"Hope and Change" has become "Despair and More of the Same"

It was painful to watched President Obama's speech last night. I have finally come to the conclusion that the man has no idea what the hell is going on in this country. It is obvious the President has no plan to move our economy forward, so how can he seriously help facilitate a debt ceiling compromise between Senate Democrats and House Republicans if he doesn't have a plan of his own.

And that is a fact that can't be disputed my democratic friends. During this entire debt ceiling debate, President Obama never once put forth a written plan nor did he ever have the vision to lead on the issue. Obama had a chance to lead when his own Bipartisan Debt Commission issued their report last year. But in true Obama fashion, he decided to scrap the report and submitted a budget that actually increased federal spending in May that was rightly voted down by every U.S. Senator including members of his own party.

Now that is not leadership!

At some point a president has to rise above partisan politics and give the children (John Boehner and Harry Reed) a time out and show them who is in charge. Not to mention do what is best for our country. Obama should have met with Congressional leaders and said here is my plan. Vote on it, and if you don't good luck in the next election.

President Obama can't facilitates a compromise on the debt ceiling without coming to the realization himself that our government spends way to much and that our 14 trillion dollar debt is like a yet blanket crippling private enterprise and our financial system. We can assume by his recent actions that he is there yet. As evident when he walked out of a meeting after a deal on the debt ceiling was done between House Republicans and Senate Democrats after demanding that the debt ceiling be raised until after the 2012 elections.

In my lifetime, I never thought the biggest threat to our country would be the president of the United States. Candidate Barack Obama promised hope and change before he was elected. What a political disappointment he must be for many who voted for him.

"Hope and Change" has turned into "Despair and More of the Same".

Since in office President Obama has spent more than $4 trillion that we don’t even have. It looks like our president is trying to bankrupt the Treasury Department. Just how much further ahead has Obama's 1 trillion dollar failed stimulus package got us. If he is allowed to continue with his agenda for America, we will fail as a nation and our economy will collapse. It is time to dump Obama in 2012.

Irresistible force meets immovable object

Guest Column by Lowman S. Henry

Washington, the financial world and much of the nation are transfixed by the political stalemate over the looming national debt ceiling. Amid the charges of "playing to the base" and political posturing is the reality that voters themselves set up the current stand-off.

U.S. Senator Barack Obama was elected President in 2008 as voters handed Democrats lopsided congressional victories for the second cycle in a row. Despite having run for office on the vague promise of "hope and change," the new president took his election as a mandate for implementing a wide range of policy changes. Those changes dramatically expanded the size and scope of the federal government setting the nation on the path toward soft European-style socialism. This was, of course, accompanied by a massive increase in spending which has triggered historic federal deficits.

In reaction to this over-reach, millions of voters became active in tea party groups and other grassroots organizations. Last year this movement re-energized the Republican Party which went on to sweep Democrats out of power in the House and diminish their control in the Senate. These new members of Congress headed to Washington determined to rein in spending and reverse the tide of government expansion.

So what we have serving in Washington are two dispirit groups of elected officials each sent to Washington on different waves of voter sentiment and each remaining loyal to the base that sent them there. The Democrat base wants higher taxes on the wealthy and more benefits for the poor and middle class. Republicans reflect the views of their constituency which want both taxes and spending to be cut significantly.

America's two competing governing philosophies have landed fore square in opposition to each other in the debt ceiling debate. Neither side is willing to compromise because their core governing beliefs are at stake. And, while some temporary fix will be devised to get through the debt ceiling issue, it will take the 2012 elections for the future course of the nation to be decided.

There is no doubt the debt ceiling will be raised. The nation has spent — and will continue to spend — beyond its means. Slowing the rate of that spending will take time, more time that is available before the current debt ceiling it reached. So the real question is will the debt ceiling be raised and the profligate spending continue, or will there be serious spending cuts and a blueprint established for restoring fiscal responsibility?

