Oct 14, 2013

Tom Muller, Business As Usual

I really wanted to stay out of this election; Trying to keep the barbarians from destroying our history is enough work for me. The first brochure from Tom Muller was a slick 4 page production, touting his business acumen. But it was the second flyer that annoyed the editorial staff here at molovinsky on allentown. In it Muller again portrays himself as the business guru, while Scott Ott is pictured as an uninformed school bus driver. In reality, Tom Muller has been the County's administrator for years, sanctioning an overspending administration. In reality, his motto should be Business As Usual. Meanwhile, covering the taxpayer's back, Scott Ott has been actually looking for spending cuts. Looking for savings is not without consequences. You're accused of wanting to starve old ladies. You're accused of being against the criminal justice system. You're accused of being homophobic. If you refuse to spend $228,000.00 per apartment on renovation, you're accused of being against the mentally ill. Lehigh County cannot afford Muller's business as usual experience.


Anonymous said...

It's funny, Muller's typically dishonest flyers try to take credit for two small tax rebates, yet fail to mention they were made possible by the whopping 16% tax hike Muller gave to taxpayers. His flyers also omit the fact that county taxpayers are paying almost twice as much in taxes over the last decade.

I guess the truth doesn't get you elected, and it's easier to lie and distort the facts to mislead voters. For Muller, THAT IS business as usual.

michael molovinsky said...

@3:55, i truly intended to stay away from the elections this fall, but the second muller flyer offended me, however, i believe that both flyers are very effective. ott at this point must point out that muller's business experience has not translated into any benefit for the taxpayers, on the contrary. i suggest ott borrow my "business as usual" criticism of muller, time is short.

Anonymous said...

Is Tom Muller a Member of Lehih county Authority. Yes, then same person that voted as a member of the board to borrow the money to pay for the water and sewer lease from Allenown at a high interest rate that will lead to high water and sewer rates to be paid by the Allentown users, Voters need to know.

Gina said...

Interesting. I have thus far been leaning toward Ott, my number one reason is that Muller is using Fleck Consulting. However, our friend BO posted some interesting information about Ott this morning too. I hate making these decisions.:)

michael molovinsky said...

gina @8:41, ott doesn't want an 85 year old woman, nor anybody, to starve to death, but, if you vote against additional funding for Meals on Wheels, because they didn't need it, that's the type of accusation that comes your way. bernie likes muller, dislikes ott, and will go to the mat for his pick. i won't go to the mat for anybody. i believe that all segments of local government could benefit from a change of attitude, that change will not come from muller.

Bernie O'Hare said...

Muller is using Fleck consulting. Most LC Dems appear to be steered in that direction, and I understand the resentment. Though not illegal, I think it is wrong for a political consultant to also be involved as a business consultant.In the long run, I can see that causing problems, both to Fleck and his candidates.

On the issues, the fact is that spending under the "reform team" has increases to a bigger point than at any time in Lehigh County's history. So has the deficit. In fact, they helped create that deficit by giving 3% in tax cuts without the spending cuts to accompany them. They wanted to give 5%.

Dean Browning was run out of office over a 16% tax hike they said they had a plan to eliminate. I think I can ask, where the hell is it? In two years, I have yet to see that plan. In the primary, Ott said it would come in phases. Now he doesn't say anything.

As for federal benefits that come in the form of grants to meals on wheels, I'm all for reforming our God-awful federal system. But not at the expense of letting some 85 year old woman starve. Scott Ott said he would not accept money form the Commies to feed a 85 year old woman. That's what he said. EWhat is that, if not just plain hatred for the poor?

Scott Ott voted against same sex benefits in LC, even though it will cost the county nothing or next to nothing. There was no fiscal reason to say no. But he did. What is that if not intolerance.

He is a bad candidate, but one wo will likely win bc LC is much more conservative than NC and Scott OTT is tied in with the churches, who do politic on his behalf.

You will end up with a bad Exec and NC will benefit.


Rob Hamill said...

You can thank Muller and his buddies at Lehigh County Authority for ramming sewer lines everywhere in Lower Macungie, much to the detriment of our quality of life and our school tax burdens. As a sitting board member at LCA he called me a "despicable liar" when I wrote some pieces on LCA draining the Little Lehigh Aquifer in the Lehigh Valley Commentator and, of course, Molovinski's blog. Next he threatened me with the words,"This is going to cost you big time" when I addressed the County Commissioners 4 times to urge them not to extend the LCA charter. How many people would feel comfortable with this kind of petty, petulant,vengeful, and big government is best, player?

michael molovinsky said...

bernie@9:25, as you know, words can easily be taken out of context. it's apparent from ott's background that he does not dislike the poor, or want anybody to suffer from hunger. as someone responsible for costs of government, he was reluctant to extent benefits for same sex partners ahead of state mandates. i saw that adrian shanker called him a homophobic for that decision. that is the sort of distortion that comes from making tough decisions based on limiting runaway government cost. muller and company is spending a fortune on this campaign. the four page oversized brochure was big bucks. both that and the followup flyer showing ott as a mere school bus driver were sent to a large percentage of the county voters. i believe that it will be difficult for ott to win against that expensive media blitz, and the distortions on the social media.

Anonymous said...

I am always skeptical over the use of %s to make a point.

I don't think the comment about taxes going up "almost twice as much in taxes over the last decade" presents a true picture of trends in county taxes.

A decade includes the period just before the big increase in 2004. You get different %S using an eight year period,

Anonymous said...

Gina @ 8:41:

Here is what you need to know about Muller - he's Pawlowski at the county level. His way or the highway.

Birds of a feather run together, and he and Pawlowski are teamed up.

Guy Williams said...

Mike, you know me well enough to know I voted for and have supported both republicans and democrats over the years based on their style and convictions. Their hasn't been a republican I respected more than dean browning and am troubled by his ouster by his own kind. In my book his integrity and values are unmatched.As you also know I don't always agree with scott Armstrong but would vote for his reelection because his voice is needed on the school board.Scott a staunch republican and conservative has made it very clear his opinion of ott as a republican leader.And you know what,it makes sense to me.Common sense. Like many have said agitators are better on blogs let alone leaders of county governments.

Guy Williams said...

Muller gets the common sense vote

Anonymous said...

Having worked in advertising an marketing most of my life as soon as I received Mr. Muller's campaign mailer, I chuckled, thought I smell a rat, threw it in the garbage, and intend to vote for Mr. Ott.

Ted Yost

Anonymous said...

I'm not necessarily saying Tom Muller is the answer, but I disagree with the blogger's statement that "Scott Ott has been actually looking for spending cuts."

In 2012, Ott and his allies did NOT "look" for cuts, they simply tried to direct the county administration to make $5 million in cuts (the county later agreed to $3.5 million). If they had actually specified which cuts should be made, rather than attempting to pass that buck to a county administration that wasn't interested, they may have been more successful.

This year, actual spending cuts were actually identified by the commissioners, but not by Ott. Fifteen budget amendments put forward by commissioners (some were approved by the board, others rejected) but Scott Ott presented none of them. Mazziotti proposed 9 of the 15, while Creighton, McCarthy and Scheller each proposed two.

Ott talks a big game when it comes to spending cuts, but in the end he lacks specifics and depends on others to do the actual cutting for him.