This post was caused by the “a-ha” moment in turn caused by this NYTimes piece. In may in fact be closer to a “well, duh” kind of thing, but at least it is in keeping with the title of this blog.
There has been a little talk about Barack Obama elevating the level of political discourse. Of course we all know about the surrogates for campaigns (like the Swift Boaters) and conservative (and a few liberals on) talk radio. But Obama’s efforts also do not seem to have filtered down to the internet and blogs. There seem to me to be a fair number of posts created just to provoke a reaction, and other posts which while containing new information, contain provocative statements. And this happens even more in comments, with people just agreeing with a slanted and nasty post, or disagreeing in a disagreeable manner, which results in several disagreeable retaliatory comments.
As far as I can tell most of us (in this region of the country) are amateurs at this. We know what we know, we are as well educated and/or as smart as we are. BTW, I have always felt that education and intelligence are less directly related than they ought to logically be, and that a poorly worded comment could still be very insightful. But often enough comments with extreme positions, conservative or in support of orthodoxy, are poorly worded and not insightful and can be left to stand on their own.
I don’t know what can be done about nasty posts and comments. I try to respond to most comments on my own blog. If there are blanket statements like that all unions or even one particular union is greedy, I will try to challenge it, although I try to be respectful. I know it makes for more enjoyable blog reading when you totally trash some one or some group. However sinking to that level essentially robs you of any claim to intellectual creditability. The best you can hope for if you are Ann Coulter, for example, is to have a louder microphone.
Not to say I have not been guilty of this myself on occasion. After the mayoral election I was following links on Early Returns of what blogs around the city were saying, looking for some outside my usual circle. I can across one young woman’s blog, where she favored Ravenstahl over DeSantis, and said why (mostly the residency thing, plus the city appears to be doing well under Ravenstahl). I commented at length on her blog, and couldn’t help myself in taking a couple of cheap shots in terms of questioning how informed she was (and really her intelligence). She fired back a comment no nastier but quite shorter than mine. I ended up apologizing because I felt an apology was appropriate (the young woman was being sincere in her assessment, and DeSantis’ website was hard to navigate, yada yada topic for another post), but the point is that few of us are immune to the temptation to be nasty (few of us in politics, none of us overall). Still, the moment where I find myself saying “I am laughing at you stupid conservatives” has got to be the moment I hang it up.
I am reminded of an acronym (or initialism?) that I saw for the first time recently: WTFWJD.
If you don’t get it, I won’t be the one to tell you.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Regional Indicators Redux
I had meant to post on the Pittsburghtoday.org/regional indicators site actually yesterday, but hadn’t mustered the effort and time to do so. Then this morning I heard sort of second hand that some of the people at UCSUR (University Center for Social and Urban Research, which apparently maintains the site) were concerned that I was declaring the site difficult to use (at least for me, which shouldn’t mean that much). So I took a second (and third) look at the site and discovered what I had missed before. When you click on one of the broad indicator types, like transportation or healthcare, it brings up a submenu of three or four items, with a graph showing Pittsburgh’s position with regard to the benchmark average. The submenu titles are in black fonts; I had never noticed that if you place the pointer on they turn a color (yellow for transportation, red for healthcare, etc). In other words, I hadn’t realized the submenu titles are clickable, leading to more data. That’s because I am have myself programmed to recognize quickly that items with the familiar blue color and underline are hyperlinks. Pittburghtoday.org has something more fancy, which defeats dinosaurs like me.
Mind you, just a little looking around made me wish there might be more levels of data, and maybe there are. I just don’t have time right now to find out. But I plan to play around with the site and see what I can find. I might say something about it here.
Meanwhile, the inspiration for my wanting to post on this yesterday was that the PG had another Pittsburgh 250 opinion piece, this one from Paul O’Neill about the Pittsburghtoday site. I am very impressed with O’Neill, even though I commented last Sunday on how I thought he might have driven George W crazy when O’Neill was Secretary of the Treasury. Anyway, I’m not sure how to take O’Neill’s piece in this past Sunday’s PG. He uses the example of medical data to show how patients might be smart consumers of medicine (or perhaps how employers might be smart consumers of health insurance), and then admits that particular level of data is not yet on Pittsburghtoday.org (D’oh!). Still, I don’t doubt that Mr O’Neill has it on his to do list, to add that data to the site, and that it will be done.
As I mentioned, I think that a Pittsburgh data compilation site is a really valuable idea. I don’t know that it should be limited to just data, or maybe it could be part of a group of linked sites, including sites that list restaurants and link to reviews, sites that link to housing lists, etc. Obviously a lot of that is on the PG website, and can be searched on either internally to that site or externally through Google (I should also mention the Trib website as well, having a lot of the same information as the PG site). The more of that that Pittsburgh can get together to resent to the outside world, the better. It is not enough in this day and age to be the “city with a doorway”. We need to be the city with an information highway on and off ramp (which, thank goodness, we do not have to rely on PennDOT to provide).
Mind you, just a little looking around made me wish there might be more levels of data, and maybe there are. I just don’t have time right now to find out. But I plan to play around with the site and see what I can find. I might say something about it here.
Meanwhile, the inspiration for my wanting to post on this yesterday was that the PG had another Pittsburgh 250 opinion piece, this one from Paul O’Neill about the Pittsburghtoday site. I am very impressed with O’Neill, even though I commented last Sunday on how I thought he might have driven George W crazy when O’Neill was Secretary of the Treasury. Anyway, I’m not sure how to take O’Neill’s piece in this past Sunday’s PG. He uses the example of medical data to show how patients might be smart consumers of medicine (or perhaps how employers might be smart consumers of health insurance), and then admits that particular level of data is not yet on Pittsburghtoday.org (D’oh!). Still, I don’t doubt that Mr O’Neill has it on his to do list, to add that data to the site, and that it will be done.
As I mentioned, I think that a Pittsburgh data compilation site is a really valuable idea. I don’t know that it should be limited to just data, or maybe it could be part of a group of linked sites, including sites that list restaurants and link to reviews, sites that link to housing lists, etc. Obviously a lot of that is on the PG website, and can be searched on either internally to that site or externally through Google (I should also mention the Trib website as well, having a lot of the same information as the PG site). The more of that that Pittsburgh can get together to resent to the outside world, the better. It is not enough in this day and age to be the “city with a doorway”. We need to be the city with an information highway on and off ramp (which, thank goodness, we do not have to rely on PennDOT to provide).
Friday, February 22, 2008
five hundred invoices ...
So I re-watched the KDKA report about Matt Hogue’s allegations against the Housing Authority. One concern, obviously, is that Matt kept electronic copies of invoices. The fact that he did so for whistle blowing purposes is a point in his favor, but the fact that he went to a news organization instead of the city, county or state is a concern. Still, going to a news agency ensured no Enron-like shredding of documents and wiping of hard drives and backups.
