IT'S NICE WE HAVE CHANGE NOW. NOW THE WONDERFUL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE OF PENNSYLVANIA ARE NOW THINKING ABOUT CLOSING DOWN UP TO 50 RECREATION AND FISHING PARKS, SO NOW WE WON'T BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE BEAUY OF THIS STATE WITHOUT PUTTING OUR SAFETY AND THAT OF OUR FAMILIES AT RISK BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT TRAVELING THROUGH THE PARKS AND NO RESTROM FACILIES TO USE.

LET'S HEAR IT FOR CHANGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

35 to 40 state parks may be closed; names released
By ROSCOE BARNES III Staff writer


Click photo to enlargeOpen? Colonel Denning State Park is on the list for possible closure due to... (Public Opinion/file)«1»HARRISBURG - The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on Wednesday released a list of nearly 50 state parks from which 35 to 40 could be closed as a result of the Senate's budget cuts.
In addition to park closings, park offices, including the DCNR offices, could see a cut in personnel, according to the Chris Novak, DCNR spokesperson.

DCNR released the list as part of a response to state Sen. Mary Jo White, who had inquired about the closings, among other things. White, a Republican, represents the 21st Senatorial District and serves as chair of the Senate Environmental Resources and Energy Committee.

Some of the area parks that made the list include Whipples Dam, Trough Creek, Samuel S. Lewis, Big Springs, Colonel Denning, Greenwood Furnace, Warriors Path, Fowlers Hollow and Penn-Roosevelt.

Area parks such as Caledonia, Mont Alto, James Buchanan and Cowans Gap did not make the list.

A number of the parks were notified of their status on Tuesday. Novak confirmed Tuesday that "internal notifications" were made by DCNR.

White had asked DCNR: "Please identify the 35 parks that will close should Senate Bill 850 be enacted."

In response, Acting Secretary John Quigley wrote:

"During our initial evaluation of the effects of the bill, we examined our entire operation in the Bureau of State Parks (including central office staffing levels that would also be reduced in response to SB 850). The criteria we looked at


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advertisement


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
are the budget of each park, attendance, income generation, cost per visitor ratio, services offered, and geographic location and proximity to other parks with similar services.
"Through that analysis, we identified 50 parks that we felt needed further study and prioritization depending on final budget numbers. The appropriation provided in SB 850 would require closing 35-40 parks."

Once the parks are closed, they will still be accessible in certain areas by visitors such as hikers. The parks' campgrounds, swimming facilities, restrooms, roads and parking lots will not be available to use. They will be locked or posted.

According to DCNR, there also will be no public services such as maintenance of facilities (built or natural), no resource management, environmental education or law enforcement on the sites.

DCNR further notes: "If the Governor's budget is enacted, we would reduce some management services within the central and regional offices and substantially reduce park level services to minimal levels at five to six parks."

The senator also asked about the parks charging fees as a way to generate revenue and help prevent closings. In its reply, DCNR said the state parks have always offered free access to the public for day use activities.

"However, in response to past inquiries, DCNR has evaluated the fee concept on a number of occasions and has come to the same conclusion: Our parks are ill designed to collect fees.

"Although the implementation of entrance fees could generate revenue at a few locations, the amount of revenue generated after the associated costs are deducted would be minimal at best."

------

Roscoe Barnes III can be reached at 262-4762 or rbarnes@publicopinionnews.com.


