Pennsylvnia Federation of College Republicans

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

College Republicans Stunned by Bryan Lentz

Missing Key Appropriations Hearings

Lentz placing priority on campaigning over governing

Philadelphia-2/25/10- The Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans in the state today criticized State Rep. Bryan Lentz, a candidate for Congress in the 7^th District of Pennsylvania, for failing to attend a critical Appropriations Committee hearing this week on state funding for state-related universities. The criticism follows reports that Lentz missed three additional key hearings on Wednesday while in Washington, DC engaging in campaign activities.

Lentz missed three separate hearing of the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday, including hearings on the budgets of the Department of Aging, Department of Public Welfare, and the Department of Insurance. He was reportedly in Washington, DC campaigning. Lentz was also absent from a House Appropriations Committee hearing Tuesday where the leaders of the state-related universities – Penn State, Temple University, Lincoln University, and University of Pittsburgh – testified about the need to raise tuition on college students unless the legislature increased funding over and above the Rendell Administration’s flat budget requests. This would impact over 160,000 college students across the commonwealth.

“Representative Lentz says he is running for congress so that he can ‘make a real difference in our communities our Commonwealth and our country.’ However, his failure to show up at this hearing shows that he is simply paying lip service to the people of Pennsylvania, notably to the issues facing younger Pennsylvanians,” said Barry Scatton, President of the Temple University College Republicans. “This is reprehensible because without this state funding many young people in Pennsylvania won’t be able to afford a higher education.  Perhaps he should focus on the job he currently has as a public servant instead of campaigning for another position he will probably treat with the same disdain.”

Just two months removed from finally passing much needed funding for the schools within the Commonwealth’s System of Higher Education, problems again are mounting that threaten many current and future students ability to receive higher education. At Tuesday’s hearing, Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans (D-Phi) hinted that in the near future all funding will likely be eliminated, leading to sizable tuition increases. “With the state funding for 2009-10 having just been completed two short months ago, the future of our states higher educational foundation is in jeopardy,” said Ed Furman, State Chairman of the Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans.  “Representative Lentz is nowhere to be found on these issues, missing critical meetings where a Democratic colleague of his cast into doubt future state funding for Pennsylvania’s network of Colleges and Universities.  Representative Lentz needs to do his job in Harrisburg and stand up for the tens of thousands of students across the commonwealth whose future education is in danger.”

The potentially crippling tuition increases will only hurt the state in the future. “Bryan Lentz has done a great disservice to students who attend, or plan to attend, state-funded schools. Many of the country’s greatest minds are the products of state-funded schools,” said Rachel Feinstein, President of the University of Pittsburgh College Republicans. “Clearly, Representative Lentz feels that providing funds for esteemed institutions such as Pittsburgh, Penn State, Temple, and Lincoln network of institutions is not imperative for the development of our state and country.”

At a time with high unemployment across not only the commonwealth but the entire country, these ideas and lack of leadership are sadly far too common. “At a time when Pennsylvania’s high tax rate is costing the state jobs, many young Pennsylvanians are being forced to leave the state in which they earned their education, putting a tremendous burden on the rest of the state to make up for the loss of hard and extremely well educated workers,” added Furman.

The Pennsylvania College Republicans would like Bryan Lentz to tell the many current and future students who are from the 7^th Congressional District, what campaign events in Washington were worth missing important meetings that affect so many young Pennsylvanians.

###

The Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans is the largest grassroots organization in Pennsylvania, consisting of over 13,000 members at over 80 chapters at Colleges and Universities across the state whose presence is consistently felt in numerous campaigns throughout Pennsylvania.

Contact:

Ed Furman

pacollegerepublicans@gmail.com

610-585-4336

pacolelgerepublicans.com

###

By: Kyle VanDecker, Villanova University 2012

President Barack Obama recently claimed that the incident involving a black Harvard professor and a white Cambridge police officer proves “race remains a factor in this society”. That happens to be one of the few things I’ve heard him say lately that I actually believe. Ironically enough, however, he told the truth unintentionally. The reason race is a factor in this case rest solely with Professor Henry Gates. After reading various news articles from notoriously liberal media sites, I have to say it sure looks like Gates went into the confrontation looking for racism.

Sgt. James Crowley of the Cambridge Police Department was responding to an emergency 911 call by a woman reporting two black men with backpacks were forcing in the side door of her neighbor’s home. The accounts of Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley differ from then on and you should read both of them (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32122233/ns/today-today_people/). There were a variety of witnesses and the truth will come out sooner rather than later. Still, the fact of the matter is that even if you look at Professor Gates’ story, he cannot be taken seriously. He complains that while he was walking to get his identification, “He (Sgt. Crowley) followed me without permission, I gave him the 2 ID’s and I demanded to know his name and badge number. He wouldn’t say anything. He was just very upset and I said, ‘Why are you not responding to me? Are you not responding to me because you’re a white officer and I’m a black man?”

