For at least a year, I have been predicting that PA Sen. Bob Casey will be President Obama’s choice for Vice President in this year’s re-election.

This choice only works if Obama remains a strong favorite by the time of the Democrat National Convention.  If his election to a second term is in doubt, look for the V-P nominee to be Hillary Clinton.

This forecast is logical and – if I still have any readers willing to read further – I can explain.

Few Democrats think Joe Biden doesn’t deserve a second term, too, but he turns 70 this year and would be a long shot in 2016.  Don’t get me wrong.  Both V-P Biden and his wife Jill are well-liked.  With the exception of some minor gaffes and Republicans who hate all Democrats, the long-time Delaware Senator has few enemies.

Unlike Sarah Palin, Biden did fit a purpose four years ago.  Obama had as much experience in foreign relations as I have running the 100-yard dash.   Biden happened to be the Democrats’ “go-to” guy on foreign policy, a perfect match for the top of the ticket.  Sen. John McCain spent too much of the Republican campaign answering the question “Why her?” while Obama was able to be Obama.

During the debates Biden could pronounce “Asif Ali Zardari,” ex-President of Pakistan, while Palin said she could see Russia from her front porch.

However, I do not see much material circulating that promotes the “Obama-Biden” team.  Eight years ago, as I recall, the Bush-Cheney flags were already flying in the front yards of all rednecks.

Casey, however, is a different horse.  Young, beautiful family, scandal-free, articulate and as much “Pro Life” as can be tolerated in a Democrat seeking a national office.  This balances with Obama’s emphasis on women’s choice, although, admittedly, the same could be said of his matchup with Biden on the ticket.

Obama has taken major hits for some of his legacy projects.  This is all wasted if he does not help engineer a continuation of the regime in 2016.

I have never understood the logic, if any, that is applied in the selection of a vice-presidential candidate.  The most frequently used word is “balance.”  However, logic is paper thin in the choices of Bush I and II, Clinton, Gore and, of course, McCain.  These anointments were more like picking Bridge partners.

More balance was applied in Obama’s choice of Biden and it would hold truer with the selection of either Casey or Hillary.

Reading the Republicans this year is more difficult after McCain’s selection in 2008.  McCain’s approval of Palin removed all chances of the Arizona Senator occupying the White House?  Why remains speculation.

Gov. Romney should still get his Party’s nomination, but will shed blood.  He will need a “balance” candidate.  His choice, however, will spend most of his(her) time keeping a large segment of the Republican Party in the fold.

President Obama had some problems holding in Democrats who did not like a Black at the top of the ticket.  Mormon Romney will have more difficulties with Republicans shocked he is not a Christian.

Under full disclosure, I have an abysmal track record in picking V-P candidates.  Take four years ago.

McCain was to announce his choice at the Dayton Airport on a Friday morning.  The Democrat convention had just ended the night before and he wanted to blunt the normal surge a party always gets coming out of that event.

Certain that McCain would anoint former PA Governor Tom Ridge, the night before I told wife Diana, we might support a Republican for President in 2008.   Ridge didn’t know me personally, but, through my labor ties, I had excellent relations with his office when he was Congressman and Governor.  In addition, I admired his moderate stances in a Party that was rushing pell-mell to the right.

Friday morning, newscasters were reporting a private aircraft flying from Alaska into Dayton.  In two quick phone calls, I learned Ridge was in a DC suburb getting a haircut.

Did I mention that Sen. Casey shoots a good game of hoops with President Obama?

Rick Santorum’s recent success in GOP presidential primaries has refueled the debate about handouts of public funds known as “earmarks.”

Greenville Borough, a 6,000 population town in northwestern Mercer County, PA latched on to federal funds through Santorum’s largesse in 2006 when he was running an unsuccessful re-election bid to the US Senate.

I had just been elected Mayor of this distressed community and got a telephone call from the late Peter Vessella, a close friend and longtime Democrat chairman of nearby Lawrence County.  Santorum was in the early stage of a campaign against young Bob Casey, state auditor-general and son and namesake of a very popular governor.

Mr. Vessella served two years at Allenwood Federal Penitentiary convicted of corruption with coal contracts at Penn Power Co.  Mr. Vessella carried on a vicious feud with the Casey family because the elder Casey provided evidence crucial to his conviction.  Mr. Vessella believed this evidence had been fabricated, in part to protect higher ups at the utility.

