Price fluctuation in energy rates was troubling Onorato. The cost of energy was forcing businesses to make tough decisions. In his presentation to the PUC in 2006 Onorato explained how energy prices could impact his plan for spurring business development here in Pennsylvania. “Although the competitive market may evolve on its own over the long term, industrial customers are being forced to consider all means necessary to lower electricity and operating costs,” he said. “If they choose to leave Allegheny County, a region that has been built upon and sustained by industry may be devastated.”

Now, businesses are being forced to cut operational costs even more than they were in 2006 and energy deregulation is looming on the horizon.

In the 2006 encounter with the PUC, Onorato explained that 57,000 jobs were at that time vulnerable to price instability in electric supply and distribution. Energy intensive companies, companies like U.S. Steel and Allegheny Technologies, were some of the fastest growing industries. Price stability was critical to keep such businesses, and the jobs they provided, in Pennsylvania, and regulation was the moderator that kept prices stable. There was no other alternative. “In the case of large industrial consumers, the market is simply not robust and dynamic enough yet in Pennsylvania for deregulation to work,” Onorato told the PUC.

In 2007, House Bill 1530 was passed, which gave public utilities companies the option of selling multi-year contracts to energy consumers. The bill was praised by Onorato as another step towards price stability. “To retain our industrial employers,” he said, “we must be able to maintain competitive electricity prices.”

While increased energy bills is one half of the story of energy deregulation here in Pennsylvania, job security is the other half. These lessons from 2006 suggest that, as we approach the expiration of rate caps, energy price fluctuation could be difficult to stomach for energy intensive industries. To look at the price of energy and say that families cannot shoulder the addition 30% increase is to ignore the much more endemic costs that we could face as a society if energy prices were to fluctuate dramatically.

The Inquirer reports that the Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority has drafted a report that shows Philadelphia spends $9.18 per voter, as opposed to the $4.68 median spent in other counties.

The report looks at Pennsylvania’s 15 most populated counties and examines how much it costs to carry out election functions in these areas. The report examines how much the city could save by consolidating or even eliminating some of the city’s elected positions, including the sheriff, the clerk of quarter sessions, the register of willls and the three city commissioners.

The Inquirer reports that in past years, many other cities have consolidated elected government positions, but that Philadelphia has not.

In the Inquirer article, Joe Sestak accuses Specter of being a late convert to funding for Amtrak. The Inquirer quotes Sestak as saying:

“Public transportation infrastructure is critical; that’s why I fought to include an additional $1 million in the transportation appropriations bill specifically for Amtrak. That is also why I was a strong advocate for an insertion of $850 million into the economic-stimulus bill for Amtrak capital improvements, like bridges. However, this was opposed by Arlen Specter, who voted to remove it from the Economic Stimulus Bill as he states on his Web site that ‘My preference would have been John McCain’s proposal, which I voted for, to have the stimulus package of $421 billion in tax cuts alone.’”

Specter’s response, in his own letter to the Inquirer, shot back: “Sestak is entitled to his opinions but not his own facts. I have consistently and successfully advocated for increased funding for Amtrak, particularly in my capacity as a senior member of the Senate appropriations subcommittee on transportation.” He goes on to address the stimulus bill, saying, “During consideration of the economic stimulus bill, for which I provided on of the deciding votes, I worked to include $850 million for Amtrak capital grants, $50 million more than the amount proposed in the House of Representatives.”

It is funny that this point should be debated here, as I remember Specter bringing up his push for funding in Pennsylvania’s transportation infrastructure during an episode of MSNBC’s Hardball. It seems that Specter’s push for Amtrak and other transportation funding in Pennsylvania is in some ways his darling project, one that he both takes pride in and foresees as a great benefit to Pennsylvania commuters. Perhaps this explains his quick and stern rebuke of Sestak’s insinuations, as well as his offense at the perceived injustice of the claims.

