State Senator Daylin Leach Gives Pennsylvania Legislators A Reality Check

Daylin Leach is a candidate for Congress. Since Allyson Schwartz is running for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination, he's running to replace her as the Representative for northwest Philly/Montgomery County. He's campaigning hard, but that doesn't mean he's neglecting his current job as a state senator. The video above was in response to the reactionary Republican budget, which passed the House 111-92 just hours before the Sunday deadline. Gov. Tom Corbett signed it immediately, although it is likely to result in immediate credit ratings downgrades (and higher borrowing costs for the state). Last week, Moody's rated Pennsylvania the 8th worst among all 50 states in terms of liabilities to revenues. Corbett scheme to privatize state-run liquor stores and hike taxes and fees to fund a $2 billion transportation plan failed.

Daylin's speech addressed the root causes-- right-wing ideological derangement when it comes to adequately finding crucial public services, particularly public education, which Republicans have been on a jihad against.

Findings from a secret poll conducted by a prominent Republican firm [Public Opinion Strategies] proposes that Gov. Tom Corbett attack the Philadelphia teachers union to overcome widespread opposition to his education policies and bolster his faltering re-election prospects. "Taking on this fight moves Corbett's approval scores on handling education" and "boosts his overall approval numbers."

...The poll suggests that Corbett, a governor who has long suffered from low public-approval ratings, condition state aid to Philadelphia schools on major union concessions and kickstart his hobbled reelection campaign with a high-profile fight against the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers.

...The poll first establishes Corbett's low approval ratings and widespread public opposition to his education policies, finding that "not only do voters believe that public education in the state is off-track, but they overwhelmingly disapprove of the way Corbett's handling the issue."

Sixty-nine percent of respondents said that Pennsylvania public education is on the "wrong track," and 64 percent blame Corbett-- 43 percent strongly so. In the Philly suburbs, 84 percent said that the city's schools are in the wrong trac. Seventy percent statewide believe that it is Corbett's job to help find a solution.

...[T]he poll does not query voters as to their attitude toward the nearly $1 billion in budget cuts to schools orchestrated by Corbett, which have affected school districts statewide and forced many to enact extraordinary property tax hikes... Twenty-one percent of voters say that education is the most important problem facing the state, second only to the economy.

"When," Daylin reminded his fellow legislators Sunday, "a politician debating the budget says 'We have to do with less' what they really mean is that poor kids, schools and sick folks have to do with less." That kind of attitude-- and a willingness to speak out about it-- is why Blue America has endorsed Daylin. This Daylin:

When people say, “we only can spend what we have,” it’s an odd thing to say because we control what we have.

It is not like we are given a limited amount of money from an outside source and that’s all the legislature and the government can spend-- we decide what the tax rates are, we decide what the fee rates are, we decide what the tax breaks are-- we decide all of that. But we make the decision as to what we have to spend.

To say, "we can only spend what we have," ignores the fact that we control what we have. It implies that we have no choice in what policies are made in this chamber, and the effects that they have on people are something that are just forced upon us. That we are innocent vehicles for realities beyond our control-- but we all know that is not true.

Previous speakers on this budget have said, “No one wants to pay more to the state government. If you take a poll and ask the voters, 'Do you want to pay more taxes?' the answer will be 'No.'" And I agree, that is probably the answer the poll would get.

I would, however, say that I know about polling. I know a lot about how poll questions can be skewed to produce desirable answers. For instance, if a pollster asks someone, "Do you want to spend more money out of your own pocket?" in a vacuum, without that person knowing what that money is going to be spent on, most people being polled will say "no."

It becomes interesting when you ask people, "Do you think we should neglect our schools? Do you think that we should shred our social safety net? Do you think that we should not provide adequate funds to protect our air and our water?” People say "no" to that too.

Then, when you juxtapose the two issues, "Would you pay more taxes if you knew that it would make the schools better?" people say "yes." Of course, people do not say they want to pay more money to the government for no apparent purpose-- but they will say they want to spend money to make our schools and our roads better.

I believe the people of Pennsylvania and the people of the United States are not hard-hearted people. They are not indifferent to the condition of our society. If you ask people in my district (and I can only go by my district), "Do you want to invest in the public schools?" They say "Yes."

When you ask people in my district, "Do you want to hire enough water quality inspectors to go out and make sure that the industries that are providing energy in this state are doing so safely and in a way that does not harm people, animals, wildlife, or the environment generally?" They will say "Yes." They will say "yes" overwhelmingly.

If you ask, "Is it a good idea to cut off all cash assistance for the poorest people in Pennsylvania?" They say "No." And you tell them, "There are 800,000 people in Pennsylvania right now who don’t have health insurance and the state government has increased that number by eliminating Adult Basic Care and other policies that provide health care." Then ask them, "Is that a good idea?” They say "No."

If we are going to make the argument that "we are doing what the people of Pennsylvania want," we should be accurate about what the people of Pennsylvania want.

