Louis Freeh's report flaws troubling. Evidence of a "cover up" by Joe Paterno vague at best.

Like everyone this morning, I am still trying to fully understand the truth when it comes to the role Joe Paterno played in the allegations of a "cover up" of child abuse at Penn State university. At no way am I defending the actions of Sandusky or disrespecting the victims here but for us trying to seek the truth of actually what happened, yesterday was just one more road block with the release of Louis Freeh's report.

I've read the Freeh report twice and the narrative and allegations laid out by Mr. Freeh in his report are questionable at best. In fact, the report raises more questions than provides answers.

Probably the most abvious or glaring flaw in the report is the fact that Freeh did not interview any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary. Not Jerry Sandusky. How can any investigation possibly be considered remotely complete or come to any legitimate conclusions without even speaking to any of the most important witnesses?

How can we possibly fully evaluate Paterno’s actions if we don’t know exactly what Mike McQueary (who, it must be pointed out, misremembered the year he witnessed the episode in the shower, an incident for which there is still no actual victim) told him? How can we possibly understand fairly vague emails without even hearing from the guy who wrote them?

I was also surprised with how the extent to which Freeh and his investigators relied heavily on vague evidence and questionable assumptions that can be interpreted several different ways when you actually read the report. For example Curley's emails that were leaked just a week a go can be interrepted as refering to "Coach" Sandusky instead of Paterno.

Probably the most frustrating aspect of the report was Freeh's highlighting of the lack of action of Penn State Janitors who never reported possible incidents of abuse by Sandusky because they were affraid that they "all would be fired". Are you kidding me Freeh? These are the heroes in your report.

At times the report actually lacks coherency and commonsense. The report accuses Spanier, Curley, Shultz, and Joe Paterno of participating in a "cover up", but then reports that Schultz met twice with the President of the Second Mile Foundation regarding the 2001 incident witnessed by McQueary. Why would these four powerful individuals at Penn State share this information with another agency if they were trying to cover this up or protect themselves from bad publicity. This doesn't add up. The Second Mile could have moved forward or informed Child Welfare services. Instead the President of the foundation concluded there was no evidence that abuse occurred just as in the 1998 case.

There is no doubt that any reasonable person who actually reads the report and separate the evidence from the "reasonable conclusions" in it, can understand that the report lacks severe credibility. The fact is that Freeh's investigation shed no new light on what we already knew about the chain of events at Penn State and may have caused more harm considering the media's furry over the report to us independent minded few that is seeking the truth in this manner.

Also must reads:

Louis Freeh's Report

Red flags and personal fouls: the dishonest hatchet job of the Freeh Report.

Contrary to What You Have Heard, the Freeh Report Has Big Problems - John Ziegler

Things Most People Still Don't "Get" About the Jerry Sandusky Scandal - John Ziegler

Chief Justice Roberts' rationale fatally flawed

While Chief Justice John Roberts might be correct that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance can be likened to a tax, that is not the case for the premiums that are paid to private insurance companies to avoid having to pay the penalty.

A small portion of the Affordable Care Act is funded by the penalties.

The vast majority of it is funded by the individual mandate, requiring individuals to purchase insurance to avoid paying that penalty.

Also, when considering a case on legislation, the courts take into account the legislative intent, and for legislation that has been in place for a long time this can require a lot of research and can be a real challenge.

However, in this case, we have a clear understanding of the intent of Congress. It went to great lengths not to call it a tax.

To play devil’s advocate, let’s say that we disagreed with the administration and the legislative intent and agreed with Justice Roberts that the individual mandate was, in fact, a tax.

That is a problem for President Obama who pledged not to raise taxes, and Congress which does not want to be seen as raising taxes.

So, in either case, Roberts’ rationale for upholding the individual mandate is fatally flawed.

In light of his majority opinion, however, Roberts is correct when he states that the Legislature will be ultimately responsible for the fate of the Affordable Care Act.

The upcoming November election will decide its fate.

Meakem on Supreme Court Rulings

Guest Column by Glenn Meakem

This past weekend, I talked about the Supreme Court's rulings on Obamacare and Arizona's immigration law. I also talked about the lower court's decision to affirm the EPA's ability to regulate CO2 under the clean air act, and the U.S. House of Representative's decision to hold President Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, in contempt of Congress.

