November 15-16, 2007
Nov 15 01:11 Corruption As Far As The Eye Can See Nov 15 04:10 Gov. Pawlenty Hits Back After Pogemiller Dig Nov 15 14:41 Corruption As Far As The Eye Can See, Part II Nov 15 16:52 Blitzer Defends Russert, Hillary Still Stumbling Nov 15 17:24 Does Anyone Believe Him Anymore? Nov 15 19:08 **BREAKING NEWS** Barry Bonds Indicted Nov 15 23:44 They Got The Wrong Man Nov 16 04:14 Ellison Files Brief In Voter ID Lawsuit Nov 16 13:19 Ellison OK With Pork-Laden I-35 Bill
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006
Corruption As Far As The Eye Can See
When Pennsylvania Democrats create a culture of corruption, they don't horse around. The latest poster child for Pennsylvania corruption is fmr. Rep. Frank La Grotta. Here's Pennsylvania AG Tom Corbett's statement announcing LaGrotta's indictment:
Former Pennsylvania State Representative Frank LaGrotta today was charged with two felony counts for hiring his sister and niece as legislative assistants in 2006 and paying them thousands of dollars in public funds for work which they never performed.That's only one facet of this investigation. Here's another facet that Mr. Corbett's office is certainly investigating:
Corbett identified the defendants as former state representative Frank LaGrotta, 49, 777 Adams Ave, Ellwood City; his sister, Ann Bartolomeo, 46, 640 Crabapple Lane, Ellwood City; and his niece (Bartolomeo's daughter), Alissa Lemmon, 24, 115 Ada Drive, Ellwood City.
LaGrotta is charged with two felony counts of conflict of interests and Bartolomeo and Lemmon are each charged with false swearing for lying to the grand jury.
LaGrotta was a state representative from the 10th legislative district, which includes Lawrence County and parts of Beaver and Butler counties, from 1987 to 2007, and was defeated in the 2006 May Democratic Primary.
"This is a case of a public servant abusing his position of trust and power to financially reward his family members at the taxpayer's expense," Corbett said. "We allege that Frank LaGrotta hired his sister and niece on the state payroll and said they performed work that simply never existed."
Corbett said evidence of LaGrotta's ghost employment scheme was presented before a statewide investigating grand jury, which recommended that criminal charges be filed.
Ann Bartolomeo
The grand jury found that after LaGrotta's defeat in the May 2006 primary, he asked H. William DeWeese, Leader of the House Democratic Caucus, to authorize the hiring of his sister, Ann Bartolomeo, as a legislative assistant in his Lawrence County district office.
Corbett said since 1998 to the present, Bartolomeo has been a full-time elementary school teacher in the Ellwood City Area School District.
Although Bartolomeo applied for the position of legislative assistant on June 5, 2006, the grand jury found that the terms of her employment was antedated to Feb. 1, 2006, in an agreement signed by LaGrotta, DeWeese and Bartolomeo. The greement stated that the Democratic Caucus of the House of Representatives agreed to pay Bartolomeo $1,932 based on a 37.5 work week.
The grand jury obtained an "Employee Payroll Information" document in which Earl Mosley, the House Democratic Caucus Personnel Director, authorized Bartolomeo to receive $19,329 effective June 20, 2006 and to revert to a regular bi-weekly salary of $1,932 beginning on June 21, 2006.
The grand jury obtained a June 20, 2006, email where LaGrotta notified the Democratic Caucus that Bartolomeo will be leaving his office effective June 30, 2006. Bartolomeo told the grand jury she did archival work which involved sorting through 60 to 70 boxes of documents that LaGrotta had kept for 20 years in a storage facility called the Wampum Mines. She stated that at least half of the boxes contained PennDot drivers' license and vehicle registration applications and that she crossed out drivers' license and vehicle registration numbers and re-filed the applications chronologically.
Bartolomeo provided the grand jury with monthly calendars from February 2006 to June 2006 purporting to show the time she spent doing archival work. She stated that LaGrotta directed her to keep the calendars, even though she did not have an agreement to be paid by the state until June 2006.
The calendars Bartolomeo gave the grand jury showed that she only worked 37.5 hours during one week. Bartolomeo claimed to have worked a total of 451 hours, an average of 20.5 per week, which computes to an hourly wage of $46.29.
Alissa Lemmon
The grand jury found that LaGrotta's niece, Alissa Lemmon, was hired as a full-time legislative assistant on May 16, 2005, and was reduced to a part-time legislative assistant on Sept. 12, 2005.