The hit list

Pennsylvania State Parks identified for possible closure

Parks '08 attendance

Bendigo 35,669

Elk 20,958

Kinzua Bridge 44,433

Blue Knob 431,738

Clear Creek 136,702

Colonel Denning 61,864

Fowlers Hollow 30,325

Big Spring Delaware Canal

(Black Eddy ONLY) 521,080

Ralph Stover 200,077

Evansburg 661,143

Greenwood Furnace 199,607

Penn Roosevelt 37,637

Whipple Dam 102,528

Kettle Creek 97,179

Ole Bull 82,444

Linn Run 195,950

Laurel Summit 23,223

Laurel Mountain 43,229

Little Pine 107,680

Hyner Run 63,350

Hyner View 36,070

Upper Pine Bottom 1,085

Memorial Lake 155,599

Swatara 64,639

M K Goddard 209,570

Mt Pisgah 64,076

Oil Creek 124,364

RB Winter 138,103

McCalls Dam 2,446

Sand Bridge 17,513

Ravensburg 30,413

Reeds Gap 64,450

Poe Paddy 38,135

Poe Valley 1,523

Ryerson Station 44,230

Sizerville 103,677

Tobyhanna 203,611

Gouldsboro 89,289

Big Pocono 112,591

Yellow Creek 203,053

White Clay 68,040

Norristown

Warriors Path 38,017

Trough Creek 61,252

Prompton 13,750

Salt Spring 30,682

Archbald Pothole 38,205

Sam Lewis 117,357

Erie Bluffs Central & Regional Offic

This was certainly upsetting news since it came on the heels of Fast Eddie Rendell announcing a three year increase in the Commonwealth's income tax. I'm glad I voted for Lynn Swann in the last gubernatorial election.

Tobyhanna and Gouldsboro were two state parks that my family would go to nearly every Sunday in the Summer after mass. A swim in the lake and a picnic with an ice cream stop on the way home. I don't get to too many state parks, but I know there is a huge recreational demand for them.

Is this part of the "change" that Obama was promising?

He promised change, everybody that was so excited to vote for him didn't know he was going to change his promises to what he and all his socialists handlers that schooled him want - socialism of America. Obama is appointing all these czars - Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch).

Occasionally, the word could be used to designate other, non-Christian, supreme rulers. In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King.[2][3]

He recently appointed a czar to oversee that company exectutives have a pay cap. the czars' answer to no one but Obama.

The law now requires that, in addition to a compensation committee report on executive pay, management must produce an extensive compensation discussion and analysis to be included in proxy statements sent to all shareholders. The information includes a table showing exactly how much the CEO, chief financial officer, and three highest-paid employees in the company earn, including bonuses, stock options and grants, and what benefits and perquisites they are entitled to and their cost.

Similar information is provided for director compensation. If shareholders don't think they're getting their money's worth from these executives or directors, they can dump the board of directors at the next election. Or at least that's how it is supposed to work

We sure did get change!!!!!

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is set to sign into law an anti-smoking bill that will give the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate tobacco.

Obama is scheduled to sign the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act during an event Monday in the Rose Garden. The law allows the FDA to reduce nicotine in tobacco products, ban candy flavorings and block labels such "low tar" and "light." Tobacco companies also will be required to cover their cartons with large graphic warnings.

The law won't let the FDA ban nicotine or tobacco outright, but the agency will be able to regulate what goes into tobacco products, make public the ingredients and prohibit marketing campaigns, especially those geared toward children.

Anti-smoking advocates looked forward to the bill after years of attempts to control an industry so fundamental to the U.S. that carved tobacco leaves adorn some parts of the Capitol.

Opponents from tobacco-growing states like top-producing North Carolina argued that the FDA has proved through a series of food safety failures that it's not up to the job. They also said that instead of unrealistically trying to get smokers to quit or to prevent others from starting, lawmakers should ensure that people have other options, like smokeless tobacco.

As president, George W. Bush opposed the legislation and threatened a veto after it passed the House last year. The Obama administration, by contrast, issued a statement declaring strong support for the measure.



Obama has spoken publicly of his own struggles to quit cigarettes.

On Friday, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by a vote of 33 to 25.

According to the bill's sponsors, it is "a comprehensive approach to America's energy policy that will create millions of new clean energy jobs, save consumers hundreds of billions of dollars in energy costs, enhance America's energy independence, and cut global warming pollution."

If you believe that, I hear Bernie Madoff is starting a new fund.

The bill will actually levy financial penalties against companies that produce carbon dioxide and other gases. Carbon dioxide is a byproduct of burning stuff – leaves, coal, gasoline, etc.

Coal and natural gas are the two cheapest sources of power at 1¢ per kilowatt hour and 1.4¢ per kilowatt hour, respectively.
Wind power is seven times more expensive than coal; solar is 35 times more expensive. You might as well try to generate the nation's electricity with a bunch of little Honda generators.

The law would require greenhouse gas emissions cut to 97% of 2005 levels, approximately 6.98 billion tons, in 2012. We produced 7.28 billion tons in 2007, the latest data available. It's a miniscule change, and it won't help the climate in the least.