Democratic Congressmen Bob Brady, Chakka Fattah and Joe Sestak got boos from the conservative crowd. Senator Arlen Specter was invited to attend the meeting but was unable to come but did, however, hold an interview with Giordano before the meeting. In the brief phone interview, Specter said that the attitude of the conservative crowds attending town hall meetings, dubbed “Tea Party Protesters,” were not indicative of the general sentiment in America toward health care reform.

Democrats should hope so, as the crowd was fiercely conservative and supportive of Pat Toomey, the Republican candidate who is running against Arlen Specter and Joe Sestak in the 2010 Senate race. Republican candidates were clearly relishing the loud cheers and applause from the conservative fan base, while Democrats were often shouted down and in many instances incapable of speaking over the din of boos and shouts from the angry audience.

The pols mostly disagreed on various points about the public option and argued over whether or not the public option would raise the average cost of health care coverage in the country, as well as whether or not a public option would give businesses an incentive to stop covering their employees.

But they could agree on several things, including that increased competition is an important and necessary path toward better health care, and that opening up the restrictions against buying health care from in-state providers would be an effective way of increasing competition. When the conversation turned to whether or not a public option should be included in the bill, the shouts and boos escalated.”You’re lying!” shouted one member of the audience to Sestak. He was quickly told to sit down by event organizers.

Another issue that irked many audience members was whether or not illegal immigrants should receive coverage under a new system (no current bill provides that). Congressman Mike Castle (R-Del.) was the first to mention the subject, saying that illegal immigrants aren’t the American government’s responsibility.

In The Reading Eagle, reporter Mary E. Young covers Knox’s plans for the state’s beleaguered finances. The article has been re-published on Knox’s campaign Web site.

Among Knox’s plans are the collection of about $1.6 billion in past-due taxes, the closing of a loophole that sends approximately $750 million in taxes to Delaware, the elimination of $220 million that is “given to legislators to hand out in their communities,” according to Young, and the expansion of casinos to include table games.

Knox would use the revenue from table games to pay for the interest costs on a $3.5 billion bond from the federal government. The money would be used to train workers and incubate businesses in the Keystone State.

Young’s article highlights plans by a candidate that has remained relatively under-the-radar. The plans are concrete, pragmatic and realistic and perhaps more deliberate, thoughtful and transparent than much of what we have seen from state lawmakers.

As a businessman, Knox takes a practical approach to budget problems. His plans represent real cuts that can be made to the budget without endangering the welfare of the Pennsylvania education system or other state-funded programs. The cuts also focus on aspects of the budget that represent wasteful spending, making them necessary steps to take that are relatively easy to stomach.

Shuster’s endorsement was announced in an last week. “Having worked closely with Jim, I know that  he has the work ethic, experience and guiding principles that resonate with the citizens of central and western Pennsylvania,” Shuster said in a statement.

Schuster serves in the federal congress as Deputy Republican Whip and is a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and the House Committee on Natural Resources. In July, Schuster opposed the federal Cap and Trade Bill and supported the American Energy Act. The act aimed to reduce carbon emissions by installing 100 new nucleor reactors into the American power grid, increase tax incentives to develop alternative energy sources and urge the federal government to allow leasing to extract oil from the Outer Continental Shelf and the Arctic Coastal Plain.

For  Onorato, the endorsements come from two Senators that represent Philadelphia’s suburbs, both of whom have been actively pushing legislation that would allow Philadelphia to move along with its budget plan.

“Of all the people running for governor by far the most impressive is Dan Onorato,” Leach told The Inquirer.

“He represents a moderate Democratic position which I think will do well in the (Philadelphia) suburbs,” Dinniman said.

Last week, Leach urged the passage of House Bill 1828. The bill would allow Philadelphia to take action to manage its pension problems with unionized city workers, as well as raise Philadelphia’s sales tax by 1 percent over the next five years. The legislation would be a great relief to Mayor Michael Nutter, who has been pushing Harrisburg for such legislation out of the fear that he might have to take drastic measures to reduce Philadelphia’s debt.