Lemmon told the grand jury that on Jan. 3, 2006, she began employment as an administrative assistant to the executive director of Tourism and Cultural Heritage for the Pittsburgh Convention and Visitors Bureau.
LaGrotta notified the House Democratic Caucus that Lemmon "will be leaving me on Jan. 31, 2006." Although she was not working for LaGrotta, the grand jury reviewed payroll records that show that Lemmon was paid $1,131 on Jan. 16, 2006 and another $1,131 on Jan. 31, 2006.
On Dec. 27, 2005 LaGrotta wrote the House Personnel Office stating that Lemmon "has 10 unused vacation days and 11 accumulated comp days which she will be paid for."
Lemmon testified before the grand jury that she never kept track of her compensatory time or vacation time so she did not know how much she had accumulated or used.
An email obtained by the grand jury demonstrates that Lemmon was well aware that she was not entitled to vacation or compensatory time.
On Aug. 24, 2006, LaGrotta requested that Lemmon be rehired as a legislative assistant. The request was approved by House Democratic Leader H. William DeWeese, effective Sept. 12, 2006, for 20 hours a week at a salaried rate of $27.32 per hour.
LaGrotta notified the House Democratic Caucus on Sept. 14, 2006, that Lemmon would resign effective Oct. 10, 2006. She was paid $3,954 for this time period. From September 12 through Oct. 10, 2006, Lemmon told the grand jury that she performed archival work for LaGrotta, similar to that of her mother, by crossing out drivers' license numbers. Lemmon was paid $6,216 in 2006 for work which she never performed.
Archival Work
The grand jury found that PennDot applications in Rep. LaGrotta's office were routinely destroyed in the district office after three to six months. The grand jury found that the documents that Bartolomeo and Lemmon claimed to have worked on did not exist.
Agents of the Attorney General's Office interviewed the manager of the Wampum Mines storage facility, which is the location where LaGrotta claimed to have stored the documents. The manager, who has worked there for 23 years, stated that LaGrotta never kept boxes at the storage facility and that because of its humidity, the Wampum Mines was ill-suited to safely store paper documents.
LaGrotta was asked by the grand jury to produce any and all documents worked on by Bartolomeo and Lemmon in 2006. Through his attorney, LaGrotta stated that certain of these documents were destroyed on Sept. 1, 2006 and all of the other documents were taken for destruction by Wright's Hauling on Nov. 30, 2006.
The grand jury found that LaGrotta hired Wright's Hauling on Sept. 1, 2006, and again on Nov. 30, 2006, however agents interviewed the owner of the hauling company who denied removing any boxes of paper documents on either date.
LaGrotta is charged with two counts of conflict of interest, a statutory felony, which each count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $15,000 fine. Bartolomeo and Lemmon are charged with one count each of false swearing, a second degree misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The defendants are scheduled to surrender on Thursday, Nov. 15, at 8:30 am before Harrisburg Magisterial District Judge Joseph Solomon, 1705 N. Front St., Harrisburg.
Corbett said that LaGrotta, Bartolomeo and Lemmon will be prosecuted in Dauphin County by Senior Deputy Attorney General Anthony Krastek of the Attorney General's Public Corruption Unit.
In June 2006, both LaGrotta and Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, D-Greene, signed an agreement that "antedated" the hiring of LaGrotta's sister Ann Bartolomeo as a legislative assistant to February, prosecutors said. She collected $19,000 in supposed back pay, and resigned by the end of the month.Bill DeWeese might as well start writing his retirement speech after reading these words:
Attorney General Tom Corbett declined to comment on whether DeWeese did anything improper in Bartolomeo's hiring, saying only that state investigators continue to look into how public money was spent and whether employees have campaigned on state time.
"This is an ongoing investigation and it's going to take awhile," Corbett told reporters at a news conference to announce the charges.
Attorney General Tom Corbett declined to comment on whether DeWeese did anything improper in Bartolomeo's hiring, saying only that state investigators continue to look into how public money was spent and whether employees have campaigned on state time.DeWeese should think of that as a way to say that the grand jury hasn't handed down Rep. DeWeese's indictment...Yet.
Email Exchange
In a series of e-mails on Jan. 18, 2006, grand jurors found Mr. LaGrotta explaining a state check Ms. Lemmon received after leaving state employment. Mr. LaGrotta later told investigators the exchange was an attempt at humor, an explanation the grand jury rejected.That indictment works for me, though I don't think the LaGrotta clan is all that happy with it.