Republicans have rallied behind the concept of "cut, cap and balance." This consists of immediate spending cuts, in the range of $4 billion, capping future spending and enactment of a balanced budget amendment. President Obama appears willing to agree to some spending cuts, although not as many as Republicans are demanding, but has flatly rejected a balanced budget amendment.

Democrats want to raise taxes and have adroitly found several loopholes benefitting wealthier Americans to use as public relations fodder. But, the bottom line is tax hikes always depress economic growth. With the nation struggling to emerge from a stubborn recession — and job creation at a virtual standstill — higher taxes would be a dagger plunged into the heart of the economic recovery.

Having been swept into office just months ago on a promise to cut spending and not raise taxes, Republicans cannot give into Democratic demands for tax hikes. Most remember that President George H.W. Bush violated his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge and lost the support of his party's conservative base and ultimately the White House.

Democrats, meanwhile, have dug in on the issue of entitlement reform. Given the amount of the federal budget consumed by Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid it is impossible to contain spending without restructuring these programs and restoring their financial stability. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has drawn a line in the sand vowing to oppose any diminishment of entitlements.

And so we have an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. Each side was sent to Washington by voters with different instructions on what to do. This makes it highly likely no long term solutions will emerge from the current crisis, but rather look for some clever gimmick that merely kicks the can down the road. Next year, voters will come to a fork in that road and will have to make a historic decision on which path to take.

Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.

Bumsted: PA Union Bosses Defend High Salaries

Brad Bumsted of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review has a great article today highlighting the alarming salary levels of the top six public employee union bosses here in Pennsylvania.

In his article, "Pennsylvania union leaders defend top pay", Bumsted points out that Pennsylvania's top union bosses made a combined salary exceeding 1 million dollars according to the figures released in 2009 the last time they were made public.

Wendell Young (pictured right) is the president of a Philadelphia-based union local representing about 2,500 state store clerks makes 233,000 dollars a year. When you compare Wendell's salary to the average state store worker in Pennsylvania who makes only 29,000 a year one can see the lack of balance.

Young tries to defend his salary, but looks like a buffoon doing it. (Remember he is a registered lobbyist)

Young argues that the state store clerks are only some of the 22,000 workers in the public and private sectors he represents as president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776. His job is comparable to that of a CEO in industry, he said, except that he earns much less. He cites multimillion-dollar benefit packages for Philadelphia-area CEOs.

"My salary is not relative to what the members make," Young said. "We look at the jobs, and we try to be comparable to the jobs. We're a democratic organization. We have an executive board. All of it is done through discussion, analysis and comparison, and ultimately the decision is made by the board."

Really Mr. Young? You really think you are deserve a salary compatible to a CEO of a business that actually produces something? In reality you are just an overpaid empty suite that negotiates contracts while running a pyramid scheme that milks hardworking Americans out of their money.

These union bosses are simply slopping it up off the public trough like a bunch of hogs. Every person that pays taxes here in Pennsylvania should be outraged about these salaries not to mention union members themselves. It really ticks me off that my tax dollars are funneled through public employee unions to support these sleazy individuals.

Selling liquor is not legitimate government role

Guest Column by Kevin Shivers

The Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board was established in 1933, four days before Prohibition was repealed. Its purpose, according to Gov. Gifford Pinchot, was "to discourage the purchase of alcoholic beverages by making it as expensive and difficult as possible." On that standard, the PLCB has been a gleaming success.

The purchase of alcohol in Pennsylvania is every bit as expensive and difficult as Pinchot imagined. The National Federation of Independent Business believes that the private sector is able to deliver legal products to a free market better, less expensively and more efficiently than the government.

We also believe that with appropriate oversight, private businesses can sell alcohol just as safely. There's no evidence that Pennsylvania is more effective than the 48 states that allow private sales at preventing substance abuse or underage drinking. Private businesses would have an incentive to operate responsibly, including the threat of prosecution, lawsuits and license revocation. Plus, Pennsylvania trusts the private sector, under reasonable supervision, to sell firearms, tobacco and other dangerous products.