Tom Jones, an attorney and partner with the Jones Day Law Firm, returned to the program with some insights on the Supreme Court's rulings. No one predicted that Chief Justice John Roberts would rule against the much debated individual mandate under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but then allow it to stand under Congress's authority to tax. That's right. The Court ruled that the mandate is a tax, and is therefore legal. During the political debate over Obamacare, President Obama argued repeatedly that the individual mandate was NOT a tax, but then his own lawyers argued the mandate WAS a tax in front of the Supreme Court this spring. For whatever reason, Roberts decided to accept the Obama Administration's argument that the mandate is legal because it is a tax, and now President Obama is presiding over a $500 billion tax increase that will be levied on all Americans including the 95% of families who earn under $250,000 per year. That's right, the Obama Administration's successful argument in front of the Supreme Court, makes President Obama a liar yet again. He lied about the mandate and he lied about never taxing any American family that earns below $250,000 per year. But does this surprise you? One thing I have learned in the forty years since I became politically conscious is that when a Democrat Party politician promises he or she will only tax the rich, they mean everyone!

While it may be politically brilliant and even just that the Court pushed the issue of Obamacare back to the American electorate and Congress, Tom Jones noted that Roberts' legal decision is muddled at best. According to the dissent written by the four conservative judges who did not agree with the decision, never in the history of the Republic has a statute been considered both a penalty and a tax at the same time. The Court treated the mandate as a penalty so the Court could have standing, and then the Court treated the mandate as a tax in order to rule it constitutional.

Roberts' ruling now raises another question. Is there any inaction on the part of individuals that Congress cannot tax? According to this ruling, you can now be taxed for NOT going to a health club and working out three times per week!

Although this new legal and constitutional question is very troubling, Roberts' ruling makes two things abundantly clear. First, the President has now absolutely violated his pledge NOT to raise taxes on any family making less than $250,000 a year. And second, Roberts handed the GOP Presidential candidate, Governor Mitt Romney, a huge political issue for the fall Presidential election. The election is now no longer just about the economy (although that would probably have been enough). Now, the question of total government control of health care is a decision that will be made by the voters. If you want to be forced by government mandate to buy health insurance, vote for Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats. If you want Churches to face the choice of either violating their moral consciences and religious freedom or closing the doors of their schools and hospitals, then vote for Barack Obama and the Democrats. If you want decisions about your personal medical treatment to literally be made by bureaucrats in "the Capital," as opposed to by you and your doctor, then go ahead and vote for President Barack Hussein Obama II and his party.

Outrage over the President's healthcare bill is what first sent Tea Party activists into the streets in 2009 and 2010. It's what inspired liberal Massachusetts voters to elect Republican Scott Brown in a special election to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ted Kennedy (sending Brown to Washington to be the "41st vote" against Obamacare). And it's what invigorated independent, moderate, and conservative voters to turn out in droves in 2010 to vote Congressional supporters of Obamacare out of office. Voters now have only one more opportunity to get rid of Obamacare and its deficit busting, tax increasing, government takeover of our healthcare system. We must vote President Obama out of office in November, we must get a Republican
majority in the U.S. Senate, and we must retain and strengthen the Republican majority in the U.S. House. Only then will President Romney be able to make good on his promise to do what the Supreme Court failed to do last week, and that is repeal Obamacare.

Matt Pitzarella (an executive with Range Resources) also joined me with some updates on the American natural gas industry. Matt talked about an important new study conducted at liberal Yale University. The study added up ALL of the costs of natural gas, including very generous estimates of indirect costs often referred to as "externalities" like air pollution, health problems, "global warming," etc. The study concluded that "not even inflated costs associated with unrealistically high incidences of pollution can come close to balancing the societal benefits of the shale gas boom." In other words, the benefits of American produced natural gas to America OVERWHELMINGLY outweigh any possible costs -- using the most liberal estimates of costs possible. Specifically, the study said that every year, "the consumer surplus from shale gas is in excess of $100 billion to the US economy."

This Yale study now joins other notable studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Texas in affirming the overwhelmingly positive outcomes of natural gas production in the U.S. -- even including all possible externalities. And of course, natural gas is by far the cleanest, most environmentally friendly fossil fuel. So clean that as recently as two years ago (before it became clear that we now have hundreds of years of supply) the Sierra Club supported domestic natural gas production.
And yet, in spite of the growing body of evidence that supports the economic and environmental BENEFITS of natural gas production in the United States, the Obama Administration continues to block construction of export terminals which would enable American gas producers to export U.S. produced gas to markets around the world. This is yet another example of how the Obama Administration is determined to
restrict economic growth in America. Barack Obama is standing in the way of new jobs for U.S. workers, standing in the way of increased U.S. energy independence, standing in the way of increased global energy price stability, standing in the way of increased U.S. tax revenue (from increased sales of natural gas), and standing in the way of increased U.S. national security. In fact, just this week, Obama's Secretary of the Interior, Ken Salazar, emphasized the Obama Administration's determination to take the regulation of natural gas drilling -- which has resided with the states for over 100 years -- and place it in the hands of the federal government. And at the same time the Obama Administration is announcing they intend to force a slow
down in natural gas production. Of course, they are also implementing EPA regulations that are shutting down coal fired power plants in Pennsylvania and around the country, which will take 20% of U.S. electric production offline over the next few years. The Obama Administration is waging this war on coal fired
electricity plants despite the fact that experts have testified before Congress that they are worried about the future stability of America's electricity grid. And while President Obama continues his assault on U.S. produced energy, his massive tax payer funded solar loan program continues to crumble. Just last week another solar company -- Abound Solar -- declared bankruptcy in spite of a $430 million taxpayer backed
loan!

