Answer:

My reaching elective office is important because most of the issues that affect you and your family such as public safety, health care, education, property taxes, urban sprawl, college tuitions, senior services, roads and transportation, crime, delinquency, etc. are provided by State Government funding and structure.

When we elect executive officials such as the Governor to accomplish his agenda he needs a team dedicated to working with him in the legislature. I will become part of the team that assures you get what you voted for.

The present legislator in the 29th District is not part of the Governor’s team as he continues to vote against the initiatives we voted for when we supported Ed Rendell by a 62.5% margin. That is why my campaign to go to Harrisburg is important. If we truly want what we said we wanted when we elected Ed Rendell we must give him his own team and help him to accomplish what we already voted for. Critical times like these make all election decisions voters make important.

Question: We are losing doctors in Pennsylvania because of the Democratic Trial Lawyers. Please expand on your position on Medical reform and mal-practice.

Answer: This problem is about Health Care Delivery not malpractice, trial lawyers, doctors or political parties. As each of these constituencies advocate political agendas our needs have been lost in the process.

1. We should not be so much concerned about the malpractice insurance problems as we should be concerned about our ability to pay for or obtain proper medical care. The medical availability issue seems to have been lost in the malpractice debate.
2. Recent information indicates that we may not be losing doctors in Pennsylvania. I have heard different statistics about doctor losses in Pennsylvania. In reaction to these differing numbers the Democrats in the legislature have just announced that they are proceeding with a study. This is too important an issue to be left to political posturing. We need this study.
3. Many of the doctors I have talked to speak to me about what they perceive to be a medical meltdown in services due to third party interference, cutbacks and late payments by some insurers. These doctors suffer excessive costs as they maintain separate accounting systems and clerical specialists for several of their third party carriers. Years ago it was doctors, nurses and patients. Today it is doctors, nurses, patients and a large business staff to collect fees and satisfy insurance bureaucracy.
4. Obtaining medical care today is a problem for all of us. We need to examine the entire structure, including how we educate doctors. We must change their educational opportunities to provide wider health care services.

   It is time to establish a Primary Medical Service Education System that funds selected doctors’ educations and requires those student doctors who chose to receive this educational funding to serve for 5 or 6 years in public health service at a moderate salary having had their tuition paid by the Medical Services Educational System. Those graduates must not be able to practice as private physicians until they have met their obligated public health service requirement (their full diploma would require this public service be completed). Their public service would be part of their education and their educational opportunity would give direct benefit to those without insurance providers.

   When these graduates perform their services in public clinics and at selected hospitals in localities (where public money was used to build the designated medical facilities), medical care for those in rural areas and those unable to participate in our normal health care system could be delivered.

   This would defray the costs incurred to taxpayers, insurance companies and others who are already paying for this care through either direct or indirect impacts on their medical fees, hospital fees, or insurance premiums. Thus another tier of service would be created for those who suffer from little or no medical coverage with a direct benefit to the present system.

5. Immediately, we must move away from only having an adversarial system of malpractice compensation. We must emphasize arbitration with very strict guidelines for court appeals from arbitration awards. This present system in which people are forced into an adversarial relationship with those who tried to help them with their health problems is repugnant.
6. We need a fair and reasonable way to assess doctor error. We should not throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Access to the courts in cases of extreme abuse cannot be solely handled by a simplistic one-size-fits-all mentality. We must provide justice within a system that requires a fair hearing in such matters.

There are two obvious abusers in our present system: Those who abuse the court system with frivolous cases and those who take advantage of the leniencies the courts have allowed in cases of patient and consumer abuse. Our system must bring all abusers before a level bar of justice. There can be no limit on penalties for willful misconduct. Tort reform does not serve either purpose!

7. Society must have ethical boundaries for trial lawyers and a sane approach for those who have suffered injury to accomplish justice. To this end Court Rules have recently changed on bringing malpractice cases before the courts. Increased safeguards have been initiated that require stronger proof of neglect before such cases can be brought. Some of our present legislators, in their zeal to make a complicated matter seem simple have failed to pay attention to these court rule changes and continue hawking their flawed logic.