One of my other colleagues said earlier during this debate said we can’t play "Santa Claus" with state spending. And, with due respect, saying that is demeaning. We are not playing Santa Claus, we are not giving gifts on Christmas morning. When you provide health care for a sick child, that is not playing Santa Claus. When you provide enough money for someone to be able to afford a lousy flop room so they don’t have to lay down on the streets at night-- that’s not Santa Claus, that’s not a Christmas gift. When you tell a kid that lives in a poor neighborhood that we’re going to give you an education that will enable you to someday get out of this poor neighborhood - that is not a Christmas gift, that is not Santa Claus.

The idea that the people of Pennsylvania are saying, "Not one penny, not one more penny for schools-- not one more penny for any of these things-- if it comes out of my pocket!" is just not accurate.

And beyond that, other members of this body keep quoting the private sector. But the private sector doesn’t want these things. The truth is, the private sector doesn’t want us to neglect education because today's school children are the people who will be working jobs in the private sector in the next five, ten, fifteen, and twenty years. The private sector does not want us to neglect roads and bridges because that’s how the private sector's work force gets to their jobs and that’s how the private sector moves its products to market.

As we consider this budget and as we consider future budgets, this legislative body should not fall for the idea that we are forced to neglect the basic roles of government and our society.

There is one more thing that troubled me, when someone said, "Families are struggling, so we are going to have to make do with less." This implies-- well, I don’t know what this implies-- but let's be clear, no money goes to "us." We are not spending tax money on beer and knockwurst for legislators. This money is going to help poor people. This money is going to help kids all across the Commonwealth. This money is going to fix roads. This money is going to aid law enforcement. But more than that, this money is going to programs that will make it unnecessary to spend so much money in the future on law enforcement because these programs are proven to reduce crime.

Saying state government is "doing with less," is framing the discussion in such a way that somehow by spending less money, we are doing something noble.

However, when we say we are "doing with less," what we really mean is that poor kids are "doing with less." Sick people are "doing with less." Handicapped and the elderly people are "doing with less." People who have to drive over crumbling roads and bridges every day to get to work are “doing with less.” Those are the people who are "doing with less."

"We" are fine either way. It’s not "us" that has anything at stake in this budget. It’s the people of Pennsylvania who desperately need the services that, in my view, we are not funding adequately. And I just wanted to make it clear that this really is what’s at stake here.

Please help make sure this safe Democratic seat goes to the progressive, not to some pathetic corporate shill being pushed by the Establishment (nor someone's mekhutonim). You can contribute to Daylin's congressional campaign here.

Tom Corbett And His Big Bong Theory

The Tea Party Tide swept a lot of toxic garbage into governors' mansions across the country-- Rick Scott in Florida, Scott Walker in Wisconsin, Sam Brownback in Kansas, John Kasich in Ohio, Rick Snyder in Michigan, Bob Forced Ultrasound McDonnell in Virginia, Nathan Deal in Georgia, Nikki Haley in South Carolina, Puppet Pat in North Carolina, Jan Brewer in Arizona, Paul LePage in Maine, Mike Pence in Indiana, Rick Perry in Texas... to name some of the worst of the worst. How do you actually name one overall worst though? Very difficult... but no one could leave Pennsylvania's Tom Corbett out of the finals.

Corbett has been a disaster for Pennsylvania and, par for the course, the Democrats would like to offer someone just a little tiny bit better (New Dem Allyson Schwartz). Pennsylvania can do a lot better. Polls show that Pennsylvanians do not want to see Corbett get a second term and that they will support any plausible candidate against him. We found two good one so far, John Hanger and Tom Wolf.

And as if Corbett wasn't in enough trouble with voters, on Monday his excuse for high unemployment rates in his state-- Pennsylvania ranks 49th in job creation since he's become governor-- is that his constituents are a bunch of pot heads. "There are many employers that say, 'we’re looking for people, but we can’t find anybody that has passed a drug test,' a lot of them," Corbett told a radio audience. "And that’s a concern for me because we’re having a serious problem with that."

John Hanger responded with the video above and by reminding Pennsylvania voters that the state doesn't rank 49th-- when just a few years ago it ranked 7th-- because of drug tests. "How insulting to the hundreds of thousands of people looking for a job or for full time work!"

"The real reason Pennsylvania has created zero jobs over the last 12 months is because Corbett is the one under the influence -- the influence of failed economic policies and Grover Norquist. He has slashed state funding to schools and communities, refuses to tax gas drillers, strangles the renewable energy industry, fails to fund repairs to our roads and bridges and turns down $4 billion a year for Medicaid expansion that would create 41,000 jobs.

"Rather than take responsibility for the failures of his own economic policies, the governor tries to blame the victims-- the people out of work-- for Pennsylvania’s poor job performance.

"According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Pennsylvania was the only state in the country to lose seasonally adjusted jobs between March 2012 and March 2013. The Commonwealth was 11th in jobs growth 2009 and 7th in 2010, but now in March 2013 Pennsylvania’s non-seasonally adjusted job creation ranking was 49th. We were 50th for seasonally-adjusted job creation. Pennsylvania’s job creation is plummeting even as the national economy created 3.8 million jobs in 2011 and 2012.

