Politics: A View from West Chester

Posts since Oct. 12 on my site site

Mon, 05 Nov 2012 21:35:00 -0500

At http://politicswestchesterview.wordpress.com/ I’ve been blogging away. Please follow me there.

Here are posts there from Oct. 12 to date:

Beware those “independent” groups, once again!

AdultBasic and the 41,000 Pennsylvanians who lost health insurance in 2011

Romney/Ryan phone banker sheet leaked

Republican candidates comment on Sandy

Why do Americans love to forgive and forget?

“Pro-life”

Some Minnesota candidates and “independent” expenditures

Presidential debate #3 Thoughts on presidential debate #2 Arlen Specter

Posts on my new blog site and not on the tumblr site

Fri, 12 Oct 2012 18:33:00 -0400

If you have been looking for new posts here, please shift your attention over to the new site that I had to open because tumblr became unfriendly to my computer.

Here is a list of the posts that I have put there than are not here at the tumblr site:

The Obama and Romney tax plans: more background, August 8, 2012

How Romney missed his best VP pick, August 12, 2012

Keep the media out of polling places, August 28, 2012

History lesson for John McCain, August 30, 2012

“Private Stock Market Where Mitt Romney Made $200 Million”, August 30, 2012

A few things Paul Ryan forgot to say, September 1, 2012

The medieval wing of the Republican party, September 2, 2012

The Lord of the Flies and US political life, September 9, 2012

Hens in West Chester: Why not?, September 10, 2012

Happy National Voter Registration Day, September 25, 2012

Smedley Darlington Butler of West Chester, September 28, 2012

My view of the Oct. 3 presidential debate, October 4, 2012

Three thoughts on campaigns after watching the VP debate, October 12, 2012

Interview with Susan Rzucidlo, candidate for PA House district 158

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:08:00 -0400

In the past couple of weeks I interviewed PA House district 158 Democratic challenger Susan Rzucidlo and incumbent Republican representative Chris Ross. I am grateful to both of them for their time and willingness to be interviewed in the interest of helping bring their concrete positions and views to the attention of voters; my own views are not relevant here. The questions were basically the same for both, with the needed changes for background, party identification, and priorities. I took notes and render the answers below to the best of my ability; no one else was present and no recordings were made. Both were given a chance to modify my write-ups to clarify and correct as needed, but not to add material that was not in the interview. Neither has seen the interview with the other as of the moment of posting.

Why are you running for the state House of Representatives?

I’m an advocate; I work for people, families who have children and adults with disabilities, seniors and veterans to help them access the services they need. Harrisburg has lost the ideal that government should work for people.

This administration has given the store away on gas extraction: corporations have a larger voice than the people. Another example is the move to privatize public education: it’s the bottom line against the interests of children. In a struggle like that, the children won’t win and not winning means a poor education.

Do you find running for office to be quite a sacrifice of time and energy?

I believe in public service; if you’re in it for the right reasons, the ideal of serving people makes it worth the amazing amount of time and energy needed to run.

Public service is a passion, like my non-profit Speak Unlimited and co-creating the Premises Alert System. Through both I’ve improved lives, and even saved a few lives. The Premise Alert System allows anyone with a disability or complex medical need share information with first responders (police, fire, paramedical) before a crisis so that when there is a crisis everyone knows what needs to happen. This system protects both people who have needs and our First Responders. We gifted it to the state under Gov. Rendell, though we retained ownership of the form and system so it could not be changed. The program has been replicated in 2 other states and is being worked on in Canada and England. Over the years I’ve done a lot of good work for people as an advocate, as a state rep, I know I could do even more.

Do you enjoy politics?

I enjoy solving problems, helping people, making systems better. I also welcome a good fight when I am fighting for people.

You and your opponent both have some background as small business owners; is that a good background for office and does it give you anything in common?

I’m not sure of his business background. My husband and I have a farming business and I have the non-profit. Together they give me unique insights. In the non-profit I hear people’s concerns and I help people. Farming is a business that requires adapting—to weather, and changes in the market, planning, getting through bad years looking at long-term solutions and plans. That is the way the government should be thinking, with a long-term vision beyond the next election.

How would your training and professional experience influence you in office? Are more legislators with your training and experience needed in Harrisburg?

Yes, the legislature should have more farmers and more advocates, more people who understand the day-to-day struggles of owning a business and working to help people.

Your campaign motto is “Working for a socially and fiscally responsible state government”—why?

Fiscal responsibility is key to government but there are ways that this administration has made cuts that in the long term will cost the state millions more than the providing the services needed.

This administration has cut human services. What happens when parents grow too old to care for a child with disabilities? The state is looking to open more institutions at $250,000 per person per year, whereas housing people in the community costs $50,000 to $100,000 per person per year. Why would the state pay more for the solution that works less well and that people like less?

Inadequate services for people with mental health challenges increase emergency care and prison costs. Keeping people in prison costs about $50,000 a year; giving them preventative and supportive services in their daily lives makes them more productive to society and costs a few thousand dollars a year. Money spent on preventative programs can help keep people out of prisons: an once of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I just don’t understand the administration’s claim of fiscal responsibility. The Secretary of Public Welfare (an office that includes aging, mental health, etc.) won’t support home- and community-based support—that makes no sense to me for them to take money from less expensive, more effective and more desirable services and instead put extraordinary amounts of money in restrictive and less desirable programs

I actually have two other slogans: “Standing up for the people and values of Chester County” and “Rzucidlo, the “z” is silent. She is not.” They give people a fell feel for who I really am.

What do you think about the decisions that have been made in Harrisburg the last couple of years?

They are taking the state in the wrong direction. Governor Corbett does not share the values of Chester County; he does not respect the people of PA. It’s discouraging. I see my opponent voting with Corbett on almost every issue.

What are your 3 or 4 most important issues?

The economy, public education, environment, services for the vulnerable.

Why is the economy such an important issue for you?

PA has the highest corporate tax rates, which keep some companies from deciding to move here. To attract business we need good quality public education, a solid transportation infrastructure and to close some of the corporate loopholes while lowering the overall corporate tax rate.

Why is public education such an important issue for you?

Every child deserves a good quality public education. Our system does need reforms, but cutting money to poor schools is not the answer. Privatizing is not the answer either. PA has some of the country’s top public schools. Throwing money at the problem is not the answer. There are proven solutions and schools with few resources that are doing great things. We need honest reforms and true accountability at every level.

Why is environment among your leading issues?

I was stunned when House Bill 1950, the fracking bill passed, the bill that Governor Corbett signed into Act 13. The state gave away our natural gas for a 1% fee when the national average is 5%, it overrode local control, reversing a long time standard of Pennsylvania government and it reduced environmental oversight. There was a better option, The bipartisan Murt/DiGirolamo bill had business and environmentalist support but didn’t go anywhere in Harrisburg because it had a more reasonable severance fee that was higher than the Governor wanted.

Your 4th most important issue is services for the vulnerable; could you please explain?

Lack of proper services for the vulnerable and disabled hurts individuals and society as a whole. My son has a severe form of autism, but he is able to volunteer; he provides a service to society and may one day be able to work for pay, but until then he gives back as a volunteer. Where would we be without all the volunteers who get things done in our community?

My concern is what will happen when I can no longer care for him? It’s an unacceptable cost to society if someone like him is institutionalized—especially when it costs much less to provide him with services in the community. The state has a responsibility to help those who are unable to care for themselves.

We should be building ladders for people who are able but need assistance for a while to climb out of poverty, not cutting off services with at a set limit and no recognition of the process it takes to get there. Creating a sliding scale to reduce but not eliminate services as people gain training and skills until they are able to stand on their own is a better plan.

Some people who receive Social Security Disability Insurance payments can work and are making progress and one day would be able to be fully independent but under the current rules they can’t earn a single dollar over the federal limit without loosing everything. The government is forcing people to choose between full dependence on programs or full independence without any middle ground. If we are going to help people become independent we have to help in the journey. The overall cost would be less because some would make it, some would need just a little, and some would be unable to ever be independent. Joe Sestak was working on this and would have helped move it forward had he been elected.

The Corbett administration eliminated General Assistance, which supported people while they waited for their SSDI to be put in place, provided rehabilitation for individuals with drug and alcohol addictions, and helped domestic abuse victims to get on their feet; it was a time-limited 9 month program. The legislature could not find the money to pay financial help to those awaiting SSDI or rehab from drugs or escaping from domestic abuse, but they found the same amount to give themselves a COLA raise.

What are the most defining differences between you and your opponent? Are there issues on which you agree?

We used to agree on a number of things, but he has now become a party politician. He turned his back on the environment; he voted for HB 1950. The party bullied him into it. He voted against the voter ID but for a weak reason: he didn’t say it was wrong to do so fast, just that people can get fake IDs. He voted for Act 22, which gives the Secretary of Welfare power without legislative oversight—that’s unprecedented.

When legislators turn over their power to oversee policy changes people loose the power to have their voices heard. People are losing their voice to non-elected bureaucrats; it’s devastating, it goes against the founding principles of this country. Legislators are abdicating their role to work for the people so they don’t have to deal with people.

There is a lot of evidence that inequality has been growing in our society for the past 30 years; how important is that for you and can Harrisburg do anything about it?

It’s important; yes, Harrisburg can do something. The state needs to help people build their way out of poverty and rebuild the middle class. It’s a vicious circle: the state cuts school district funding; school districts raise taxes. Thousands of Pennsylvanian, mostly seniors, lose their homes to school taxes every year. Every election season, candidates talk about the problem, then do nothing about it. We need better bills, with public input. I favor reducing property tax, because one size doesn’t fit all. My opponent hasn’t done anything towards finding a long-term solution in the 15 years that he has been in office.

Are you out canvassing a lot and do you enjoy it?

Yes to both. The best part is meeting people, hearing their concerns, listening to their needs. I knock on 350-500 doors a week myself. I come back with answers and information. It goes more slowly where I have to drive from house to house in areas like Newlin, the Marlboroughs, London Britain. West Bradford. I can more easily walk in Kennett Square, Avondale, Caln, & East Bradford…. It’s a diverse district; it gives a good view of life today.

How important should a party label be to voters?

It shouldn’t be important. I think voters should vote for the candidate who shares their values and beliefs and whose stands on the issues reflect their own. Democrats shouldn’t vote for me just because I am a Democrat but because I hold the same beliefs they do. Republicans should not choose NOT to vote for me just because there is a “D” behind my name. They too should learn where I stand on the issues and then vote based on my stand on the issues they care about.

The Dem label fits me best but I don’t always agree with other Democrats. Other than voting and getting people to register to vote I was never involved in the party until I became a candidate. People should vote their values and personal issues.

Are you getting much help from the state Democratic party?

I have great committeepeople. The Kennett Democrats, East Bradford Dems and Caln Dems are helping me a lot. The state party organizers aren’t that interested because I don’t tend to follow their direction. But It’s not a concern of mine if I don’t please the state Democrats; my concern is working for the people and doing what is right for them.

There are times that I agree with the party and we move forward. There are times that I don’t and I press the point because I always feel that it is important to do what is right, not necessarily what the party wants.

Has the 158th district seat been occupied by men or women in recent memory, and how does that reflect the district?

Joe Pitts held the seat from 1972 to 1996 and Chris Ross from then till now. Ross ran against Pitts in primaries twice and lost, until Pitts went to Congress. Government would do better, make more progress, and be more representative with more diversity in the ranks. PA is 42nd in the number of women in its legislature; the PA House has only 33 women, or 16%. Do you have any comment on the incumbent’s overall philosophy of government? He has never shared his philosophy of government with me. I’m concerned, for example, about his payday loan bill, on which he worked for 10 years. It’s opposed by 57 organizations—faith, consumer, senior, veteran—and by many of his constituents. Under George Bush, the Department of Defense limited payday loan rates to active military to 36%, because it was a threat to national security to have military members owe rates of 369% and more.

The current state maximum annual rate is 24%. Payday loan companies stay out of Pennsylvania because of that. The PA Supreme Court decided that payday loans were not in line with our state banking laws, and the PA Attorney General goes after payday loan companies in the state. Maybe this bill reveals some of the incumbent’s philosophy of government.

Are his chief goals compatible with each other, has he implemented them, and do you share them?

What are they? I can only judge by how he voted: For payday loans and against the environment, public education, and protecting seniors in nursing homes….

Gov. Corbett currently has a low popularity rating in the state. To what extent are you running against him and what he stands for?

To the extent my opponent stands with the Governor and they are doing things together. The Governor couldn’t move his agenda without the legislature’s approval and Chris Ross pretty consistently votes with Governor Corbett.

Are there issues where you differ with other Democrats today?

We need a sustainable alternate energy program; so far, the state has produced only bubbles that burst. We need a long-range plan so that these alternative energy programs can thrive and become a self-sufficient industry.

How will the presidential race affect your race?

It will energize voters and I hope it means more Democrats will vote the whole ticket and not just for president. I hope it means that more Independents and Republicans get to know the candidates and vote their values.

Are there a couple of other questions we should have discussed?

The Republicans in Harrisburg are working to limit women’s access to health care. The Metcalfe bill HB 2405 would limit access to preventative health care and birth control. Women should make their own decisions. Government should not be limiting an individual’s ability to make personal decisions. Preventing women from getting preventative care now, raises costs later.

I believe we can find common ground to reduce the need for abortions in America while protecting a woman’s right to have one. The decision to have an abortion should be up to a woman, her family and her doctor. We can reduce the number of abortions by, having access to birth control to prevent unintended pregnancies, increasing support for adoption and supporting pregnant women and new families.

Interview with Rep. Chris Ross, incumbent, PA House district 158

Mon, 01 Oct 2012 22:07:00 -0400

In the past couple of weeks I interviewed PA House district 158 Democratic challenger Susan Rzucidlo and incumbent Republican representative Chris Ross. I am grateful to both of them for their time and willingness to be interviewed in the interest of helping bring their concrete positions and views to the attention of voters; my own views are not relevant here. The questions were basically the same for both, with the needed changes for background, party identification, and priorities. I took notes and render the answers below to the best of my ability; no one else was present and no recordings were made. Both were given a chance to modify my write-ups to clarify and correct as needed. Neither has seen any part of the interview with the other as of the moment of posting.

Why are you running for reelection to the state House of Representatives?

I have unfinished business with the legislature; I want to follow through on a couple of key issues. I have the energy and enthusiasm to deliver good service for the 158th district. I have a fair amount of experience and I am willing to put in the long hours needed.

Do you find running for office to be quite a sacrifice of time and energy?

Yes, campaigning and service are both challenging. I treat it as a full-time job. I meet constituents on weekends, in evenings, early in the mornings. I hold regular hours in my Kennett Square office and study a broad range of issues. I deal with constituent mail, talk behind the scenes with other legislators, and travel back and forth to Harrisburg. It’s a challenge in time management!

Do you enjoy politics?

Generally, yes. It’s an interesting challenge to get the information, have the conversations, and find good practical and achievable policy solutions. In Harrisburg the issues go back and forth between the House, the Senate, and the Governor.

The Marcellus Shale issue, for example, went back and forth, with a strong difference between the eastern and western parts of the state. It was a challenge to apply environmental standards and seek revenue to offset the potential harm from gas extraction. There are very difficult challenges for the residents. Governor Rendell couldn’t settle it. The fees go beyond the cost of permits and regulations; it required a compromise.

The result was a complex formula that shifts the fee according to each well’s year of operation and level of production. It’s a tax structure different from other states. I asked and never got clarification: how does a well in Pennsylvania compare to, say, West Virginia and Texas in total corporate and local taxes? I was comfortable with a higher rate and severance tax (going beyond a “fee”).

The fees have already raised $200,000,000 in revenue for the state, funding roads and emergency services, conservation districts, and the Growing Greener program.

You and your opponent both have background as small business owners; is that a good background for office and does it give you anything in common?

Yes, a small business background is useful. I have the experience of managing a business, making a profit in up and down economies, setting and meeting budgets, responsibility for workers, being a fair employer. I am concerned about producing jobs; I have a good sense of what makes it easier to start a business and prosper. Businesses need clear regulations; they hate the undependability when circumstances change rapidly. Businesses need confidence to invest and the State needs to maintain a good climate for all types of businesses.

My experience as a township supervisor in London Grove is also useful, in areas like environment, legal issues, landowners’ rights, building and housing, and restrictions on the zoning ability of municipalities. On the Urban Affairs committee, important land use issues come up.

How would your training and professional experience influence you in office? Are more legislators with your training and experience needed in Harrisburg?

My colleagues in the legislature have broad prior experience in meeting payrolls, medicine, insurance, accounting, law, as veterinarians and funeral directors. It’s good to have experts in such fields when what we do affects people’s lives. When bills come up in Harrisburg, those with no business experience often make naïve suggestions; my background is helpful.

Some government programs, such as tax credits and incentives, sound good; but do they actually encourage business here or is the incentive reward just taken? I voted against the ethane cracker plant because a business should not get a subsidy if it is going to locate in the state anyhow. The bulk of jobs are in small business because the state has a good business climate. The most important thing is to be fair.

What is your campaign motto and why?

I don’t have one per se, but my general philosophy is to represent people fairly, think about their needs, and live up to their standards when dong their business. Some legislators lose that aspect. We need to remember the people paying taxes and be thoughtful of those facing challenges.

This is a tough time. I came to the legislature when Jane Orie did. Any betrayal of the public trust is disappointing, but only 8 or 9 members of the General Assembly have gotten in trouble since I started, out of 253 at any one time in the House, and a total of a thousand over the years I’ve been there. But those cases are high profile.

What do you think about the decisions that have been made in Harrisburg the last couple of years?

I’ve supported some decisions but vote independently. Sometimes I am one of only 2 or 3 legislators to vote No. Overall I think Harrisburg is doing a decent job with reduced resources.

We are aiming to improve the business climate and remove annoyances like the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax. The department of Public Welfare needs overhaul. We are pushing to deliver services efficiently; we’ve had some successes and some failures.

The pension crisis needs a real fix: the cost must be reduced, as it is eating into the state budget. Infrastructure needs work: roads, bridges, mass transit. Good infrastructure saves money in travel time. The public needs confidence that its money is being used well in a way that creates jobs.

What are your 3 or 4 most important issues?

Economy and job climate
Delivering services more efficiently
Environment
Urban affairs

Why are the economy and job climate such an important issue for you?

The state needs to press ahead. We need the best quality jobs we can get. We need to improve training, get workers trained, improve infrastructure, and create a fair business climate with clear taxes and regulations. We need to attract investors who will create jobs and stay in the state.

Why is delivering services more efficiently such an important issue for you?

We’re not going to have any influx of money; we need to think carefully about what we have. The PA House cut its own budget and reduced staff and outside counsel expenses.

I support reducing the number of House members. 150 would be better than the current 253, though that would mean larger districts. The bill passed in the House and is now in the Senate, which has to act on it, even though Senate size is not involved.

Why is the environment among your leading issues?

I support developing renewable energy, conserving energy, and improving stream quality through tough standards. We need to keep clean air but be careful about creating new mandates. Chester County has good programs through organizations like the Brandywine Valley Association. We can maximize the positive effects.

Your 4th most important issue is urban affairs; could you please explain?

I am majority chairman of the House Urban Affairs Committee. We need to revise the law on tax sales to help distressed municipalities, inner cities, and the historical older cities. They need to revitalize themselves and become the economic engines they once were. And smaller municipalities have similar problems.

What are the most defining differences between you and your opponent and are there issues on which you agree?

I don’t know her positions well enough to say. She has been active on autism and I helped her on her Home Alert program involving the police and others. She mentions health and disability; we do need to help families more effectively.

There is a lot of evidence that inequality has been growing in our society for the past 30 years; how important is that for you and can Harrisburg do anything about it?

Very important. We have to look at providing opportunities for kids and helping them meet the challenges that hold them back. We need to make education more effective. We should work with public school systems and individual schools in trouble. Community colleges and technical training are critical for students who are struggling.

Mental health is also critical: students shouldn’t have to meet all those challenges and then find they can’t get a job. People with drug and alcohol problems are not doing well; we don’t recognize the cost of that challenge. Many of the homeless have one of those problems.

Education should reduce inequalities—and the costs of the prison system. We should intervene more practically with non-violent offenders—those with drug and alcohol problems, mental issues, some veterans with PTSD—and not lock up the non-violent.

Are you out canvassing a lot and do you enjoy it?

I have many events with the public and stay busy finding out their views.

How important should a party label be to voters?

Voters decide that. They should vote for the best person, the one they trust. I’m fairly independent, not afraid to disagree with party leaders and legislators. I hope voters will seriously evaluate my record. There is less straight party voting than there used to be.

Are you getting much help from the state Republican party?

I haven’t asked them to help; I’ve told them I don’t need it. I am fortunate to be able to run my own campaigns.

Has the 158th district seat been occupied by men or women in recent memory, and how does that reflect the district?

I enjoy working with women legislators in Harrisburg. Elinor Z. Taylor was next door to me, Carole Rubley was near. The women there do an excellent job and have good program ideas. Voters should look at the candidates. The 156th district had two women in a row, but that isn’t a trend.

Do you have any comment on your opponent’s overall philosophy of government?

Not really.

Are her chief goals (on her web site: education, environment, small business) compatible with each other, and do you share them?

I won’t help her analyze their compatibility. But those goals are all important. I hate prioritizing issues, because whatever the merits, some bills move faster than others. Some, like alternative energy portfolio standards, go quickly, because they reflect development and jobs. That was a priority for Gov. Rendell and had key supporters, and they presented it well. Other bills move slowly.

It’s not easy to rationalize competing interests, as in an intelligent redistribution of education funds. In places with larger per-pupil spending, we need to ask how the money is spent. We need intelligent and effective programs regarding class hours, tutoring, etc.; we need alternatives, not necessarily more funding. Philadelphia is heavy with higher-level administrators; money is not necessarily improvement. The charters represent innovation; it is good that they are open to all students. Cyber charters are good but shouldn’t receive the same funding as brick-and-mortar schools.

Increased pension expenses are a problem. The state has to meet its obligations to current teachers and retirees. But for new hires, we need to reduce future costs and increase their contributions. We need to manage long-term costs by voluntary offers and incentives. The current progression of costs is alarming; we have to work out the money effectively, like a business.

Gov. Corbett currently has a low popularity in the state. To what extent are you running with him and what he stands for?

I’m not running with him; I run on my own. You can agree or not with the Governor; he has probably been disappointed with some of my votes. But I cooperated on the Harrisburg municipal bankruptcy. There are strong personalities in the capital; I like to talk to all parties and treat all fairly—with some success.

The PA Supreme Court decision on Scranton regarding police and firefighters could aggravate the situation. It’s a devastating decision, the unions won; some thought the unions would never cooperate again, but we found a way, respecting all involved. Being reasonable, respect, thinking of the taxpayers’ needs—there’s a give and take. The fire and police forces are residents, and they recognize that the city shouldn’t become insolvent.

Are there issues where you differ with other Republicans today?

There is no single Republican philosophy. I make decisions on my own. The eastern and western parts of the state are very different. My own philosophy is to serve my constituents and be aware of what they think. I don’t agree with anyone all the time; I agree with some Democrats. Political life is a spectrum; it should not be oversimplified.

How will the presidential race affect your race?

The presidential race will increase turnout, and it’s good for more to participate. We’ll see how it impacts the State House races. At this, the lowest level, I can read my mail and offer access; people know me, whereas Congress is several levels above the daily mail.

Are there a couple of other questions we should have discussed?

I voted against the voter ID law, because its benefits did not outweigh the problems it caused. I’m working hard to help voters with ID issues. The PA Supreme Court tossing it back to judge Simpson will complicate things further, as he has to test whether the Department of State is meeting its goals. The new DOS ID issued by PennDOT, based on social security number with only one office visit plus mail follow-up if needed, will help. I’m worried about long lines, and about frustrations being taken out on the election boards. Such challenges are why I doubted the wisdom of the law.

Interview with Bret Binder, candidate for PA House district 156

Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:58:00 -0400

In the past few weeks I interviewed PA House district 156 Democratic challenger Bret Binder and incumbent Republican representative Dan Truitt (in that order). I am grateful to both of them for their time and willingness to be interviewed in the interest of helping bring their concrete positions and views to the attention of voters; my own views are not relevant here. The questions were basically the same for both, with the needed changes for background, party identification, and priorities. I took notes and render the answers below to the best of my ability; no one else was present and no recordings were made. Both were given a chance to modify my write-ups to clarify and correct as needed, but not to add material that was not in the interview. Neither has seen the interview with the other as of the moment of posting. For the other interview in the 156th, see here.

Why are you running for the state House of Representatives?

I’m running because I know I can do a better job for the citizens of Pennsylvania in general and Chester County in particular. I want to help restore Pennsylvania’s commitment to adequately funding public education, preserving the environment, expanding open space, and improving the state economy.

Do you find running for office to be quite a sacrifice of time and energy?

Yes. But it is worth it. I appreciate being able to talk to people about the issues that they care most about, and which are also on my mind, starting with education. It’s a rewarding experience to be able to do good for Pennsylvanians.

Do you enjoy politics?

Yes. I enjoy meeting with experts in various fields, learning about their interests, having new experiences, planning to make a difference. I don’t like fundraising, though.

