About Me

Name: Jay Kern
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

A case against a smaller general assembly

Posted by Jay Kern on Tuesday, May 04, 2010 10:12:15 AM
   Representative Rosemarie Swanger has been on record for the past two years of supporting a constitutional convention here in Pennsylvania with the intent of (among other things which I agree with) cutting the size of the General Assembly in half.  The arguements for such a move are attractive (primarily lower legislative costs and less fingers in the pie), however the benefits are far outweighed by the potential danger in such a move. 
 
  This country was founded on the principal of a weak central government in order to facilitate the personal freedoms of it's citizens.  The reasoning for this is sound and simple.   Too much power concentrated in too few hands leads to tyranny.  Pennsylvania has modeled it's state government on the federal level as have many of the states here in the union.  And this is the primary arguement against shrinking the state assembly.  Representation in the General Assembly is based on population in the different districts.  Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are already taking an inordinate amount of resources from the rest of the state in my opinion, and cutting the size of the assembly in half will simply increase the power of the legislators from those areas.  Let me reiterate.   Too much power concentrated in too few hands leads to tyranny. 
 
  There is also no viable proof that such a move will in fact save money.  In the overall picture of the budget such savings that will be gained from the legislative end of things will quickly be eaten up by increased spending elsewhere.  Until enough members of the assembly are serious about substantially cutting spending, using this as a cost saving measure will serve no purpose at all and is merely a vehicle for concentrating power.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ed continues to have no idea...

Posted by Jay Kern on Friday, February 19, 2010 6:35:34 AM
Governor Ed Rendell announced his 2010 budget proposal this week and once again it's a nightmare.  I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day.   Frankly I was apalled that Ed actually proposed a 4% increase in spending for this fiscal year, especially considering the current fiscal situation. 
 
Just for the record...
 
Ed does know that Pennsylvania is currently spending about 10% of the State's annual budget on debt payments.  Right?
 
He also knows that PA has loaned 1.3 billion dollars to pay unemployment benefits which will have to be payed back by higher unemployment taxes on business.  Right?
 
He also knows that he has balanced this year's budget proposal based on a one time 2.8 billion dollar grant from the federal government.  Right?
 
The only sign so far that Ed Rendell has given that he's a lame duck is that he doesn't care what happens to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania after he's gone in 2011.   Prosperity equals cutting spending and reducing taxes.   Ed has once again failed both.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PA Dept. of Education

Posted by Jay Kern on Friday, February 19, 2010 3:17:14 AM
   Last year, I was accosted on a public forum for my view that the PA Deptartment of Education should be abolished.  I was accused of not caring for Libraries, Students, Teachers, Veterans, and the Handicapped.  I'll do my best to eradicate all of these issues during this post.  
 
   After having reviewed my position I will admit to the mistake of demanding the abolishment of the PA Department of Education.
 
   Although the department itself is not required by the PA Constitution (and I personally feel that the department itself is basically a redundency except for the express purpose of allocating funds), it is required by the PA Constitution at this time that the the state legislature provide for the "maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth."   The Federal Department of Education SHOULD be abolished.   It has no basis for existance at all.  The PA Constitution DOES allow for the creation of the Department of Education by the legislature, however since it's creation it has been permitted to run wild. 
 
   By rights, issues regarding veterans and the handicapped are already taken care of under the Department of Veteran's Affairs and the Department of Welfare.  Libraries ARE a subsection of the Department of Education, but there is no reason that it could not and should not be it's own entity.  The last issues are Students and Teachers and these are both integral topics to the discussion of education.
 
   Education here in Pennsylvania needs serious reform.   There is no given excuse to provide for the fact that although we're currently 10th on the list of 50 states for education expenditures, we're still 43rd for SAT scores, and 25th for a graduation rate.  The teacher's union has outlived it's usefullness.   My mother was a teacher.   When she started teaching, salaries were woefully inadequate.  However, in the past 35 years they have reached and surpassed in some instances where they should be.  There are many great teachers here in Pennsylvania, and I respect them all.   They deserve what they make, and probably then some.   At the same time, there are teachers here that are protected by the union that aren't worth a damn.   At this point in time the PSEA is a protection system for underqualified individuals, nothing else.
 