"If we just kept up with the national job creation rate, we should have added about 60,000 to 80,000 jobs just in 2012. Instead, Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that lost jobs between March 2012 and March 2013.

"Tom Corbett clearly does not understand our economy or what it takes to get out-of-work Pennsylvanians back on the job. I do... Pennsylvania cannot afford another four years Tom Corbett. Let’s send him packing."

Tom Wolf-- A Progressive Alternative To Tom Corbett And Allyson Schwartz

No one in their right mind could possibly want to see Tom Corbett reelected governor of Pennsylvania. And polls indicate that voters are more than ready for a change. But does "a change" mean replacing a corporate shill like Tom Corbett with a corporate shill like Allyson Schwartz? As we saw the other day, many Democrats would prefer a more progressive candidate than Schwartz, who, until a couple weeks ago, was a vice chairman of the corrupt, Wall Street-tainted New Dems. Earlier today PPP released a new poll showing that any of the top Democratic contenders could beat Corbett.

Tom Corbett-- already among the country's most unpopular Governors-- has seen his position worsen considerably over the last two months. Only 33% of voters now approve of his job performance, compared to 58% who disapprove. His net approval rating of -25 is 11 points worse than it was in early January at -14 (38/52). The only 2 Governors in the country with a disapproval rating higher than Corbett's are Pat Quinn of Illinois and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island.

In January we tested Corbett against Allyson Schwartz, Joe Sestak, Rob McCord, John Hanger, and Tom Wolf and he led all five of them. Now we find him trailing all five of them, in some cases by double digits. Corbett is down by 11 points each to Schwartz, Sestak, and McCord all by margins of 45/34. Tom Wolf leads by 9 points at 42/33 and John Hanger's up by 7 at 41/34.

What's particularly noteworthy about the substantial leads all of the Democrats have is that they come despite them all being relatively unknown. Sestak has only 52% name recognition and that makes him the famous one of the bunch-- Schwartz is at 38%, Hanger at 31%, McCord at 30%, and Wolf at 22%. Most of the undecideds in the match ups are Democrats so it's possible that as the eventual candidate becomes better known they will build up an even bigger lead.

Saturday evening we looked at former environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger, one of the progressives running in the Democratic primary. The other progressive in the race is former Pennsylvania Revenue Secretary Tom Wolf. I had a long talk with Tom last week and he prepared this biographical sketch for us.

Guest Post
by Tom Wolf

Pennsylvania has inherent qualities, strengths and resources that give it the potential to be one of the most dynamic states in the country. The progressive agenda provides the specific policy prescriptions that could give Pennsylvania the tools to transform its latent strengths and powerful potential into real success, and I have the background, skills, and experience to credibly use the progressive tool set to achieve this constructive transformation. I am an unconventional Democratic candidate for Governor, and that’s precisely why I believe that I am the right person to carry the progressive message.

I am not a career politician; I have spent my professional life in the private sector. I am not from one of the traditional pockets of Democratic strength (i.e. Philadelphia or Pittsburgh); I’m from the South Central portion of the state, traditionally a bastion of Republican strength. Finally, despite my private sector background, I’m not a complete political outsider. I’ve served on blue ribbon statewide panels and commissions, and for almost two years served in Ed Rendell’s cabinet as the Commonwealth Secretary of Revenue. I even have an academic background in politics having earned a Ph.D. in political science. This unconventional background gives me a unique perspective on state politics, an unusual set of reasons for holding progressive political values, and a useful set of organizational skills and managerial experiences.

I grew up in a small town in south central Pennsylvania. In fact I still live in the house I was brought home from the hospital to. It was my grandparents’ house at the time, and my parents’ home (located eight blocks away) was not yet finished. The house was originally built by my great-great grandparents in the 1850’s next to the railroad tracks. My wife (of 38 years) and I eventually bought this house, raised our two daughters there (they both graduated from the local public schools), and continue to reside there today.

Life after my small town start included two years at a Pennsylvania boarding school (The Hill School), Dartmouth where I earned a BA in three years (magna cum laude), service in the Peace Corps (I actually dropped out of Dartmouth to join the Peace Corps) in a remote village in India, a Master’s degree from the University of London, and ultimately a Ph.D. in political science from MIT. My dissertation was well received, and it earned a number of awards including the Schattschneider Prize (from the American Political Science Association) as the best dissertation in American politics presented in 1983.

I researched and wrote my dissertation back home in central Pennsylvania and while I was at it, also took jobs as a truck driver and warehouse worker in the family business, a distributor of lumber and other building products headquartered in York, Pennsylvania. The experience in the business led me to transfer my attention from academia to commerce and in 1981 I began working full time as a company employee.

My first full time position was manager of one of our smaller facilities, a TrueValue hardware store located in Manchester, Pennsylvania. In 1986, my two cousins and I purchased the company in a leveraged buyout (my family did not understand the meaning of the word inheritance). I was Chairman and President of the company. For the next twenty years, my two cousins, our employees, and I built the Wolf Organization from one with annual sales of $70 million doing business in five states to one with annual sales of $385 million doing business in thirteen states. In 2006 we sold the majority of the company’s shares to key employees and a private equity firm in a very public sale (The transaction was actually reported on the front page of York’s leading daily newspaper). Like my cousins, I retained a modest 11% stake in the new company.

