UPDATED: British Newspaper Reports Mackenzie Embellished Work in Private Sector ... Mackenzie Demands Retraction

Incumbent Lehigh Valley Congressman Ryan Mackenzie (R. Pa.), who represents the Pa, 7th Congressional District is facing allegations that he embellished his work in the private sector. According to The Guardian,, the DCCC has accused him of "fabricating" a career that he never had. 

The article cites several sources indicating that Mackenzie claimed on several occasion to have a real estate license (he did have one for two years) and to have worked in real estate.

According to The Guardian, Mackenzie's LinkedIn profile showed him as having experience in real estate sales, but his current profile only lists his experience in the state house and Congress. 

The DCCC statement, in part, asserts:

“Ryan Mackenzie was already disgustingly caught lying about his age on his Tinder profile by nearly 10 years. Now it looks like Mackenzie and his allies have embellished his résumé and fabricated a career in real estate that never existed. ... The truth is that Mackenzie is a career politician who has seemingly never worked a day in his life outside of politics and straight up does not understand the challenges that working Pennsylvanians are facing.”

A Mackenzie spokesperson said that references to real estate sales were "passing mentions." 

This race is gonna' get ugly. 

UPDATED 10:20 AM :

Mackenzie has responded to the Guardian article written by reporter Michael Sainato, and is demanding a retraction. It does appear to me that those who suggested that the Guardian is biased are right, but it also appears that the news outlet got its facts wrong.:

Michael,

I saw your article published today and it revealed something you did not disclose when reaching out to us - that the accusation about Congressman Mackenzie’s early career experience was coming from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), and that it isn’t backed up by anything other than their statements and opinion.

We have all of the documentation to support that Ryan Mackenzie did complete the required real estate coursework at Lehigh Carbon Community College, passed the real estate salesperson exam, carried the proper real estate license in Pennsylvania for 2 years, and entered into a contractual agreement with a broker to provide referrals to them while he worked full-time in two other jobs.

Like so many other young people, the congressman tried out different fields of work, including being a licensed real estate salesperson as a side gig while working full-time. Any accusation from the DCCC is easily refuted with the documentation we have and it is purely politically-motivated on their part.

We request a retraction of the article or update to reflect the factual information.

Mackenzie himself addresses the reporter:

“Your recent article driven by the unfounded accusations of a purely political organization (the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) whose identity you refused to reveal until publishing falls far short of any journalistic standards. and, more importantly, ignores the facts that entirely disprove your writings. As noted in our original conversations with you, those facts are clear: I completed Pennsylvania’s rigorous process to earn a real estate sales license; I signed a contract with a real estate company as a referral agent while holding two other full-time jobs at the beginning of my career; and I successfully referred clients for sale. I have never claimed more or less than those facts. Further, you chose – despite being shown that I was not responsible for their creation – to attempt to credit me with biographies and promotional items written by other organizations.”

"Documentation showing that I held a PA license for real estate sales, my contract with the referral agency, and an example of a completed referral sales contract are attached. Names and addresses have been blacked out to protect the privacy of private citizens. We would request a retraction of the article or update to reflect the factual information and would encourage you, in the future, to not rely upon accusations from a partisan political organization as the basis of your reporting."

Those Data Centers Are Evil ... Sez China

One of my many guilty pleasures is YouTube. At this time of year, however, it gets annoying. Political ads grow like weeds, and it's often the same one, over and over. Politicos present grainy images of their opponents, who look like mob figures from the '60s. Many have also latched onto the widespread opposition to those evil data centers, which will end the world as we know it.  Just a few years ago, warehouses were the enemy. Now, they're OK. It's those damn data centers. Throw in AI, and it's the apocalypse.

According to one recent poll, if polls can still be believed, anywhere from 61% to 75% of Americans oppose them. Whether reliable or not, they influence how politicians think, and this is pretty evident in the political ads. Move over, affordable housing. The backlash against server farms has become a focal point in this year's midterms. 

Governor Josh Shapiro, who would like to be President Josh Shapiro, has obviously noticed those polls. The man who once embraced data centers and put them on a "fast track" for development now warns about predatory computer center developers. He's also released ads, complete with those grainy black and white images, portraying Stacy Garrity, his opponent in next year's gubernatorial gauntlet, as the wicked witch of those evil data centers.

All she needs is a broom. 

Locally, they are universally unpopular in both counties. A few months ago, I attended a packed house in Lower Mount Bethel for what was supposed to be an informational meeting but nearly turned into a lynch mob. Of nearly 500 people who came, every single person who spoke was opposed to data centers. 

I more recently attended a meeting in Upper Mount Bethel, although I got tired of hearing the same nonsense over and over and left after about an hour.

One of the loudest voices opposed to data centers in the slate belt is Tom Gilmour, who last year supposedly was being groomed as a Dem County Council candidate. His wife Courtney, who I'm told is a very nice lady, is the county party vice chair. At both of the meetings I attended, I heard him rail against data centers. In a recent Facebook post, he attacked Supervisors who were willing to at least consider the proposal. You know, be open-minded. He slammed Township Solicitor Ron Karasek for barely looking up from whatever notes he was taking. Gilmour is apparently unaware that the role of a municipal solicitor is to provide legal advice to Supervisors, not dictate policy. Gilmour also attacked Ron Angle, one of two data center supporters, as the "local pariah." Angle has often been willing to go against the current, and more often than not, has been proved right. But as the Good Book says, no prophet is acceptable in his own country. 

Speaking of countries, there's one place outside the U.S. where data centers are A-OK. China. While the Gilmour gang is out there with pitchforks and torches at municipal meetings, China is quietly expanding its AI data center push. The Middle Kingdom is pouring $295 billion into them. I imagine that NIMBYs there are few and far in between. 

China's data center expansion should worry us. Like it or not, these server farms are critical national infrastructure with (1) military and defense applications that provide the computer power to protect us; (2) provide artificial intelligence and intelligence gathering; and (3) enable us to engage in geopolitical and strategic competition with countries like China, which plans to double its data centers by 2030. 

Like it or not, people like Tom Gilmour are unwitting tools of China. According to Open AI, the People's Republic of China has been engaged in covert influence to promote the narrative that data centers are raising electricity prices for average families. I by no means suggest that we would love data centers were it not for China's propaganda. Of course, there have been terrible data centers. 

Pennsylvania Senator Dave McCormick, who recently was a guest on Aaron McLain's excellent School of War Podcast, said that the data center debate has moved dramatically over the past 12 months. He indicated that both China and Russia are trying to influence the debate (like they try to influence elections) because leading in AI requires energy and computing power. He also acknowledged that some of these developers have done a terrible job promoting these computer banks. 

He recommends that communities consider a covenant between the developer and the community to (1) protect residents from energy rate hikes, guaranteeing that the hyperscalers will bring more energy than they use; (2) guarantee the use of closed-loop water systems; (3) guarantee tax revenue that makes it possible to reduce property taxes; (4) guarantee that local labor will be used, both to build and work at the center; and (5) a community benefit agreement. As McCormick put it, "What else are you going to do for me? He suggested things like schools, roads, bridges, etc.

When people bray about the data disasters, they neglect to mention Loudon County, Virginia. According to The New York Times, 

Over the past two years, Virginia’s Loudoun County unveiled a sleek $102 million recreation center with multiple pools and hydro massage chairs. It spent $22 million to convert the estate of former President James Monroe into a park. And it opened two new schools, with another under construction.

While many communities are in fiscal crisis, Loudoun is flush. The source of its riches: data centers.

Pennsylvania's other Senator, John Fetterman, agrees with McCormick. 

"AI supremacy and energy dominance underpins our national security," Fetterman said on X in reaction to an article about the artificial intelligence race between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party. "China continues to fuel and benefit from our overreaction. I reject the political pandering and hyperbole over data centers or AI doomsdaying."

I do not think any of these proposals deserve a tax break, but I do think they deserve a fair chance. That's the American way.  

Brooks Appears to Dodge Debates with Mackenzie in Pa. 07 Race

According to Ryan Mackenzie's Congressional Campaign, Democratic nominee Bob Brooks is playing debate dodgeball. Brooks is accused of flat-out refusing to debate Mackenzie until after mail-in voting is done. He's ignored a request for a September debate on BRC 13 (Blue Ridge Cable), and wants to delay a debate at WFMZ-TV69. He is supposed to have agreed to a debate yesterday, but only on condition that the second half air on Election Eve. 

Mackenzie has released a statement slamming Brooks for denying then an opportunity to compare and contrast the candidates. “We have offered and agreed to several dates in September, but Bob Brooks has declined or ignored all of them. My opponent’s latest attempt to delay any debate from being broadcast until immediately before the election — when tens of thousands of district residents will have already voted — represents a deliberate effort to hide from voters. It’s time for my opponent to stop playing games, agree to a debate, and answer for his record of fraud and corruption.”

There would be three reasons for Brooks to refuse to debate Mackenzie. 

First, he could be so far ahead in the polls that debating Mackenzie would just be helping his race. I do think Brooks is likely ahead, but not by much in a purple district.

Second, Brooks is a lousy debater. I would buy that one from what I've seen. This includes his stumble when the hero of the working class was unable to define it at a Cedar Crest forum. 

Third, Brooks has a lot to hide. He's been accused of a fraudulent conveyance in the transfer of real estate to his second wife, and a judge has concluded there's enough detail in the complaint for the matter to move forward. He refuses to pay back $160,000 he took from his family notwithstanding a judgment filed against him. He deliberately refused to list that judgment in his financial disclosures. He called professional firefighters who volunteer in their home communities as "scum" and "scabs." 

As I've said many times about Brooks, he's too shady. 

Don't get me wrong. I have no intention of voting for Mackenzie, whom I regard as little more than a Trump lemming. Nor will I vote for the not so "Green" candidate, Andrew Tupone. 

If we could vote "None of the Above," that would be the hands down winner.

Pa Residents Should Be Able to Take the Education Freedom Tax Credit

There's little to boast about in the Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress. There's lots of room to complain. One feature that strikes me as fair is the Education Freedom Tax Credit, which allows taxpayers to claim a tax credit of up to $1,700 for donations made eo eligible non-profits that educate kids, which includes most parochial schools. It gives parents additional options in deciding where their kids should be educated. My evil Republican brother recently penned an op-ed on this topic, which was published by a local newspaper over the weekend. Here's what he wrote:

Beginning on January 1, 2027 the Federal Education Freedom Tax Credit (EFTC) allows individual taxpayers to receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit of up to $1700 annually for donations made to eligible non-profits that support elementary and secondary education. A Federal tax credit reduces the amount of income tax owed on a dollar-for-dollar basis. If you donate $100 to an eligible non-profit, your federal tax bill goes down by $100 when you file your IRS tax return.

The Educational Freedom Tax Credit is part of the Working Families Tax Cuts Act signed into law on July 4, 2025. Also known as the Big Beautiful Bill, it includes things like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security, and the Trump accounts for newborns.

The EFTC supports education by allowing taxpayers to donate to scholarship organizations. These organizations fund scholarships for tuition, fees, tutoring, special needs services, and even classroom supplies for both public and private schools. The EFTC gives the taxpayer a say in directing their tax dollars while providing needed help. A win-win for everybody and it costs the State nothing.

How does the EFTC work? First, a state must agree to opt-in. In Pennsylvania the decision to opt-in rests with Governor Shapiro. Second, the state provides a list of eligible Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGO’s) to the Federal government. Third, the taxpayer makes a charitable contribution to the SGO. Fourth, during tax season the tax payer claims a dollar-for-dollar credit for tax owed up to $1700 annually.

In the Lehigh Valley potential SGO’s include agencies like the VIA of the Lehigh Valley, the United Way, the Jewish Federation of the LV, the Allentown Art Museum, Lehigh County Community College, the Volunteer Center of the LV, the Hillside School, and others.

Here are some examples of what these Scholarship organizations provide. The Allentown Art Museum uses scholarship funds to provide art education for School Districts in the Lehigh Valley. The Lehigh Community College uses scholarship funds to help high school students earn college credit early. The VIA uses tax credit donations to fund the Lehigh Children’s Academy. All these potential SGO’s provide valuable and needed services for our communities.

So far, 30 states including neighboring Ohio and New York and West Virginia have agreed to participate in the EFTC program. However, In Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro has declined to participate claiming that he needs more Federal guidance

In June the US Treasury department provided the awaited guidance. There is still no decision from the Governor’s office. Crickets.

Also keep in mind that Pa already successfully manages other state level equivalents like the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and the Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC).

Of note, even if Shapiro declines to participate, taxpayers can still claim the credit, but the contributions will flow across State lines to other non-profits that may not directly benefit our students.

There is a noticeable pattern. Shapiro’s refusal to participate in the Great American Fair, his numerous lawsuits against the Federal Government, and his stall on the EFTC reveal a Governor who is controlled by partisan bias and not the best interests of Pennsylvanians.

In my opinion, the Governor’s flimsy excuses betray his prejudice against anything Trump. His political ambitions and loathing of the president have clouded his judgement about what’s best for Pennsylvania.

He is also too cozy with labor organizations like the Pennsylvania State Education Association which generally oppose educational choice and anything that will loosen their grip on the Public Education system. The Governor’s inaction can lead to real harm for residents of PA.

One of Shapiro’s notable sayings is that he likes to “Get sh__t done”! Will Governor Shapiro “get it done” and opt in to the Education Freedom Tax Credit? Or will he continue to use sham excuses to deny Pennsylvanians a benefit that costs the state nothing, helps taxpayers and benefits our students?

I encourage Democrats, Republicans, and Independents to contact their state representatives and the Governor’s office in support of opting into the Educational Freedom Tax Credit.

Baratta Provides a Primer on NorCo Governance

As NorCo's top prosecutor, DA Steve Baratta is a busy guy. Though short-staffed, his office is responsible for prosecuting those accused of violations of both the Crimes Code and Vehicle Code. His office has empaneled a Grand Jury to deal with complex crime and cold cases. He handles civil forfeitures and can bring public nuisance actions against bars that routinely engage in criminal activity. His office can also file actions against public officials who are in office unlawfully. Though his plate is full, Baratta was unnecessarily forced to appear before County Council twice last week in an effort to hire a prosecutor at a reasonable salary. Though County Council readily agreed to give him what he wanted, his trips should have been unnecessary. Unfortunately, the Executive (both current and former) has a rather exalted and authoritarian view of its ability to run the county. This flies in the face of the Home Rule Charter and numerous other documents. He's found it necessary to seek judicial assistance in the form of a mandamus action to clip the Executive's wings just a bit and recently filed an excellent and highly informative brief (you can read it yourself below) that outlines the varying roles of District Attorney, County Council and Executive.   

Over the past two years, there have been 11 instances in which the Exec has prevented Baratta from onboarding new hires. In the lawsuit filed by Baratta, President Judge Craig Dally has already concluded that  there's a "reasonable expectation that the County Executive will continue to attempt to manage the District Attorney's Career Exempt Employees [nonunion] in clear violation of the Northampton County Home Rule Charter, unless a resolution is promulgated by this Court." He has dismissed objections filed to Baratta's lawsuit, but the county has basically filed the same objections all over again. 

Baratta's brief should be a primer for anyone interested in county governance. Although reading his brief is the best way of understanding it, here are some of his highlights.

First, NorCo's Home Rule Charter, approved by the voter referendum in 1978, creates a "Strong County Council Form of Governance."  This is completely contrary to assertions made by Exec Tara Zrinski at a Council meeting a few weeks ago that the Charter creates a strong executive form of government. 

To be sure, she is responsible for the administration of a $500,000,000 million budget. She manages a wide array of county departments, from Public Works to Human Services to Court Services to Corrections.  The Charter specifically names County Council as the "governing body" and provides that all residual powers are vested in Council. As Baratta explains, Council has the sole power to legislate and regulate all County business. The Charter also endows Council with perhaps the even more awesome power by granting complete control over county revenue and expenditures, as only County Council can tax our citizens and only County Council can allocate taxpayer funding for county business, It does so by adopting the annual County Budget. As former Council member Ron Heckman was wont to say, Council has the "power of the purse." The Charter even gives County Council veto power of her high-level cabinet picks.

Baratta warns that Zrinski's strained view of the Home Rule Charter has no basis, but "comes out of the playbook for authoritarianism, where governmental power rests with a single person." 

This view is dangerous and erodes our democratic form of government. We've seen President after President (not just Trump) rule by Executive Order. We've seen governors shut down entire state economies with emergency powers they were reluctant to give up.

Even County Council, the governing body, operates under a "rule of five," another Ron Heckman expression. No one person is or should be sovereign. We've known this since the days of Roman Republic, where two consuls were elected to rule together, and only for a year.  

Second, the District Attorney, like the Controller and even the courts, is an independently elected office with immense power under the Home Rule Charter to hire and fire members of the exempt service. The exempt service includes political hires like the cabinet picks made by the Exec or County Council Clerk, It also includes "permanent, part-time professional employees" like assistant DAs.  

Third, the District Attorney recognizes that his authority to hire and pay assistant DAs is limited by the budget appropriated to him and the pay scales set by County Council. "The District Attorney may only spend the monies that are appropriated to him by Council. Each exempt employee may only be paid pursuant to the pay scales approved by Council. As he explains elsewhere in his brief, his guardrails are "the budgetary dictates of County Council, the creation of the position control slots and the pay scales set by County Council for each position control slot." 

Recently, County Council shot down the Exec's request to hire a Fiscal Director at a higher point in the pay scale. If the DA can do this, why can't she? 

Baratta addresses that situation as well. He notes that "the process for hiring exempt employees for the District Attorney is different from the cabinet level exempt employees hired by the Executive. The Charter places no restriction on the District Attorney's hiring of exempt employees other than the Council's budgetary decisions, which include the pay scales. Whereas the Charter endowed with Council that duty to provide advice and consent to the Executive with regard to exempt appointments, including cabinet level appointments, by the Executive.  Therefore, the Executive must submit exempt employee candidates to Council for prior approval before they can be hired. Likely, the difference is Council's over-arching duty to legislate, budget and supervise the County Executive related to the delivery of governmental and social services to the citizens. Whereas the District Attorney's duties are fundamentally different from the duty to govern; instead, the District Attorney's duties are constitutionally based as a separate branch of government charged with prosecuting citizens who violate the Crimes Code." 

Fourth, Zrinski complains that Baratta seeks "unfettered authority to cut checks from a checkbook that belongs to the County." But Baratta only seeks to spend money out of what has been allocated to him by County Council in his annual budget and according to Council's pay scales.  He "recognizes that the County is currently suffering significant financial stress, apparently related to the inability of the Administration to meet its expenses from the $500,000,000 budget to the Executive by Council. However, poor fiscal management and/or overspending Council's budgetary funding has not been a problem created by the District Attorney. ... Should the Executive have continuing concerns about protecting 'her' money, the District Attorney assures the Executive that it is OK with him if she keeps all her checkbooks and money locked in her desk drawer."

Before leaving this story, I noted that the County used outside Council to litigate this matter.  The firm being used is the one that usually deals with union issues. But what is involved in this casee goes far beyond a simple employee matter. It involves important questions about the power of the Executive, County Council and independently elected offices. In a case like this, the Solicitor's office should be taking the lead.  

Baratta Brief by BernieOHare

Baratta Brief by BernieOHare