Knowing bitter feelings would prohibit Vessella from supporting fellow Democrat Casey in the 2006 Senate race, I was not surprised he called.  I had spoken to Vessella about Greenville’s financial woes but did not make the connection when he asked me to attend a private meeting with Santorum at a motel in West Middlesex.

Until the meeting, I intended to vigorously support Casey for the Senate seat.  In 2002 I had broken a long time alliance with the Casey family dating back to 1966.   I supported Ed Rendell for Governor over the son in a bitter Democrat primary.  Nevertheless Vessella was a close friend and perhaps the best street pol that I ever knew.

Vessella greeted me at the door.  Also in attendance were two Santorum aides and longtime Republican state committee member from Lawrence County, Atty. Richard E. Flannery.  Mr. Flannery was known as Santorum’s gatekeeper in West Central and Northwest PA.

Santorum and I began with typical chit-chat of two obvious political junkies.  I mentioned he was handing out some large grants across the state.  He replied “I am writing checks and President Bush is cashing them.  The White House is doing all they can to help my re-election.”

At that point I saw hope for Greenville.

Misappropriated funds by a borough manager under the noses of a sleeping council had created a number of problems for Greenville, pushing the town to the brink of bankruptcy.  Main Street’s renaissance was only half done and a modern “Streetscape” design over the entire thoroughfare was unlikely.

The piecemeal approach could take two decades.  More storefronts were vacant than occupied, particularly in the unfinished part.  Shortly after my election in November of 2005, Gov. Rendell placed a congratulatory call and said I “had one or two bites at the apple coming.”

I made conclusions:

1. Rendell could not be relied on.
2. Casey would be an easy winner.
3. There would be no second opportunity for Greenville.
4. Casey would understand putting community before politics.
5. The Democrat Party would not give a hoot what I did.

We had a grant application for $175,000 in front of the feds, but that was only ten percent of what we needed to complete Streetscape, I told Santorum.  He offered to help and the next part of the meeting is less clear in my mind.

Santorum at least implied that he expected my help in his campaign and I did nothing to lead him to believe otherwise.  I even posed for an endorsement type picture with Santorum.   The photo was sent around the Internet, I am told.  Reportedly, Rendell saw it and declared “Miller had turned Republican.”  I spent the last three years “persona non grata” at the Governor’s office.

Later, people involved in our grant application were called by Washington and told to reapply, moving the decimal point one slot to the right.  Shortly after, Greenville was awarded $1,750,000 and we completed our Streetscape.

Eight days before the November, 2006 election, Borough officials (mostly Democrat and at the request of the Mayor) participated in a media check presentation with Santorum.  The Mayor was out of town on business.

We might modestly improve the housing market – at least in college towns – but our higher education mills would have to take a step back.

Frazzled parents fail to keep their kids focused on education, but public schools don’t deliver anyway.  College administrators believe students learn better when they stay on campus, so more dorms are built.  Abandoned homes, some within eyesight of campuses, remain empty rather than filled with student roomers.

According to the Associated Press, two colleges in northwestern Pennsylvania now require more students to live on campus.  They claim this is necessary to improve student performance.

Last year Allegheny College, in Meadville, opened new apartments on its private campus to house 340 additional students.  Edinboro University, owned by PA taxpayers, is building a dorm complex to house more than 1,600 freshmen and sophomore students.  Taxpayers will front a $115 million cost until enough students pay room charges to retire the debt, or at a minimum, guarantee a bond issue in case of a default.

In the meantime, the real estate market in the Borough of Edinboro and the City of Meadville is not much better than anywhere else in the region.  The excuse that dorm debt is self-liquidating ignores the opportunity to help soften a local housing collapse.

About five years ago the then-president of Thiel College in Greenville asked the then-mayor of that Mercer County borough why the “town-gown” relationship was not as good as it could be.  The Mayor replied that in the 1960s and early 70s, every spare room or empty second or third floors in Greenville homes were rented to Thiel students.  (In addition, students were a source of business to downtown Greenville merchants now rendered extinct by Wal-Mart in Hempfield Township.)

The Thiel President said the best way to control drugs and alcohol was to keep all but legitimate commuters on campus.  The Mayor responded the college was in the pockets of borough taxpayers, but the opposite was not true.  He noted that total assessment of land and buildings in Greenville was $55 million and Thiel owned twenty percent of this, paying zero real estate taxes.  Also, the College made no in lieu of tax payments to the Borough which Allegheny does to Meadville.