    In addition regarding the PADoE; While it should make individual school districts aware of programs that are succeeding elsewhere, it should under no means require certain school districts to adopt such programs.   I do believe in standardized testing, however it should be left to the individual districts to decide on the best way to implement the programs necessary to achieve those goals.  At the same time, a standardized test for math and reading should be just that.   Standardized.   Such tests should not be subject to 'dumbing down' in order to reach a desired level of success.
 
   I don't want to belabor the point that part of a student's education is driven by his or her parents.  In my opinion, this should be a given although I know it's not always the reality.   It's hard to punish a teacher for the lack of a parent's guidance. 
 
   Next, regardless of the union's views on this issue.   Teachers should be required to pass an aptitude exam regarding their chosen topic of profession every 5 years.  Such a test is already required by CDL drivers, builders for different certifications, and almost every other trade, including electric and plumbing.  Why should those that are teaching be exempt from requirements that are mandatory for those that have learned other skills?   They should certainly be proficient in what they're teaching.
 
   Lastly, funding for public schools has to change.  Basing the entire system on property taxes is borderline immoral, and completely fiscally irresponsible.  While I still want to believe in the traditional local control of school districts, at this point I'm not sold that it can match up with any view of the system being 'thorough and efficient", as required by the PA Constitution.   Many states have a county school system that shares money from one school district to another.  This may be an option for saving costs, But I'm not in favor of any one suggestion at this time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Overtaxing, Overspending, Overregulating....

Posted by Jay Kern on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 3:48:43 AM
   The title itself screams the major problems facing Pennsylvania today. 
 
   The State of Pennsylvania IS overtaxing, it IS overspending, and it IS BY FAR overregulating. 
 
   It seems that as soon as the issue of overtaxing is brought up there are those that defend this issue by claiming that Pennsylvania has one of the lowest income tax rates in the country.   This is in fact, True.  Pennsylvania does in fact have one of the lower rates of income tax in the United States. 
   
   However, this is more than offset by the myriad of other taxes faced by the residents of the Commonwealth.  Pennsylvania is one of the highest regulated states in the union, even without discussing school property taxes, corporate taxes, or capital gains taxes.  This sometimes gets lost as two of those states above us are our neighbors New York and New Jersey and well, we're just trying to 'fit in' with the region.  Regulations equal taxes.   You can't see them, but they are there.  
 
   Home improvement contractors are now required to register with the state at a cost of fifty dollars every two years.  They also have new requirements to have 'certified' lead paint specialists on site at a cost of 300 dollars per certification.   Bring into that equation storm water management costs, new building code regulations, and increased permitting fees and ask yourself why new home construction costs have skyrocketed in the past ten years.  These are all increased expenses, i.e. taxes, that have been placed upon residents of the Commonwealth with no oversight by the state legislature, the body of which has been given authority to pass such laws and regulations. 
 
   The legislature of Pennsylvania has neglected their right and duty to regulate such issues by pawning these and many other issues off to career beauracrats in the various departments of the state government, including the Department of Labor, the Department of Environmental Protection, and the Department of Education.  It is past time that the legislature bring these state departments back under control and take responsibility for all new regulations and taxes. 
 
   At the same time, the legislature must pass a resolution reaffirming the 10th Ammendment to the United States Constitution.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  The beauty of the U.S. Constitution is that you don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand it.  It's 19 pages of reading in large print which can be read in about half an hour, probably less.   The entire document is about what the federal government can NOT force the individual states to do, and we in Pennsylvania should enforce it.  Too many of the regulations facing us here in the Commonwealth stem from the federal government.
 
   Lastly, and I can't emphasize this enough.   The State must cut spending.  A majority of people here in Lebanon County have been feeling the current recession for the past two years, and to continue state spending at the current levels is irresponsible at best. 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Premonitions of what's to come...