By 2050, the figure jumps to an insane 17% of 2005 levels. There's no way that will work... In 2007, burning oil contributed 2.6 billion tons of carbon (35%). Burning coal contributed 2.2 billion tons (30%). And burning natural gas contributed 1.2 billion tons (17%). Those three sources contributed 70% of our electricity and all of our transport fuel. Where the hell are we going to come up with a replacement... even in 40 years?

Let's be clear: This 1,200-page bill isn't about saving the environment over the next few decades. This bill is about dollars – yours and mine – right now.

As soon as it's enacted, it will increase our electric bills by 32%. The costs will climb to an extra 62% within the first 18 to 24 months. Here's why:
Coal power plants that produce more carbon dioxide than they're allowed will have to buy the right to produce more. That additional cost will be passed on to consumers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we'll pay about $846 billion to the federal government from 2010 to 2019.

That's not the only cost we're going to shoulder. Any energy-intensive business is going to get clobbered by this bill. In 2012, when the rules go into affect, oil refiners will be forced to add $0.77 per gallon of gasoline, $0.83 per gallon of jet fuel, and $0.88 per gallon of diesel fuel, according to the American Petroleum Institute.

Companies buying that fuel are going to pass that cost directly along to you and me. We'll remember 2012 as the year of $6 gasoline. Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, thinks it will actually increase imports of finished fuels, because foreign refined products will be cheaper.

U.S.-based steelmakers will also get crushed. Foreign steelmakers won't have to worry about the onerous energy taxes, and steel imports will remain cheap. So, unlike refiners, U.S. steelmakers won't be able to pass along energy costs. That will be the story for other U.S. metal industries like zinc, aluminum, silver, and gold.

But the worst-hit industry will be coal. Portrayed as the villain in the war on climate change, many coal companies (particularly on the East Coast) will go out of business.



OT-increase our electric bills by 32%
by SitasMom on 01 July 2009 - 20:07

SitasMom

Posts: 1417
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 01:33 am
According to analysis by the Heritage Foundation (a conservative think-tank), the combined cost of the bill would be $3,000 per family in 2012 and $20,000 per household by 2035. If you make $50,000, you're looking at an after-tax 7% paycut as soon as the legislation hits.

How can a family be expected to carry a $20,000-per-year burden, no matter how far in the future it's placed? When you add all the costs up, direct and indirect, it spells a major decline in our standard of living.

We have one more chance to stop this legislation, when the Senate takes up the bill. The problem is, few Democrats bucked the party in the House. On a party-line vote, this passes the Senate, too. Then we're in real trouble.

Good investing,

Matt Badiali

Rush Limbaugh is suggesting that President Barack Obama and his political operatives already are laying the groundwork for a third term.

“You have to wonder if Obama is just trying to lay a foundation for not being a hypocrite when he tries to serve beyond 2016,” Limbaugh told his national radio audience. “I wouldn't be at all surprised if in the next number of years there is a move on the 22nd Amendment.”

Limbaugh has a point.

Upon Obama's taking office, Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., introduced legislation in the House to repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, which limits presidents to two consecutive terms or 10 years in office. Serrano’s justification for the bill is that, until 1951, nothing prevented a president from serving more than two terms.

Additionally, a grass-roots movement is under way to make Obama's third term possible. A Web site, End22.com, is dedicated to abolishing the 22nd Amendment and is asking supporters for donations to make it happen.

"We are wise enough to choose our own leader and to decide how long that leader will serve," the Web site states, noting there was nothing in the original Constitution of 1787 that barred a third or fourth term for presidents.

"With our current crises, the American People need to take back their right to elect the leader of their choice. The task is too large and the risk is too great. We must act now!"

Limbaugh acknowledged that Obama may not try to repeal the amendment on his own.

“He may not openly try to change the Constitution. But there might be this movement in the country from his ‘cult-like’ followers to support the notion that a democratically-elected leader who is ‘loved’ and ‘adored’ has carte blanche once elected — just serve as long as he wants because the people demand it, because the people want it, because the people love it.”

Limbaugh said Obama has sympathy for dictators; he relates to them. He inherited his father's Marxism.

“I wouldn't put it past Obama to be plotting right now how to serve beyond 2016, and I think [that’s the reason for the] way he's reacting to what's happening in Honduras. They've got a constitution. They’re a democratically elected set of officials down there, and you had a guy running the country, Mel Zelaya, who was just going to basically rip that country's democracy to shreds and the country moved in to stop him from doing it. And Obama sides with the guy who wanted to rip up the constitution.”