Too many college and university administrators and trustees obviously could give a hoot about the housing crisis.  Their goal is to fill every classroom seat with paying youngsters who may or may not find a job after graduation.  Higher education in America is an industry having difficulty controlling costs.

Tax supported colleges are taking big haircuts as more and more state governments fall into Republican hands.  President Obama promised in his recent “State of the Union” address that he would give more Federal aid to colleges that show they can reduce costs.  As often the case, this showed that neither side has a clue.

Don’t expect our government leaders to implement a solution that enjoins two separate and distinct segments of our society, even though one would spend less money and market value would improve for the second.  Lobbyists would not write campaign checks for that feat.

Do expect no change or relief in PA.  Gov. Corbett and lawmakers cut appropriations to state higher education.  These were promptly passed on to students in the form of higher tuition and increases in room, board and a host of other fees.  How else can Penn State and Pitt remain highest in tuition costs among state supported schools across the nation?

“I can create jobs” is a pet claim that has escaped its leash.

Now the mantra of every politician running for every elective office in America, nothing is further from the truth.

The only people who can claim they “create” jobs are those who sign the paychecks.  When they say “You’re hired” they have accepted the risk that you will earn for the company at least as much as you will cost and that cash flow will include as much funds as necessary to pay you on a regular basis.

Keeping within these parameters may still leave the claim dubious.  You obviously are not going to be well thought of in the United States if the job you created is in Southeast Asia, unless those who judge you are shareholders convinced this “job creation” will make for better profits.

There can be other concerns.

Perhaps the job created pays far less than another rendered obsolete.  Again, only stockholders may applaud.

New jobs can be overrated in other ways.  Take the thousands of jobs that presidential candidate Mitt Romney claims he helped create while Bain Capital – his company – was helping Staples get on its feet.  Mr. Romney tactfully fails to mention that while Staples grew, the office supply and electronics selling business did not.

In 2008 Office Depot, a Staples competitor, announced it would close 112 stores and in 2009 did permanently furlough 2,200 people according to RetailIndustry.About.com, a research bible for commercial businesses.  Then, of course, there are the 30,000 mostly geeks who lost their paychecks when Circuit City chain collapsed.

How many people do we really need to transport, stock and sell staples, paper clips, tablets, folders, (even) computers, printers, office furniture and the like?  How many of these jobs pay family-sustaining wages?  How many of these products are made in this country?

Bain Capital, under Mr. Romney’s leadership, may well have made a small contribution to the US economy in that Staples is able to sell these commodities cheaper due to more efficiencies and economies of scale, but at what cost?  There are fewer family-owned office supply stores around and increased consolidated buying power has forced manufacturing overseas to meet the pricing “crunch downs.”

The “Stop Romney” movement centers on belittling his accomplishments to prevent his nomination.  Obviously getting voters to not vote for him takes precedent over sticking with facts.  Here’s another example of the anti-Romney people heading up the wrong trail.

His opponents are now attacking the obscenities of his huge investment income and are convinced some of it must be made from unsavory activities.  Romney’s response is that his investments are in a “blind trust” and he makes no decisions regarding what is bought, sold or held.

If true and some Republicans believe our next President should be a successful business person, then they need to draft and nominate the manager of Romney’s blind trust.

As we learned in the national debate of 2009-10, health care will not become a right in the foreseeable future.  How much of a stretch is necessary to understand public education is headed down the same path?

Only four decades ago, Gov. Milton Shapp’s goal was “free higher education for all Pennsylvania citizens.”  The liberal Democrat wanted a new state income tax to help pay for scholarships for bona fide residents to any state school of higher learning.  Shapp never was able to make the income tax graduated (higher earners paying a higher percentage) and he finally ran out of time.

Fast forward 40 years from Shapp’s time: Forget free higher education for bona fide residents. In 2011, we as a commonwealth are struggling to provide a solid 12-year education.  Former Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell fought for funds to pay for pre-kindergarten education, wanting to directly compete with China, India and other rapidly developing nations.

Under new Republican Gov. Tom Corbett five-days-per-week Kindergarten has become an option.

