As the City of Philadelphia continues to prepare for “Made in America” festival, Mayor Michael Nutter continues to provide little details as to the cost of this “investment” for the City and, at the end of the day, Philadelphia taxpayers.  While I applaud the Mayor for his apparent attempt to market our City and his outside the box economic stimulus thinking, albeit misguided and weak. I have a real issue with his failure to disclose the cost details when he so confidently provides attendance estimates. 

There is no question that we are in tough economic times.  You will find few people who are not themselves experiencing an economic crisis or know of a close family member or friend in such a position.  Local, state and federal Governments continue to cut programs, downsize staffs, and demand that citizens pay more in taxes but receive less in government services.  The City of Philadelphia is no stranger to these cuts; we have seen and read headlines detailing deficits, school budget cuts, fire house closing, and potentially new taxes and surcharges on small businesses who are already struggling to survive.

Even if we were in better economic times, the bottom line is that citizens have a right to know how their money is spent.  It is not acceptable and frankly insulting to Philadelphians that our Mayor decides that a $75.00 a ticket PARTY featuring Jay-Z on city property is the best economic stimulus idea he and his entire cabinet of 100k plus/year personnel can devise for our city.  It is an alleged economic stimulus device that is sold to city residents as an “investment” but provides absolutely no hard data as to costs or return on tax dollars.  While the Mayor fails to provide any details as to the cost or the return of this party, he confidently states that it will boost the City’s profile.  He continuously calls it an “investment” but cannot present any historical data of a return. 

For those not aware, this is the first time the City has ever held a large scale concert event and charged for admission.  Now suddenly the cost goes from free to $75.00! How many people it the Philadelphia metro area will actually put out $75.00/ticket when there are is host of other less expensive or free alternatives.  It is once again, a perfect example of government attempting to create what small businesses already do far more effectively—stimulate local economic growth.

History shows that government is a poor economic stimulator simply because the average lifelong politician like Michael Nutter has never run a business and has no idea what return on investment actually means.   To most of our elected officials, income is their city pay check, capital is what you fundraise through your PAC to get elected or tax after you are elected to fund projects.  Cost is some figure the city owes but doesn’t follow them home in their city paid vehicle unlike the entrepreneur who lives with it.     

If the City wants to stimulate the economy this holiday weekend, how about simply easing the cost of parking or creating free local festivals that allow local small business owners to showcase their products for a vending fee cost.  If the City wants to partner with a business, why not do so with a local one rather than “Live Nation” with its headquarters in Washington State! 

In closing, the issue remains that the City is obligated to show its numbers when it present its “investment“ plan to grow our economy.  It is not good enough to speak in general terms and dodge questions.  If “Mix Master Mike” can provide attendance projections, he can surely provide cleanup and security costs estimates.  I invite you read more about my position on the economy and jobs at VOTEGAMBONE.COM

City Council has passed a 3.6 billion budget which, due to city’s government overspending and inability to raise revenue through alternative measures, calls 3.6 property tax increase. It is the third property tax increase in 3 years. The budget also raises the Use and Occupancy tax almost 20%. For those unfamiliar, the Use and Occupancy Tax is a tax on business, trade or other commercial real estate located in Philadelphia. The tax is also owed if you operate your business from your Philadelphia residence. In total these measure will raises approximately 40 million dollars for the Philadelphia School District. While this may sound substantial, the district’s deficit is 90 million so our city is still short about 50 million dollars.

While many young professionals are entering our city, cuts in educational programs will cause these young people to head to the suburbs to raise families; higher property taxes will provide them with just another reason. The bottom line is that even with these tax increases, the School District will still provide a lesser quality of service than it is already providing to Philadelphia’s children. These increases are another example of government policy that fails to consider innovative solutions and alternative sources of revenue.

It is my belief that elected officials must look within their district and outside of it for alternatives. “Thinking outside of the box” is a popular phrase with business consultants but it has never been more relevant to effective governmental policy. Ideas such as consolidation through technology, privatization, outsourcing, tourism initiatives, and even naming rights licenses, must all be on the table in addition to redundant governmental programs and departments.

In total Philadelphia property taxes have risen 18 percent since 2010. Even with these increases, however, we have nothing to show for it. Our schools are still in debt and we are providing our resident with less service offering. A poor economy, a failing educational system, and the population loss which results are a recipe for disaster. Our city cannot continue on this path. I encourage you to read about some of my ideas.

