It’s officially a three-man contest in the 7th Congressional District.

A legal challenge seeking to keep independent Jim Schneller off the ballot was withdrawn from Commonwealth Court late Thursday, shortly after a judge issued a key ruling against supporters of Republican candidate Pat Meehan, whose campaign spearheaded the challenge. The resolution of the case in Schneller’s favor is a setback for Meehan, who now stands to lose at least some votes from a conservative who has dabbled in the so-called Birther movement and espouses many Tea Party ideals. And it’s a win for Democratic nominee Bryan Lentz, whose supporters helped Schneller get on the ballot in the hopes that he could siphon votes from Meehan in the contentious race.

Schneller, who represented himself and at one point asked the court to declare the state’s election law unconstitutional, could not immediately be reached for comment late Thursday.

“Given the importance of this issue to businesses in Pennsylvania and across the country, I strongly urge you to revisit this issue prior to issuing the final decision in November,” wrote Senator Casey.  “At this time of economic uncertainty, we need to utilize every tool at our disposal to protect American businesses and promote job creation.   It is clear that there is a widespread negative impact on our domestic industries as a result of Chinese policies.  An investigation will surely find that China’s currency manipulation has negatively impacted American manufacturing.”

In the preliminary announcement this week, the Commerce Department ruled in a case brought by aluminum manufacturers and workers that China improperly subsidies factories and that duties should be imposed to offset those subsidies.  However, the Commerce Department avoided an investigation of China’s currency manipulation that gives Chinese exports an unfair advantage.

Senator Casey is a supporter of bipartisan legislation that would vigorously address currency misalignments that unfairly and negatively impact U.S. trade. If passed, the legislation would provide less flexibility to the Treasury Department when it comes to citing countries for currency manipulation. It would also impose stiff new penalties on designated countries, including tariffs on the countries’ exports and a ban on any companies from those countries receiving U.S. government contracts.

Last month, Senator Casey joined a bipartisan group of senators in sending a letter to President Obama calling for stronger action on behalf of U.S. businesses and workers competing against unfair trade practices conducted abroad, particularly the manipulation of currency by the Chinese government to unfairly boost exports.

Earlier this year, Senator Casey spearheaded a bipartisan letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner calling on him to list China as a currency manipulator.

See below for the full text of Senator Casey’s letter to Secretary Locke:

September 2, 2010

The Honorable Gary Locke

Secretary of Commerce

1401 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20230

Dear Secretary Locke,

I write you today concerning the Import Administration’s preliminary decision not to investigate two allegations that Chinese currency undervaluation constitutes a subsidy under United States countervailing duty law.  While I continue to disagree with the Commerce Department’s interpretation of its responsibility in such cases, I am particularly concerned with the specific reasoning employed in this case.  Given the importance of this issue to businesses in Pennsylvania and across the country, I strongly urge you to revisit this issue prior to issuing the final decision in November.

According to the Import Administration, the two allegations in question do not meet the statutory standard for initiating an investigation “under the requirement that benefits provided under China’s unified foreign exchange regime be specific to the enterprise or industries being investigated.”  While it is likely that there is widespread impact on our domestic industries as a result of Chinese policies, it may also be true that certain industries are disproportionally impacted by China’s currency undervaluation.  In fact, we cannot determine the true impact and specific harm to an enterprise or industry without an investigation.  It is the responsibility of the Commerce Department to conduct such investigations, especially because the subsidy is widespread and harmful to countless American businesses.

In general, I have concerns with the Department’s broad understanding of its role in investigating such allegations.  In February, I sent a letter with 14 of my colleagues clarifying Congressional intent.  More recently, many of us sent a letter to President Obama reiterating the same concerns.  The preliminary decision reflects a continuing disconnect between the agency’s view of its responsibility and Congressional intent.  The Import Administration has the authority, vested by Congress, to investigate currency manipulation as a subsidy.  Given the continuing inaction on the part of the Department, I look forward to working with my colleagues to clarify the issue further through legislation.