The poll shows a complete turnaround for Toomey. Before the health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by 11 percentage points. Now, Specter is a front spokesman for the reform efforts, which are opposed by 53 percent of respondents and supported by 42 percent. The Rasmussen poll was conducted during a week when Specter drew heavy media attention during a contentious town hall meeting, suggesting that the numbers could reflect a temporary dip in response to recent events.

But respondents’ votes are clearly associated with each candidate’s stance on health care. Seventy percent of voters who like the emerging legislation favor Specter and 82 percent of those who oppose it favor Toomey.

From the polls, it is clear that Toomey’s critique of Washington’s health care bill has earned him political points since June. His criticisms paint the reforms, perhaps unfairly, as legislation that will cost America its jobs, as Pennsylvania’s private health care industry moves public. Those who accept Toomey’s logic, which is likely to contain some serious flaws, would see supporters of the bill as tragically leading America towards more economic uncertainty and pain.

But there are also other issues affecting the public’s favorability ratings of Specter. When Specter switched parties, there was talk that he would become a loyal Democrat, voting with Democrats 100 percent of the time. Toomey picked up on this fear of conservative voters and worked it to his advantage by alienating moderate and conservative Republican voters from Specter, voters who may have been swayed at one time by Specter’s careful dance on the moderate line. Democrats, meanwhile, viewed Specter as a candidate who had not yet lost his loyalty to Republicans.

It seems, however, that Specter’s moderate Republican voting strategy has not changed much since he became a Democrat. On the Web site, www.specterscorecard.com, which tracks Specter’s progressive votes, Specter is shown to have either voted against or worked to derail two progressive bills since switching parties in April. Some believe that Specter worked behind closed doors to suppress the card check provision of the Employee Free Choice Act, while Specter simply said that he was “relieved” to see that the provision was no longer going to be seen in the full bill.

Many forces are at work behind Specter’s dip in favorability besides his stance on the health care bill. Loyalty is certainly one critical factor, predictability seems to be something that works against Specter in the polls. His contentious position as fore spokesman for the health care bill has given him negative press and perhaps worked against him as well. His support for the bill may also reinforce the image that works so well for Toomey’s campaign, that Specter is a moderate Republican turned Democrat loyalist. Toomey’s deliberate campaign strategy (see Toomey’s Hypocrisy Alert) paints Specter as an extreme liberal who will be the Democrats 60th vote in the Senate. Specter seems to have trouble fighting the accusation and seems to be at his best when he says that switching parties has not changed him much at all.

In a statement on the House GOP Web site, Schroder lambasted King for accusing him of defaming his client, GTECH, in a Gaming Oversight Committee meeting. At the meeting, Schroder expressed his concerns about GTECH’s close ties to the Rendell administration and about awarding no-bid contracts to businesses that are associated with the law firm that Rendell once worked for.

“There is a company out there by the name of GTECH,” Schroder said at the meeting, “which I believe has other contracts in this state. This company is represented by Adrian King, who is the former deputy chief of staff under Governor Rendell and is also with the Ballard Spahr law firm, which has to be one of the chief and largest recipients of no-bid contracts and largess from the administration in the entire state. … So I have very, very big concerns about the close ties of this particular outfit to the administration…”

Schroder has been active in discouraging casinos and gaming technology vendors from receiving political support from state legislators. He is pursuing the reinstatement of a ban on political contributions by gaming interest groups that was overturned by the state Supreme Court earlier this year.

According to his statement, Schroder provided King an unedited DVD containing footage of the meeting “so he could see what he missed.”

In a written response to King, Schroder said, “I am startled that you would draft such a letter alleging defamation and demanding an apology when, by your own admission, you were not in attendance at the meeting, nor did you review a transcript. I hope for the sake of your client, GTECH, that this lack of preparation and recklessness is not indicative of your quality of representation.”

Last week, that difference was exacerbated when Joe Sestak urged his colleagues to reinstate a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, pointing for justification to the recent shootings in Allegheny County, as well as the killings of police officers in Pittsburgh.

