Sarah Palin, a few days ago, suggested the Obama’s healthcare plan would make her Downs Syndrome child Trig and her aged parents stand in front of a “death panel” (She suggested this, apparently, on her Facebook page). Obama has since spoken to this, saying that the House bill (HR3200?) has a provision for senior citizens to be offered end of life counseling, but no one is obligated to accept it or create a living will or whatever. Certainly no one is obliged to choose when and/or how to die.
Palin has responded to Obama on Facebook. It is an eloquent, intelligent examination of the subtle ways that the House bill might compel senior citizens to accept the end of life counseling and write living wills. In short –
I don’t think Palin wrote it
and
I don’t think half of her followers will read it (perhaps will be able to read it).
But I think it should still be responded to. And the response is, she has a point, albeit a limited one. If a senior citizen does go into a nursing home, and their new doctor (because the old doctor may transfer care to the nursing home) meets them for the first time and in the course of a first examination the doctor initiates a conversation about living wills and whether the senior citizen wants extraordinary life saving measures, the senior citizen may think that is simply a normal thing this nursing home does. And since the House bill cuts reimbursement to hospitals, doctors and nursing homes for other things to save money, the doctor would have reason to have this consultation (which Medicare will pay for).
Now, I don’t have a living will, I am not a senior citizen, and if I am injured and go on a machine, I am fine with being kept alive until a cure/treatment is found, or my brain can be transfered into a gleeming killer robot. I gather, though, that at least some, maybe many senior citizens don’t like the idea of being kept alive on a machine if they have some kind of crippling brain injury or incident. At the same time, they may not know what their options are or how to enforce their desires. So a consultation like the kind in the bill is actually not a bad idea for many people. The rest have the option of being offended and ordering the doctor out of the room (or whatever).
Palin also spends a few sentences bashing Ezekiel Emanuel, brother to Rahm and advisor to the President on healthcare. See, Ezekiel is an academic interested in health care ethics. So he has written about health care rationing, probably a good idea because it is something we may have to face. And Palin takes his comments out of context and claims the President wants to provide healthcare only to … well, who knows. Apparently not to her Downs syndrome baby or her parents.
Thursday, August 13, 2009
Who's on the red side for 2012?
Our country is still tied up in knots politically, much as it seemed to be in 2000. Back then, we elected a Democrat but the Republican snuck in. Nine months later, we were glad to have a tough hand on the wheel. Gradually it dawned on us that in fact the hand on the wheel might have been tough, but was none too bright.
But we have gotten used to having Republican Presidents. In the last 28 or 29 years, we have had Republicans in the White House for twenty of them. The Congress has passed back and forth, probably more Democratic than not. But all those years of Reagan and Bushes have pulled the Country to the right. The last eight years and really the last year or so have suddenly turned people off to conservative ideas. Tax cuts still seem nice (those who are working would like one now), but not a panacea. What’s interesting is that so many people have not swung back to the liberal fold. Obama has had to make hard sells on some issues so far. He met resistance from conservatives on the stimulus, and now on health care he is meeting resistance from self defined independents. The thing is polls show a majority of Americans want health care reform. But conservatives have succeeded in reframing what’s been proposed as death panels, Medicare reduced to nothing and the government giving everyone an ID card and getting access to our bank accounts. People are so worried they are starting to carry guns to town hall meetings. Just imagine if the next George Sodini or Richard Poplawski shows up armed at a town hall.
I have been surprised that Obama, while he has described what he wants in legislation, has largely outsourced the detail work to Congress. At first I thought he might be doing that because he might have formed a belief while a Senator that Bush had ignored the Congress. But now I am of the opinion that he has given the ball to Congress to avoid having to acknowledge the race card. That is, if Obama is even more out front on legislation such as health care reform, and it runs into tremendous public opposition, eventually someone, somewhere, will decide the opposition is because Obama’s black. I think Obama wants to avoid that situation at all costs.
But I started this post looking at Republicans and I want to return to that. They seem so adrift right now. Among the politicians there seems to be no rising star. So many have fallen to scandal (Sanford and Vitter(?) recently) and the rest disappoint (McConnell, Boehner, Steele and Jindal). Among the pundits, the intellectual conservatives (Brooks, Will, Frum, Noonen?) are largely being eclipsed by the blowhards (O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Orly Taitz?). Salon online mentioned that Pennsylvania’s favorite son, Rick Santorum, is in Iowa testing the waters. Salon then raised the possibility of the Obama White House’s dream ticket: Santorum/Palin or Palin/Santorum. I mean, Gingrich is still out there somewhere, but I can see where a hard core of fanatical followers would just love to see Palin and Santorum run.
And so would David Axelrod. And Jon Stewart, and Steven Colbert. The debates … would be classic.
But we have gotten used to having Republican Presidents. In the last 28 or 29 years, we have had Republicans in the White House for twenty of them. The Congress has passed back and forth, probably more Democratic than not. But all those years of Reagan and Bushes have pulled the Country to the right. The last eight years and really the last year or so have suddenly turned people off to conservative ideas. Tax cuts still seem nice (those who are working would like one now), but not a panacea. What’s interesting is that so many people have not swung back to the liberal fold. Obama has had to make hard sells on some issues so far. He met resistance from conservatives on the stimulus, and now on health care he is meeting resistance from self defined independents. The thing is polls show a majority of Americans want health care reform. But conservatives have succeeded in reframing what’s been proposed as death panels, Medicare reduced to nothing and the government giving everyone an ID card and getting access to our bank accounts. People are so worried they are starting to carry guns to town hall meetings. Just imagine if the next George Sodini or Richard Poplawski shows up armed at a town hall.
I have been surprised that Obama, while he has described what he wants in legislation, has largely outsourced the detail work to Congress. At first I thought he might be doing that because he might have formed a belief while a Senator that Bush had ignored the Congress. But now I am of the opinion that he has given the ball to Congress to avoid having to acknowledge the race card. That is, if Obama is even more out front on legislation such as health care reform, and it runs into tremendous public opposition, eventually someone, somewhere, will decide the opposition is because Obama’s black. I think Obama wants to avoid that situation at all costs.
But I started this post looking at Republicans and I want to return to that. They seem so adrift right now. Among the politicians there seems to be no rising star. So many have fallen to scandal (Sanford and Vitter(?) recently) and the rest disappoint (McConnell, Boehner, Steele and Jindal). Among the pundits, the intellectual conservatives (Brooks, Will, Frum, Noonen?) are largely being eclipsed by the blowhards (O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Malkin, Orly Taitz?). Salon online mentioned that Pennsylvania’s favorite son, Rick Santorum, is in Iowa testing the waters. Salon then raised the possibility of the Obama White House’s dream ticket: Santorum/Palin or Palin/Santorum. I mean, Gingrich is still out there somewhere, but I can see where a hard core of fanatical followers would just love to see Palin and Santorum run.
And so would David Axelrod. And Jon Stewart, and Steven Colbert. The debates … would be classic.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Two health care presentations ...
Barack Obama tried to take his case on health care/insurance reform to the American public today in a town hall style New Hampshire. Frankly now that everyone is talking about how the angry public at these town hall meetings might be Republican agitators instead of people with a genuine concern, I think some of the steam might already have been let out of the opposition to health care/insurance reform. Obama’s town hall was apparently pretty civil inside, although protestors on both sides yelled at each other outside.
Arlen Specter also had a town hall meeting in Harrisburg this morning, with a somewhat different feel. When he took questions, he got down and stood a couple of feet away from the questioners. Sure enough, they screamed at him (so much so that security moved in, and Specter had to wave them away). Say what you want about Arlen, he has some toughness left in him; he didn’t flinch as questioner after questioner yelled at him up close and personal. Apparently after maybe thirty minutes people stopped yelling, but I guess passions still ran high.
Does anyone really think that we should leave health care alone? The costs have been going up for as long as I can remember. Not that a solution will be easy. I mean, we can certainly look at what hospitals with low rates of infection and medical mistakes do, and try to copy them. We can do things like reduce legal awards for malpractice, but doctors who make two mistakes (that rise to the level of malpractice) need to be moved into other non-patient care areas of medicine. No more cover ups by medical societies. Getting patient records on to computers would also help in improving care, and possibly avoiding costly mistakes.
But past that, as long as insurance companies are the primary delivery system for health care payment and reimbursement, the system will have perverse incentives and continue to be a case of market failure.
Yet the Republicans, paid heavily by health industry lobbyists, are trying to block any meaningful reform. And people are buying the propaganda. Just ask, which Republicans are getting rid of their government health care in favor of a private plan?
Arlen Specter also had a town hall meeting in Harrisburg this morning, with a somewhat different feel. When he took questions, he got down and stood a couple of feet away from the questioners. Sure enough, they screamed at him (so much so that security moved in, and Specter had to wave them away). Say what you want about Arlen, he has some toughness left in him; he didn’t flinch as questioner after questioner yelled at him up close and personal. Apparently after maybe thirty minutes people stopped yelling, but I guess passions still ran high.
Does anyone really think that we should leave health care alone? The costs have been going up for as long as I can remember. Not that a solution will be easy. I mean, we can certainly look at what hospitals with low rates of infection and medical mistakes do, and try to copy them. We can do things like reduce legal awards for malpractice, but doctors who make two mistakes (that rise to the level of malpractice) need to be moved into other non-patient care areas of medicine. No more cover ups by medical societies. Getting patient records on to computers would also help in improving care, and possibly avoiding costly mistakes.
But past that, as long as insurance companies are the primary delivery system for health care payment and reimbursement, the system will have perverse incentives and continue to be a case of market failure.
Yet the Republicans, paid heavily by health industry lobbyists, are trying to block any meaningful reform. And people are buying the propaganda. Just ask, which Republicans are getting rid of their government health care in favor of a private plan?
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Arrr, Matey ...
I wonder if Jack Kelly actually has feathers and a beak, because he is parroting the Republican line on healthcare reform (or at least trying to), no matter how self contradictory it is.
I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on Kelly’s column. He wants the status quo and he wants to make changes to make us more responsible. In other words, he doesn’t know what he wants. Republicans like John McCain say we should end the payroll tax deductions on health insurance, Kelly wants to transfer the tax deduction to individuals. Kelly thinks we will become more responsible about our own health insurance and treatment if we have to pay for annual yearly checkups, because we will know that will save us money in the long run. Which contains a nugget of wisdom, except that a lot of people will skip annual checkups if they have to pay for them. Meanwhile, if we disconnect health insurance from employers, then the benefit of having a whole group to cover and spread costs around will be lost for insurance companies, and they will raise rates prohibitively. Thanks Jack.
This is without detailing how Jack tells us that new healthcare machinery and drugs are naturally more expensive. It sounds for all the world like Jack wants to ration healthcare (except perhaps for himself).
I am not going to spend a whole lot of time on Kelly’s column. He wants the status quo and he wants to make changes to make us more responsible. In other words, he doesn’t know what he wants. Republicans like John McCain say we should end the payroll tax deductions on health insurance, Kelly wants to transfer the tax deduction to individuals. Kelly thinks we will become more responsible about our own health insurance and treatment if we have to pay for annual yearly checkups, because we will know that will save us money in the long run. Which contains a nugget of wisdom, except that a lot of people will skip annual checkups if they have to pay for them. Meanwhile, if we disconnect health insurance from employers, then the benefit of having a whole group to cover and spread costs around will be lost for insurance companies, and they will raise rates prohibitively. Thanks Jack.
This is without detailing how Jack tells us that new healthcare machinery and drugs are naturally more expensive. It sounds for all the world like Jack wants to ration healthcare (except perhaps for himself).
Saturday, August 08, 2009
That was the week that was ...
Extra points if you recognize the post’s title reference.
Quite a lot happened this week, nationally and not counting the Bridgeville shootings. The Kenyan birth certificate of Barack Obama surfaced at the beginning of the week, by week’s end a judge has tossed it out as evidence in Alan Keyes' lawsuit claiming Obama is foreign born, due apparently to lawyer Orly Tait’s ham handedness in submitting it into evidence (the kind of thing I sort of thought would be the case). Too bad, if it had stayed in evidence someone might have done an official investigation into it, and it would have been officially dismissed as a fraud.
The unemployment rate came down, just like it had been noted in the last couple of weeks that the GNP had dropped much less that the previous quarter. The thing is, those numbers could be revised back up or down or whatever, so we might just as well not count chickens yet. But they are somewhat encouraging.
Cash for clunkers is going great guns, and should have a reasonable effect on our consumption of gas, and the amount of pollution we generate. Of course, so too would everyone driving at 55 on the highway.
I tried to suggest. on other people's blogs, that assault rifles and high capacity magazine pistols should be banned. Yes, we could do more in mental health, try to reduce the stigma, etc. I personally would be comfortable with mental health getting more attention. But, I think for other people it really would seem like a police state if you had to see a shrink every six months to make sure the “state” did not consider you a public hazard. I suggested that the founding fathers would be horrified at the killing power of modern guns (which I still believe) and I was told by others what the founding fathers thought. I realized that I may not know exactly what the founding fathers might think about modern issues, but they are dead and never lived in an era like today. I mean, they were smart guys and all, but they lived in an era when the number of people you could shoot depended on how many guns you and your friends could carry. Because it would take 30 seconds or so to reload one bullet into a gun. I frankly am getting less concerned about what the founding fathers thought and more interested in what is likely to work now. I know, heresy in the eyes of the religion of conservatism. And while I accept that everyone being armed might have a deterrent effect, it still might not stop people in the heat of some passionate argument from pulling out a gun and trying to shoot each other. And there would be a lot more of them with guns. Plus there is no guarantee that average Joe or Josepine is not more likely to shoot me or some other innocent bystander than a bad guy. Meanwhile, if no one has a gun, it certainly would reduce the number of people you can shoot (or who can shoot you).
I apparently don’t understand logic.
Quite a lot happened this week, nationally and not counting the Bridgeville shootings. The Kenyan birth certificate of Barack Obama surfaced at the beginning of the week, by week’s end a judge has tossed it out as evidence in Alan Keyes' lawsuit claiming Obama is foreign born, due apparently to lawyer Orly Tait’s ham handedness in submitting it into evidence (the kind of thing I sort of thought would be the case). Too bad, if it had stayed in evidence someone might have done an official investigation into it, and it would have been officially dismissed as a fraud.
The unemployment rate came down, just like it had been noted in the last couple of weeks that the GNP had dropped much less that the previous quarter. The thing is, those numbers could be revised back up or down or whatever, so we might just as well not count chickens yet. But they are somewhat encouraging.
Cash for clunkers is going great guns, and should have a reasonable effect on our consumption of gas, and the amount of pollution we generate. Of course, so too would everyone driving at 55 on the highway.
I tried to suggest. on other people's blogs, that assault rifles and high capacity magazine pistols should be banned. Yes, we could do more in mental health, try to reduce the stigma, etc. I personally would be comfortable with mental health getting more attention. But, I think for other people it really would seem like a police state if you had to see a shrink every six months to make sure the “state” did not consider you a public hazard. I suggested that the founding fathers would be horrified at the killing power of modern guns (which I still believe) and I was told by others what the founding fathers thought. I realized that I may not know exactly what the founding fathers might think about modern issues, but they are dead and never lived in an era like today. I mean, they were smart guys and all, but they lived in an era when the number of people you could shoot depended on how many guns you and your friends could carry. Because it would take 30 seconds or so to reload one bullet into a gun. I frankly am getting less concerned about what the founding fathers thought and more interested in what is likely to work now. I know, heresy in the eyes of the religion of conservatism. And while I accept that everyone being armed might have a deterrent effect, it still might not stop people in the heat of some passionate argument from pulling out a gun and trying to shoot each other. And there would be a lot more of them with guns. Plus there is no guarantee that average Joe or Josepine is not more likely to shoot me or some other innocent bystander than a bad guy. Meanwhile, if no one has a gun, it certainly would reduce the number of people you can shoot (or who can shoot you).
I apparently don’t understand logic.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Smart cash for clunkers
Setting aside Sodini and Obama’s COLB for a while ….
All the talk about the Cash for Clunkers program has reminded me of what was I guess an announcement of mathematical common sense a year or two ago. It was pointed out by someone (I canna remember who) that replacing vehicles at the low end of the mileage scale with even mildly better vehicles was more beneficial than taking good cars and replacing them with the best. Of course, it would be ideal to replace the worst with the best, but we should take what we can realistically expect.
It all comes down to a 100 mile trip. Take Fred, the suburbanite. He bought a pick up truck a few years ago (the commercials won him over) and it gets 10 miles per gallon (MPG). That 100 mile trip takes 10 gallons of gas in Fred’s pickup. If Fred trades in his truck for a mid sized SUV (remember, commercials) that gets 20 mpg, suddenly the trip only takes five gallons of gas. Five gallons saved, for Fred and the rest of us.