At this time of economic uncertainty, we need to utilize every tool at our disposal to protect American businesses and promote job creation.  It is clear that there is a widespread negative impact on our domestic industries as a result of Chinese policies.  An investigation will surely find that China’s currency manipulation has negatively impacted American manufacturing.   Earlier this year, the Economic Policy Institute released a report estimating that 2.4 million jobs have been lost in the U.S. since China joined the WTO in 2001; 95,700 of which were in Pennsylvania.  These losses are attributable in large part to the undervaluation of the yuan, which places American manufacturers at a significant disadvantage.  Therefore, the Import Administration must act with urgency to consider China’s currency manipulation a countervailing subsidy in current and future trade enforcement cases.

Thank you for your consideration.  I hope the Import Administration reconsiders its interpretation of current law when making its final decision.

Sincerely,

Robert P. Casey, Jr.

United States Senator

HARRISBURG – Republican Party of Pennsylvania Spokesman Mike Barley released the following statement regarding Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak’s admission that he misled the public about the earmark scandal when it was first uncovered. “Why is the truth so hard for Joe Sestak?” Barley said. “The letter released today shows that Joe Sestak knew exactly what he was doing when he requested the earmark.  “Joe Sestak said that he ‘failed to catch’ the connection between The Thomas Paine Foundation and New Wave Energy LLC in the earmark request. Is he this sloppy with all of his earmark requests?  This is proof that we can’t trust Sestak with our tax dollars and that we certainly cannot trust him to look out for Pennsylvania’s future in the U.S. Senate.” Today, Democrat U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak reversed his previous statements regarding a $350,000 earmark that he applied for on behalf of the atheist advocacy group The Thomas Paine Foundation to build a wind turbine. In reality, the non-profit group was used to funnel money into the for-profit organization called New Wave Energy, LLC, a clear violation of House ethics rules. According to the Philly Clout column in today’s Philadelphia Daily News: Congressman Sestak wrote to the Department of Energy which clearly demonstrates that Sestak knew the Thomas Paine Foundation and New Way Energy were related.  Congressman Sestak writes in the first paragraph: “Mr. Devitt would like to discuss utility scale, floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) as a means to reach off-shore winds quickly and cost effectively.  The technology has been developed in conjunction with his non-profit organization, the Thomas Paine Foundation.”Sestak told us Monday that he had no idea the constituent who requested the earmark in February in the name of the non-profit Thomas Paine Foundation of Media was also linked to a for-profit corporation, New Way Energy LLC in Aston.Turns out that’s not exactly correct.  Sestak just released a letter that he sent to the U.S. Department of Energy on April 12 that clearly connects the non-profit organization to the for-profit company.  Sestak also released the initial application for the funding, to pay for construction of a prototype for a vertical axis wind turbine, which has a less definitive connection between the non-profit and for-profit. (Chris Brennan, “Sestak Clarifies Controversal ‘Earmark’ Remark, The Philadelphia Daily News, 9/2/10)

Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s TV ads clearly adopt the old adage “if you can’t convince them, confuse them.”Butler, PA –Mike Kelly (R-Butler), in response to Congresswoman Dahlkemper’s first round of TV ads in the Erie media market, made the following statement:
“Congresswoman Dahlkemper continues to mislead voters in Erie County and beyond by taking credit for opposing the 2008 bailout (TARP).  Unfortunately for her and the taxpayers she represents, the paper trail just doesn’t support that claim.  The fact is, Congresswoman Dahlkemper had numerous opportunities to railroad this outrageous government spending.  Instead, her loyalty to Speaker Pelosi trumped her commitment to 3rd district voters.”
Background:
What she says…
• In a Sept. 23, 2008, article, The Herald in Sharon, Pa. reported, “Mrs. [Kathy] Dahlkemper [D-Pa.] — a small business owner — called the bailout a necessary evil, and said she also supports a string of Democratic amendments offered so far that would bring some of the relief to Main Street.”[1] • In March 2009, Rep. Dahlkemper said that she voted against “the second Wall Street bailout” • According to a March 15, 2009, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa.) press release, “‘At a time when Pennsylvania’s middle class families are struggling to make ends meet, it is simply appalling that AIG would shell out millions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars in excessive bonuses for its executives,’ said Rep. Dahlkemper. ‘Such reckless disregard for the American people’s money is precisely why I voted against the second Wall Street bailout. “‘The executives at AIG have an obligation to reject these bonuses and apologize to American taxpayers for so egregiously violating their trust,’ continued Dahlkemper. ‘Congress and the Obama Administration must take additional steps to further protect taxpayer dollars through increased accountability and transparency.’”[2] Opposed to what she actually does…
• In December 2009, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper voted against an effort to repeal the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and lower the national debt limit • On Dec. 11, 2009, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-Pa,) voted against a Rep. Dent, R-Pa., motion to recommit the bill to the House Financial Services Committee with instructions that it be immediately reported back with an amendment that would repeal the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and lower the national debt limit. (Motion rejected 190-232; D: 19-232; R: 171-0)[3] • In January 2009, Rep. Dahlkemper voted against a bill to require Treasury to develop a plan for repayment of all assistance provided under the bailout and repeal authority to spend the final $350 billion  • On Jan. 21, 2009, Rep. Dahlkemper voted against a Rep. Barret, R-S.C., motion to recommit the bill to the Financial Services Committee with instructions that it be reported back forthwith with language that would require the Treasury Department to develop a plan for repayment of all assistance provided under the $700 billion 2008 financial industry bailout law and repeal authority to spend the final $350 billion. (Motion rejected 199-228; R: 172-2; D: 27-226)[4] • In January 2009, Rep. Dahlkemper voted to expand TARP to be used for an auto manufacturers’ bailout and to include support of state and local municipal bonds, consumer loans, and commercial real estate loans • On Jan. 21, 2009, Rep. Dahlkemper voted for passage of H.R. 384 which would set conditions on the use of the second $350 billion provided under a 2008 law to buy certain mortgage assets. It would require the Treasury to commit between $40 billion and $100 billion for foreclosure mitigation, require the Treasury to begin committing funds within a week of enactment to develop a plan to prevent and mitigate foreclosures on residential mortgages, and authorize the Treasury to provide assistance to domestic automobile manufacturers under the program. The bill’s executive compensation restrictions could be applied retroactively to institutions that have already received assistance under the program. It would require fund recipients to report quarterly on the amount of lending and related activities attributable to the program’s assistance and prohibit recipients from purchasing other financial institutions unless authorized by the Treasury. (Passed 260-166, D: 242-10, R: 18-156)[5]