I have unfortunately had a few personal experiences with police officers and can tell you that how Sgt. Crowley addressed the situation is not unusual. On a routine traffic stop I have witnessed my friend ask a police officer a much more respectable question then demanding “to know his name and badge number” and he did not receive a response. For Professor Gates to follow that up immediately by accusing the officer of being a racist is irresponsible and an embarrassment. Could you imagine in a similar situation if a white professor asked a black officer if he wasn’t responding to him because he’s a black officer and I’m a white man? I’m sure that wouldn’t be tolerated.

Professor Gates concludes his account by him having said, “I want to know your colleague’s name and his badge number” to the officers outside his home and that Sgt. Crowley then said, “Thank you for accommodating my earlier request. You are under arrest.” This is completely unreasonable. At this point the two are in front of a decent amount of witnesses and for Sgt. Crowley to have acted this out would be professional suicide. On top of that, it is completely out of character.

It is worth mentioning that Sgt. Crowley is an expert on racial profiling and has taught a class on the subject for five years. He was specifically chosen to teach the class by former black Police Commissioner Ronny Watson. In addition to that, he once gave CPR to black Celtics star Reggie Lewis. If there is a prototypical white cop that isn’t likely to have race impact his actions, I would have to say Sgt. Crowley appears to be it.

Now, putting the more plausible account given by Sgt. Crowley aside, Professor Gates still has proven himself to be out of line. I don’t think a man like this, with unabashed disrespect for the officer who was initially trying to protect Gates’ home, deserves to be teaching at all. He is currently instructing the brightest young minds in the world, and we trust him to mold them adequately? This case seems cut and dry to me but amazingly the worst was yet to come!

The President of the United States of America addressed the issue, a local arrest, in the midst of a myriad of national problems he has yet to address sufficiently still sitting on his desk. Not only did he comment on it but did so in a disgusting fashion. Immediately after stating he did not know the facts, Obama said, “But I think it’s fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry. No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home.” Are you kidding me? Here is a decorated and respected police officer following routine procedure. He was verbally attacked by the man whose house he was trying to protect, he has seen his mayor apologize for his actions to Gates and now his President is saying he acted stupidly.

Police officers are a major element in the backbone of this country. There is a good chance that almost all of us will have a higher salary then the average police officer, yet they go to work every morning not knowing if their going to come home ever again and they do so in order to keep us safe. I’m not saying that racial profiling and the mistreatment of black Americans is completely over or that racism doesn’t exist. It certainly does and I’m sure in some cases it is unfortunately a factor, however, it isn’t in this one. Professor Gates, Barack Obama and all the others who condemned this man need to be held accountable and it needs to begin with direct apologies to Sgt. Crowley.

By: Kevin Bloomfield, Villanova University 2011

Over the past several weeks Congress has been working on health care legislation that would inevitably lead to a socialist, single-payer system. As usual, the president is saying one thing (the bill will be “deficit-neutral”) while the facts say otherwise (see Congressional Budget Office).

This is difficult to accept for Republicans, we believers in individual responsibility and limited government. And while we seek a better alternative to offer, our party leaders have offered nothing worth rallying around.

However, a persuasive alternative to the Democrat plan to complete the government’s takeover of the health care industry was, in fact, laid out by the great free-market economist Milton Friedman over a decade ago, before his death. His plan would actually reduce costs and expand coverage, as the president claims to seek. If only Republicans in Congress would dust it off and adopt it as their own….

In his study “Input and Output in Health Care,” Friedman identified the two biggest contributors (bearing 70% of the responsibility, Friedman claims) to the spiraling costs of health care:

1. The tax-exempt status of employer-provided health care, which a) leaves medical arrangements in the hands of the employer rather than the individual (who’s gonna care more?) and b) makes health care relatively cheaper than, say, food, which is paid for with income that has already been taxed (this artificially causes patients to demand more medical services)

2. The bureaucracy and regulation of health care that resulted from the establishment of Medicare and Medicaid

Together, these factors have lead to the grotesque distortion of the free market that is our health care system today, in which a third party–the government or an insurance company–both sets the price of and pays for medical treatment. Ideally, the seller (the doctor) and the buyer (the patient) would come together and set to a price that is mutually agreeable.