Now take Nick, the city dweller. Nick has a Honda Accord, which he bought because all his friends had them. It gets 25 mpg (not great, but good, 4 gallons of gas on the 100 mile trip. Now Nick wants the Toyota Prius, a 50 mpg car (because all his friends are buying them). Now the trip will only take two gallons, very impressive.
But the Sierra Club should give it’s environmentalist of the year award to Fred, because going from bad to merely mediocre does more for all. So too the Cash for Clunkers may not put that many Prius’ on the road, but the overall savings in gas will do us all good. The Ford Focus is the top seller in the program, which is great. The Focus is a fine and capable car that gets good mileage. I got 35 mpg in one on a trip I took, beating the EPA estimates with cautious driving.
This link is where I got the figures for the above hypothetical, and it has some other good links too (http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2008/08/06/myth-doubling-your-mileage-will-cut-your-driving-costs-in-half-or-news-from-geek-dad/)
All the talk about the Cash for Clunkers program has reminded me of what was I guess an announcement of mathematical common sense a year or two ago. It was pointed out by someone (I canna remember who) that replacing vehicles at the low end of the mileage scale with even mildly better vehicles was more beneficial than taking good cars and replacing them with the best. Of course, it would be ideal to replace the worst with the best, but we should take what we can realistically expect.
It all comes down to a 100 mile trip. Take Fred, the suburbanite. He bought a pick up truck a few years ago (the commercials won him over) and it gets 10 miles per gallon (MPG). That 100 mile trip takes 10 gallons of gas in Fred’s pickup. If Fred trades in his truck for a mid sized SUV (remember, commercials) that gets 20 mpg, suddenly the trip only takes five gallons of gas. Five gallons saved, for Fred and the rest of us.
Now take Nick, the city dweller. Nick has a Honda Accord, which he bought because all his friends had them. It gets 25 mpg (not great, but good, 4 gallons of gas on the 100 mile trip. Now Nick wants the Toyota Prius, a 50 mpg car (because all his friends are buying them). Now the trip will only take two gallons, very impressive.
But the Sierra Club should give it’s environmentalist of the year award to Fred, because going from bad to merely mediocre does more for all. So too the Cash for Clunkers may not put that many Prius’ on the road, but the overall savings in gas will do us all good. The Ford Focus is the top seller in the program, which is great. The Focus is a fine and capable car that gets good mileage. I got 35 mpg in one on a trip I took, beating the EPA estimates with cautious driving.
This link is where I got the figures for the above hypothetical, and it has some other good links too (http://blog.sciencegeekgirl.com/2008/08/06/myth-doubling-your-mileage-will-cut-your-driving-costs-in-half-or-news-from-geek-dad/)
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Things this week...
I have been thinking about this shooting Tuesday night. After reading this guy Sodini’s web page I have some sort of sympathy/empathy for the guy. Except.
I had a period a fair number of years ago where I was living in a small studio, I had a low paying job and no girlfriend. I was not especially friends with co-workers, although I was friendly, and I belonged to a running group. But it seemed like an isolated time for me.
Never the less, I did not make a plan to shoot people, I did not write on paper that I knew I was crazy, etc etc. If you think that something you are planning is something that other people would consider wrong, that is the point where you are obliged to seek mental health assistance. And that is the point where my sympathy stops, that this guy Sodini knew something was wrong with himself and did not do anything about it.
Back on the birthers, Salon has a handy guide for refuting birther arguments that seems fairly complete. I am still hoping for more evidence against the Kenyan birth certificate, just because I want a stake through the heart of the thing, not a hundred pin pricks. For example, this Kenyan BC references a specific page in a book where the birth was supposed to be recorded. If this book can be located and no such birth be recorded on that specific page, or better yet, if it turns out this book never existed, that will satisfy me. Then Orly Taitz can reveal the source of the Kenyan BC, and anyway she will be entirely discredited.
Meanwhile, I also wonder about Obama’s original birth certificate (and I think Salon is unconvincing on that part too). Not that I doubt it exists, or that I think Hawaii should have released it or anything. But it is part of the distraction. Maybe Obama should have a collection of conservative commentators like David Brooks, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly be shown the thing in exchange for writing honestly about what they see. That would be giving legitimacy to the birther movement, but it is already legitimate in the minds of many idiots around the country, and maybe revealing the birth certificate to several conservative journalists would knock down the percentage of people who don’t believe Obama was born here by a few points. And we could get down to calling (if you will forgive the expression) a spade a spade and say the remaining birther’s are simply racist.
I had a period a fair number of years ago where I was living in a small studio, I had a low paying job and no girlfriend. I was not especially friends with co-workers, although I was friendly, and I belonged to a running group. But it seemed like an isolated time for me.
Never the less, I did not make a plan to shoot people, I did not write on paper that I knew I was crazy, etc etc. If you think that something you are planning is something that other people would consider wrong, that is the point where you are obliged to seek mental health assistance. And that is the point where my sympathy stops, that this guy Sodini knew something was wrong with himself and did not do anything about it.
Back on the birthers, Salon has a handy guide for refuting birther arguments that seems fairly complete. I am still hoping for more evidence against the Kenyan birth certificate, just because I want a stake through the heart of the thing, not a hundred pin pricks. For example, this Kenyan BC references a specific page in a book where the birth was supposed to be recorded. If this book can be located and no such birth be recorded on that specific page, or better yet, if it turns out this book never existed, that will satisfy me. Then Orly Taitz can reveal the source of the Kenyan BC, and anyway she will be entirely discredited.
Meanwhile, I also wonder about Obama’s original birth certificate (and I think Salon is unconvincing on that part too). Not that I doubt it exists, or that I think Hawaii should have released it or anything. But it is part of the distraction. Maybe Obama should have a collection of conservative commentators like David Brooks, Rush Limbaugh, Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly be shown the thing in exchange for writing honestly about what they see. That would be giving legitimacy to the birther movement, but it is already legitimate in the minds of many idiots around the country, and maybe revealing the birth certificate to several conservative journalists would knock down the percentage of people who don’t believe Obama was born here by a few points. And we could get down to calling (if you will forgive the expression) a spade a spade and say the remaining birther’s are simply racist.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Guns and the people they kill ...
The unfortunate incident at the LA Fitness center in Bridgeville has knocked the birther issue and even Bill Clinton’s visit to North Korea off the radar, at least for Pittsburgh. As Obama unfortunately said, we don’t have all the facts yet, in fact, I think we may never know all the facts. But that won’t stop me from venturing an opinion.
In 1981, James Garner reprised his role of Maverick the gambler in a series titled “Bret Maverick” (quite enjoyable, by the way, available on Netflix). In the pilot episode, before a poker game the sheriff disarms Maverick by taking his “hog-leg”, the big Colt 45 revolver so familiar in cowboy movies. But then the sheriff takes the various mini guns and derringers Maverick has hidden about his person. This was actually fairly accurate for the old west. It was common for towns to ban carrying guns openly, so a huge industry sprung up of offering various very small guns to carry concealed. They would have only one bullet, maybe two, rarely more and if so, only very small bullets. Sometime the one or two bullet varieties had a relatively large size bullet, but all of them had an atrocious range, not much more than the length of a table. The point being, concealed weapons have been with us for almost as long as there have been guns. But only recently have they become dangerous to more than one or two people at a time.
Modern semi-automatic pistols can carry 12, 13 or even 15 bullets, of varying sizes of bullets (calibers). This originated with the military market, but has proven popular with the civilian market as well. If you carry spare magazines (the things that hold the bullets) in your off hand (the one not holding the pistol) and if you are somewhat practiced, you could fire perhaps 45 shots in under a minute. That is astounding for something you could carry well concealed under a jacket. And of course modern bullets are much more lethal than they used to be. A bullet proof vest can prevent a fatal shot to the chest, but there are all sorts of caveats and who wears a bullet proof vest in a gym anyway.
This incident will bring the second amendment types out of the woodwork. They will say no “assault weapon” (military style rifle) was involved so even by the greatly reduced standards of current gun control debate, the government can make no comment. They will say that the guy was a criminal (by definition) and a nut, and this was a failure of public health screening or whatever that the guy was not flagged and prevented from owning guns. The second amendment types might even advocate allowing people to keep guns close by as they work out, to shoot someone like this.
But to me the point is that in order to have the right to bear arms, we tolerate the deaths of untold numbers of innocents each year. Additionally, some neighborhoods not only see the deaths of innocents but wars between rival gangs using weapons unimaginable 200 years ago. And the police have to keep up, switching from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols holding fifteen bullets, changing the shotgun in their car for an assault weapon. The police now do not know what awaits them when they answer a call not only in Garfield but also in Stanton Heights. The police may start wearing helmets, body armor and carrying assault rifles as a matter of course. The second amendment types who saying being able to own a gun is the only way to avoid a police state may end up forcing one on the rest of us.
I mean, what conclusion should we draw?
There is that sort of irony that Europe has stronger gun control, and better health care if you are shot.
In 1981, James Garner reprised his role of Maverick the gambler in a series titled “Bret Maverick” (quite enjoyable, by the way, available on Netflix). In the pilot episode, before a poker game the sheriff disarms Maverick by taking his “hog-leg”, the big Colt 45 revolver so familiar in cowboy movies. But then the sheriff takes the various mini guns and derringers Maverick has hidden about his person. This was actually fairly accurate for the old west. It was common for towns to ban carrying guns openly, so a huge industry sprung up of offering various very small guns to carry concealed. They would have only one bullet, maybe two, rarely more and if so, only very small bullets. Sometime the one or two bullet varieties had a relatively large size bullet, but all of them had an atrocious range, not much more than the length of a table. The point being, concealed weapons have been with us for almost as long as there have been guns. But only recently have they become dangerous to more than one or two people at a time.
Modern semi-automatic pistols can carry 12, 13 or even 15 bullets, of varying sizes of bullets (calibers). This originated with the military market, but has proven popular with the civilian market as well. If you carry spare magazines (the things that hold the bullets) in your off hand (the one not holding the pistol) and if you are somewhat practiced, you could fire perhaps 45 shots in under a minute. That is astounding for something you could carry well concealed under a jacket. And of course modern bullets are much more lethal than they used to be. A bullet proof vest can prevent a fatal shot to the chest, but there are all sorts of caveats and who wears a bullet proof vest in a gym anyway.
This incident will bring the second amendment types out of the woodwork. They will say no “assault weapon” (military style rifle) was involved so even by the greatly reduced standards of current gun control debate, the government can make no comment. They will say that the guy was a criminal (by definition) and a nut, and this was a failure of public health screening or whatever that the guy was not flagged and prevented from owning guns. The second amendment types might even advocate allowing people to keep guns close by as they work out, to shoot someone like this.
But to me the point is that in order to have the right to bear arms, we tolerate the deaths of untold numbers of innocents each year. Additionally, some neighborhoods not only see the deaths of innocents but wars between rival gangs using weapons unimaginable 200 years ago. And the police have to keep up, switching from revolvers to semi-automatic pistols holding fifteen bullets, changing the shotgun in their car for an assault weapon. The police now do not know what awaits them when they answer a call not only in Garfield but also in Stanton Heights. The police may start wearing helmets, body armor and carrying assault rifles as a matter of course. The second amendment types who saying being able to own a gun is the only way to avoid a police state may end up forcing one on the rest of us.
I mean, what conclusion should we draw?
There is that sort of irony that Europe has stronger gun control, and better health care if you are shot.
Monday, August 03, 2009
Certification of Live Birth - COLB-EZ, COLB and COLB-A
SO I have been following and increasingly posting/commenting on this whole “birther” thing (I tend to comment at 2PJ’s). I mean, Obama has gotten a copy of what the State of Hawaii issues, something good enough for passports, and still the “birther’s” find reasons to doubt him (it’s a forgery, he has dual citizenship, his grandmother in Kenya saw him born there, his Indonesian step father adopted him and Lord knows what all else).
As I posted earlier today, this Orly Taitz (lawyer/dentist extraordinaire!) has produced an image and perhaps a real paper copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barrack Obama. The source, according to her, must remain anonymous because if Obama knows his/her identity, Obama will have the source killed. It’s disappointing to think that no judge will ever let this Kenyan Birth Certificate into evidence in any trial. It would be fun to find out if the book record of Obama’s birth that it references even exists, and if it does, what it says on the page referenced by the birth certificate.
Meanwhile, I have been fascinated by this whole conflict over the long form versus short form certification of live birth in Hawaii. I finally took it upon myself to educate myself about these forms. Here’s what I found out.
First of all, World Net Daily, a fairly conservative and clearly pro birther website, made a big deal about the existence of some Hawaiian homeland state agency, which provides benefits for people of native Hawaiian descent. The thing is, to prove your ancestry you need that long form COLB, which details some of your heritage. And I looked at this Homeland website and indeed it mentions the need for the long form COLB, even though the Hawaiian Department of Health says they do not give out the long form COLB, at least not without very good reason. How can this be, how can this be reconciled?
Well, the Homeland website references the long form, and says you should contact the Department of Health, but it doesn’t say you will receive the long form COLB. Instead in implies that someone from the DOH will look at your COLB, and either talk directly to the Homeland people or else give you some kind of certification that you are a native Hawaiian.
Which is interesting, because that is essentially what the Hawaiian Secretary of Health did for Barrack Obama. The Secretary went and looked at Obama’s long form COLB in their records, and then came out and said that Obama’s long form COLB is on file, and that he could confirm Obama is a US citizen.
Certainly the Hawaiians used to make the long form COLB available, in fact it was likely the only type of birth certificate back 48 years ago. But starting about thirty years ago Hawaii started computerizing (you remember Hawaii 5-0 and their computer), and now when you ask for a birth certificate they literally print one up, based on the data that was entered in over the last thirty year. So that COLB that Obama posted on the web is not authentic in the sense that if Obama requested it on May 7th of last year, it was probably printed on May 14th. That’s how they do things now in Hawaii. Their Department of Health website has no mechanism for requesting the long form, only a COLB of their choosing.
Of course, the Hawaiians could release Obama’s long form COLB to the media or whomever. But I don’t think they are going to do that, at least not until either the President asks them to or a judge orders them too. After all, if Hawaii released the long form, it would piss off the President because Hawaii had caved to the nutjobs, and it would piss off the “birthers” because it would not prove their arguments.
Obama could talk to the Hawaiians, have them xerox the long form COLB or take a picture of it, or even put it on display in a museum. But Obama is not going to do that. If he caves to the “birthers”, who knows what nutjob group is next. Obama has apparently drawn the line at a document good enough for a passport.
As I say, I find this whole thing fascinating. To deny obvious facts like that has painful implications for our nation’s future. Congress might pass a law about driving big cars or about carpooling to work, And there’s always a group like the “birthers”, who might well say that the effectiveness of conservation is a myth. That’s why it is probably a bad idea for Obama to ask Hawaii to release the long form COLB. To prevent birthers and others from thinking Obama has to give them everything they think they want, especially since they don’t/won’t have a good reason for asking for it.
As I posted earlier today, this Orly Taitz (lawyer/dentist extraordinaire!) has produced an image and perhaps a real paper copy of a Kenyan birth certificate for Barrack Obama. The source, according to her, must remain anonymous because if Obama knows his/her identity, Obama will have the source killed. It’s disappointing to think that no judge will ever let this Kenyan Birth Certificate into evidence in any trial. It would be fun to find out if the book record of Obama’s birth that it references even exists, and if it does, what it says on the page referenced by the birth certificate.
Meanwhile, I have been fascinated by this whole conflict over the long form versus short form certification of live birth in Hawaii. I finally took it upon myself to educate myself about these forms. Here’s what I found out.
First of all, World Net Daily, a fairly conservative and clearly pro birther website, made a big deal about the existence of some Hawaiian homeland state agency, which provides benefits for people of native Hawaiian descent. The thing is, to prove your ancestry you need that long form COLB, which details some of your heritage. And I looked at this Homeland website and indeed it mentions the need for the long form COLB, even though the Hawaiian Department of Health says they do not give out the long form COLB, at least not without very good reason. How can this be, how can this be reconciled?
Well, the Homeland website references the long form, and says you should contact the Department of Health, but it doesn’t say you will receive the long form COLB. Instead in implies that someone from the DOH will look at your COLB, and either talk directly to the Homeland people or else give you some kind of certification that you are a native Hawaiian.
Which is interesting, because that is essentially what the Hawaiian Secretary of Health did for Barrack Obama. The Secretary went and looked at Obama’s long form COLB in their records, and then came out and said that Obama’s long form COLB is on file, and that he could confirm Obama is a US citizen.
Certainly the Hawaiians used to make the long form COLB available, in fact it was likely the only type of birth certificate back 48 years ago. But starting about thirty years ago Hawaii started computerizing (you remember Hawaii 5-0 and their computer), and now when you ask for a birth certificate they literally print one up, based on the data that was entered in over the last thirty year. So that COLB that Obama posted on the web is not authentic in the sense that if Obama requested it on May 7th of last year, it was probably printed on May 14th. That’s how they do things now in Hawaii. Their Department of Health website has no mechanism for requesting the long form, only a COLB of their choosing.