Allentown – After days of denying any knowledge about a prohibited earmark request that his congressional office secured, Congressman Joe Sestak is now changing his tune and admitting that he had misled the public about the earmark scandal when it was first uncovered, according to the Philadelphia Daily News. The Allentown Morning Call recently discovered that Congressman Sestak had earmarked $350,000 for a group named the Thomas Paine Foundation to build a wind turbine demonstration project.  But according to the Morning Call, the taxpayer funds were never intended for the atheist non-profit, but rather for a for-profit group called New Way Energy, founded by Drew Devitt.  The Thomas Paine Foundation, also run by Devitt, was used to circumvent new congressional rules against earmarks for for-profit companies. For days, Congressman Sestak denied any knowledge of the earmark’s true destination, even blaming Drew Devitt for misleading him.  Now, according to the Philadelphia Daily News, Congressman Sestak released documents demonstrating that he knew all along that the funds were intended for the for-profit group, New Way Energy. Timeline: Saturday, August 28, 2010: According to the Morning Call, “Sestak’s congressional office verified that the Thomas Paine Foundation is a nonprofit, spokesman Jonathon Dworkin said.  He said Sestak’s office did not know that Devitt runs a for-profit company that develops wind turbines.” Tuesday, August 31, 2010: Sestak told Chris Brennan of the Philadelphia Daily News, “Nowhere in the paperwork that he submitted did he ever mention that he was associated with a for-profit.  If now he’s saying something else, then he should be held accountable for misrepresenting what he did.” According to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review “[Sestak staff member] April Mellody blamed Devitt for misleading Sestak staffers when he pitched the project.  She said Devitt did not talk to Sestak about the project directly.”  Mellody also said that “all the appropriate due diligence was done.” Thursday, September 2, 2010: The Philadelphia Daily News released a letter Congressman Sestak wrote to the Department of Energy which clearly demonstrates that Sestak knew the Thomas Paine Foundation and New Way Energy were related.  Congressman Sestak writes in the first paragraph: “Mr. Devitt would like to discuss utility scale, floating Vertical Axis Wind Turbine (VAWT) as a means to reach off-shore winds quickly and cost effectively.  The technology has been developed in conjunction with his non-profit organization, the Thomas Paine Foundation.” “Over the past couple of days, Congressman Sestak has broken congressional rules, misled the public about his involvement in the violation, and tried to funnel hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to a tiny atheist group to build a wind turbine demonstration project with which it had no experience,” Toomey Communications Director Nachama Soloveichik said.  “Many questions remain about which story is the real one, why Congressman Sestak tried to cover it up, and whether Pennsylvania taxpayers can trust anything Congressman Sestak says.” Congressman Sestak owes Pennsylvania taxpayers the following answers: 1) Will he publicly release all of his and his office’s correspondence related to the Thomas Paine Foundation earmark, Drew Devitt, and New Way Energy? 2) Since he is now admitting “error,” will he hold himself accountable by submitting this matter to the House Ethics Committee and face sanctions for his violation of the House rule against for-profit earmarks? 3) Will he explain to Pennsylvania taxpayers why he thinks it’s a good use of their money to funnel hundreds of thousands of dollars to a corporation through a backroom deal in violation of House rules?

Hazleton, PA – In his desperate quest to cling to power, Paul Kanjorski is now lying to senior citizens about the future of Medicare – a future he helped destroy by voting for the government takeover of health care.

Kanjorski told a group of senior citizens on Wednesday, “Let me assure you: no benefits of Medicare are in any way cut under the new Health Care Act. Anyone who is a senior citizen covered by Medicare will receive all the benefits that they would have received if the bill had never been passed.” (Wilkes-Barre Citizens’ Voice, 9/2/10)

But Kanjorski’s colleague, U.S. Rep. Tim Holden (D-17), said this about the healthcare bill: “I will not vote for the Senate bill. It makes significant cuts to Medicare and Medicaid … and the restrictions on (federal funding for) abortion are not as strong.” (Pottsville Republican Herald, 3/11/10)

Everyone from the Congressional Budget Office to CNN to the Associated Press to the Wall Street Journal to Congressional Quarterly says Medicare is going to be slashed by between $400 billion and $500 billion. As a result of the cuts, 2.7 million fewer seniors could be enrolled in Medicare Advantage, and the additional benefits for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries could be reduced by nearly half. Those reports also say that fewer and fewer doctors will accept new patients who use Medicare, reducing the choice seniors have in selecting a physician.

“There are two options here – either Kanjorski is lying or Kanjorski is calling Rep. Holden a liar. Which is it, Mr. Kanjorski? Who is telling the truth?” asked Shawn Kelly, spokesman for Lou Barletta. “Kanjorski flat-out lied to senior citizens about how his support of the government takeover of health care will jeopardize their access to doctors and their medical care. I know Kanjorski admitted to ‘stretching the facts’ before in order to get re-elected, but this is low, even for him. Seniors need to know the truth – Paul Kanjorski voted to slash their Medicare funding by $500 billion. Kanjorski voted for a plan that will reduce the choice seniors have in selecting a doctor. For Kanjorski now to lie to seniors and hide from them how his vote will hurt their medical care is disgusting.”