Posted by Jay Kern on Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:19:51 AM
   If you know me, I spend a lot of my time railing about the federal government. 
  This isn't just because I disagree with the current federal position (which I do), but also because my sister, who is married to an Irishman, is currently dealing with the same situation that we will soon be facing here in the U.S.A.
 
   Facts are, that the Irish Government is broke.   No money.  They MUST cut the budget.   The United States (as well as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania) has already reached this point, even if they haven't realized it yet. Ireland is currently cutting their entire budget by 20%.   These are real cuts.   Not the games that are played here in the U.S.A. when a 'cut' means a 'reduction in increased benefits'.  REAL CUTS. 
 
   It is time for State and Federal budgets to be CUT here in the United States.  The Pennsylvania State budget has increased 75% in the past 8 years.   It's gone from 18 to all but 29 billion dollars in that time!  At this point  the reason real cuts are needed is because the state government has grown TOO FAST.   If you base growth on inflation for the past 8 years, it should have grown MAYBE 2 billion dollars.   Ed Rendell is a criminal for allowing this increase, and so is any member of the state house and senate that voted to
  approve these budgetary increases.  Ed has one budget left to propose in 2010, and if it includes any spending increases he should be
crucified on the backs of any members of the State House or Senate that approve any such budget.
    This is NOT a popular postion to take for Pennsylvania politics, but one can't deny the facts.   The State is broke and can't afford more.  Rendell is already playing games to get table games passed.  I don't primarily oppose table games, but a last minute
deal is NOT the time to discuss this issue. 
 
  Regardless of what the State is saying at this point, the only income the State has is YOUR taxes.  The same goes for the Federal government.   When you hear from your local government that the State will pay for it, it's YOUR taxes paying for that project.  It can be
 justified that overall you win but in the long run you lose.    This has been true for the past 200 years.
   
   
 
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Another cry for the 10th ammendment...

Posted by Jay Kern on Wednesday, December 23, 2009 2:43:30 AM
   Where do I start talking about the travesty that's called 'health care reform' before the United States Senate?
 
   To start, I'll quote the 10th ammendment.  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
 
   The way this bill is written violates not just the 10th amendment, but several others as well, including the 4th, 13th, 14th, and 16th.  
 
   Health care is NOT a right, and it is not designated as such anywhere in the Constitution.   It's nice to have when you need it, but health insurance is not the same as health care.  There is no shortage of health care in the United States.   And if I could actually read the finished billl (which at this time no one except the congressional leadership has seen)  I'm sure it would still fail the above accusations.
 
   This bill is another cry for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to asssert it's rights under the 10th ammendment, and that time is NOW.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The PA State Stimulus Share...

Posted by Jay Kern on Wednesday, March 25, 2009 3:14:20 AM
 

I have to admit that I flat out reject the Republicans in the Pennsylvania State House's attempt to demand control over the stimulus money from the federal government.  This is a play by the party's leadership to beat down all those in the party who object.  It simply is not any party's right to do so.
 
  Am I happy that Ed Rendell gets to decide where 10 billion dollars in funds gets to go?  NO.
 
  The fact of the matter remains that we here in Lebanon County have three people to blame for the entire stimulus package.  Those people would be...  Representative Tim Holden.  Senator Robert Casey.   Senator Arlen Specter.   This stimulus should have never been passed in the first place. 
 
  The entire stimulus package is a crock, and the future will prove it to be so.
 
  As I said before, it should come as no surprise that the rejection of the governor's control of the stimulus funds  is nothing but a political stunt, demanded  by the Pennsylvania State Republican party leadership and voted for by those that serve them.  At this point in time the Federal stimulus package has become nothing more than a partisan gripe.   The deal is done.  Deal with it. 
 
  This package, dealing with the nationalization of multiple banking corporations(including other businesses involved in the private sector),  is a total bastardisation of the entire free market economy, and should have never been enacted, period. It goes far beyond 'regulation' and enters the realm of Marxism.
 
