May 21, 2014

Closing In On Harhart

Despite 3 glossy mailers and a robocall by 10 term incumbent Julie Harhart, Marc Grammes garnered 44% of the vote in yesterday's primary. Harhart's mailers, case studies in omission and distortion, will be scrutinized by my campaign in the coming weeks. It is my intention that in January she should start receiving the generous pension for which she voted.


Dreaming of Justice said...

I was cheering Marc Grammes on yesterday, but his loss shows how entrenched Harhart is. Entrenched is no synonym for *best Representative*, however. It's beyond time someone called into question not only the hubris of the 50% increase in pension the State Rep will be receiving but exactly what has she accomplished during her tenure? The evidence is empty storefronts, battered local economies that have declined further since her installation as Republican Clone, and an impoverished quality of life for her constituency.

Anonymous said...


Take Harhart out of the discussion for a moment.

What do you see as the state role in fixing empty storefronts and battered local economies?

This blog has (rightfully) taken NIZ proponents at the state level to task for diverting tax dollars and picking winners and losers.

I would hope that the only action we want from the state is to discontinue such practices.

michael molovinsky said...

anon@7:47, this blog does not permit questions to other commenters and is not a chat board. questions may be addressed to me. not all comments or questions will appear, especially if i question the motive with which it was sent.
the NIZ was a unprecedented gift to one city and a few individuals in it. there are state programs, such as the KOZ, if administered correctly, can benefit communities.

Anonymous said...


The KOZ's have been around for some time, and communities (such as Allentown, Slatington, and Northampton) have been able to apply for them (locally) if so desired. But if Allentown is an indication, they are not enough.

Businesses flee states like PA for states with lower taxes and better right to work laws. KOZ's, NIZ's, and other schemes attempt to address the tax issue, but the bigger picture is being missed.

If lower taxes help spur economic development (and therefore jobs), why do we try to limit such growth?

Is it best to make a handful of individual businesses cut backroom deals with politicians, go through the charade of public meetings for approval, and then start their projects months or years after they wanted to get their tax breaks? That seems tremendously inefficient.

To me, the best thing the state can do is an across-the-board tax cut for all businesses.

I want to see growth and prosperity for all Pennsylvanians, and don't need to insert politicians into the process to give their blessing to private investment.

It sometimes seems that there are many who claim to want economic development and growth, but just not too much of it.

michael molovinsky said...

@9:32, i couldn't agree more with your prescription, that would be the best medicine. i might also consider assistance for a long standing business, with employees, especially a manufacturer, who might otherwise close or relocate.

Dreaming of Justice said...

Anonymous at 7:47

It is impossible to "take Harhart out of the equation", since she is a manifest part of the problem of complacency and stagnation that plagues her district. Yes, she is part of the problem of institutionalized malaise and apathy that prevents any real and substantive positive change from occurring within District 183. 20 years in office, supposedly representing her people and you question her role? She can raise money for children traumatized by abuse, but joblessness and homelessness and drug abuse are the root causes of that abuse. Mental health of her constituency is an essential outcome of all of the ills suffered in District 183. There are good citizens aplenty within the district, who struggle to keep their businesses afloat, pay taxes, get their kids to school in clean clothes and with ambitions to somehow, someway, get to college. If only Rep Harhart had expended like energy into lobbying for tax breaks for her district's many sputtering businesses maybe those storefronts would not be empty now. Maybe more parents would be working locally and not be forced to commute unconscionable miles to low paying jobs elsewhere. Maybe, some of the troubled people now old enough to have children of their own and are grappling with early parenthood would have gone to college or technical school. Being a representative is not about giving yourself a 50% raise while your constituency lose their homes. Just a few thoughts.

michael molovinsky said...

dreaming @7:47, i printed your informed comment, but must again remind readers that questions and answers to other commenters often will not be printed here. also, i must clarify that as harhart claims in a recent flyer, she did not vote for a raise, however, she omitted the fact that she did vote for a 50% increase in her pension, for life.

Dreaming of Justice said...

Thanks Mike. I just cannot believe anyone could sideline Harhart's role in the decline of Slatington and other towns. Maybe the armchair campaign analysts should consider that Harhart LOST Lehigh County..and that Slatington and South Whitehall are now refusing to quaff the Koolaide.


Chris Casey said...

Anybody but Harhart would be a better representative in the Statehouse. The Harhart philosophy is to protect and provide jobs for immediate friends and family, nothing else. Republicans worry about voter fraud and dead people voting, when Harhart is a corpse serving in an office. Now that is fraud. She is extremely vulnerable. First because Corbett is immensely unpopular. His party is not enthused about him. Second, Congressman Dent has no opponent. There won't be that surge of voters who get out just for him. harhart will not have that rising tide to sweep her easily back to harrisburg. Third, Your candidacy will pull away conservative voters tired of her do nothing representation. Mike I honestly don't believe you can win, but you are setting up a scenario that gives the Democrat an excellent chance. If Powell refrains from personal attacks and campaigns on giving the district new blood, and an ACTIVE voice in Harrisburg, as well as tacking to a moderate middle, representing the values of the district, and not the extremes of the Democratic party. She WILL win.
If Grammes had knocked of Harhart, this would be a whole different game. but it is not.

michael molovinsky said...

chris, i'm weary of people wanting change, but then accusing independents of being spoilers, with no chance of winning. it's my intention to be the first independent in the state house. corbett won because rendell wasn't the answer. at some point in the near future i will be asking those who have worked with me on many issues for their support, even if they don't live in the 183rd.

Chris Casey said...

mike, I do not mean to disparage you. I respect you for making the effort. It is entirely possible that you will get as many moderate dem votes as you do R votes in november. But I don't drink anyone's Kool-Aid, I make my own. If the election were held today, you would likely get anywhere from 4 to 8% of the vote. Harhart and Powell would be too close to call.

michael molovinsky said...

chris, i know that your intentions were strictly analytical. it is my hope that the voters can be persuaded to put their normal partisanship aside. we agree that harhart is just a seat warmer in harrisburg, and powell has no experience. who knows, maybe you will even support me.