Honestly, I do not understand how anyone who understands economics or the physics of energy production and delivery -- and wants America and Americans to succeed -- can possibly vote for Barack Obama in 2012. And this is tragic because if Barack Obama had assessed the real problems confronting America at this moment in history -- our run away budget deficits and deep recession in the wake of a major financial crisis-- and confronted them, he could have been a great President. Of course, to actually address these problems with realistic solutions, he would have had to leave his left-wing, socialist values and thinking behind, and reach across the aisle to find bi-partisan solutions (like adhering to the recommendations of his own bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles budget commission). Instead he ignored our real problems and all the
rational advice, and focused on (in the words of his chief political advisor, David Axelrod) "not letting a good crisis go to waste." And so, Obama attacked the private economy, ignored the ballooning annual deficits driven by out-of-control spending on social programs and focused on his left-wing socialist
agenda -- implementing severe new regulations across the private economy, putting all health care under government control, and restricting energy production and infrastructure, among many others. And because of this poor judgment, poor leadership and poor performance, Barack Obama deserves to be voted out of office by the American people.
I also talked about the "walkout" demonstration organized by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Progressive Caucus (among other organizations) which took place during Attorney General Eric Holder's contempt vote. This walkout was designed to suggest that the contempt vote against Eric Holder was racially motivated. As Herman Cain said, this is nonsense. The Obama Administration's "Fast and Furious" gun running program went badly wrong along the
U.S. - Mexico border back in 2009 and 2010. American Border Patrol Agent, Brian Terry and hundreds of Mexican citizens were killed. And, after first testifying about this debacle, Attorney General Eric Holder was forced to retract significant elements of his testimony before Congress because his statements were false. Then Holder refused to release to a Congressional investigating committee tens of thousands of documents that might shed light on what exactly happened at the Department of Justice in the days following the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Finally, at the behest of Holder and the Justice Department, Barack Obama declared that the documents were under "executive privilege" keeping the documents confidential, just hours before a key deadline. The "walkout" by dozens of members of Congress from the Democrat Party occurred even as 17 Democrats voted with Republicans to find Attorney General Eric Holder criminally in contempt of Congress, and 21 Democrats voted with Republicans to find Holder in contempt under civil law. So the contempt votes were bi-partisan.

Now I ask you, does this fact pattern have anything to do with racial, ethnic or cultural background? No. Unless it can prove otherwise, this sure seems like a cover-up perpetrated by an Administration that promised us it would be the most open in history. That commitment, of course, was a less than funny joke. But the fact that members of Congress have now injected race into this is really disturbing and disappointing. Herman Cain is right. The Congressional investigation is about holding members of the Federal Government accountable, and to suggest otherwise is offensive and destructive to both American governance and civil discourse.

All of this leads to the inevitable conclusion that President Obama and his Administration are extremely dangerous. They have shown us over and over again that they will stop at nothing to implement their left-wing agenda. They have run over our Legislative and Judicial Branches of government. They have ignored precedent and the rule of law. But the American people held them accountable in 2010 by delivering
a "shellacking" to Democrats. And we will do it again this November. We MUST vote Barack Obama and his left-wing team out of office, and with your help, we will.

Time for special prosecutor in Sandusky case

Guest Column by Lance Cole

A jury of his peers convicted Jerry Sandusky of 45 of 48 charges. While Sandusky has the right to pursue appeals from the trial, and that right must be respected, his guilt has been established.

He is no longer an alleged child molester and pedophile; he is a convicted offender. The jury’s deliberations over two days and the not-guilty verdicts on three of the charges where the evidence was weaker or conflicting show that the jury did its job carefully and responsibly.

Although the jury’s verdict completes an important chapter of the Sandusky story, the case is far from over. Important questions remain to be answered before the public interest in this case can be resolved.

Questions concerning the initial handling of the investigation before Attorney General Linda Kelly took over, events in 1998 when District Attorney Ray Gricar declined to prosecute Sandusky, the actions of senior Penn State University officials when they learned of allegations against Sandusky and the actions of officials at The Second Mile, among others, all demand further investigation and public explanation.

Unfortunately, none of the investigations under way will be able to effectively resolve these questions.