I took some notes while watching, but I realize that didn’t make much sense. There are apparently some 500 to 700 invoices in Matt’s stack. Still, during the broadcast there were a few interesting highlights, like spending 45,000 for a band at a Housing Authority reception? Detailing a car, and apparently being invoiced twice in one day for that one car? Spending just under 2 grand for Housing Authority lapel pins. Now, I noticed that the quantity for the lapel pins on the invoice was 1,000, so you can’t say the price was inflated. But you might ask why the Housing Authority needs a thousand lapel pins.
Matt and a Housing Authority resident mentions how a lot of repairs aren’t being made, and that HACP complains it doesn’t have the money or manpower to make repairs. Well, I glanced at a PG story or two on the HACP and at the HACP’s budget report on the HACP website. The budget, by the way, is described as back in the black (it was apparently in the red for some time period). The HACP maintains it has cut spending by “closely monitoring contract expenditures, reducing housing assistance expenditures within the Housing Choice Voucher Program and eliminating vacant positions whenever possible”. So any maintenance positions that had not been filled were eliminated, and that salary money, which was budgeted last year, was not spent. Except as the Authority saw it was saving money and going to come in under budget, some managers in the Authority may have approved expenses they might have nixed in the past. Remember, the entire Authority police force went to the city police, but I am assuming the Authority is only contributing a fraction of their former salaries.
Then there is the part about how the Authority is raising the rent it charges and saying it will force some residents into the regular housing market. Given the possibility some Authority employees are treating themselves to expensive toys, that now seems fairly obnoxious. I will say I fear the city has set the standard, and this sort of thing could be happening all across city government. Grown-ups need to step in.
So who polices the Authority? The city, who appoints the board? The State? The Feds? Whomever, they need to have their accounting practices reviewed and revised right quick. And not by Pat Ford, some professionals need to step in.
I took some notes while watching, but I realize that didn’t make much sense. There are apparently some 500 to 700 invoices in Matt’s stack. Still, during the broadcast there were a few interesting highlights, like spending 45,000 for a band at a Housing Authority reception? Detailing a car, and apparently being invoiced twice in one day for that one car? Spending just under 2 grand for Housing Authority lapel pins. Now, I noticed that the quantity for the lapel pins on the invoice was 1,000, so you can’t say the price was inflated. But you might ask why the Housing Authority needs a thousand lapel pins.
Matt and a Housing Authority resident mentions how a lot of repairs aren’t being made, and that HACP complains it doesn’t have the money or manpower to make repairs. Well, I glanced at a PG story or two on the HACP and at the HACP’s budget report on the HACP website. The budget, by the way, is described as back in the black (it was apparently in the red for some time period). The HACP maintains it has cut spending by “closely monitoring contract expenditures, reducing housing assistance expenditures within the Housing Choice Voucher Program and eliminating vacant positions whenever possible”. So any maintenance positions that had not been filled were eliminated, and that salary money, which was budgeted last year, was not spent. Except as the Authority saw it was saving money and going to come in under budget, some managers in the Authority may have approved expenses they might have nixed in the past. Remember, the entire Authority police force went to the city police, but I am assuming the Authority is only contributing a fraction of their former salaries.
Then there is the part about how the Authority is raising the rent it charges and saying it will force some residents into the regular housing market. Given the possibility some Authority employees are treating themselves to expensive toys, that now seems fairly obnoxious. I will say I fear the city has set the standard, and this sort of thing could be happening all across city government. Grown-ups need to step in.
So who polices the Authority? The city, who appoints the board? The State? The Feds? Whomever, they need to have their accounting practices reviewed and revised right quick. And not by Pat Ford, some professionals need to step in.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Issues ... or not?
There has been much punditry about how we should be paying attention to issues in this primary season. Of course, there are many accusations that people who support candidates (other than the favorite of whatever pundit we are reading or listening to) are doing so mindlessly, without any understanding of the candidate’s political stands. I myself had advocated looking at issues in last year’s Mayoral election, and so far to me it looks like I might have had a point. But in the race for President, I am thinking that the candidate’s stands on issues might not be that important, unless the stand is for immediate invasion of Canada.
As I have mentioned before, I am fairly persuaded by the arguments of the author Drew Westen (The Political Brain), that people chose candidates to support based on emotions, first impressions, and their own party history; and then the people rationalize their choices later. Particularly in choosing legislators this would seem to be a bad practice, but not one we are likely to see curbed anytime soon (especially if pundits and bloggers just yell at people for making bad choices). But when you think about it, what does the President really do? What sorts of things go into making a good and successful President?
Well, the President does not make policy, at least not by himself. Mostly Congress makes laws that guide policy, like directing Medicare to start a system that offers prescription drugs to senior citizens or reduce the tax rate on long term capital gains to 15% (from 35%?). Both those laws were proposed by the President but enacted by Congress. The President does negotiate treaties like the Kyoto Accord, but the Senate has to ratify them (which it didn’t). What the President does have by him or herself is the power of the “bully pulpit”, a guarantee that unless (s)he is really boring and stupid, (s)he can have the lead spot on the national news with whatever information (s)he wants to get out. That is something few if any other politicians can count on. The President is our “Cheerleader in Chief”, someone who can help the economy, if (s)he is persuasive, by convincing us things are going well and we should get out and spend (which spending can, by itself, improve the economic picture). Kind of ironic, considering what the current President did at Yale.
I would argue that the candidate’s current positions, such as Obama’s health plan without mandates and McCain’s desire to make the Bush tax cuts permanent to avoid a de facto tax increase, are not that important right now. If the President could make tax cuts permanent, Bush would have already done so. Presumably McCain knows the limits of the presidency and is just pandering to conservatives. And if conservatives are the rational realists they claim to be, it won’t help McCain with them. Obama's health plan could emerge from Congress with mandates, and I susupect he would not veto it on that basis alone.
What we should really be asking ourselves is what we think about the character of
the two men who are now the presumptive nominees. They will appoint department heads, do we think they will do a good job? They will represent the United States during crisis, and try to persuade us that they are controlling the situation, which do we think will be more convincing and persuasive?
I think I will try to take a look at the specifics of each man in my next post, maybe on Sunday.
As I have mentioned before, I am fairly persuaded by the arguments of the author Drew Westen (The Political Brain), that people chose candidates to support based on emotions, first impressions, and their own party history; and then the people rationalize their choices later. Particularly in choosing legislators this would seem to be a bad practice, but not one we are likely to see curbed anytime soon (especially if pundits and bloggers just yell at people for making bad choices). But when you think about it, what does the President really do? What sorts of things go into making a good and successful President?