Despite his opposition to Mayor Michael Nutter’s Actual Value Initiative (AVI), Senator Farnese has yet to offer any alternative measure to solve the Philadelphia School District’s budget shortfall. Under Nutter’s plan, AVI will generate approximately 90 million dollars in revenue for the city. While the Mayor may believe that he is putting the needs of our city’s children first, his plan fails to consider the negative impact on Philadelphia residents, particularly the elderly and young families. AVI will drastically increase the real estate taxes of over 57,000 residents.

It is my firm belief that government policy should focus on our future but respect the past. Philadelphia’s young families often weigh the decision of whether to raise their children in the city or move to a suburb. The mayor’s proposal provides these families with yet another reason to move out. In addition, the measure threatens our city’s elderly residents who often live on fixed incomes.

While the consolidation of administrative support services may allow the city government to decrease the size of the school district budget, layoffs, consolidation, and other budget measures will not completely solve the school’s budget problems. While Senator Farnese may believe that his opposition to AVI is sufficient, I believe that Philadelphians want and expect more from their elected representatives in Harrisburg.

There are opportunities in Pennsylvania which can provide sources of revenue to reduce our state’s 4 billion dollar budget deficit and provide funding for school districts and other infrastructure improvements. Opportunities such as natural gas exploration in Marcellus Shale will not only provide a source of revenue for Pennsylvania, it will create jobs and make our State the model for energy independence throughout the country.

While Marcellus is located hours from our city, proceeds would be disbursed based on population meaning Philadelphia stands to get the most revenue from the development of this natural resource. Despite this revenue opportunity, Senator Farnese voted no on the Marcellus Shale bill for natural gas exploration. Rather than seeking to maximize the potential of Pennsylvania’s natural gas reserve he believes that we need to put a severance tax on the gas drilling industry. A severance tax, like any new tax, provides just another disincentive for investors.

Farnese, however, doesn’t pretend to hide his opposition to private enterprise and free markets. He also opposes the privatizations of the Pennsylvania’s Liquor Control Board (LCB) despite the fact that privatization could generate between $1.1 billion and $1.6 billion for the Commonwealth. These proceeds, like natural gas development funds, would be distributed based on population with Philadelphia taking the lion share to fund the school district and other infrastructure projects.

The LCB’s operating costs are the cause of the retail markup which drives Pennsylvanians to other states to buy their wine and spirits. Over the last 10 years, the LCB’s revenue has grown at a rate of 3.5% while expenses have grown at a rate of 5.5%. A privatized system would recapture these lost sales and improve profitability while reducing price and create private sector jobs.

Marcellus Shale and private liquor sales are real alternatives to AVI. These alternatives can provide a source of funding to Philadelphia’s School District and infrastructure improvements while protecting Philadelphians from higher taxes. In these tough economic times, we need our leaders to provide us with real alternatives to our economic problems. I invite you to learn more about our campaign and why I want to be your next State Senator!

Senator Farnese once again proved that he is fiscal minded lightweight with no real solution or alternatives to Philadelphia economic woes.  In response to Mayor Nutter’s Actual Value Initiative (AVI) proposal to aid Philadelphia’s public school system, Farnese held a press conference to make his opposition known and to no doubt embarrass the Mayor.  While I do not agree with the Mayor’s proposal which would significantly raise the property taxes of many Philadelphians, at least Mr. Nutter, unlike Mr. Farnese, makes his position clear on this school funding issue.

Farnese doesn’t give any proposal and simply states that he will explore “taxing alternatives.”  These words are just that;   the senator will never elaborate because that would require him to actually devise an economic alternative to a tax increase.  He criticizes the Mayor for his plan fails to explain how he would solve the Philadelphia school district’s funding issues without taking more from Philadelphians’ wallets.

What is obvious, however, is that Senator Farnese opposes every piece of economic growth legislation in Harrisburg.  He opposes Marcellus Shale Development and attacks the natural gas exploration industry despite the fact that it has created over 72,000 jobs in this country and over 1 billion dollars in gas related revenue.  In Pennsylvania, state proceeds from the natural exploration would disbursed based on population meaning Philadelphia would receive a substantial portion of the funds to use toward school infrastructure and other quality of life improvements in our city.

Farnese also opposes the privatization of state’s liquor store system despite the fact that it could generate between $1.1 billion and $1.6 billion for the Commonwealth.  Similar to Marcellus Shale, these proceeds would be distributed based on population size with Philadelphia taking the lion share of the money.  In addition to directing funds toward schools, it would also reduce the overall tax burden on Pennsylvanians and provide them with a better overall shopping experience.  A market liquor system would generate ongoing revenue from licensing which means that taxes and markup would not be as high.