"Did you ever figure out the paycheck thing?" Ms. Lemmon wrote her uncle.
"They kept you on benefits through Jan. 31 and mistakenly kept you on payroll. Just keep it. They don't want back," Mr. LaGrotta replied.
Ms. Lemmon: "Well, isn't that nice of them :)."
Mr. LaGrotta: "You may get one more too!"
Ms. Lemmon: "Isn't this illegal? Not that I'm complaining!!!"
Mr. LaGrotta: "Not illegal. Mistake. You can pay it back if you choose but no one here is asking that. Besides, it is like your severance pay."
Ms. Lemmon: "Eh -- works for me!!!!!"
Manzo Told to Resign
An aide to Pennsylvania House Democratic Leader Bill DeWeese says he was asked to resign yesterday to help distance the caucus from an investigation into how staff bonuses were handed out.I'd doubt that Mr. Manzo resigned to take heat off Rep. DeWeese.
Mike Manzo is one of seven House Democratic employees who ended up out of their jobs yesterday as part of a major shake-up.
Manzo says he spent a few hours with DeWeese yesterday, and at the end of it he wrote down his resignation. He says he doesn't think he did anything wrong.
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 1:32 AM
No comments.
Gov. Pawlenty Hits Back After Pogemiller Dig
Larry Pogemiller picked a fight with Gov. Tim Pawlenty Wednesday that I'm certain Pogemiller wishes he hadn't picked. Here's what happened that initiated the exchange:
A last-gasp attempt by local leaders to balance their budgets by tapping into the state treasury instead of homeowners' pockets failed to sway Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who ruled out a special session on Wednesday.The first thing that jumps to mind is why a special session was needed considering Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's refrain of getting everything done on time. The second thing that jummps into my mind is that the DFL packaged the LGA with the economy-killing tax increases and threw in the inflation escalator to boot. They did that to put a gun to Gov. Pawlenty's head, essentially telling him that he'd best sign the tax increase.
His decision leaves for dead a vetoed tax bill that would have boosted aid to local governments and helped two large business expansions with tax breaks. Mayors and Democrats had pressed for a special session to revive the bill, which the Republican governor rejected in May over an inflation accounting provision.
Here's the exchange between Sen. Pogemiller & Gov. Pawlenty:
"I don't know how many more ways he can say no," DFL Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller said at a Capitol news conference. "He promised during the last election cycle that he was going to govern the state differently, and he obviously lied, because he is still `No New Investment' Tim Pawlenty, same as the last four years."Here's Gov. Pawlenty's reply:
Pawlenty scoffed at the notion that his vetoes hurt the state's economy.That opening sentence laid Sen. Pogemiller out flat. Game. Set. Match. Championship.
" What my DFL friends don't understand is you can't government your way to prosperity. You have to have a real economy ," he said. "So their answer is 'We'd have a better economy if the governor would spend more government money on projects and raise taxes'?"
Let's return to Pogemiller complaining that Gov. Pawlenty didn't call a special session. I said at the top that it strikes me as odd that they're complaining about not holding a special session after touting the fact that they finished their work on time. Here's a snippet from Margaret Anderson-Kelliher's letter to the DFL faithful on that very subject:
I am pleased to inform you that the Legislature adjourned for the year on May 21st, meeting the required constitutional deadline for completing its work. A timely close to the session was in marked contrast to the previous years, which saw gridlock, a government shutdown, and special sessions. In fact, it was the first budget year since 1999 that the Legislature finished its work on time.How can Ms. Kelliher honestly say that "the Legislature finished its work on time" when she's complaining that the cities aren't getting their LGA fix? The reality is that the DFL, led by Ms. Kelliher and Sen. Pogemiller, are spinning their backsides off because they know they didn't get much accomplished despite 'finishing' on time.
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:13 AM
No comments.
Corruption As Far As The Eye Can See, Part II
Yesterday, I titled this post "Corruption for as far as the eye can see." There's a good reason for that: I'm tracking 3 scandals/investigations. Ed Rendell is spinning the situation. here's his quote that most caught my eye:
He said the best response now is to "do good things," adding, "If this is going to be a significant scandal, and that remains to be seen, you've got to change the conversation."Only Ed Rendell would attempt to spin this scandal by saying it "remains to be seen" if "If this is going to be a significant scandal." The average voter recognizes that there's a bunch of "significant" scandals already percolating. That's just the beginning. Check out this article :
Here's how bad things have become for state House Democrats.This morning, I talked with a contact who lives in the Harrisburg area. My contact said that Democrats are pretty depressed, though they won't say that verbally. This contact said that their body language told a different story than their words. My contact said that there's a mood of dread because they think the other shoe is getting ready to drop.