Well, the President does not make policy, at least not by himself. Mostly Congress makes laws that guide policy, like directing Medicare to start a system that offers prescription drugs to senior citizens or reduce the tax rate on long term capital gains to 15% (from 35%?). Both those laws were proposed by the President but enacted by Congress. The President does negotiate treaties like the Kyoto Accord, but the Senate has to ratify them (which it didn’t). What the President does have by him or herself is the power of the “bully pulpit”, a guarantee that unless (s)he is really boring and stupid, (s)he can have the lead spot on the national news with whatever information (s)he wants to get out. That is something few if any other politicians can count on. The President is our “Cheerleader in Chief”, someone who can help the economy, if (s)he is persuasive, by convincing us things are going well and we should get out and spend (which spending can, by itself, improve the economic picture). Kind of ironic, considering what the current President did at Yale.
I would argue that the candidate’s current positions, such as Obama’s health plan without mandates and McCain’s desire to make the Bush tax cuts permanent to avoid a de facto tax increase, are not that important right now. If the President could make tax cuts permanent, Bush would have already done so. Presumably McCain knows the limits of the presidency and is just pandering to conservatives. And if conservatives are the rational realists they claim to be, it won’t help McCain with them. Obama's health plan could emerge from Congress with mandates, and I susupect he would not veto it on that basis alone.
What we should really be asking ourselves is what we think about the character of
the two men who are now the presumptive nominees. They will appoint department heads, do we think they will do a good job? They will represent the United States during crisis, and try to persuade us that they are controlling the situation, which do we think will be more convincing and persuasive?
I think I will try to take a look at the specifics of each man in my next post, maybe on Sunday.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Regional indicators
My issues with being able to post during tax season continue, though I am no less worked up about things. My car is a mess, and I am sure most people would side with my wife in saying that it is my own fault. I knew there was a good chance the electrical system would be unreliable when I bought the car, it had been in a flood according to the vehicle history. But right now the radio is fighting me, which is annoying. It needs a code when the battery dies (which happens frequently, because it is an aftermarket battery that is the wrong size for the car). I usually try to put the code in while I’m driving, and have often flubbed a number (of the four digit code). I found that if you hold in the band button, the blank code display will come back. Except not this time. Errrrrrr. I will have to go out, probably now, un-hook the battery, and wait for the capacitors to discharge.
The KD/PG Sunday edition was interesting and frustrating today. It was on the Pittsburgh Regional Indicators thingie, the pittsburghtoday.org website. They had John Craig and Paul O’Neill on, and Stacy Smith and Samantha Bennett were the hosts. Stacy Smith sometimes has a problem with coherence, and today was one of those days. I don’t think he prepares as much as he should (he does work a couple of different jobs), and he had trouble asking questions and finding follow-ups that made sense. He also made the statement that I believe makes Chris Briem cringe, that Pittsburgh has more young people leaving than any other area besides New Orleans (I believe Chris Briem attributes local population decline to our disproportionately older population, and their natural tendency to shuffle off this mortal coil). Samantha Bennett only asked a couple of questions (she was there because among her hats is the PG web editor cap), and was not able to save the half hour, to her frustration. John Craig and Paul O’Neill were also not able to rise past the general sense of confusion. By the way, Paul O’Neill does not seem the CEO of a manufacturing concern, his mannerisms seemed a bit fey and he struck me more like a playwright or a professor, a very, very smart playwright. I say this only because I could see it driving George Bush crazy, this fey guy disagreeing in a really smart way with the conservatives in Bush’s cabinet.
It’s a shame the discussion went nowhere, because I think a regional indicators website could be very valuable to our area. Mind you, I am not sure our regional indicators website is the one to be valuable, because I have trouble with it every time I look at it. It is suppose to compare us with other comparable areas, like Detroit or Kansas City or Minneapolis, but I can never bring the comparisons up. If it’s not easy to use on a casual basis, it will be hard to attract many users.
But it could be (in the abstract) useful by providing information, both negative and positive. For example, we don’t want to encourage a Latino oriented business to locate here, at least not now, because it would surely fail. But it does encourage us to think about what sorts of businesses should think about locating here. Paul O’Neill noted that Pittsburgh is ahead of most reference cities in both the healthcare and education industries. He suggested both are recession proof, and that may be true. However, I have a feeling that we all are thinking healthcare may contract here soon, as a large number of patients simply die off, because they are so old. Education should be around for a while, though. Carnegie Mellon is a nationally ranked school (whose students have nothing but contempt for Pittsburgh). But Carlow, Chatham, RMU, Point Park and to some extent Pitt are more regional schools, and their fortunes may be tied to the regional economy. Still, I could see both consulting and internet businesses considering Pittsburgh, because of the large number of professors here, and the reasonable cost of living. In fact, it’s too bad University of Phoenix didn’t start out as Pittsburgh University instead. We have the infrastructure (I believe) to handle an online university here, and with online it doesn't matter where you are.
There's more to say (I guess I had too much build up) but in the interests of actually getting this posted ...
The KD/PG Sunday edition was interesting and frustrating today. It was on the Pittsburgh Regional Indicators thingie, the pittsburghtoday.org website. They had John Craig and Paul O’Neill on, and Stacy Smith and Samantha Bennett were the hosts. Stacy Smith sometimes has a problem with coherence, and today was one of those days. I don’t think he prepares as much as he should (he does work a couple of different jobs), and he had trouble asking questions and finding follow-ups that made sense. He also made the statement that I believe makes Chris Briem cringe, that Pittsburgh has more young people leaving than any other area besides New Orleans (I believe Chris Briem attributes local population decline to our disproportionately older population, and their natural tendency to shuffle off this mortal coil). Samantha Bennett only asked a couple of questions (she was there because among her hats is the PG web editor cap), and was not able to save the half hour, to her frustration. John Craig and Paul O’Neill were also not able to rise past the general sense of confusion. By the way, Paul O’Neill does not seem the CEO of a manufacturing concern, his mannerisms seemed a bit fey and he struck me more like a playwright or a professor, a very, very smart playwright. I say this only because I could see it driving George Bush crazy, this fey guy disagreeing in a really smart way with the conservatives in Bush’s cabinet.
It’s a shame the discussion went nowhere, because I think a regional indicators website could be very valuable to our area. Mind you, I am not sure our regional indicators website is the one to be valuable, because I have trouble with it every time I look at it. It is suppose to compare us with other comparable areas, like Detroit or Kansas City or Minneapolis, but I can never bring the comparisons up. If it’s not easy to use on a casual basis, it will be hard to attract many users.
But it could be (in the abstract) useful by providing information, both negative and positive. For example, we don’t want to encourage a Latino oriented business to locate here, at least not now, because it would surely fail. But it does encourage us to think about what sorts of businesses should think about locating here. Paul O’Neill noted that Pittsburgh is ahead of most reference cities in both the healthcare and education industries. He suggested both are recession proof, and that may be true. However, I have a feeling that we all are thinking healthcare may contract here soon, as a large number of patients simply die off, because they are so old. Education should be around for a while, though. Carnegie Mellon is a nationally ranked school (whose students have nothing but contempt for Pittsburgh). But Carlow, Chatham, RMU, Point Park and to some extent Pitt are more regional schools, and their fortunes may be tied to the regional economy. Still, I could see both consulting and internet businesses considering Pittsburgh, because of the large number of professors here, and the reasonable cost of living. In fact, it’s too bad University of Phoenix didn’t start out as Pittsburgh University instead. We have the infrastructure (I believe) to handle an online university here, and with online it doesn't matter where you are.