Progress was also being made on equal distribution of financial responsibility for public education between the state and the local school districts.  Until the November election the goal in Pennsylvania had been to raise state funding for public education to 50 percent of the cost.  Republicans had been less enthusiastic, but episodes of outright resistance were seldom and muted.

During the eight years of reign by Democrat Ed Rendell, state funding of public education moved from 35 percent to almost 40.

What does percentage of funding underwritten by state taxes have to do with the quality of education?  Poorer districts rely more heavily on state funding in order to provide a quality education to their students.  The state uses its increased share to equalize the playing fields between wealthy and poor districts.

Decreased state funding, as proposed by Corbett, has the opposite effect.  Preliminary school budgets adopted this month already indicate expected results.  Wealthy districts are more likely to rely on attrition to meet reductions in personnel budgets.  School districts with leaner tax bases are looking at teacher furloughs, larger class sizes, elimination of social and sports activities, even going without new text books.

Such disparity is predictable because wealthier school districts depend less on state funding (as a percentage).  Less reliance on a source of funds means a reduction of that source will hurt less.

No surprise, Corbett denies reduction of access to a quality education by poor people is either one of his targets or will be collateral damage.   His answer to that criticism is “vouchers.”  Basically this is a program where parents who believe the public education in their home district stinks can get state grants to help pay for their kids to attend school outside their district of residence.

Voucher proponents claim the system will encourage competition among school districts to provide better educations than their neighbors.

Vouchers, however, leave the picture murkier because Republicans aren’t united in how to kickoff the system in PA.  Corbett, in his first budget message almost three months ago, said the state can only afford a modest program now.   He sees funds only stretching to cover the lower income families in the first year. A smaller start-up would have little impact on competition and quality.

Such a meager beginning does not satisfy some GOP legislators, however, who are more worried about the 2012 elections.  By extending eligibility to more moderate income families these lawmakers envision even Republican voters able to use vouchers.  In addition, a large scale voucher program aids denial that the entire funding scheme as detailed in Corbett’s budget will destroy public education.

Could state Republicans find a better way to destroy the teachers’ unions and rein in education costs?  Maybe, but, aside from vouchers, no one is looking.  The Democrats, as traditional with the “out” party in Harrisburg, naps on the sidelines.

Only four months into the job, Tom Corbett shines in performing for the wealthy Republicans who financed last year’s journey to the PA Governor’s mansion.

His fast start already overshadows his Republican predecessors.  Tom Ridge was pro choice and cozy with labor unions.  Dick Thornburgh spent his time being pompous, although he did let underlings vent against Democrats.  Ray Shafer and Bill Scranton Sr. each served one term in the 60s and were moderates compared to today’s right wing zealots.

Consider what Corbett has done to date.

No sooner did he drop his right arm after being sworn in on another cold, drafty day in January that he announced his revenue department was “re-interpreting” the tax code to allow businesses to pay $200 million less in taxes per year.   Corbett said the $4 billion shortfall could be dealt with by little people, not his business friends.

While the media and Democrats predicted Corbett would be forced to abandon his anti-tax pledge, he and his superrich contributors (many now known as acting cabinet members) began to identify where to cut expenses.   Some were downright insidious.

A billion dollar cut in public education might have been designed by Karl Rove.  The reduction is proposed across the board.  This means wealthy school districts may not miss a $100 per student whack.  A $600 or $700 shortfall per kid in poorer districts will be devastating.  Even if permitted by law, these districts are unable to tack on another ten or 15 mills to an already sky-high real estate assessment.

Poorer school districts tend to lean Democrat and local board members are cozier with the teachers’ union.

Corbett has created his own pressure to not fail.  He can destroy public education in Pennsylvania and maybe take down the PSEA, the teachers’ union that is one of the most powerful units of organized labor.  These are prizes coveted by a large segment of his contributors.

Both of Corbett’s other major proposed reductions in funds will be more likely to test his political skills.

In whacking half of the expected appropriations for higher education, Corbett is trying to send a message that this area of government funding is out of control.  Despite large increases in appropriations from Harrisburg in recent years, state-supported universities have also jacked tuition.

Corbett has two hurdles to overcome.  First is that the district of Republican State Sen. Jake Corman, chair of the powerful appropriations committee, includes Penn State.  Corman, like fellow GOP senator Jeff Piccola, would like to take on US Sen. Bob Casey next year, but could fight for his current seat if he doesn’t bring the bacon back to Penn State.