On the day when a former member became the first person charged in a months-long probe of legislative operations, many House members dreaded that the worst is to come.
The majority Democratic caucus took a new hit Wednesday when state Attorney General Tom Corbett's announced criminal charges against former Rep. Frank LaGrotta, alleging that he padded his state payroll with relatives.
One thing that I confirmed was that the Democrats are making mistakes because they're panicking. Ever since they ran the 7 senior staffers out of the Capitol earlier this week, I've thought that they were panicking. The news accounts I read said that they were terminated to "distance the House Democrat leadership" from the various scandals, most likely the Bonusgate scandal.
When I told my contact that "that was like throwing chum in the water" and expecting the sharks not to go on a feeding frenzy, the reply was an emphatic "Exactly."
One thing that's becoming clear is that Democrats used every trick in the book to reclaim the majority, which they did by a 102-101 margin. If any current House Democrats are indicted, which isn't a stretch at this point, Democrats will be the minority party in the Pennsylvania House and Senate, though they'd still hold the governor's seat.
Another subject that I asked about was whether the Democrats' gloom could effect the presidential race. My contact's response was that it likely wouldn't if it were held today but that it might well have that effect if Tom Corbett's investigation indicts any high profile Democrats.
Here's Gov. Rendell's advice to the House Democratic leadership:
"I told them you can't change Tom Corbett's investigation, but you can affect what record of accomplishment we achieve here in Harrisburg," said Rendell, who hopes to build on the House's 102-101 Democratic majority next year. "The public is much more willing not to base their votes on other stuff if there is a record of accomplishment....If we get things done, that changes the conversation significantly," Rendell said."That changes the conversation significantly." That's the reason why he visited the Capitol. His visit was likely an attempt to change that evening's newscasts. I'd doubt that it worked. In fact, I don't think it's possible to get people's minds off the various scandals. The line about Democrats' hopes of "building on the House's 102-101 Democratic majority" is pure talk.
It's a political eternity until next November's elections but there are some significant indicators that things might not go so well for Democrats. One thing that's certain is that it's gonna be a wild year in 2008.
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:41 PM
No comments.
Blitzer Defends Russert, Hillary Still Stumbling
Good for Wolf Blitzer. According to Bill Sammon's article , Wolf Blitzer defended Tim Russert's questioning of Hillary, then said that Bill Clinton's dig that "6 boys" had teamed up against "one girl" was spin. (He didn't use those words exactly but that's clearly what he meant.) Here's how Mr. Blitzer defended Mr. Russert:
Blitzer also defended Russert against criticism by Bill Clinton. "I think Russert was doing his job," he said. "He was trying to follow up and be Tim Russert. He asks tough questions. That's what people want. I admire him."Hillary's claims of Russert playing a gotcha game notwithstanding, the truth is that she simply got caught trying to have things both ways. First she said that Spitzer's plan "made lots of sense", then she backtracked by saying she wasn't endorsing Spitzer's plan, just that she was saying his plan made alot of sense.
The Clintons attempted to spin that into Russert playing gotcha games. Blitzer's saying that Russert "was doing his job" puts this thing to rest. Thoughtful people should agree that that isn't gotcha journalism. It's simply trying to pry a straight answer out of an evasive candidate.
Hillary's campaign is attempting to change subjects with this planted bit of 'news':
Mark Penn, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) chief strategist, said Thursday that the Democratic front-runner would get 360 electoral votes if the election were held tomorrow and she faced former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R).Penn's quote is pure BS. For Hillary to reach 360, she'd have to flip red states worth 111 electoral votes. That won't happen. for that to happen, she'd have to flip Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Missouri, Iowa, New Mexico & Colorado. Even then, I don't think that that'd get her to 360. According to the 2004 electoral map , that list of states would be worth 92 electoral votes. According to a friend of mine who is a county Republican chairman in Florida, there's no chance that she'll win Florida.
Penn, in a campaign memo, said the results would be similar regardless of which of the top Republican candidates Clinton would face.
Republicans took Penn's prediction in stride.