There's more to say (I guess I had too much build up) but in the interests of actually getting this posted ...
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Policy, anyone? Anyone? (Bueller? Bueller?)
David Brooks brings up a point about the Democrats in his NYTimes column today. Because the Democrat party presidential aspirants are so alike (at this point), there’s not much discussion of policy going on. Which is a problem, because there is likely to be some when the nominee is chosen. For example, what would happen if a Democratic President made good on that pledge to withdraw troops within sixty days? Brooks brings up the hue and cry the military and conservative politicians would raise. Kind of defeats the whole “unite the country” thing, Ms Clinton or Mr. Obama.
My first question is, what would happen to the people who stayed behind, waiting their turn to leave? Even if we were able to get all our people out without huge casualties or a last stand, and the private contractors got out too, what then would to Iraq? How would Americans feel watching a civil war in this country we were supposed to “liberate”, watching thousands die and a strong man come in. That would be an interesting polling question: “would you favor staying in Iraq if the alternative was genocide?”
The Democrats have long and loudly proclaimed their support for the troops. But I can see a debate moderator asking the Democrat nominee to explain to the families of a slain soldier or to a soldier with amputated legs or what have you how the Iraq invasion and occupation was “worth it”. I don’t think it would be any good to just blame Bush (even if that might well be accurate).
I was never fond of the “you break it, you bought it” metaphor, but I don’t think you can really get away with “you break it, you bought it, you can take it back five years later”. Anyway, the Democrats have seethed and ground their teeth at what they described as Republican incompetence in running the war. Maybe they should take a crack at running it before they toss it out.
I didn’t even get to Brooks’ discussion of the deficit.
My first question is, what would happen to the people who stayed behind, waiting their turn to leave? Even if we were able to get all our people out without huge casualties or a last stand, and the private contractors got out too, what then would to Iraq? How would Americans feel watching a civil war in this country we were supposed to “liberate”, watching thousands die and a strong man come in. That would be an interesting polling question: “would you favor staying in Iraq if the alternative was genocide?”
The Democrats have long and loudly proclaimed their support for the troops. But I can see a debate moderator asking the Democrat nominee to explain to the families of a slain soldier or to a soldier with amputated legs or what have you how the Iraq invasion and occupation was “worth it”. I don’t think it would be any good to just blame Bush (even if that might well be accurate).
I was never fond of the “you break it, you bought it” metaphor, but I don’t think you can really get away with “you break it, you bought it, you can take it back five years later”. Anyway, the Democrats have seethed and ground their teeth at what they described as Republican incompetence in running the war. Maybe they should take a crack at running it before they toss it out.
I didn’t even get to Brooks’ discussion of the deficit.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Something a bit different
Mike Woycheck is something of a legend in what has come to be called the Burghosphere. The administrator of the very useful Pittsburgh Bloggers website, he also works at the Pittsburgh Technology Council. He sent me (and I am sure many other bloggers) an email telling me about a competition the PTC is running, and asking me to post about it. Since it is late and a school night (so to speak), I am going to take the lazy way out and simply post what he sent me. Check out pghbloggers and the PTC websites as well for more (or at least differently laid out) information.
EnterPrize is Pittsburgh’s premier business plan competition for technology startups. This year, the Pittsburgh Technology Council hosts eight workshops and three networking events, beginning February 20 with a workshop, “Developing the Idea” taught by Chris Allison. Through three phases of competition more than $80,000 will be awarded. Participants will get plenty of feedback through a coach and comments on their plans from judges and will have many, many networking opportunities to meet potential funders, advisers and peers.
The goal of the competition is to help stimulate economic growth in southwestern Pennsylvania and support local technology entrepreneurs.
You can find more information about the competition, including a registration form for entry, via the website link below:
http://www.pghtech.org/Events/enterprize.asp
Background Information:
EnterPrize is divided into two categories - new business and existing business. What defines a "new business?"
· The team has an idea for an innovative product or service with which they intend to start a company.
· The company does not exist.
· The company is nothing more than an idea.
· They have no employees (founders are acceptable).
· No money has been raised.
· The company is not incorporated. (NOTE: If it is incorporated, its only purpose was to create a shell - the company is not conducting any business).
The company has not experienced Substantial Business Activity:
· Payment of wages or salaries
· Receipt of research grants, development contracts or other sources of revenue
· Receipt of equity or debt financing from outside the Founder's immediate family
* Founder's activities, such as research, prototype development, establishing beta sites (other than for paying customers), licensing necessary technologies, will not be considered Substantial Business Activities.
Definition of an Existing Business Category:
· The company is less than three (3) years old.
· The company has less than twenty (20) employees.
· The company has less than $1 million in annual sales.
· The company has raised less than $500,000 in capital since its inception.
The company is experiencing Substantial Business Activity:
· Payment of wages or salaries
· Receipt of research grants, development contracts or other sources of revenue
· Receipt of equity or debt financing from outside the Founder's immediate family
* Founder's activities, such as research, prototype development, establishing beta sites (other than for paying customers), licensing necessary technologies, will not be considered Substantial Business Activities.
Some of our members who have participated in EnterPrize over the years include: Vivisimo, Plextronics, Agentase, ALung Technologies, LogicLibrary, RemComm, Staffing Direct Business Solutions.
EnterPrize is Pittsburgh’s premier business plan competition for technology startups. This year, the Pittsburgh Technology Council hosts eight workshops and three networking events, beginning February 20 with a workshop, “Developing the Idea” taught by Chris Allison. Through three phases of competition more than $80,000 will be awarded. Participants will get plenty of feedback through a coach and comments on their plans from judges and will have many, many networking opportunities to meet potential funders, advisers and peers.
The goal of the competition is to help stimulate economic growth in southwestern Pennsylvania and support local technology entrepreneurs.
You can find more information about the competition, including a registration form for entry, via the website link below:
http://www.pghtech.org/Events/enterprize.asp
Background Information:
EnterPrize is divided into two categories - new business and existing business. What defines a "new business?"
· The team has an idea for an innovative product or service with which they intend to start a company.
· The company does not exist.
· The company is nothing more than an idea.
· They have no employees (founders are acceptable).
· No money has been raised.
· The company is not incorporated. (NOTE: If it is incorporated, its only purpose was to create a shell - the company is not conducting any business).
The company has not experienced Substantial Business Activity:
· Payment of wages or salaries
· Receipt of research grants, development contracts or other sources of revenue
· Receipt of equity or debt financing from outside the Founder's immediate family
* Founder's activities, such as research, prototype development, establishing beta sites (other than for paying customers), licensing necessary technologies, will not be considered Substantial Business Activities.