Question: I believe the State Store system is a socialistic Soviet style system. What can be done about it?

Answer: The origin of Pennsylvania’s State Stores goes not to the Soviets but to the conservative nature of our Commonwealth legislators at the time this system was established. When social conservatives in control decided to permit liquor sales in this state they decided to control sales under the state store system. Again, this was done by conservatives, not socialists.

The state legislature for 10 years and under conservative control in both houses could have acted on this matter. They did not!

Recent legislation (that they claim to be important changes?) concerning our State Stores just occurred sponsored by some local legislators. We can now buy liquor on St. Patrick’s Day!

There is also another proposal being discussed that would expand other days of sale including Election Day. (As if we don’t have enough problems with questionable elections.)

If legislation on changing state stores status is proposed I will review it with care. However, I must be convinced by a rational cost benefit analysis before I would change this structure which does have tax benefits to our state that offset other taxes. There has been much rhetoric on the matter without sufficient study.

Statement: I believe that Democratic liberals hurt business in this state.

Answer: Targeting Democrats for being at fault on business growth in Pennsylvania or as only being liberals is just plain illogical. Quite to the contrary it is Democrats who are in favor of small business growth and who are very capitalistic. Since most of our basic economic growth in the last several years has been dependent on entrepreneurial ability present in our capitalistic economic structure we believe the support of small business to be a vital necessity. It is the legislative obstructionists who remain steeped in simplistic verbal dogma who are behaving as anti-capitalists. Business in Pennsylvania is like a dried up garden that needs watering and care, not continued neglect and empty rhetoric.

While so called conservatives obstruct change it is they who have overseen a stagnant state economy with severe repercussions to Pennsylvanians’. Those bent on standing for the status quo just don’t understand how our present economic system can be properly utilized to accomplish both business and governmental agendas cooperatively. Business and government agendas are not mutually exclusive; they are compatible! Proper use of government can assist growth.

The primary duty of government in this Commonwealth is the health, safety and welfare of the citizens who reside here. Without that simple set of goals there is no charter at all for state government’s existence. Without a thriving small business climate government cannot function properly and without rational policies on the part of government small business cannot flourish.

It has been many years since Pennsylvania’s State Legislature proposed meaningful initiatives for education and business seeding that would improve the business climate and this state’s standing among the states. We remain at about 47th of the 50 states in new job creation. This is one of the reasons our citizens elected Ed Rendell on his Plan for Pennsylvania.

Question: I have heard you speak about education. Why are you so intense about this subject?

Answer: A progressive educational system is a much needed incentive to encourage businesses to reside in or move to Pennsylvania. A well educated work force is essential for businesses as they grow. Both businesses and our residents need an enlightened legislature that understands this fact. That is why Governor Rendell’s attempts to modernize our educational structures are so right. This is why giving him representatives who understand the benefit of his programs is essential.

I believe that Pennsylvania must move forward with programs that will grow our economy. We have only to look to the southern states to understand how bold leadership and proper seeding and harvesting of our educational systems and state economy will improve business and job creation. Burying our heads in the sand or digging our ideological heels into the ground may satisfy the urge for simplicity but these methods accomplish little in the way of sound legislative action to increase business revenues and generate tax dollars from a thriving state economy. Again 47th in job creation is not a thriving state economy.

Question: Local Highways are in poor shape and outdated and PENNDOT has not kept up, and what about the 202 by-pass?

Answer: Many of these problems blamed on PENNDOT started and occurred under previous administrations and state legislatures in Harrisburg. For the last number of years the legislature has been controlled by the opposing party. Ed Rendell was only elected two years ago and has faced a very hostile agenda. The previous agenda for repairing roads had been pitifully lethargic and almost non-existent. We are now fixing roads on a triage basis. So I agree about the state of our roads and believe both the legislature and the governor must address the root causes.

As this problem applies to all roads in our state, it appears that we will not be able to fund 202 while the other roads in the state are in a dire state of disrepair. Route 202 is but one of the problems. Route 263 is in deplorable shape and portions need complete road bed improvements. All of our roads in this area need proper timing of traffic and we also need to impose impact fees on builders who keep building where there are no proper roads. Taxpayers cannot continue to support builders with their property taxes being spent on increased infrastructure.