Limbaugh said Obama sides with other dictators in the region, as well, and “is nothing if not a hardcore liberal, always more sympathetic, appearing to side with the bad guys on the world stage.”

Limbaugh described Obama's followers as a “cult-like bunch” whose “attachment to him is not political, it's not ideological, it is not issue-wise. It is cultish. It includes a wide percentage of minorities who, for different reasons, will come to think that he simply cannot be replaced.

“[If he] succeeds with amnesty, for example, and all the illegal aliens are instantly made citizens — he'll be too important. Just like right now — he's too big to fail as far as the drive-bys are concerned; he's too important to be replaced. No one else can lead the nation, they will say.”

During a news conference Tuesday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether Obama supports Serrano’s House Joint Resolution No. 5, which, if passed, could lead the way for an Obama run at a third term. It was noted that Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., also supports repeal of the amendment.

LET'S JUST GET IT OVER WITH AND ELECT HIM FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's terrible news about the parks in Pennsylvania. I agree with you, Giuseppe. It's a real shame.

But about Limbaugh: By publicly worrying about Obama running for a third term, isn't he already coneceding a second term to the Dems? What kind of message does that send to his fellow Republicans, not to bother campaigning in 2012?

The smart conservatives (and there are plenty) would be wise to run for cover from this pill-addled blowhard. There's just something about that guy that drives me fucking crazy.

everyone was so excited about getting bush out of office, they swallowed obama's sales pitch hook, line and sinker. now, not only do we have a trillion dollar debt, that generations from now will still be trying to pay off, but, rising unemployment and now rising energy costs with winter coming up. the times of independant thinking is slowly coming to a close, unless the republican party has a very strong canidate and starts stopping some of these bills being presented that is heading us in that direction. especially if the 22nd ammendment is abolished.
there's a new thing that the IRS is looking into putting into effect that is going to tax you $50 for EVERY gun you own. WHERE DO YOU THINK THAT IS HEADED.??????

I wouldn't worry about Presidential term limits being reversed. And if they were, Obama would have to pull the Democratic nomination from Bill Clinton's cold dead hands .

As far as $50 per gun: How many guns do you need?

Actually, why not charge a fee? Instead of increases tax on cigarets,(guns kill as well) and I hear talk on soda as well. Why not take other peoples pleasures and tax too, raise taxes on sports events as well? I know all the sports fans will hate me, but why not?


TIS

I say we tax bullshit.

With all of it coming out of the Republican camps we'll balance the budget in a year.

There was a surplus when George W. Bush was appointed president by the Supreme Court.
He wiped it out by basically doing what Republicans do best....Corporate Welfare.
The first large bailout was also under Bush's watch, so put the blame where it is due. I am unsure of the sources of information you are buying, but if it is Rush Limbaugh, there is nothing credible.

What makes you think Obama will even win a second term? If he is as bad as you say
he'll be booted out just like Jimmy Carter was.

DT,

Let's see, how do I put this??? I wanna give you an "across the board" Know what mean?


TIS

Yes, all I can say about "across this board" is But no point discussing
things with some people if you know what I mean

Over 2,000,000 jobs have been lost since Obama signed his stimulus bill!!!

(i cant post it enough)

ds

DS, you really need to expand your vocabulary.

So far only about $120 billion of stimulus funds have been made available to states and only about 1/4 of those have been distributed by the states.

The 9.5% national unemployment rate represents 14.7 million jobs which means that well over 10 million jobs were lost during the Bush Administration. In any case, unemployment is a lagging indicator and can not be counted on as harbinger of future economic conditions.

I don't know you very well but I can see you and I have a lot in common when it comes to Obama. I believe within 4 years people will realize they made a big mistake when they voted for that socialist he will ruin this nation. Like you said people were so desperate to get Bush out of office they didn't think all that much and that will come back to haunt them.

I don't know why it is so hard for some Board members to understand that while the President can propose laws and funding, only the US Congress can pass laws and appropriate funding. It was the Republican controlled Congress during the Bush administration that added $5 trillion to the national debt. It was the Democrat controlled Congress during the last two years of the Bush administration and the first 6 months of the Obama administration that added $2 trillion to the National debt.