My business partners and I achieved business success in part because of the engagement of our employees at all levels of the company. We recognized the importance of our employees in a number of different ways. First, we offered competitive wages and salaries to all employees; second, we provided above-average benefits including health and life insurance, disability programs, and a robust retirement plan; third, we made sure the ratios of top compensation packages to the average compensation packages were low (the current Wolf ratio is less than 8 to 1); fourth, the company distributed a large portion of its annual net profit to all employees as a cash dividend (Wolf currently distributes between 20% and 30% of its net profit); fifth, the company offered a wide array of training and education opportunities to all employees. Wolf’s success has always depended on the kind of customer satisfaction that could only be delivered by employees who cared deeply about their responsibilities. Wolf’s compensation and benefits programs have always recognized this and helped encourage it.

During my business career, I indulged my interest in public service by participating actively in civic affairs. I served as Chair of the York County Chamber of Commerce, Chair of the United Way of York County, Chair of the York County Community Foundation, Chair of the York College Board of Trustees, President of Better York (a CEO civic organization dedicated to the improvement of the City of York), and as a board member of the York Jewish Community Center and the Memorial Hospital of York. I also served as Chair of regional organizations like the Lancaster-York Heritage Region and WITF, Inc. (The regional public broadcasting system affiliate in Harrisburg), and I served on the boards of the Keystone Research Center (a progressive think tank in Harrisburg), the Pennsylvania State Chamber of Business and Industry and the Pennsylvania Business Roundtable. I also served as Chair of the Administrative Board and later Lay Leader of my hometown church.

During this time I also served on a number of state commissions. Governor Robert Casey appointed me to his Economic Development Partnership Board as well as his Hardwoods Development Council and the PA 2000 Business-Education Partnership. In 1998 (I believe) I was appointed by the House Democratic Caucus to serve on the bi-partisan Legislative Commission on Urban Schools and in 2004 I was named to Governor Ed Rendell’s Business Tax Reform Commission. Finally, in February 2007 Governor Rendell named me Secretary of Revenue for the Commonwealth, a position I held until November 2008 when I resigned in order to launch a campaign for Governor of Pennsylvania.

I took the job as Secretary of Revenue in the spirit of public service. Thus, I didn’t avail myself of the benefits package (either insurance or pension); I paid my own expenses when I was on state business, I drove my own car, and although I was compelled by statute to take the salary, I donated all of it to charitable organizations. My wife and I also placed all of our assets into a blind trust (using the Maryland statute since Pennsylvania doesn’t have one) to make sure my decisions were made in complete ignorance of the exact make-up of my investment portfolio. This veil of ignorance also extended to the activities of my former company.

In early 2009 as I was preparing to announce my bid for the governorship, I was therefore surprised by a phone call from one of my former business colleagues informing me that our old company was in danger of failing. As a result of the economic recession (and especially the steep slide in residential construction activity) in 2008, the company could not meet its bank obligations. I suspended my campaign, returned to York County and negotiated a repurchase of the company. After assuming control of the company as Chair and CEO in February 2009, I oversaw the payoff of a large portion of its debt (at 100 cents on the dollar). Since then, the company has changed its business model and has been transformed from a traditional wholesaler selling branded products in tightly controlled markets to a sourcing company which designs, procures, markets and sells a wide range of building products under the Wolf label in an increasingly large segment of the North American market (we’re now doing business in 22 states).

Is Pennsylvania Ready For A Kenyan-Born Governor? Meet John Hanger

According to the latest PPP polling Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has a problem. Only 27% of the state's voters think he's doing a good job. Over half think he isn't. But when it comes to one-on-one match-ups, the Democrats will have to pick a strong candidate and work really had to beat Corbett in 2014. These are the Democrats PPP asked about with the percentages who would pick Corbett first and each of them second.

• Former Gov. Ed Rendell- 40-42%
• Attorney General Kathleen Kane- 42-42%
• Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter- 41-38%
• Former Environmental Protection Secretary John Hanger- 42-37%
• Former Congressman Joe Sestak- 42-36%
• State Treasurer Rob McCord- 41-35%
• New Dem vice chair, Rep. Allyson Schwartz- 41-34%
• Former Revenue Secretary Tom Wolf- 41-29%

Just this week a Republican-friendly polling firm finds Sestak way out ahead in a Democratic primary match-up. It's too early to endorse anyone yet. Sestak is a longtime friend of this blog and Blue America has worked for his elections in the past. Tom Wolf and John Hanger are sterling progressives who would catapult Pennsylvania into the ranks of state government superstardom. Any of those three would be far preferable to Establishment hack and corporate shill Allyson Schwartz, who the Republicans are hoping for, since she is basically unelectable statewide.

I spoke with Environmental Protection Secretary Hanger this week and was knocked over by what a smart, solution-oriented candidate he is. He's on the right side of every issue and for all the right reasons. We'll invite the other progressives to do the same but I asked John to introduce himself with a guest post:

John Hanger, A Guest Post

Born In Kenya, and getting off a plane from Ireland as a 12-year old boy at JFK Airport in New York in 1970, I went into the public schools as an immigrant to America. The public schools welcomed me and all children and prepared me for higher education.