You and the incumbent both have backgrounds as small business owners; is that a good background for office and does it give you anything in common?

He ran as a small business owner, meaning as far as I can tell, himself. To my knowledge, he has no employees. I have a law firm employing 4 attorneys, I am part owner of a bowling alley, and I owned part of a gourmet pudding business. Small businesses like those drive the economy. As a lawyer, I advise small businesses every day, and my small business background helps me to do that job well. It also informs my view on how to help the state economy.

Your full-time job is as a lawyer; how would that profession influence you in office and are more lawyers needed in Harrisburg?

Pennsylvania’s legislature has one of the lowest percentages of attorneys–17%–in the country. Of course it shouldn’t be all attorneys; it is the “House of the People.” But lawyers in the House can help the legislature at large to understand the effects of legislation.

For example, the majority in Harrisburg included an unconstitutional provision stripping away municipalities’ right to manage their own zoning in Act 13, the 2012 law on natural gas fracking. The PA Commonwealth Court recently struck down that provision as unconstitutional.

The original 2012 redistricting plan, which I fought against, was also unconstitutional, as the state Supreme Court ruled. I am convinced that current proposals like those on educational vouchers for private schools are also unconstitutional.

I firmly believe in the Pennsylvania constitution. Legislators should not tinker with it. They should not be constantly testing the bounds of what the judiciary will let them get away with at a given point in time.

Your campaign motto is “Integrity, Innovation, Impact”—why?

The legislature needs advice in integrity. Their Cost of Living adjustment of 3% last December as well as adding about $7,000 a year in medical benefits to their own pay in the State House, for example, show a lack of integrity, especially at a time when other Pennsylvanians are suffering.

Innovation: I am known as a creative problem solver in legal circles. In particular I will look for creative solutions for the Marcellus Shale situation and for the future of education.

Impact: I’m not afraid to argue and initiate change. I’m told I’m a natural born attorney: I like a vigorous debate.

What do you think about the decisions being made in Harrisburg the last couple of years?

Many of those decisions are short-sighted and ill-conceived. The legislature has been selling out to special interests, such as the gas and oil industry. The opportunity to make excessive profits generates self-interest.

We need alternative energy. Solar energy incentives expired, but the gas and oil industries are still receiving state subsidies, including $1,600,000,000 for a “cracking” plant in the western part of the state, which my opponent voted for. I would have voted against that. It created some 7,000 jobs but at enormous cost, for a plant that was coming to PA anyway.

What are your 3 or 4 most important issues?

1) education

2) environment

3) economy and job growth

4) civil rights and women’s rights, which are currently under attack

Why is education such an important issue for you?

Education is opportunity. Historically Americans have had a chance to raise themselves up through education. Current generations are losing that chance. Education is the future of PA and the US.

Funding has been cut for K-12 education, even though every $1 cut costs $7 to $17 later in social services, unemployment costs, crime, and lost business. I favor any quality education, but public education has been the great equalizer of opportunity in our society.

How do you and your opponent differ on education vouchers?

I oppose vouchers because they are unconstitutional and ill-conceived. The argument in favor of the voucher proposals is that students in failing school districts should have the option of attending schools in better school districts. I agree that vouchers could give some students a better education. However, under the present funding formula, removing students would also reduce funding and make struggling school districts worse. Such an outcome is unconscionable.

Under the state constitution, no public education funds should go to religious schools. To the extent that proposed voucher programs allow public subsidies to go to religious schools, they are unconstitutional.

In addition, the Pennsylvania business Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC), given to businesses whose donations fund scholarships for lower-income families in a failing school district so that the family may send their child to a different school, reduces the revenue received by Harrisburg - approximately 90% of the contribution made by a business is returned to the business as a state tax credit. To the extent that EITC funds are used to go to private schools, this program is designed to do an end-run around the constitutional prohibition on direct state funding of parochial schools.

Moreover, the EITC program, under the proposed formulation, would be limited to only approved schools, and admission would depend on a lottery. This is contrary to the idea and principle of the Pennsylvania constitution, whatever courts may be induced to accept.

How do you and your opponent differ on charter schools?

He is pro-charter school. I understand that charters exist for a valid reason: to try out innovative ways of educating, in schools freed from some of the usual state mandates. However, that innovation isn’t happening as anticipated. Furthermore, charters are at the forefront of the movement to break public employee unions, and I am strongly in favor of public employee unions.

In addition, the funding formula is broken. Public money should not be flowing to investors. Charters have little transparency. Auditor General Jack Wagner reported that PA pays 30% more than the US average to charters per student, meaning that many charters are turning the excess over to management companies. And this is even more so for cyber charters, which have lower costs. Charter reimbursement should be based on the actual cost of education. There needs to be a $ cap to prevent abuse. AG Jack Wagner estimated that there could be $315 million in annual savings by fixing the formulas.

Half of charters perform worse than their traditional public school counterpart, 25% are better, and 25% are about equal. If charters get the students who are easier to teach, they will send the difficult ones back to regular public schools.

Why is environment, including Marcellus Shale issues, among your leading issues?

I live and work in Chester County. Environmental issues are very important to us. The state government has sold out the state’s environmental interests to special interest groups. Fracking shale has long-term detrimental effects but doesn’t create as many jobs as one would hope. Many workers are imported from other states. The state should have required training for Pennsylvanians to take those jobs.

Taxing gas extraction responsibly would provide big benefits to the state but would not cost jobs. There is $1,000,000,000,000 worth of gas in PA; it isn’t going away. The gas extraction tax or fee, currently around 2%, should be 6 or 7%.

Drilling companies say Pennsylvania has a relatively high business tax but most of them avoid paying it. One of their strategies is through the Delaware tax loophole: a Texas company can drill under a Pennsylvania entity but funnel the profits through a shell corporation in Delaware. Pennsylvania should be taxing any profits derived from Pennsylvania. It could then reduce its business tax rate for all businesses if all businesses actually paid it.

Governor Corbett has cut the state Department of Environmental Protection budget by 1/3 and reduced regulatory ability. The fracking bill unconstitutionally eroded local water protection and buffer zones.

The Governor also cut funding on open space, even though that resource enhances life in Chester County and elsewhere. The state wants to lease out state forests.

The company constructing gas pipelines wants to cross the Brandywine on the bottom of the streambed rather than digging to a proper depth. And where is the gas going? Largely to China, via Wilmington or Philadelphia.

The state doesn’t regulate all leaks or required reporting of leaks, and the fracking bill is full of exemptions. No one knows how much gas is already leaking.

Another leading issue for you is economy; could you please explain your views?

Here are some of my plans for the economy and job growth: We should expand the Keystone Opportunity Zones to create jobs. Those Zones have revitalized some areas. We need to push alternative energy development. Pennsylvania should allow rapid depreciation of assets to encourage business investment much as the federal government did as part of the stimulus.

The other day you spoke at a “Women Are Watching” rally—why is that issue important to you?

An attack on women is going on, against their right to choose and in another attempt to do an end run around the constitution and existing case law. Denying women prenatal health care is economically short-sighted. Studies show that $1 spent in pregnancy planning saves $4 later on. Planned Parenthood spends only about 4-5% of its budget on abortions; I can’t understand why the Republicans would use that to shut down all the services.

I support the Paycheck Fairness Act, a federal statute that would make it easier for women to sue on the ground of pay discrimination. Women earn 77% of men’s salary for the same job. The House of Representatives passed the measure but this summer Senate Republicans blocked it.

How do you feel about senate candidate Todd Akin’s remarks on the relation between abortion and rape, which have been in the news?

Akin should have resigned. What he said was abominable, lacking in sympathy and human decency. Akin is different from most legislators but part of a growing group. Can a rape victim be forced to give birth to a rapist’s child? I think not but my opponent seems to think so, since he has said that “punishing” that child would be a second wrong to avenge the first wrong. I believe it is wrong for a politician to legislate a woman’s ability to choose.

What do you think about the voter ID issue?

The law passed in Harrisburg this year is unconstitutional. I was extremely disappointed and surprised by the Commonwealth Court judge’s recent opinion upholding that law. The state is spending $11,000,000 or more on a problem that doesn’t exist. And Judges of Elections aren’t even getting clear guidance.

What are the most defining differences between you and your opponent and are there issues on which you agree?

Our biggest disagreements are on education, the environment, the need for voter IDs, and women’s rights.

We agree about reducing the size of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives and opposing legislators’ per diem allowance, paid without any proof or receipts.

We do disagree about Cost of Living increases for legislators, which he accepted, and which I would not have accepted under the circumstances.

There is a lot of evidence that inequality has been growing in our society for the past 30 years; how important is that for you and can Harrisburg do anything about it?

Education can reduce inequality. The state should finance infrastructure projects. Harrisburg should invest in business, as when it brought in the pharmaceutical industry. The state should invest in renewable energy; but instead, it dropped solar subsidies. The “cracker plant” the Governor insisted on funding costs the taxpayers too much; there are better investments for the state.

Are you out canvassing a lot and do you enjoy it?

Yes and yes. I like talking to people about the issues that concern them.

How important should a party label be to voters?

Party labels are a good guideline to views but voters should look at individuals.

Are you getting much help from the state Democratic party?

Yes.

The 156^th seat was occupied by two women from 1977 to 2010; how does that reflect the district?

The 156^th is a progressive district; it has switched between Republican and Democratic representatives; voters have shown they are willing not to vote along straight party lines.

The incumbent has said on his web site, “For too long, the insiders, politicians and bureaucrats in Harrisburg have forgotten that they work for us…. Too much of what is done in Harrisburg is done behind closed doors.” In 2010 he ran and is still running today as an “outsider.” Has he followed through on those ideas?

No, he has not. He has voted with Corbett on almost all major bills. Either he voted wrong or he voted as an insider. He has furthered fluffy sentiment but hasn’t broken from his party. I will vote for what I see to be in the best interest of the people.

His campaign web site has 4 issues sections:

Cut Government Spending to Reduce our Taxes

Create Jobs and Spark Economic Growth

Reduce Our Property Taxes

Reform Harrisburg to Save Us Money

Are those goals compatible with each other, has he implemented them, and do you share them?

He hasn’t followed them. He voted to reduce state education funding, forcing a rise in our property taxes. He accepted an increase in legislators’ benefits. He cut needed programs, and that will cost us later.

The Governor’s budget handled education budgeting using “Enron accounting”: moving around expenses to lump pensions and transportation in with actual educational expenses. The state’s total allocation for educating students has fallen for two years now.

Gov. Corbett currently has a low popularity in the state. To what extent are you running against him and what he stands for?

I am running flat out against Governor Corbett, because I disagree completely with his policies. Also, in the 156^th, I can run against Corbett because my opponent votes in lockstep with him. He could repudiate the Governor if he wishes, but he hasn’t.

Are there issues where you differ with other Democrats today?

It depends which Democrats. For example, some Democrats want a moratorium on fracking. I agree with that in Bucks and Montgomery Counties (and in Chester County), but it’s not feasible overall in the state.

Will the presidential race affect your race?

Democratic turnout is generally higher in a presidential year. Therefore, I am anticipating that President Obama will bring out Democrats to vote.

Are there a couple of other questions we should have discussed?

Republicans had no primary in the 156^th this year, but Democrats did. It was a good, friendly exchange, and helped my name recognition and heightened my awareness of what people think on the issues. My opponent in the primary, West Chester councilwoman Cassandra Jones, has endorsed me and is helping me.

Interview with Rep. Dan Truitt, incumbent, PA House district 156

Sun, 23 Sep 2012 20:58:00 -0400

Why are you running for reelection to the state House of Representatives?

For the same reason as in 2010: to get certain things done. Though I am satisfied with my first term’s accomplishments, one term is not enough. I didn’t run for the salary or title or as a stepping-stone to another position. I thought government lacked common sense; I wanted to introduce some ideas that are now working their way into Harrisburg.

Many things take a while; it takes 10 or 12 years to work up to being a committee chair. When I started, I put about 50 ideas on a spreadsheet; some were already in the hopper, such as the measure, introduced by Curt Schroder, that if no budget has passed by July 1, we start with 95% of the previous year until we do have a new budget. This would ensure that funds continue to flow to organizations that are dependent upon them – like senior centers.

I have introduced 15 bills, and others are being drafted, such as the PA Safe Schools Act to reduce bullying; a bill to limit the amount of non-taxable property in a municipality to something like 30 or 35%; and one to reduce paperwork by allowing businesses to pay employee taxes to the state quarterly, on a rotating schedule, rather than with every pay check cycle.

Do you find running for office to be quite a sacrifice of time and energy?

Yes, huge. It’s worth it if done right. It makes me better at the job. Talking with voters at their door or at an event is an opportunity to listen as well as let them know where I stand. What are people interested in? Job creation is first on their minds.

Do you enjoy politics?

That depends on your definition. I like the legislative side: how the House works is fascinating and I like meeting people. I hate the game aspect and don’t like partisanship.

I didn‘t get into politics to change social issues. I was fed up with government stealing kids’ money—that is, borrowing against the future—and wasting it.

You and your opponent both have backgrounds as small business owners; is that a good background for office and does it give you anything in common?

It’s a good background, especially now that the priority is job creation. I understand how business works. I’m not sure how much we share because I don’t know how much my opponent is involved with day-to-day business operations. I did accounting and payroll; did he? Coincidentally, I once considered buying a bowling alley too.

Your profession is as an engineer; how does that profession influence you in office and are there enough engineers in Harrisburg?

There are only 3 engineers in the House; we need more! In the party caucus, I make my cases based on hard numbers and logic; the lawyers argue from case histories, teachers from classroom experience, and contractors from their construction background. We need a balance of perspectives. The owner of a trucking business can say how a measure would affect him. On issues like education vouchers, we need to act from hard numbers, not surface arguments.

Your campaign motto is “Leading by Example”—why?

It’s a statement against hypocrisy in politics—for example, the legislators’ pension plan. Only 9 of us are not in it. In 2010 I didn’t count on opting out, but I did after the election. In November 2010, not yet in office, I witnessed a vote to kick the pension problem down the road for 2 more years—which extended the vesting period and imposed other restrictions for new legislators but not for those voting. They all seemed in it for themselves.

I am about to introduce a bill to ban per diems. I don’t take them; we need to be consistent. It costs me $32 to take the train to Harrisburg and back; should I get an extra $130 a day? No. There’s also another bill in not to end but to modify per diems.

What do you think about the decisions being made in Harrisburg the last couple of years?

Better than earlier, but there’s a long way to go to reach true representation of constituents. Under Gov. Ridge legislators started, and continued under Gov. Rendell, not putting state money into pension funds—that was bad. The 2011-12 budget could have added funds from surplus, but that would have done damage because of the subsequent revenue shortfall. We are budgeting more cautiously; the revenue for the first 2 months of this year is on target.

What are your 3 or 4 most important issues?

1. Create jobs and spark economic growth 2. Cut government spending to reduce our taxes 3. Reform Harrisburg to save us money 4. Reduce our property taxes

Why is creating jobs and sparking economic growth your leading issue?

We lack the resources to do all we would like, leading to painful debates. Education, the disabled, and environment would be good reasons for expenditures if we had unlimited money. Everyone says education is the top priority; but we can’t neglect other priorities. Creating jobs is basic because it increases revenue.

Why is cutting government spending to reduce taxes such an important issue for you?

Pennsylvania has the highest business taxes in the world, adding together US and PA corporate taxes. Only one state has a higher top rate but the PA has the highest flat rate. Fortunately, the state has resumed phasing out its capital stock and franchise tax (a type of additional property tax on business) after Gov, Rendell froze the phase-out.

In incentives to new businesses, PA has moved up… to 49^th place. Marcellus Shale is helping keep unemployment below the national average. Our location helps too, between NYC and DC. I would like lower rates with a wider base, that is, more businesses actually paying.

The state should not waste money on stupid things like heating assistance to people who have died! We should also reduce spending on corrections. Why lock up non-violent offenders? They should be working if they don’t need to be separated from society.

Reforming Harrisburg to save taxpayers money is your 3rd most important issue; could you please explain your views?

We should lead by example. When other state departments are cut, the legislature should do the same. For example, I haven’t introduced any resolutions marking anniversaries and other occasions. Those cost the state about $1,000 each and can even lead to trouble.

For example, the House voted 2012 the Year of the Bible—which accomplished nothing. No one can vote against something like that, and it was bundled with other measures that no one could vote against. No good came out of it and it needlessly irritated atheists.

I am co-sponsoring House Bill 153 to reduce the size of the legislature. I also voted for turning the House into 400 part-time legislators. We need to change the mind set and represent the citizens, not special interests,

Your 4^th most important issue is reducing property taxes; could you please explain?

Property taxes are the worst; they are regressive. You can earn nothing and still have to pay this tax or give up your property. Some seniors pay as much property tax every year as they paid for the property itself 40 years ago.

We should also break the link between a school district’s health and the property tax. A school district shouldn’t go down with property values. The state should provide 100% of public school costs; all kids should have equal opportunity.

What are the most defining differences between you and your opponent and are there issues on which you agree?

I’m not sure of his views. I’m not sure if he really operates a small business. We both value education, but I’m not sure of his strategy to make Pennsylvania treat it as a priority. I only heard his April WCHE interview.

He talks about environment. I have good credentials in environmental protection and have installed solar and geothermal at home. I am big on recycling. My engineering background gives me practical background on the environment. I believe what the Boy Scouts say: leave no trace—leave things the same or better.

There is a lot of evidence that inequality has been growing in our society for the past 30 years; how important is that for you and can Harrisburg do anything about it?

It’s an important issue; inequality creates divisiveness, unrest, and a lack of civility. We need to provide opportunities to succeed, especially for children, including an education that will enable them to compete in a global workforce. People need to be responsible for their own results.

It’s hard for us to compete with other countries that have low labor pay rates and that accept pollution; to compete, we need more productivity, derived from better education. Regulation is more a federal than a state matter. More regulation wouldn’t hurt Wall Street; they know the game better than anyone.

Schools should teach more subjects; economics should be mandatory, and time management, and personal finance. Credit card companies will descend on 18-year-olds, who need to understand long-term impacts and the need for good credit.

Are you out canvassing a lot and do you enjoy it?

It’s important; outreach is half of doing the job and I try to roll them together and give people the opportunity to tell me what they think. I enjoy actual canvassing except that it eats up time.

How important should a party label be to voters?

Voters should not consider it at all. I grew up with one Republican and one Democratic parent. No party is always right or wrong. Voters should pay attention to a candidate’s background and ideas; they should not be surprised at stances on issues like environment. I never vote the straight party option; I always go down the list one by one.

However, some voters need to refer to a party label. For example, my version of the non-partisan school board bill allows candidates to have their political affiliation printed on the general election ballot if they wish. Party label can also counteract the effects of ballot position.

Are you getting much help from the state Republican party?

Not at this point. I prefer to have the campaign in my control. My wife is my campaign manager and my father is my treasurer. I hope not to need help from Harrisburg, but the party decides what it does.

The 156^th seat was occupied by two women from 1977 to 2010; how does that reflect the district?

The 156^th desires representation by someone who understands the plight of the family: education, kids, health, opportunities. On such issues, I suspect that voters find it easier to take a woman seriously.

You have said on your web site, “For too long, the insiders, politicians and bureaucrats in Harrisburg have forgotten that they work for us…. Too much of what is done in Harrisburg is done behind closed doors.” In 2010 you ran and are still running today as an “outsider.” Have you followed through on those ideas?

Absolutely! I take the train both ways to Harrisburg every day; I don’t stay overnight and hang out with legislators and lobbyists. I’d rather be with my family. This could hurt on getting legislation passed; I don’t get sucked into the Harrisburg scene. Early on, I saw how the dinners went[This was Barb Smith’s position about the effect of the dinners on reform efforts. I learned that they were just lobbying events]. I’ve been to only 6 to 8 Harrisburg dinners in 2 years because I quickly learned that they were all funded and attended by lobbyists. Lobbyists can come to my office but not be my buddies.

People would be surprised at what goes on in Harrisburg. It’s not the individuals—they are decent people—but the process. Not all resist the conflicts of interests. Each House member represents 63,000 people. Legislators have their own beliefs, family, friends, party leaders; there are lobbies and the realities of legislation. But they need to listen to their constituents.

I hope my personal views are in line with the district and don’t require me to choose between them. The liquor store debate is a clear example. We need to listen to what the liquor store distributors think but we don’t have to do what they say, when 70% of the public wants privatization.

Your opponent’s web site has 4 issues sections:

Education

Environment

Economy

Voter Rights

Are those goals compatible with each other, and do you share them?

Education is key in preserving long-term economic health, though short-term, we need to create jobs faster. Education and economy are in line with each other.

The environment often conflicts with promoting jobs. The CFO at Herr’s in Nottingham wanted to get into a joint venture for a warehouse but planning and getting permits has been going on for 4 years. Balance is needed.

Voter rights are unrelated to the other issues. Yes, they need protecting. But questioning others’ motives is a mean-spirited and divisive way to go about it. Do we have a problem? If so, we should solve it. I agree with my opponent that we should not let abuse happen. We should block fraudulent votes.

Gov. Corbett currently has a low popularity in the state. To what extent are you running with him and what he stands for?

I’m not running with or against him. I am my own person and have my own ideas; I wasn’t part of the machine. I’ve voted many times against the Republican positions. I vote my conscience and district, and I haven’t drawn grief for it. I disagree with the Governor on some issues and agree on others. He should explain Republican views more effectively in public.

If it is claimed that I “vote 95% with the Governor,” or something to that effect, that’s including procedural votes. I was the only Republican to vote against a bill by Stan Saylor, and against another one to exempt aircraft parts and service from sales tax ; and was one of only about 8 Republicans to vote for one amendment to the voter ID bill. I evaluate measures on their merits; I decide which bills to cosponsor based on content. Some bills I don’t trust to stay the same. About 15% of the first 100 bills I cosponsored were put forward by Democrats.

Are there issues where you differ with other Republicans today?

Yes. I am, like the 156^th district, further left on education and environment than most Republicans. Most people in the 156^th are fiscally conservative and socially moderate. I have a libertarian streak. The Republican party includes a religious faction that cares most about social issues and a Tea Party faction (which, like libertarians, doesn’t care that much about social issues).

Will the presidential race affect your race?

Of course. I expect to beat Romney’s number in my district, but there are limits.

Are there a couple of other questions we should have discussed?

Community involvement. A state rep represents 63,000 people, who should ask: what is the connection between a candidate and the community? I am connected to Boy Scouts, Knights of Columbus, guest lectured at the charter school, and offered to do the same in the West Chester Area School District.

Burning up workers

Sun, 16 Sep 2012 20:16:00 -0400

For some reason (maybe my browser has been left behind?), I can still post here only in html, which is time-consuming; that’s why I switched to a new wordpress site of the same title, Politics: A View from West Chester. If you are following me at this tumblr site, please start doing so at the new site!

I did want to post this one here, because it continues and updates a post here last year. So….

When a society undergoes disasters, it can learn and change, or not. Our society isn’t so good a changing, at least not for the better, any more. Last year, I learned that the movement to honor “International Women’s Day” (every March 8 since 1911) was given impetus by the March 25, 1911, Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, which I had just written about.

Labor reforms followed the fire and the US labor movement began its growth that, in the private sector, was turned back in the 1980s. In Pakistan, on September 12, 2012, almost twice as many workers died under similar circumstances. As on March 25, 1911, the doors were locked or blocked.

The Guardian (UK) comes right to the point in its 9/14/12 article “Karachi’s factory fire exposes Pakistan’s lax health and safety regime.” The article begins:

Under pressure from wealthy industrialists putting profits over worker safety, labour inspections are on the slide in Pakistan
The death toll from the fire that ripped through a Karachi garment factory this week currently stands at 289, making it the largest number of casualties in a single industrial incident in Pakistan’s history. Later, a fire at an illegal shoe factory in Lahore killed 25, bringing the total of Pakistani deaths in industrial incidents that day to more than 300. As the country mourns the enormous loss of life, attention is turning to lax labour laws and the culture of corruption that allows the scant regulations that do exist to be flouted.

The facts of the Karachi fire are nightmarish. After the Karachi blaze started, workers were said to be unable to escape because the doors were locked….

Will Pakistan make needed reforms and apply workplace safety laws? Read the Guardian article mentioned above plus the earlier “Details of Karachi fire emerge amid criticism of Pakistan’s workplaces” and you’ll be dubious. After all, profits must be made, and there is international competition to worry about.

Eighty years after the 1911 fire, a similar disaster happened in the US. According to Wikipedia, “Hamlet chicken processing plant fire” (see original for links and footnotes):

The Hamlet food processing plant fire was an industrial fire in Hamlet, North Carolina, at the Imperial Foods processing plant on September 3, 1991, due to a failure in a hydraulic line. Twenty-five were killed and 54 injured in the fire, trapped behind locked fire doors. In 11 years of operation, the plant had never received a safety inspection. Investigators believe a safety inspection might have prevented the disaster….

and

A federal investigation was launched, which resulted in the owners receiving a 20-year prison sentence. The company received the highest fine in the history of North Carolina. As a result, the state passed several worker safety laws. Survivors and victims’ families accused the fire service and city of Hamlet of racism, leading to two monuments to the tragedy being erected. The plant was never reopened….