“As we continue to see the effects of the violence in our state and nation, we must enact legislation banning assault weapons with the necessary sense of urgency,” Sestak said in a statement. “The senseless shootings of so many innocent victims during an aerobics class in Allegheny County, and of the three police officers in Pittsburgh this past April, are heartbreaking reminders that we must immediately address the loss of the commonsense ban earlier this decade.”

Sestak joins several other Congressmen and high-profile Pennsylvania lawmakers who have called to reinstate the ban, including Gov. Ed Rendell and Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8).

The push to ban assault weapons has elicited strong reactions from Pennsylvania’s pro-gunners, who believe that the ban is too expansive, containing too many guns to make it reasonable. Sestak’s ban calls to reassess the definition of “semi-automation weapon” to include conversion kits, which are used to convert firearms into semi-automatic weapons, as well as any semiautomatic rifle or pistol that can accept a detachable magazine clip.

While Rendell has argued in the past that such guns have no purpose other than to kill, gun owners see the issue differently, saying that even these guns are used to hunt.

Toomey’s campaign has made it clear that he will stand with gun owners in the fight for gun rights. In a statement released in April, Tim Macey, vice-chairman of the organization Gun Owners of America, said that “Gun owners of America knows from experience that when we’re in the trenches battling the anti-gunners over re-instating the semi-auto gun ban… Pat Toomey will be with us shoulder to shoulder.”

While each candidate promises fiscal responsibility and job creation when in office, their stances on gun rights provide voters with a clear window past campaign slogans and economic policy into the true liberal or conservative cultural determinants that will impact policy decisions in the Senate.

Among the questions targeted towards Pat Toomey and Arlen Specter were Matthews’ severe critique and harsh questioning about their past support for the McCain-Palin campaign. Matthews asked both Toomey and Specter how they felt about voting for Palin over Joe Biden, which would make Palin a “heartbeat away from the presidency.”

Toomey faltered momentarily and then answered the question of whether or not he would vote for Palin again with a “yes.”  Matthews seized upon Toomey’s hesitation and accused him of lacking party loyalty. “You’re throwing them at me pretty quick,” Toomey said, and then made it clear that he answered the question with a yes, that he would vote for Palin and McCain over Vice President Biden and President Obama.

Then Specter got the same question. Matthews brought up his campaigning for McCain and Palin, saying that it must be ironic for Specter that he has the endorsement of a president that he didn’t vote for. Specter responded quickly, saying that he believes that Obama’s endorsement stems from the fact that Obama is a pragmatist and that Specter’s vote was a deciding vote in passing the economic stimulus bill.

Specter also had a moment to justify his decision to switch parties, after Pat Toomey stated that he switched because he couldn’t beat Toomey in the primary. Specter argued that he was receiving severe criticism from members of his old Republican Party, that he was encouraged by Democrats to join their party and that his firm track record as a liberal made the transition very comfortable and natural.

Sestak took the screen and immediately was asked if the gas money he is using to travel around the state is paid for with taxpayer money, as the Specter campaign has implied. He gave a very clear no, saying that he did not believe that the Specter campaign was intentionally trying to smear him, but that they were simply misinformed. He also made it clear that the Sestak campaign has plenty of money on hand and that they would not need to use taxpayer money to pay for campaign expenses.

Sestak said that the American people need someone in office who will work hard for them and pass good policy that stems from good ideas. He also answered questions from Matthews about whether or not he would seek an endorsement from the Clintons after working very closely with them in ’90s. Sestak said that he didn’t work for Clinton because he expected an endorsement and that he drew a strict line between the office of the presidency and campaigning. ”I like to run alone,” he said. Sestak’s independence could appeal to some Pennsylvanians who believe that Specter’s endorsements from elite politicians are an attempt to cram Specter down their throats.

The show provided each candidate with an opportunity to present their past accomplishments and current projects. Toomey mentioned his experience working in the private sector and his dedication to job creation and fiscal responsibility, Specter emphasized many projects that he is involved with in Pennsylvania, including his work in building a high speed rail line out of Philadelphia in order to ease traffic on I-76, and Sestak mentioned a bill that he worked on that substantially increases Autism funding.