State Rep. Mike Turzai has introduced legislation that would privatize liquor sales and bring us into the 21st century. Our members think it's time to toast the end of the PLCB.

Kevin Shivers, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business

After years of excess, Americans are trying to downsize

Guest Column By Barbara Harmon

The lush green of a Pennsylvania summer grabs at the breath with unparalleled beauty amid the return of perennial bloom. Crops wave in the country. All is lovely, a toe-spreading, arm-opening, head-lifting season of delight but for a singular blight that clamors forth in the midst of this bliss.

It creeps from the basement and down the attic stairs. Out of the closet it spills, spreading, spewing, till at last it belches forth upon the sunlit lawn, staining the green with the ugly secret contained within. It is the American yard sale, the seasonal revealing of our “Too Much Stuff.”

The last decade of our nation’s brazen excess sprawls out on driveways and sidewalks. Here are the Skittle-colored children’s clothes stacked like loaves of bread upon the folding tables, the plastic cartoon character toys, the video games, TVs too square and large to be tolerated.

It was once a season of frolic, a delight for buyers, but as the recession tightens its grip, there is a new spirit upon the land. It is a desperate desire to get rid of the evidence, to make the stuff go away and, with it, the reminder of what we once spent on our every whim.

“We’re downsizing,” the sellers say, eyes pleading “Please take it!”

For others, there is no luxury of pride. Cash is needed. These are the ones who never had excess, even in good times, and they are scrambling. At the flea market, one or two come on a gamble and are now desperate for gas money to get back home.

When the economy suffers, the stuff rolls out, but what if there is no one to buy?

Flea market buyers stroll by, amusing themselves with the displays and taking in the weather. A $10 item gets an offer of $5. At the antique show, wares that once sold get few glances. Dealers share war stories of defeat. A rare cabinet, shaped like a spool of thread, is priced $500. “Ten years ago, I sold one for $1,600,” the seller says.

The downturn produces a boom for the bottom layer, for the truth is we cannot overcome our need to consume. Minivans race the rounds of the yard sales, disgorging riders. They buy used what they once bought new.

What cannot be sold is expunged. It is an exorcism of excess made possible by simply pulling up to the thrift shop’s back door. The store rooms are stuffed to the ceiling like a barn readied for famine. The stock is testimony to a turning point, a departure from the days of “must have.”

Yet the thrift store’s parking lot, usually full, testifies to the continued drive to buy.

The parking lot at my antiques shop, an 1850s grocery-and-drugstore compound, lies empty. I am open just two days a week: Wednesday, a busy market day, and Saturdays, when tourists are most likely to stop.

At my counter, I overhear the whispering: “I don’t need any more stuff.”

Pretty dishes have not sold for years. Furniture goes in fits and starts but mostly sits. I can sell an $18 chair for the yard, a tin pail for flowers, silver-plated iced teaspoons. Little things don’t make such a dent in the wallet or conscience.

Our town has lost at least 600 jobs with several major plants closing in recent years. To survive, my shop depends on dollars coming across the mountain from bigger towns, such as State College, and from tourists here to experience Amish country nostalgia. Their eyes lift to the shop’s pressed tin ceiling, asking “What did this store used to be?”

A Chinese grad student, here to study economics at Penn State, waits as his wife browses. He explains that his own country is feeling the ripple. Americans are not buying what they did.

His own people are too set in their ways; they save too much, he says, citing 30 percent savings. They put money away to take care of their needs if a crisis comes. If the Chinese had some kind of welfare, like the U.S., then maybe they would spend more and save less, he says.

He is practicing his English with me, and I am stunned.

When I close the shop, I bring in the open placard and the red, white and blue antiques flag. At the corner, the telephone pole is plastered in neon orange and green announcing the latest yard sales down the street.

Barbara Harmon is a former newspaper reporter. She now owns Victory Antiques in Belleville, Mifflin County.