So, it took 80 years and a similar loss of life for the lesson of 191i to be learned and applied in North Carolina. Today, although always under pressure, protections do exist for workers in the US. We often hear of lapses and disasters that cost lives, particularly in coal mines, though China seems to have the the worst record in that industry.

What is there about early September? Of course, one thinks of 9/11/01. All I can say is, the US took action, although I don’t think it was the right action and 11 years later, in the hostility of much of the Arab and Muslim world, we are seeing the results of the action we took.

One can’t help noting that the 146 workers who died in the New York fire, 101 years ago now, were almost all women immigrants, half teenagers, the 1991 victims were largely African American, and the victims in Pakistan were paid little for hard and, it turns out, dangerous work. Political implications, anyone?

Other sorts of disasters (decline of the middle class, mortgage foreclosures, homelessness, malnutrition…) affect us today and as I held last week in “The Lord of the Flies and US political life,” our gridlocked government isn’t doing much better than those shipwrecked boys. Political implications, anyone?

Look back to my 3/1/11 Triangle Factory post here.

How to find my later blogs

Tue, 07 Aug 2012 02:56:36 -0400

To read later posts, click here.

I’ve needed to move to that new site to continue my blog Politics: A View from West Chester, part of the Daily Local News’ Blogtown series of blogs.

Because of technical difficulties with tumblr.com, I’ve moved to wordpress.com for future posts, as of August 7, 2012.

If you were following me at tumblr, please follow me at wordpress!

Voter ID bill questions for Chesco

Mon, 06 Aug 2012 12:37:52 -0400

Looking through my archives, I found the email below, sent a year ago to a Chesco official.

No reply was ever received, but I still think these were good questions then and now unless the whole objectionable Voter ID bill is overturned in court.

(My 2nd point has come to pass: primary turnout was light, and therefore not much voter education about the new requirements took place in the primary election on April 24.)

August 9, 2011
…Thank you for inviting me to email you concerning House Bill 934, which the PA House of Representatives passed in June; presumably in Sept. it will head for the PA Senate.

For your convenience, I attach the bill as passed and also the accompanying fiscal impact statement, which states (perhaps optimistically) that “This legislation would have no adverse impact on county funds.”

Here are my county level questions:

1) It is not hard to foresee confusion and expenses (possibly including overtime salary) on the part of the county, for retraining election officials (some of whom may not appreciate the new requirements), fielding many questions from the public and officials, and processing what would probably be a large number of provisional ballots within 6 days of the election (as required by the bill). I note that the bill and financial note consider voters who currently have no government-issued photo ID but not the many voters (mostly women who have married or divorced) who have ID documents with different names than the name under which they are registered to vote, many of whom might not realize the problem until they appear to vote.

2) Since primary voter turnout tends to be light and excludes Independents (and in a presidential year depends on which party’s primary is contested at the time of the PA primary), in November 2012 the bill could add to the potential for extreme slowdown of the voting process in some precincts, as happened at some locations in November 2008.

3) There will no doubt be appeals and law suits after provisional ballots are denied or election officials are shown to have applied the law wrongly or not at all, and I imagine the defense costs would have to be borne by the county.

So overall, I am wondering whether the Commissioners or ChesCo Voter Services have considered the ramifications of this bill, including the above concerns, and whether they have contacted the state for clarification and further support as needed. Thank you very much for looking into it….

For more views on voter ID, see my July 26 post “Who Are the Voters without “Approved ID”?”

Who Are the Voters without "Approved ID"?

Thu, 26 Jul 2012 21:50:00 -0400

The new PA voter ID requirement has become a campaign issue, the subject of a law suit that opened on July 25, the object of a US Department of Justice probe, and (if it remains on the books) a big factor in the results of the upcoming election.

For recent analysis, see “DOJ Probes Voter ID; Supporters Say No Fraud Has Occurred” by Kelly Cernetich, PoliticsPA, 7/24/12, beginning:

With the trial against Voter ID set to begin tomorrow, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has launched a formal federal investigation into the state’s ID law to determine whether it discriminates against minorities.

As the article mentions, the Justice Department has requested, among other evidence, “Any documents supporting Corbett’s March 14 claim that 99 percent of eligible voters have valid ID.”

It will be interesting to see if such documents are put forward, given that “The state’s PennDOT database shows that this last claim is not true, with over 750,000 voters lacking an adequate form of ID.”

Kelly Cernetich also writes in “More PA Voters Lack PennDOT ID Cards” in PoliticsPA, 7/5/12:

Based on a comparison of voter registration rolls with PennDOT databases, it is expected that 9.2 percent of the state’s 8.2 million voters do not have the proper ID needed to vote in November.

This adds up to more than 758,000 people.

In Philadelphia, the number of people who lack IDs is higher – at nearly 1 in 5 people.

Despite those quotes, we don’t actually know how many voters lack acceptable IDs or whether the 99% claim is true or false, because as Secretary of the Commonwealth (and former Chesco commissioner) Carol Aichele is quoted as saying in a 7/3 PA Department of State press release (download here, 7th paragraph of text), “This comparison takes into account only voters with PennDOT IDs, and does not include voters who may have any of the other various acceptable forms of ID.”

In addition, some voters may have drivers licenses under names different from their voter registration. That’s a gray area, because I don’t think there has been any clarification of the criterion that voters’ names on their ID should be “substantially” the same as on the voting rolls.

If 91% of voters have a PennDOT ID, do 8% more have, or are they willing and able to get, another acceptable ID? Presumably the legal case underway will suggest an answer.

If anywhere near 9% of voters are newly ineligible to vote, that’s a lot of voters for the state—for Republican leaders, to be precise— to pare off the voting rolls, especially considering that this year’s presidential race is likely to be closer than in 2008, when Obama won PA by 10.3% (about 620,000 votes) and Chester County by 9.2%.

As we all know, Philadelphia’s predominantly Democratic majority weighs heavily in all statewide races, and Republicans would love nothing more than to cut down the vote in the state’s largest city.

As brought out in the 7/24 article,

“…a significant chunk of those voters – about 168,000 of them – are classified as “inactive,” meaning they have not voted in the last four years. It is likely that a lot of them are college students who have since moved, according to Department of State spokesman Ron Ruman.”

The 7/3 DOS press release is more precise: “One of the reasons a voter can be put on “inactive” status is if he or she has not voted in five years. A notice must be sent asking if the voter is still at the listed address. If the voter does not respond to this notice, the voter is placed on “inactive” status. Federal and state law require keeping an “inactive voter” on the registration list until he or she has not voted in two consecutive general elections for federal office after the date of the notice.” (So that can go on for a long time: 2 general elections before inactive status, and 2 more before ultimate deletion from the rolls.)

What about the claim that “a lot” of those inactives are (presumably current or recent) students? In an online comment to the 7/24 article, David Diano (manager of VoterWeb, an independent statewide voter database), says with some exasperation:

I can state unequivocally that Mr. Ruman is full of crap. Below is the actual distribution of inactive voters, by age.

age range | count
———–+——-
18-24 | 5,480
25-34 | 50,229
35-44 | 33,884
45-54 | 24,735
55-64 | 14,936
65-74 | 9,056
75-84 | 8,231
85-94 | 10,544
95-104 | 4,154
105-11 | 655

Obviously, 5,480 inactive voters in the usual student age range cannot account for “a lot” of the 161,249 total inactives. (The discrepancy between that total and Mr. Ruman’s figures is not alarming; often, VoterWeb, which Mr. Diano was doubtless using, has the most updated figures.)

In other words, there is really no clarity about how many would-be voters don’t have “approved” voter ID or who the current inactive voters are.

How about closer to home, in Chester County?

According to the strategically timed July 3 PA Department of State press release listing Mr. Ruman as media contact, “registered voters who did not match as having a PennDOT ID number” in Chester County were 17,928 active + 4,547 inactive = 22,475 total.

That is a significant number of “non-PennDOT ID voters,” 8.3% in a county with 270,765 registered voters as of the April 2012 primary election, so just a little less than the statewide percentage.

In West Chester, East Bradford, West Whiteland, West Goshen, East Goshen, Westtown, and Thornbury (for which I can get aggregate data), just as Mr. Diano shows, inactive voters in the 18-24 age range comprise 4% of total inactives—nowhere near showing that “a lot of them are college students who have since moved,” even if we added in the next age range as former students. (For some reason, inactive D’s and I’s in the 18-24 age group are 5% of total inactive D’s and I’s, whereas for R’s the figure is only 2%.)

Another of my own concerns, which I have not seen discussed elsewhere, is that many married or divorced women may have IDs with “substantially” different names than their voting registration. At each polling place, their right to vote will be at the mercy of the Judge of Elections. This will make the job of pollwatchers and legal advisers particularly critical, to monitor any rejections of voters’ ID cards and to sound the alarm on any discriminatory patterns.

In sum, to me, it is astounding that the state has made such important changes in voting procedures based on such vague information and a so far unsubstantiated “99%” estimate, and a claim of historical voter ID fraud that appears itself to be fraudulent.

According to Angela Couloumbis and Bob Warner, “The fight over Pennsylvania’s voter-ID law heads for court Wednesday,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 7/25/12:

ACLU lawyers … have asserted in legal briefs that “the real purpose of the photo ID law is not ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, but ensuring political advantage through the exclusion of qualified voters who are perceived supporters of the opposition.”

The PA Supreme Court, which overturned Harrisburg’s first redistricting plan, should also be perfectly capable of rising above partisan politics and overturning the voter ID law when the case, currently being heard by the Commonwealth Court’s Judge Simpson, reaches the highest level, as it undoubtedly will at some point before the general election.

Some thoughts on health insurance

Mon, 02 Jul 2012 16:00:00 -0400

Here’s the quandary our health care is in: People who can pay pay for people who can’t pay.

In my view, that would be fair if overall taxes paid for health care for all. That’s the way it works in other developed countries. But not here, because we are stuck with a World War II era historical artifact in our peculiar employment-based health insurance system.

Everyone does pay some taxes (income tax, sales tax, social security and medicare tax, unemployment tax, gas tax, property tax, now “Affordable Health Care” tax (per the US Supreme Court’s classification), and all the other taxes that, in theory, support needed services—one of which, theoretically, could be health care.

Tax funding may help Medicaid patients, but it doesn’t help a lot of people who have health emergencies.

One-fifth to one-half (this seems a murky area) of all charges by hospitals are never paid, meaning basically that they have to add the charges on to the bills that are paid.

Under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1986 (yes, signed by Ronald Reagan), emergency rooms can’t turn away emergency patients, whether or not they can pay or have insurance. (They can turn away women about to give birth if they wish, though; and they can try, though they may fail, to collect from patients after treatment.)

Furthermore, one-fifth to one-quarter of medical expenses (except for Medicare and other government-administered programs) go to administrative (as opposed to medical) expenses.

Obviously, what we are doing now isn’t working. We in the US spend twice as much of our GDP on health as any other country, and we are nowhere near the top in results.

Anyone who says people who can’t pay and don’t have insurance shouldn’t get medical care is sentencing a whole lot of Americans to death, when they are turned away from the emergency room. Congress didn’t want to impose that death sentence in 1986; I wouldn’t be quite so confident today.

Furthermore, our system is producing a lot of sick people walking around spreading diseases (including in fast food restaurants, which often fire workers who, in everyone’s interest, should have sick leave).

Lack of preventative coverage and the unfunded mandate forcing hospitals to deliver free emergency care aren’t good solutions.

By cutting down on the number of uninsured, the Affordable Care Act should help alleviate these problems.

Not everyone agrees. Be very wary of any politician who “has a better plan” but won’t spell out the details. Ask specifically:

How would you solve the unfunded mandate placed on emergency rooms?

How would you see that people get preventative care before emergencies arise, in order to reduce our overall medical costs and cut down on untreated sick people spreading disease?

Where recycled politicians go to roost

Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:32:00 -0400

Sam Rohrer is a former member of the PA House of Representatives (R-128, Berks County), 1993-2010. He ran unsuccessfully for the Republican nomination for Attorney General in 2010 and for US Senator in 2012.

Colin Hanna is a former Chester County Commissioner, 1995-2003. He currently manages a number of organizations dedicated to building walls around the United States and other conservative goals. One of those, Let Freedom Ring, includes Pennsylvania Pastors Network (whose West Chester address is actually Hanna’s home in East Bradford).

Those two former office-holders have now teamed up for conservative ideological and political causes. To explain their plans, they sent a joint email today, which you can read here.

As a potential 501(c)(3) non-profit (its status had apparently not yet been determined then), PPN appeared to cross the line on political involvement in March of 2006, when it organized a “training” session to turn out the conservative vote in Pennsylvania, with then incumbent Senator Rick Santorum as the featured speaker, according to “Pastors’ Get-Out-the-Vote Training Could Test Tax Rules,” New York Times, 3/21/06.