"It is good to see that the Clinton camp can maintain a sense of humor after the worst two weeks of their campaign," said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee. "Before they start drafting memos on general election strategy, someone ought to write a plan to stop Hillary Clinton's sinking poll numbers in the early states or figure out where their candidate stands on Social Security, tax reform, and driver's licenses for illegal immigrants."
This memo's only value is about changing the subject. The true test for Hillary will come when she's facing a real candidate. Thus far, she's face a group of toy poodles. She won't get the kid glove treatment when she's going against Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani. Here's Blitzer's opinion on that:
"If she can't handle the heat during a Democratic contest, wait until the Republicans really start going after her," he told TV Newser. "If she's the nominee."She's gotten kid glove treatment thus far. The little jabs that Christopher Dodd and John Edwards have threw sent her tumbling for more than two weeks. Her campaign is in disarray. Her performance in this debate is critical. If Obama and Edwards sharpen their attacks against her, her stumbles might dramatically erode support for her.
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 4:54 PM
No comments.
Does Anyone Believe Him Anymore?
According to this article , Harry Reid is shooting his mouth off again. The big question is whether anyone's paying attention anymore. Here's what Sen. Reid said today:
"Every place you go you hear about no progress being made in Iraq," said Senate Democratic majority leader Harry Reid. "The government is stalemated today, as it was six months ago, as it was two years ago," Reid told reporters, warning US soldiers were caught in the middle of a civil war. "It is not getting better, it is getting worse," he said.Sen. Reid is insulting us if he thinks that we're that gullible. The civil war line is pure myth. The violence is dropping precipitously. I just sent Harry Reid an email chastizing him for his statement. Here's the content of that email:
Sen. Reid's statement that our soldiers are caught in a civil war in Iraq is insulting. Tell Sen. Reid that we read the reports. Tell Sen. Reid that we've seen the statistics that show casualties are dropping dramatically.I just called Sen. Reid's office asking what information Reid is basing his statements on. The young lady that I talked with said that she couldn't speak for him on the matter, which I expected. When I asked if someone from Sen. Reid's DC office could return my call and answer my questions, she said that they couldn't since I wasn't a Nevada resident. I suppose that's one way of limiting his exposure to questioning from people who aren't part of the DC press corps.
Most importantly, tell Sen. Reid that the days of bamboozling the American people
with phony statistics are finished. We don't rely on his statements to know what's happening in Iraq. We hop on Al Gore's internet & read a half dozen articles from Iraq telling us about the Anbar Awakening, which is quickly turning into the Iraq Awakening. We read about how Al-Qa'ida in Mesopotamia has been driven out of Baghdad.
The new paradigm demands that politicians tell the truth. The new paradigm demands taking responsibility for the misstatements politicians make.
It's a brave new world, one which Sen. Reid doesn't know exists...YET.
The bottom line is that Reid's statements have been exposed. They aren't fooling anyone. Politicians like Sen. Reid haven't figured it out that they don't control the narrative anymore. They're about to find out.
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 5:41 PM
No comments.
**BREAKING NEWS** Barry Bonds Indicted
That's the headline I never thought I'd see. Here's what Bonds is charged with :
Baseball superstar Barry Bonds was charged Thursday with perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying when he said he did not use performance-enhancing drugs.Here's the link to the actual indictment. Here's some of Bonds' grand jury testimony:
Q: I know the answer - - let me ask you this again. I know we kind of got the into this. Let me be real clear about this. Did he [Anderson] ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid? Did he ever give a steroid?The White House issued this statement after Bonds' indictment broke:
A: I don't think Greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. I just don't think he would do that.
Q: Well, when you say you don't think he would do that, to your knowledge, 1 mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?
(a) A: Not that I know of.
................................
Q: Okay. So, 1 got to ask, Mr. Bonds. There's this number associated on a document with your name, and corresponding to Barry B. on the other document, and it does have these two listed anabolic steroids as testing positive in connection with it. Do you follow my question?
A: I follow where you're going, yeah.
Q: So, 1 guess I got to ask the question again, I mean, did you take steroids? And specifically this test is in November, 2000. So I'm going to ask you in the days and weeks leading up to November, 2000, were you taking steroids--
A: No.
Q: - - or anything like that?
A: No, 1 wasn't at all. I've never seen these documents. I've never seen these papers.
Q: So, starting in December 2001, on this page. again, there's BB here, which obviously are consistent with your initials; correct?
A: He could know other BBs.