Corbett must also deal with pressure from all legislators to hold the line on reductions for higher education.  After all, they need those tickets to home Penn State and Pitt football games.

For these reasons, Corbett’s proposed cuts in higher education have a smaller chance of success.

The last of Corbett’s proposed trio of big cuts in funds is an attack on the welfare system.   “Eliminating welfare fraud and abuse” always makes a good speech highlight, but is seldom done.   Corbett believes he can be successful where others have failed.

The problem is that a productive attack on fraud and abuse in welfare may shift hundreds of millions of dollars of health care costs to the very employers who wrote large campaign checks to Corbett.   The Federal General Accounting Office published a study in 2005 that claims most Medicaid waste results from claims that should have been paid by the father’s employer’s insurance.

Single mothers tend to use the green card when taking kids to the doctor.  Neither the harried mother nor the health care provider can wait for the system to find the father who may have access to his company’s family health benefits.   Such reform would also increase uncompensated care costs to hospitals.

Currently, Corbett is ignorant of these effects to his donors at US Steel and UPMC.

There are other signs that Corbett is creating the best administration money can buy.

His DEP secretary has elevated green lighting citations for oil and gas drilling environmental violations to his desk.  His new secretary of state was on the wrong side of a voter suppression issue several years ago.   His economic development chieftain has been given power to approve environmental permits.

Corbett took three months to find a stand-in for secretary of labor and industry.  His search for a resume with even minor reference to labor-management relations who could also be relentless against organized labor was hard to fill.

If Corbett can maintain control over legislators of his own party (a big “if”), he will devastate the Democratic leadership, organized labor, teachers, profs, college students, single mothers and social workers.

What’s the beef about Gov. Tom Corbett?

Should his disapproval scores be so high for doing what he promised when running for the office last year?  Many Republicans (and a few Democrats) snickered while voting for Corbett in November, figuring the new Gov would not cut in areas where they have interests.  After some posturing, these cynical voters believe, Corbett would raise taxes, saying he had no choice.

What has happened in the first 100 days of Corbett’s rule underscores the poor campaign waged by his Democrat opponent Dan Onorato.

For the right-wing zealots of the Republican Party, Corbett is viewed as the second coming.  In short order he intends to destroy public sector unions, flush public education down the toilet, help private colleges become more competitive, screw poor people and hand natural gas drillers a pass to rape our landscape.  What more could Corbett do for his base and his wealthy friends?

If Corbett stumbles or outright fails to deliver on his promises, the fault will belong to the leadership in both legislative houses, even though they are members of the same political party.

School vouchers are an example.

Corbett prefers to deal with vouchers after getting his budget through the House and Senate by the July 1 deadline.

That schedule conflicts with the personal ambitions of Sen. Jeff Piccola, chairman of the education committee.  The Senator is considering a challenge to Bob Casey for the U.S. Senate seat up in 2012.

Corbett’s priority is the 2011-12 budget.  Even after that he would prefer a smaller voucher program at the outset, mindful of the cost.  Corbett proposes a pittance that would barely extend options to poor children in the worst school districts.

Piccola wants to be known as the state lawmaker who delivered on vouchers.  He also needs enough funding to insure that Republican families get taxpayers to pay for sending their kids to private academies as soon as possible.

Corbett will have a difficult time getting his budget through without the grandstanding on vouchers.  Unless he also gets legislation that provides local school boards with tools to deal with state funding cuts, Corbett’s delivery on campaign promises will amount to no more than a huge shift to local taxpayers.

Existing state law prohibits furloughing teachers for lack of funds.  The number of teachers in a district can only be reduced because of a decline in enrollment.  That needs changed, presumably by July 1.

Collective bargaining has been a right extended to PA public employee unions since 1971.  As the law stands, school districts must bargain to get employees to pay higher contributions for health care.  Existing union contracts require layoffs to be based on seniority and include rules that define hours of work and duties.

Legislation limiting the power of teacher unions must move alongside the budget to prevent big increases in property taxes.  Corbett will learn -- if he does not already know -- the Pennsylvania legislature is disingenuous and self-serving, regardless of party affiliation.

In times like these, Western Pennsylvanians become jealous of Ohio citizens.  This is even truer of people in West Central and Northwest PA, many of whom depend on TV news from Cleveland and Youngstown.