That article goes on to say:

A politician speaking to a religious group is hardly new, and the tax code allows churches and other tax-exempt charities to register voters and to express views on public issues.

But the rules forbid supporting a political party or candidate. Inviting just one candidate to speak, singling out one candidate for special praise and highlighting a combination of issues tailored to one candidate’s campaign are all factors that the I.R.S. considers problematic.

That is especially the case if the discussion is in the context of a get-out-the-vote effort, said Marcus S. Owens, a lawyer here who is the former director of the exempt-organizations division of the tax agency….

See also “CREW Files IRS Complaint Against PA Pastors Network for Assisting Sen. Santorum in Re-Election,” Citizens for responsibility and ethics in Washington, 3/22/06.

Despite the above-mentioned support, after two terms in office (1995-2006) Santorum lost to Bob Casey in November, 2006. by 18% of the vote.

Whether as a result of the above-mentioned publicity and complaint, or for some other reason, PPN did not become a 501(c)(3) organization, as its “Contribute” page reads:

“Let Freedom Ring, Inc. is a 501 (c)(4) non-profit corporation, and donations are not tax-deductible as charitable contributions.”

Thus PPN is considered “a project” of Let Freedom Ring, one of the four organizations that founded PPN (two of the others, PA Family Institute and Urban Family Council, are 501(c)(3) organizations). It’s sort of like Mendelian genetics: if two 501(c)(3)’s and two 501(c)(4)’s get together to form a mew organization, is their offspring a 501(c)(3) or a 501(c)(4)?

I pointed out in “To what extent can non-profits support political candidates?” (March 3, 2012), the short answer to that title’s question is “To no extent.”

I should have specified that I meant 501(c)(3) organizations, which are largely tax-deductible, not 501(c)(4) organizations, which are largely not tax-deductible and which include the now prominent SuperPACs. For my comment on some of those, see “The SuperPAC Superdonors” (June 23).

Thus Let Freedom Ring, to which donations are not tax-deductible, can legally campaign for or against candidates for office as long as its chief purpose is promoting “social welfare.”

We all need to watch non-profit organizations (whether religious or not) for signs of political activity contrary to the IRS code.

The issues to watch for 501(c)(3) organizations are how much they lobby and whether they support or oppose candidates to any extent.

The issue to watch for 501(c)(4) organizations is whether the majority of their efforts are dedicated to “social welfare.” That is important since many 501(c)(4)’s run by well-known political operatives like Karl Rove have been pushing the limits this year, and it’s hard to see whose “social welfare” those huge amounts of money are going toward.

See my earlier post for a lot of details; my own paraphrase there of how I understand the rules was:

“if a reasonable person gets the impression that the non-profit, through its words or actions, is supporting a candidate for office in a time frame that could help that candidate in an upcoming election, then it has violated its tax-deductible status.” (I should have said “501(c)(3) non-profit,”)

Another issue to watch is to what extent religious organizations become entangled in political activity. That’s not just a tax issue, but also an ethical and spiritual one.

"The SuperPAC Superdonors"

Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:27:00 -0400

Who are the forces behind the presidential candidates? A lot of rich people and corporations, of course, now that the Supreme Court has let them basically donate whatever they want.

I’m going to simplify and summarize the FEC-derived data from the npr.org reports “The SuperPAC Superdonors” (5/22/12) and “New SuperPAC Financial Reports Reveal More Big Spenders” (6/21/12).

See those reports details on donations and donors; I’ve added up donations from each donor (including spouses and associated companies) to each campaign.

We’re only looking at $1,000,000 totals and up (just for comparison, that’s 10,000 times the $100 you scraped together to give your favorite candidate so far this year).

Remember the Golden Rule: the one that has the gold makes the rules.

To me, it would be simple: you’d say to the 99%, “Here is what the billionaires want you to do, so do the opposite.” But for some reason, it doesn’t seem to work that way, yet.

Anyhow, according to npr:

“More than two dozen people or groups have donated at least $1 million each to the new superPACs, which can raise unlimited funds to help a candidate — although without technically coordinating with that campaign. The money is largely being used to run attack ads against opponents….”

Note, however, that a lot of donations are not reported or are cloaked in secrecy, so are not included here (like those of Charles and David Koch, though their brother William is on the list).

What do we learn, besides that some people have a whole lot of money to give away for political gain?

Not one gave to two parties. Many corporations and smaller donors try to buy influence with both parties, but the $1,000,000+ group obviously knows what it wants. Look for next year’s ambassadors and other dignitaries to come from these donors.

Obama has cleared $10,000,000; the Republicans all together, $78,672,000. So as you might have suspected, the Democrat is not the one getting the big millions.

Individual R. candidates’ totals:

$21,500,000 Romney
$21,100,000 Gingrich
$5,550,000 Santorum
$2,600,000 Paul
$2,322,040 Huntsman
$1,100,000 Perry

But in first place: Karl Rove, whose American Crossroads took in $24,500,000 from the Millions Club. [Update: the absurdity of saying these SuperPACs are not coordinating with the campaigns is shown by Rove’s prominent presence at a Romney megadonor retreat in Utah, as recounted in “For Wealthy Romney Donors, Up Close and Personal Access,” New York Times, 6/24/12. Photo below from that article.]

Charles Dharapak/Associated Press. Karl Rove was among the high-powered Republicans at a retreat for Mitt Romney fund-raisers in Utah this weekend.

What is noteworthy is that Romney, with 18 donors in this group (some of who donated to others as well) and Gingrich, with 2 of these donors, received about the same amount.

For better or worse, Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman, Perry, and Paul seem to have been kept in the race by a couple of tycoons each, most notably Gingrich by gambling magnate Sheldon Adelson and Huntsman by his own father. (Cain got quite a lot of attention, though not always of the type he planned, considering he didn’t have a millionaire friend helping him out and his SuperPAC was virtually nil.)

You could say: Why should rich people be able to keep fringe candidates going?

Or you could say: Well, at least money buys some diversity (!).

The anti-union lobby has been gnashing its teeth (yes, lobbies are people too, right?) about the supposed influence of labor unions. $2,000,000 of the total $88,672,000 on this list, or 1/44th, is from labor unions to Obama. Not a major money player, to say the least.

Otherwise, how about donors’ professions? As you might expect, most are in business. What strikes me is that none appear to have “old money”; all seem enriched by recent businesses and investments.

Two (an individual plus a couple) are or were at Bain Capital, Romney’s company.

Four others are or were at hedge funds.

Three are “investors” though no doubt all have investments.

So in case you were planning to join the 1%, those are the promising areas right now (and you can bet if Romney wins, they will become even more promising).

There are, though, one lawyer and three connected with the entertainment industry.

Finally, here’s the composite list of donors who as of reports to date have given $1,000,000 or more:

Sheldon and Miriam Adelson (Las Vegas Sands Corp.; owns hotels and casinos):
Winning Our Future (Gingrich) $20,000,000

Kareem Ahmed (Rancho Cucamonga CA):
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Edward Conard (New York, N.Y.; executive, formerly at Bain Capital):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

William J. Dore (Lake Charles, La.; energy)
$2,250,000 Red White and Blue Fund (Santorum)

Paul & Sandra Edgerley (both now or formerly at Bain Capital):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

Eli Publishing Inc. (“an inactive Utah company formed in 1997 by Nu Skin founder Steven Lund”) and Utah F8 LLC (same address):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $2,000,000

Foster S. Friess Jackson, Wy. (mutual fund investor):
Red White and Blue Fund (Santorum) $2,100,000

Amy Goldman (Rhinebeck, N.Y.):
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Kenneth Griffin (Chicago, Ill.) :
American Crossroads (GOP) $1,000,000
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,050,000

Jon M. Huntsman Sr. (Salt Lake City, Utah; Huntsman Corp.)
Our Destiny PAC (Huntsman) $2,222,040

Jeffrey Katzenberg (Universal City, Calif.; chief executive at DreamWorks Animation):
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $2,000,000

John Kleinheinz (Fort Worth, Texas):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

William Koch (West Palm Beach, Fla.; brother of Charles and David):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,750,000

Bill Maher (Los Angeles, Calif.; comedian, political commentator):
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Robert Mercer (East Setauket, N.Y.; hedge fund manager):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

Melaleuca Inc. (Idaho Falls, Idaho, privately held dietary supplement and cleaning supply company; CEO Frank L. VanderSloot is national finance co-chairman of Romney’s campaign):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000 Donor:(Romney)

Irving Moskowitz (Hawaiian Gardens, Calif.; retired Florida physician and bingo magnate):
American Crossroads (GOP) $1,000,000

National Air Traffic Controllers Association PAC
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

John Paulson (New York, N.Y.; hedge fund manager):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

A. Jerrold Perenchio (Los Angeles, Calif.; former chairman and CEO of Univision):
American Crossroads (GOP) $2,000,000
Our Destiny PAC (Huntsman) $100,000
Restore Our Future (Romney) $500,000

Bob J. Perry (Houston, Texas Perry; owner of Perry Homes):
American Crossroads (GOP) $2,500,000
Restore Our Future (Romney) $4,750,000
Make Us Great Again (Perry) $100,000

Julian Robertson (Locust Valley, N.Y.; hedge fund manager):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,250,000

Rooney Holdings Inc. (Tulsa, Okla; family-owned builder):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

Robert B. Rowling (Irving, Texas; oil industry, Omni hotel chain):
American Crossroads (GOP) $2,000,000
Restore Our Future (Romney) $100,000

Service Employees International Union Committee on Political Education:
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Harold C. Simmons, (Texas businessman):
Make Us Great Again (Perry) $1,000,000
American Crossroads (GOP) $13,000,000
Winning Our Future (Gingrich) $1,100,000
Restore Our Future (Romney) $800,000
Red White and Blue Fund (Santorum) $1,200,000

Paul Singer (New York; hedge fund manager):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

Peter Thiel (San Francisco, Calif.; co-founder PayPal, investor Facebook):
Endorse Liberty (Paul) $2,600,000

Whiteco Industries (Merrillville, Ind.; construction and advertising):
American Crossroads (GOP) $1,000,000

Franklin L. Haney (Washington DC; real estate):
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Barbara A. Stiefel (Coral Gables, Fla.):
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Steve Mostyn (Texas; lawyer)
Priorities USA Action (Obama) $1,000,000

Reynolds and Reynolds Co. (Dayton OH; CEO Robert T. Brockman):
Restore Our Future (Romney) $1,000,000

Joe Craft (Tulsa, Okla.; coal):
American Crossroads (GOP) $1,000,000

Harlan Crow (Texas; investor):
American Crossroads (GOP) $1,000,000
Restore Our Future (Romney) $300,000

Hosta

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 09:54:46 -0400

Suitably encouraged by Kurt’s kind comment to “Titanic” (April 15), I reflected that this is the time of year when hostas are starting to bloom—at least this year, though normal used to be July. As gardeners and non-gardeners know, hostas are… well, I tried to say it all in the poem below.

Hosta sieboldiana ‘Elegans’ by Epibase, 2007, at Wikipedia Commons

But have you
Caught, among small
Stars, his flute?

—Robert Francis, “Delicate the Toad”

The hosta, most dependable of plants
I know, when it comes to a bloom in hot
July, why is its praise so seldom said?
Why can daffodil and orchid not share
some turning of eye and head with this one
of quiet tones?

It is more than a crush
of color that a whole plant gives itself
up to bring into the world: its green fans
spotted or striped yellow or white have grace;
and a virtue of seeds beads its grave stalks.

I love its self-sufficiency: sand, clay,
loam, it knows what it needs, does not aspire.

II.

It is no iris whose fringed shawl and hooded
privacy bloom and droop in one day: if
you travel a week you’ll miss just a greening,
a swelling, a slightness of added height,
as a child left home so discreetly grows
that you, returned, can think no time is gone
at all.

It unfolds so day-by-day, it
drinks the season’s calm, soaking in the shade
that is its bath.

Its spike becoming flowers
loves to tantalize, making an art of
premeditation, as the tight-rope walker
edges overhead step by held-breath step
toward a spotlight of applause.

Its buds,
off-white all the quiet weeks you watch their
getting ready, bring a purple surprise
gliding each night up the long raceme.

Some
may call it stiff because it does not rise
high, sway, and set itself up for a tumble
of hollyhocks, or lean like tulips past
their peak, or snap at its knees in a breeze.

Never headstrong, it pays tribute to sky,
pointing by compromise in light’s direction,
half way from straightness to the open patch
whose blue is half the formula for green.

III.

It must be tending always to its roots,
pacing itself. After its bloom is done,
it will not cry worn out, in need of rich
earth, staking, shelter from cold, the break-back
cares that rose and lily cannot forgo.

It can get along with plants of the wild,
no house in sight, under maples and spruce,
its breath turned low, setting a patient clock.

It does not diminish others but holds
to its own, keeps sprouts and brambles at bay,
casts too much darkness for Virginia creeper
to fumble around in its roots.

It travels
smoothly, wisely, each year gaining a modicum
but is no violet to send a host
against a lawn.

Its slowness is its strength:
when all the fancy pampered one-day bloomers,
pale, spindly-stalked, in need of pulling strings,
get out of town, it will remain oasis,
serenity, thought furled into itself.

Greece, history, and Chancellor Merkel

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:16:00 -0400

Maybe there are some things Americans need to review as we look about us passing judgment on other countries.

The French writer Montesquieu’s Lettres persanes (1721) satirically presents Parisian society of the time through the supposed correspondence of two travelers from Persia, that is, what is now Iran.

One of the themes (letter 30) is the question, which “buzzes” around one of the characters when he is introduced, “How can one be Persian?”

Montesquieu (who incidentally, as a political writer, popularized the idea of separation of powers in government) was also asking: How can one be French? Or anything else?

It is no harder, he is saying, to be French than Persian; a people is what it is by a shared history and culture, no matter how strange those may appear to others.

This week’s New Yorker offers some salient remarks on the financial crisis of Europe and tomorrow’s Greek election in “Greece vs. the Rest” by John Lanchester:

“… Hurtling toward the cliff in one lane is the electorate, with the threat that it will vote for parties who refuse the austere terms of the bailout agreed on by the “troika” of the European Union, the European Central Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Gunning alongside it is the troika, the other E.U. governments, President Obama, and just about every mainstream economist alive, all of them warning that a vote against the bailout would involve a Greek exit from the euro zone, and subsequent economic calamity….”

Normally, we admire someone who stands up against all the rest. Not in this case, it seems.

The Greeks do have their reasons: “… the loathed austerity terms … have helped to cause the Greek economy to shrink by sixteen per cent, the sharpest decline in any developed country since the Great Depression. Previously comfortable middle-class Greeks are rummaging through garbage cans for food—often after nightfall, when the neighbors can’t see….”

And “…What we have … is a Continent-wide austerity policy, led by Germany’s Angela Merkel, that is manifestly making things worse….”

In 2010 an article was going around the Internet entitled “Why Europeans Think We’re Insane“ by an American expatriate writing under the pen name Democrats Ramshield.

A lot of Americans (and no doubt many Europeans too) probably think the Greeks are insane for daring to question the sanctity of the European Union and the euro, or for not wanting to do what the Germans (and everyone else) are telling them to do.

Resistance makes some sense, though; a lot of leading economists (such as Robert Reich) say “austerity” is the opposite of what Greece and Europe (and the United States) need.

Possibly the Greeks, recognized as the founders of democracy (and let’s note that almost all of our political science words come from Greek) feel qualified to stand their own ground and question the underpinnings of today’s societies, which, set up against their 3000-year history, are all pretty transient.

The Acropolis at dawn, by Jon Corelis, 2009, at Wikimedia Commons

Maybe Socrates got them in the habit of asking questions that politicians hardly dare enunciate here in the U.S. today, like “Who should actually own power in a democracy?” or “Why should the poor sacrifice more than the rich to save their country?” or “Are banks and money more or less important than actual living, breathing people?” or (in our own case) “Why is our net family worth no higher than it was 20 years ago?”

We should remember that Greece is a pretty advanced country in many ways. On 7/21/10, I posted “Why are the Greeks living longer than we are?“ To be precise, life expectancy in Greece is 1.3 or 1.55 years (depending on your source) longer than in the US. Is it possible we have something to learn from them (and from the 37 or 49 other countries that rank ahead of us in longevity)?

Do you remember the 1985 movie Eleni, based on the book by journalist Nicholas Gage? The narrator returns to Greece to uncover the circumstances of his mother’s death in the civil war between communists and anti-communists after liberation from the German occupation in World War II.

A relatively recent family story like that might help explain why the Greeks focus on their own lives, without hurrying to bow down to Chancellor Merkel’s economic theories (which someone recently characterized as: “We’ll stop beating you after you start behaving better”).

A glance at the Greek people’s history in Wikipedia) shows that they have been around a lot more blocks than we have.

Greek city states, wars against the Trojans and Persians, Alexander the Great, absorption into the Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, and by 1460 the Ottoman Empire… and finally, after nine years of warfare against the Turks, Greece became independent in 1830.

The “Great Powers” (that is, the dominant countries of Europe) sent in German nobles to serve as Greek monarchs (Queen Elizabeth’s husband Prince Philip, in the news recently during the Diamond Jubilee, is the grandson of German-Danish King George I of Greece).

The same Great Powers forced the Greeks in 1893 “to accept the imposition of an International Financial Control authority to pay off the country’s debtors.” Does that sound familiar?

In World War I, Greece was divided between pro-German and pro-British governments. A Republic was established in 1924 but became a fascist state in 1936, which however refused to join the Axis, resulting in (as in France) German occupation and a bloody Resistance.

After the war, violence continued between communist and anti-communist factions. A king returned in 1964 but was forced to flee by a coup organized by the US-backed “Colonels.” The curent republic was installed in 1975.

In sum, the Greeks have been ruled by their own city-states, by the (“pagan” then Christian) Romans, by the (Orthodox Christian) Byzantines, by the (Muslim) Ottomans, by foreign kings, by Nazis, by a military junta, and by three republics, with a bloody communist uprising along the way.

That’s how one can be Greek.

How can one be American?

How can one be Chancellor Merkel?

Environmental progress, 1970-2012

Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:06:00 -0400

From “An Earth Day Icon, Unmasked,” by Timothy Dumas, Smithsonian magazine, August 2010 (the famed image is from the first Earth Day, April 22, 1970):

From an ad against “greed and corruption at the expense of human health and the environment” and the use of harmful chemicals in agriculture currently being planned by Nation of Change:

The next steps in redistricting PA and the Commission's prior record

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:25:00 -0400

No, redistricting hasn’t gone away, and it can’t go away till it is done for the next 10 (now, due to the delay, 9) years.

According to the PA Legislative Reapportionment Commission site,

The Legislative Reapportionment Commission will hold a public hearing on June 8, 2012 at 2:00 p.m. in Hearing Room 1, North Office Building, Harrisburg, PA.

A public meeting of the 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will be held on Friday, June 8, 2012 at 2:00p.m. in Hearing Room 1, Ground Floor, North Office Building, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this meeting is to vote on a final reapportionment plan. Further information can be obtained by contacting Charles E. O’Connor, Jr., Executive Director, at 717-705-6339.

As you’ll recall (see “How redistricting became a hot issue,” April 20), the Commission’s proposal #1 was struck down in January by the PA Supreme Court, 4-3, on grounds that it violated the state constitution.

For local testimony at the Commission’s May 3 meeting, see the West Chester Democrats site on May 18 (and the three previous posts there for more background).

For considerations on how the Commission’s proposal #2 lines up with constitutional requirements (not well!), see the very recent recaps on the PA House and Senate by Amanda Holt.

Now after taking note, to some extent, of the Court’s opinion, and listening on May 3, to some extent perhaps, to public comments (most of which opposed the new proposal), the Commission is poised to announce a decision on its proposal #2.

There really isn’t a big hurry, since the results won’t affect this year’s elections anyhow. But I am predicting they will reaffirm their proposal #2, maybe with a few cosmetic adjustments as they did last fall, then parties will appeal, and the matter will go back to the PA Supreme Court.

That’s where it gets even more interesting than usual! The Court is now short a voting member, since Republican Justice Joan Orie Melvin is ineligible to vote while under investigation and trial (like her two sisters, one a former state senator) for using state workers for campaign purposes and other infractions of state law.

So now the Court has 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats voting—not, of course, that they invariably line up by party, as shown by Chief Justice Ron Castille’s vote with the 3 Democrats in January.

As I understand it, the appeals would lose if the six votes split 3-3.

On the other hand, apparently a temporary voting member of the Court could be appointed, but would that person have the background to vote on a case that the Court had already been through in great detail? And could Justice Orie Melvin’s current (and very partisan) disgrace motivate the justices to try to avoid any appearance of partisanship in this important ruling?

Also, might they recall that their former colleague, Justice Nigro, was not retained in 2005 by voters outraged about the infamous “midnight pay raise” (for background, see the download at Pennsylvanians for Modern Courts).

And might they also worry about Tim Potts (a panelist at the April 21 forum on redistricting held in West Chester). According to Amy Worden, “Justice voted out for 1st time Voter anger over pay raises led to a narrow loss for Russell Nigro” (Philadelphia Inquirer, 11/9/05):

…Tim Potts, founder of Democracy Rising and leader of the effort to oust the justices, said the results signal an end to voter apathy and the beginning of voter demand for public integrity.

“By making history, Pennsylvania voters have begun to make their future,” he said. “They have sense of their own power they did not have before that will continue on to next year. People are fed up with the normal corrupt way Harrisburg is doing business.”

Perhaps, Pennsylvanians now are, as he puts it, even more fed up than they were in 2005?

As a further note, several former and one current PA Supreme court justices are connected to the state’s gambling industry; see “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Predatory Gambling Trade,” Casino-Free Philadelphia).

Could uneasiness that gambling and redistricting might become the Court’s next “midnight pay raise” impel the justices to be extra careful when redistricting proposal #2 reaches them?

As Potts pointed out at the forum, his former boss Bill DeWeese has been convicted, and of the five Commission members who conducted the 1991 redistricting process, three have been or are in jail.

Two of those former leaders—the former Democratic and former Republican Speakers of the House, both of whom, as it happens, were also on the 2001 Reapportionment Commission—are now particularly close to each other. According to Robert J. Vickers, “Bill DeWeese, John Perzel transition into prison life,” The Patriot-News, 6/5/12:

…Both were separately convicted of misusing taxpayer funds. According to Capitolwire.com, friends who’ve visited the pair say they are sharing a cell. And they have reportedly come to terms with their predicament enough to even make light of their missteps.

See also “Bill DeWeese and John Perzel: Cellmates” by Keegan Gibson and Kelly Cernetich, PoliticsPA, 6/4/12 .

The third member of the 1991 Reapportionment Commission to go to jail, Senate majority leader F. Joseph Loeper (sad to say, a West Chester University graduate), served a mere 6 months in prison for federal tax evasion and is now “currently working as a lobbying through his lobbying firm Loeper and Associates representing the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Drexel University, and others,” according to Wikipedia.

Not to be outdone, the 2001 Commission achieved the same 60% malfeasance record: current roommates DeWeese and Perzel were both on it, and their former colleague Robert J. Mellow has also been caught breaking laws. Per Wikipedia:

Mellow is currently under criminal investigation by the FBI and IRS in relation to office leases inside buildings he once owned. Investigators raided the home in Archbald and district office in Peckville of Senator Mellow as well as searching the home of a former aide, Gabriel J. Giordano, on June 22, 2010. In July, as many as fifteen staffers were subpoenaed in connection with the investigation. In March 2012, Mellow agreed to plead guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and filing a false income tax return.

Former state Senate Democratic Leader Robert J. Mellow formally pleaded guilty on May 9, 2012 to a conspiracy charge related to using Senate staff members to do political work and filing a false tax return.

See also “Mellow pleads guilty in federal court,” 5/9/12, CitizensVoice:

…The guilty plea to conspiracy to commit mail fraud and to filing a false federal tax return for 2008 was the first in a series of legal steps that will determine how much time, if any, Mellow actually spends in prison.

Along with a maximum penalty of five years in jail, he also faces a fine of as much as $250,000. Mellow agreed to plead guilty to the charge in a plea agreement filed March 15….

We don’t now yet whether Mellow will join DeWeese and Perzel in jail, because “Pre-sentence report in Mellow case delayed until August,” per CitizensVoice, 6/4/12.

How about the 2011 Commission? We know that its proposal #1 violated the state constitution and that Justice Orie Melvin, as mentioned above, supported proposal #1 and now also seems headed for involuntary accommodation at public expense. For any more such excitement, time will have to tell.

As a further noteworthy part of the Court’s record, several former and one current PA Supreme Court justices are connected to the state’s gambling industry; see “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the Predatory Gambling Trade,” Casino-Free Philadelphia.

Could uneasiness that redistricting and gambling might become the Court’s next “midnight pay raise” impel the justices—or at least those hoping for retention when their turn comes to face the voters—to be extra careful when redistricting proposal #2 reaches them?

And whatever the ultimate result, all this certainly suggests that the General Assembly should not be redistricting itself, doesn’t it?

Notes on the 4/21/12 redistricting forum in West Chester

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:26:00 -0400

As the state’s redistricting snafus are about to get back in the headlines (the Legislative Reapportionment Commission will meet again on June 8 to address its own proposal #2), I wanted to look back to the very informative forum on that subject held this spring in West Chester Borough Hall.

