LEGISLATIVE REFORM STARTS ON ELECTION DAY

Harrisburg must be reformed, and the legislature is a good place to start.
There is no doubt Harrisburg needs to be reformed, but it will not be reformed if voters keep returning those legislators who want things to stay the way they are.
The so-called “Bonusgate” scandal that hit Harrisburg this past summer is just a symptom of what is wrong with the way business is done in the state capital. There is an environment of entitlement and arrogance in Harrisburg that must be changed, and that change will not happen until those who want to reform our state government outnumber those who want to retain the status quo.
I will enthusiastically join with reform-minded legislators to make meaningful changes to the way business is conducted in Harrisburg. As a result of the “bonusgate” scandal, I have already said publicly that I will not vote for Democratic leader Bill DeWeese should he run for leadership next year.
Bonusgate sickened me. Taxpayer dollars should not be used for partisan political activities, and whether Bill DeWeese was involved or not, it happened on his watch, and that is not the type of leadership we need.
I will fight or many legislative reforms when I am elected including:
More transparency in government
Campaign finance reform
Random selection of members to the ethics committee
A non-partisan approach to redistricting House and Senate seats
Eliminating costly legislative perks
Eliminating the slush funds controlled by legislative leaders, and redirecting those dollars to education, health care or property tax relief

And the worm turns…..

It was just four or five days ago when my opponent was lamenting negative campaigning. I responded that one person’s negativity is another person’s truthfulness. I then tried to point out the truth of the arguments I was making.
My opponent did not refute a single point I made. She only was upset that I raised the points in the first place. Well, now my opponent has gone “negative” on me. I won’t cry foul. After all, campaigns are about drawing comparisons between candidates. I will point out that while my so-called negativity dealt primarily with our respective stands on issues, my opponent’s negativity did not mention a single issue. Instead, she essentially talked about my life experience, which, ironically, I believe is one of my strongest points. Let’s take a look at what she said.
She said I “had a dismal employment record” and had “minimal work real work experience”, and that I held a “series of political jobs.”
Well, let’s see, in my 35-year career, I have worked 20 years in the private sector and 15 years in government. In government, I worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations at the state (Florida), county (Chester and Montgomery Counties) and federal (six years as press secretary and senior advisor to Congressman Joe Hoeffel) levels. Except for the time I worked for Congressman Hoeffel, who is a Democrat, I had no involvement in partisan politics because I believed that anyone serving the general public and not in a strictly political job should be above politics and should serve all the people.
During those 35 years, I thought I was getting “real work” experience. What could my opponent be referencing? Would it be the five years I spent as a reporter and editor for a daily newspaper? I think that is real work. Would it be the two years I spent as public information director for Chester County under a Republican administration? That seems real, also.
Or, could she be referring to the five years I spent running the day to day operations of the largest tourism publicity office in the world in Florida? Being responsible for promoting the largest industry in the state of Florida certainly seems like real work.
Could it be the 13 years I spent as an account executive and ultimately a vice president of an advertising and public relations agency in suburban Philadelphia? I doubt that would be it, do you?
Next, the Republican chairman of the Montgomery County Commissioners approached me and asked me to consider being the county’s public information director. I hesitated, but ultimately I took the job, and served in that position for two years. I certainly think that would qualify as “real work experience.”
When Joe Hoeffel was elected to Congress in 1998, he asked me to be his press secretary and senior advisor, and for the next six years I built an excellent relationship with the media, the public and served as one of Congressman Hoeffel’s chief advisors, even arguing against voting to give the President the authorization to go to war in Iraq. During that time I commuted almost daily between Montgomery County and the nation’s capital, because I was a single parent (my wife had passed away a few years before) and wanted to be home every night with my son, who was in high school. Could she be talking about that being minimal work experience?
Finally, after Hoeffel left Congress, I started my own public relations and government affairs consulting firm with a partner, and we have been running this small business for the past four years. We are entrepreneurs running a small business, and our clients provide social services to those in need, environmental services and rebuild distressed properties. Certainly that is real work.
Does all that seem like “minimal real work experience”? I did have other jobs. Three times in my life, I have worked multiple jobs. Of course, there was college when I worked two jobs and went to Temple University fulltime. Years later when my wife was battling cancer and medical bills piled up, I took a second job to pay the bills. A few years later, after my wife died, and my children were in college or about to go, I worked a second job to make ends meet. Do I lose points for working harder?
Wait! Wait! Possibly, she is talking about the four years I spent serving my country in the U.S. Navy. No, I doubt that is it, because earlier this year when she held an event to honor, among others, Vietnam era vets, I was one of the ones to whom she gave a certificate and medal. So, I don’t think those years lost any importance in the ensuing months, do you?
Frankly, I think my opponent and I should match work experience, and see whose is “minimal.”
My opponent also says I ran a “losing campaign” for county commissioner in 2003, and only decided to run after I failed to get a “political appointment.” Okay, let’s get the facts straight. First of all, when I ran I was employed as Congressman Hoeffel’s press secretary and senior advisor, so I did not run because I needed a job. Secondly, I made sure I was in compliance with the Hatch Act that controls political activity of federal employees. Third, since I was sensitive to the fact that I might lose some work time to the campaign, I asked for a reduction in pay until the campaign was over. I wonder if my opponent’s Republican colleague, who is an assistant district attorney, is still taking full pay from the DA’s office as he campaigns for the legislature.
Yes, I did lose the election. Someone always does. However, my running mate and I received the highest vote total of any Democratic candidates in history up to that time. I think it is worth pointing out that my opponent ran for county commissioner in 2007, but never had a chance to be accepted or rejected by the voters, because she was unceremoniously rejected by her own party when they nominated two other candidates.
Finally, my opponent criticizes me because my consulting firm represents a developer, and she says that means I am “not concerned about our region.”
Au contraire, mon opponent! The developer in question specializes in redeveloping distressed properties in older communities, instead of chewing up open space. The project in question promises to be the biggest redevelopment project in Norristown in decades and will create hundreds of new, permanent jobs. My opponent’s two Republican House colleagues who represent Norristown are two of the project’s biggest supporters, and the last time I looked, Norristown was in our region, and our county seat.
A review:
Minimal work experience? That doesn’t seem to be the case.
Lost a previous election because I was rejected by voters? I was honored to put myself before the voters, and lost graciously. At least my party gave me the chance to run.
More interested in helping a developer than my region? Actually, helping the developer is helping the region.
Truth 1, Negativity 0.