  The entire U.S. Constitution itself is being laid upon the altar of Mob Rule, and right now it is approaching the point of extinction.
 
   ALL Pennsylvanians need to WAKE UP and forget partisan politics and work towards returning this country to it's roots.  Those would be the right to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  Nothing else. THOSE THREE.
 
  That includes supporting the resolution set forth by State Senator Mike Folmer and State Representative Sam Rohrer reasserting State Sovereignty based upon the 10th Ammendment. 
 
  State sovereignty has become 'quaint' in the past 145 years, but it is still a primal and legal recourse when the federal government oversteps it's granted rights.  Like it or not, your rights as a Citizen of Pennsylvania is soon to be your only recourse versus the United States Government.

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The State Worker's Union

Posted by Jay Kern on Saturday, January 31, 2009 5:38:01 AM
   I admit I was slightly encouraged last week when Ed Rendell said in a news conference that across the board tax increases were off the table for next year, and that state layoffs were likely in order to balance the budget.  Then came word last evening from one of his biggest supporters (the head of the State Worker's Union) that layoffs were NOT an option and that the state had better find a way to fund the projected shortfall in funds.
 
   I have some bad news for the State Worker's Union.  You ARE going to lose positions this year.  Ed knows damned well that he can't justify a tax increase after preaching for the past 2 years how casinos were going to save the world.  At the same time it's much easier to cut 1,000 state jobs (or whatever the total number will be) rather than cut programs that are vital to Ed's Progressive Budget. 
 
  If you asked me about the projected 2.3 billion dollar shortfall, I'd tell you to pull the budget back to 2006 levels.  Yes, it's only 2 years, but the budget in 2006 was also the level of funding that is currently being projected.
 
  Jay
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Limited Government has had it's 'Run'?

Posted by Jay Kern on Saturday, August 02, 2008 3:13:41 AM
   This post is in regards to Dr. Paul Heise's column in the Lebanon Daily News on July 24th.  You can find it at this link. http://www.ldnews.com/ci_9982393?source=most_viewed
 
  He speaks about the era of limited government being dead as if it was a current issue.  The facts are that limited government died in the 1930s with the election of President Franklin Roosevelt and the rise of 'progressives'.  Overall, the New Deal was a 'Bad Deal'.  At least for American tax payers. 
 
  Look at the facts.   In 1930 (just before FDR) the federal budget was 4 billion dollars, the population was 123 million, and there was NO national debt.  Today it's almost 2.6 TRILLION dollars, the national debt is 5.4 TRILLION dollars, and the population is only 282 million.  The federal budget has increased 670 times over in the past 80 years , the national debt is a nightmare, and the population has only slightly more than doubled.  Anyone who calls that 'limited government' is seriously out of touch.  Social Security is going broke.  Medicare is going broke.  And soon the tax payers are going to go broke.  Not because of predatory loans, but because of predatory government.  Lack of regulation is not the problem, intrusive government is.
 
  If Dr. Heise would like to truly learn and understand limited government I would encourage him (and anyone else for that matter) to read the Heritage Guide to the Constitution as well as any column from Dr. Thomas Sowell and Dr. Walter E. Williams, both nationally syndicated economists.
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

PA's 2008-09 Budget...

Posted by Jay Kern on Saturday, August 02, 2008 2:19:48 AM
This is what Governor Rendell had to say about this fiscal year's budget. 
Governor Edward G. Rendell hailed Pennsylvania’s major new investments in energy, education and infrastructure in the commonwealth’s $28.3 billion budget for the 2008-09 fiscal year as investments that will benefit Pennsylvanians for decades to come. 

“Even in tough national economic times, this budget shows that Pennsylvania has the resources and the resilience to keep moving forward,” Governor Rendell said.  “Because we have worked hard over the past five years to trim the cost of government and control spending, we have been able to make major new investments in educating our children, repairing our bridges, and moving toward energy independence in Pennsylvania.