Specter says debt ceiling fallback plan is an abdication of Congress' responsibility

Guest Column By Arlen Specter

Washington traditionally boasts about its' profiles in courage. Today, facing arguably the greatest potential financial crisis in American history, politics trumps economics as officials focus on the next election instead of the public interest.

The leader of the parade in profiles in cowardice is Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with his ingenious, diabolical proposal, which avoids tough votes for Republicans and places all the blame on Democrats. It's all inside the beltway maneuvering and hard to explain, but it is indispensible for the American people to understand it so public opinion can be mobilized to stop it.

Senator McConnell wants an act of Congress to give the president the authority to raise the debt ceiling on his own and then to decide where federal expenditures would be cut. Congress could overrule the president with a resolution of disapproval calculated to fail because it would be vetoed and an override by two-thirds of both houses would be a practical impossibility. This cynical plan would enable Republicans to vote for the sham resolution of disapproval and then claim no responsibility for raising the debt ceiling or for cutting popular programs. The Democrats would have to provide the votes to sustain the veto and get the blame for increased borrowing and curtailing popular social programs.

The plan is patently unconstitutional because Congress cannot delegate its' core responsibilities to the president. For example, Congress cannot give the president its authority to declare war. The Supreme Court held the legislation granting a line item veto unconstitutional because Congress could not authorize the president to eliminate individual appropriated items, appropriations a core Congressional power. Thus, the president could not today be empowered to unilaterally say what appropriated programs would be stricken. Congress has historically been indifferent to the constitutionality of legislation, leaving it to the courts to decide years later after the crises have passed.

The 87 newly elected House tea party representatives have good reason to defeat the McConnell plan because it relieves the pressure to achieve their objectives of reducing the deficit, the national debt and the size of government. If the House Republicans settle for posturing with votes to cut spending, cap the size of government and pass a balanced budget amendment but in the end enact the McConnell palliative, there will be many more profiles in cowardice.

Right now, the McConnell plan appears to have a real chance of winning with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joining the effort and the White House intimating it might be acceptable as a last resort. Washington has a long record of taking the easy way out — kicking the can down the road, deferring problems to another day.

This could be the exception if President Barack Obama hangs tough, rejecting the McConnell plan and sticking to his earlier declaration, "don't call my bluff." A few weeks ago, President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner were negotiating a long term "grand bargain" for $4 trillion in deficit reductions, including $1 trillion in increased revenue. When House Republicans continued their adamant refusal to consider any tax increase, Speaker Boehner withdrew, though he and the president have reportedly resumed secret meetings. Now it's Senate Democrats who are objecting to the prospect of an Obama-Boehner deal.

Meanwhile, the so-called "Gang of Six," a bipartisan group of senators that has been working for months to craft a deficit reduction plan, has advanced a proposal similar to the Obama/Boehner "grand bargain," with $3.7 billion in deficit reduction including $1.2 billion in increased revenue. The plan has the potential for considerable bipartisan support; 49 senators —25 Democrats and 24 Republicans, including some staunch conservatives — held a closed-door meeting earlier this week to discuss it, with generally positive reviews. Republican House leaders indicated some interest in the proposal, with Mr. Boehner citing the "many similarities with the framework" of the Obama/Boehner proposal and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor noting it had "some constructive ideas to deal with our debt."

In assessing the political blame game, Republicans have to be concerned about a recent Quinnipiac poll showing 48 percent of Americans will blame Republicans if the debt ceiling gridlock precipitates an economic crisis. Just 34 percent would blame President Obama. They also remember that then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich and the Republicans got the blame for closing down the government in 1995. There may be enough pragmatic Republicans to join with Democrats to provide the votes to pass legislation like the Gang of Six proposal.

In 1982, an impasse was avoided when President Reagan agreed to $99 billion in higher taxes for $280 billion in reduced spending. That formula could work now.