Truth or Negativity?

Some elected officials like to control the news. They put out newsletter after newsletter extolling the wonderful things they have done, run lots of pictures of themselves cutting ribbons, kissing babies and presenting checks. If the news media doesn’t ask questions, and if they never have a serious challenge in an election, chances are they can define themselves on their terms, and voters never get a true picture of the elected official.
However, when there is a serious challenge from another candidate, the elected official, who has always had a free ride, starts to cry ‘foul”. They charge the challenging candidate with being negative, when, in fact, the opponent is merely pointing out things as they are, not the way the elected official wants them to be seen.
The elected official might even say things like “I’m a good person, why are they saying these things about me.” In actuality, the challenger probably hasn’t said anything about the person’s character, but is merely pointing out differences on issues and different attitudes they might have like giving their fulltime position to which they were elected their first priority.
Of course, there are times when campaigns do negative, dirty, despicable things like engaging in character assassinations, calling your opponent a terrorist, questioning their patriotism and conducting a low grade racist campaign. It is even worse when these types of campaigns are conducted at the same time that the country is facing the biggest challenges it has faced in nearly 80 years. It is hard to believe that a candidate or political party would do that, but it has been done. You betcha!
It is ironic when the elected official complains about a “so-called” negative campaign against them, at the same time that his or her party is conducting the kind of contemptible campaign described above. On second thought, maybe that’s not irony, but rather hypocrisy.
But I digress, back to our elected official. When the elected official admits in a newspaper article that they have missed scores of important votes in order to be 100 miles away tending to another taxpayer-funded job, and the challenger points out the double-dipping nature of things, is that being negative or truthful?
When the challenger merely points out differences on issues between the two candidates, is that being negative, or is it informing the voters? After all, shouldn’t the voters know, for instance, that the elected official would take away a woman’s right to choose and would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, while the challenger supports a woman’s right to choose?
Isn’t it informational, rather than negative, to point out that the elected official voted against funding for biomedical research that could unlock the answers to so many diseases and give people longer, healthier lives, while the challenger fully supports that research? It seems to me that the true pro-life position there is finding the cure for so many illnesses.
With so many voters worried about having health insurance or losing it or not being able to afford it, shouldn’t they know that their elected official fought against health care legislation that would have lowered the cost of health care for everyone? And, shouldn’t they know that finding a way to cover Pennsylvania’s 760,000 uninsured persons is the challenger’s highest priority?
With violence at an all time high and Philadelphia police being shot at alarming rates, shouldn’t voters know that the elected official has flip-flopped over and over again on gun control issues, while the challenger would vote for common sense gun control legislation that would make our streets safer and still uphold the basics of the Second Amendment?
And finally, what is so wrong about pointing out that the elected official gleefully campaigned for, sang the praises of, and supported the policies of one of the worst administrations in the history of this country? How can that be negative?
Like many things in life, opinions depend on perspective. One man’s negativity is another man’s truthfulness. I guess it just depends whether you feel you are on the right side of the argument.

Affordable Health Care

As I campaign door-to-door throughout the 61st Legislative District, voters are concerned about the economy, the high price of gasoline and many other important issues facing the Commonwealth, but the issue that seems to worry voters most is our health care system.
Despite the fact that our area is relatively affluent, many of our neighbors either do not have health insurance, or are afraid they might not have it in the future, or they have it, but are being priced out of the market.
Not long ago, I met a man washing his car in his driveway. He told me he was a self-employed mechanical contractor, but could not afford health insurance for him and his wife. His wife was six months pregnant and had not yet seen a doctor. A single mother told me that despite living in a comfortable home, she had no health insurance for her and her teen-aged son. Another woman living in a beautiful neighborhood said her health care payments were more than her mortgage.
These are just a few of the stories I have heard while campaigning, and it has only strengthened my resolve that access to affordable healthcare will be my number one priority when I am elected to the state legislature. On the other hand, my opponent, Rep. Kate Harper, opposed Gov. Rendell’s Access to Basic Care legislation that lowers health care costs for everyone.
There are over 700,000 Pennsylvanians without health insurance, yet Republicans have stymied Gov. Rendell’s health care plan. Massachusetts worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a universal health care plan and it has been far more successful than any projections. We must pass Gov. Rendell’s plan that will be a good first step to insuring all Pennsylvanians. Health care must be accessible and affordable for everyone in Pennsylvania.