“We accomplished these important goals while preserving the Rainy Day Fund and without increasing taxes,” the Governor said. “With this budget, Pennsylvania is well positioned for whatever lies ahead.” 
 
  I have a couple of concerns even with Rendell's statement.  He touts working hard to trim the cost of government and control spending.  I'll be honest.  I'd hate to see what the result would have been over the past 6 years if he hadn't done both.  The reality is that Governor Schweiker's last budget was 20.9 billion dollars.  This year's budget is 28.3 billion.  That's a total increase over the past 6 years of 35.4%!!!!  Sadly, there has been no real effort to control spending or reduce the size of government here in PA.  And while education and infrastrucure issues are laudable, I do have some issues with that funding as well as the governor's 'energy independence' plan.
 
  I'm going to run down the 'Budget Highlights List' as shown on the PA website.  http://www.budget.state.pa.us/budget/lib/budget/(2008-2009)_executive_budget_documents/2008-09_enacted_budget_highlights/08-09-enacted_budget_highlights.pdf
 
  I'm going to ignore the first section except to mention that in this time of economic downturn when most everyone I know (including myself) is looking to save money and cut costs, the state budget increased 1.1 BILLION DOLLARS.  And I truly don't care what the budget's priorities are at this point in this post.  In real terms (based on census and budget data), Pennsylvania has a shrinking (and aging) population and an increasing budget.  These two facts just do not add up no matter how you look at it.  One of them has to break and I'm afraid it's most likely going to be the tax payer.
 
  Section 2:  Protecting Our Progress.
 
  I'm not wild about 1.6 billion dollars for the RCA.  In my opinion this is simply another fund for legislators and the governor to dole out where they'd like to see it.
 
  The RPII while crucial at this point in time is also shameful that it's reached this point.  Roads and bridges SHOULD be one of the state's priorities.  Instead we've been subjected to education initiatives, very questionable environmental regulations, and  alternative energy.
 
  I can applaud most of what the Energy Independence Strategy is attempting to do, but in my opinion Bio fuels are a total loser.  Particularly corn and soy based fuels.  While they DO burn cleaner, they aren't as efficient for mileage and it takes more gas to create them than what you save.  This year's budget subsidizes bio fuel by 75 cents per gallon.  If you can only stay in business due to government intervention, you don't belong in business and it certainly isn't a viable alternative.
 
  In addition, H2O PA is something that should have been taken care of 8 years ago when the Chesapeake Bay Initiative was first being discussed, not as a last minute fix it.
 
  Section 3:  Education.
 
  This subject is a total nightmare, because it can be argued that as a bachelor with no children I'm just not qualified to make any comments whatsoever.  I don't view it that way, but it's still a nightmare.
 
  Because I couldn't find exact numbers for school enrollment, I'm going to assume 20% of the population.  Also, I'm only using the 9.7 billion dollar number for education from K-12.  (In all honesty, the first two numbers Governor Rendell posted in the highlights are a bit vague as to whether they're combined or separate. I'm assuming the first is the total and the second is merely a breakdown.)  Even with those rough figures, the state of PA is spending over $2,000 per student for education.  And that's what the STATE is paying.  That doesn't address your local school taxes.  In my opinion the entire education structure needs to be revamped.  I know a number of my local school board members and a lot of them have good intentions for lowering taxes when they get elected.  Then they realize that they can't simply due to all of the hoops and regulations that public schools are required to follow.  Public education across the U.S. (including Pennsylvania) is fast becoming a travesty, and lack of funding is NOT the issue.
 
  Section 4:  Caring for all Pennsylvanians.
 
  I have some huge issues with certain aspects of this section.
 
  I'll start with Cover All Kids.  I'm personally totally against any kind of national health care plan.  Many people think we aren't even close to such a reality, but we already have Medicare and here in Pennsylvania we have CHIPS.  The government has been very good at making sure that all residents of PA know that ALL kids now qualify for the program regardless of income.  (I personally detest the commercial featuring the little kid walking around with a school bag.)  I'm not going to sit here and say that no kid needs state assistance, but the facts are that many do NOT.  They're already covered by their parents and will continue to be so.  This is a feel good program that has good intentions but has run amok.
 