Arlen Specter served as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania from 1981-2011. In the fall, he will teach a course on the relationship between the Congress and Supreme Court at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

Fed Up with Politicians During the Debt Ceiling Debate

Last year, the co-chairman of President Barack Obama’s deficit commission Republican Alan Simpson called senior citizens "the greediest generation" and referred to the Social Security program in an email as a, "milk cow with 310 million tits!"

Comments like this during the current debt debate masks the truth when it comes to the current state of Social Security. First Social Security is not an entitlement program at least the last time I checked my pay stub. Current workers pay a "tax" to the United States Treasury to support the benefits of those currently retired.

Now since Social Security's implementation there has always been more workers paying into the system than individuals receiving benefits. So what happen to all money paid into the system by workers that didn't go towards individuals receiving benefits during the past 76 years?

You guessed it. Our politicians in Washington D.C. spent it!

This is why Social Security will soon be insolvent in 15 to 20 years. Because our so called leaders mismanaged the program. It is time to wake up, people. The Social Security dollars were originally placed in an interest-bearing account. The account has been hijacked numerous times over the years, pushing the system toward bankruptcy.

Now think of this when you decide who's fault the current debt crisis is. Then ask yourself can trust current members of Congress to reduce the deficit or with more of our tax dollars? Come on people you know what the answer is!

The system is broken and what has happened with Social Security is a perfect example of why we desperately need a true balance budget amendment to control spending in Washington D.C. Incompetent and politicians in both parties spend our tax money poorly and keep spending even as they run out of money.

Ask yourself how our members of Congress can compromise when they themselves can't even be truthful to the American People?

Our representatives have driven America to the edge. It is time to stop. And our president should stop with the arrogant remarks and threats regarding Social Security. Voters are not stupid. We see what is happening and our politicians know we know it. We need to take this frustration to the voting booths in 2012.

Two years that changed America, Washington, and me

Guest Column by Senator Jim DeMint,

If conservatives want to continue our successes in 2012, it is essential we understand why we were so successful in 2010.

The 2006 and 2008 elections were disastrous for Republicans. When Republicans controlled Washington, spending and earmarks exploded. Democrats were more than happy to help us expand federal control of health care and education, increase the national debt exponentially and ignore our job-killing tax code.

We didn't keep our promises to reform Medicare, Social Security or reduce the size of the federal government. You could accuse the Republican majority of many things, but certainly not of being too conservative!

When I expressed my disappointment and frustration with the way Republicans in the Senate were doing business, one senior member of my party's leadership told me, "Jim, you can't change the Senate."

That's when I realized the people in the Senate were not going to change, and it was time to change the people serving in the Senate.

"The Great American Awakening: Two years that changed America, Washington, and Me" is a behind-the-scenes look at what was happening in Washington as Americans took to the streets all around the nation to protest spending and debt.

I also share my personal battle for freedom in the run-up to the 2010 midterm elections. By working outside of traditional party structures and directly with grassroots activists, engaged Americans made my Senate Conservatives Fund the No. 1 political action committee in the 2010 cycle.

Unlike most other campaign funds, SCF only supports rock-ribbed conservative candidates, even in primary races against other incumbent Republicans.

I knew it would be very controversial for a sitting member of the U.S. Senate to oppose another member of his own party, but I could no longer quietly serve with Republicans who seem to have no commitment to anything except their own re-election campaigns.

That's why I've said, much to the chagrin of some of my colleagues, "I'd rather have 30 Republicans who believe in the principles of freedom than 60 who believe in nothing at all."

I wasn't the only one who was fed up. In the late winter and spring of 2009, spontaneous Tea Parties began springing about all over the country. Thousands of Americans flooded town hall meetings to express their frustration with politics as usual.

As I waded through Tea Parties that began springing up in early 2009, people told me three things that I continue to hear today. "Thanks for fighting," "We're praying for you," and "What can I do?"

These events were not partisan; Republicans, Democrats, independents and many people who have never been involved in politics before attended. But, they all felt it was time to "throw the bums out." I couldn't have agreed more.

