and a true believer, I will do all that I can to defeat this threat. I hope that you will do the same without resorting to smearing your fellow Republicans, like myself, or your competing Republican candidates, like Corbett or Toomey. I believe that is wrong and self defeating. For after the May primaries there will be one candidate for Governor and one candidate for Senate. Whoever is elected, at that time, I hope that we can put aside our differences and truly fight for what is right.

On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:32 PM, TJ Development wrote:

Mr. Glick,

I discount the decision of the committee, not because I don't support it, which I don't, but instead on the grounds that it excluded the people. You are assigning anger to me but what I feel is not anger. I feel resolve. I know my rights, and I, along with many, will assert them.

No one has smeared or slandered the GOP. We have questioned the practice and the process of excluding voters. Rather than address the remarks, you deleted them. If handled appropriately, such a challenge would give the GOP the opportunity to strengthen it's position. Instead, it has chosen to further alienate us. You erase our remarks because they offer a view that is different than your own, and you talk of self-defeating behaviors?

It is not our actions, our anger, nor any finger pointing that will divide the party, but instead it is the the GOP that will divide and damage the party by shutting out those who people the party.

Vonne Andring, GM
TJ Development Co.
Phone: (412) 527-2759
Fax: (412) 246-7235
Email: tjdvlp@mac.com

On Feb 15, 2010, at 4:40 PM, Michael Glick wrote:

I am glad that you have the passion and resolve to exercize your rights in the greatest Democracy in the world.

In regards to you attacking me for deleting facebook posts, I discount your argument that I am alienating Republicans by deleting posts. I am doing my job, as I have tried to explain to you. My job is to support the Committee in the decisions that they make.

They have chosen to endorse specific candidtes. So, when you ask me to allow people to make posts intended to degrade the respect that many PA voters feel for these candidates, you ask me to ignore my responsibilities. I will not do that. I will do my job.

I will do everything in my power to encourage the voters of PA to support the candidates that the Committee has endorsed. I will do so because it is my job and my belief. And while I am doing so, I will not go onto your facebook page or your companies facebook page and post derogatory things about yourself or your company. If I did so, I'd expect you would delete them as well, as a rational human being would do.

So, do not attack me for doing my job. I have no respect for that kind of attack. I will do my job and I will do it well. As a business person, I would think you could understand that.

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:02 PM, TJDCo wrote:

Mr. Glick,

You confuse debate with attack. You confuse question and opinion with anger and slander. Were you not so confused you might see that you represent all the people of the party, not just those that agree with you. Has the committee instructed that you blackball differing opinions? Is this in your job description?

It is not ok, under any circumstances, and certainly not in this country, for an employee to delete the will of those who fund his salary. You are all running amuck.

Kindly,

Vonne Andring, GM
TJ Development Co.
Phone: (412) 527-2759
Fax: (412) 246-7235
Email: tjdvlp@mac.com

On Feb 15, 2010, at 5:22 PM, Michael Glick wrote:

I am done discussing this with you. You have not addressed one of the points that I have brought up. You are not debating anything. You are simply pointing fingers and blaming everyone else for what is wrong.

As I said, in a very positive manner, I am happy you are now fighting for what you believe is right. I hope that you will continue to do so all the way through November and beyond. I will not say anything negative about yourself or your likeminded friends.

Should you have taken an interest in this debate before it became a popular topic, you would have noticed that prior to endorsement. All opinions were welcome. There was no deletion of any post that discussed open primaries or the various candidates. However, note that if a comment was posted that said, ANYTHING, negative about a candidate, it was deleted. Now that the committee has made a decision. The only posts that many people want to post are negative. They attack the candidates and the Party. So, keeping with the policy of deleting negative posts, I will delete all posts that are negative. Does that make sense to you, Vonne?

I will continue to do my job, promoting the candidates whom the Committee has endorsed. I hope that you will be able to put aside your bitterness towards the party as we approach the November elections. We look forward to working with you and ensuring victory in 2010.

Thank you and I hope you enjoy your Monday evening.

Editor's Note: First off let me thank Vonne Andring for post this thread on PennPatriot Blog. Since my original post many republicans have voiced their concerns and shared their outrage at the committee's position on this matter.

This post has to be the most hilarious thing I have ever read on a political blog. Mr. Glick is the gift that keeps on giving. Where does Mr. Gleason find these party hacks at the PA GOP anyway? No doubt Mr. Glick is a legacy of some finagled political connection some how.

The PA GOP Saga Of Deleting Comments On Their Facebook Page Continues........

I received the following message via Facebook this morning from Michael Glick, Deputy Technology Director of the PA GOP or better known today as Pennsylvania's version of the Soviet Politburo!!

Michael sent you a message.

--------------------
Re: Page Block

I am just a guy. I believe in what I am fighting for. I understand you believe differently. Please respect that I am truly believe in the Republican Party and that we are the best chance at defeating President Obama and Nancy Pelosi's liberal agenda. It is absolutely nothing against your beliefs or passion. I hope you are having a great weekend and are looking forward to a great work week, not to mention (in light of a Democratic majority in the US House and Senate, a tremendous election year).

I truly believe that our country is being destroyed by a liberal socialist agenda. And that perhaps we may win a few seats by simply saying that Democrats are bad politicians. However, I believe that Americans want more than rhetoric about Corbett being an insider (which is an absurd notion considering Rohrer has been here longer or that Toomey is not a fiscal conservative)

I believe that these candidates, as do the State Committee Members who voted to endorse, that these candidates are what PA needs to win the support of a state that currently has more than 1,000,000,000 more registered Democrats than Republicans.

You, obviously, have the right to disagree. However, we will never discourage you from your beliefs. But please do not be slanderous to the Members of the Republican State Committee of PA by saying that an endorsement of a candidate is anti-American.