  Moving on to Child Care.  I'm going to use the state's numbers, but assume a bit again because total recipients are a bit vague.  The state is trumpeting an increase of 52.7 million dollars for child care which includes covering 2,600 more children.  Let's assume that 30% of that is for increased costs, which leaves us with 36.9 million dollars for these new kids.  That's almost $14,200 per child.  Does anyone here pay that much for child care?  Even if we assume only half of that increase is for the additional kids, you're still looking at almost 10 grand per year.  I'll admit that I may be out of touch on this issue, but $10,000 seems a bit much for child care.
 
  Autism.  Yes, autism is a very real problem for those afflicted with it and those affected by it.  I do question state funding for the condition.  But autism just might be the most over-diagnosed condition here in the United States today.  There are a lot of skeptics out there, Michael Savage included.  I'm sure you've all seen the highway billboards that state 'every 20 seconds a child is diagnosed with autism.'  It's very emotional, but if you actually run the numbers based on that single fact you come up with 1,576,800 children per year being diagnosed with autism.  Then, if you use some very conservative numbers you'll find that everyone on the entire earth will be autistic in 300 years.  So why worry about global warming when no one will be able to take care of themselves anyway?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Constitutional Convention

Posted by Jay Kern on Tuesday, April 15, 2008 6:26:59 PM
   Despite the fact that I personally disagree with term limits and shrinking the size of the legislature, I AM in favor of an unrestricted constitutional convention.  The biggest arguement against such a convention is that there are no limits placed on what can be done, and that's just fine to my way of thinking.  It most certainly is a risk that is worth taking.
 
  I would like to detail why I am not in favor of term limits.  In states where they have been enacted, they simply have not had any noticeable effect on the expansion and personal invasiveness of government.  California for example, has 12 year term limits.  What that has meant there is that an individual spends 12 years in the house, then turns around and runs for another 12 years in the senate.  For those states that have tried to pass stricter term limits, they have generally seen them shot down in the first legal challenge in court.  Term limits are unrealistic and they have a high probability of being a violation of free speech when challenged in court. 
 
   I also believe that shrinking the size of the legislature would be devastating to our values and traditions here in central Pennsylvania.  If the size of the legislature is reduced, it will further concentrate all political power in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.  Two areas where I feel we in the midstate are already sending too much of our money.  There are many other ways in which we can keep the size of the legislature the same and still reduce costs, the primary one of which I favor is making the state legislature a part time position. 
 
  It's no secret that the beauracracy in Harrisburg runs the day to day business with absolutely no guidance whatsoever by the legislature.  A part time legislature would reduce money wasted on individual offices that are rented across the state.  It would also bring up the issue of eliminating questionable pensions and health care benefits.  And in fact, considering how often the legislature is in session during the year, it's already part time, just with full time benefits.
 
  
  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Insurance

Posted by Jay Kern on Wednesday, March 26, 2008 6:24:21 PM
  Health insurance (and it's costs) is one of the biggest issues facing Pennsylvanians today.  There are many politicians touting nationalized (i.e. socialized) health care as the answer.  I couldn't disagree more.
 
  There are two primary options that I am in favor of.
 
  The first is to allow insurance companies to offer more options.  A menu if you will.  Think of this in terms of auto insurance.  When shopping for auto insurance, most people purchase the coverage that they NEED.  If auto insurance was like health insurance, it would cover filling up your tank, new tires every 4 years, regular oil changes, and any other maintenance or repair you can think of.  And would also likely cost 6 to 10 thousand dollars per year instead of 400 to 1500 dollars depending on your car and options.  Of course, we're talking about your personal health and not your car here, but hopefully that analogy made sense.  The state is forcing health insurance companies to cover many procedures and situations that the average person will never encounter in their lifetime.  Why should I or anyone else pay for services that will never be used?
 