Certainly, there are ongoing investigations. The Pennsylvania attorney general’s office is pursuing criminal charges against two senior Penn State officials, a federal grand jury is investigating and former FBI director Louis Freeh is heading an investigation for the Penn State board of trustees that has resulted in additional evidence being turned over to prosecutors. The reason the current investigations cannot put to rest all the questions surrounding the Sandusky case is that they suffer from conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest.

An investigation by the attorney general’s office of its own conduct, even under a prior attorney general, will never satisfy all of the public that nothing was covered up.

The same holds true for that office’s investigation of any matters relating to Gricar. Some are sure to question whether state prosecutors fully and fairly investigated the actions of another state prosecutor.

A similar concern will hamstring any investigation by federal prosecutors. Federal investigations of state officials are viewed as suspect, whether because of suspicions of political bias or general unease with federal authorities interfering in state affairs.

The Freeh internal investigation suffers greater shortcomings. Beyond the inevitable questions about whether such an investigation can be independent and complete, Freeh lacks two essential tools: subpoena power and the power to grant immunity to compel the testimony.

Fortunately, there is a solution to this serious problem, one that has worked well over the past century whenever major scandals have arisen: A special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Sandusky case.

From the Teapot Dome scandal to Watergate to the recent investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, special prosecutors have been effective at bringing wrongdoers to justice and satisfying the public that the facts all were revealed and nothing was covered up.

State special prosecutors are equally effective in high-profile cases, as illustrated by the special prosecutor in the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. Overall, history shows that a competent and unbiased special prosecutor with full investigatory powers is the only effective way to satisfy the public interest in a complete investigation of a scandal involving government officials.

Now that Sandusky’s trial has concluded and attention can move on to matters beyond his guilt or innocence, the Legislature should act to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue unanswered questions in the Sandusky case.

Whether by special legislation or by a cooperative effort between the appropriate legislative committees and the attorney general, the Legislature should act in a bipartisan manner to satisfy the public interest in a full and fair investigation of the Sandusky case.

The jury has done its work in the Sandusky trial. The Legislature now should appoint a special prosecutor to finish the job.

The special prosecutor should be someone of unquestionable integrity, competence and independence. She or he should be given all of the powers necessary to conduct a thorough and unimpeded investigation. No arbitrary timetable should be imposed, but the special prosecutor should be charged with expeditiously pursuing all the evidence wherever it leads.

In addition to prosecuting any violations of law, the special prosecutor should prepare a final written report that will satisfy the residents of the commonwealth once and for all that justice has been done and nothing has been covered up in the Sandusky case.

Lance Cole is a professor and director of the Center for Government Law and Public Policy Studies at Penn State University’s Dickinson School of Law. He previously served on the staff of the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Whitewater Committee.

Governor Corbett deserves credit for successful budget passage

Today, Governor Corbett signed Pennsylvania's budget on time for the second consecutive year. This is no doubt a refreshing change from the budget disasters Pennsylvanians endured during former Governor Ed Rendell's reign.

I have not been Corbett's biggest fan over the years, but Corbett does deserve some credit for his leadership during the budget process. Many media personalities and pundits have criticized Corbett's administration for a lack of communication and leadership early in his first term, but the budget results the past two years have to speak for themselves. Basically, Corbett sticks to a specific spending amount or a number and doesn't waver even under increased pressure from groups impacted the most from the necessary budget cuts.

As a conservative, I'm not happy with the restored spending for higher education that were negotiated during budget negotiations. But how can you really blame Corbett? A number of powerful republican state lawmakers like Senator Corman insisted that the proposed cuts be restored. But overall this is a conservative budget. Could more cuts be accomplished? Yes! But the burden is not all on Corbett's shoulders.

Corbett's success should be celebrated among conservatives circles around the state.
Overall, Corbett has fought to hold the line on state spending and tax increases during very difficult economic times. Fulfilling his campaign promises and adhering to the direction that a majority of Pennsylvanians voted for.

Will the Law of Unintended Consequences Turn Obama's SCOTUS Victory Into Defeat?

Guest Column by Colin Hanna

It's not a pretty sound, the braying of donkeys. President Obama pretentiously claims that the Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutionality of his health care law is, "a victory for people across the Country." The Huffington Post, in the largest headline I have ever seen on that site, self-righteously blares a single word in red, bold type: JUSTICE. I can only imagine what the likes of Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Sergeant Schultz will say over on MSNBC. But once that tiresome braying dies down, my question is: will the law of unintended consequences take over? Will this ruling have the unintended consequence of reenergizing the Tea Party like nothing else could have done? Will this fuel the money machines of the right, the Republican National Committee, the Romney campaign, his SuperPAC and other outside groups like Crossroads, FreedomWorks, Faith and Freedom Coalition, Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth? Will it, as Arizona Congressman David Schweikert said, mean that, from now until November, it's 2010 all over again? I think that's quite likely.