Definition of an Existing Business Category:
· The company is less than three (3) years old.
· The company has less than twenty (20) employees.
· The company has less than $1 million in annual sales.
· The company has raised less than $500,000 in capital since its inception.
The company is experiencing Substantial Business Activity:
· Payment of wages or salaries
· Receipt of research grants, development contracts or other sources of revenue
· Receipt of equity or debt financing from outside the Founder's immediate family
* Founder's activities, such as research, prototype development, establishing beta sites (other than for paying customers), licensing necessary technologies, will not be considered Substantial Business Activities.
Some of our members who have participated in EnterPrize over the years include: Vivisimo, Plextronics, Agentase, ALung Technologies, LogicLibrary, RemComm, Staffing Direct Business Solutions.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Opinion 250 ... and 1 (1 more opinon, that is, not 251 years)
I gotta hope that the Post Gazette is saving the better for later in its Opinion 250 series. Chad Hermann’s (bless him) piece in last Sunday’s Forum section was a fairly vague indictment of the current Mayor and Chief Executive (and UPMC). That’s something we bloggers have gotten used to doing, but I actually think we should really try to be as exact as possible (given our circumstances) if we want to complain, otherwise we risk sounding like cranks. Meanwhile, David Caliguiri today takes Chad to task in the next installment of the series, saying that Chad was guilty of just talking about the problem instead of doing anything about it (I guess Chad was supposed to lead charge against the barricades). But Caliguiri’s own prescriptions for action are extremely troubling. His suggestion for problems with our pension funds and Port Authority is to spend more money; for the pension funds to specifically go to Harrisburg and demand more money (for PAT he says we should “plan” how to fund additional projects). And Caliguiri thinks “Our outdated tax structure needs to be reformed”, a euphemism for reducing the taxes of the city and the region. So, let’s see, we are going to tell the legislature to give us money for our pension funds, probably tell them they have to pay for an Oakland connector for the trolley, er, subway and then tell them to reduce our taxes.
Now, I understand there is a state component to pension funds, and you would think it would have special obligations to an officially designated “distressed” city. But we need to live in a real world. We have the largest per capita state legislature in the country, which means that each legislator is has to be careful because even a small group of disgruntled voters could have an impact. Yet we have few legislators in the city proper; people like Jim Ferlo and Lisa Bennington have districts that stretch far into rural areas (Ferlo’s district makes it to Armstrong County). Harrisburg is unlikely to listen to Pittsburgh if we bluster about how they have to give us more money and take less from us. That’s why it was so important to elect Mark DeSantis Mayor. If Pittsburgh were seen as trying to reform itself first, it would have carried more weight when we started making demands. Instead, we still have a Mayor who has ordered his department managers not to talk to Council or the media unless they have permission from Yarone Zober.
Both Hermann and Caliguiri think actions speak louder than words, and I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, I have little more than words to offer. The people who have the ability to take action, our elected officials, are fairly content to just talk about problems and spend money we don’t have. Meanwhile, the best I can do is look at our problems and try to find the inconsistencies in what our leaders have said.
Now, I understand there is a state component to pension funds, and you would think it would have special obligations to an officially designated “distressed” city. But we need to live in a real world. We have the largest per capita state legislature in the country, which means that each legislator is has to be careful because even a small group of disgruntled voters could have an impact. Yet we have few legislators in the city proper; people like Jim Ferlo and Lisa Bennington have districts that stretch far into rural areas (Ferlo’s district makes it to Armstrong County). Harrisburg is unlikely to listen to Pittsburgh if we bluster about how they have to give us more money and take less from us. That’s why it was so important to elect Mark DeSantis Mayor. If Pittsburgh were seen as trying to reform itself first, it would have carried more weight when we started making demands. Instead, we still have a Mayor who has ordered his department managers not to talk to Council or the media unless they have permission from Yarone Zober.
Both Hermann and Caliguiri think actions speak louder than words, and I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, I have little more than words to offer. The people who have the ability to take action, our elected officials, are fairly content to just talk about problems and spend money we don’t have. Meanwhile, the best I can do is look at our problems and try to find the inconsistencies in what our leaders have said.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Green lawns versus carbon footprints
Once again I have been absent from blogging. This will probably be a trend through tax season (I worked six hours today, for example), but I will do my best. Below is a bit of inspiration.
There is an individual who has been a gadfly of sorts on the blogs' Antirust and the Burgh Report, a suburbanite who trumpets the clear superiority of the suburbs over the city. I don’t think I am going to name him, but you might recognize these ideas. The houses in the city are chimneys; the heat rises within them, it is both wasteful and uncontrollable and the attics are saunas. Of course there is the crime, even with all our police (who are, of course, corrupt) murders happen spontaneously and constantly, and people only pretend to care. Our streets are totally un-navigable and confusing. Our public officials and the city’s unions are totally corrupt and just praying for a city county merger so they can use that to jack up their wages. Oh yeah, and we waste huge amounts of energy with street lights.
By contrast, in the suburbs there is very little crime (what little there is is probably caused by city people who got lost and wandered into the suburbs). There’s no traffic, so driving is fuel efficient and more pleasurable. There are stores close by that are clean and well stocked, and movie houses with movies people enjoy watching, as opposed to pretentious symphonies and ballets in the city. The government employees in the suburbs are polite and helpful. And the houses in the suburbs were made recently with modern, quality materials by builders who take pride in their work, so everything in the suburbs is fuel efficient.
Or maybe not. The NYTimes had a story Saturday about how suburbanites are coming to realize that their lifestyle may not fit in with environmental beliefs. The giant size of many suburban houses and the total reliance on cars work against the most basic tenets of sustainable living. Now, to be fair, my family lives in a sixty year old city house, and we have not done as much as I would like to add insulation. And I am still working on adding a bike into my commute in a way that actually reduces how much gas I use (right now I use the bike to make my commute quicker time-wise). And the story describes how some features of suburbs allow you to do things that would be much more difficult in the city, such as adding a wind turbine that is tall enough to actually do some good.
But the graphic attached to the story really spells out the situation. Using Atlanta as an example, houses in that area that are attached (which you see in cities) use much less energy than larger stand alone suburban houses. And per unit, apartment buildings use the least amount of energy. Still using Atlanta, the graphic also shows that the further out counties produce much more carbon dioxide emissions than the city and near suburb counties.
Pittsburgh has an interesting mix of types of suburban communities, which I suspect is true in many places (such as Cleveland). The city is not just ringed by wealthy suburbs filed with people who cynically fled the city’s high taxes (although there are at least a few of those suburbs … I’m looking at you, Sewickley). Places like Rankin and Duquesne could just as easily be in the city, and boroughs like Verona and Blawnox could be mistaken for spread out versions of Bloomfield or Greenfield. Pittsburgh’s rust belt heritage means that when the steel and other industrail workers started moving out of the city in the fifties, sixties and seventies, they tied the fate of the suburbs where they settled to their jobs. Which could be part of the reason why Pittsburgh (and Allegheny County) has such an elderly population. Pensions have probably been so battered by the downsizing of the manufacturing sector; area retirees really need the low cost of living here (and can’t afford to move where its warmer).
But regardless of all that, there is growing evidence that our post war migration to suburbia is a big part of our energy appetite. The article describes how many communities are taking steps to reduce energy consumption. But the most effective step might be a reverse migration. As Jed Clampett would put it “Y’all come back, you hear”.
There is an individual who has been a gadfly of sorts on the blogs' Antirust and the Burgh Report, a suburbanite who trumpets the clear superiority of the suburbs over the city. I don’t think I am going to name him, but you might recognize these ideas. The houses in the city are chimneys; the heat rises within them, it is both wasteful and uncontrollable and the attics are saunas. Of course there is the crime, even with all our police (who are, of course, corrupt) murders happen spontaneously and constantly, and people only pretend to care. Our streets are totally un-navigable and confusing. Our public officials and the city’s unions are totally corrupt and just praying for a city county merger so they can use that to jack up their wages. Oh yeah, and we waste huge amounts of energy with street lights.
By contrast, in the suburbs there is very little crime (what little there is is probably caused by city people who got lost and wandered into the suburbs). There’s no traffic, so driving is fuel efficient and more pleasurable. There are stores close by that are clean and well stocked, and movie houses with movies people enjoy watching, as opposed to pretentious symphonies and ballets in the city. The government employees in the suburbs are polite and helpful. And the houses in the suburbs were made recently with modern, quality materials by builders who take pride in their work, so everything in the suburbs is fuel efficient.
Or maybe not. The NYTimes had a story Saturday about how suburbanites are coming to realize that their lifestyle may not fit in with environmental beliefs. The giant size of many suburban houses and the total reliance on cars work against the most basic tenets of sustainable living. Now, to be fair, my family lives in a sixty year old city house, and we have not done as much as I would like to add insulation. And I am still working on adding a bike into my commute in a way that actually reduces how much gas I use (right now I use the bike to make my commute quicker time-wise). And the story describes how some features of suburbs allow you to do things that would be much more difficult in the city, such as adding a wind turbine that is tall enough to actually do some good.
But the graphic attached to the story really spells out the situation. Using Atlanta as an example, houses in that area that are attached (which you see in cities) use much less energy than larger stand alone suburban houses. And per unit, apartment buildings use the least amount of energy. Still using Atlanta, the graphic also shows that the further out counties produce much more carbon dioxide emissions than the city and near suburb counties.
Pittsburgh has an interesting mix of types of suburban communities, which I suspect is true in many places (such as Cleveland). The city is not just ringed by wealthy suburbs filed with people who cynically fled the city’s high taxes (although there are at least a few of those suburbs … I’m looking at you, Sewickley). Places like Rankin and Duquesne could just as easily be in the city, and boroughs like Verona and Blawnox could be mistaken for spread out versions of Bloomfield or Greenfield. Pittsburgh’s rust belt heritage means that when the steel and other industrail workers started moving out of the city in the fifties, sixties and seventies, they tied the fate of the suburbs where they settled to their jobs. Which could be part of the reason why Pittsburgh (and Allegheny County) has such an elderly population. Pensions have probably been so battered by the downsizing of the manufacturing sector; area retirees really need the low cost of living here (and can’t afford to move where its warmer).
But regardless of all that, there is growing evidence that our post war migration to suburbia is a big part of our energy appetite. The article describes how many communities are taking steps to reduce energy consumption. But the most effective step might be a reverse migration. As Jed Clampett would put it “Y’all come back, you hear”.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Strange timing ...
I swear I hadn’t read Ruth Ann Dailey’s column when I wrote my last post, this morning. I had in mind David Brooks and William Kristol of the NYTimes, both of whom have been complimentary of Barack Obama. When your enemies compliment you, you have to wonder what their motivation is.
Ruth Ann does not get around to complimenting Mr Obama until the last paragraph, but I assume she was baiting me with this early remark: “The column's timing is curious, appearing just as the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is laying bare the cognitive dissonance of the left wing's decades-old racial posturing.” (probably not baiting me, but honestly, how many people use “cognitive dissonance” in everyday column writing?)
The remark refers to a column from Leonard Pitts Jr, discussing the history of the allegiance of black voters to one party or the other. A reader asks about Martin Luther King’s being a republican, and about Southern democrats such as Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Mr. Pitts responds by talking about the changeover Southern Democratic politicians had made (eventually to joining the Republican party), but he doesn’t really pin down the time that happened. Ms. Dailey pounces on that, and makes the point that during the civil rights era Republicans were still very sympathetic to African-Americans, voting in greater proportion than Democrats for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, I’m not sure about what greater proportion means, it could mean that 90% of Republicans voted for the two acts, and only 89% of Democrats voted for them. Obviously, a lot of Southern Democrats were seeing the potential end of their careers (if blacks were no longer disenfranchised), and might well have voted against the Acts. Later as I understand it no small number of Southern Democrats switched parties (which Ms. Dailey notes), part of a deliberate “Southern Strategy” pursued by Richard Nixon. Ms Dailey is no also doubt accurate in documenting Lyndon Johnson’s move from being essentially racist in the fifties to championing civil rights in the late sixties.
But Ruth Ann goes on to try to identify the “Real Killers”, which is to say the real villains in the south. She points the finger at extremists in both parties, at African American leaders who want to maintain their power base, and lastly (and not surprisingly) at the “baby boomer” media which sees the leaders of the civil rights movement as heroes. I have to say the first three groups are easy targets, and I think Ruth Ann is advancing her own agenda in pointing at the media. There is surely some hero worship of figures like Kennedy and King, but it is harder than ever to run away from the truth, even if it is a little threatening to one’s self image.
Caroline Kennedy’s piece in the NYTimes, endorsing Barack Obama because he reminds her of what people tell her about her own father, might well be looked at in terms of cognitive dissonance. She writes in a style that reads like something out of a bad third grade civics textbook. She actually tells us that since the Democratic candidates policy proposals are so similar, we can safely ignore and make our choice based largely on “qualities of leadership, character and judgment”.
The thing is, Jack Kennedy was a very human president. He was a cold warrior with very good anti-communist credentials, for example his brother Bobby was a counsel for the “Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations”, Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist committee. Later Bobby ended up as part of the investigation of McCarthy. JFK was almost certainly a philanderer, but the media of the time was reluctant to reveal such things. Kennedy got us deeper into Vietnam and of course set the tone for our relationship with Cuba. The country at the time was pretty divided about Kennedy, much the way it was divided in the (Bill) Clinton years.
Certainly Kennedy had some strong qualities. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, although hardly well thought out at the time, was a successful masterstroke of restraint. Kennedy brought us the Peace Corps, the manned effort to reach the moon, civil rights, the 1963 tax cut and generally did set an optimistic tone for the country.
Kennedy, the assassinated myth, holds a special place in US mythology, along with his brother and Martin Luther King. But we should really remember the man, who rose past his foibles to be good (although perhaps not great) president.
Ruth Ann does not get around to complimenting Mr Obama until the last paragraph, but I assume she was baiting me with this early remark: “The column's timing is curious, appearing just as the contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton is laying bare the cognitive dissonance of the left wing's decades-old racial posturing.” (probably not baiting me, but honestly, how many people use “cognitive dissonance” in everyday column writing?)
The remark refers to a column from Leonard Pitts Jr, discussing the history of the allegiance of black voters to one party or the other. A reader asks about Martin Luther King’s being a republican, and about Southern democrats such as Lester Maddox and George Wallace. Mr. Pitts responds by talking about the changeover Southern Democratic politicians had made (eventually to joining the Republican party), but he doesn’t really pin down the time that happened. Ms. Dailey pounces on that, and makes the point that during the civil rights era Republicans were still very sympathetic to African-Americans, voting in greater proportion than Democrats for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Now, I’m not sure about what greater proportion means, it could mean that 90% of Republicans voted for the two acts, and only 89% of Democrats voted for them. Obviously, a lot of Southern Democrats were seeing the potential end of their careers (if blacks were no longer disenfranchised), and might well have voted against the Acts. Later as I understand it no small number of Southern Democrats switched parties (which Ms. Dailey notes), part of a deliberate “Southern Strategy” pursued by Richard Nixon. Ms Dailey is no also doubt accurate in documenting Lyndon Johnson’s move from being essentially racist in the fifties to championing civil rights in the late sixties.
But Ruth Ann goes on to try to identify the “Real Killers”, which is to say the real villains in the south. She points the finger at extremists in both parties, at African American leaders who want to maintain their power base, and lastly (and not surprisingly) at the “baby boomer” media which sees the leaders of the civil rights movement as heroes. I have to say the first three groups are easy targets, and I think Ruth Ann is advancing her own agenda in pointing at the media. There is surely some hero worship of figures like Kennedy and King, but it is harder than ever to run away from the truth, even if it is a little threatening to one’s self image.
Caroline Kennedy’s piece in the NYTimes, endorsing Barack Obama because he reminds her of what people tell her about her own father, might well be looked at in terms of cognitive dissonance. She writes in a style that reads like something out of a bad third grade civics textbook. She actually tells us that since the Democratic candidates policy proposals are so similar, we can safely ignore and make our choice based largely on “qualities of leadership, character and judgment”.
The thing is, Jack Kennedy was a very human president. He was a cold warrior with very good anti-communist credentials, for example his brother Bobby was a counsel for the “Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations”, Joe McCarthy’s anti-communist committee. Later Bobby ended up as part of the investigation of McCarthy. JFK was almost certainly a philanderer, but the media of the time was reluctant to reveal such things. Kennedy got us deeper into Vietnam and of course set the tone for our relationship with Cuba. The country at the time was pretty divided about Kennedy, much the way it was divided in the (Bill) Clinton years.
Certainly Kennedy had some strong qualities. His handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, although hardly well thought out at the time, was a successful masterstroke of restraint. Kennedy brought us the Peace Corps, the manned effort to reach the moon, civil rights, the 1963 tax cut and generally did set an optimistic tone for the country.
Kennedy, the assassinated myth, holds a special place in US mythology, along with his brother and Martin Luther King. But we should really remember the man, who rose past his foibles to be good (although perhaps not great) president.
Better late? Really?
So I haven’t been posting on my blog as I should. I have been commenting on other people’s blogs, but that’s getting a little tiring as other people’s blogs either have no other commenters, or the comments seem to consist of “the other side is evil and you are stupid” sort of thing.
So the other side is evil and anyone who disagrees is stupid. Heh.
I will say that elections are not the place for genuine debate on issues, at least, not after Iowa and New Hampshire. I remember reading about health care plans and …. Well, I read about health care plans, anyway. Obama’s doesn’t have mandates, (Hillary) Clinton’s does. Everybody wants to control for medical errors by saying they will.
Anyway, all that’s gone. I guess the issues are something for early in the campaign, if at all. Blink and you might miss them (or sleepwalk, as most registered voters do, and you might miss them). I guess we can watch candidates react to the financial crisis; we get to see them behave like pundits.
It remains to be seen whether Bill Clinton will be pulled back now, having been let or having let himself off the leash to squeeze out some innuendos that everyone knew would be analyzed to death by the punditocracy (including us bloggers). Really, the gyrations of the punditocracy, as they try to look into the campaigns, are pretty funny. (Hillary) Clinton was never going to win South Carolina because of the black vote and/or the white vote. Obama was going to win. Edwards was going to win.
Its especially interesting when conservatives comment on democrats. They have to know it is annoying to a democratic candidate when a conservative talks about what a swell guy/girl he/she is. The candidate has to wonder, is the conservative saying this because the conservative wants to help the candidate, wants to hurt the candidate, thinks the candidate will be easier or more difficult to beat …And of course the flip side is true. John McCain looked a little like he had swallowed a bug (on camera and still had to smile) when Tim Russert brought up the NYTimes endorsement of McCain. Everyone knows the Times will endorse the democrat in the general election, so what business does the Times have making an endorsement of a republican in the primaries?
“Sound and fury”, (so far) “signifying nothing”.
So the other side is evil and anyone who disagrees is stupid. Heh.
I will say that elections are not the place for genuine debate on issues, at least, not after Iowa and New Hampshire. I remember reading about health care plans and …. Well, I read about health care plans, anyway. Obama’s doesn’t have mandates, (Hillary) Clinton’s does. Everybody wants to control for medical errors by saying they will.
Anyway, all that’s gone. I guess the issues are something for early in the campaign, if at all. Blink and you might miss them (or sleepwalk, as most registered voters do, and you might miss them). I guess we can watch candidates react to the financial crisis; we get to see them behave like pundits.
It remains to be seen whether Bill Clinton will be pulled back now, having been let or having let himself off the leash to squeeze out some innuendos that everyone knew would be analyzed to death by the punditocracy (including us bloggers). Really, the gyrations of the punditocracy, as they try to look into the campaigns, are pretty funny. (Hillary) Clinton was never going to win South Carolina because of the black vote and/or the white vote. Obama was going to win. Edwards was going to win.
Its especially interesting when conservatives comment on democrats. They have to know it is annoying to a democratic candidate when a conservative talks about what a swell guy/girl he/she is. The candidate has to wonder, is the conservative saying this because the conservative wants to help the candidate, wants to hurt the candidate, thinks the candidate will be easier or more difficult to beat …And of course the flip side is true. John McCain looked a little like he had swallowed a bug (on camera and still had to smile) when Tim Russert brought up the NYTimes endorsement of McCain. Everyone knows the Times will endorse the democrat in the general election, so what business does the Times have making an endorsement of a republican in the primaries?
