PRESS RELEASE
Ms. Biros, a small business owner, describes herself as a concerned citizen. She has been actively involved in issues of political and legislative activism through her blog, Mercer County Conservatives. Ms. Biros has published her Platform for Good Government on her campaign website at ElectBiros.com. In it she stresses her platform priorities and concerns as public service; transparency and accountability; fiscal responsibility; and limited government.
Ms. Biros stated, “Voters need a choice in every election, and 2010 is more important than ever. Taxpayers have had enough of career politicians who are more concerned with their careers than with the constituents in their district. As a firm supporter of term limits, it is my opinion that it is time for Senator Robbins to move on. Instead, Senator Robbins has concentrated his efforts on voting for pay raises for politicians, protecting cost of living adjustments for lawmakers, and hiding from his constituents and the press. The time has come for taxpayers to stand up to self-serving politicians and let them know that they work for us.”
Ms. Biros stresses that “as a high-ranking leader in the State Senate, Mr. Robbins should be working to correct the problems in Pennsylvania. Instead, Mr. Robbins has only been concerned with bringing ‘pork’ back to the District as a tool for re-election. Unfortunately, ‘pork’ is part of the problem. We need a fiscal conservative in the State Senate that will work to cut spending, decrease the tax burden on individuals and small businesses, and turn the State government around. I am that person. I feel it is my responsibility to offer the voters of the 50th district an independent voice in Harrisburg.”
When asked about the challenges of gaining access to the November ballot, Ms. Biros stated “I’m confident that we will gather far more signatures than are required. We already began the process of gathering signatures and our sampling of constituents has been very positive. Concerned citizens realize that the only way to fix the problem in Harrisburg is to purge the General Assembly of dead weight . . . and Senator Robbins is a perfect example of that dead weight.” She added “we realize that our campaign will meet with immediate challenges from political insiders in the District and we anticipate that our nomination papers will be challenged in August, but we are confident that we will be successful in pushing past the corrupt circle of political incumbents and their legal teams. We are motivated and the people of the 50th district are motivated. We will not be prevented from our right to a fair election. 2010 will be the year that the people of Pennsylvania and the United States of America make a statement and take their country back. A move to fresh ideas and a fresh face in the 50th district will be an important part of that movement.”
Ms. Biros will begin the task of collecting signatures this week and she anticipates that her message, which reaches across all party lines, will resonate with the people of the area during the petition process and well into November.
Mercer County Conservatives 
Roberta, This is wonderful news. Count me in with working to get you elected. We sure need some fiscal responsibility everywhere. Any politition, Republican or Democrat, that has been in office more than 2 terms is a "careerpolitician", and NEEDS TO GO!! They have failed miserably. Why should they stay??? OR better yet…..why would anyone want them to STAY? Kick them ALL OUT!!!
Great news Roberta,we need to have some fresh air and fresh faces in Harrisburg. It is time for most incumbants to go and certainly anyone who has been in office more than two terms. PA desperately needs patriotic conservatives to step up and run for office, we have to bring fiscal resposibility back to government, enough of the good old boys who do nothing but pad their pensions and back pockets.
I would personally love to see Bob Robbins out of Harrisburg, once and for all. Of course, the chances of Ms. Biros beating Robbins are roughly equal to the odds that the Pittsburgh Pirates will win the World Series this year. A loss of less than 50 points by Biros will be a moral victory, I suppose; it will also demonstrate, in a microcosm, how the tea party candidates will only serve to divide the GOP electorate and, in districts that have Dem candidates, siphon support from Republicans who might actually have a chance to win in the general election.Have at it, though, Ms. Biros. Makes for interesting fodder for the Herald and gets the Richardson contingent all in a tizzy, so that's something, I guess.
So we have something on which we agree! That is a wonderful start.Your thoughts about Bob Robbins are the same as I've heard from many others. However, as I responded to you earlier today, there are those that want to sit and complain and there are those that are willing to work to do something about it. I've taken on the challenge and I'll give voters an opportunity to vote Bob Robbins out "once and for all". I cannot force anyone to take the final step of actually getting up . . . going to the poll . . . and casting a vote against him. I can only provide the people with a choice once they get there.I'm offering a choice of term limits, fiscal responsibility, transparency, and accountability. I'm willing to lead the voters to water . . . we'll find out in November if they choose to take a drink.