ObamaCare is unpopular with a large swath of America. A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that 53% of Americans oppose the law. Now that it has been justified and unmasked as a tax instead of a mandate, will that suddenly increase its appeal? I think not. So while others on the right are now lambasting the Court and especially the Chief Justice for their decision, I think we should focus our attention instead on the one Court that's actually higher than the Supreme Court: the court of public opinion and the sovereign power of the people at election time. Unless Republicans and conservatives do a terrible job of reminding the public why they did not like this unprecedented expansion of government, this intrusion into the economy and the staggering accumulation of debt that will accompany it, then the ultimate loser may well be President Obama - but by no means the only loser. Democratic Senatorial and Congressional candidates may taste once again the sting of public anger that they faced at the forums of 2009 and the elections of 2010.

The bottom line is really not that complicated. As Mitt Romney said shortly after the decision, "ObamaCare is bad medicine." Senator Marco Rubio said, "What's important to remember is that what the court rules on is whether something is constitutional or not, not whether it's a good idea. And while the court has said that the law is constitutional, it remains a bad idea for our economy, and I hope that in the fall we will have a majority here that will not just repeal this law, but replace it with real solutions that will insure more people and cost a lot less money." That last part will be the key: if conservatives are disciplined and successful in keeping their legislative focus on repeal and their policy focus on what consumer-directed health care would look like if Republicans win back the Senate and White House and hold the House of Representatives, they'll win the day, not Obama and his vision of neo-European statism. Republicans must pose a winning moral argument, not just a material one. Bills like Georgia Congressman, and doctor, Tom Price's H.R. 3000 should now be looked at to see if they meet Senator Mitch McConnell's claim that, "We can do better." The immediate battle cry in the House of Representatives should be "no funding, no implementation, and full repeal." But that will never win the day in the Senate and will never make it to the President's veto pen. But they must not stop there. They do not need to completely finish an alternative bill. That would be futile with this Senate and this President. All they need to do, and it's no small task, is articulate a superior vision that is consistent with the free market system, the Constitution and the values of outside the beltway America. If they do that, this Supreme Court decision could well be seen as the catalyst for a conservative revival. The law of unintended consequences will have rescued our nation from the designs of an oppressive and repressive élite.

Louis Freeh's investigation: Emails show that top Penn State officials refused to notify child welfare authorities after 2001 incident

 

The Louis Freeh investigation is starting to come out and things don't look good for Penn State Univiserity. According to Freeh's report, former President Graham Spanier and Vice President Gary Schultz who was in charge of the University Police at the time of the abuse in 2001 exchanged emails suggesting they do not notify child welfare because they were concerned for the former coaches reputation.

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier and another top university official exchanged emails discussing an allegation that Jerry Sandusky molested a boy in a university shower in 2001 but ultimately decided against alerting child welfare authorities, NBC News reported Monday. 

Spanier and former Vice President Gary Schultz, who headed the campus police department, agreed not to take the case to outside authorities out of concern for the retired assistant football coach, according to internal emails obtained by state law enforcement officials and given to NBC. The report aired on the "Today" show Monday.

This should outrage every Penn State alum and fans. The former administration at Penn State headed by Spanier is an embarrassment and should be charged as well as Sandusky for the role in this horrible tragedy.

Senator Toomey opposes the UN Law Of The Sea Treaty

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) announced his opposition to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea treaty, an international agreement governing the use of the world's oceans. The Law of the Sea treaty would compromise the United States' sovereignty by subjecting American navigational rights to an international body that is indifferent, and sometimes opposed, to American interests. In addition, the treaty would compel the United States to transfer billions of dollars in royalties from oil and gas development on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf to the International Seabed Authority, an unaccountable, multinational organization which would disburse these funds to foreign entities - including many that are openly hostile to the United States. "The United States has the greatest navy in the world, and it has sufficiently protected our navigational rights and freedoms for more than 200 years before the Law of the Sea treaty's existence," Sen. Toomey said. "We do not need to rely on an unaccountable international body to secure these rights. Doing so would only jeopardize American interests, including potentially subjecting us to unlimited litigation and liabilities from others around the world who would challenge our domestic environmental policies. "The United States has a long tradition of opposing the Law of the Sea treaty, beginning with President Ronald Reagan's rejection of the treaty in 1982, and we should continue that tradition today."

Critz up big in latest poll.

VIA our friends at PolticsPA: After a very tough primary where Rep. Critz defeated Jason Altmire, Critz is cruising to victory over challenger Keith Rothfus according to the latest poll.

Critz’s name ID: 57 percent of voters surveyed had an opinion of him (38 percent positive, 19 percent negative). The residual name ID from Rothfus’s own race against Altmire, in 2010 when he lost by 1.4 percent, has faded a bit more. Just 21 percent of voters had an opinion of Rothfus (14 percent positive, 7 percent negative). In the Johnstown area of the district currently represented by Critz (about 30 percent of the district overall) he holds a 60 to 34 percent lead.