In order to bring costs down and avoid government control of health care, Friedman argues that we must dismantle our current system, incrementally if we prefer, with the following actions:

1. Abolish Medicare and Medicaid - This would result in huge immediate savings from less bureaucracy  and the restoration of a sane, free market relationship between buyer and seller to set prices. This could be immediately replaced with a program for the poor and elderly under which they would receive money from the government (as much as they currently get, for instance) to use only towards health care; they would keep what they don’t spend on health care, and it would be taxed as income.

Alternatively, to win the support of Democrats, every American could be required to have health insurance geared towards catastrophic illness or injury, akin to fire insurance for a home or car insurance if your vehicle is totaled. All other health expenses would be out-of-pocket. Many Americans would find this coverage sufficient and wouldn’t seek additional insurance.

2. End the tax exemption of employer-provided health care - This would a) make health care relatively more expensive for most Americans, increasing the incentive to keep costs down, b) make the labor market more flexible since workers would be more willing to switch employers, and c) result in a movement towards individuals paying for their own health care, rather than companies managing it for them (this is good, because the individual knows what’s best for themselves and is more likely to try to save money).

3. Remove the draconian regulations on health insurance - This would result in greater choice among insurance options, perhaps leading even to a system under which insurance covers only catastrophic health problems and the rest is paid for by the individual, as noted above.

These reforms would eliminate wasteful spending on health care bureaucracy and send health care back into the arms of the free market. Health insurance would probably be purchased only by individuals, not by companies, resulting in higher wages. And, as Milton Friedman wrote, “The first question asked of a patient entering a hospital might once again become ‘What’s wrong?’ not ‘What’s your insurance?’”

If only our lawmakers had the courage to propose such bold, but beneficial, reforms.

I know many have emailed or posted asking why we have not been actively updating the blog.  We appreciate the traffic many of you have brought to the site as well as the active discussions.

We had a minor problem logging into the site with the administration change and over the next week we hope to have the site entirely updated and to have a steady stream on posts ranging for local to state to national issues.

So feel free to check back often and don’t hesitate to add your two cents.

Ed Furman

Chairman

Pennsylvania Federation of College Republicans

Liberal Democrats and their communications staff in the national media have been telling us since November that conservatism has failed, the Republican Party has fallen, that the best thing we can do is move leftward and gracefully accept life as a permanent minority.
The Rasmussen polling service finds today, however, that a generic Republican congressional candidate would beat a generic Democratic candidate for the first time in the nearly two years that Rasmussen has been tracking this trend.
Today 40% of voters say they will vote for their Republican candidate in the next congressional election versus 39% who will vote for their Democratic candidate.
Only a week ago, 42% said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 28% said they would support the Republican. The last poll taken before November’s disastrous election showed the generic Democrat with a 3-point lead, 43% to 40%.
The generic Republican candidate leads most strongly among independent voters (34-28%), investors (44-35%) entrepreneurs (44-40%).  Meanwhile, fully 12% of Democrats and only 8% of Republican say they would consider voting for the other party’s candidate.
You can see the full results here.

Jessica Thompson: Aaron, can you tell me a little bit about yourself?

Aaron Marks: I am an undergraduate at the Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University.  I study Technology Venture Creation, which is a track in business administration that focuses on the intersection of entrepreneurship and technology.  Beyond serving as President of Carnegie Mellon College Republicans, I am also an avid blogger, political and new media consultant, web 2.0 and social networking guru, and entrepreneur.

I am President of Three Group, LLC, a Pittsburgh-based new media software and new media company.  Three Group specializes in building political technology solutions.  At Three Group, I conceived a software solution that we offer called Mission Control, which allows political campaigns and organizations to manage all aspects of their campaign.

I blog regularly at NextGenGOP, a blog of young, up-and-coming Republicans that I founded, and in addition I occasionally contribute to The Next Right.

Jessica: I know that you were involved with Rick Santorum’s campaign back in 2006. What was your role in the campaign?

Aaron: Like all of our staffers, I wore many hats on the campaign.  I served as a staffer, focusing on new media and online outreach, but I also chaired our Students for Santorum coalition.  Our campaign set the standard for political technology in 2006, recruiting over 50,000 volunteers and organizing one of the most effective voter outreach programs in ’06.

Read the rest of this entry »

Fellow College Republicans,

I wanted to take a moment and thank everyone who evaluated the two candidates put forward to lead our country and like I believed John McCain was the better person for the job. I want to thank those of you who volunteered your time throughout this tough election season. The undeniable truth is Republicans had an uphill battle from the beginning. Our efforts were not by any means a failure. Although our presidential candidate, John McCain, did not win we did have some victories such as Jim Gerlach, former PACR chairman/CRNC Co-Chairman Nick Miccarelli, and others.