Of course, the Hawaiians could release Obama’s long form COLB to the media or whomever. But I don’t think they are going to do that, at least not until either the President asks them to or a judge orders them too. After all, if Hawaii released the long form, it would piss off the President because Hawaii had caved to the nutjobs, and it would piss off the “birthers” because it would not prove their arguments.
Obama could talk to the Hawaiians, have them xerox the long form COLB or take a picture of it, or even put it on display in a museum. But Obama is not going to do that. If he caves to the “birthers”, who knows what nutjob group is next. Obama has apparently drawn the line at a document good enough for a passport.
As I say, I find this whole thing fascinating. To deny obvious facts like that has painful implications for our nation’s future. Congress might pass a law about driving big cars or about carpooling to work, And there’s always a group like the “birthers”, who might well say that the effectiveness of conservation is a myth. That’s why it is probably a bad idea for Obama to ask Hawaii to release the long form COLB. To prevent birthers and others from thinking Obama has to give them everything they think they want, especially since they don’t/won’t have a good reason for asking for it.
Where's the long form?
Can we look at the "Birth Register of this Province", Book 44B, Page 5733? Has anyone verified the existence of and positions of E.F. Lavender, M.H. Miller or Joshua Simon Oduya? Does the Kenyan minister of health (or whomever is responsbile for such records) verify the existence of the birth certificate and/or a birth record?
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Jack's latest.
Jack Kelly's column today is surprisingly mild in it's indictment of Obama. Of course, it starts by comparing apples and oranges, but what else is new?
"Here's a data point that should give liberals pause: There is no statistically significant difference between the proportion of Americans who think ill of Sarah Palin and the proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.”
(Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09214/987773-373.stm#ixzz0N3R2c2Uq)
Two PJ's ends some time on how Kelly's gets the numbers wrong (by making a comparison across two polls reaching different people, for example), but there's something more, I think. Is it the same think to "think ill of" versus disapproving of current job performance? I think that disliking a person is pretty unambiguous, but disapproving of job performance? That can include the people who think Obama is a socialist (likely Palin voters) versus people who think Obama is asking the Republicans to participate too much (not likely Palin voters). It could include groups that think healthcare/insurance does not need to be reformed and people who would like to see much more reform than Obama is asking for(perhaps including that Palin constituency, the rural poor, who tend not to have healthinsurance).
But Kelly really wants to set up an equivalency between Palin and Obama. Why? Because Kelly wants Palin to be the Republican candidate in 2012. Oddly, we can guess that Obama and his campaign would likely prefer to run against Sarah Palin as well.
I think wanting Palin to run in 2012 is why Kelly says that the now lost healthcare battle (and Kelly considers healthcare lost because it’s August and there’s no healthcare bill out of Congress) is not the end of Obama’s Presidency. I suspect that Kelly actually thinks it is a major blow to Obama, and the Republicans are going to make Obama their bitch, to order around as they please. In particular Kelly thinks that because he is at pains to tell us 66 new Congresspersons were elected in districts that voted for either George Bush or John McCain. Kelly figures those Congresspersons have already deserted Obama.
But as Kelly himself pointed out, Clinton survived a perhaps worse health care debacle. And because of Republican over-reach” (Kelly’s phrase) , Clinton was able to have a pretty good Presidency.
I think Kelly thinks Obama is going to be a one term President and soon we will have President Palin. I think that’s really unlikely, at least the President Palin part. But Jack is entitled to his fantasies, and apparently thinks we as well (entitled to his fan.. ta …sies).
"Here's a data point that should give liberals pause: There is no statistically significant difference between the proportion of Americans who think ill of Sarah Palin and the proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president.”
(Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09214/987773-373.stm#ixzz0N3R2c2Uq)
Two PJ's ends some time on how Kelly's gets the numbers wrong (by making a comparison across two polls reaching different people, for example), but there's something more, I think. Is it the same think to "think ill of" versus disapproving of current job performance? I think that disliking a person is pretty unambiguous, but disapproving of job performance? That can include the people who think Obama is a socialist (likely Palin voters) versus people who think Obama is asking the Republicans to participate too much (not likely Palin voters). It could include groups that think healthcare/insurance does not need to be reformed and people who would like to see much more reform than Obama is asking for(perhaps including that Palin constituency, the rural poor, who tend not to have healthinsurance).
But Kelly really wants to set up an equivalency between Palin and Obama. Why? Because Kelly wants Palin to be the Republican candidate in 2012. Oddly, we can guess that Obama and his campaign would likely prefer to run against Sarah Palin as well.
I think wanting Palin to run in 2012 is why Kelly says that the now lost healthcare battle (and Kelly considers healthcare lost because it’s August and there’s no healthcare bill out of Congress) is not the end of Obama’s Presidency. I suspect that Kelly actually thinks it is a major blow to Obama, and the Republicans are going to make Obama their bitch, to order around as they please. In particular Kelly thinks that because he is at pains to tell us 66 new Congresspersons were elected in districts that voted for either George Bush or John McCain. Kelly figures those Congresspersons have already deserted Obama.
But as Kelly himself pointed out, Clinton survived a perhaps worse health care debacle. And because of Republican over-reach” (Kelly’s phrase) , Clinton was able to have a pretty good Presidency.
I think Kelly thinks Obama is going to be a one term President and soon we will have President Palin. I think that’s really unlikely, at least the President Palin part. But Jack is entitled to his fantasies, and apparently thinks we as well (entitled to his fan.. ta …sies).
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Waiting for an apology ...
No, in this post I am not talking about Gates or Crowley.
I remember, in even just the last couple of weeks, how conservatives and then (predictably) journalists starting to say that the stimulus has failed.
I mean, I remember further back several months ago, when the stimulus debate was going on, and how Democrats and the White House were saying a couple of different things. First it was important to get moving on it right away, first thing for the new administration, because families were suffering at that moment, and more would suffer shortly. At the same time, the stimulus was going to take two years to run through, and wouldn’t ramp up fully until near the end of 2009. That’s because it takes time for money to leave DC and get out to the states and be slotted properly into projects. Now, the registered voter in me was pissed that it was going to take such a long time to get the stimulus working, but the accountant type in me approved of actually having procedures to make sure that at least most of the money was spent on real things (looking at you, Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and your bundles of money).
Now, in economics there is the concept of expectations, the idea that if you own a sandwich shop, and you think a bunch of a guys are going to be hired next week to work on a bridge down the road, maybe you hire a waitress now. That concept has been battling with the idea that we might slip into the second great depression, and we only recently learned the outcome. This past week, maybe two weeks after we were told the stimulus has failed, we are being told the economy slowed its decline this past quarter, only dropping one percent instead of the five or six percent of the first quarter and the last quarter of last year.
Of course, at least one economist (and probably more) was saying the stimulus had nothing to do with this better number. But since we know most reporters and all Republicans know nothing about economics, I think it is reasonable to expect them to apologize and concede the President really is the One, the Messiah who will deliver us to a new economy, and a new post-racial America where we all love each (eww, gross) and no one will be hungry and it will be the end of history, …. again.
Wait, the Messiah is black?
I remember, in even just the last couple of weeks, how conservatives and then (predictably) journalists starting to say that the stimulus has failed.
I mean, I remember further back several months ago, when the stimulus debate was going on, and how Democrats and the White House were saying a couple of different things. First it was important to get moving on it right away, first thing for the new administration, because families were suffering at that moment, and more would suffer shortly. At the same time, the stimulus was going to take two years to run through, and wouldn’t ramp up fully until near the end of 2009. That’s because it takes time for money to leave DC and get out to the states and be slotted properly into projects. Now, the registered voter in me was pissed that it was going to take such a long time to get the stimulus working, but the accountant type in me approved of actually having procedures to make sure that at least most of the money was spent on real things (looking at you, Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, and your bundles of money).
Now, in economics there is the concept of expectations, the idea that if you own a sandwich shop, and you think a bunch of a guys are going to be hired next week to work on a bridge down the road, maybe you hire a waitress now. That concept has been battling with the idea that we might slip into the second great depression, and we only recently learned the outcome. This past week, maybe two weeks after we were told the stimulus has failed, we are being told the economy slowed its decline this past quarter, only dropping one percent instead of the five or six percent of the first quarter and the last quarter of last year.
Of course, at least one economist (and probably more) was saying the stimulus had nothing to do with this better number. But since we know most reporters and all Republicans know nothing about economics, I think it is reasonable to expect them to apologize and concede the President really is the One, the Messiah who will deliver us to a new economy, and a new post-racial America where we all love each (eww, gross) and no one will be hungry and it will be the end of history, …. again.
Wait, the Messiah is black?
Friday, July 31, 2009
Agreeing to disagree (or you'll get arrested)
I have been interested in the Gates arrest since the President mentioned it in that health care press conference. That’s sort of obvious, I’ve posted on it here and if you read 2PJ you’ll see I have commented there as well. I think my views about this affair have evolved, so to speak. But before looking at specifics, let’s review a bit.
When asked about the arrest, I remember full well the President said he didn’t know all the facts, but then he ventured an opinion, saying he thought the police acted stupidly. He could have stopped at saying that he didn’t know all the facts, and maybe he should have, but then look at the issue on its face. Gates is a short, slight, older African American who walks with a cane. Granted, he could take a swing with the cane, but I think that would be pretty well telegraphed, and otherwise absent any other weapon he represented no real threat to Sergeant Crowley. Gates was in his own home. Now I have said previously that as a matter of common sense you don’t yell at cops, and I stand by that, as a matter of common sense. But remember that it used to be common sense for some people to own slaves, even though this is America. You really should act contrite and restrained in front of cops, but that doesn’t mean that is how things should be.
Then there are the facts that have emerged this past week. Apparently on the 911 call, the witness did not say the possible home intruders were black. I believe she has said that when Sergeant Crowley arrived at the scene she again did not say the possible intruders were black. And we have also seen Crowley’s report. Normally I would tend to believe a police report prima facie, but in this case, a black professor, a small man, arrested on his own porch, I think there is reason to believe that Crowley invented parts of the story and got his fellow police officers to support him on at least parts of their report(s). So I believe Crowley’s report says the witness said two black men to him (making it his word against hers), and that Gates was using a less cultured form of black vernacular than I suspect is Gates’ normal speaking manner.
Obviously Obama weighing in on this was a gift to Crowley and the Republicans. Now the Cambridge police department can not investigate this and Crowley can not be disciplined. In fact, the nation as a whole can not have its "teachable moment". I mean, we know there is a hard core of racists in this country who simply hate Obama (“birthers”?). But there is also a fraction (possibly a sizable fraction) of white voters who were able to look beyond Obama’s race, or maybe to believe he was the one black man who understood everybody’s problems, and so could not only get the country out of Iraq and save the economy, but get us all to understand one another. I suspect for some whites that meant they expected blacks to apologize for not realizing that only a few whites are racist and that most of us have moved on. Sure, the racist whites (apparently mostly policemen) should apologize too, but mostly blacks have all the opportunity in the world, if they would just apply themselves in school, learn how to talk and dress “appropriately” and try to get along. And stay away from our daughters (except for maybe that nice Denzel Washington).
Now Obama has gone and let down those whites who supported him because he was going to fix the problems of race. Turns out Obama is one of those "uppity" blacks who think that his people aren't getting a fair shake in America.
Watching the ABC news program on Sunday morning, the "roundtable" part, they talked a bit about the Gates incident. Predictably the conservatives stated that we have talked race to death. Then someone said the statement, and conservatives and liberals (to my great shame) cooed in agreement. The statement: “Well, we have elected a black President”. As if all African Americans can say, lawsy lawsy, we have made it. One of our own is in the White House.
Remember in the campaign when there was talk African Americans wouldn’t support Obama because he wasn’t black enough? Look, I will agree racism is dead when Garfield is just as black as it is now, but it’s average per capita income matches the City’s average per capita income. Until then, we need to keep in mind the difference between anecdote and aggregate.
When asked about the arrest, I remember full well the President said he didn’t know all the facts, but then he ventured an opinion, saying he thought the police acted stupidly. He could have stopped at saying that he didn’t know all the facts, and maybe he should have, but then look at the issue on its face. Gates is a short, slight, older African American who walks with a cane. Granted, he could take a swing with the cane, but I think that would be pretty well telegraphed, and otherwise absent any other weapon he represented no real threat to Sergeant Crowley. Gates was in his own home. Now I have said previously that as a matter of common sense you don’t yell at cops, and I stand by that, as a matter of common sense. But remember that it used to be common sense for some people to own slaves, even though this is America. You really should act contrite and restrained in front of cops, but that doesn’t mean that is how things should be.
Then there are the facts that have emerged this past week. Apparently on the 911 call, the witness did not say the possible home intruders were black. I believe she has said that when Sergeant Crowley arrived at the scene she again did not say the possible intruders were black. And we have also seen Crowley’s report. Normally I would tend to believe a police report prima facie, but in this case, a black professor, a small man, arrested on his own porch, I think there is reason to believe that Crowley invented parts of the story and got his fellow police officers to support him on at least parts of their report(s). So I believe Crowley’s report says the witness said two black men to him (making it his word against hers), and that Gates was using a less cultured form of black vernacular than I suspect is Gates’ normal speaking manner.
Obviously Obama weighing in on this was a gift to Crowley and the Republicans. Now the Cambridge police department can not investigate this and Crowley can not be disciplined. In fact, the nation as a whole can not have its "teachable moment". I mean, we know there is a hard core of racists in this country who simply hate Obama (“birthers”?). But there is also a fraction (possibly a sizable fraction) of white voters who were able to look beyond Obama’s race, or maybe to believe he was the one black man who understood everybody’s problems, and so could not only get the country out of Iraq and save the economy, but get us all to understand one another. I suspect for some whites that meant they expected blacks to apologize for not realizing that only a few whites are racist and that most of us have moved on. Sure, the racist whites (apparently mostly policemen) should apologize too, but mostly blacks have all the opportunity in the world, if they would just apply themselves in school, learn how to talk and dress “appropriately” and try to get along. And stay away from our daughters (except for maybe that nice Denzel Washington).
Now Obama has gone and let down those whites who supported him because he was going to fix the problems of race. Turns out Obama is one of those "uppity" blacks who think that his people aren't getting a fair shake in America.
Watching the ABC news program on Sunday morning, the "roundtable" part, they talked a bit about the Gates incident. Predictably the conservatives stated that we have talked race to death. Then someone said the statement, and conservatives and liberals (to my great shame) cooed in agreement. The statement: “Well, we have elected a black President”. As if all African Americans can say, lawsy lawsy, we have made it. One of our own is in the White House.
Remember in the campaign when there was talk African Americans wouldn’t support Obama because he wasn’t black enough? Look, I will agree racism is dead when Garfield is just as black as it is now, but it’s average per capita income matches the City’s average per capita income. Until then, we need to keep in mind the difference between anecdote and aggregate.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Palin's experience?
One of the interesting things about last year’s campaign was the talk about experience, particularly between the Republican convention and the debates. We went back and forth about how experienced McCain is versus how smart we think Obama is. Then there was the nuttiness of Biden versus the seemingly greater nuttiness of Palin (plus her lack of foreign policy experience). But one theme that cropped up some which could not be denied was that of the four of them, only Palin had executive experience, as Governor of Alaska.
Then we had the debates and McCain turned into a guy who wandered the stage, looking (as someone put it) like a guy getting up to get a beer. And that’s probably what decided the election. But Palin remained a force in the background, partly because of her populist appeal and partly because her being a governor gave her that executive experience.
But now Palin has stepped down from her job. Apparently only she knows why she did that. There’s lots of possible reasons and conjecture, because of personal bills, a coming scandal, she doesn’t find the job fun anymore. But she isn’t saying, and her fairly incoherent speeches fail to really explain.
She is apparently going to write a book (which I have to admit I want to read to see who wins the editing battle, her or someone who, you know, speaks the English language). I heard, just once, that she might get a radio show. She certainly will descend from Alaska to give speeches around the country. She may be the go to girl for incoherent comments on events and policies. She will not fade from view, her supporters will likely get even more Palin.
But here’s the thing, the experience factor is gone. You may support her for her views, but now anytime someone says Palin has executive experience, the response will be, yeah but if elected would she serve all four years?
Then we had the debates and McCain turned into a guy who wandered the stage, looking (as someone put it) like a guy getting up to get a beer. And that’s probably what decided the election. But Palin remained a force in the background, partly because of her populist appeal and partly because her being a governor gave her that executive experience.
But now Palin has stepped down from her job. Apparently only she knows why she did that. There’s lots of possible reasons and conjecture, because of personal bills, a coming scandal, she doesn’t find the job fun anymore. But she isn’t saying, and her fairly incoherent speeches fail to really explain.