Critz has been distancing himself from Obama and considering the demographics of his district that is a good thing in this political climate. Critz also announced he is planning on skipping the Democratic National Convention this week. Considering Critz is pro gun rights and is generally more conservative than former PA Senator Arlen Specter, I think this district can be counted as a conservative win this election cycle. A pleasant shift away from the rule of Critz's old boss, Murtha, who used to be the top dog here.

Winning the Battle but Losing the War

Guest Column by Terry Madonna and Michael Young

The New York Times calls Pennsylvania a “toss up state.” Others have tagged it a “battleground state” and even a “swing state.” Electoral labels aside, Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes comprise the second largest prize among the competitive states. Not surprisingly, both presidential campaigns seem to be taking the state seriously despite Barack Obama’s approximate 8-point lead and a string of Democratic victories stretching back to 1988.

But if the Keystone State is in play now, it may not be for long once an impending Supreme Court decision is handed down.

Shortly, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to announce whether the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obama Care) passes constitutional scrutiny. Most observers expect some or the entire act to be struck down. If this happens the electoral implications will be profound. In fact, striking down all or major portions of the health care law could reshape the ongoing presidential race in ways only now dimly perceived.

Exactly why this is so requires explanation and history provides it. Indeed, American history offers a compelling lesson: in analogous situations to the health care debate: the losing side in major court cases often becomes energized while the winning side often becomes complacent. The nation’s long running legal debate over abortion exemplifies this pattern, although it has existed as far back as ante-bellum Civil War times. Many of the transformative issues of American national life including prohibition, women’s suffrage and even slavery illustrate the principle.

Applying this lesson to health care means a Democratic loss in the Supreme Court could inject a powerful shot of adrenaline into a largely apathetic Democratic Party base. At the same time it would probably undercut the GOP enthusiasm that has been so massively mobilized by opposition to Obama’s healthcare plan.

The converse, while unlikely, is true also. If the Supreme Court does uphold Obama care, it will be Republicans who are energized, with consequences equally as significant for the 2012 election. States now comfortably in Obama’s column could become toss-ups overnight.

How can a single Supreme Court decision hold so much importance to an election? One way to answer this question is to examine the most recent Franklin & Marshall College Poll that asked Pennsylvania voters how they felt about Obama’s health care law.

Statewide, Pennsylvanians are actually divided somewhat evenly on Obama’s healthcare legislation, with about 46% in favor and 48% opposed. But this apparent divided opinion dissolves dramatically when one examines the data along party lines.

Rarely, if ever, is there greater polarization along party lines than exists on this issue. In Pennsylvania eight in ten Republicans oppose the Affordable Care Act, but only about two in ten Democrats do.

The sharp party polarization in Pennsylvania is roughly mirrored in national statistics. The Pew Research Center estimates that nationally 88% of Republicans disapprove of the law, while only 37% of Democrats disapprove.

Opposition to Obama care has been the GOP’s hot button issue in 2012. Consequently, if the Supreme Court scuttles it, the issue that has animated Republican voters more than any other will be mooted. Taking it off the table inevitably effects Republican turnout and support for Romney. How much is impossible to say. But by winning in the Supreme Court, some of the air goes out of the GOP electoral balloon.

Similarly it is impossible to know how much losing in the Supreme Court will motivate Democratic voters . The now relatively quiescent Democratic base, however, might respond vigorously. Certainly Democratic strategists will have new found opportunity to castigate Republicans over issues that have been moribund since Obama care was passed, including uninsured voters and lifetime spending limits.

What this means for Pennsylvania is that a race now seen as more and more winnable for Republicans may instead shift decisively toward Obama and the Democrats. What it means nationally is that a tight race gets tighter still.

Winning on health care reform could cost Republicans the presidency, while losing could give Democrats another term in the White House. If it turns out this way, it won’t be the first time in American history that winning a legal battle lost a political war.

Politically Uncorrected™ is published twice monthly, and previous columns can be viewed at http://politics.fandm.edu.

Reason for Pessimism

Guest Column by Lowman S. Henry

Convention wisdom over the past few months has it the economy is finally beginning to emerge from the recession that began back in 2008. So it was a bit surprising that the Spring 2012 Keystone Business Climate Survey of major employers found chief executive officers around the commonwealth were more pessimistic about the direction of the state's economy than they were a year ago.

In fact, by almost a two-to-one margin, the CEOs said Pennsylvania's economy had gotten worse over the previous six months rather than better. A majority - 51% - said the state's economy had remained about the same. That, however, is faint praise in that recent surveys have placed economic confidence levels at their lowest point in the 17-year history of the poll.

This raises the question: Is the economy really improving, or has the mainstream media bought into Obama Administration election year spin?