“Tom Corbett’s plan to let his top donors off the hook when it comes to their impact on our environment and local communities is irresponsible and costly for Pennsylvania,” said Mark Nicastre, spokesman with the Pennsylvania Democratic Party. “Instead of protecting his top donors, Tom Corbett should protect Pennsylvania taxpayers.”

In May, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported, “Attorney General Tom Corbett, the leading Republican candidate in the Pennsylvania governor’s race, has received six times more campaign money from the natural-gas industry than any other gubernatorial candidate, according to a study done by Common Cause Education Fund.” Corbett received $361,207 from the natural gas industry through March. [Philadelphia Inquirer, May 12, 2010]

Yesterday, Dan Onorato repeated his plan to encourage Marcellus shale job creation while using a severance tax to fully fund enforcement and protection by the Department of Environmental Protection, create an impact fund for local communities and help preserve and restore open space. Onorato’s plan would ensure that natural gas companies, not Pennsylvania families, pay to address the impact of drilling.

By G. Terry Madonna & Michael L. Young

OBAMA’S BEST BAD OPTION

One of Shakespeare’s most popular plays is “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” a comedy, focused on magic and distinguishing fantasy from reality. Right about now, President Obama is probably having his own midsummer night’s dream, anxious to get back his old magic and separating fantasy from reality as he contemplates the upcoming midterm elections. For Obama, however, dreams could easily become nightmares if he fails to solve the political challenges now confronting him and his party.

In late summer of a crucial midterm election, two political fundamentals are abundantly clear, while two others are almost equally unknown. All four bear enormously on the next presidential election and the fate of the nation over the next six years.

Abundantly clear is that:

1.       National Democrats are facing electoral carnage, possibly of monumental proportions, that could cost them the House and even the Senate;

2.       The Obama presidency seems increasingly imperiled in this second year of his presidency. Many believe he could not be re-elected if the next presidential election was this November rather than two years from now.

Abundantly ambiguous are two related political fundamentals:

1.   How bad is it going to be for Democrats in the 2010 midterms?

2.   What will Obama do to salvage his presidency in the aftermath of the inevitable reverses to be sustained in November?

The how bad will it be question seems to offer only a series of equally horrific scenarios for Democrats. Past midterms provide a guide, and that guide suggests that the president’s party almost always loses congressional seats in the first midterm, an average of 30 in the House and five in the Senate since 1938. Only one president in that interval (Bush in 2002) didn’t lose House seats in his first midterm.

Moreover, it has been worse for presidents running in bad economic times and during war. Obama carries both of these disadvantages in 2010. Since 1938, presidents running in such times have lost an average of 44 house seats in the midterm. The Democrats now control the House by just 39 seats.

But these dismal prospects are not the worst of it. To them is added Obama’s personal unpopularity. The president’s approval rating is in the dumpster at 47% and unlikely to move higher anytime soon.

Ominously for Obama, a president’s approval rating in the midterm year is highly correlated with electoral losses for his party in Congress. Obama’s unpopularity rivals Clinton in 1994 (46% approval), Carter in 1978(49% approval), and Johnson in 1966(44% approval).

In short, the carnage for Democrats in 2010 is likely to be broad and deep–affecting Democratic candidates at both state and national levels. So to the first unknown–how bad will it be–the answer is most probably very bad indeed. The losses could reach historic magnitudes.

The second unknown is by far the most interesting and the most difficult to forecast. What will Obama do about it? What he ultimately does will determine whether he has any chance for a second term.

For Obama, there are three recent options or strategies employed by comparably embattled Democratic presidencies. Call them the bad, worse, and worst strategies because Obama at this point probably has no really good options.