In 1977, I became a citizen of the United States and graduated from Duke University in 1979, having majored in Public Policy and history. My first job was as Executive Director of a small non-profit in Nebraska called Nebraskans United For Food that worked to address hunger right here in the USA by supporting food and nutrition programs like school meals and food stamps.

By 1981 I moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to attend law school at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, where federal student loans became essential following the death of my dad that changed radically my family's financial situation. Thanks to those student loans I graduated from law school in 1984 and got my dream job at Community Legal Services, representing low-income families in Philadelphia.

At CLS I was in the Energy Project advocating for families and businesses for whom utility bills were unaffordable. I saw the horrendous impact that shutting off electricity and gas service can have, as families turned to dangerous substitutes like candles and portable heaters that did cause fires that injured and killed poor people and especially children.

In 1986, I was appointed the Public Advocate to represent all the customers of Philadelphia's municipal gas, water, and sewer utilities and my first opportunity for public service had arrived. By 1993, Governor Casey appointed me to be a Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission where I took on the problem posed by electricity rates among the 10 highest in the nation. Leading a major utility reform effort, I won a 14-year electricity rate cap for all electricity utilities in Pennsylvania. I initiated new programs to provide assistance to low-income families by offering them electricity and gas bills based on their incomes. And I boosted energy conservation programs that cut usage and made bills more affordable.

From 1998 to 2008, I was the President of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future that led successful campaigns for more renewable energy, more energy efficiency, and more investment for cleaning up streams, preserving farms, and improving parks. Pennsylvania became a leader in renewable energy and energy efficiency during this time. I personally played a leading role in enacting Pennsylvania's 2004 Renewable Portfolio Standard, its 2005 Growing Greener $645 million environmental bond program, its 2008 $600 million Act 1 clean energy fund, and its 2008 Act 129 Energy Efficiency requirement that required electricity utilities to invest $2 billion in conserving electricity.

Nobody in Pennsylvania has done more to build wind, solar, and energy efficiency than me.

From 2008 to 2011, I served as the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, where I enacted 5 new regulations strengthening rules governing gas drilling, more than doubled the number of staff overseeing gas drilling, and issued 1200 violations to the gas industry just in 2010. I also worked to pass a real gas drilling tax and crafted an executive order imposing a moratorium on further leasing of state forest land for gas drilling, a moratorium that continues.

While Secretary I also chaired the committee that wrote Pennsylvania's 2010 Climate Action Plan that would cut Pennsylvania's carbon emissions by one-third and create 62,000 jobs.

I have an unmatched record of working on state policy and state government. I have a record of accomplishment that benefits workers, poor families, clean energy, the environment. I am a proved tough, professional, independent regulator.

My campaign builds on this experience and is taking the fight to Corbett who seeks to privatize public schools by slashing funding, sending blank checks to poor performing charter schools, and supporting vouchers. By contrast, I will restore the $1 billion cut from public education by Corbett, end charters for poor performing charter schools, and oppose vouchers.

Governor Corbett's jobs record is a disaster, with Pennsylvania one of just 4 states where the unemployment rate did not decline in 2012 compared to 2011. In part, Pennsylvania's poor jobs performance is because Corbett has destroyed 19,000 education jobs and because Corbett sees gas drilling as adequate to bring broad prosperity to Pennsylvania. It is not, as gas drilling has created less than 2% of the 6.5 million jobs Pennsylvania needs.

My campaign recognizes that Pennsylvania must have strong public-private partnerships that boost jobs in education, health care, manufacturing, clean energy, transportation, agriculture, water and sewer, and tourism. To fund these initiatives I support a gas drilling tax and other means of raising revenues.

My campaign further will doube the amount of renewable energy and energy efficiency. It will support more investment in environmental protectiona and improvement like the 2005 Growing Greener bond program.

I further will reverse Corbett's refusal to expand Medicaid and by so doing create 41,200 jobs.

Finally, I have been leading efforts to hold Corbett accountable for taking valuable gifts from lobbyists and businessmen that shreds the existing gift ban that has been in place since 1980.

Pennsylvania's Had Some Pretty Crappy Governors In Recent Years-- Backed By Even Worse Money Men

Republican ex-Senator Judd Gregg and Rendell are co-chairs of Pete Peterson's slimy anti-Social Security Campaign-- Fix the Debt. Other members: Robert Zoellick, former president of the World Bank; Erskine Bowles; Dave Cote, CEO of Honeywell; Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock; Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget; Pete Peterson, founder and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation; Steven Rattner, chairman of Willett Advisors; Alice Rivlin; and Paul Stebbins, CEO of World Fuel Services

I wonder if anyone has told the MSNBC hosts and producers that for more and more progressive viewers, a guest appearance by Pennsylvania ConservaDem Ed Rendell is a bathroom break signal-- if not an opportunity to throw something at the TV screen. Having lived in Monroe County for a while when Rendell was governor, I never thought Rendell was even a Democrat, at least not by principles, values and convictions. I most remember him as the guy who lowered property taxes by legalizing slot machines, a very regressive form of taxation, and backing Bush's attempt to privatize Social Security. He seemed to always be looking for issues he could back the GOP on and stab his own base in the back. Then, last April, when Blue America was doing all we could to replace corrupt, right-wing corporate shill Tim Holden with a good-government reformer, Matt Cartwright, Rendell came barrelling into the race endorsing Blue Dog Holden.