The answer is probably a bit of both. After four down years the dynamic nature of the American economy is such that some improvement — as reflected in the rising equity markets — is real and likely sustainable. However, government created uncertainty has fostered a climate in which many businesses are still not ready to risk significant amounts of capital on expansion.

At the national level the chief culprit is the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare. Businesses have not been able to digest the highly complicated legislation, let alone begin to project how regulators might interpret the law. Adding to the chaos are constitutional questions, which will be answered in a few weeks when the Supreme Court of the United States issues its ruling.

But here in Penn's Woods the business climate is also suffering from growing disappointment with state government. There was actually a slight uptick in business optimism last Fall as business leaders looked to a new Republican governor and historic Republican majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly and anticipated the passage of business friendly legislation.

To be sure some progress has been made, but the pace of reform has been disappointing, so much so that as the legislature lumbers into the last six months of its session the lack of progress has become downright disheartening.

This disappointment is reflected in the job performance rating of the General Assembly. Fifty-six percent of the CEOs surveyed have a negative opinion of the job being done by the state Senate, 22% view the upper chamber positively. The House fares marginally better: 53% have a negative opinion of the job being done by the House, 26% offer a positive view.

While generally applauding the fact Governor Corbett and the legislature held the line on both taxes and spending last year — and appear likely to do the same in the budget currently under consideration — business leaders say the cuts do not go far enough. Fifty-nine percent want state spending cut further. And there are no sacred cows. Seventy percent say they want cuts in public welfare; 42% would cut human services; and 38% want further cuts in higher education spending.

In short, the business community wants state government to do what it has done: cut costs and live within its means. Many businesses have trimmed their workforce, cut hours, reduced product lines, and taken other unpleasant steps in order to remain viable in the down economy. They look at government and want it to do the same.

And so, as major issues such as privatization of the state's liquor stores, school choice, dealing with the looming state and school district pension crisis, and union power issues remain unresolved the hopes for a major change raised by the onset of Republican dominance in Harrisburg are giving way to disillusionment and becoming manifest in a growing pessimism over the direction of the state's economy.

Making matters worse, everyone knows that when the legislature adjourns in early July for its two month summer vacation there is no chance of any proposal even remotely controversial being brought up in September or October as the General Election season will be in high gear.

So, little has been accomplished and the window of opportunity is closing. Therein lays the explanation as to why the brief burst of optimism that developed last year has reverted back to recession era pessimism.

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.

The Antidote to Voter Apathy & Improved Election Outcomes: The Political Committee Person

Guest Column by Lois Kaneshiki

Less than one-third of registered Republicans turned out to vote in the Primary of 2012. For those of us who are paying attention, it seems unfathomable that Republicans would not be interested in helping to choose who their next United States Senator should be, even if they believe the GOP presidential Primary is over. The question, “Why don’t they vote?” has almost become a cliché.

What kind of outcome do we get from this kind of voter behavior and what can we do about it, if anything?

Let’s take a look at the people who do come out and vote, the ones who don’t, and what we can do about it.

The Informed and the “Regulars”

The “party regular” is the voter who will come out and vote “no matter what.” They believe it is their civic duty to vote and they take pride in their flawless voting record. We know they vote incumbents back in office the majority of the time, even though most people seem to be dissatisfied with the performance of this same government.

The people who actually follow the election and the candidates are few. Even people who try to keep up with the “news” seem unaware of who the candidates are the week before the election.

Why Don’t People Vote?

We currently have a small minority of eligible voters electing candidates to office. The vast majority of citizens don’t feel it is worth the effort to educate themselves about the candidates, don’t have the time, or have some other “it just doesn’t matter” type attitude.

If you ask them why they don’t vote you will get various answers such as, “they are all the same,” “they are all corrupt,” “nothing will ever change,” etc. It is a very fatalistic and pessimistic attitude. They feel these are people who are far away, out of touch, and somehow all fall into the same unfavorable category of “politician.”

Before we look at how to address this phenomenon, we have to examine its roots and see what might be the plausible approach to changing these voter attitudes.

Case in Point: The 2012 GOP U.S. Senate Primary

First of all, can we blame the candidates themselves? Are they really all the same? Are they really all that bad?

In the beginning of the campaign season (fall 2011), the GOP had nine potential candidates for U.S. Senate. The variety of candidates could not have been more diverse. Most of them were “regular people” who are disturbed by the direction our country is heading and wanted the opportunity to be heard and to try to make a difference.

Isn’t this what the people want?

Or do you automatically become untrustworthy the moment you announce you would like to be considered for public office. If that is the case, we have given up the democratic republic that our founders handed to us and we are ready to take the elections away from the people.

I am not ready for that. Are you?