  The second is the creation of health savings accounts or a health IRA if you will.  These would be tax free accounts that could be contributed to at any time, and drawn upon when necessary.  In effect, it's basically self insurance.  People now are already in the habit of putting money away for retirement, why not for their future health care as well?  Actually, since this time this has been done.   I myself use an HSA.
 
  Of course, these are some options that the governor in particular frowns upon because they focus on the individual.  The health care issue will only be taken care of by the state minimizing it's intrusion into the health care industry.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Business and the Economy in Pennsylvania

Posted by Jay Kern on Thursday, March 13, 2008 3:23:27 AM
      I will start this post with my qualifications for actually commenting on this issue.  I am a self employed businessman for the past 15 years.  I have worked for that time in conjunction with my father in the excavation business, so I would say that I'm fairly familiar with the regulations and requirements placed on 'small business'.  At the same time, for the past 8 years to the present I have served as an elected official on the Jonestown Borough Council, the past 4 years and counting as president, so I also familiar with a number of the government requirements regarding companies that wish to perform work for that entity. ( I assure you that I as well as a number of my fellow board members were extremely put out  having to pay prevailing wages for Jonestown's new building.)
 
   I also have some serious disagreements with Governor Ed Rendell regarding the direction the Commonwealth must take to improve economic development. 
 
   In my opinion the single greatest option to spur economic growth in Pennsylvania is to reduce taxes.  Reducing taxes are a PROVEN method of increasing economic growth. At the same time I feel it is also important to reduce some of the regulatory burdens placed on businesses by the state.  You simply don't encourage growth by charging a company $45,000 in regulations and then telling them to 'make it up'.  All regulatory costs eventually make it to the tax payer.
 
   It is also IMPERATIVE that the governor stop promoting requests to loan money to pay for issues that he feels are important right now.  Reality says that these issues will be taken care of WITHOUT loaning money.  Governor Rendell needs to realize that some issues will NOT be taken care of by the end of his term, and there are also some issues that shouldn't have even been brought up during his tenure.  The tax payers of the commonwealth have a limited amount of money to 'give' the state, period.
 
 
   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

What needs to happen...

Posted by Jay Kern on Thursday, March 13, 2008 2:43:35 AM
   There are a number of things I want to see changed at the state level, and I will try to enunciate some of them right now.  Some of these have been expounded on previous posts.
 
   First, it is imperative in my opinion that the school property tax be eliminated.  This is by far the most unfair tax ever perpetrated on the commonwealth.  This is one of the greatest examples of punishing those individuals who have worked hard to realize the dream of owning a house.  As it stands now, if you own your house you effectively pay rent on that property till the day you die.  Statistics do show that the 'poor' and those that rent will pay slightly more overall, however paying more is in reality negligable in regards to their standards of living. 
 
   Second, it is time to be done with the state's (and the federal government's for that matter) habit of unfunded mandates.  What this means is that when the state enacts a regulation, they'd best have a way to pay for it or it doesn't happen.  The Chesapeake Bay Initiative is merely the most expansive and public of these issues.  The sad fact is that they happen all the time.  The legislature is out of touch with the citizens of Pennsylvania when it comes to paying for bills that they seem to pass on a whim.
 
   Last (for now) the state needs to reduce spending.  I will start with saying that the first thing that the legislature needs to pass is a law limiting the growth of government to the rate of inflation.  However, I believe that it has to go beyond that.  It is beyond time that the state government realizes that there needs to be real reduction in the size and spending of the state government.  I'm not talking reduction in the growth of government, I'm talking real cuts.  In this time of increased living expenses, the last thing that tax payers need is increased government spending, tax increases, or feel good 'rebates'.  The legislature should instead be promoting the slimming down of state departments and tax cuts.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Photos...

Posted by Jay Kern on Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:10:29 PM
   If you'd like to see a photo of me (because I know I can't post one here), you can find a few at www.myspace.com/jayforpa.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »