Thoughts on Northampton County’s Tax Increase, and Taxes in General

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

I supported Tara Zrinski for County Executive in 2025. I would again. She’s a hard working, smart, compassionate woman who wants to do what’s best for people who need that from a government. I hear from Republican county employees that they think she genuinely cares about them, and the jobs they do. Two things can be true at once though. I also think her 43.5% tax increase is bad politics and policy. It also appears that her defense of it at the last County Council meeting also wasn’t great. It was awful politics because it’s deeply unpopular with everyone, and it never had a chance in hell of getting the votes on council, which won’t stop it from passing, but it will literally dog her politically everywhere she goes for the next three years. It’s also bad policy. The public can’t afford it. People are squeezed by the price of living right now. You can ask, who shouldn’t get a raise, what should we do with government function X, but the reality is that if your public can’t afford the taxes, you become a dying community. The reality on the size and scope of government is you shouldn’t do anything that causes genuine pain to your public, even if that means you unfortunately can’t take care of everyone.

I also supported Lamont McClure for eight years, and was the Executive Director of his 2017-18 transition, not to mention I supported him for Congress. His government was incredibly lean, and I applauded that. Gracedale, Open Space, and low taxes were his entire political agenda as Executive, and frankly that was where the emphasis needed to be. He resisted silly ideas like building a new jail at Gracedale and always recognized that “the general consensus at the court house” was completely disconnected from the reality of the voters. He was a good Executive. But two things can be true at once though. You can’t squeeze blood from a stone. By not doing anything to raise revenue and using federal and state one time revenue sources up to avoid tax increases, eventually there wasn’t enough money to do the functions that are needed. Departments can only run lean for so long. You run out of space to stretch your dollars. And the bill comes due. No, it doesn’t come 43% due, or all due in one swift motion, but it comes due.

The situation at Northampton County isn’t unique. Lehigh County is doing a tax increase in the high teens. Most of the cities are doing tax increases now or in the near future. Schools are doing them all over. Government just costs more, because everything costs more. Now yes, executives should probably stay lean and limit their tax increases to funding the government as it exists or where it’s in crisis (my understanding is the situation at Northampton County prison is dire and that Gracedale needs nursing help), but it is unfair to blame new executives for the simple presence of any tax increase at all. Neither of the Lehigh Valley’s counties did a meaningful tax cut with their executives on their ways out the door, which was their prerogative, but did leave a need. Some of the cities in the Lehigh Valley have been avoiding tax increases for years by simply not filling out their work forces and neglecting things that are there jobs. The new person shouldn’t be blamed for trying to keep the city functional. On the other hand, new executives at all levels of the government then need to realize that a structural deficit is not a good time to promise things to the work force, make good on campaign promises, or live out their ideological dreams for the local government. People just can’t afford it.

We all need to recognize though that government has costs. There are seniors always complaining about property taxes, and liberals who want to eliminate sales or consumption taxes, and conservatives that want to whine that rich people and corporations cost too much- well then who the hell is going to pay for the government? If you want a functional Social Security and Medicare system, you almost certainly have to eliminate the cap on payroll taxes for rich earners making over $184,500 (while this is a minority or earners who would be impacted, the money we don’t tax above that cap is the majority of the money in our economy). If you want good public schools that are safe and have all the books and teachers they’re supposed to have, you either have to have your property taxes fund most of that at the state level, or you have to explain how you’re going to make up for that money if you eliminate it. Cops, fire fighters, EMTs, and first responders, as well as the equipment they use, cost money. If you like your county nursing home being there as a safety net in your community, you have to understand that federal Medicaid cuts are going to literally kill Northampton and Lehigh County next year (Thank you, Ryan Mackenzie). Basically, if you say you “back the blue,” or “support our troops,” or “want criminals in jail,” or “fix our pot holes,” or “fix our schools”- those things cost money.

We also need to place a lot of the blame on the federal and state governments. The “Big, Beautiful Bill” was a disaster, as were the Bush and Trump tax cuts. We’re basically spending a trillion dollars each on national defense, health care, retirement, and servicing our existing debt, and doing it on less and less real dollars. Washington failed us. Harrisburg has too. Let’s be honest as we go to the polls to re-elect our Governor and give him a Democratic trifecta in two weeks- the “Delaware loop hole” is not closed, we didn’t legalize adult recreational marijuana to create new revenue, we did do a $20 billion deal for data centers that isn’t creating anywhere near enough revenue for the state, and we did these things after a decade where we failed to tax Marcellus Shale even on par with Texas or Oklahoma, when we had the chance- and the results are things like no funding for SEPTA or other government actions we all wanted. Washington failed us. Harrisburg failed us. Maybe the alternatives are worse, both intellectually and personally, but let’s not play blind cheerleader here.

