The Wrong Choice for State Auditor General

It is surprising to me that "One of America's Great Newspapers" has endorsed longtime Republican State Representative John Maher for
Pennsylvania Auditor General, basing its vote of confidence on his
qualification for the position as the only Certified Public Accountant
in the House while ignoring his record of voting and acting against
the public interest.

While other House members have produced viable plans to eliminate the
noose around the necks of homeowners inflicted through the property
tax, Representative Maher has always been on the sidelines and silent
on the matter, willing to accept the status quo, which is causing
individuals to lose their homes or to have to decide whether to pay
their property tax burden or put food on the table. If a legislator is
not part of the property tax solution, they are part of the problem.
Were it left to Representative Maher, the decades-long legislative
"debate" over property tax reform will continue ad infinitum.

I wonder how many state residents are aware that the most recent
legislative effort to provide property tax relief was defeated in
committee 13-9, most of the 'nay' votes coming from House Republicans,
and that much-maligned Democratic State Representative and current
candidate for State Senate, Matt Smith, a member of the Committee,
voted for the relief bill to be presented to the full House. Think
about that the next time the anti-Smith forces seek to tar him with
the moniker of tax-raiser and wasteful spender.

Although Representative Maher presents himself as a conservative
Republican, he has been AWOL on several critical votes which have
greatly impacted Pennsylvania.

Maher was one of 176 greedy House members that voted to increase by 50
percent their already-generous defined benefit pensions in 2001
(bringing along rank and file state employees and public school
teachers for 25 percent hikes so as to diffuse public anger which
could have ensued against General Assembly members for lining their
pockets). The General Assembly and governors then failed to properly
fund the plans, bringing us to today's state of fiscal Armageddon,
what the Corbett administration estimates to be a $37 billion
shortfall, a burden which will crowd out other state spending for
years to come and trigger local property tax hikes as have already
been occurring.

Stunning to bona fide fiscal conservatives and believers in open,
honest government should be Maher's vote for the infamous middle of
the night legislative pay grab of 2005, an action which he seeks to
justify on the basis of its provision to hike the compensation of
judges. The manner in which the legislation was approved alone: behind
our backs, should have been enough to cause Maher to do the honorable
thing and reject it. He joined most of his cohorts in repealing the
bill after public outrage and revolt ensued. He had the audacity to
boast throughout his primary election campaign this year of voting for
repeal while omitting the "small detail" that he voted for the
original bill, the height of disingenuousness.

We learned that the "old boys' network" is alive and well in
Harrisburg when Maher endorsed to the bitter end the primary election
campaign of fellow Republican and State Representative Mark Mustio for
State Senate. Mustio campaigned against opponent D. Raja viciously and
played "the immigration card," shamefully seeking to tar Raja for his
Indian heritage. Raja's status as a sympathetic figure is over as
his campaign and those who support it air attack ads against general
election opponent Matt Smith. Representative Maher acknowledged to me
toward the end of the campaign that candidate Sue Means in this
three-person race was the only individual that waged an honorable
fight, yet that did not cause him to step away from slime-slinger
Mustio.

An individual that has long been prominent in state government
confidentially told me of his classification of Maher from years of
knowing and observing him as "an arrogant bully." I have found that
take to be accurate notwithstanding the fact that Maher originally
extended himself to me and personally performed what had the potential
to be a significant act of constituent service. We had a cordial
relationship, once dined together, and communicated often until I
began to challenge his actions in the House, at which point it became
clear that he does not welcome nor is accustomed to criticism or
opposition.

John Maher's actions in the State House indicate that one cannot judge
an individual by his party and that this is not an individual who has
demonstrated conservative credentials when litmus test votes have
taken place. On the issue of fiscal responsibility and serving the
people, the Republicans and Democrats sometimes reverse traditional
roles.

I know that loyal Republicans will angrily challenge what I have
stated in this entry. When you do so, how about engaging in
high-minded debate rather than character assassination? Contest my
facts if you wish and support your argument with specific
documentation. Tell me where I have gone wrong. I look forward to the
exchange.