Q: Correct. But BB would also be your initials; is that correct.
A: That's correct.
Q: In January 2001 were you taking either the flax seed oil or the cream?
A: No.
Q: And were you taking any other steroids?
(e) A: No.
President Bush, a former baseball team owner who has spoken against steroid use,If they're able to convict Bonds on these charges, his single season home run record could be wiped out. If that happens, Bonds would be well short of Hank Aaron's record, which would put a big smile on my face.
is "very disappointed to hear this," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto. "As this case is now in the criminal justice system, we will refrain from any further specific comments about it. But clearly this is a sad day for baseball."
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 7:15 PM
No comments.
They Got The Wrong Man
According to this editorial , the 7 terminated staffers should've stayed. The editorialist's preference would've been to see Bill DeWeese marched out of Harrisburg:
The wrong folks lost their jobs in Harrisburg this week . House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese (D., Greene) forced out seven Democratic aides, including his chief of staff. DeWeese's desperate move comes amid allegations that party leaders illegally rewarded some aides with taxpayer-funded bonuses for campaign work.The editorialist's statement that DeWeese, not his senior staffers, were the people who needed to go, must be unsettling to him. People aren't keeping their opinions to themselves about this scandal, either.
House Democrats appear to be the probe's focus. They awarded about $1.9 million in bonuses in 2006, far more than the House GOP or either party in the Senate .
DeWeese's Tuesday-morning massacre of staffers implies they are the ones responsible for the bonus embarrassment. And perhaps the investigation will show that some aides did abuse bonuses, or tried to hinder the probe. But if anyone needs to go, it's DeWeese .
The sooner House Democrats face up to that reality and choose a new majority leader, the better.
Further, the indictment yesterday of a former representative indicated that DeWeese had a role in allowing a relative of that legislator to be paid for work she never did.Rep. DeWeese isn't convincing voters that he's a reformer. He's foolish for even attempting that stunt. All that'll happen in the end is that he will have failed in pulling it off and his credibility will be shot.
DeWeese managed to hang on to his job when most of the old-guard party chiefs responsible for the pay raise were voted out last year. Since then, he has tried to clothe himself as a reformer.
But the suit is a poor fit. Not only did DeWeese help to engineer the midnight pay raise, he punished Democrats who voted against it by stripping them of committee posts.
DeWeese has allowed the House version of the open-records proposal this year to become a watered-down sham. No surprise, many of the exceptions added to the bill would shield or exempt the legislature.
This information should tell people why Democrats are expecting another shoe to drop soon:
As the resignations were accepted, Mr. Corbett acquired well over a dozen boxes of documents from the House Democrats , who unsuccessfully went to court to keep the records undisclosed. Russ Diamond, founder of the eformist PACleanSweep, said the resignations clearly happened because of what the grand jury might discover.TRANSLATION: Mr. Corbett got enough new ammunition to indict more House Democrats.
"I have no doubt whatsoever that this has to do with the impending perp walk that we're about to see," Mr. Diamond said.
The caucuses of both parties in both chambers of the legislature allegedly handed out bonuses totaling up $3.6 million last year for campaign work as opposed to legislative work. House Democrats allegedly doled out the most - $1.9 million.
Simply put, DeWeese and company aren't getting away with their missteps. They're getting exposed like never before. I suspect that they're wondering what happened with their media covering for them. I suspect that they're also wondering how ordinary citizens are figuring their schemes out. They're probably asking why John Murtha and Ed Rendell have gotten away with this stuff for decades but that they aren't.
"I think we're seeing the actions of a whole slew of dead-enders in Harrisburg," Mr. Diamond said. "For me it just appears that DeWeese is doing everything possible to save his job. I think it's seriously in jeopardy not just as majority leader, but as a representative."Rep. DeWeese's active support for the notorious 2005 pay raise resulted in the closest reelection battle of his career, with Republican Greg Hopkins getting 47.4 percent of the vote to the Democrat leader's 52.6 percent.I think Mr. Diamond is exactly right. It isn't a matter of if; it's a matter of when that other shoe drops. That's what happens when you rule with arrogance.
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2007 11:44 PM
No comments.
Ellison Files Brief In Voter ID Lawsuit
Keith Ellison is taking his anti-photo ID campaign all the way to the Supreme Court. Specifically, he's filed a brief with the court stating that a photo ID card is a variation of a poll tax.
Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison, the only Muslim in the U.S. Congress, has filed a brief with the Supreme Court in a voter proof-of-identification case that he says disenfranchises black voters.Ellison's rants notwithstanding, he couldn't be more wrong. Requiring a photo ID to vote is the only way to prevent voter fraud. Here in Minnesota, part of the election law requires election workers determine a voter's residential status. Here's what the relevant portion of the Election Law says:
Ellison urged the court to strike down an Indiana law that requires a person to have a photo ID to vote. Last month, he introduced legislation that would ban the requirement in federal elections.
Ellison, a first-term congressman, filed the brief with the support of all the other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, including presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democratic senator.
"In America, our right to vote is a sacred right, and a moral obligation," Ellison said in a statement Thursday. "We must do everything that encourages, fosters and facilitates everyone's ability to exercise that right. While photo IDs seem harmless, they are in fact the modern day poll tax."
200.031 DETERMINATION OF RESIDENCE.Keep in mind that photo ID's prevent organizations like ACORN from perpetrating widespread voter fraud :
Residence shall be determined in accordance with the following principles, so far as they may be applicable to the facts of the case:
(a) The residence of an individual is in the precinct where the individual's home is located, from which the individual has no present intention of moving, and to which, whenever the individual is absent, the individual intends to return;
(b) An individual does not lose residence if the individual leaves home to live temporarily in another state or precinct;
c) An individual does not acquire a residence in any precinct of this state if the individual is living there only temporarily, without the intention of making that precinct home;
(d) If an individual goes into another state or precinct with the intention of making it home or files an affidavit of residence there for election purposes, the individual loses residence in the former precinct;
(e) If an individual moves to another state with the intention of living there for an indefinite period, the individual loses residence in this state, notwithstanding any intention to return at some indefinite future time;
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual's residence is located in the precinct where the individual's family lives, unless the individual's family is living in that precinct only temporarily;
But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven workers for Acorn, a union-backed activist group that last year registered more than 540,000 low-income and minority voters nationwide and deployed more than 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The Acorn defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam Reed says is the "worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history" of the state.Here's more from John Fund's article:
The list of "voters" registered in Washington state included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Tom Friedman, actress Katie Holmes and nonexistent people with nonsensical names such as Stormi Bays and Fruto Boy. The addresses used for the fake names were local homeless shelters. Given that the state doesn't require the showing of any identification before voting, it is entirely possible people could have illegally voted using those names.
Local officials refused to accept the registrations because they had been delivered after last year's Oct. 7 registration deadline. Initially, Acorn officials demanded the registrations be accepted and threatened to sue King County (Seattle) officials if they were tossed out. But just after four Acorn registration workers were indicted in Kansas City, Mo., on similar charges of fraud, the group reversed its position and said the registrations should be rejected. But by then, local election workers had had a reason to carefully scrutinize the forms and uncovered the fraud. Of the 1,805 names submitted by Acorn, only nine have been confirmed as valid, and another 34 are still being investigated. The rest--over 97%--were fake.With all due respect to Rep. Ellison, requiring a photo ID is the only way to prevent organizations like ACORN and ACT from committing widespread voter registration fraud.
While I understand that poll taxes were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, I also know that the courts must also decide how to balance the right to vote with the need to protect the security of elections.
It'd seem to me that this would be moot if people were given photo ID's if they couldn't afford one. Here's what Infoplease.com says about the poll tax:
poll tax, a capital tax levied equally on every adult in the community. Although no longer a significant source of revenue for any major country, the poll tax did provide large sums for many governments until well into the 1800s. The tax has long been attacked as being an unfair burden upon those less able to pay. In the United States, the poll tax has been connected with voting rights. Poll taxes enacted in Southern states between 1889 and 1910 had the effect of disenfranchising many blacks as well as poor whites, because payment of the tax was a prerequisite for voting. By the 1940s some of these taxes had been abolished, and in 1964 the 24th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution disallowed the poll tax as a prerequisite for voting in federal elections. In 1966 this prohibition was extended to all elections by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that such a tax violated the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.Based on this information, poll taxes were levied against everyone. History tells us that poll taxes were used to prevent minorities from voting in southern states like Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia. The best way to eliminate voter disenfranchisement while preserving elelction integrity is to provide a free photo ID for voters who can't afford a photo ID.