America could have a sane tax system, but it would require a world where every lobbyist hadn’t learned how to use the tax code to generate unheard of wealth for their industries. I get it, that’s their job, but it’s killed us. We could have a system with no write-offs at all, where no one pays on their first $50,000 of income, and then the rates are 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25%, but people actually paid them. We could have a corporate rate of 10% or 15%, with the variable between the two being if the corporation did things we liked, like paying their workers a living wage, not outsourcing jobs, protecting the environment, of offering pensions, and those kinds of actions got them cuts. We could have tax our vices and actually spent less on enforcing morality (softer drugs, booze, gambling) laws and collected more revenue on them. We could have all of that. But in the absence of legislators who do their jobs, what we get is the tax code as the de facto law of the land, deciding the behavior of the public, both rich and poor.

Closer to home, I wonder if the “Zrinski experience” so many executives are going through in the coming years will simply drive people out of politics at the local level? What’s the reward in it? You’re blamed for warehouses, data centers, traffic, elderly folks falling out of bed at the nursing home, staff shortages at the prison, and all sorts of things that you either lack the money to handle, or that some far more famous statewide or national politician forced on you with policy decisions and funding threats from higher government. On some level, we should make things like taxation much cleaner and non-discretionary than it is. Why would any County or local Executive in their right mind authorize a reassessment in their jurisdiction? Let’s be serious, housing goes up as long as the federal tax code and rules for bank lending subsidizes it. So a reassessment is simply a tax increase. It’s literally part of our government system that we agreed upon to make it work, but if it’s something you can “decide” to do or not, you always just decide no. Should elected officials decide when to do reassessment? Probably not. If you make them, it’ll be decades before you see it done again.

Our society is deeply broken because our government is, and has been, deeply broken for a while. We pick that government though. I guess if you vote for someone because they tell you to fear the other guy doing “trans surgery on your kid during the school day,” what do you really expect to get? And don’t think I’m just banging on conservatives here. We have morons on our side suggesting we need riots like France is having, or to just empty out the prisons and eliminate the borders, and dump very expensive people into our citizenry. We are basically choosing here whether to elect a Congressman of questionable moral character who voted to cut our health care, our infrastructure, our first responders, and more, or elect a Congressman of questionable character who decided to not pay to insure his workers while taking tens of thousands of dollars from his in-laws and stiffing them out of the money for two decades. It’s an embarrassment. This is what we’ve got though.

Brooks Pulls Out of PA-7 Debate

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Bob Brooks has pulled out of the only scheduled debate with Ryan Mackenzie. There’s only two explanations for this- the first is that Mackenzie has something more to drop on him in the debate and they want to avoid the visual, or second, Brooks is wildly unprepared to go on stage. I would be tempted to say this could be because Brooks has great polling, but that is obviously not true by the fact that both parties are continuing to spend here as if this is a very competitive race, as opposed to what they are doing across the river in NJ-7.

I can’t even begin to tell you how weak this looks. I can’t remember the last Democratic nominee for Congress in the Lehigh Valley who didn’t *want* to debate. Even in rough years, where things were going against them, candidates like Ed O’Brien, John Callahan, and Rick Daugherty relished getting on stage and debating against much stronger candidates like Pat Toomey and Charlie Dent. Brooks should want to call Mackenzie the MAGA shill that he is on camera, and create visuals that play positively for him. Instead, they are apparently afraid to put Brooks on stage.

This is unnecessary and ridiculous. Bob Brooks is probably going to win this race by 2-3% if the race is allowed to just play out to its logical conclusion. Sure, I hear his personal approval is underwater in a couple of polls, but people hate Donald Trump, and Ryan Mackenzie is essentially his foot rest in Congress. Democrats have a serious shot to flip as many as four state legislative seats in just the Lehigh Valley, according to independent polling out last week. The idea that if Brooks just doesn’t go to the debate, the negative hits on him will go away is absurd- if anything this just draws more interest in what he has to hide. Now the question is what he was afraid to answer for, what more is out there, and what his campaign thinks is bad enough to damage him in the 11th hour enough to make people who hate Trump, vote for Mackenzie. This doesn’t make the weakness go away, it emboldens it.

This is what the brain trusts thought was strongest for 2026. The brain rot at the top levels of this party is… well, it’s something. Not something good. But something.

Updated Midterm Predictions

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

We are 20 days from the 2026 Election. Here is my updated predictions, as of right now.

U.S. Senate- Democrats +5, capturing the Senate with 52 votes. They flip North Carolina, Ohio, Alaska, Texas, and Maine. I think the race in Iowa ends up in a coin flip, but the GOP hangs on by a couple of decimal points. I think the winds of anger help Democrats hang on to Michigan and Minnesota in fairly close races, while New Hampshire goes by about 4 points, and Georgia goes comfortably. I think Democratic expansion targets like Kansas, Florida, Mississippi, and Arkansas all fall short by single digits *in that order).

U.S. House- Democrats need to flip 4 seats. They will flip 4 seats. Put a gun to my head right now and I’d tell you the exact number is 14 or 15 seats to the net positive in the end. Cook and Sabato seem to agree that 213 or 214 seats, basically what the Dems have now, are safe. The rest of the battle is mostly on offensive terrain for the Democrats. I am saying Democrats hold most of their embattled seats that aren’t long gone from redistricting, and win about 60% of the GOP’s seats in play. On the high side, maybe this wave reaches 20. That’s a far cry from 2018. This Democratic Party isn’t super popular itself though. Re-districting changes took a pretty good chunk of seats and made many safer than they were. And well, in the end, 20 even bets on all of the Dem candidates with issues not shitting the bed. For what it’s worth, they have PA-7 and NJ-7 as Lean Democrats, PA-8 as a toss-up, and PA-1 as Lean Republican right now. I’d predict Bennett to win NJ-7 by 5% and Brooks to win PA-7 by 2-3%. So candidate quality is playing a factor in those results.

I’ll add that I think Governor Shapiro wins by 21% and the Democrats win 25 State Senate seats *on the dot*, flipping the chamber. But I could easily be dissuaded down to 24.

What’s a Moderate? What’s a Socialist? Defining the Left

/ Rich Wilkins / 1 Comment

When people talk about right-wing ideology in America for the past decade, the reality is that so much of it is basically a simple batter of how much you bowed down to Donald Trump. While one could argue that someone like say Ryan Mackenzie is not like more extreme MAGA Republicans, such as say Lauren Boebert or Byron Donalds rhetorically, the reality is that he doesn’t vote any different than Boebert does in Congress, effectively. There are a few Republicans, like say Don Bacon, Brian Fitzpatrick, or Thom Tillis, who voted against Trump on meaningful votes, for the most part they did that because they were leaving Congress anyway. People like Pat Toomey or Mitt Romney that didn’t completely sell Trump their souls, left town. Congressman who are still around, or want to be around, bow to Trump.

What about the American left though? I feel like we don’t give enough credit to whatever the hell the last decade actually was. It would be easy to split Democrats on the left into two basic camps- Biden/Clinton Dems and Bernie Dems. That was essentially the split in the last two Presidential primaries, and it does answer the question of how the “opposition” party in the time of Trump (Yes, I know Biden was President for four years, no I don’t think he was ever the dominant figure in American political life though) ended up as the divided ones in a time when we were facing a united front intent on destroying liberalism in America. I don’t think it truly gets at just *how* divided Democrats actually are though. So I thought I’d take myself a crack at it, and try to break out the movement into pieces. So what are they?

Leftists. These folks have a lot in common with socialists, but the difference is that their ideology is more multi-faceted. They view virtually all things through a colonizer/oppression view point, be they economic, social, or foreign policy. They view countries like Russia, Iran, and Cuba as victims, rather than perpetrators, they excuse terrorist groups like Hamas, and even in some cases al-Qaeda, as freedom fighters. They actually hold much of the rest of the American left in contempt because they *don’t* want to engage in open confrontation over unpopular, politically suicidal positions, with the broader public. They hold “identity” politics in contempt in no small party because they view it as an excuse to “sanitize” non-white/non-male/non-straight politicians who don’t share their radical views. They love slogan politics, with overly simple views of things like “Defund the Police,” “Abolish Ice,” and “Free Palestine.” By and large, they are radical on most politics.

Marxist/Socialists. For the most part, this is actually pretty straight forward. This isn’t really DSA, because they’re actually socialists, and really they haven’t made up any ground in America. Sure, Mamdani is kind of, sort of trying to end private landlords in NYC, but there is no real scale of seizing the means of production though. These are people who actually believe in the teachings of Karl Marx. They’re insignificant in American politics, in no small part because they ignore social issues entirely and only want to talk class struggle. They really aren’t in the Democratic Party today.

Brogressives. A phenomenon that sort of grew out of Bernie’s 2016 campaign (By the way, I don’t quite *actually* put him in this group, himself.), was white guy leftism, for lack of a better way to describe it. These are mostly white men who want Democrats to stop talking about “divisive” things like social issues, but want to be “edgy and cool,” and vaguely sound like European social democrats. John Fetterman is probably the best, if imperfect, example of this in elected office, but despite everyone hating on him inside the party now, you have folks like Chris Murphy, Ruben Gallego, and Sheldon Whitehouse embracing candidates like this in 2026 primaries all over. I would absolutely put Bob Brooks in this category, if we get local, as he has expressed racial animus, intimacy for guns, and disdain for social causes of the Democratic Party. Despite not being white, Abdul El-Sayed’s primary campaign largely fit in here.

Progressives. For the most part, I think this is where the bulk of the 2026 Democratic Party’s primary electorate is, but what’s interesting is their willingness to flirt with the first three groups since 2024. These folks, for the most part, are fairly mainstream left on social, economic, and foreign policy issues. They want abortion legal, they also want rich people taxed. Despite their primary dominance, they are as much an outlier against the American electorate as any of the previously named groups, as they hold a strong ideological view of what they want the country to look like.

Liberals. Liberals in 2026 are interesting, because I think they draw their sort of origin from Hillary’s campaign in 2016, and how much of the left viewed her- economically moderate, socially liberal. A cursory look at Hillary’s actual positions (both pre and post primary) show her to probably be more of a progressive (I would argue the same of Biden), but perception is reality. There is a cadre of left-of-center voter that has no interest in Elizabeth Warren economics, but is heavily motivated by codifying Roe v. Wade, or putting a Black woman in the White House. They’re likely to strongly dislike Bernie Sanders, but idolize their vision of who John Lewis is.

Moderates. Moderates are exactly who you think they are. They are the people closest to traditional American policy medians, that aren’t on the Republican side. This group isn’t super left socially or economically, and really doesn’t identify with “movement” politics. This group has taken in a number of “Never Trump” Republicans in recent years, but one could think of Joe Manchin or the old school “Blue Dog” caucus. Most of their seats in Congress are gone, as the party has simply made it impossible to survive in their form.

Not Ideological. And here is the largest group. They don’t really vote in primaries. They make up the bulk of general election votes. They believe in broadly left of center ideas- a clean environment, good public schools, more access to health care, a fair tax code- but they lack sort of in-depth, concrete policy prescriptions they are demanding from the party or the government. They are the overwhelming majority of voters, the people who don’t give donations, don’t volunteer, aren’t Democratic Committee members, and don’t go to protests. More of them go to church than the rest of the party, especially if they aren’t white. More of them are truly, overwhelmingly “normal” than the bulk of the party. And more of them potentially could bolt on Democrats when they are unhappy. Some are very good, consistent Democratic voters, particularly Black voters and Jewish voters, especially the older ones who make up most of these voters. Some are less good, consistent Democratic voters. Think of the Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump Democratic registrants out there in swing districts across the country. Do they seem politically weird? Yes. Are they? Actually no. But they are taken for granted, because they don’t “fuel the machine” that makes DC run. They matter though.

That’s my breakdown of the American left. Again, I could do something similar with the American right, but it’s essentially “hardline Trump” vs. “Trump adjacent” at this point. It will be interesting to see if 2028 breaks that up a bit, or unites it.

Two Peas in a Pod

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Earlier today, someone said something sort of amazing to me- that they were happy the Dodgers were in the NLCS because it made ad time during the game more expensive, so they wouldn’t have to see ads from Ryan Mackenzie and Bob Brooks. You know, I started to argue how I’m enjoying the ads, because both guys deserve it, and then I just stopped. They’re right. The ads are disgusting. And you know what else? They’re true.

Ryan Mackenzie is an awful Congressman who deserves to lose. He voted in lockstep with Donald Trump’s GOP. He voted to make health care for millions of us who *buy* it more expensive. He voted to cut Medicaid, effectively a death sentence for Gracedale and Cedarbrook nursing homes, protecting our local seniors. He voted for ICE raids that the architects admit are targeting a sizable number of people who committed no crime at all, including illegal immigration. He supported policies that drove prices up, from your utility bills to your gasoline, from your groceries to your housing, and touching on every area of your life. Life is worse because of Donald Trump and Ryan Mackenzie’s “service” to our nation. He won’t even vote force all of the Epstein files public.

I’ve talked ad nauseam about what a pile of donkey loaf Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is, and well, you’ve seen all of that brought up in the advertisements. Brooks was never an “every man,” he is a fraud. He did take from his former mother-in-law, and tried to never pay her back. He did stop insuring his employees, in violation of Pennsylvania law. He did say that he hated Barack Obama, and that guns are the answer. Hell, he talked about supporting guns on demand after mass shootings. He has a pattern of racist behavior and statements. Frankly, I don’t know how we even consider this man a Democrat, but for the fact that the bar is in the dirt in 2026.

These two men are two peas in a pod. I’m embarrassed for my community that one of these guys will represent us next year. I can’t bring myself to back either, despite how badly I’d like both to lose. I really can’t blame any of you for whatever choice you make in the voting booth, to be honest. Bob is a deplorable person (yes I chose the word “deplorable”), an embarrassment really. Yes, Ryan Mackenzie is actively harmful with his record. I’ve had Democratic operatives trying to send me material to post about Mackenzie, material about his personal life that frankly disgusts me. I just can’t. So I’m just not. If I had to guess, Brooks will win despite terrible personal approval in polling, but watching him run an ad that begins with “a good neighbor is more important than a distant relative” to combat his negative personal numbers from screwing his family makes me think that the braintrust around him are worried about something they see. Either way, I’m still guessing Trump is the most toxic asset in this race. I don’t care though. I can’t stomach that this time, all of the attacks are true.

Who’s Winning?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

We’re in the home stretch of one of the lamest, least exciting elections in recent memory. I think at the macro level, we know the result. If you type “Donald Trump approval rating” into Google, it will tell you 32-42% is the current number. What that means in fundamental terms, is Donald Trump’s approval is, at best, about where Biden’s was (38-44%) when he lost the House in 2022, a net loss of 10 seats for his party. At worst, his approval is where George W. Bush’s was, roughly, in 2006. He lost 32 House seats and five Senate seats, or both chambers. Trump himself lost 41 seats in 2018. For context, Trump’s approval was 40% at the time.

I suspect Republicans are hanging their hats on three things at this point. First, in the Senate, the battle field is mostly red states that still don’t like progressive and liberal Democrats. Second, Joe Biden only lost ten seats in the House and gained a Senate seat in 2022, despite lower approvals, the first election held under much more partisan re-districting systems in many states around the country, underscoring that 95% of the House or more is no longer decided in districts that are remotely competitive. And third, the Democrats nominated some very different candidates in 2026. There are more populists and progressives, some of the progressives now say stuff out loud that used to be considered way out of play, and there are some problematic nominees on a personal level *cough, cough, Crooksy* than in times past. They’re not wrong about some of their points, but they’re skipping context. The Red States don’t love Democrats, but they don’t love Trump anymore. Democrats did decent in 2022 (they still lost the national popular vote, an ominous sign for 2024 that proved true), but they also were running in the aftershock of Roe v. Wade being overturned, which boosted their turnout beyond normal midterms, and certainly beyond a 40% President. And on their final point, yes, the Democrats have gone insane in parts of the country- now do people care that the Democratic candidate wants unrealistic things more so than they care that every single thing costs too much for them to afford now? The answer is probably no.

That’s the macro level. Let’s come down to our local level. Here in the Lehigh Valley, we are usually a bellwether. Because that’s true, I do think I’d give Bob Brooks a slightly better chance than not (Probably 55-60% chances of winning), and might even say the same for Jeff Warren and Meriam Sabih in their races. I’m slightly more skeptical that Rachel Cuevas beats Gary Day, given the recent history of that seat electorally, but I’d even give her 40-45% odds of pulling out the win (Same for Mark Pinsley). The truth is that if more than 50% of voters in the country are voting to take power away from Donald Trump’s party, then that’s likely about where the Lehigh Valley is at too, and if even a slight majority is voting for that, personal misgivings about the Democratic candidates probably (emphasize probably) won’t swing their votes. There are reasons to doubt that though, too.

Susan Wild did win huge in the 2018 wave against Democrats, but that district was better. Even so, she survived in 2022 *despite* the winds being in her and her party’s face at that time. She only barely lost in 2024, frankly even close than the folks above her lost her district. Even when the winds are blowing slightly in one direction or the other, PA-7 doesn’t turn into a 60-40 district. It’s just not who lives here. In the Joe Emrick-Jeff Warren race, the district is almost always a 1% difference in every race on the ballot, so candidate quality and trends all still come down to like a point or two’s worth of voters, and their views. The Sabih-Mackenzie race on the southern end of the Lehigh Valley, as well as the Cuevas-Day race out west in Lehigh County, could be slightly different. They’re newer to the “competitive” race board, and so there’s less historical trends to look at there (not to mention they’re growing areas with more new residents). They do seem more susceptible to trends. They’re also the two state house seats that have been represented by members of the Mackenzie family, so maybe their brand is better there. There’s more unknowns in those. On the whole, I’m most skeptical of Mark Pinsley flipping a district he lost by 9% to Jarrett Coleman in 2022 in a rematch now, but I suppose if we’re talking a wave, that would be the kind of place that is surprising us on Election Day.

There are whispers though that should give people pause. Republicans went up negative on Bob “Crooksy” Brooks weeks and weeks ago, basically skipping the pleasantries that used to define the early parts of campaigns. Some might say they heard a birdie say that Crooksy’s campaign says their internals have them up 12% right now. Never once did anyone who knew anything say anything but Susan Wild and Bob Casey held leads in their 2024 internals though, sometimes hovering around 10% well into the Fall. Clearly they were either misspeaking or well, things swung fast. There are other whispers though out there saying that folks connected to the state party are saying a poll exists that puts Mackenzie up 7%, and Republican sources claim that Crooksy is *ten points under water* in personal approval in their polls, which supposedly have Mackenzie leading. My thought here? They’re all liars, kind of like their candidates. Gun to my head? Crooksy holds a 1-2% lead because most people are like the rest of my family- “Brooks seems like he’s as bad as you say, but Mackenzie and Trump need to go.” So I do believe Crooksy is way under water with voters, which is why he’s now running stupid ads where his co-workers literally tell us “Bob is a good guy!” (no he’s not) and try to make us like him more because he’s a baseball coach, but it’s like dude, I go to 50-60 professional baseball games most Summers and there are *plenty* of garbage people involved with the games and as fans at the game. In the end, I think slightly more people would rather vote for a guy that steals from his family though than votes for the guy who stole their health care, their gas money, their grocery bills, and their costs of living. I won’t make this distinction, I’m leaving it blank. I’m just telling you that unless the Republicans drop the real big personal bombs, on top of the relentless negatives they ran so far, Bob “Crooksy” Brooks is going to win this by a bit.

What I hear about the Emrick race is a little different. Polling shows people would like to vote Democratic, and they don’t even hate Jeff Warren, despite the elementary school level attacks on him for DUI’s decades ago (Seriously, this is one of those negatives where you should assess if he grew up from those transgressions now, but campaigns use this shit because it works.). The problem is there is a small residual group of people who like Emrick, and are possibly going to vote Shapiro-Brooks-Boscola-Emrick. Is that sane? Not really, on a policy level it’s schizophrenic, but well, whatever. If Warren can just convince a tiny fraction of those people to connect the dots between Emrick voting with MAGA Republicans in Harrisburg, and the deterioration of their quality of life, he reverses the close losses Democrats took in recent years. But it’s a really small group of people, maybe a point, and Emrick has been around for 16 years. It’s not easy.

I haven’t heard quite as much about the Sabih-Mackenzie or Cuevas-Day races, while there’s lots of chatter about Pinsley and Coleman, and well, I just am again saying I have my doubts. If there were three people that deserve to be fired in a purging of the GOP though, Jarrett Coleman, Gary Day, and Mailou Mackenzie (Yes, I know I spelled her name wrong, but does it matter? Does she do anything?) going would be good for anyone and everyone. It would probably raise the GOP’s EQ and IQ as a whole.

One other factor I would factor into any of these races that actually end up being as close in a month as I believe they are now- local tax increase proposals. Northampton County’s 43% tax increase is going to be about as popular as having your leg cut off (I’d know a bit there), regardless of the reasoning, and Jeff Warren has already wisely, and very publicly condemned it. Lehigh County’s 17.72% proposal is no Jane Ervin level (Yes kids, that’s pre-Obama, look it up. Also though, for as bad as I thought she was back then, you have to give her at least some credit for things like the IronPigs being here, so she got too much of a beating.), but it still wasn’t a great headline. Municipalities and school boards are raising taxes too. While I don’t particularly love this, or think it’s a fair way to view it, many of the elected officials doing it are… Democrats. It’s hard to raise someone’s taxes while telling them you’re going to make their life more affordable. I get it’s necessary on some levels. I also hear about some of the problems local government is having right now even paying employees, so I understand. Now, make some guy who can’t afford his mortgage in South Whitehall or Bethlehem Township understand. Go ahead, let me know how it goes. Do I think county tax increases are going to save a Republican in a wave election? Hell no. In a close election? Yeah, I think it’s possible.

I think this election goes one of two ways, both locally and nationally- most likely, the Democrats win every close race, and make some races that shouldn’t be close close, because the public is just sick and tired of listening to a fat, racist, stupid, old/near death, orange man say idiotic shit at rallies, fall asleep in his office during events, promise us checks he’s never going to send us, make a fool of himself fighting a war in the Middle East that he and his moron Defense Secretary can’t win (In no world is that drunken talk show host some kind of expert on “war.”), deport more peaceful people than violent criminals (deport the shit out of violent criminals, but we all can see this is ridiculous.), and fight with the countries we grew up calling allies (Canada? France? The United Kingdom?). The alternative? Voters look at Democrats and remember all the things they hate about us, and while we win a House Majority nationally, we fall short of our best hopes for a large one, fail to win the Senate, and down ballot we don’t flip places that we usually don’t win. You’ll hear a ton about caravans, “transgender surgeries in schools,” defund the police, and all the regular Republican boogeymen. The reality is that some of these newer Democrats are going to lean into the fight, and normally that is still not going to go well, but we’ll see this year. *I think* people have connected the dots to realize that Donald Trump never gave a shit about making their lives better, and that will rule the day. We’ll see if Democrats are quite abrasive enough to let them off the hook.

MLB Wild Card Predictions

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

Today begins the postseason in MLB with four Wild Card round, best of three series. Here are my predictions.

Astros over the White Sox in three. I hope I’m wrong with this one, as no one can possibly be cheering for Houston outside of the Gulf of Mexico region. However I think the bit of experience Houston has, and the fact that no one wants this to happen, will make them take two of three at home.

Yankees over the Red Sox in two. If Crochet had come off the IL and got more work in, I’d go the other way on this one, as Boston has enough pitching to beat a busted up Yankees. I just think the Yankees will get big time performances from Schlittler and Fried and win a couple of pitching duals. If they don’t win in two, I think Ranger Suarez ends their season though.

Padres over the Cubs in three. I was tempted to pick this in two, but I can’t see PCA and Bregman not having at least one big game each. With that said, San Diego has been the hot team for several weeks and I think that carries over.

And for the main event… Atlanta had a better season than the Phillies. The Braves have a deeper roster. So of course they get stuck in a three game coin flip with a team who has recently tortured them in the playoffs. The Braves absolutely have to win Sale’s start today and you can probably say the same for the Phillies in Sanchez’s game two start for the Phillies. I would predict the upset if Wheeler were actually available to pitch as a starter in this series- he is tough on Atlanta when it matters- but he’s not. Because of that, I’m saying game three depth matters and Braves in three over the Phillies.

On to the games.

Well, They Got In…

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

I have to admit, I was starting to doubt things. At least until Saturday night, when the Diamondbacks lost a winnable game to San Diego that kept the Phillies up by a game and in control of their destiny. Suddenly, it seemed fathomable that the Phillies wouldn’t collapse. The cruelty of it for Arizona fans, a kind of consolation to an otherwise rough week for Phillies fans.

This is the second time in club history that the Phillies have made the postseason five straight years, and I was here alive for both. That’s not lost on me. My grandfather didn’t see them play a postseason game until he was twenty and they were swept in the 1950 World Series, and didn’t see them back again until he was 46. He saw one title at age 50, three NL Pennants, and 7 playoff appearances in 76 years. I’ve seen 11 playoff appearances, four NL pennants, a championship, and been at four World Series games in person. This franchise, known for historic losing in it’s history, has actually been a very good franchise from 1976 on- two championships, six NL Pennants, and 15 postseason appearances. It’s not Yankees, Dodgers, Braves, or Red Sox good in that time, but it’s also better than most teams. Combine that with the greatest run of Eagles football since before color television, and I have to call myself a lucky Philadelphia fan.

There’s no sense writing a post-mortem about this team yet. They could be done playing baseball as soon as Wednesday. They also might not. Atlanta is very good. So is Los Angeles. So is Milwaukee. Chicago won’t be an easy out. San Diego is hot right now. The National League is a brutal path to the World Series for whoever comes through it, and while everyone is good enough to do it, I’m not sure there is a really clear favorite to do it this year. Even if you get through that, you’ll still need four more wins against someone who will be red hot after winning the American League. With Luis Arraez hurt and Zack Wheeler now unavailable, the Phillies should be a tremendous underdog against Atlanta. But well, we’ve heard that before. I’m pretty sure we need a new manager and hitting coach, at least two new players in next year’s lineup, and a lot more depth than we have. But if you just line up the Phillies best players on their roster against any other teams, which is usually how October baseball is decided, you realize they’re very competitive, if not better, than some of the “better” teams. The Phillies should lose. The point is that they might not.

There was a lot of fan and media chatter about not wanting the Phillies to make the playoffs so they would “break it up.” That’s everything wrong with Philadelphia’s sports media in a nutshell, but it’s also just flat out stupid. I agree they need some changes to freshen up the roster for next season. The idea that you want to go back to not being a playoff team though is silly. The Phillies didn’t have a super active offseason last year because they were basically at their budget, and the market lacked younger right handed bats that would shake up their older, lefty heavy roster. It took a while for Andrew Painter to figure it out, but he had a sub-4 ERA in the second half and showed you he can survive in the big leagues. Justin Crawford hit over .280 from June 1 on, which frankly is what he needs to do to be a big leaguer. Alex Macfarlane was probably the most stabilizing force in that bullpen down the stretch. Giving the kids a shot paid off this season. Do they need to do more for next year? Sure. But realistically, this was not a season they had lots of options. They kind of are what they are.

And now what they are is in the playoffs. See you Tuesday.

Is it Worse to be a Crook, or a Republican, in 2026?

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

The case against every Republican in Washington, and even Harrisburg, is simple- everything costs too much, and their policies made it so. By kneeling before a mad man President, they created a monster. An inflation crisis that was slowly improving is now an inflation disaster- gas, health care, food, and housing, essential core building blocks of life that we cannot skip as people, cost too much. The “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a failed trade war, a botched and unnecessary war in Iran, and rampant and undeniable corruption have wrecked our economy, made our country weak, and destroyed our place in the world. Republicans are heading towards a brutal wipeout that they earned.

Of course, the problem with this is that the Democratic Party is troublesome right now. As a lifelong Democrat, I am trying to navigate the mess we have made. I’ve sent thousands of dollars from the pac I work at to candidates this week, some of whom I have issues with. Small problems that are actually big ones, things like whether a candidate wants to scrap the Affordable Care Act for a larger, unworkable government plan, I’m overlooking, basically because ending Trump’s functional power as President is more of a priority. More core, fundamental things, such as embracing antisemitism, calling for the abolition of borders, police, and prisons as a whole, are not. The truly personally terrible few who are running. Candidates who would steal from their own family? I’m taking a hard pass there. A crook is no more worth a vote than an imbecile.