The Public is Disengaged from the Process

The public doesn’t really have any adequate central sources of information on elections that they trust. They don’t invest time in doing the candidate research. Many don’t have opportunities to meet the candidates in person to get the “gut feel” about the candidates that is so important.

Even tea party leaders across Pennsylvania were scrambling a few weeks before the election to figure out who they should support. In the meantime, several good candidates had already dropped out of the race due to lack of attention from the public.

Money: The Mother’s Milk of Politics?

The candidates who dropped out of the race early suffered from lack of financing to continue their campaigns. Money is used to help candidates travel throughout the state, pay staff if required, and to reach voters who otherwise wouldn’t hear about them.

Why has money become so influential and even necessary in politics?

The phenomenon of money in politics and public disengagement go hand-in-hand. Advertising influences voters who don’t have other adequate sources of information. They don’t have the opportunity to question assertions made in advertising to see if they are factual or distortions of the truth. As a result, people throw their hands up and think, “I’m not voting for any of these bums!”

Over the years, money has filled the vacuum created in politics by the failure to maintain healthy grassroots political organizations that fully engage their neighbors.

All Politics is Local

It’s not just a slogan!

What is the alternative? The alternative is the exact opposite of what the political “experts” and consultants want us to believe. It is not more money. It is more organization. It is old-fashioned grassroots politics. This is the function of political campaigns, but even more importantly, the county committees.

The Crux of Voter Apathy: Lack of Relationship

Voters are apathetic because of the failure of the political parties to develop local and lasting relationships with their voters that transcend specific elections. Of course the voters do not trust politicians, because they know politicians will basically say what is necessary to get elected. So who can they trust?

That is where the county committeeman or woman comes in. The purpose of the county committeeman is to establish the link with the local voter with the Party. They are the local contacts, the liaisons, between the party and the voters in the precinct. They are the “go-to” people in between and at election time. They know where to get the information and will help voters stay informed about candidates and elections. They have an incentive to be honest and trustworthy with their local constituents, because they are not running for local office – they represent the party now and tomorrow. If they do not do a good job, the voters will elect someone else the next election cycle to re-elect them. (For more information on how to become a county committeeman, see http://www.PrecinctProject.net.

Unfortunately, the parties have gotten so far away from the grassroots representation that local voters not only do not expect their local committeeman to perform this function, but most of the voters do not even know they exist. We have a lot of rebuilding to do.

Over one-half of these important committee seats, which are supposed to be elected by their neighbors, were vacant in Blair County on election day. If we are to keep politics close to the people, the continuation of this trend is unacceptable.

Politics is all about Relationships

If you doubt what I say, think about the “talented” politicians you have known in the past. They are people the voters feel they can “relate” to in some way or another. They are people they know personally (if it is a local office.) The voters have the impression they can be trusted. They are not stiff and academic. They come across as real people who are likeable and seem like they care about us. This either is or simulates what a person would be if you were to establish some kind of relationship.

Establishing Relationships Will Increase Voter “Connectedness”

If voters feel disconnected from the political process, the committee people can change that impression through making regular contact of some kind and letting voters know they are there for them if they need information, etc. This can be done in person, over the phone, through email, or the Internet. This can also be done more regularly and more locally by recruiting “block captains” within the precincts who will be responsible for a smaller section of the precinct.

Local Outreach Benefits the Party & Its Candidates

By reaching out at the local precinct level, the committee people help improve the image of the party. They are letting the voters know they are important.

The committee people are experts in their precincts. They are better resources to candidates and the party than any professional polling, because they are speaking directly to the people and know what they think. Voters are honest with them because they have established their credibility and they are not running for public office. Just as it says in our state committee handbook, they are the “most important link in the organization of the Republican Party.”

Local Outreach Improves the Process

When the voters feel more connected to the process they will participate more. People who haven’t voted may feel motivated to vote. People who only vote will be more motivated to volunteer a few hours of their time. Everyone will feel more hopeful about the process because their neighbor cares enough to stop by and give them some information.

Local Outreach Increases Awareness

When voters are visited by party representatives, they will have an opportunity to ask questions. They will know who they can call if they think of questions later. An informed voter will give us a better result on Election Day!

Recruiting Better Candidates & Getting Them Elected

Ultimately, more participation in the process from everyone will attract a higher caliber candidate and help us get these candidates elected through awareness.

Restoring Pride in the GOP

When local committee people are empowered to take ownership of their precincts, they will make a real difference in their neighborhoods. This local connectedness will allow the GOP rank-and-file to restore pride in their local party by understanding their vital role in the political process.

Ending at the Beginning

I hope you see how important the committee people are. When we have brought the process back to the grassroots, we will realize how important it is to have good committee people who are able to organize the precinct. I hope that this will attract the kind of committee people who understand how important their work is, take it seriously, and utilize their important position within the party.