Question: I believe you are supporting misconceptions about government’s abilities and believe that taxpayer money is being wasted. Your opponent is correct in stopping Rendell’s Plan. I believe I will support your opponent and help fund his campaign.

Answer:

First, having spent $278,000 on his last campaign and having received over $258,000 from party and PAC sources I doubt your money is very important to him. To me the loss of your support is more important since it is I who am representing individual taxpayers.

The answer to government waste is that money is not going to the programs that will grow business and give us the needed revenues for programs that help people instead of political insiders. It is going to such items as Walk-around money. I regret to inform you that it is you who are supporting popular misconceptions.

I hope that while you contribute to my opponent you consider that he had and has very substantial resources. Additionally he is school teacher (on leave) who profits from a 50 percent increase in both his teacher’s pension and legislative pensions while his teacher pension also gets a boost due to his legislative service. During his last campaign when he was asked to help rescind this outrageous raid on the treasury, he refused to discuss rollbacks.

This pension matter is the gift of the previous Republican controlled House, Senate and Governor that passed these increases. These increases are responsible for the sudden exorbitant increases in school taxes to cover the increased pension costs and the raid on our state’s reserve funds during the worst financial rundown in decades. In order to cover their actions in increasing their pensions the legislatures in their greed gave the raise to all state employees. So much for party labels!

The people who support your position have had the last 10 years to prove their point. They have not been very successful in luring new business and jobs to this Commonwealth. They have not helped by encouraging new businesses and no new revenues they bring. So, I advocate a path that differs from theirs and unfortunately yours. This path is not a path to socialism. It is a path that recognizes government’s ability to foster a good business climate within our existing economic structure.

Question: What is your position on reassessments in Bucks County?

Answer: This is not a matter about law suits or issues of abstract fairness. This issue impacts real people, in real time circumstances. The laws that have been ignored have been ignored because our elected officials have failed to look at this issue in present day terms of justice and equity. Present laws on this matter are antiquated when examined at our point in time but to this time no one has challenged the law itself.

I view the issue as a candidate, from a very different perspective from many others. As I visit voters in my district they have expressed their fears of losing their homes. They believe that a change to rolling reassessments is in order. Let me explain this from the perspective of these long term residents.

A majority of these residents purchased their homes many years ago. Over the years their taxes increased many times over even without reassessments. Their increased tax payments were used to educate growing populations of new children, to build roads and added infrastructure and to provide social services to an enlarged community. Thus, their taxes were used to make their communities pleasant for prospective residents.

When new residents purchase older properties their assessments remain in the same realm of the older residents. When they buy in newer developments they pay assessments based on the newness of their developments. In either situation they knew or should have known what tax bite they would be paying at the time of their purchase. There is a principal in law known as caveat emptor - let the buyer beware. This rule is especially fair and reasonable when it comes to viewing rolling assessments. In rolling reassessments the buyers know what they will be paying and this assessment will remain stable until they sell to a new buyer.

Intermittent changes in property assessments at varying points in time should not be permitted to affect the well being of those who presently own their homes. Remember, they already pay tax increases as the cost of living and infrastructure rises. The present law when applied makes stability in property costs impossible to achieve.

New residents should not be counting on the aging members of their new community to subsidize their free choice to locate in that community. Nor is it timely for the courts to dictate advantage to one side or the other because of the lack of action by elected officials. The present assessment rules were created during an agricultural and less mobile era in our society. This issue must now be remedied by the state legislature.

I believe existing property owners have earned and paid for intrinsic property rights due to their longevity in their community. The present laws disregard basic property rights. County politicians have recognized this assessment disparity and disregarded raising any assessments for years for fear of losing elections. Our legislature has remained unwilling to examine this basic issue at all. If the law offends, pluck it out.

Present homeowners must have fairness and recognition of their status, age and ability to pay as they approach fixed incomes and retirement. Assessments should be done as rolling assessments so that people may sell and leave at their pleasure not because they are taxed out of their homes.