She is apparently going to write a book (which I have to admit I want to read to see who wins the editing battle, her or someone who, you know, speaks the English language). I heard, just once, that she might get a radio show. She certainly will descend from Alaska to give speeches around the country. She may be the go to girl for incoherent comments on events and policies. She will not fade from view, her supporters will likely get even more Palin.
But here’s the thing, the experience factor is gone. You may support her for her views, but now anytime someone says Palin has executive experience, the response will be, yeah but if elected would she serve all four years?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Jack Kelly today
Jack Kelly does his usual job of insulting his reader’s intelligence and maligning people he disagrees with today. Kelly starts with a brief discussion of Vanity Fair’s extensive article on Sarah Palin. Now, from my point of view I don’t really care about Sarah Palin. She is not involved in actual issues that I can see (if she is, she has managed to conceal it), so she is uninteresting to me. The only way I care is if she shows signs she might actually become President, which seems remote but not impossible. Never the less, Kelly first quotes from the article about how Alaskans think Palin is a textbook narcissist, then proceeds to suggest his suspicion the author (editor Todd Purdum of Vanity Fair) simply created the quotes from Alaskans. Kelly throws in a shot he quotes from Bill Clinton for good measure.
All of which is impressive; Kelly accusing the editor of a major magazine of creating sources because that editor reports negatively on Kelly’s favorite politician. But of course there is a whole column to come, one where Kelly then turns and accuses Obama of being the narcissist.
Now I will admit that Kelly does cover his ass in sense of declaring that “Virtually all politicians exhibit some narcissistic traits”, although Kelly doesn’t concede that maybe Purdum does have a point about Palin. And I actually agree that Obama writing a couple of autobiographies, one before he had done much of anything is pretty narcissistic, if not surprising for a politician.
But Kelly uses Sam Vaknin, PhD, who has written about Obama without having interviewed or personally studied him, as a source. Kelly says he quotes from a July article from the American Chronicle. Well, the web reveals a journal called the American Chronicle which this Sam Vaknin has written in weekly. Maybe there is a print edition for July in which he wrote about Obama the narcissist, but as far as I can see Vaknin last wrote about Obama in March. At the end of the article, Vaknin says he is not a mental health professional. So on both these scores Kelly appears to have gotten facts wrong. Shades of Purdum’s imaginary Alaskans.
Kelly selects some quotes from whatever he read from Vaknin:
• subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions;
• ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world;
• feels that he is above the law;
• craves to be the exclusive center of attention, and
• has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself.
I have to say it was not Obama I thought of when I read those quotes. “Feels he is above the law” – Bush’s theory of a unitary President? “Subtly misrepresents facts” – weapons of mass destruction? “Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself” - This is a quote from an April 2003 USA Today (maybe an April Fool’s joke): “Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.”
Again, no one should think that because our last President was bat shit that Obama should get a pass. the healthcare plan Obama is leaning towards will do little to reduce the cost of healthcare and in fact will cost a lot because it expands coverage to the uninsured. But Obama has calculated that Americans are not ready for single payer coverage and he is probably right. Still, Obama should be scrutinized and criticized when necessary.
But as Stanley Fish put it in the NYTimes on Friday, there are people out there who hate Obama, presumably because he is black. They want to find a reason, any reason, not simply to criticize but to remove him from office and perhaps punish the traitors who voted for him. Hence the birth certificate controversy and now Jack Kelly’s column on Obama’s sanity.
Can’t we see Obama’s dangerous?
All of which is impressive; Kelly accusing the editor of a major magazine of creating sources because that editor reports negatively on Kelly’s favorite politician. But of course there is a whole column to come, one where Kelly then turns and accuses Obama of being the narcissist.
Now I will admit that Kelly does cover his ass in sense of declaring that “Virtually all politicians exhibit some narcissistic traits”, although Kelly doesn’t concede that maybe Purdum does have a point about Palin. And I actually agree that Obama writing a couple of autobiographies, one before he had done much of anything is pretty narcissistic, if not surprising for a politician.
But Kelly uses Sam Vaknin, PhD, who has written about Obama without having interviewed or personally studied him, as a source. Kelly says he quotes from a July article from the American Chronicle. Well, the web reveals a journal called the American Chronicle which this Sam Vaknin has written in weekly. Maybe there is a print edition for July in which he wrote about Obama the narcissist, but as far as I can see Vaknin last wrote about Obama in March. At the end of the article, Vaknin says he is not a mental health professional. So on both these scores Kelly appears to have gotten facts wrong. Shades of Purdum’s imaginary Alaskans.
Kelly selects some quotes from whatever he read from Vaknin:
• subtly misrepresents facts and expediently and opportunistically shifts positions;
• ignores data that conflict with his fantasy world;
• feels that he is above the law;
• craves to be the exclusive center of attention, and
• has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself.
I have to say it was not Obama I thought of when I read those quotes. “Feels he is above the law” – Bush’s theory of a unitary President? “Subtly misrepresents facts” – weapons of mass destruction? “Has a messianic-cosmic vision of himself” - This is a quote from an April 2003 USA Today (maybe an April Fool’s joke): “Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day.”
Again, no one should think that because our last President was bat shit that Obama should get a pass. the healthcare plan Obama is leaning towards will do little to reduce the cost of healthcare and in fact will cost a lot because it expands coverage to the uninsured. But Obama has calculated that Americans are not ready for single payer coverage and he is probably right. Still, Obama should be scrutinized and criticized when necessary.
But as Stanley Fish put it in the NYTimes on Friday, there are people out there who hate Obama, presumably because he is black. They want to find a reason, any reason, not simply to criticize but to remove him from office and perhaps punish the traitors who voted for him. Hence the birth certificate controversy and now Jack Kelly’s column on Obama’s sanity.
Can’t we see Obama’s dangerous?
Friday, July 24, 2009
The Gates issue
I have been thinking about the Henry Louis Gates incident since I learned about it on Wednesday night, during Obama’s press conference. Now, we all know (or should know) that there is a problem with racism in this country. Stephen Colbert’s line that he doesn’t see color parodies this problem perfectly, in my opinion. Or to put it another way, I think that some African Americans have made progress (including, obviously, President Obama) but all experience racism and most are still stuck in poverty.
All that said, though, Obama should have identified what happened in this case immediately. The Jim Croce song said “you don’t tug on Superman’s cape”; it could have said you don’t yell at a cop. It’s true that a black man yelling at a cop even in Pittsburgh or in one of our suburbs like Brentwood might get a beating and a trumped up charge to cover the beating. In Cambridge, Massachusetts it gets you arrested on disorderly conduct (and you consider should yourself lucky). And it doesn’t really matter what color you are in the sense that if you yell at a cop something bad will happen to you. If you are black it will probably be worse than if you are white, but it will happen. So to some extent this was the usual story of a person getting frustrated with a policeman and making the mistake of thinking he can express his frustration.
So fine, let’s use the incident to remind us that African Americans still experience racism, but let’s not hold it up as an example. Unfortunately, for better or worse the stupid person in that particular was professor Gates.
All that said, though, Obama should have identified what happened in this case immediately. The Jim Croce song said “you don’t tug on Superman’s cape”; it could have said you don’t yell at a cop. It’s true that a black man yelling at a cop even in Pittsburgh or in one of our suburbs like Brentwood might get a beating and a trumped up charge to cover the beating. In Cambridge, Massachusetts it gets you arrested on disorderly conduct (and you consider should yourself lucky). And it doesn’t really matter what color you are in the sense that if you yell at a cop something bad will happen to you. If you are black it will probably be worse than if you are white, but it will happen. So to some extent this was the usual story of a person getting frustrated with a policeman and making the mistake of thinking he can express his frustration.
So fine, let’s use the incident to remind us that African Americans still experience racism, but let’s not hold it up as an example. Unfortunately, for better or worse the stupid person in that particular was professor Gates.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Porkulus bill?
I remember when I read about the surge in Iraq a couple of years ago now, I believe, I thought it was a good idea. But the surge was proposed in December, authorized some time late January or early February and still nothing in Iraq had happened by May. Only in late June and Early July did things start happening. Democrats were saying in May that Iraq was lost, the surge had failed, and who could blames them? Well, Jack Kelly could. Actually I can’t remember what Kelly said at the time, but he has constantly repeated the statements of Democrats that the US had lost in Iraq, and used that to point out how Democrats get things wrong.
Today Kelly stated that the stimulus has failed. He also said he was glad, because it would make it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to get a cap and trade and health care reform bill through Congress. So let’s review. Kelly is glad that the stimulus bill has failed, even though that means millions more might lose their homes and jobs. But the important thing is the Republicans are better positioned to get seats in Congress in 2010, so they can help the Country like they did in the “jobless” recovery of 2003 … er … Also, Kelly doesn’t want healthcare reform or curbs on carbon emissions, although to be fair, he thinks Americans will be better off without healthcare reform, and global warming is a myth. Plus we have all the oil we need if the Democrats would get out of the way.
So Kelly will tell us while Democrats do act in a treasonous fashion, lying to the American public about the threat from terrorists who are sworn to kill us, Kelly is being a patriot in wishing the Democrats to fail. After all, it is the Democrats who put pork in Corgressional bills, not Republicans. Why, that famous “bridge to nowhere” was essential for growth in Alaska. And any state with a Republican Governor like Sarah Palin deserves whatever she wants.
I’m not going to make a logical argument against Kelly’s arguments. He has his viewpoints, and will defend them (cognitively dissonantly) no matter what is said to him. To some extent, he is right that the stimulus might have been too small, and that it might have had too much pork in it. The discussion of that is actually subtle, about how Obama is letting Congress do a lot, which means the bills reflect how the Senate only just recently reached a theoretical 60 democrats (well after the stimulus passed), how Obama is trying somewhat to reach out to Republican/conservatives to include them in the decision making process and the Republican/conservatives are instead putting their fingers in their ears and simply screaming “no” over and over again. This is being patriotic.
Today Kelly stated that the stimulus has failed. He also said he was glad, because it would make it difficult if not impossible for Democrats to get a cap and trade and health care reform bill through Congress. So let’s review. Kelly is glad that the stimulus bill has failed, even though that means millions more might lose their homes and jobs. But the important thing is the Republicans are better positioned to get seats in Congress in 2010, so they can help the Country like they did in the “jobless” recovery of 2003 … er … Also, Kelly doesn’t want healthcare reform or curbs on carbon emissions, although to be fair, he thinks Americans will be better off without healthcare reform, and global warming is a myth. Plus we have all the oil we need if the Democrats would get out of the way.
So Kelly will tell us while Democrats do act in a treasonous fashion, lying to the American public about the threat from terrorists who are sworn to kill us, Kelly is being a patriot in wishing the Democrats to fail. After all, it is the Democrats who put pork in Corgressional bills, not Republicans. Why, that famous “bridge to nowhere” was essential for growth in Alaska. And any state with a Republican Governor like Sarah Palin deserves whatever she wants.
I’m not going to make a logical argument against Kelly’s arguments. He has his viewpoints, and will defend them (cognitively dissonantly) no matter what is said to him. To some extent, he is right that the stimulus might have been too small, and that it might have had too much pork in it. The discussion of that is actually subtle, about how Obama is letting Congress do a lot, which means the bills reflect how the Senate only just recently reached a theoretical 60 democrats (well after the stimulus passed), how Obama is trying somewhat to reach out to Republican/conservatives to include them in the decision making process and the Republican/conservatives are instead putting their fingers in their ears and simply screaming “no” over and over again. This is being patriotic.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Today's health care news ...
I was going to, and still might, write an essay comparing Michael Jackson and Barack Obama, and their relative positions in American society. I was going to, and still might, write about Sarah Palin, and the spectacle of conservatives going after one another in their support/contempt for her. But today I am inspired to write about health insurance/care. Paul Krugman wrote a hopeful essay on health insurance today. Apparently a Senate committee has a workable plan, better than previous efforts. It is better in part because it covers more people, and I guess ends up costing less per capita and doesn’t leave big, expensive holes.
Krugman spends a sentence or two mentioning how a typical hospital bill includes a premium (if you will) for all the other people who can’t or don’t pay their bills. And before you mutter “deadbeats” consider that visiting the emergency room and then staying over night in the hospital would have cost me, without insurance, a third of my annual salary. For a room with a roommate, who overnight had a breathing device put on that had an alarm, apparently designed to go off when the person changes position. The device was put on around midnight, maybe later. The alarm went off every ten to fifteen minutes there after for maybe two and a half hours. The nursing staff only came in when I called, asking about the alarm. Then after the couple of hours and change, the alarm starting going off continuously. The staff came (when I called again) and took the breathing device off. Then I was only treated to my roommate crying out in his sleep.
Now, I understand I was being monitored for a possible heart condition, even though my doctor determined I had had a severe but somewhat random attack of vertigo. That kind of monitoring and being near life saving equipment doesn’t come cheap. Yet my stay in the hospital was not restful, rather the opposite, I arrived (at the ER) debilitated (I was nauseated by the vertigo) and anxious and stayed that way the entire time I was in the hospital. The staff understood and sort of apologized, saying I would have gotten a private room if I had stayed another night. The staff knew I wasn’t getting great, or even pretty good, care.
So if everyone is covered, either by an employer plan or a public plan, hospitals maybe won’t have to charge everyone extra to cover those who otherwise wouldn’t pay. And hospitals wouldn’t feel squeezed and have to keep staff at a bare minimum. So if an alarm goes off, maybe a staff person could show up (within a few minutes), instead of the alarm being ignored. There is a chance that health care for the middle class and the poor might improve, probably not to the level the rich get, but it might be better. Have better outcomes and yet be more pleasant. Staff that can do the job they were hired for. And also cheaper (per patient and per capita) care.
Except the Republicans, acting in our interest, want to block that. Things are fine right now, we have the best health care in the world.
Krugman spends a sentence or two mentioning how a typical hospital bill includes a premium (if you will) for all the other people who can’t or don’t pay their bills. And before you mutter “deadbeats” consider that visiting the emergency room and then staying over night in the hospital would have cost me, without insurance, a third of my annual salary. For a room with a roommate, who overnight had a breathing device put on that had an alarm, apparently designed to go off when the person changes position. The device was put on around midnight, maybe later. The alarm went off every ten to fifteen minutes there after for maybe two and a half hours. The nursing staff only came in when I called, asking about the alarm. Then after the couple of hours and change, the alarm starting going off continuously. The staff came (when I called again) and took the breathing device off. Then I was only treated to my roommate crying out in his sleep.
Now, I understand I was being monitored for a possible heart condition, even though my doctor determined I had had a severe but somewhat random attack of vertigo. That kind of monitoring and being near life saving equipment doesn’t come cheap. Yet my stay in the hospital was not restful, rather the opposite, I arrived (at the ER) debilitated (I was nauseated by the vertigo) and anxious and stayed that way the entire time I was in the hospital. The staff understood and sort of apologized, saying I would have gotten a private room if I had stayed another night. The staff knew I wasn’t getting great, or even pretty good, care.
So if everyone is covered, either by an employer plan or a public plan, hospitals maybe won’t have to charge everyone extra to cover those who otherwise wouldn’t pay. And hospitals wouldn’t feel squeezed and have to keep staff at a bare minimum. So if an alarm goes off, maybe a staff person could show up (within a few minutes), instead of the alarm being ignored. There is a chance that health care for the middle class and the poor might improve, probably not to the level the rich get, but it might be better. Have better outcomes and yet be more pleasant. Staff that can do the job they were hired for. And also cheaper (per patient and per capita) care.
Except the Republicans, acting in our interest, want to block that. Things are fine right now, we have the best health care in the world.
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Fourth of July ...
I don’t know if I’ve trotted these ideas out before, although I have thought about them for a long time. The US was born a nation which had slaves, denied women the vote, undoubtedly condemned the love that dare not speak its name, and was generally populated by xenophobes. It took us longer than England to free our slaves, and we had to fight a civil war to get there. We did beat England on women’s right to vote, but not by much. Our sainted Lincoln cancelled habeas corpus until the Supreme Court convinced him to do otherwise, and Saint FDR was President when the Japanese were interned in World Ward II. Even after we freed the slaves, we treated African Americans badly, and only just elected a black man to the Presidency. However, Obama is not a typical African American, he is the son of an African father and a white woman, without some of the baggage of typical black Americans, enough of an apostrophe (er, asterisk) to be acceptable to whites as well as blacks. But only just.
Even right now a powerful minority of politicians are fighting expanding the health insurance/care available to our citizens, even though every other industrialized country has a single payer, national system. And yes, we invaded two countries after we were attacked on 9/11. One of those countries had the terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 as well as an oppressed people. And we let most of the terrorists escape and we badly managed the war and whatever reconstruction we tried has not worked out well either. And then there’s Iraq. It will go down in history as George Bush’s private crusade, although it is looking like Obama will be dragged into it. And we still don’t want those who practice the love that dare not speak it’s name to have many rights (still).