I take it that your "those who want to sit and complain" is directed at me personally, since you've posted it twice now. For those who may be unfamiliar with Grove City politics, I am in fact one of the people who, to use your phrase, "does something about it." If there is common ground between us, let's start there.In fact, I ran my school board campaign on property tax cuts and cutting costs, starting with bloated administrative salaries and benefits. I also told the school board that they shouldn't be building an expensive and unnecessary new middle school, especially when we are just coming out of the worst recession in decades.You malign Bob Robbins for being a career politician who doles out pork in return for votes. Agreed. When Robbins came to the Grove City Borough with $700,000 in "free state money" for downtown revitalization, who stood up to the borough council and said that it was wrong to take that pork? The conservative contingent of George Pokrant and Randy Riddle? No? Oh, right, that was me also. Telling the borough to sell the airport because private industry and not government should run such a venture? Yep, that was me, too.If I'm skeptical of your campaign, it's because I'm weary of "conservatives," like George Pokrant and Jeff Black, not to mention the Grove City school board, who are part of the big government problem. They sound great when trumpeting stock conservative values, but when it comes to using government (aka taxpayers') money to gain political power (or in the case of the school administration, to enrich themselves on the backs of taxpayers, some of whom then can't afford to keep their own homes), I'm not down with that, as the kids might say.How can you be so confident that you would be any different, Ms. Biros, considering that some of your own closest supporters are part of the problem?
The comment of "those who want to sit and complain" is directed at many . . . not specifically you. However, criticizing anyone who makes the effort to run for office in order to offer choice and positive change is counter productive. As a person who has run for office before, "political insiders" love nothing more than to criticize opposition because they dare to challenge the status quo. Your rhetoric sounds a great deal like the lines used by “political insiders”, but I may have misinterpreted and I apologize if that is the case.Based on your multiple comments to this site, you seem to have a desire to criticize my attempt to run for office before you have learned anything about me . . . unfortunately, that is politics and I’m fully prepared for it.As far as my closet supporters, that may be your perception. I can tell you that a very small group of close friends were my only “supporters” last fall. I took no contributions to my campaign last year and I spent only my own money (unlike my opponent who freely spent tens of thousands of dollars from donors and political friends . . . but she pulled very little of her own money out of her pocket). I would, however, accept help from anyone if they were willing to offer it. As a true grassroots activist, I need every bit of assistance that I can find. If those closet supporters are out there, I welcome their assistance.Lastly, regarding what I stand for, I invite you to read the posts in this blog and read my Platform for Good Government as it is published at ElectBiros.com. I’m completely transparent regarding my goals and have been so in the past. I ask hard questions of our legislators and I think it is our responsibility to hold their feet to the fire. My campaign is simply another example of that. I’m currently pressing them all (Robbins, Brooks, Stevenson, and Longietti) for answers regarding their use of taxpayer-funded legislative staff and resources for their own campaigns, their use of taxpayer-funded mailings for self promotion, and their possible “double-dipping” when it comes to taxpayer-funded per diems. To quote the kids again . . . I’m not down with that either.Many politicians get elected with the purpose of establishing a well-paying career because they can’t get a job anywhere else. They spend their time in office worrying about getting re-elected (and not worrying about serving the people of their district). They are expert at spending other people’s money in the government and in their campaigns. Perhaps if they considered the money as though it was their own, they would have a different perspective.In my Platform for Good Government I quote several specific examples of legislative changes that could limit government (i.e., term limits, a part-time legislature, elimination of automatic pay raises and middle of the night pay raises). These are specific ideals that I believe would start to make a difference in Harrisburg. These are basics in fiscal conservatism and they focus on starting with cuts in lawmakers pockets. It is a way for lawmakers to lead by example . . . I AM down with that!So, perhaps we agree on more things than you would think. I’ll be glad to discuss issues with you anytime, but please don’t compare me to other “conservatives” until you’ve given me an opportunity to demonstrate where I stand.