That summer SCF made its first endorsement for former Rep. Pat Toomey against incumbent Sen. Arlen Specter. The response from the grassroots was overwhelmingly positive, confirming my belief that Americans would support conservative candidates if they could find them.

The SCF later went on to endorse former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio when he was down more than 20 points in the polls against Gov. Charlie Crist.

Rand Paul was SCF's preferred candidate in the Kentucky Republican primary, even though the entire Washington establishment was behind another candidate.

In Utah, SCF helped Mike Lee replace incumbent Republican Sen. Bob Bennett. And, when the political newcomer Ron Johnson announced his candidacy against Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, SCF quickly endorsed him.

At nearly every step in this journey, fellow Republicans made derisive comments about our strategy. But, I am happy to report that today I serve in the U.S. Senate with Sens. Toomey, Rubio, Paul, Lee and Johnson.

Today those new senators are doing much of the heavy lifting when it comes to entitlement reform, proposing spending cuts, repealing Obamacare and ensuring our national security.

An American Awakening had taken place that shook Washington to its core. Reckless spending set off alarms that stirred Americans from complacency and apathy. Now, with the hardest work still ahead of us, I hope we don't hit the "snooze" button and go back to sleep.

The 2012 election may be our last chance to rescue America from disaster. There's no time left for equivocation. The cynics will always say Republicans must moderate and compromise their principles to win.

Not true. Now, more than ever, the country needs candidates who will relentlessly and passionately fight to defeat the crushing debt that threatens the country's future.

If they have the courage to do this they will find, as they did in the 2010 elections, that a groundswell of Americans stand at the ready to support them.

Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina is a conservative voice in the U.S. Senate and supporter of the Tea Party movement.

Numero Rubio! Florida Senator Marco Rubio Sets The Debt Ceiling Debate Record Straight

I love how uber-liberal Bob Schieffer gets his lunch handed to him by Florida Senator Marco Rubio on his own show, "Face The Nation", while trying to defend President Obama's Record. Everyone who watches this clip needs to listen carefully to how the mainstream media is painting Republicans in the House of Representatives.

Listen carefully to the first point Schieffer makes and it is straight out of the Democratic playbook for the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election. Right off the bat Schieffer tries to blame former President Bush for the sluggish economy. Then Schieffer tries to paint House Republicans as unreasonable while suggesting President Obama is the only one making concessions in the debt ceiling debate. Unbelievable!

Senator Rubio's comments regarding the debt ceiling crisis is probably the most honest and straight forward assessment from any politician on both sides of the aisle. Rubio's honesty with the American People is a fine example of the leadership this country needs moving forward to face our challenges head on! I love the line, "Washington went along with his (Obama's) prescription for joblessness, which was the stimulus package." That is classic. Draft this guy for President already please! Numero Rubio in 2012!

The Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment is Now

Guest Column by Representative Pat Meehan

Every day families in southeastern Pennsylvania make tough decisions in order to live within their means. Many are forced to cancel their family vacations, put off a car repair, or cut out purchases they can no longer afford. When it comes to our country’s bank account, however, both parties in Washington have not been practicing these same responsible habits.

Our country’s debt has been growing at a dangerously rapid pace. We cannot continue on this path of massive borrowing and runaway spending. The United States’ rate of spending has held steady under 19 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) since World War II. Yet over the last two and half years, the rate of spending has increased to an average of 24.4 percent of GDP. We need to get serious about changing the way Washington works, and look toward long-term solutions to ensure we will not face a crisis like this again.

The only way to ensure that Congress and the President will not allow the U.S. to be driven further into debt is to pass an amendment to the Constitution forcing our government to balance the budget every year. Promising to make cuts in federal spending is one thing, but an amendment to the Constitution demanding it is quite another.

A Balanced Budget Amendment would legally force Congress to spend only what it takes in, and it protects taxpayers and small businesses from the threat of higher taxes to cover Washington’s spending habits. In addition to finally getting our nation’s fiscal house in order, a balanced budget creates certainty among small business owners and will subsequently lead to a better environment for job creation.