I remember getting all these calls from people telling me Blue America should cut its losses and bow to the inevitable that Holden would never be beaten because Rendell was so respected by Democratic voters. That didn't exactly turn out to be what happened. Blue America just redoubled our efforts and Cartwright ignored the endorsements from Rendell and other conservatives. Cartwright clobbered the 10-term Rendell-endorsed incumbent-- and particularly clobbered him in the bluest precincts. The only areas where Holden did well were in Republican areas or the district where his record and Rendell's endorsement meant something.

So it should have come as no surprise to anyone this week when porcine Philadelphia power broker and Rendell fundraiser, David Cohen came out of the shoot favoring Pennsylvania's worst governor in modern times, Tom Corbett. Corbett, steeped in the corruption and elitism that a slimy character like Cohen thrives in, will be up against New Dem Allyson Schwartz. In the past, Cohen and his wife have contributed thousands of dollars towards Schwartz's political career. Although usually identified as a Democratic fundraiser, Cohen, an executive vice president at Comcast, has given hundreds of thousands of dollars in thinly veiled bribes to politicians on both sides of the aisle-- though he seems to prefer conservative Democrats--whether Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jim Gerlach (R-PA) or Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) and Chris Carney (Blue Dog-PA). He's considered a key player in Rendell's miserable career.

Now, just as the 2014 governor's race is beginning to heat up, Cohen says he will likely back Republican Gov. Corbett's reelection campaign.

"I expect to support Gov Corbett," Cohen said in an e-mail, without elaborating on his rationale for doing so.

Last month, he and his wife, Rhonda, held a small fund-raiser at their Mount Airy home for Corbett that drew about 30 people, mainly Republicans, but also a few Democrats, and raised about $200,000.

Cohen praised Corbett that evening as a friend, a "man of integrity," and a "good public servant," one attendee said.

Only 19 months earlier, the Cohen residence was the scene of an event that raised $1.2 million for Obama's reelection.

At the time, Obama thanked the Cohens for having been supportive for so many years.

Few who attended the most recent event were surprised that Cohen is now using his clout for Corbett.

They said that as the leader of the nation's biggest cable company, Cohen is a businessman first who recognizes that history has demonstrated that Pennsylvania's incumbent governors do not often lose reelection.

"He's a partisan but pragmatic Democrat," said one corporate executive in Philadelphia, who attended the fund-raiser but would not speak for attribution.

A prominent Philadelphia Republican, who also did not speak for attribution, said Cohen is well aware that the cable industry is regulated by state boards whose members are appointed by the governor.

"Cohen is an extremely loyal guy," he said. "His first client is Comcast, and that does require him to cross the aisle.

Meanwhile a poll by Beneson for the Democratic Governors Association last month indicates Cohen may have made a very bad business decision, since Corbett's policies are so unpopular and disliked in the state that Schwartz, who hasn't even declared she's running yet, is already ahead of him by 8 points, 50-42%. The polling indicates that Schwartz's margin will more than double once she starts campaigning.

Some Kinds Of Bipartisanship We Can Do Without-- Take Tom Corbett And Tim Holden, For Example

I suppose a case can be made that Blue Dog Tim Holden (PA) is very bipartisan. He's one of the dozen conservative Democrats Eric Cantor and John Boehner have come to count on to move their anti-working family agenda along and give it the patina of "bipartisanship." Since Obama took office, Holden has voted against progressive positions and with the Republicans far more frequently than he has with his own party. According to ProgressivePunch the 2011-12 session has seen him, on crucial roll calls, with the Republicans 63.75% of the time. Closer examination of his voting record, however, finds that there's something more important than ideology or the partisan debate. Holden votes for the special interests of the corporations that have filled his campaign coffers with millions of dollars over the years. And one of those votes-- for the Halliburton Loophole he pushed and helped pass, which allows for fracking in his home state-- may cost him a seat in Congress this year.

Big Energy PACs run by Dick Cheney's Halliburton donated $511,638 to help finance Tim Holden's slimy career. Why would they help finance a Democrat? Holden is barely a Democrat and, after all, he supported them when it really mattered most-- in creating the Halliburton Loophole, exempting Holden's big campaign donors from EPA regulations so they could poison the water table with impunity. In conjunction with Holden's congressional manipulations. the U.S. Forest Service announced it didn't plan to issue a universal ban on horizontal drilling on federal land, allowing many national forests to remain available for natural gas production, the agency's deputy chief said Friday. Continuing to push both GOP and Big Oil and Gas talking points, "extolled the importance of domestic energy production. Public land generated more than $112 billion in 2010, he said, noting the contribution of mineral resource management to that figure."