But, as I skimmed over the Declaration of Independence, posted at 2 Political Junkies, I realize that although we don’t think enough or talk enough about our own checkered past, we are still the best country in the world, in those ethical if murky concepts. We do stand for more, but we are human and fail often.
Just something to think about as we watch bright explosions in the sky tonight.
Even right now a powerful minority of politicians are fighting expanding the health insurance/care available to our citizens, even though every other industrialized country has a single payer, national system. And yes, we invaded two countries after we were attacked on 9/11. One of those countries had the terrorist mastermind behind 9/11 as well as an oppressed people. And we let most of the terrorists escape and we badly managed the war and whatever reconstruction we tried has not worked out well either. And then there’s Iraq. It will go down in history as George Bush’s private crusade, although it is looking like Obama will be dragged into it. And we still don’t want those who practice the love that dare not speak it’s name to have many rights (still).
But, as I skimmed over the Declaration of Independence, posted at 2 Political Junkies, I realize that although we don’t think enough or talk enough about our own checkered past, we are still the best country in the world, in those ethical if murky concepts. We do stand for more, but we are human and fail often.
Just something to think about as we watch bright explosions in the sky tonight.
Friday, July 03, 2009
A Call to Alms ... (I just found that funny)
Paul Krugman, raising an alarum, today talks about how we need an additional stimulus program. He says that because of yesterday’s lousy unemployment numbers (and the PBS News Hour helpfully did a report yesterday on how the numbers should be higher). Now, I happen to think that a long term recovery should be looked at in a long term manner. So maybe we need a few more signs that things aren’t picking up. But that said, what would be the harm in the government encouraging the economy “too much”? I mean, we would add to the debt (a bad thing), but if the economy emerges out of the recession with new infrastructure in green areas, such a smarter, more robust grid, more green power in the form of solar, wind and yes, (agreeing with, erg, Jack Kelly) gasified coal that pollutes much less, then we will be in position to grow without damaging the environment. And it’s worth noting that the sustainable energy sources (wind and solar) do not require continuous inputs such as coal, natural gas or oil to run. So in the long run they really are free, or as near as to make little difference. So the return to the economy may be even greater than traditional power plant infrastructure investment.
Now, I happen to think that Obama thinks, but has not said, that our health insurance system is a drag on our economy. Every other industrialized nation has a single payer, national health insurance system. So their doctors aren’t paid as much as ours, and they may not have the star doctors that we do. But their systems work better and cost less in the aggregate, healing more people enough. Sure, the ultra rich may come from all over the world for our doctors and best hospitals. But the price we pay for that is that the majority of doctors, working in managed care settings, see patients for just a few minutes, and give inadequate care. And that’s for people who work in companies that offer health insurance, for everyone else, private health insurance is expensive to obtain, and virtually out of reach if you might actually need it. Or if you do find a low cost alternative, the benefits are usually inadequate unless you manage to avoid using it very much.
So I suspect Obama views his health care plan as a partial stimulus. Or at least I do. If we transition to a single payer plan, we will lower the burden of health care costs on the economy. Sure there might be new taxes, but companies would no longer be paying private health insurance companies, nor we workers be paying them. There would be a certain balance (offset) there. And hospitals would stop charging every patient the additional money to cover those who can’t or won’t pay. Maybe under single payer we could get doctors, nurses and hospital visitors to wash their hands more, and bring down hospital infection rates.
But I don’t think that a portion of free energy or more efficient health care will be enough to stimulate the economy. Those factors will only bring us up to the level of, say, Sweden (we can’t even hope for the level of Denmark, the happiest place on earth). So again I wonder, what would be the danger of over-stimulating the economy? Denmark?
Now, I happen to think that Obama thinks, but has not said, that our health insurance system is a drag on our economy. Every other industrialized nation has a single payer, national health insurance system. So their doctors aren’t paid as much as ours, and they may not have the star doctors that we do. But their systems work better and cost less in the aggregate, healing more people enough. Sure, the ultra rich may come from all over the world for our doctors and best hospitals. But the price we pay for that is that the majority of doctors, working in managed care settings, see patients for just a few minutes, and give inadequate care. And that’s for people who work in companies that offer health insurance, for everyone else, private health insurance is expensive to obtain, and virtually out of reach if you might actually need it. Or if you do find a low cost alternative, the benefits are usually inadequate unless you manage to avoid using it very much.
So I suspect Obama views his health care plan as a partial stimulus. Or at least I do. If we transition to a single payer plan, we will lower the burden of health care costs on the economy. Sure there might be new taxes, but companies would no longer be paying private health insurance companies, nor we workers be paying them. There would be a certain balance (offset) there. And hospitals would stop charging every patient the additional money to cover those who can’t or won’t pay. Maybe under single payer we could get doctors, nurses and hospital visitors to wash their hands more, and bring down hospital infection rates.
But I don’t think that a portion of free energy or more efficient health care will be enough to stimulate the economy. Those factors will only bring us up to the level of, say, Sweden (we can’t even hope for the level of Denmark, the happiest place on earth). So again I wonder, what would be the danger of over-stimulating the economy? Denmark?
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
The Way Yesterday Went...
So the amended amended Act 47 plan was passed, and your council-person hopes you noticed how she/he voted. In the end, I am reconciled, perhaps even satisfied with the way the vote went.
Someone, I think Bill Peduto, likened Act 47 status to a life preserver. I think that is an apt analogy, especially when coupled with Doug Shield’s observation that Pittsburgh is in almost exactly the same situation it was five years ago. So by now we should have learned that we are not going to be allowed to sink into the sea of red ink (to stretch the life preserver analogy). But we can’t just bob in the water waiting for more rescue, we need to start kicking our legs towards some shore. Which is to say that we need some leadership, from a Mayor or one or more City Council-persons, or both. We need someone to look at how other cities have saved money and/or attracted new residents. We need some real creativity (not a Mayor who is planning out next Saturday night’s escapades, even if that is what 30 year olds do).
That said, as I said I am fine with the way the vote went down. I think it was important that the vote five years ago was unanimous. Pittsburgh needed to show gratitude to the State and enthusiasm for the plan. Of course, I gather the conventional history is that the Legislature let us down subsequently. So this time, when there was a vote, after the Act 47 team incorporated some, but not all of Council’s suggestions, and after local State Legislators expressed little enthusiasm for letting either non-profits or commuters shoulder some of Pittsburgh’s burden, it was maybe not so important that the vote be unanimous. After all, the State Legislature could have done more five years ago, and the Act 47 team could have assumed a higher visibility over the last five years and urged the City and/or made suggestions to increase revenues and cut costs. So I think it appropriate that both Shields and Dowd sent a signal that we know the State has not done all it could have. I hope (and do believe) that if either Shields or Dowd thought the vote was going to fail, they would have reversed themselves. I think Shields, Dowd and Peduto positioned themselves exactly where they wanted to be for their political careers and respective future plans. I am thinking now, for example, that Bill Peduto might be eyeing a State Legislative position, or at least the Presidency of Council.
In any event, now we need to (if you will excuse the phrase) move forward, we need to proceed now with Act 47 not as the most we do for ourselves, but as the least of our efforts. We need to do more than we did before.
Someone, I think Bill Peduto, likened Act 47 status to a life preserver. I think that is an apt analogy, especially when coupled with Doug Shield’s observation that Pittsburgh is in almost exactly the same situation it was five years ago. So by now we should have learned that we are not going to be allowed to sink into the sea of red ink (to stretch the life preserver analogy). But we can’t just bob in the water waiting for more rescue, we need to start kicking our legs towards some shore. Which is to say that we need some leadership, from a Mayor or one or more City Council-persons, or both. We need someone to look at how other cities have saved money and/or attracted new residents. We need some real creativity (not a Mayor who is planning out next Saturday night’s escapades, even if that is what 30 year olds do).
That said, as I said I am fine with the way the vote went down. I think it was important that the vote five years ago was unanimous. Pittsburgh needed to show gratitude to the State and enthusiasm for the plan. Of course, I gather the conventional history is that the Legislature let us down subsequently. So this time, when there was a vote, after the Act 47 team incorporated some, but not all of Council’s suggestions, and after local State Legislators expressed little enthusiasm for letting either non-profits or commuters shoulder some of Pittsburgh’s burden, it was maybe not so important that the vote be unanimous. After all, the State Legislature could have done more five years ago, and the Act 47 team could have assumed a higher visibility over the last five years and urged the City and/or made suggestions to increase revenues and cut costs. So I think it appropriate that both Shields and Dowd sent a signal that we know the State has not done all it could have. I hope (and do believe) that if either Shields or Dowd thought the vote was going to fail, they would have reversed themselves. I think Shields, Dowd and Peduto positioned themselves exactly where they wanted to be for their political careers and respective future plans. I am thinking now, for example, that Bill Peduto might be eyeing a State Legislative position, or at least the Presidency of Council.
In any event, now we need to (if you will excuse the phrase) move forward, we need to proceed now with Act 47 not as the most we do for ourselves, but as the least of our efforts. We need to do more than we did before.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Right now
Right now (12:10, July 30) City Council is debating the amended Act 47 plan. It was further amended by the Act 47 team, several of Council' amendments made it into the new amended plan, but now Council has to vote up or down on it. Pat Dowd is apparently threatening to vote no, perhaps to have that on the record. He is probably right that this plan does not go far enough, that the State is not giving the City enough help to recover. But if you look around, at the State level budget impasse, at the US Congress's fumbling, at the history of government in general, it is pretty useless to blame other entities for not giving you more. Pittsburgh needs to attract more business and more people. I don't know how, but that's what we elect Council to figure out.
By tonight, or late this afternoon, we will know the fate of the amended plan.
By tonight, or late this afternoon, we will know the fate of the amended plan.
Friday, June 19, 2009
If a ruling falls over in the forest ...
And in the biggest little story almost no one noticed, Judge Wettick ruled that he can’t work out a schedule for the County to begin assessing properties because the State Supreme Court has not ruled on the County’s request for a 180 temporary delay (injunction, temporary stay, something or other) for the County. The County, in turn, wants the delay in case the legislature decides to act on a statewide system of property assessments. Never mind that the legislature has had … the whole of human history to act on this issue before now. But another 180 days should be just the ticket. After all, its not like there is anything else on the legislature’s plate, not like there is a budget in deficit or even Pittsburgh’s laundry list of exceptions (requests for taxing power so the citizens don't have to pay for frivolities like pensions and debt) to consider.
Meanwhile, the County gets what it wants, a delay before the official delay is even ruled on. No new hearing on establishing an assessment schedule is scheduled, or even could be scheduled, until the State Supreme Court schedules a hearing to rule on whether to grant the County's request on a delay of re-assessments.
Meanwhile, the County gets what it wants, a delay before the official delay is even ruled on. No new hearing on establishing an assessment schedule is scheduled, or even could be scheduled, until the State Supreme Court schedules a hearing to rule on whether to grant the County's request on a delay of re-assessments.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
What should we do?
I have started, and not finished, two other posts here. I haven’t fully thought through what I want to say on those topics (both roughly about environmental concerns), but right now it seems important to look seriously at the amended Act 47 plan.
Of course, I did no reading tonight, while we waited to see if a tornado would land nearby. But I am aware of what happened today in Council’s chambers. Over on the Pittsburgh Comet Bram seems in favor of trying to renegotiate the amended plan, to limit the tax increases on Pittsburghers and I am not sure what all else (have the State pool municipal pension plans? Unless we get money from the State or other cities in the deal, why?).
But lets look at this. Actually I want to step back, and look at how the State is talking about raising the income tax a half percent and cutting services by something like 200 million. My feeling is that if we charge in and demand to be allowed to tax commuters while we dodge any taxes on ourselves, the State legislature wll not be amused.
But let’s say we raise the local income tax by a half percent. Let’s say we ask the State Legislature to waive the rule this time that says we can’t take a tax windfall when the County gets around to reassessing. That’s two significant tax increases on City residents. The we could to go to the State and asked for the freeze on the parking tax, a payroll preparation tax on non-profits, and a more measured increase in the local services tax, say 2 dollars a week for people making over $24,000, the same dollar a week for people making between $12,000 and $24,000 and still allowing people making under $12,000 to pay nothing. Now the State would be presented with a Pittsburgh that was making efforts to be responsible in terms of revenue. The State legislature could require all of the LST go towards either pension or debt, and the same with the tax on non-profits (we could propose it).
That is the way we should approach the State and this whole amended Act 47 plan. By doing a lot ourselves and then asking the State for help.
Of course, I did no reading tonight, while we waited to see if a tornado would land nearby. But I am aware of what happened today in Council’s chambers. Over on the Pittsburgh Comet Bram seems in favor of trying to renegotiate the amended plan, to limit the tax increases on Pittsburghers and I am not sure what all else (have the State pool municipal pension plans? Unless we get money from the State or other cities in the deal, why?).
But lets look at this. Actually I want to step back, and look at how the State is talking about raising the income tax a half percent and cutting services by something like 200 million. My feeling is that if we charge in and demand to be allowed to tax commuters while we dodge any taxes on ourselves, the State legislature wll not be amused.
But let’s say we raise the local income tax by a half percent. Let’s say we ask the State Legislature to waive the rule this time that says we can’t take a tax windfall when the County gets around to reassessing. That’s two significant tax increases on City residents. The we could to go to the State and asked for the freeze on the parking tax, a payroll preparation tax on non-profits, and a more measured increase in the local services tax, say 2 dollars a week for people making over $24,000, the same dollar a week for people making between $12,000 and $24,000 and still allowing people making under $12,000 to pay nothing. Now the State would be presented with a Pittsburgh that was making efforts to be responsible in terms of revenue. The State legislature could require all of the LST go towards either pension or debt, and the same with the tax on non-profits (we could propose it).
That is the way we should approach the State and this whole amended Act 47 plan. By doing a lot ourselves and then asking the State for help.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Mayor Ping Pong Ball ...
I am still guilty of ignoring my readership. There are things happening now, something with an audit of the Housing Authority, for example, but I have been largely unmoved to speak. The Mayoral race is a disappointment. Truth to tell, the low turnout in the primary probably means that all of Dowd’s supporters came out, and weren’t nearly enough. Which is to say that a higher turnout would have probably resulted in a much higher victory margin for Ravenstahl. So it is hard to see how two independent candidates have a chance. Some people may get excited about voting for the son of a famous Steeler. And some may be excited about voting for Kevin Acklin, for whatever reason. But that will not be enough to overcome the straight “D” lever pullers.
Meanwhile, the Mayor is again demonstrating the rock steady principles that have so distinguished his career. Before the election, the Mayor made a point of taking credit for lowering taxes (actually mandated by the first Act 47 five year plan). When the amended Act 47 plan came out a day after the primary, the Mayor waited one day before announcing that he was excited that there is now this opportunity to get the City’s finances on a sound footing, by keeping taxes on parking at their current level, and raising taxes on people who work in the City and on non-profits. Now City Council, having read the plan through and calculating their own political futures, has decided the amended Act 47 plan must be further amended. And lo and behold, the Mayor’s budget person (Scott Kunka) said that the Mayor now “wants "refinements" and "revenue enhancements."” to the amended Act 47 plan. It’s no wonder that Bill Peduto charged the Mayor has shown no leadership on this issue.
Meanwhile, the Mayor is again demonstrating the rock steady principles that have so distinguished his career. Before the election, the Mayor made a point of taking credit for lowering taxes (actually mandated by the first Act 47 five year plan). When the amended Act 47 plan came out a day after the primary, the Mayor waited one day before announcing that he was excited that there is now this opportunity to get the City’s finances on a sound footing, by keeping taxes on parking at their current level, and raising taxes on people who work in the City and on non-profits. Now City Council, having read the plan through and calculating their own political futures, has decided the amended Act 47 plan must be further amended. And lo and behold, the Mayor’s budget person (Scott Kunka) said that the Mayor now “wants "refinements" and "revenue enhancements."” to the amended Act 47 plan. It’s no wonder that Bill Peduto charged the Mayor has shown no leadership on this issue.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Gas prices ...
This time I don’t have an excuse for not having blogged in the last week, at least not a good one. I was curious to see what would happen because of the amended Act 47 plan (which I have still not read). I wanted to read the plan (see previous). I had already said much of what I wanted to say about the election (and no, that didn’t stop me from getting drawn into conversations on other blogs about it).
I probably could have said something about the G20 summit (what was Obama thinking … was it really something to do with Rooney …etc). But I find it difficult to know what side to be on about this. I mean, we are a silly choice. But any city not San Francisco, LA, Chicago or New York is a silly choice. I mean, maybe Atlanta or Miami, but only because they are already sort of tourist/convention destinations. So if it had been Cincinnati or Des Moines, I would have been chuckling at their expense. So I didn’t say anything here (a bit elsewhere… I mean, c’mon, a city essentially bankrupt?).