Ohio is a “referendum” state, meaning the people get the last say and can make “course corrections.”  When the governor and/or the legislature either do something unpopular or fail to undertake a needed action, voters merely have to petition the subject on the ballot.

The decision of the voters in Ohio is final because it is unlikely the question will get on the ballot if it is unconstitutional.

If only it were the same in the Keystone state.

The current “button” issue in Ohio is Senate Bill 5.  This limits collective bargaining for 350,000 public employees including teachers.  These workers would lose the right to strike.  The new collective bargaining law would continue to permit them to negotiate for wages, hours, safety and certain terms and conditions.  The new law caps employer contributions to health care.  Pay must be primarily based on performance.

(Obviously new Republican Gov. John Kasich and his henchmen were concerned that serving on a local school board might require an I.Q. over 70.)

If referendum petitioners can get 231,000 signatures by the end of June, then voters approve the referendum at the November election, SB 5 will never be put in effect.  Collective bargaining procedures with public employees would continue the same as it has been for 30 years.

An organization, www.weareohio.com made up of mostly labor unions and parent-teacher groups claims it already has over 2,500 volunteers to collect signatures.  This after SB 5, Gov. Kasich served up, quickly passed the House and Senate with party-line votes.

Ohio lawmakers, generally, heed party leaders more faithfully than Pennsylvania’s.  In Harrisburg, representatives and senators usually follow the party line.  Frequently, however, they will create an “every man for himself” scenario important to those who value getting re-elected above all.

Actually the commonality between Ohio and PA ends with the passage of legislation into law.  In Ohio adoption by the legislature and the Governor’s signature, if not acceptable to a high number of the voters, may just be the beginning.

Because PA is not a referendum state, voters can only shake their fists, write a letter-to-the-editor or – if they can remember that long – campaign against the incumbent at the next election.

Historians and pundits are baffled about the paradox of government and politics in PA.  The state is made up of broken cities, small towns, sparse townships and 503 separate school districts that beg for consolidation.  Mergers of contiguous PA municipalities and school districts are few and far between.  Some say this is attributable to both our independent streak and hesitation to fully trust one another.

Conversely Pennsylvania operates under a Constitution that gives almost unlimited power to our state officials.  Recall is restricted to conviction for serious crimes, an impeachment process by the legislature that happens once a decade.

Democrat lawmakers have introduced legislation that would make Ohio the 20th state to be able to recall their Governor.  Since they are in the minority, the bill has no chance.

Polls show Pennsylvanians would like the power to make corrections through referendums and be able to recall their leaders when they mess up.

An amendment to the PA Constitution is required.  This process begins with majority approval of a referendum to be placed on the ballot and, then, the exact same measure be approved at the subsequent legislative session a year or two later.

Thus, we must ask the same guys we might want to recall, to approve the process that could end their spoils.

Ho-ho-ho.

When Barack Obama ran for President in 2008, among a multitude of promises he made:

He was in full support of universal health care.

He would make it easier for unions to organize work sites.

He not only would not start any new wars he would close out ones that George Bush started.

He would stop the multi-national companies from moving jobs to foreign lands.

Because he changed his mind or failed to keep these promises and more, Obama is a shoo-in for re-election in 2012.  His second term is in jeopardy only if he has a strong primary opponent where the President would be held to account for his broken promises.  He won’t lose the primary, but damage inflicted then would weaken Mr. Obama for the fall campaign.

The President’s main advantage in a fall campaign is that no Republican candidate would dare remind voters that he had not fulfilled these campaign promises.  If he or she did, this would encourage more Republican voters to vote for Obama.  After all, there must be millions of voters that did not want to see any of these promises fulfilled.  Why change horses, Republicans might conclude, and witness some of these issues actually happening through mismanagement of another George Bush?

What about those Republican governors who made so many promises in 2010 campaigns?  Among their pledges:

“I will not raise taxes” or “I may even cut some taxes or fees.”

“We’re going to stop these public employee unions from getting contracts that call for automatic raises, bigger pensions and smaller paycheck deductions for health care.”

“The business climate shall improve by eliminating regulatory issues and adding tax breaks.”

Some of these Republican governors hit the ground running, fulfilling campaign promises immediately after being sworn in.