The political careers of Gov. Tom Corbett (R) and Rep. Tim Holden (D) have partially underwritten by the same fracking interests who are making parts of Pennsylvania dangerous to live in. That's called a sell out. Corbett isn't up for reelection this year-- but we'll remember when he is. Tim Holden is up for reelection in November and he has a strong, progressive opponent, Matt Cartwright. Today is the first day of the new FEC quarter. Think about helping Blue America put more of these billboards up in Luzerne, Northampton, Lackawanna, Monroe, Carbon and Schuylkill counties. Or, if these billboards aren't your cup of tea, contribute directly to Cartwright's campaign. You can do either-- or both, on the Blue America FrackingHolden page. (Yes, open Sundays-- just like the fracking operations.)




UPDATE: And We're Not Operating In A Vaccum

Last week Aaron Blake raised the possibility in the Washington Post that Holden could be the next Mean Jean Schmidt, a hackish incumbent defeated in her own party's primary.

Even in the most anti-incumbent primary season of the past few decades, less than 5 percent of members of Congress lost their primaries.

Such is the case under a political system that weighs things heavily in favor of incumbents.

...But relatively speaking, this looks like one of the most anti-incumbent years in decades. There are several factors in the coming election that will lead to an increase in the number of members sent home early-- and it’s quite possible we could see more incumbents lose than at any point in the last 40 years.

...Holden was one of few Democrats who survived in a conservative district last election, and Republicans appeared to do him a favor by moving many of his Republicans to shore up neighboring GOP incumbents and giving him a much more Democratic district in the process. But that new territory also drew new intra-party opposition, and lawyer Matt Cartwright has reportedly put together $600,000 for his primary challenge April 24. Cartwright has also gotten the support of some liberal groups against the Blue Dog Holden, and the Campaign for Primary Accountability has said it will spend $200,000 on taking down Holden.

The Pennsylvania Republican Party's Jihad Against Democracy

Pennsylvania state Senator Daylin Leach is one of the most (and only) real progressives in his state's Senate. After serving in the state House of Representatives since 2003, he was elected to the Senate to represent much of Montgomery County and parts of Delaware County in the Philly suburbs in the southeast corner of the state. This week he's been the most articulate Democrat in explaining the latest Republican assault against democracy from Tom Corbett and the Republican legislature. Here's the OpEd he did for his pals at the Philadelphia Inquirer:

In America, we don't elect our presidents directly. Each state elects representatives to the Electoral College, which technically "elects" our president. For 224 years, Pennsylvania has joined virtually every other state in casting all of its electoral votes for the presidential candidate who won the state's popular vote. This has always made Pennsylvania a critical state in national elections because of the number of electoral votes we deliver.

On Monday, Gov. Corbett endorsed changing our system. He wants to award one electoral vote to a presidential candidate for each congressional district he or she wins. This is an obscene, transparent, blatantly partisan change in the rules, designed to help Republican presidential candidates.

We should be suspicious any time one political party unilaterally tries to directly affect the outcome of future elections. Republicans in Harrisburg want to award electoral votes according to congressional districts because they are in control of the current redistricting process. They want to be able to decide how many votes to guarantee future Republican presidential candidates.

The redistricting process is likely to create 12 solidly Republican districts and six Democratic ones. This assures any Republican presidential candidate a clear majority of the state's electoral votes. This means that your vote in the presidential election will be meaningless.

This plan will also end Pennsylvania's status as a battleground state and will make us irrelevant to presidential campaigns. Why should candidates come here when we will already know what the final electoral vote count will be? It is distressing that our governor is pushing a plan to make Pennsylvania matter less in national politics.

Notice that Republicans in control of states that GOP presidential candidates usually win show absolutely no interest in changing their rules. We won't be seeing this proposal in Texas or Mississippi. It is only states that Republicans currently control, but which tend to vote Democratic in national elections, that will see the rules altered. Any change to our Electoral College should be adopted uniformly across the nation, with buy-in from both red and blue states so there is no effort to rig future elections.

The governor gives lip service to improving our electoral system, but this bill has nothing to do with good government. It is simply a partisan power-grab. If Corbett was really interested in improving Pennsylvania's electoral structure, he would support bipartisan proposals such as early voting, no-excuse absentee voting, or a national popular vote. But he opposes all of these.

Instead, the governor supports this bill, as well as additional legislation that would make it harder for people who disproportionately do not vote Republican to vote, such as requiring photo ID at the polls. This will disenfranchise millions of the poor, the elderly, and those who live in cities.

At times, Democrats have controlled the executive and legislative branches of state government. They could have passed anything they wished, and when it comes to substantive policy they often did. But nobody ever attempted to abuse their temporary control to fix future elections. As the prime sponsor of redistricting reform, I find it disheartening that this proposal will make gerrymandering an even more entrenched part of the system.

Elections in a democracy are sacred. Changing the rules created by our founders in order to benefit one political party is profoundly wrong. It desecrates our history and is a repugnant attack on the very core of our nationhood. Corbett's endorsement of this profanity brings to mind the famous words of Joseph Welch to Sen. Joe McCarthy during another attack on the basic structure of our democracy: "Have you no sense of decency?"