But what I really want to talk about is gas prices. They have been at the back of my mind for some time (occasionally at the front). Time magazine did a story (which I first saw on Yahoo) about gas prices. They contend that oil producing countries are storing some of the oil they produce. I believe refineries have cut back on processing (something they do every year at this time – for routine yearly maintenance, just in time to sock it to Memorial Day drivers). And apparently the speculators are once again making bets about the economy six months from now, and it is affecting current prices. So even though demand is weak, and the storage containers are filling up, gas prices have been going up.
“There is some risk we will run out of storage space in the next four to six weeks …If we run out of storage it could prompt a collapse in the price” said Simon Wardell, director of an energy forecasting company (he said that in the time article).
Yeah, come on limited storage space. Collapse that price. This is kind of speculative crap that produced last summer's run up in gas prices. That battering of our economy probably contributed to the economic crash last fall. I mean, you can't draw a bright line, but I have decided to be suspicious anyway. And Jack Kelly wants to bash Obama's economic policy. Apparently drill here, drill now only works if the oil companies don't want to make money.
After all, understand that the speculators are betting the economy will be healthy enough in six months to have increased demand for oil. Who thinks that? In fact, who thinks that putting additional pressure on consumers now will assist the economy in recovering and having a boom in six months? Man, they are easy to turn into villains and idiots, all at the same time.
I probably could have said something about the G20 summit (what was Obama thinking … was it really something to do with Rooney …etc). But I find it difficult to know what side to be on about this. I mean, we are a silly choice. But any city not San Francisco, LA, Chicago or New York is a silly choice. I mean, maybe Atlanta or Miami, but only because they are already sort of tourist/convention destinations. So if it had been Cincinnati or Des Moines, I would have been chuckling at their expense. So I didn’t say anything here (a bit elsewhere… I mean, c’mon, a city essentially bankrupt?).
But what I really want to talk about is gas prices. They have been at the back of my mind for some time (occasionally at the front). Time magazine did a story (which I first saw on Yahoo) about gas prices. They contend that oil producing countries are storing some of the oil they produce. I believe refineries have cut back on processing (something they do every year at this time – for routine yearly maintenance, just in time to sock it to Memorial Day drivers). And apparently the speculators are once again making bets about the economy six months from now, and it is affecting current prices. So even though demand is weak, and the storage containers are filling up, gas prices have been going up.
“There is some risk we will run out of storage space in the next four to six weeks …If we run out of storage it could prompt a collapse in the price” said Simon Wardell, director of an energy forecasting company (he said that in the time article).
Yeah, come on limited storage space. Collapse that price. This is kind of speculative crap that produced last summer's run up in gas prices. That battering of our economy probably contributed to the economic crash last fall. I mean, you can't draw a bright line, but I have decided to be suspicious anyway. And Jack Kelly wants to bash Obama's economic policy. Apparently drill here, drill now only works if the oil companies don't want to make money.
After all, understand that the speculators are betting the economy will be healthy enough in six months to have increased demand for oil. Who thinks that? In fact, who thinks that putting additional pressure on consumers now will assist the economy in recovering and having a boom in six months? Man, they are easy to turn into villains and idiots, all at the same time.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
KD/PG follies
Sometimes the KD/PG edition is really worth seeing. I don’t know how to find out who’s going to be on, I supposed I should just ask someone at KDKA. Today for the first segment there was a red faced Mayor Ravenstahl, for the second Bill Peduto and Natalia Rudiak were the guests.
I don’t know if the Mayor was red-faced because he was out in the sun (maybe the day the Steelers went to the White House?), or for another reason. Regardless, he appeared to get redder as Stacey Smtih (KDKA’s sacrificial lamb) asked the Mayor about Pat Dowd. First the Mayor said he thinks Dowd owes him an apology since Dowd “all but” called him a crook and his administration corrupt, but the Mayor said he is looking forward to sitting down and talking to Dowd. When asked whether he had ever returned Dowd’s attempted calls to concede to him, the Mayor quickly said no but he was looking forward to sitting down etc etc, and the Mayor got redder. But the Mayor did speak eagerly about the new taxes he wanted to enact, and bitterly about how the local State legislature delegation has snubbed him so far.
Meanwhile, Bill Peduto, who seems to settled into a longer game, had a more relaxed view the new five year plan. Peduto talked about the old council, when he was an aide to Dan Cohen, that used to debate issues. Now Peduto thinks that a percentage based, more progressive EMS/commuter tax would be more fair. Rudiak, to her credit, did not declare allegiances to any side, saying she would talk to anyone interested about getting businesses to her district.
I don’t know if the Mayor was red-faced because he was out in the sun (maybe the day the Steelers went to the White House?), or for another reason. Regardless, he appeared to get redder as Stacey Smtih (KDKA’s sacrificial lamb) asked the Mayor about Pat Dowd. First the Mayor said he thinks Dowd owes him an apology since Dowd “all but” called him a crook and his administration corrupt, but the Mayor said he is looking forward to sitting down and talking to Dowd. When asked whether he had ever returned Dowd’s attempted calls to concede to him, the Mayor quickly said no but he was looking forward to sitting down etc etc, and the Mayor got redder. But the Mayor did speak eagerly about the new taxes he wanted to enact, and bitterly about how the local State legislature delegation has snubbed him so far.
Meanwhile, Bill Peduto, who seems to settled into a longer game, had a more relaxed view the new five year plan. Peduto talked about the old council, when he was an aide to Dan Cohen, that used to debate issues. Now Peduto thinks that a percentage based, more progressive EMS/commuter tax would be more fair. Rudiak, to her credit, did not declare allegiances to any side, saying she would talk to anyone interested about getting businesses to her district.
The last couple of days ...
For once I have a (mostly) good reason for not having blogged for the last couple of days. Not long after I finished Friday's post, I went off to work, and in the course of walking my usual mile from where I park to where I work, I developed a weird, freakish sort of vertigo. I became dizzy, nauseated and pretty much immobilized. I called CMU’s police, who called the City paramedics. They thought I might be having a heart attack (despite my lack of pain, and eventual totally normal EKG in the hospital), and although my doctor eventually guessed at a diagnosis that appears to have been borne out, I stayed over night in UPMC Shadyside. I did not get much sleep, though, due to a roommate whose breathing device had a shrill alarm that went off every few minutes, literally, from 1 am to 3 am. When I came home yesterday, I slept for at least part of the afternoon and went to bed shortly after dinner. I am now at about 95%, but I notice my typing seems to have suffered a bit, so I apologize in advance for any typos or lapses (more than usual).
But enough about me. The new City five year proposed plan is indeed out now for the public to view, at the City Council’s website (I swear it wasn’t there Thursday night, but so what). From the initial description of the plan, it seemed to me the City was being encouraged to find some savings besides those specifically recommended in the plan, and that the plan only specifically recommended keeping the parking tax at 37.5%. But now the Mayor, at least, if not other City officials, has seized on the proposal's comments that the City could petition the state to raise the EMS tax to $145 and to allow a new Pittsburgh levy on a new tax on non-profits that for profits already pay (I believe it is officially a “Payroll Perpetration tax”). Meanwhile, local members of the State legislature, from Jane Orie to Dan Frankel, are rebelling against the idea of increased local taxes. Jane Orie suggests legislators from districts across the state will not support the idea. I don’t see that myself, I think the only reason they might care if Pittsburgh tries to take more money from the surrounding county or counties (as well as from itself) is if the live in a suburb of somewhere like Philadelphia (which may have already done more). But I don’t think legislators from the Scranton area will lead the charge for Pittsburgh, it has to be our own local legislators. Who seem to be very tepid on the idea.
It’s funny to see the Mayor, who was campaigning on lowering taxes last week, suddenly excited about the idea of raising taxes.
Meanwhile, it is not clear what will happen with the Peduto plan. Bill Peduto is showing more of a political side than I have seen before (a good thing, IMO). He has already suggested a .2% tax instead of the $52 or $145 EMS tax (presumably .2% of income over $12,000, the current point below which people who work in the City do not have to pay taxes). Bill Peduto may work to incorporate parts of his plan into the new Act-47 five year plan.
Finally, I have to say something about todays’ Jack Kelly column. Now, I like Top Gear, and I had read Jeremy Clarkson’s Times of London review of the Honda Insight. Clarkson, who by and large despises Americans (and all other non-British people) as inferior, non the less has a very American attitude towards power in cars, and great disdain for efforts to make cars more economical. Which is fine, you can’t care about that (and I am sure Clarkson would share Jack Kelly’s point of view about the Obama administration’s CAFÉ standards proposal). Kelly has made it plain he thinks that oil is not a limited resource, at least not limited within the foreseeable future. I happen to disagree, and I think before there is no oil it will get very expensive. I think the less we consume now, the more that will be available in the future. The more people fifty years from now will have a lifestyle that matches our own, not some sort of Mad Max lifestyle. What I am saying is that if we dramatically cut back now, if we first of all encourage biking and walking to work, if we have electric (or at least hybrid) buses and cars, and if we set up parking lots at central spots for people commuting from the sticks to ride buses from, then we can begin to cut our consumption of oil. Of course, I am one of those who advocates a European style gas tax of 100%, coupled with an increased EIC (to ensure the poor can still work). I think an increase in the downtown parking tax would also be a good thing. Then, as time goes on, maybe new apartment buildings can be build along light rail lines (in the South) and bus-ways (in the east). More apartment buildings in Shadyside near the bus-way stops would be great, because there is great opportunity ofr shopping there now. Except maybe there will be a need for more buses on that busway.
I wrote a letter to the paper, briefly mentioning some of this. We’ll see if it is printed, but I wanted to say some of this here too.
But enough about me. The new City five year proposed plan is indeed out now for the public to view, at the City Council’s website (I swear it wasn’t there Thursday night, but so what). From the initial description of the plan, it seemed to me the City was being encouraged to find some savings besides those specifically recommended in the plan, and that the plan only specifically recommended keeping the parking tax at 37.5%. But now the Mayor, at least, if not other City officials, has seized on the proposal's comments that the City could petition the state to raise the EMS tax to $145 and to allow a new Pittsburgh levy on a new tax on non-profits that for profits already pay (I believe it is officially a “Payroll Perpetration tax”). Meanwhile, local members of the State legislature, from Jane Orie to Dan Frankel, are rebelling against the idea of increased local taxes. Jane Orie suggests legislators from districts across the state will not support the idea. I don’t see that myself, I think the only reason they might care if Pittsburgh tries to take more money from the surrounding county or counties (as well as from itself) is if the live in a suburb of somewhere like Philadelphia (which may have already done more). But I don’t think legislators from the Scranton area will lead the charge for Pittsburgh, it has to be our own local legislators. Who seem to be very tepid on the idea.
It’s funny to see the Mayor, who was campaigning on lowering taxes last week, suddenly excited about the idea of raising taxes.
Meanwhile, it is not clear what will happen with the Peduto plan. Bill Peduto is showing more of a political side than I have seen before (a good thing, IMO). He has already suggested a .2% tax instead of the $52 or $145 EMS tax (presumably .2% of income over $12,000, the current point below which people who work in the City do not have to pay taxes). Bill Peduto may work to incorporate parts of his plan into the new Act-47 five year plan.
Finally, I have to say something about todays’ Jack Kelly column. Now, I like Top Gear, and I had read Jeremy Clarkson’s Times of London review of the Honda Insight. Clarkson, who by and large despises Americans (and all other non-British people) as inferior, non the less has a very American attitude towards power in cars, and great disdain for efforts to make cars more economical. Which is fine, you can’t care about that (and I am sure Clarkson would share Jack Kelly’s point of view about the Obama administration’s CAFÉ standards proposal). Kelly has made it plain he thinks that oil is not a limited resource, at least not limited within the foreseeable future. I happen to disagree, and I think before there is no oil it will get very expensive. I think the less we consume now, the more that will be available in the future. The more people fifty years from now will have a lifestyle that matches our own, not some sort of Mad Max lifestyle. What I am saying is that if we dramatically cut back now, if we first of all encourage biking and walking to work, if we have electric (or at least hybrid) buses and cars, and if we set up parking lots at central spots for people commuting from the sticks to ride buses from, then we can begin to cut our consumption of oil. Of course, I am one of those who advocates a European style gas tax of 100%, coupled with an increased EIC (to ensure the poor can still work). I think an increase in the downtown parking tax would also be a good thing. Then, as time goes on, maybe new apartment buildings can be build along light rail lines (in the South) and bus-ways (in the east). More apartment buildings in Shadyside near the bus-way stops would be great, because there is great opportunity ofr shopping there now. Except maybe there will be a need for more buses on that busway.
I wrote a letter to the paper, briefly mentioning some of this. We’ll see if it is printed, but I wanted to say some of this here too.
Friday, May 22, 2009
A tale of one plan ...
I wanted to repeat a point I made yesterday. It is hard for me to find the language that gets across just how much a favor the Act 47 team did Mayor Luke Ravenstahl with the timing of their new five year plan. Ravenstahl, predictably, is already making noises like he is pretending to resist whole hardily embracing the new plan, but in the end in makes no difference. He has no choice.
I have just started looking for a copy of this report. It is apparently 290 pages long, so it might take a competent lawyer a little while to get through (especially if they could get $500 an hour), and it might take a dumbass like me much longer. But I would like the opportunity to try. We citizens can hardly be expected to assist our legislators in the business of running the government if we can’t see the documents from which they work. 290 pages is a tall order for a pdf, but in this day and age of 10’s, 100’s and even 1000’s of megabit bandwith and 16 gigabyte flash drives available for as little as twenty dollars, there is just no excuse for not making it available. The thing was typed up on a computer, and these days it must be almost cheaper to distribute the thing on a flash drive than to print it (considering how often our big printer breaks down at work, it might be cheaper when you take into account the service calls). But Google and a visit to the State DCED web page have failed me so far.
I suggested yesterday that the new plan is less ambitious than Bill Peduto’s proposal, and I stand by that, but … I have to admit the new Act 47 plan anticipates a lot of changes in State legislation. Dan Frankel, a Squirrel Hill State Representative, predicts the Allegheny County delegation in state government might oppose parts of this new plan. If you can’t get your own local people on your side in the State legislature, how can you expect help from Crawford or Lawrence county reps, or anyone else across the State.
A lot of people, local and state-wide, have an interest in opposing this plan, which most of us haven’t even had the chance to see yet. Gonna be an interesting June ‘round here.
I have just started looking for a copy of this report. It is apparently 290 pages long, so it might take a competent lawyer a little while to get through (especially if they could get $500 an hour), and it might take a dumbass like me much longer. But I would like the opportunity to try. We citizens can hardly be expected to assist our legislators in the business of running the government if we can’t see the documents from which they work. 290 pages is a tall order for a pdf, but in this day and age of 10’s, 100’s and even 1000’s of megabit bandwith and 16 gigabyte flash drives available for as little as twenty dollars, there is just no excuse for not making it available. The thing was typed up on a computer, and these days it must be almost cheaper to distribute the thing on a flash drive than to print it (considering how often our big printer breaks down at work, it might be cheaper when you take into account the service calls). But Google and a visit to the State DCED web page have failed me so far.
I suggested yesterday that the new plan is less ambitious than Bill Peduto’s proposal, and I stand by that, but … I have to admit the new Act 47 plan anticipates a lot of changes in State legislation. Dan Frankel, a Squirrel Hill State Representative, predicts the Allegheny County delegation in state government might oppose parts of this new plan. If you can’t get your own local people on your side in the State legislature, how can you expect help from Crawford or Lawrence county reps, or anyone else across the State.
A lot of people, local and state-wide, have an interest in opposing this plan, which most of us haven’t even had the chance to see yet. Gonna be an interesting June ‘round here.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
A tale of two plans ...
There is another twist in Bill Peduto’s release, today, of his outline for a new five year Act-47 plan. That twist is that Dean Kaplan and the State appointed Act 47 team sent City Council their five year plan. It is markedly less ambitious than Peduto’s plan. But because this plan from the Act 47 people can only be modified by Council with the Act 47 people's permission, it is safe (unfortunately) to say that Mr. Peduto's plan is now DOA.
By the way, the Act 47 people did the Mayor an incredible favor by waiting until two days after the primary to release their plan. The Mayor would have looked much less like the architect of our recovery and much more like the puppet he is.
The Act 47 plan would freeze the 37.5 parking tax where it is, rather than let it drop. The Act 47 people noted that rates did not come down when the tax went down, so apparently the City might just as well not reduce the tax further, but instead should use the money for infrastructure (woo hoo, 2.5 percent of parking tax revenue, we’re rich, I tell’s you).