Elllison's whole reason for calling photo ID a "modern day poll tax" is to energize the minority vote. He's stirring minorities by using racially charged words. His goal is to stigmatize anyone who proposes a photo ID to be branded a bigot. It's a time-tested tactic within the Democratic Party to stigmatize people they disagree with as bigots. They use that tactic to avoid a genuine discussion on the subject.
Voters across the nation should reject Ellison's divisive political tactics. More importantly, the Supreme Court should reject Rep. Ellison's brief. Most importantly, the Supreme Court should affirm the ruling of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld Indiana's law as constitutional.
To do anything less would be to disenfranchise every vote cast in America.
Posted Friday, November 16, 2007 4:21 AM
No comments.
Ellison OK With Pork-Laden I-35 Bill
According to this Strib article , it sounds like Rep. Keith Ellison is ok with Democrats adding millions of dollars worth of earmarks to the bill appropriating money to the rebuilding of the I-35 Bridge. Here's what Rep. Ellison said that indicates that:
With the Senate expected to approve the bill in the coming days, the Bush administration issued a new veto threat, releasing a statement Wednesday criticizing the bill for its "excessive level of spending." Two Minnesota Republicans, John Kline and Michele Bachmann, voted against the bill, siding with the White House, which supports the bridge money but stands against the overall $105.6 billion bill funding transportation and housing projects nationwide.Rep. Ellison's faux indignation is easily understood in light of this paragraph:
The veto threat holds the bridge funding hostage to a long-simmering budget clash over national priorities, with congressional Democrats threatening to withhold funding for the Iraq war and the president demanding smaller increases in domestic spending.
The confrontation also cracked the unified front displayed by the Minnesota congressional delegation in the hours after the bridge collapse on Aug. 1.
"We walked over that bridge together ... but that was back in August," said a frustrated Rep. Keith Ellison, the Democrat whose district includes the Minneapolis span. "So when I saw those two red [no] votes, it blew my mind. ... When it came time to put dollars next to their stated commitment, they said no."
Kline and Bachmann, frustrated by what they see as runaway spending, said they have signed their names to a separate bill that would provide the $195 million in bridge money. It has received no backing from Democrats, who all supported the broader transportation bill.This vote highlights Keith Ellison's liberal spending habits. If he cared about establishing sane spending habits, he'd sign onto the Kline-Bachmann alternative. Instead, he's insisted that President Bush gets a pork-infested bill that holds the reconstruction appropriations hostage.
"To equate a no vote on this bloated bill with a vote against the bridge is simply not correct," said Kline, who has pledged not to request any congressional earmarks for his south suburban district.
Here's a question for my liberal friends: Why aren't you urging Reps. Peterson, Walz, Oberstar, McCullum & Ellison to co-sponsor the Bachmann-Kline alternative? Are you giving tacit approval of the wasting of our tax dollars?
While it isn't clear in many places who is the taxpayers' friend, that isn't true here in Minnesota. In Minnesota, we know who cares about the taxpayer because of how the House GOP minority prevented the DFL from passing unprecedented & unsustainable tax & spending increases. On the federal level, Michele Bachmann & John Kline are fiscal hawks.
I encourage taxpayers statewide to think this through: Who looks out for your wallet most consistently? Can it be said that the DFL thinks about protecting your wallet or is it more true to say that they're more about buying down your anger with a few goodies?
Finally, let's ask this question: Who protected your wallets last session? Didn't Gov. Pawlenty & the House GOP do a great job keeping spending as low as possible?
Isn't that the type of action that's worthy of your support?
Posted Friday, November 16, 2007 1:26 PM
Comment 1 by Fred\'s Giving Day at 16-Nov-07 03:01 PM
Please help support Fred's Giving Day. It's the Fred Heads turn at creating a money bomb
for Fred
We have a widget you can add to your site as well as a button.
The site is
http://www.fredsgivingday.com
You can make your pledge there, then on November 21, 2007, make good on your pledge and
donate at Fred08.com
Please help spread the word!
Comment 2 by Eva Young at 17-Nov-07 01:22 PM
Transportation bills aren't done project by project, they are more broadbased than that. It would cost more to pass them project by project than to pass the larger ones. Though I agree there's a problem with the pork that gets into these bills.
Michele Bachmann voted against the bridge with this bill - and also against a number of transportation projects in her district. I wonder what Mayor Dave Kleis in St Cloud thinks about Bachmann voting against improvements to the St Cloud Airport.
Senator Norm Coleman worked hard to put these central Minnesota projects in this bill - only to have Bachmann and Kline undo his work. I wonder what he thinks about this.