Finally, Farnese is far from an advocate of small business or any private industry for that matter.  His “tax alternatives” are simply code for creating additional layers of complexity to the tax code which will stifle investment and discourage entrepreneurs from entering the Philadelphia market.  He fails to recognize that small business owners and entrepreneurs are the job creators who form core of our state’s economic health.

A strong economy means good paying jobs.  Good paying jobs create stable communities and stable communities mean solid schools supported by strong families.  Voters need to ask themselves what are Senator Farnese’s core issues.  It is clear he is not focused on the economy and it is clear that he believes additional taxes and not creating opportunities should fund education and infrastructure improvements.  He is not afraid to openly attack the mayor for taking a stand on an issue but shows he has no backbone with vague answers on those same issues.

Unlike Mr. Farnese, I will work with the Mayor and city government, despite our differences, to solve Philadelphia’s problems.  I will not turn my back on my hometown and run off to Harrisburg after holding a press conference filled with attacks and no solutions.  I invite you to read about my positions on the economy, education, healthcare, crime and taxes; these are real solutions to our problems not vague alternatives.

 Senator Farnese continues to criticize the governor for his failure to focus on job creation.  He apparently has a plan to create jobs—RAISE TAXES.  I’m sure not where Farnese developed this solution but he should ask business owners their opinion on it.  He may find it hard to find support from any of these families who have lived through the struggles of this economy and the failure of government to assist small business owners.  

Senator Farnese and I agree that job creation leads to economic growth for working families.  He believes, however, that somehow we grow our economy by increasing taxes.  If he can’t increase your taxes he wants to create some new taxes because business owners in Pennsylvania don’t already pay enough to Harrisburg and don’t already spend enough of their day figuring out the latest wrinkle to regulations on their particular industry.  Again, I’m not sure where the Senator developed his economic theory but his stance certainly shows he never owned a business and never needed to support a family from one either.  A very light legal career spent at a large law firm and/or in government no doubt leads to this type of thinking.  It is simply out of touch with what many Pennsylvanians experience every day.  

What are Senator Farnese ideas for growing our economy?  He considers the general assembly’s failure to impose additional taxes on Marcellus Shale drillers on top of the extraction fees they already pay “one of the biggest mistakes we’ve ever made.”  He also classifies the failure of government to create or raise taxes as “leaving money on the table.”

What are his other ideas for growing our state’s economy—taxing internet transactions … really?  Maybe he can marry his erectile dysfunction bill with the internet sales tax idea.  Again, there is no doubt he developed his economic theory from his extensive experience in the private sector growing businesses, creating opportunities and raising a family.  

The senator simply does not get that businesses must either pass new taxes on to consumers or absorb these costs.  Passing the taxes on to patrons increases the cost of goods and services.  Things like the late night dinners on Rittenhouse Square the senator regularly enjoys with the ladies will either cost him more or Rogue will have to literally eat it.  Unlike the senator, however, most Pennsylvanians aren’t worried about the cost of a Rittenhouse dinner with the ladies going up but the costs of everyday products.   

I invite you to look at my plan for improving Pennsylvania’s economy.  Unlike, Mr. Farnese’s, mine does not include raising your taxes.  As the son of a small business owner and one myself, I firmly believe small businesses form the core of our state’s economic health.  I support a tax structure that makes it less expensive to do business in the Commonwealth.

I support entrepreneur focused initiatives like the Angel Investor Tax Credit which encourages start-up businesses with a 25 percent tax credit.

In closing, once again it is clear that Senator Farnese has taken a reactive approach to a problem much like his position on crime and education, again from his life experiences with these issues.  He offers no solutions but to grow the size of government and raise your taxes.  If you want to pay higher sales taxes, higher real estate taxes and more for products and services with absolutely no accountability vote for Larry Farnese.  If you are looking for real alternatives to higher taxes—VOTE GAMBONE.      

Senator Farnese’s recent op-ed article in the Inquirer provides an insight into our differences on what a state legislator should be to Philadelphia’s city government. Farnese appears to oppose Mayor Nutter’s proposal to generate $90 million dollars in revenue through the “Actual Value Initiative” and cites the state’s anti-windfall laws as the roadblock to Nutter’s plan. The ant-windfall law requires that if a municipality reassesses property values, it must lower tax rates so that a potential property tax increase is revenue neutral for a municipal government. The windfall laws are designed to prevent city government from cloaking tax increases in the form property reassessments.