You may have read the account “Panel reviews Pennsylvania redistricting” by Jim Callahan, Daily Local News, 4/23/12.

Since blogs have fewer space constraints than daily newspapers, I’m going to mention some further highlights that I thought ought to be preserved for posterity.

Here for the record is the outline distributed at the forum:

“The Great Pennsylvania Redistricting Reversal of 2012: How it happened, how it affirmed citizens’ rights, and how it changed this year’s elections”
April 21 2012, West Chester Borough Hall

Carolyn Comitta , Mayor of West Chester, appellant (with Borough Council President Holly Brown) for the Borough on state plan #1

Amanda Holt (http://amandae.com/), author of redistricting maps praised by the PA Supreme Court

Sam Stretton, attorney for the West Chester and Phoenixville appeals to the Legislative Redistricting Commission

Tim Potts, co-founder and political analyst, Democracy Rising Pennsylvania (http://www.democracyrisingpa.com/)

Outline:

            Why does redistricting matter?

            What happened?

            What can be done?

Tim Potts was press secretary and director of communications for the Democratic party, and worked in part for long-term Democratic leader Bill DeWeese (House majority leader, 1990-93; Speaker of the PA House, 1993-94; House minority leader, 1994-2006, per Wikipedia). Reacting against illegal and unconstitutional actions he observed with dismay in Harrisburg, Potts founded Democracy Rising PA in 2004,

As Potts pointed out, DeWeese was to be sentenced to prison three days after the forum, and the 1991 redistricting process was conducted by five committee members of whom, as it happens, three have been or were about to be in jail.

West Chester Mayor Carolyn Comitta pointed out that the underlying redistricting issue is to protect individual rights. Splitting West Chester, the county seat, would have harmed the region and diluted voters’ voice.

Amanda Holt gave historical retrospective about why keeping political subdivisions need whole protects the voters’ interests. “If you care about your taxes, you should care about your representation.” And doesn’t everyone care about their taxes?

Sam Stretton paid tribute to Holt, who “on her own went through the torturous process” of calculating redistricting proposal for the entire state—which made the real difference in to the Supreme Court. He then traced struggles over redistricting back to gerrymandering two centuries ago (the word, derived from Governor Gerry of Massachusetts, was first used in 1812. The contemporary image below is from Wikipedia, “Gerrymandering”:

According to Potts redistricting, though a mere procedure, can empower citizens if done well. But it’s not being done well: this fall, more than half the state’s legislative seats will be uncontested: “insane!” “We not only have taxation without representation, we have representation without representation.”

Voters, Potts said, want all candidates, including Independents and third party members, to have the same conditions to get on the ballot. But that isn’t happening, because redistricting is done badly here. “Sign up, speak up, show up”—the three S’s without which voters lose power (and they have lost it in PA).

Amanda Holt began her quest in October, 2010: she wanted to be an informed voter. She found her close neighbors were being assigned to a different district; she consulted the state constitution and decided that the only way to prove too much municipal splitting was to design her own maps—which went on to win the case!

Her principle was to put population balance first (with a 10% maximum deviation), then to keep counties whole. The Commission seemed impressed by her September, 2011, testimony, but then ignored it. The Commission used a smaller deviation, but Holt found she could match that but still reduce splits over 50%. In November she presented two more maps, but again the Commission did not pay attention.

The last recourse was to appeal to the PA Supreme Court, which she did with the pro-bono aid of lawyers Michael Churchill and Jenny Gibson. The Court majority found her evidence compelling.

Carolyn Comitta recounted how West Chester assembled a team to testify in November: herself, East Bradford attorney Bret Binder, and WCU graduate student Rich Miller.

Sam Stretton saw the first plan splitting West Chester and Phoenixville as well as minority communities. Getting involved in this case was in line with his representing Ralph Nader in 2004 and the Green party in 2006, in their attempts to get fairer ballot access. Politics is no longer competitive and candidates can’t run without money. The 156th district, however, is competitive, and this year five of the eight Chester County legislative seats could change parties—but not with the Commission’s original redistricting.

Tim Potts: you couldn’t design a more conflicted system than a commission of four party leaders who choose a fifth member. When he was working in Harrisburg, Democratic leader DeWeese told him which were the safe seats of the two parties and that “we figure we need to allow 30-40 safe seats.” Seats are made safe by limiting competition through registration advantages based on voter performance history. Incumbents are protected by staying in their own districts unless party leaders want to punish them; for example, in 1991, DeWeese let two Democrats be taken out of their own districts. It’s a power game not for the people’s benefit. In Harrisburg, as far as redistricting, there is only one party: the Incumbent Party.

Amanda Holt: legislators pressure the Commission to keep their seats safe, but we can pressure the them to pressure the Commission to follow the Constitution—concretely, at the scheduled May 2 hearing. Under the new maps, Chesco suffers by being divided into four Senate districts when two would suffice; and two Chesco municipalities would still be split. And though population warrants Chesco having eight House districts, the new plan has it split into nine, plus parts of other counties.

Carolyn Comitta will go to Harrisburg on May 2. Public officials swear to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and they ought to do it.

Sam Stretton intends to file a brief about the plan to split Phoenixville (again) and West Goshen (instead of West Chester). People need to get active to keep their rights. Why isn’t the next generation more involved? The 7th Congressional District is a mess and should be struck down on a 14th amendment (equal representation) basis.

The 7th covers rural and suburban parts of 5 counties; it’s the least compact district in the country! Why? To change the population from 48% Republican to 52% Republican. People need to stand up; he’s sick of politics being all about money, with little competition.

Tim Potts: voters should make reform the condition of holding office in Harrisburg. House Bill 763, providing for a constitutional convention, has a handful of sponsors, and could deal with many issues. HB 153, to decrease the size of the legislature, is moving ahead; the real motive is to keep control and stave off a convention (which conceivably could cut the legislature in half or go to a single chamber).

He has started a new organization, The Majority Party PA, designed to promote the will of the majority rather than of political interests. The public needs to publicize corruption and promote write-in and Independent candidates.

Questions followed.

What about the proposed new boundaries of the 156th district, which are not “compact”? Stretton: “Pure gerrymandering.“ Holt: any unnecessary split normally favors the incumbent. Potts: look where opponents of the incumbent live.

Why is Easttown split even on Holt’s maps and why doesn’t the Tredyffrin-Easttown School District share a legislative seat? Holt: you just have to split somewhere within a 5-8% deviance; now that more seems permitted, fewer splits should be needed. 32 states’ districts have about 9% population variation, PA only about 6%.

Who were the former Commission members who went to jail? Holt mentioned former House D leader DeWeese and former House R leader Perzel, though redistricting was not the cause.

How many districts actually change party affiliation? No one knew.

Why doesn’t the Supreme Court just use Holt’s plan. Stretton doesn’t think Castille is willing to be the swing vote again. It was thought Justice Saylor would join him before, but Saylor wants to be Chief Justice. [n.b. Castille’s term expires Dec. 2013 and Saylor’s in Dec. 2017; both are in their last terms due to the age 70 limit.] But from a constitutional law standpoint, the appellants should win again. Could it help for the public to pressure legislators?

Potts: It depends how publicly people emphasize the “absolutely necessary” clause.

Did the Court put the burden on the Commission to comply? Stretton: Yes, and 2021 will be important too. The PA political system is broken, and it’s time for radical change.

Potts: It’s a classic power struggle between branches of government. Chief Justice Castille was put out by the low funding of the Supreme Court; his Court is saying: We can construe the law however we want.

Bayard Rustin at Swarthmore College

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 21:46:00 -0400

Over the weekend, I took in the Rustin exhibit in the McCabe Library on the leafy Swarthmore campus.

Just to remind you at the start: local historian Penny Washington will lead a walking tour of West Chester’s East End, home to many of Rustin’s friends and contemporaries, this coming Saturday, June 9 at 11 a.m., starting at the Charles A. Melton Arts and Education Center, 501 E Miner St, West Chester.

See a photo of a West Chester fair housing demonstration including Rustin on the Melton site.

“Bayard Rustin at Swarthmore College” is the title of an interesting article, available at the Swarthmore exhibit, by Newton Garver, who evokes Rustin’s talk at Swarthmore “probably in the fall of 1949” about the 1947 Voyage of Reconciliation led by Rustin and George Houser. (Rustin was a Quaker and Swarthmore was founded by Quakers.)

Here are a few noteworthy items on display at Swarthmore through June 15 (weekdays, 8:30-6:00):

Rustin’s “Interracial Primer,” a brochure sold by the Fellowship of Reconciliation for $.15 in the 1940’s [first published in 1943]

A poster “DON’T join a jim crow army,” showing black and white military personnel divided by the dagger of racism, published by the League for Nonviolent Civil Disobedience Against Military Service, around the time of president Truman’s 1948 executive order banning segregation in the armed forces. (See a similar motif, with a wedge being driven with an axe between members of the two races, in Horace Pippin’s Mr. Prejudice, 1943.)

from museumsyndicate.com

A 9/13/49 press release by the Fellowship of Reconciliation, “Rustin, Negro Leader, Speaks of Gandhi” (FOR organized the 1947 Voyage of Reconciliation).

Rustin as part of the International Sahara Protest Team that in 1959 tried to stop French atmospheric bomb testing in Algeria.

His article “The Failure of Black Separatism” in Harper’s Magazine, January 1970 (as the explanation notes, Rustin engaged in a famed debate with Malcolm X on that theme in 1962).

His brochure published by AFSC, “Non-Violence and the Harlem riots” (Rustin had tried, unsuccessfully, to instill nonviolence during the 1964 riot following a police shooting of a 15-year-old boy).

In 1981 he traveled to Poland to investigate nonviolent actions of the labor rights organization Solidarity.

His article “The Vibrancy of Israel’s Democracy” in the Miami Times, 10/14/82, reflecting after a massacre of Palestinians in West Beirut.

The program “Dedication of an Official State Historical Marker Honoring Bayard Rustin” from a ceremony held at the Chester County Historical Society, 2/6/95.

The exhibit has much more, including a dozen books by or about Rustin, plus many other pamphlets, recordings, etc.

You still have two weeks to see this! And you can see the Chester County Historical Society exhibit “Bayard Rustin’s Historical Roots” through August 24.

Thomas Sowell for curmudgeon-in-chief

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 14:41:00 -0400

I always try to start reading Thomas Sowell with an open mind, but it isn’t easy to finish reading that way when a columnist knows everything, insults everyone he disagrees with, and enjoys his own idiosyncratic leaps of reasoning.

”The big lies and promises from our politicians” (Daily Local News, May 29, 2012) is a case in point.

Sowell thinks politicians are liars and the rest of us demand the impossible—hardly the classical captatio benevolentiae designed to get the reader on the writer’s side, is it?

Contrary to what he says, the United States is not a “welfare state”; it is a free market economy (the usual object of Sowell’s worship) with a threatened safety net for the disadvantaged.

If as he says “After the Constitution of the United States was amended to permit a federal income tax, in 1916, the number of people reporting taxable incomes of $300,000 a year or more fell from well over a thousand to fewer than three hundred by 1921,” could it be that there were and are too many tax loopholes? Tax-exempt securities, which he mentions, are one of them, but there are also the Cayman Islands, Swiss banks, hedge fund operation, and countless others.

Those who want to tax the wealthy at least as high a percentage as the middle class aren’t so naive as to think that it would balance the budget, but might it help the 99% (and Warren Buffet) to see more spirit of fairness in the tax system?

Why do writers like Sowell who oppose Social Security always represent it as government money? Do they forget that workers pay into Social Security out of every pay check?

And doesn’t he know that doctors spend a lot more time filling out diverse paperwork for a host of private insurance companies, all with different forms and procedures, than for Medicare, which has a much lower administrative overhead?

Sure, the government needs to plan ahead better, both in Washington and in Harrisburg; but are soaking the rich and lying to the public really the only options?

Why does Sowell feel the need to ignore real solutions by fast forwarding apocalyptically to the collapse of Medicare and inflationary disaster?

For Sowell, the end is nigh, the system is broken, and there is no solution—is he running to take over from Cal Thomas the title of editorial curmudgeon-in-chief?

Lest you wonder: personally, I don’t know everything, don’t insult people I disagree with (except Sowell; I thought even Thomas was pretty good on May 30 in “Decision time: America and future wars”), and aim for linear reasoning.

For another classic Sowell case, see his latest, today’s (6/2/12) “World-class chutzpah by Attorney General Holder,” which, on the basis of one supposed action by one person in one voting precinct, purports to show that ALEC-inspired voter ID laws (including in PA) won’t stop anyone legally entitled to vote from voting.