The “worst” strategy was employed by Lyndon Johnson in 1968. Faced with an unpopular war, hemorrhaging party support and voter unrest, he simply announced he would not run again. The political consequence of that strategy was Richard Nixon’s election, eight years of Republican rule, and, of course, Watergate.

The merely “worse” strategy was Jimmy Carter’s. After modest 1978 midterm losses, Carter entered his final two years facing an insurrection from liberals in his own party. Unlike Clinton 20 years later, he adjusted hardly at all to public opinion, changed few of his policies, and consequently steadily lost popularity for both his domestic and foreign agendas. He ended his term disastrously in the midst of a bungled hostage standoff with Iran.

The “bad” strategy and “best” was Bill Clinton’s in 1994. Voter anger that year over Clinton policies was widespread. Consequently, the GOP captured both houses of Congress. Many believed the Clinton presidency was over. It might have been, but Clinton shrewdly assessed the damage, saw his limited options, and moved to the center faster than you can say “triangulate.” The result two years later was another term and a revitalized party.

Which of these strategies might Obama employ? Maybe none! While each of these earlier presidencies provides a roadmap, they were all traveling different roads. Obama faces a set of conditions and circumstances unique in the modern presidency—a recession bordering on a depression, unprecedented peace-time debt, and an unpopular war. To get out of this one he might have to invent his own strategy.

Indeed, Obama has done just that throughout his life. During his career, he has faced challenges and overcome obstacles. His historic presidential campaign in 2008, becoming America’s first black president, eloquently showcased his immense capacity to overcome adversity and emerge a winner after all. All of those trials probably helped prepare him for this one. But none of them have tested him as he will be tested after November 2nd.

According to the Allentown Morning Call, the forbidden earmark in question was requested by a man named Drew Devitt, founder of New Way Air Bearings and New Way Energy LLC, both located at the same address in Aston, PA.  The forbidden earmark was requested for an atheist group named the Thomas Paine Foundation, but was really intended for New Way Energy with the stated purpose of building a wind turbine demonstration project and purchasing components manufactured by New Way Air Bearings.  The Thomas Paine Foundation was used to circumvent new Congressional rules against earmarks for for-profit companies.

It turns out, in 2009, Devitt’s New Way Air Bearings had hired a former staffer for the late Congressman John Murth, lobbyist Scott Harshman, a man cited in the New York Times for helping companies find ways to bypass a Congressional ban on earmarks.  According to the New York Times, Harshman helped the Pennsylvania-based for-profit Nokomis secure a forbidden earmark this year by funneling the money through a university.

The more Congressman Sestak refuses to accept responsibility for his latest earmark scandal, the more questions mount:

1) Was lobbyist Scott Harshman involved in requesting the forbidden earmark for a wind turbine project using an atheist non-profit to funnel the money?

2) Congressman Sestak says he was misled about the nature of the earmark, but the earmark recipient, Drew Devitt, told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review “I don’t believe I misled them.”  Who is telling the truth?

3) Congressman Sestak told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review he did the “appropriate due diligence” but what exactly did that “due diligence” entail?  How could “appropriate due diligence” have missed something that is so obviously against House rules?

4) Does Congressman Sestak do any research on earmark requests or does he simply throw taxpayer dollars at earmark requests regardless of House rules and the project’s worthiness?

5) Why did Congressman Sestak think this earmark project was worthy of spending taxpayer dollars on when Senators Casey and Specter rejected it?

Finally:

6) Will Congressman Sestak release the documents surrounding the Thomas Paine Foundation’s earmark request, including the request submitted by Drew Devitt and the request Congressman Sestak submitted to the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee?  Such disclosure might shed light on who is telling the truth.

“Congressman Sestak talks about accountability and reform nonstop,” Toomey Communications Director Nachama Soloveichik said, “but where’s the accountability now?  It is time Congressman Sestak to come forward, explain exactly what he knew about the forbidden earmark request and why he treats taxpayer dollars so cavalierly?”