The bottom line is that the City cannot reassess property values without some help from Harrisburg. If Harrisburg refuses to act, the City must find another way to raise revenue. In his article, Farnese states “if they need more revenue … local government can debate whether taxes should be raised” and then further states very proudly “Philadelphia’s state legislators are ready to help.” Help how exactly is the question he never addresses.

While I’m sure the mayor and the rest of city government appreciates his offer, he is really not giving them any options. This may be a shock to Mr. Farnese but if you leave city government without options for revenue, they are going to raise taxes. The state law, however, allows Farnese to escape angry citizens by simply stating he doesn’t have a seat on City Council so send the hate mail and make your phone call to your nearest Councilperson. He doesn’t seem to care that he is pushing the revenue problem on members of his own party. He just makes it clear that he opposes raising taxes or unfairly reassessing property values on working families; the quintessential political answer.

I agree at least partly with Mr. Farnese’s position. We need to protect vulnerable homeowners from reassessment that could result in them losing their homes. In addition, we need to prevent working families from moving out of the city because of high property taxes. Unlike, Mr. Farnese, however, I believe that a Philadelphia state legislator must help create alternative revenue options when the mayor says he needs funds.

Farnese, however, never once mentions creating opportunities for small businesses to fuel the Philadelphia economy. He never mentions what he is doing to encourage corporate investors to start businesses in the city. He never once mentions anything about creating revenue by growing the city’s tax base with new families through increased job opportunities in the private sector. Instead of promoting economic development, he prefers to focus his attention on legislation pertaining to issues such as erectile dysfunction and bed bugs. My support or opposition to these bills is for another article but Philadelphia has much more important issues.
Our city government needs a state senator who will bring back opportunities from Harrisburg and not use it as place to hide out from them and local citizens. It is needs a state senator who will work with the mayor to look for opportunities to promote our city’s potential to outside investors. A Philadelphia state senator needs who offers real options and not a political line to the Mayor and City Council.

I support a business environment which recognizes that the small business owners and entrepreneurs are the job creators who form core of our state’s economic health. I support a tax structure that makes it less expensive to do business and makes Pennsylvania attractive to job creators. I support the privatization of Pennsylvania’s Liquor Control Board and the auction of wholesale and/or retail licenses which will provide Pennsylvania with financial proceeds estimated to be between 1.1 and 1.6 billion dollars. I support entrepreneur focused initiatives like the Angel Investor Tax Credit which encourages out-of-state and in-state investors to invest their capital in Pennsylvania-based start-up businesses with a 25 percent tax credit.
Philadelphia needs a state legislator who is looking out for Philadelphians and not pushing the issues back on city government. I encourage you to visit my website www.votegambone.com to learn more about my views on the issues.

I would like to thank all the members of my campaign team and our supporters during the primary season.  While November seems far off, the general election will be here in no time.  Our campaign continues and please look for our campaign events between now and election day.  I encourage you to learn about my position on the issues.    

The core of our campaign remains focused on growing our state’s economy through investment in small businesses, providing our children with educational options, and ensuring that Pennsylvania remains home to hard working people and their families.  I remain committed to lower taxes, less regulation, and innovative small business programs.  I support a business environment which recognizes that entrepreneurs form core of our state’s economic health and a tax structure that makes it less expensive to do business in Pennsylvania.  I support an open, transparent, accountable and trustworthy government that puts taxpayers first.

Political campaigns, regardless of the party or the year are difficult.  They require a commitment from the candidate, the campaign team, and faithful supporters.  While our campaign appreciates financial contributions, there are a number of ways to support us:

• Attend a campaign event
• Wear a campaign Lapel Pin
• Put a campaign poster in your window
• Put a magnet on the bumper of your car
• Invite a friend to join our mailing list
• Forward our newsletter
• “Like” our Facebook page  

I am asking for your support because elections are won and lost on the extra effort or the lack of it.  We are focused, organized and committed but we still need your help.  It is my sincere hope that you and your family will join our campaign.  

In my previous blog on the Trayvon Martin tragedy, I stated that the unfortunate death of this young man would cause many of our citizens to question Pennsylvania’s recently expanded “Stand Your Ground Law.”  Since that blog, a Florida special prosecutor decided to charge Mr. George Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder based on the review of the alleged facts surrounding this incident.  Following these charges, several members of Philadelphia City Council are now asking that our State legislature repeal the expanded law.