In 1995, Congress came within one vote of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. Here we are 16 years later, and more than $9 trillion has been added to our national debt since – a 180 percent increase. Unemployment is over 9 percent. I can’t help but wonder how different things would be had that Amendment passed.

Our national debt is currently higher than any time in American history, and it is on track to surpass the size of our entire economy in just a few years. We are borrowing roughly 40 cents of every dollar we spend – much of it from China. Worst of all - we are passing this crushing debt burden to our children and grandchildren.

Congress now has an opportunity to get it right today when we vote on legislation to require a balanced budget amendment be sent to the states for ratification. I will support this amendment because if Pennsylvania families have to live within their means, so must Washington.

Reaping the benefits of single-party government

Guest Column by Dwight Weidman

Gov. Tom Corbett and members of the General Assembly have passed a fiscally responsible, reality-based budget that puts Pennsylvania on a course towards job growth and economic prosperity.

Republicans are forcing government to live within its means with a budget that decreases bloated government spending without raising state taxes by a single cent.

Republicans have honored Pennsylvania's constitutional mandate to pass a fiscally responsible budget on time. This is the first time in eight years that a state budget has been passed before the June 30 deadline. During those eight years, spending increased by 37 percent while inflation grew only 21 percent. It's clear that the practices of the past were not sustainable and were in desperate need of change.

Our new pro-growth, job-friendly budget decreases government spending by about 4 percent, or approximately $1 billion in reductions. This is the largest decrease in government spending in generations.

Gov. Corbett and Republicans in the General Assembly have trimmed their own spending by reducing the cost of administering state government by 10 percent over the next four years. This includes eliminating more than 1,500 positions in state government, many of which are vacant.

This budget also does not contain any "walking around money" or WAMs, that has been previously used for spontaneous and hidden pet projects. All line items are now accounted for, bringing additional transparency and openness to our state government.

This budget also contains tax relief for job-creators, including the reinstatement to phase out the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax, which is expected to provide more than 100,000 job creators more than $70 million in tax relief. That's $70 million that employers can use to hire more Pennsylvanians. This budget saves and expands key tax credits to encourage growth. The Job Creation Tax Credit and the Film Production Tax Credit are maintained, while the Research and Development Tax Credit is increased to $55 million.

Businesses may now write off 100 percent of the value of new equipment on their tax returns so that they can spend more money on business expansion and investment. This tax savings will translate into more jobs and a stronger economy.

The new budget also does not contain additional taxes or levies upon Pennsylvania job creators, including the Marcellus Shale gas industry. The Marcellus Shale gas industry already pays more than $1 billion in corporate income, sales, royalty and personal income taxes. All Marcellus Shale gas drilled in state land belongs to the people of the commonwealth, and the commonwealth receives hefty royalty fees when this gas is sold. These royalty fees far exceed the estimated revenue that any state-level tax would generate.

Despite the fact that our budget has been trimmed to deal with the fiscal mess created during the last eight years, Gov. Corbett and Republicans in the General Assembly have funded the core government services that Pennsylvanians depend on.

This budget fully funds emergency and public protection services, including $8.65 million for trauma centers, $3.78 million for burn centers, and $3.57 million for critical care hospitals. This budget also fully funds many of the necessary Veterans Affairs programs that serve our veterans.

The budget gives $10.5 billion to the Department of Public Welfare to provide support for our commonwealth's neediest citizens. Republicans have also supported Pennsylvania?s most vulnerable, by including $22 million dollars for Domestic Violence Prevention and $7 million for Rape Crisis services.

Republicans have restored basic education funding for all school districts to pre-stimulus (2008-2009) levels.

In 2008, the state budgeted $5.2 billion dollars for Basic Education. In 2009 and 2010, the state received federal stimulus money, in which Gov. Ed Rendell allocated towards basic education. He then decreased the amount of Pennsylvania tax dollars allocated for basic education funding, relying on the temporary stimulus to make up the difference. Districts were warned to use these funds for one-time expenditures, but unfortunately, some didn't, and worked in these funds into their annual operating budget.