Presidents don't decide on the ideological path our Nation follows nor do they ruin it or make it a success. They are temporary custodians of certain powers exercised under our Nation's Constitution and statutory law. We the people decide that path every two years when all 435 seats in the House of Representatives are up for election and 1/3 of our Nation's Senators.

Olivant while you're right about what you're saying, but we all have to remember that right now we have a democrat controlled congress, with practically a veto proof senate. So basically any program that socialist Obama wants to implement he will basically have no force opposing him.

Exactly. On the same election day, the majority of this Nation's voters chose this President and the Congressional membership offered to them. It's what they wanted.

Doesn't every "great" country eventually collapse? It doesn't matter if it's republicans or democrats... this country is going down the crapper the way it's historically supposed to.

pizzaboy, its not a point of how many guns someone needs, the taxes if passed will continue to rise on them, the same as all the other taxes to the point that no one will be LEGALLY be allowed to afford to have a LEGAL gun in their house for the protection of themselves and their family.
while its true that congress passes the laws, as several posters have mentioned the dems have the majority of the votes. i saw pelosi's reaction when obama won the election. it looked like she had the BIGGEST ORGASM OF HER ENTIRE LIFE. i don't recall her exact words, but, it was something like " we are back in charge".
2,000,000 jobs have been lost in 6 months since the chosen one been in power. how many more will it take?? how many car dealers and related jobs have been lost? an energy bill is being passed that will cost more to heat and power homes. he's talking about cutting costs, but he wants to have a civilian national security force - to the tune of $500 billion dollars - Obama said] "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded. Who do you think they are ging to report to ? any guesses ?? why not put this money into existing law enforcment agencies to hire more officers / agents / equipment?
and lastly, as i have said he wants to repeal the 22nd ammendment limiting presidential term limits.

IS THIS NOT RAISING RED FLAGS TO ANY ONE?????????

GP, your post illustrates an almost appalling lack of understanding of the US Constitution, US Supreme Court rulings on that Constitution and statutory laws, the organization of procedures of the US Congress, and economics.

What in the world does this mean?: "the taxes if passed will continue to rise on them, the same as all the other taxes to the point that no one will be LEGALLY be allowed to afford to have a LEGAL gun." What in the world does legality have to do with affordability? How is one "allowed" or not allowed to afford something (By the way, read SCOTUS Heller decision and opinion, March '08)?

Presidents do not create nor eliminate jobs. What don't you understand about that? Have you ever heard of economic forecasting or strategic planning. Busineses do it all the time and it is that forecasting and planning that dictates the creation or elimination of jobs by those businesses.

Presidential term limits originated during FDR's administration as a proposal of Republicans and Southern Democrats who opposed FDR's New Deal. In other words, it was politically motivated. Attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment as recently as 2006 were, ironically, proposed by Republican House members James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin Henry J. Hyde of Illinois.

The President's call for a national security force is to combine and expand community organizations such as VISTA and AmeriCorps and to add other corps that would address and service specific community needs.

Obama's stimulus was supposed to make unemployment peak at 8%. It's at 9.5% now and is expected to move past 10% by the end of the year. He promised that his stimulus would be creating jobs by now. His biggest initiative as president has been a failure so far, by his standards.

The Col. is fucked if this happens.

So, the man and the party who have been in charge for 6 months is at fault for this collapse?? How ridiculous.

I've kept out of this because there are people that refuse to listen to reason. They, like others, are HOPING for failure, simply so they can gloat. How disgusting and low can you be that you would hope for the failure of your country and its citizens??

Rant all you want. Point all the fingers that you want. But if you expected this President to come to office with a magic wand that could undo all the bullshit that went on for the past eight years, that was a mistake on YOUR part.

Didn't Obama repeatedly promise that anyone making under $250,000 would not have their taxes raised? Weren't 95% of American tax payers guaranteed that their taxes would not increase by one penny? Well, that's not the case anymore. The new energy bill will increase every American's taxes, as will his healthcare plan which will tax health insurance premiums.

yes we can

This from the same people that brought you the signs that said a majority of Americans were "idiots" for voting for Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Bush didn't get a majority of votes in 2000. Gore had more.

Also, in 2004 I believe that a plurality, not a majority, of Americans, elected Bush.