Pennsylvania’s law almost mirrors Florida’s Stand Your Ground legislation; it allows the use of deadly force on a city street if a person is in fear of their own life.  If George Zimmerman elects to enter a plea of not guilty and proceeds with a trial, his fate will be decided on the issue of whether he life was actually in danger.  It is important to keep in mind, however, that if Mr. Zimmerman is found guilty, it was because he disregarded the law.   

“Stand Your Ground” is formal recognition that a citizen has a right to defend himself/herself but as expected, however, some politicians want to use the Trayvon Martin case to restrict our right to self-defense and the 2nd Amendment.  Despite this tragedy, I remain a firm believer in our 2nd Amendment. Restrictions will not decrease crime but only infringe on our constitutional right. Politicians who advocate for restrictions on our rights and limitations on the ability to defend ourselves, simply want to avoid addressing the real problem. It is a reactive approach to violence.

I support a proactive approach and believe that crime occurs not because of access to firearms but rather a lack of alternatives to crime.  There is a clear relationship between crime a lack of education and/or a lack of professional opportunities.  A person who lacks options will commit a crime if not with a gun, then with a knife, a fist or some other means. We need to be proactive and target the root cause of violence to reduce it.  Provide people with options and crime will decrease.  For more information on views on other issues visit www.votegambone.com

• Performance-Based Budgeting which means the mandatory review of any state program that has failed to meet its goal over a multi-year period. 
• The consolidation of administrative and technological services between state agencies to eliminate waste and make government more efficient. 
• A mandatory 2 year review of all existing Boards and commissions and a 5 year life span of all new created boards and commissions.
• State legislators making the same financial contribution as other state employees for the health insurance they receive.

• An immediate state wide audit of all vehicles in State’s Lease Program to eliminate waste.

The recent tragedy of Trayvon Martin in Florida will no doubt cause the citizens of our Commonwealth to question Pennsylvania’s recently expanded Stand Your Ground Law. Pennsylvania, like other jurisdictions, has always provided individuals with the legal right to employ the use of deadly force to defend themselves and others within their home. Most states memorialize this legal principal known as the Castle Doctrine in a statute which is commonly referred to as the “Stand Your Ground” Law.

In June 2011, Pennsylvania, however, expanded the protections of this law and it is now very similar to Florida’s legislation. The new law now allows an individual to employ the use of deadly force in areas beyond their home such as driveways and city streets. This use of deadly force in these areas is defendable as a justifiable homicide provided that the actual justification exists. The Trayvon Martin case will therefore turn on whether George Zimmerman was defending himself or pursuing Martin after it was clear that Martin presented no clear harm to him.

The local, state and federal investigation will clarify the circumstances around this case and determine if Zimmerman will face criminal prosecution. If the facts of the Martin case reveal that Zimmerman acted without justification, he should face prosecution and the consequences if convicted. This incident, however, should not cause Pennsylvania to reconsider its expanded right to self-defense. While opponents to my position will argue that an expanded “Stand Your Ground” law opens the door to further violence, I believe the expansion of the legal doctrine is simply recognition of a citizen’s right of self-defense.

Despite this tragedy, I remain a firm believer in our 2nd Amendment. Restrictions on our 2nd Amendment right will not decrease crime but only infringe on our constitutional right. Crime occurs not because of access to firearms but rather a lack of alternatives to crime. As a criminal defense attorney, I have witnessed the correlation between crime, a lack of education and/or a lack of professional opportunities. One-third of all Pennsylvania’s students score below the standard in reading and math. Approximately 30,000 students drop out of our high schools each year and never earn a diploma. There is a substantially greater probability that these individuals will commit crimes because their lack of educational and professional opportunities leads them to turn to crime. Crime occurs not from a failure of a government to legislate but a failure of government to be proactive.

I am an advocate of a proactive approach to reducing crime and violence. Restrictions to firearms are reactive and while it may reduce the number of firearms, the root problem of crime and violence will remain. A person who lacks options will commit a crime if not with a gun, then with a knife, a fist or some other means. We need to target the root cause and ensure that individuals earn high school diplomas and following that diploma have either professional or educational opportunities. If we are proactive, we will reduce crime while growing our tax base, stimulating our economy, and reducing the dependency on government. A proactive approach is a long term sustainable strategy that will pay economic and sociological dividends for generations. For more information on my views and our campaign visit WWW.VOTEGAMBONE.COM
Alfonso Gambone