There were no gimmicks this time. Gov. Corbett restored basic education funding to 2008 levels to put Pennsylvania schools back on the path towards sustainability.

There is also $100 million for Accountability Block Grants budgeted. Schools often use these to fund kindergarten programs.

Finally, this budget prevents school property tax increases beyond the rate inflation at the local level. This budget amended Act 1 -- the bill that governs school property taxes -- requiring voter approval for property tax increases above the rate of inflation.

Republicans have hit the reset button on Pennsylvania's finances, stopping the out-of-control and unsustainable spending that became commonplace over the past eight years. It's a good start, and now we have a governor and legislative majority who aren't afraid to set Pennsylvania on the right track.

Dwight D. Weidman is chairman of the Franklin County Republican Party

New direction leads away from big government

Guest Column by Kevin Shivers

The General Assembly closed its session last month having enacted a number of highly consequential initiatives that mark a sharp departure from the destructive governing philosophy that dominated Harrisburg during the previous eight years.

Eight years ago, Harrisburg’s answer to a similar problem was very different. The previous governor responded to a much smaller deficit with more than $1 billion in higher taxes, including a 10 percent increase in the personal income tax. He also proposed new or higher taxes or fees every year of the last administration.

On the spending side, the budget adopted last month is smaller year to year by more than $1 billion. It’s the largest spending reduction in decades — made necessary because the last administration increased spending more than 40 percent during the previous eight years — nearly twice the rate of inflation.

And a new law reforming the state’s unemployment system, one of the most expensive and unaccountable systems in the country, will save hundreds of millions of dollars over the long term. One new element requires that beneficiaries actually look for work as criteria to collect. Another prevents payments to people who receive giant severance packages from their former employers. Sensible as they are, these reforms would never have been approved by the crowd that left in January.

So in fiscal terms alone, Harrisburg today is unrecognizable as the special-interest playground it was just last year. But the changes are even deeper.

Not only does Harrisburg spend less, it interferes less in the private economy.

Earlier this year, the legislature repealed a law requiring that all new homes be equipped with fire sprinkler systems. Experts testified that the law increased the price of a home in Pennsylvania by about $10,000, a substantial sum to new homebuyers and a burden on the state’s already weak housing market.

It adopted a law that transforms the regulatory culture, requiring agencies to provide scientific data that justify new regulatory mandates. In other words, the state can no longer impose costly new burdens based only on the whims of regulators and activists. There has to be a provable need and a measurable public benefit before the government can restrict whole industries, block projects or impose mandates for their own sake.

Perhaps the most dramatic change in Harrisburg alters the heavily unbalanced legal system, which is recognized as one of the worst in America and a major threat to everyone but personal-injury lawyers.

Despite withering pressure from personal-injury lawyers, Gov. Tom Corbett and the legislature last month repealed the so-called Joint and Several Liability doctrine. Under that system, defendants in civil lawsuits could be ordered to pay 100 percent of the jury award even if they are proved to have caused only 1 percent of the damages.

For decades, businesses were under constant threat of being dragged into lawsuits not because they were actually guilty, but because they had insurance and assets to attack. It was especially brutal on small businesses, an uncounted number of which were destroyed by predatory lawsuits.

Under the new law, defendants will pay in proportion to the damage they actually caused. In other words, if a business is found to have caused 5 percent of the damage, it would pay 5 percent of the jury award. Not only will the new law result in fairer outcomes, but it will discourage junk lawsuits from being filed in the first place.

Pennsylvania still faces many challenges. And it is encouraging to see that Corbett and legislative leaders like Rep. Mike Turzai, RAllegheny, and Sen. Jake Corman, R-Benner Township, are not content, even after having made such remarkable progress so quickly. But the results of what has already been achieved will be more freedom, more competition and more jobs for Pennsylvania.

Kevin Shivers, of Harrisburg, is Pennsylvania director of the National Federation of Independent Business.