I don't know how many votes Texas fascist Pete Sessions, chairman of the NRCC, controls in the Pennsylvania legislature but yesterday he was voicing his "concerns" about the plan, not because of any sense of fairness, of course, but because he senses it could lose the GOP some seats in Congress. Sensing that national Democrats will move resources into suburban districts in a way that could tip the balance against precarious right-wingers Jim Gerlach, Pat Meehan, and Mike Fitzpatrick, Sessions groused "This proposal will have a minimal effect on the presidential race at the expense of negatively altering the political landscape for Republicans in Pennsylvania’s House races.”

Republicans in Their Own Words -- Quotations of a Party on Crack, 2010 Version: Part 1, The Unemployed

Rachel Maddow on Newt Gingrich: "Just because he doesn't have a real job does not mean that Newt Gingrich isn't making a lot of money in politics." (See No. 3.)

by Noah

It’s hard to understand the Republican mind. If you try too hard, you may end up catching a case of their insanity, or at least being plagued by nightmares, or your psyche might end up so wounded by the assault that you need to go for counseling or maybe just a prescription for some valium. My suggestion: Just let their own words do most of the talking. It is what it is. They reveal the inner workings of their twisted minds just fine. The only cure for Republicanism is complete derision and dismissal. Herewith some classic examples of Republican Mental Illness, or RMI as we call it at the Down With Tyranny Medical Center.

1. The first is a true dialog between former House Repug leader Tom DeLay and CNN’s Candy Crowley. On-air, DeLay said to Crowley:

There is an argument to be made that these extensions, the unemployment benefits, keep people from going and finding [a] job. In fact there are some studies that have been done that show people stay on unemployment compensation and they don’t look for a job until two or three weeks before they know the benefits are going to run out.

Naturally, DeLay didn’t happen to have any of those studies he mentioned available for reference. Crowley then asked, “People are unemployed because they want to be?” DeLay’s answer: “Well, it is the truth. And people in the real world know it.”

This was a Republican talking point for much of the year, with similar utterances from the likes of Sen. John Kyl and senator-wannabe Sharron Angle.

2. And speaking of Sharron Angle:

We have put in so much entitlement into our government that we have spoiled our citizenry and said, "You don’t want the jobs that are available.”

Next thing ya know, “our citizenry” will want at least a minimum wage! And a less than 80-hour work week! And health benefits! And no whippings! Damn spoiled middle class! For more on the wisdom of Angle, just click on this.

3. “I’m opposed to giving people money for doing nothing,” said former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, explaining why he, like virtually all his Republican brethren, is against the concept of paying unemployment benefits. Keep in mind that this was said by a guy who, as Rachel Maddow points out in the clip above, has been “earning” his money for 12 years or so as a scam artist. Newt, if you wanna do some honest work, maybe you should just do a deal with Jenny Craig. Sooner or later, though, Newt will be sending out his own version of those infamous direct-mail scam “letters from Nigeria.”

4. “Is the government now creating hobos?”

-- Nevada Congresscretin Dean Heller

Hey, Heller, why not just call them winos!

5. “If anything, continuing to pay people unemployment is a disincentive for them to seek new work."

-- Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl

Yeah, Kyl, people just enjoy being out of work. One would think that by now if the people of Arizona had any brains at all, they would ship Kyl to China along with the jobs he voted to send there.

6. “The jobs are there. But if we keep extending unemployment , people are just going to sit there."

-- Pennsylvania candidate for governor Tom Corbett

The sad punch line is that Corbett won, despite the fact that Pennsylvania is a state that is rife with extreme rust-belt poverty. The state is also well above the national average of having six applicants for every job. Now there’s a guy who really knows his constituents. “The jobs are there.” I guess that just depends on what the meaning of "there" is.

7. “We should not be giving cash to people who are basically just going to blow it on drugs.”

-- Utah Sen. Orin Hatch

This puss-for-brains loon should have been put out to pasture when he held up a copy of The Exorcist at the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1991.

8. “Have you heard of the 99-ers? Some of these people, I bet you’d be ashamed to call them Americans.”

-- Glenn Beck, discussing the 1.4 million (and growing in number) Americans who have been unemployed for more than 99 weeks in a country whose jobs have been shipped to China and India

9. “The people who have been laid off and cannot find work are generally people with poor work habits and poor personalities. I say ‘generally’ because there are exceptions. But in general as I survey the ranks of those who are unemployed, I see people who have overbearing and unpleasant personalities and/or do not know how to do a days work."

-- former Nixon speechwriter and game-show host Ben Stein

Stein unwittingly went a long way in describing himself. He also works as an advertising pitchman of sorts. Personally, I make a point of not buying anything he’s selling. Not only that, but when I see it on the shelves, I push it to the back behind competing products. It makes me feel good. Everyone has to do their bit in some way, you know.

10. “Let them eat cake.”

-- French queen Marie Antoinette, proposing an alternative for peasants who couldn't afford bread

Now we know that Marie Antoinette was expressing the modern-day Republican philosophy centuries in advance. And what happened to her?

#