This is a time of reflection and a time of rebuilding for our party. I truly believe that within 4 years, even better by the 2010 elections, people will realize that a liberal philosophy is not what our country needs, especially in the current economic status. Furthermore, democrats have essentially a free pass to spend as much as they want and tax as much as they want without any checks or balances, which I think will hit voters quickly once their taxes increase and/or if they loose their jobs because their small business is downsizing due to getting drilled with tax increases.

This is when our party needs us most, we are the obvious future for the party. Our party right now is looking for young leaders, leaders like you, so please contact your schools chapter chairman and join the Pennsylvania College Republicans. If you do not have a chapter at your school feel free to contact us and we will start the easy process of starting a chapter at your school.

Thank you all,

Anthony Pugliese

Pennsylvania College Republicans

State Chairman

As we all know, recent polls have concluded that Senator McCain is trailing Senator Obama even by double digits in some surveys.   McCain has denied the presumption that his campaign is a loosing cause, and for good reason. With 8 days to go before this election comes to a halt, political experts such as Karl Rove have also disavowed this recent gloomy poll numbers and given McCain a fighting, albeit up hill battle to gain the White House.  Are these pundits and even McCain himself simply delaying the inevitable?  Absolutely not.  McCain’s refusal to give in not only fits into his legendary character, but is reinforced by history.  Perhaps the most famous example, though not exactly recent history was Harry Truman’s victory over Thomas Dewey.  After weeks of polls declaring Dewey the leader by as much at 15 points, newspapers while publishing for the morning after election day, mistakenly published the headline “DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.”  The newspaper that committed this famous act and is forever enshrined in a picture is none other than the Chicago Daily Tribune. Just remember, this election isn’t over until it’s over. Never assume you know the outcome, because you may end up looking like the Chicago Daily Tribune.

Yes, I am back. I’m sure my left-leaning friends have been waiting for my return.

Apparently the Obama campaign has already released its talking points for tonight’s last Presidential debate. I wonder if this is what the media will sound like upon “reviewing” the debate?

An email from Press Secretary for Obama Camp (tip of the hat to Drudge Report):

* Just this weekend the weekend, John McCain vowed to “whip Obama’s you-know-what” at the debate, and he’s indicated that he’ll be bringing up Bill Ayers to try to distract voters.
Read the rest of this entry »

*Note: The following is a collection of live debate reactions from the Friday, September 26th, 2008 debate from Megan Ritter. Megan’s reactions from the beginning of the debate are found at the end of this post, with reactions from the end of the debate at the beginning of the post.*

• Barack Obama: “I’ve got a bracelet tooooooooo!” What could’ve been a moving discussion between the two men, Obama turned into a cheap moment of oneupmanship. I’m not saying he shouldn’t have brought up his paralell story, but is there any coarser, less respectful way in which he could’ve brought it up?

• Something Obama seems to forget when he tries to paint McCain as a warmonger: Both nominees on the Republican ticket have children currently serving in Iraq. It’s difficult to imagine either of them lightly committing troops.

• I’ve lost track of the number of times Obama has interrupted McCain. It’s somewhere north of six. Still waiting for McCain’s first interruption of Obama.

• McCain’s comment about the consequences of defeat is interesting in that historically it is something that the various peace movements have never honestly considered. We didn’t consider it in Vietnam - we left behind what Peggy Noonan describes as “an untold increase in horror for people on that part of the planet.”

• And “we took our eye off the ball” is a very, very juvenile metaphor for Obama to use when discussing such a fundamentally serious issue.

• A Republican who understands that effective defense spending doesn’t mean funding every goofy boondoggle project possible…I like this guy more all the time.

• Obama interrupting McCain count, so far: three times. McCain interrupting Obama count, so far: zero times.

• For all the animus that they’ve earned from the left it would seem that Reagan and then Bush the Younger have changed the nature of the debate so fundamentally that even liberal Democrats have to run on promises to cut taxes. We’re a looooooong way from Walter Mondale promising - promising in no uncertain terms! - that he was going to raise taxes on as many people as possible. Democrats promising to cut taxes is a political problem for Republican campaigns, but a really nice problem to have!

• Obama points out that high gas prices are killing the middle class. Too bad he didn’t realize this earlier in the summer, when he noted that he would’ve preferred that gas prices not rise quite so fast.

• “Earmarking as a gateway drug.” Obama’s asked for a million dollars worth of earmarks per day he’s been in the Senate?!?

• McCain takes a moment for Ted Kennedy. The left keeps calling McCain a right-wing fanatic, and this is why the label never quite sticks.

• Halfway through Obama’s first answer, I still don’t know what he thinks of the bailout.

• The consensus of the Fox News panel starting this thing: the winner is the one who proves himself likable. Since statistically Obama has run 75% negative ads to McCain’s 55%…