I will concede that the county treasurer race became unfortunately more about politics than about specific ideas. I am not a partisan guy; I'm a public policy guy. I want to know what a candidate will do, specifically. Steese-Richardson had no platform, zero ideas, and she is not particularly qualified to do the job she has but that got lost in the hubbub of your battle with Lark. So I do concede that the general public perhaps hasn't given you a fair hearing. That includes me, and I offer my apology to you.So let's talk specific policy. I believe that property taxes are ALL too high, even in Grove City, where they are "relatively low" when compared with other districts. When I complained that the school board here shouldn't raise property taxes, the board blamed the state, saying that Harrisburg isn't funding their fair share. I say that schools need to balance their budgets first by cutting costs if necessary, regardless of who is paying. In your opinion, should the state be paying more toward public education?
RESPONSE — PART 1:You see, we do agree on far more than you thought.In the Treasurer race last year, my message was buried by both parties and the press. The R’s knew that Steese-Richardson had no real qualifications to move the office forward, but the D’s are so tightly tied in with Steese-Richardson and others that they worked against me even harder than the R’s. The race became a battle with Bob Lark, and that was all The Herald chose to write about. My very specific platform for increased automation in the Treasurer’s office in an effort to cut costs was completely lost. My slogan of “the office of Country Treasurer should be a public service . . . and not a career” never reached the voters. As hard as I tried, the controlling parties (Rs, Ds, and the press) made it about “politics” and not policy. Luckily, this year voters are focused on issues of policy and I’m hoping to have an opportunity to share my message. I am a limited government, fiscal conservative that is concerned about the direction in which politicians and government are taking us.Regarding your specific question, “should the state be paying more toward public education” the answer seems quite clear to me.The short answer is “no”. The long answer is . . . Government structure from the national level all the way down to local school districts is plagued with a problem of funding. Everyone is waiting for money to trickle down to the lower levels and it isn't there. Unfunded mandates are pushing requirements to lower levels of government, but the money never seems to make it where it needs to be. The first problem is to eliminate mandates that are set at higher levels and forced on lower level governments. If the funding isn’t guaranteed, the requirements should not be forced. In Pennsylvania, HB 1377 (originally sponsored in 2009) was designed to prohibit unfunded mandates to certain levels of government. Legislation like HB 1377 would be a great first step in easing the burden from those lower levels of the food chain. That is, however, only one step.Second, ALL levels of government need to become responsible for balancing their own budgets . . . and that includes making adjustments for shortfalls from higher level funding. In the current economic climate it is almost a given that lower levels of government will NEVER receive the funding that they expect. In this case, it falls to the lower levels of government to balance their own checkbooks. It is unfortunate, but if the money isn’t there cuts need to be made in order to make ends meet. Federal, State, County, Municipal/School District officials need to take responsibility for their spreadsheets and stop blaming every higher level above them. School Districts are complaining that they are under-funded, Mercer County Commissioners complain that the County is getting shorted, and lawmakers in Harrisburg keep complaining that they can’t make budget because the Federal money isn’t making its way to the State Treasury. At this point, every level of government needs to assume that their funding won’t be there when they need it and they need to plan for less money to be available. Money isn’t a magical “found gift” . . . it comes from somewhere. Funding is either borrowed or it comes from the taxpayers. Borrowing needs to stop . . . and, very honestly, the taxpayers are tapped out. The only thing left is to start cutting costs somewhere.
RESPONSE PART 2:I realize that my response was lengthy, but I wanted to be crystal clear on exactly where I stand. This is the basis of my fiscal conservative philosophy and it deserved a few minutes of time in this forum.I may not provide the answers that people want to hear, but my ideas are honest and I try to be as transparent as is humanly possible. I will be glad to continue to answer your questions through this comment area, but I urge you to contact me personally to sit down and discuss your concerns. I'm pretty darn approachable and I'm passionate about topics like these. If you have additional questions, you may submit them here or you can feel free to email me at roberta.in.mercer@gmail.com
Mr. Reeher,The biggest problem for local Shool Boards is unfunded mandates. From the State and from the Feds. Look into it. Just get a copy of your School District's budget and start highlighting all of the unfunded mandates. Everything from handicap accessible entrances to No Child Left Behind.