I obviously won’t vote for Ryan Mackenzie. He’s awful. But Bob “Crooksy” Brooks? I’m still a hard no on him. I’ll just leave it blank. Why? Because what they’re saying about him is true. So even as I send out checks and independent expenditures to candidates in Alaska, Florida, Wisconsin, Maine, California, and other places in the hopes of the Democrats ending Trump’s reign of terror on the world, here at home I just can’t stomach our local version of John Fetterman and Graham Platner.

Democrats spent the last decade chastising the GOP for putting “party over country.” Voting for some of these folks we are running would prove we were nothing but scolding hypocrites who would do the same thing in pursuit of power. Most people already believe that, which is why they allowed themselves to vote for Donald Trump to begin with. I have quite a few friends happy to prove them right, apparently.

Drive the Racists Out

/ Rich Wilkins / Leave a comment

A lot of folks are talking about the absolutely racist letter that showed up in East Side Allentown in recent days. Among the insane claims in the letter- there are roughly 40,000 “illegals” in Allentown, rent would go down if we deported more, and my favorite of the bunch, the Puerto Rican flag is going to replace the American flag. I guess the fact that Puerto Rico recognizes the American flag as an American territory is lost on these guys. The people producing this are ignorant, hateful, modern day Klansman, and they are worthy of our collective mockery. We should point out that they are dumb, in addition to being dangerous. While others have declined to post the letter because they don’t want to platform it, I have to disagree. Our continued denial that a sizable enough portion of our society to matter believes in white supremacist, Neo-Nazi, radical fundamentalist, and nativism hasn’t helped us at all. Only confronting and shaming bigots can help us dig out of our reality.

The entire mindset that America is a white, Christian, English speaking country is built on false history and open lies. Native Americans lived all over the Americas for a long time before Europeans got here. They were not white. When Europeans did arrive, it was not only English men that built colonies in America, unless you’re so stupid as to believe the only history here is the original 13 colonies. France had massive territory here, where people spoke French, including everyone in the Louisiana Purchase territories, or a gigantic chunk of our country. “New Spain” was a massive land territory spanning both continents, and present day Florida, Texas, California, and the entire southwest were included in it. Russia had territory on the West Coast, besides Alaska, that is in today’s America. Hawai’i was never a white place when it was simply a Polynesian set of islands, and certainly was not English speaking. In fact, no natives of the soil in the United States were white, spoke English, or were Christian. The overwhelming majority of Europeans who came and settled colonies in America were not English speaking. And I could certainly go into the enormous role slaves played in literally building this country, and that none of them are white, but I think most people reading me are smart enough to know that, so I won’t. And all of that doesn’t even scratch the surface of the roles of East Asian, South Asian, Middle Eastern (Arab, Persian, and Jewish), African, and Eastern European immigrants that came here and joined Western European immigrants to build a wealthy, superpower country we have inhabited for most of our lives (I’m not sure we are “the” superpower now, but I digress). Pretending that the country that just celebrated it’s 250th birthday was built by a bunch of white, English speaking Christian’s men is historically ignorant, and can be a racist view of history. Even the idea that we are a “Christian nation” is fundamentally flawed- yes, that is the largest religious group and therefore sets many norms, but our first amendment was crystal clear in it’s declaration that the government shall not establish a state religion. We are *supposed* to be a country where a Bosnian can live next to a Serbian, a Palestinian next to an Israeli, an Orthodox Christian next to a Muslim, or a Catholic next to a Protestant, and the relationship is peaceful. The idea of some “pure blood” American citizenry sounds remarkably similar to what we defeated in World War II.

The truth is that almost all of the people who think we need to racially/religiously/linguistically purify our culture and society are simply mediocre or worse people who cannot compete in modern America. They are afraid of the implications of more people in their society, bringing more histories and cultures, and how that will impact their ability to survive socially, economically, and even personally. Frankly, they deserve to fail. And we should tell them so, and point out their inadequacies, and mock them. We shouldn’t look away and pretend simply shunning them will get rid of the problem. They won’t self examine until it hurts.

And one final note about this flier- it’s central premise of decline caused by the Latino population in Allentown is bullshit. You know what Allentown would be today without it’s Latino population? A dying shithole. Literally any and all cultural and economic advancement would have simply died. Young white people with any sort of skill would all have been leaving, as has happened in many former industrial “Rust Belt” cities across America. Latinos moving in brought vibrancy, economic viability, and energy that saved probably all three Lehigh’s Valley cities, and we should be thankful that they did. And for those who cry that they politically altered the landscape? I’ll remind you that no single group has moved more right in the Lehigh Valley from 2016 to 2024 than Latinos in Allentown. So miss me with making this about politics.

Stuff the people writing this shit in lockers. Make sure they know they are the losers in this story.