The City is supposed to increase its contribution to the pension plan by 10 million a year. If the City can’t find that money anywhere (property tax windfall, anyone?) it would be allowed to go (hat in hand) to Harrisburg for an increase in the EMS tax, from $52 to $145 or for permission to expand the payroll tax (payroll preparation tax?) to universities and hospitals and other tax exempt groups.
There direct input on pay raises for union employees, changes in benefits, closing a fire station, eliminating some deputy fire chiefs, changes in bargaining and trail board rules, in short, a slightly less severe set of limits put on government than was done in 2004. Rich Lord didn’t say whether the plan included limiting take home cars.
I look when I get a chance for a copy of the report. But from Mr. Lord’s initial description, the plan looks like another just barely adequate effort to see us through the next five years. At some point there may be balloon payments we might not be able to meet. Then it will hit the fan.
By the way, the Act 47 people did the Mayor an incredible favor by waiting until two days after the primary to release their plan. The Mayor would have looked much less like the architect of our recovery and much more like the puppet he is.
The Act 47 plan would freeze the 37.5 parking tax where it is, rather than let it drop. The Act 47 people noted that rates did not come down when the tax went down, so apparently the City might just as well not reduce the tax further, but instead should use the money for infrastructure (woo hoo, 2.5 percent of parking tax revenue, we’re rich, I tell’s you).
The City is supposed to increase its contribution to the pension plan by 10 million a year. If the City can’t find that money anywhere (property tax windfall, anyone?) it would be allowed to go (hat in hand) to Harrisburg for an increase in the EMS tax, from $52 to $145 or for permission to expand the payroll tax (payroll preparation tax?) to universities and hospitals and other tax exempt groups.
There direct input on pay raises for union employees, changes in benefits, closing a fire station, eliminating some deputy fire chiefs, changes in bargaining and trail board rules, in short, a slightly less severe set of limits put on government than was done in 2004. Rich Lord didn’t say whether the plan included limiting take home cars.
I look when I get a chance for a copy of the report. But from Mr. Lord’s initial description, the plan looks like another just barely adequate effort to see us through the next five years. At some point there may be balloon payments we might not be able to meet. Then it will hit the fan.
Bill Peduto's turn ...
So I don't know how I got on Bill Peduto's press release email list, but I am happy to be on it. He sent out a press release today on his (as Council finance chair) outline of a new five year plan, which is in the form of a letter to Dean Kaplan and Jim Roberts. I believe they were involved in the first Act 47 five year plan. I had decided to post on it at lunch time (since I am at work), so Bram scooped me on this(athough not, as far as I can tell, the PG). Anyway, you can get to the plan at Preduto’s Council web page (link for the plan: http://www.city.pittsburgh.pa.us/district8/assets/ACT47-5yrplan_letter.pdf).
First of all, the timing of the press release is interesting. If Dowd had won Tuesday’s primary (yeah, I know) I would like to think Bill Peduto would have approached Dowd about his plan. The letter is dated April 28th, indicating that it has already been sent, but Peduto could have delayed the public/press release of it until Dowd had had input. The letter indicates a copy was sent to Ravenstahl, presumably on the 28th.
Second, the plan itself is very interesting, very ambitious. Bram mentions Peduto’s final paragraph, which states that the plan can not be like a menu, that is, we can not simply choose easy parts and disregard the hard items. We need to do it all. Yet the “all” is no small matter.
Peduto calls for the State to take over municipal employee pensions and healthcare. That is absolutely huge, and begs a staggering number of questions. The implications for notion of contracts negotiated by municipal unions alone are big. Legally the idea of patching together all the different negotiated pension and healthcare plans at a State level … well, it could be done, but to get any savings a number of unions would have to agree to accept the same plan (or cafeteria of plans). Peduto does suggest having an auditing firm show local municipal retirees what will happen if we do nothing, perhaps as a precursor to reducing their benefits. Of course with modern computing, it would be easy enough to manage a vast array of different municipal health insurance and pension plans plans, although I’ll bet the contracting local health insurance and national pension administrator agencies would not be amused. But then there’s the question of our pension shortfall, how or if would that be made up. Peduto doesn’t say, perhaps hoping the State would volunteer a portion or all of the shortfall.
Peduto calls for a “Functional Consolidation of Municipal Services”. This is an interesting one. Peduto explicitly rejects the notion of the Nordenberg plan, a merger of Pittsburgh City and Allegheny County governments, with the Pittsburgh political government all but disappearing. He complains particularly that there is no explanation about what would happen to City debt in that plan, except to say it would remain with the City (whose residents would (practically) no longer have a voice in what rate they would be taxed at). But Peduto’s alternative has to be a nightmare for residents of Shaler or Brentwood. He proposes bringing certain services for all 130 plus of our neighboring municipalities (and the City) under “countywide” control. This would be for payroll, tax collection, personnel, law and presumably also purchasing and CIS. Peduto does not say this, but Presumably Pittsburgh’s existing systems are already large enough that they could simply be expended cost efficiently and the municipalities and the County government could pay us for our administering these systems on their behalf. I am sure the 130 municipalities will leap to be included in this part of the plan.
There are five other parts to the plan to look at (including our ling term debt), which I may do in a future post when I have more time. But I think you may have an idea of why I think Peduto’s is very ambitious, maybe too much so. On the other hand, if we don’t try to be ambitious, we are more likely to have to look at municipal bankruptcy as our only option.
First of all, the timing of the press release is interesting. If Dowd had won Tuesday’s primary (yeah, I know) I would like to think Bill Peduto would have approached Dowd about his plan. The letter is dated April 28th, indicating that it has already been sent, but Peduto could have delayed the public/press release of it until Dowd had had input. The letter indicates a copy was sent to Ravenstahl, presumably on the 28th.
Second, the plan itself is very interesting, very ambitious. Bram mentions Peduto’s final paragraph, which states that the plan can not be like a menu, that is, we can not simply choose easy parts and disregard the hard items. We need to do it all. Yet the “all” is no small matter.
Peduto calls for the State to take over municipal employee pensions and healthcare. That is absolutely huge, and begs a staggering number of questions. The implications for notion of contracts negotiated by municipal unions alone are big. Legally the idea of patching together all the different negotiated pension and healthcare plans at a State level … well, it could be done, but to get any savings a number of unions would have to agree to accept the same plan (or cafeteria of plans). Peduto does suggest having an auditing firm show local municipal retirees what will happen if we do nothing, perhaps as a precursor to reducing their benefits. Of course with modern computing, it would be easy enough to manage a vast array of different municipal health insurance and pension plans plans, although I’ll bet the contracting local health insurance and national pension administrator agencies would not be amused. But then there’s the question of our pension shortfall, how or if would that be made up. Peduto doesn’t say, perhaps hoping the State would volunteer a portion or all of the shortfall.
Peduto calls for a “Functional Consolidation of Municipal Services”. This is an interesting one. Peduto explicitly rejects the notion of the Nordenberg plan, a merger of Pittsburgh City and Allegheny County governments, with the Pittsburgh political government all but disappearing. He complains particularly that there is no explanation about what would happen to City debt in that plan, except to say it would remain with the City (whose residents would (practically) no longer have a voice in what rate they would be taxed at). But Peduto’s alternative has to be a nightmare for residents of Shaler or Brentwood. He proposes bringing certain services for all 130 plus of our neighboring municipalities (and the City) under “countywide” control. This would be for payroll, tax collection, personnel, law and presumably also purchasing and CIS. Peduto does not say this, but Presumably Pittsburgh’s existing systems are already large enough that they could simply be expended cost efficiently and the municipalities and the County government could pay us for our administering these systems on their behalf. I am sure the 130 municipalities will leap to be included in this part of the plan.
There are five other parts to the plan to look at (including our ling term debt), which I may do in a future post when I have more time. But I think you may have an idea of why I think Peduto’s is very ambitious, maybe too much so. On the other hand, if we don’t try to be ambitious, we are more likely to have to look at municipal bankruptcy as our only option.
So what lessons should we draw from Tuesday (my own version).
So what lessons should we draw from Tuesday (my own version).
First, during the campaign, we had a visit from a Ravenstahl volunteer. She didn’t try to persuade me when I told her I wouldn’t be voting for the Mayor, although she did ask about the household. I did not have a visit from a Dowd volunteer, to say nothing of the candidate (although I did get lots of emails). If I had been on the fence, which way would I have been pushed? I know I have advocated campaigning negatively, and I stand behind that, especially with this Mayor. But I think there needs to be more. If either of the independents running in the general is to have a chance, they will need even more to connect with City residents.
Which brings us to the next lesson. Len Bodack won in his first election when he had two popular progressives running against him (was it Mitch Kates? and Nancy Nozick? Who founded Lotus?). Natalia Rudiak won because two relatively popular candidates split a vote (and because, according to Chris Potter, she had volunteers knocking on a lot of doors). The threat against Ravenstahl this time may have been watered down because two candidates ran against him. So what will happen in the general if two independents run against Ravenstahl? Both Acklin and Harris have been, at some point, Republicans. So once again I propose that one of the two drop out, in exchange for becoming the Chief of Staff for the other if the other is elected. I would lean toward Acklin dropping out. Harris can run as an African American and the son of a famous Steeler. Acklin can provide the political skill and experience to help save the City.
Otherwise I think Ravenstahl out fund raises and watches them split the vote, possibly along similar lines as Tuesday’s election.
Independent(s), better start the campaign soon too. That was a mistake DeSantis acknowledged.
Meanwhile, just a mention, Gail Collins (in the NYTimes and in particular), drew our (my, anyway) attention to the fact that the Democrats in Senate are not doing all thy could with their majority. Not that the have 60 votes yet, but they are crumbling like a stale cake in the face of the diminished but still lock step Republicans. The Dem’s voted against funding the dismantling of the facility of Guantanamo Bay after having called for it to be closed during the last election campaign, and many voted for the amendment to the credit card reform bill that allows people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks (!). Republicans have always been willing to tell their constituents some unpleasant things (mostly about Democrats) while running, but Democrats seem to be in great fear of offending their conservative constituents.
First, during the campaign, we had a visit from a Ravenstahl volunteer. She didn’t try to persuade me when I told her I wouldn’t be voting for the Mayor, although she did ask about the household. I did not have a visit from a Dowd volunteer, to say nothing of the candidate (although I did get lots of emails). If I had been on the fence, which way would I have been pushed? I know I have advocated campaigning negatively, and I stand behind that, especially with this Mayor. But I think there needs to be more. If either of the independents running in the general is to have a chance, they will need even more to connect with City residents.
Which brings us to the next lesson. Len Bodack won in his first election when he had two popular progressives running against him (was it Mitch Kates? and Nancy Nozick? Who founded Lotus?). Natalia Rudiak won because two relatively popular candidates split a vote (and because, according to Chris Potter, she had volunteers knocking on a lot of doors). The threat against Ravenstahl this time may have been watered down because two candidates ran against him. So what will happen in the general if two independents run against Ravenstahl? Both Acklin and Harris have been, at some point, Republicans. So once again I propose that one of the two drop out, in exchange for becoming the Chief of Staff for the other if the other is elected. I would lean toward Acklin dropping out. Harris can run as an African American and the son of a famous Steeler. Acklin can provide the political skill and experience to help save the City.
Otherwise I think Ravenstahl out fund raises and watches them split the vote, possibly along similar lines as Tuesday’s election.
Independent(s), better start the campaign soon too. That was a mistake DeSantis acknowledged.
Meanwhile, just a mention, Gail Collins (in the NYTimes and in particular), drew our (my, anyway) attention to the fact that the Democrats in Senate are not doing all thy could with their majority. Not that the have 60 votes yet, but they are crumbling like a stale cake in the face of the diminished but still lock step Republicans. The Dem’s voted against funding the dismantling of the facility of Guantanamo Bay after having called for it to be closed during the last election campaign, and many voted for the amendment to the credit card reform bill that allows people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks (!). Republicans have always been willing to tell their constituents some unpleasant things (mostly about Democrats) while running, but Democrats seem to be in great fear of offending their conservative constituents.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Over forty percent
Over forty percent of Democrats in this city would rather see someone other than Luke Ravenstahl as Mayor. Not a majority, to be sure, but significant considering the Mayor spent over 600 grand on this campaign, and his opponents spent well under that.
Ad neither Pat Dowd nor Carmen Robinson is the child of the most famous running back, arguably the most famous Steeler, in Pittsburgh history.
Ad neither Pat Dowd nor Carmen Robinson is the child of the most famous running back, arguably the most famous Steeler, in Pittsburgh history.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Which are we?
The PG today has statements from the Mayoral candidates and also answers from each to specific questions. I am not going to go into specifics about their statements/answers except to cover an issue I think lies under the surface and yet is vitally important. Mayor Ravenstahl basically maintains the City is doing well, yet needs more work to secure it’s position in the future. Pat Dowd says the City is in trouble and needs leadership with transparency and accountability to guide us. Carmen Robinson talks about two Pittsburgh’s, and wants to reach out to the neglected one.
The gap between Ravenstahl’s position and Dowd’s position is what I want to look at (for the record, I agree with Robinson, but I don’t see much indication she will get anywhere in the primary). Is the City doing better than most cities in this economic downturn, with manageable problems on the horizon, or does the City have so much debt and obligations it can not recover without tough action now? Now, I credit the Act 47 five year plan with creating the surplus; it was written that way. The Mayor may have created a bigger or smaller surplus than was foreseen/feasible, but it was always supposed to be there, as were many of tax reductions the Mayor brags about, and the increased services. But evidently the plan was not intended to address our debt or our pension shortfall, and there is no way to turn 50 million (what’s left of our surplus after the ICA plundered it) into seven hundred million or two billion (whatever our total debt/pension figure is). Plus we are looking at problems with future healthcare costs. These are some of the issues Pat Dowd is talking about (btw, there is supposed to be a new five year plan, though I couldn't say what it will cover).
It is the difference between whether we are a desirable place to go/be in this economic downturn versus whether we are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and there is no one out there to help us out. If we go into bankruptcy, what will happen? We may renege on our debts, damaging our credit rating and making it harder to borrow on favorable terms for decades to come. We may throw our municipal pensions on the tender mercies of the State or the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Our retirees may get pennies on the dollar (kinda makes you glad this is likely to happen on Ravenstahl’s watch).
Now I think the “City in trouble” line is likely true, though I don’t know how it will work out specifically under a Ravenstahl administration. I think at some point there will be a payment missed, City Council will squabble amongst themselves for a while, but eventually the Mayor and Council will jointly declare bankruptcy in Federal Court. It is possible that the State will step in and take direct control of the City before that happens (I am not sure about the legal rules here), although the only thing the State would be saving is face here, as they would not likely be happy about taking on the City’s financial issues. In the end, I think the City would continue, but I think it’s political power and prestige would be greatly reduced. City services would also be reduced for a long time to come.
Is Dowd the man to avoid this? Maybe. I don’t know that I trust him to be a magician, but he seems to recognize most of the crisis for what it is. His being in office, with an implied threat that he will declare bankruptcy if it is needed, might influence Harrisburg towards more generosity towards Pittsburgh.
That’s not much to hang a hat on, but that’s where we are.
The gap between Ravenstahl’s position and Dowd’s position is what I want to look at (for the record, I agree with Robinson, but I don’t see much indication she will get anywhere in the primary). Is the City doing better than most cities in this economic downturn, with manageable problems on the horizon, or does the City have so much debt and obligations it can not recover without tough action now? Now, I credit the Act 47 five year plan with creating the surplus; it was written that way. The Mayor may have created a bigger or smaller surplus than was foreseen/feasible, but it was always supposed to be there, as were many of tax reductions the Mayor brags about, and the increased services. But evidently the plan was not intended to address our debt or our pension shortfall, and there is no way to turn 50 million (what’s left of our surplus after the ICA plundered it) into seven hundred million or two billion (whatever our total debt/pension figure is). Plus we are looking at problems with future healthcare costs. These are some of the issues Pat Dowd is talking about (btw, there is supposed to be a new five year plan, though I couldn't say what it will cover).
It is the difference between whether we are a desirable place to go/be in this economic downturn versus whether we are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and there is no one out there to help us out. If we go into bankruptcy, what will happen? We may renege on our debts, damaging our credit rating and making it harder to borrow on favorable terms for decades to come. We may throw our municipal pensions on the tender mercies of the State or the Federal Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. Our retirees may get pennies on the dollar (kinda makes you glad this is likely to happen on Ravenstahl’s watch).
Now I think the “City in trouble” line is likely true, though I don’t know how it will work out specifically under a Ravenstahl administration. I think at some point there will be a payment missed, City Council will squabble amongst themselves for a while, but eventually the Mayor and Council will jointly declare bankruptcy in Federal Court. It is possible that the State will step in and take direct control of the City before that happens (I am not sure about the legal rules here), although the only thing the State would be saving is face here, as they would not likely be happy about taking on the City’s financial issues. In the end, I think the City would continue, but I think it’s political power and prestige would be greatly reduced. City services would also be reduced for a long time to come.