Best,
Michael Glick

I have not responded to this Facebook message from Michael Glick. In fact I don't think I will. Mr. Glick has a right to his own personal beliefs and his own personal opinions on what is best for the Republican Party. However, he does not have the right to inflict those beliefs on people that disagree with the same party he is a member of and works for. Heck our donations support his job. Is something wrong in the universe here or something.

This in a funny way sums up the essence of the entire Tea Party movement. The American people are finally standing up and saying, "Hey you guys work for us!". This entire situation is an embarrassment for the state party.

But apparently Mr. Glick is not the only one at the PA GOP that feels that dissent should be discouraged in the party. The entire organization apparently is discouraging dissent. John Micek of the Morning Call on his Capitol Ideas Blog has a great post today, "No Free Speech Please, We're Republicans.", covering the behind the scenes shenanigans that are going on at the PA GOP. According to the post:

Criticism of the endorsement, which came Saturday at the Harrisburg Hilton, is being efficiently purged from the page in the name of party unity, we learned this afternoon.

"We didn't allow any disparagement of our candidates before the endorsement and we won't allow it after the endorsement," state GOP spokesman Michael Barley told us this afternoon. "It's not in the best interests of the party. Our job is to win in November."

This is embarrassing and I am very ashamed that the party that I support has stooped to soviet style tactics in order to reaffirm their own agenda. The PA GOP will now forever be known as the PA Politburo for now on in my mind.

PA GOP State Committee Votes Against An Open Primary And Endorses Candidates

Today Republican State Committee members once again have chosen to ignore the overwhelming public outcry of republicans throughout the state who were pleading for an open primary this year.

Sources say that the vote to endorse candidates wasn't even close. So the committee is moving full speed ahead with the party endorsement of candidates for all the statewide races.

We The People of the United States has become We The People who are sheep being herded by the two party political establishment.

Update On PA Senate Race Endorsement:

The Party just announced on the PA GOP Facebook page that committee members have voted to endorse Pat Toomey over Peg Luksik who only received 12 votes. Pat Toomey received 327 for Toomey votes.

Update On The PA Governor's Race Endorsement:

The Party just announced that committee members have voted to endorse Attorney General Tom Corbett for Governor over State Representative Sam Rohrer. Corbett received 329 votes to 10 for Rep. Sam Rohrer.

Update On The LT. Governor's Race Endorsement:

KDKA is reporting that state committee members have voted to endorse Jim Cawley, a Bucks County commissioner, for lieutenant governor.

This is a big blow to both Sam Rohrer and Peg Luksik who pushed hard for the committee to not endorse candidates for statewide races during the primary elections. This also puts them at a disadvantage as the endorsed candidates have the luxury of utilizing the party machine to get their campaign message out.

More: Pa. GOP Backs Corbett For Gov, Toomey For Senate (KDKA)

New Rasmussen Poll: Republican Tom Corbett Is Way Out Front In Race For Governor's Mansion

GOP front runner, Tom Corbett, is way ahead of three potential opponents according to the latest Rasmussen Reports survey.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the state shows Corbett leading former Congressman Joe Hoeffel 51% to 29%. Against Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato, he leads 52% to 26%. When State Auditor Jack Wagner is his Democratic opponent, Corbett is ahead 49% to 28%. However, in all three match-ups, at least 15% of voters remain undecided at this point.

Senator Arlen Specter is ahead of primary challenger Rep. Joe Sestak by 15 points, but could be hurt by the general mood of PA voters in the poll. 71 % of Pennsylvania voters surveyed are angry at Washington policies, including 46% who are very angry. Most alarming for incumbents like Specter is the 66% believe our country would be better off if incumbents up for reelection this year were voted out of office. Ouch!!! I'm glad I'm not an incumbent.

Click Here to read the entire Rasmussen poll

John Murtha's wife Joyce Is Now A Possible Candidate For Her Husband's Seat

Salena Zito has a great story today in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Zito reports that there is growing support for John Murtha's wife Joyce to take her husband's seat in Congress. Apparently, many Democratic Party insiders both at the state level and in the 12th Congressional District itself feel that Joyce would win the seat and hold it for the Democrats.

"While people have been mindful that this is a difficult time for the family, many have called to suggest Joyce as the perfect person to hold her husband's seat," Murtha spokesman Matthew Mazonkey said. Murtha represented Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District. His term expires at the end of this year.

I don't think in this current political climate that choosing the wife of a dead Congressman is a wise choice. Although, Joyce Murtha's candidacy would definitely change the dynamics of the upcoming Special Election. But I would have to disagree that Joyce would be a strong candidate to hold the seat for the democrats. Her candidacy would give a republican candidate like Bill Russell the opportunity to run a grassroots, anti Washington type campaign similar to Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

More: Support builds for Murtha's wife taking seat (Tribune-Review)

Also: Murtha's death sparks inquiry (Tribune-Review)

Congressman Murtha's Death Will Make It More Difficult For Democrats To Pass Health Care Reform

The American Specter has a great article on how Congressman Murtha's death will impact Speaker Nancy Pelosi's ability to pass the democrats health care reform through the House of Representatives. Back in November the House passed the health care bill 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it.

To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she'll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill. This doesn't even take into account the pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who are prepared to vote "no." While there's been talk that Pelosi had some votes in reserve the first time around, the point is that any of those members felt the needed to vote against the bill -- and the political environment has deteriorated substantially for Democrats since then. Click Here To Read More

The results of the looming special election for Murtha's seat will also impact the mood in the House of Representatives. If a republican wins the special election in the way Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election for Senator Ted Kennedy's seat, many conservative democrats in purple districts will no doubt be thinking twice about supporting the bill the second time around.