Governors Scott Walker of Wisconsin, John Kasich of Ohio and Tom Corbett of Pennsylvania handed out corporate tax breaks literally on the first day.  In Wisconsin and Ohio, legislation whisked through bi-cameral legislatures.  Corbett one-upped his anti-labor cohorts by executive fiat, claiming a “re-interpretation” of a business tax rule would benefit companies to the tune of $200 million annually.

Again, compared to Obama’s timidity, Republican governors acted boldly.  All of these governors were facing huge budget shortfalls and – by handing out new business tax break -- they boldly dug an even deeper financial hole.

Now, with varied styles, these governors have all declared war on public unions.  They claim this is necessary to rein in state and local government expenditures and skyrocketing costs of public and higher education.  We are told the war against labor is only for good government purposes.

Ironically, because they are fulfilling their campaign promises, these Republican governors are less likely to win re-election in 2014 than Obama is in 2012.  As all of this continues to eat away at the resources of the declining middle class, look for major voter uprisings by then in those states.

In states where voters still have a say-so (known as “referendum states”) one or two governors could get recalled and not finish their terms.  Gov. Walker may be the target of a recall campaign in Wisconsin in 2012, because the law there permits such actions.

Fortunately for Corbett, voters have far less to say about running their governments in Pennsylvania and he will remain in office until January, 2015, regardless.

In the meantime, put your money on President Barack “Hope-to-Nope” Obama against all comers in 2012.

Recognizing the difference between Washington and Harrisburg is difficult sometimes.  For example, take budgets.

As long as there are two major political parties there will be at least two budgets competing for attention and adoption at the seat of our Federal power.  Extreme groups can run the count to three, four or more.

Not so in Harrisburg, has not been for four decades at least.

The difference will be more pronounced this year and next.  Tom Corbett, a Republican, is the new governor and his party also controls the House and Senate.  Corbett’s budget has no competing proposals from the opposition party.

His “work of financial art” (which incidentally when coupled with supporting charts and data from the various departments is said to measure 16-feet thick) may get minor challenges from special interest groups or even newspapers needing to fill space.

Democrats are “out to lunch,” probably not to return until 2013 at the earliest.  Their governor could not run for re-election and his term ended Jan. 18.  This date is the same as when Democrats decided they had little or no responsibility for what happens next. Being in the minority in Harrisburg is one of the great spots to earn a living on this planet.

Don’t get mad at them.  Republicans “mostly” acted the same way during the eight years Ed Rendell occupied the governor’s mansion.  The operative word here is “mostly.”  Because the Senate has been under Republican control for about two decades, they felt some obligation to curb some spending by Rendell, not enough to lose votes at their next re-election, however.

Down to the wire, or running 100 days late like 2009-2010 fiscal, ultimately the Senate Republicans, generally leadership, would provide enough votes to get a budget back to Rendell for his signature.

Rendell, not fond of rank-and-file lawmakers of any party -- in a contradiction that never made any sense -- always made certain local legislators were front and center for check presentations, ribbon cuttings and the like.  More than once Democrats fumed when a Republican legislator they were trying to defeat would not only stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Rendell, but smile as the governor praised him or her.

More than likely that Republican legislator had voted against financing the program at hand or against the entire Democrat-driven budget.  Didn’t matter.

Corbett may run his local check presentations the same way, although it is too early to know.  He may not be presenting that many.

People of the party not in power in Harrisburg put their feet on their desks.  Their attitude is “why should I risk defeat at the next election by voting for tax increases?  Let the Governor’s people take the risk.”  In addition, who wants to wade through 16-feet of binders, reports, etc. when it won’t help at re-election?

The ideal position for a law-maker in the minority is to be able to vote for popular programs, but against the taxes to pay for them.  Will Corbett be as foolish as Rendell and let them get away with that type of posturing?

Corbett could have problems in his own party.  His budget cuts hit hardest at public education, health care for the poor and higher education.   Some Republicans, mostly leaders, are worried about not getting tickets to Penn State and Pitt football games.  Some of the rank-and-file are already back home telling school boards that they “will see that some of (their) cuts are restored.”

If you are waiting for well-conceived counter-proposals on the state budget from the Democrats, don’t hold your breath.

Also, given the mood of a much divided electorate, don’t look for too many town hall meetings this summer from any state legislators.  They will be accessible at their offices, parades or fairs -- places where it is less likely the media will be present to report their responses to tough questions.

We pay for the largest, full-time legislature in the nation but that's no guarantee we get our money’s worth.