Is Dowd the man to avoid this? Maybe. I don’t know that I trust him to be a magician, but he seems to recognize most of the crisis for what it is. His being in office, with an implied threat that he will declare bankruptcy if it is needed, might influence Harrisburg towards more generosity towards Pittsburgh.
That’s not much to hang a hat on, but that’s where we are.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Couple of days, and the story I won't let go of ...
So there are a couple of days to go until the primary. I’m voting for Dowd. He does not strike me as perfect, but no one is, especially among politicians. Still, he would be a clear step up from Ravenstahl, and Dowd’s the one running (yes, I am saying I regard Dowd's chances as better than Robinson's, and Robinson has not particularly impressed me either).
Bram is doing a fine job of covering that and other parts of the election (notably the South Hills and the West End, areas I know next to nothing about), so I urge you to visit the Pittsburgh Comet, or as I call it Bram’s Comet. Meanwhile, there is a small story that I have been following, about ACORN. I am not really following it that closely, but I did send a comment to OffQ, which they read on air last night. The set up is that last week they mentioned the story of the ACORN workers Stephen Zappala has accused of voter registration fraud. Now, I have to admit up front that some ACORN supervisors or offices might want to make themselves look good and so might have set up local quotas so they can meet some sort of registration goal. Apparently the national office says it does not set or condone registration quotas. At the same, it would surely be in the interest of the accused to workers to claim there is a quota for voter registrations. So far, from what I have read, there has not been an anecdotal, much less systematic investigation of ACORN’s actual voter registration effort that would indicate from a neutral source (ie, a registration worker not accused of fraud) whether there was a quota system. Maybe there is such a person or people, but the PG has not reported it yet.
But there are six or so ACORN temp workers accused of voter fraud. I assume the DA knows this because the forms were turned in. Were they flagged? ACORN says they would have been. From the reporting I don’t know if they were. Could they have been used to vote fraudulently? Maybe, you can construct a scenario where fraudulent voters travel from voting place to voting place, and vote in all these different districts. Of course, if that happened it would likely get out eventually (although by then we might be living in a communist country). I think this sort of concern is why ACRON tries as hard as it does to be transparent, to check registration forms. But ultimately, if ACORN is under the control of some evil organization, with millions of members who use fraudulent voting to increase their strength ten fold, then maybe anything could happen. A black man could be elected President.
Anyway, ACORN is also accused at the very least of clogging the elections registration system with registration forms, including and apparently most egregiously, the flagged forms. That was the line on OffQ last week I believe and this week, when my comment was read, Heather Heidelbaugh (sp?) was saying there is no (Pennsylvania? National?) law requiring ACORN to turn all forms in, even suspicious ones. Researching just a bit on Google, Wikipedia and the ACORN site, she may be correct about Pennsylvania. There is such a law in Indiana, and ACORN’s line is that when there is a question, the advice of their council is to turn all forms in. Look up the story on Spoul & Associates, and you will see why that is sound advice.
Why is the burden on ACORN to resolve problematic registration forms, anyway? There are several options for the County elections people that I can see. They could hire a temp service or outsourced firm to go through all the registration forms or just the problematic ones, and make calls themselves. They could set the problematic forms aside (we trust ACORN, right?), then go through when they are not gearing up for an election. If ACORN had marked many Republican registrations as problematic, when those people went to vote in would send up be red flags. Also, when they finally did go through the forms, if a pattern developed, they could alert the DA’s office or the FBI then and ACORN could be charged (the legislature might have to do something about the statute of limitations). Or the County elections department could ask for volunteers, say, lawyers like Heather H, who could put the time where their mouth is, and make some calls checking on registrations.
Anyway, I sent another comment to OffQ, but I wouldn’t hold out much hope that it will be read. This is one of those stories where the Republicans hope the Democrats are not going to stick their neck out, where the Republicans (and Stephen Zappala, apparently) hope that waving the flag will blind us to the hypocrisy of their charges.
Bram is doing a fine job of covering that and other parts of the election (notably the South Hills and the West End, areas I know next to nothing about), so I urge you to visit the Pittsburgh Comet, or as I call it Bram’s Comet. Meanwhile, there is a small story that I have been following, about ACORN. I am not really following it that closely, but I did send a comment to OffQ, which they read on air last night. The set up is that last week they mentioned the story of the ACORN workers Stephen Zappala has accused of voter registration fraud. Now, I have to admit up front that some ACORN supervisors or offices might want to make themselves look good and so might have set up local quotas so they can meet some sort of registration goal. Apparently the national office says it does not set or condone registration quotas. At the same, it would surely be in the interest of the accused to workers to claim there is a quota for voter registrations. So far, from what I have read, there has not been an anecdotal, much less systematic investigation of ACORN’s actual voter registration effort that would indicate from a neutral source (ie, a registration worker not accused of fraud) whether there was a quota system. Maybe there is such a person or people, but the PG has not reported it yet.
But there are six or so ACORN temp workers accused of voter fraud. I assume the DA knows this because the forms were turned in. Were they flagged? ACORN says they would have been. From the reporting I don’t know if they were. Could they have been used to vote fraudulently? Maybe, you can construct a scenario where fraudulent voters travel from voting place to voting place, and vote in all these different districts. Of course, if that happened it would likely get out eventually (although by then we might be living in a communist country). I think this sort of concern is why ACRON tries as hard as it does to be transparent, to check registration forms. But ultimately, if ACORN is under the control of some evil organization, with millions of members who use fraudulent voting to increase their strength ten fold, then maybe anything could happen. A black man could be elected President.
Anyway, ACORN is also accused at the very least of clogging the elections registration system with registration forms, including and apparently most egregiously, the flagged forms. That was the line on OffQ last week I believe and this week, when my comment was read, Heather Heidelbaugh (sp?) was saying there is no (Pennsylvania? National?) law requiring ACORN to turn all forms in, even suspicious ones. Researching just a bit on Google, Wikipedia and the ACORN site, she may be correct about Pennsylvania. There is such a law in Indiana, and ACORN’s line is that when there is a question, the advice of their council is to turn all forms in. Look up the story on Spoul & Associates, and you will see why that is sound advice.
Why is the burden on ACORN to resolve problematic registration forms, anyway? There are several options for the County elections people that I can see. They could hire a temp service or outsourced firm to go through all the registration forms or just the problematic ones, and make calls themselves. They could set the problematic forms aside (we trust ACORN, right?), then go through when they are not gearing up for an election. If ACORN had marked many Republican registrations as problematic, when those people went to vote in would send up be red flags. Also, when they finally did go through the forms, if a pattern developed, they could alert the DA’s office or the FBI then and ACORN could be charged (the legislature might have to do something about the statute of limitations). Or the County elections department could ask for volunteers, say, lawyers like Heather H, who could put the time where their mouth is, and make some calls checking on registrations.
Anyway, I sent another comment to OffQ, but I wouldn’t hold out much hope that it will be read. This is one of those stories where the Republicans hope the Democrats are not going to stick their neck out, where the Republicans (and Stephen Zappala, apparently) hope that waving the flag will blind us to the hypocrisy of their charges.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Nut's N'at
Brian O’Neill did a piece on ACRON yesterday. He took pains to be “fair and balanced” but I think that took him too far down the path conservatives take. Seven local ACORN temp workers were arrested for voter fraud just recently. O’Neill had actually walked door to door with one of the arrested workers back in 2004, and while he doesn’t say anything personally bad about the man, he does indicate he was fired a couple of years ago for “cutting corners”. In fact, the two main thrusts of O’Neill column are that (a) the conservatives claims that ACORN is trying to steal an election are false and (b) ACORN’s claims of registering tens of thousands of voters here and more than a million nationwide are (in his opinion) false as well. And it is the county election department workers who get stuck with dealing with the problem.
OK, O’Neill may be right that ACORN is not succeeding in registering enough people. But I think he gave inadequate credit to ACORN for it’s own efforts to police itself (at least as reported on the KD/PG program last fall). ACORN apparently acts as a jobs program, especially for people who ordinarily can’t get jobs, during the election cycle. Not only do they hire canvassers who sign people up to vote, they hire people to call the names on those voter cards. If they can’t get a response after three calls, they flag the card. Or if the response they get on the phone is suspicious or clearly not form the name on the card, they flag the card. But since these are voter registration cards, where the person’s signature indicates they swear they are who they say they are and are not already registered, etc etc, and given the history of voter intimidation in this country, ACORN turns in every voter registration card, but flags the ones a reasonable person might say to tear up.
I myself can’t be totally sympathetic with ACORN. They hire people who are out of work before elections, and sometimes these are people they have hired before. That indicates to me that some of the hires are not people temporarily displaced, but rather seem incapable of finding a permanent job (some of them). And ACORN’s system of trying to generate productivity has not found the right balance yet (and may never). And I too sympathize with the County election workers who have to sort out these registration cards. But, again. given the history of minorities being able to actually vote in this country, ACORN is actually performing an important public service for us all. Except, apparently, the those conservatives who want to see the likes of George W Bush in office.
There was also a piece on assessments in yesterday's PG, but that will have to wait for a few days. I'm pretty busy at work.
OK, O’Neill may be right that ACORN is not succeeding in registering enough people. But I think he gave inadequate credit to ACORN for it’s own efforts to police itself (at least as reported on the KD/PG program last fall). ACORN apparently acts as a jobs program, especially for people who ordinarily can’t get jobs, during the election cycle. Not only do they hire canvassers who sign people up to vote, they hire people to call the names on those voter cards. If they can’t get a response after three calls, they flag the card. Or if the response they get on the phone is suspicious or clearly not form the name on the card, they flag the card. But since these are voter registration cards, where the person’s signature indicates they swear they are who they say they are and are not already registered, etc etc, and given the history of voter intimidation in this country, ACORN turns in every voter registration card, but flags the ones a reasonable person might say to tear up.
I myself can’t be totally sympathetic with ACORN. They hire people who are out of work before elections, and sometimes these are people they have hired before. That indicates to me that some of the hires are not people temporarily displaced, but rather seem incapable of finding a permanent job (some of them). And ACORN’s system of trying to generate productivity has not found the right balance yet (and may never). And I too sympathize with the County election workers who have to sort out these registration cards. But, again. given the history of minorities being able to actually vote in this country, ACORN is actually performing an important public service for us all. Except, apparently, the those conservatives who want to see the likes of George W Bush in office.
There was also a piece on assessments in yesterday's PG, but that will have to wait for a few days. I'm pretty busy at work.
Friday, May 08, 2009
Daaah ...dah dah dah ... dah dah dah
When the first Star Trek series was introduced in 1966, in many ways it reflected its time. Which is not to say the 23rd century, rather that specific time of 1966. In some ways it stretched the mores of 1966. I don’t know that everyone was comfortable with this multicultural crew (even though the middle aged heterosexual white guys were ultimately in charge), or comfortable with the first on screen interracial kiss, even if the circumstances included aliens with mind powers causing it.
But in 1966 things were not bad in the United States. Vietnam was escalating, but Tet had not occurred yet. I believe the economy was still in good shape. The Watts riot had occurred the year before, but so had the Voting rights Act, so progress was still being made. What made Star Trek so remarkable, looking back, was that it reflected the thought that government worked. In fact, government was so wise that it’s main law (prime directive) was not to interfere in primitive cultures the government’s employees encountered as they jetted around the universe. Of course, Captain Kirk knew what was best for the noble savages and routinely broke that rule, but we trusted his judgment. Subsequent Trek spin offs have spun these ideas, making them darker and reflecting our post-Watergate, post-Vietnam and even post-Lewinsky era.
The new movie is said to “re-imagine” parts of Star trek’s history (they’re not supposed to meet the Romulans until “Balance of Terror” in the first season), but actual history has already passed Star Trek’s history by (Ricardo Montalban was supposed to be sweeping through South Asia in the 1980’s, instead we got the band Asia and George HW Bush). We’ve come 43 years since Trek first appeared on the screen, a length of time where a person could grow up and become a success. For example, JJ Abrams was born in 1966 (irony?). Maybe Trek has gotten old enough and mature enough for us to appreciate the new while remembering what we like about the old one, and why. After all, by now Star Trek has gotten old enough to move out of it’s parents basement.
But in 1966 things were not bad in the United States. Vietnam was escalating, but Tet had not occurred yet. I believe the economy was still in good shape. The Watts riot had occurred the year before, but so had the Voting rights Act, so progress was still being made. What made Star Trek so remarkable, looking back, was that it reflected the thought that government worked. In fact, government was so wise that it’s main law (prime directive) was not to interfere in primitive cultures the government’s employees encountered as they jetted around the universe. Of course, Captain Kirk knew what was best for the noble savages and routinely broke that rule, but we trusted his judgment. Subsequent Trek spin offs have spun these ideas, making them darker and reflecting our post-Watergate, post-Vietnam and even post-Lewinsky era.
The new movie is said to “re-imagine” parts of Star trek’s history (they’re not supposed to meet the Romulans until “Balance of Terror” in the first season), but actual history has already passed Star Trek’s history by (Ricardo Montalban was supposed to be sweeping through South Asia in the 1980’s, instead we got the band Asia and George HW Bush). We’ve come 43 years since Trek first appeared on the screen, a length of time where a person could grow up and become a success. For example, JJ Abrams was born in 1966 (irony?). Maybe Trek has gotten old enough and mature enough for us to appreciate the new while remembering what we like about the old one, and why. After all, by now Star Trek has gotten old enough to move out of it’s parents basement.
Monday, May 04, 2009
Fetterman's troubles ...
Apparently John Fetterman is going to lose his primary in a few weeks. Not that I know much about it, but it seems the safe way to bet. Fetterman won his first election (which might have been the primary) by one vote. Now, according to the PG, he has antagonized a large part of the Braddock Council and picked up “vocal” critics. There are accusations that he is spending too much time on national television, and out of touch with the community. But I thought I detected an undertone of superiority in the PG’s reporting of the story, although I basically trust the story (as much as I do any newspaper story).
So the story covered Fetterman’s national exposure and his local efforts. It also covered the Council’s seeming dislike of Fetterman, as well as the anger of various individuals. Some of the points strike me as valid but complicated, like Fetterman owing taxes on two properties he bought for individuals in Braddock's youth programs(one of whom was shot and killed, the other moved away). Fetterman says he is trying to sell the properties to pay the taxes, but I would ask whether he was intending to offer these properties without having taxes paid up? The answer is, of course, we don’t get the full story, even in a paragraph devoted to it. But it does look bad for the Mayor to owe taxes on property, even in a complicated situation.
Maybe that is what comes across in the PG story, that at least part of Braddock does not want a complicated Mayor, they want a simple, easy to understand hometown boy. Fetterman’s competitor, a Jayme Cox, is a local business man made good, but he has a criminal record of sorts. Years ago he apparently attacked his wife of the time and took her purse. The charges were later dropped, but the two did get divorced. Cox said he “contested "everything" in the police report.” and says it is a personal matter that has been resolved (the wife apparently said nothing).
The PG is practically dripping with condescension when it finds a local critic, Lemuel Howell. He essentially accuses Fetterman of being a carpet bagger, complaining among other things about murals that Fetterman has encouraged. He compares Braddock to Mayberry, saying “And Mayberry is a little too small for them big ideas”. In the real world, I think you can entertain big ideas, even if you don’t adopt them. Doing things to make Braddock unique, like having a bio fuel shop in town, benefits Braddock and the larger region.
So the story covered Fetterman’s national exposure and his local efforts. It also covered the Council’s seeming dislike of Fetterman, as well as the anger of various individuals. Some of the points strike me as valid but complicated, like Fetterman owing taxes on two properties he bought for individuals in Braddock's youth programs(one of whom was shot and killed, the other moved away). Fetterman says he is trying to sell the properties to pay the taxes, but I would ask whether he was intending to offer these properties without having taxes paid up? The answer is, of course, we don’t get the full story, even in a paragraph devoted to it. But it does look bad for the Mayor to owe taxes on property, even in a complicated situation.
Maybe that is what comes across in the PG story, that at least part of Braddock does not want a complicated Mayor, they want a simple, easy to understand hometown boy. Fetterman’s competitor, a Jayme Cox, is a local business man made good, but he has a criminal record of sorts. Years ago he apparently attacked his wife of the time and took her purse. The charges were later dropped, but the two did get divorced. Cox said he “contested "everything" in the police report.” and says it is a personal matter that has been resolved (the wife apparently said nothing).
The PG is practically dripping with condescension when it finds a local critic, Lemuel Howell. He essentially accuses Fetterman of being a carpet bagger, complaining among other things about murals that Fetterman has encouraged. He compares Braddock to Mayberry, saying “And Mayberry is a little too small for them big ideas”. In the real world, I think you can entertain big ideas, even if you don’t adopt them. Doing things to make Braddock unique, like having a bio fuel shop in town, benefits Braddock and the larger region.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