“Sound and fury”, (so far) “signifying nothing”.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Ruth Ann today
The title of Ruth Ann Dailey’s column today (“What makes abortion rates decline?”) is somewhat misleading. I think it should be something closer to Abortion Advocates Lie in Studies” or something. Ruth Ann tells us that two studies from the Guttmacher Institute contradict each other. One indicates that around the world, abortion rates are the same in countries where it is legal and where it is illegal. Ruth Ann quite correctly points out that any data from the countries where abortion is illegal would have to be estimates. The second study, about the US alone, show that abortion rates are the lowest they have been since a high reached in 1981. Ruth Ann claims the second study contradicts the first, but her description of the details of the methodology of the first leads me to believe it was simply poorly designed.
The funny thing, to me, is that Ruth Ann does not discuss the second study, why it might be that abortion rates have dropped for the last twenty five years. She devotes two paragraphs, three sentences, giving credit to the pro-life movement for the drop. She calls it “speaking out about its tragedy”.
The thing is, the pro-choice/pro-life conflict has much of the same extreme language as the gun control/gun rights conflict. Gun owners worry that any restriction on gun ownership will lead directly to a gun ban, or at least that’s how they portray the situation. Similarly, the pro-choice people seem to feel that the pro-life people want to use restrictions as a wedge to ban all abortions. Right now, gun owners and pro-life people have the courts more or less on their side, although its hard to stretch the law or precedents too far.
But I suspect that, not including the zealots, most people who are pro-choice don’t really want to see a world where there is abortion on demand. For myself, anyway, I would like to see a world where all sex is consensual, and where birth control is readily available (without stigma) for use, and its use in encouraged publicly. That way, the only abortions that would have to occur would be in those rare cases where the birth control failed, and not necessarily even then.
Obviously I am engaging in a bit of fantasy here, the world that exists today is quite different, essentially because of the pro-life movement. The pro-lifers have used the power of publicity to exploit seemingly reasonable issues (such as forcing teenagers to get the permission of parents before getting abortions) to legislate extensive restrictions on abortions. They have used negative publicity to force abortion providers out of business, especially in rural states (something like 2 providers in the whole state of Wyoming). In Pennsylvania, poor women can’t get abortions at publicly funded clinics unless their life is in danger or they say they were raped. Ironically, employees of the state have the same restrictions under the state health plan (but they could possibly pay for the procedure themselves). And 7o percent of Pennsylvania counties, presumably all rural or with a small city such as Erie, have no abortion providers.
I have the impression that Ruth Ann wants to say that abortion rates have fallen because we have evolved morally, that more of us agree with the pro-life movement. This despite the fact that there is little evidence of moral growth in other areas, such as crime or energy usage. In fact, ironically, the ability to make a choice about whether to have an abortion has been taken away from women in rural areas and poor women in urban areas. I guess these matters are too important not to be controlled by a "nanny state".
The funny thing, to me, is that Ruth Ann does not discuss the second study, why it might be that abortion rates have dropped for the last twenty five years. She devotes two paragraphs, three sentences, giving credit to the pro-life movement for the drop. She calls it “speaking out about its tragedy”.
The thing is, the pro-choice/pro-life conflict has much of the same extreme language as the gun control/gun rights conflict. Gun owners worry that any restriction on gun ownership will lead directly to a gun ban, or at least that’s how they portray the situation. Similarly, the pro-choice people seem to feel that the pro-life people want to use restrictions as a wedge to ban all abortions. Right now, gun owners and pro-life people have the courts more or less on their side, although its hard to stretch the law or precedents too far.
But I suspect that, not including the zealots, most people who are pro-choice don’t really want to see a world where there is abortion on demand. For myself, anyway, I would like to see a world where all sex is consensual, and where birth control is readily available (without stigma) for use, and its use in encouraged publicly. That way, the only abortions that would have to occur would be in those rare cases where the birth control failed, and not necessarily even then.
Obviously I am engaging in a bit of fantasy here, the world that exists today is quite different, essentially because of the pro-life movement. The pro-lifers have used the power of publicity to exploit seemingly reasonable issues (such as forcing teenagers to get the permission of parents before getting abortions) to legislate extensive restrictions on abortions. They have used negative publicity to force abortion providers out of business, especially in rural states (something like 2 providers in the whole state of Wyoming). In Pennsylvania, poor women can’t get abortions at publicly funded clinics unless their life is in danger or they say they were raped. Ironically, employees of the state have the same restrictions under the state health plan (but they could possibly pay for the procedure themselves). And 7o percent of Pennsylvania counties, presumably all rural or with a small city such as Erie, have no abortion providers.
I have the impression that Ruth Ann wants to say that abortion rates have fallen because we have evolved morally, that more of us agree with the pro-life movement. This despite the fact that there is little evidence of moral growth in other areas, such as crime or energy usage. In fact, ironically, the ability to make a choice about whether to have an abortion has been taken away from women in rural areas and poor women in urban areas. I guess these matters are too important not to be controlled by a "nanny state".
Thursday, December 27, 2007
And just like that ...
Right, since I am on vacation myself this week, I didn’t know the instant it happened that UPMC dropped their call for a tax credit (or something) from City Council in exchange for their donation to the Pittsburgh Promise. They probably felt the tax credit request was stirring up too much trouble. There was an opinion piece on Monday in the PG from Martin Gaynor of CMU that I was gearing up to respond to (c’mon, Gaynor is in a professorship donated by a former CEO of what is now Highmark, how ironic can you get …). Gaynor made the (vaguely worded) claim that UPMC was launching some elaborate scheme designed solely to benefit itself. But UPMC has dropped it all, although they do say that if they run a deficit any particular year, they should be let off the hook for the PP. Also UPMC is standing by the tax credit agreement the school board made with them. They are also making the mil and a half contribution for this year, at least, to the Pittsburgh Service Fund – the non-profit’s pot of money given directly to the city.
I’ve come to believe that UPMC did have a subtle agenda, but its target was not the city or the state legislature, rather it is the state insurance commissioner. Currently we have an acting commissioner, and given that state senate is republican controlled, th-our governor may not want to spend political capital to get someone acceptable to the republicans and risk offending his own party. Especially since Rendell is trying to shepherd through legislation on a state malpractice fund in surplus, and what to do with that surplus. Now is the perfect time for UPMC to have a low profile statewide, or at least a low negative profile. We tend to forget that UPMC is both a health care provider and a health insurance provider. As such, it is likely to get even closer scrutiny from the state insurance commissioner, especially if it runs a 600 million dollar profit; er, ... surplus; sorry, ... excess margin. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure whether the health insurance wing or the hospital part ran the surplus, or if they did together. Regardles, UPMC probably felt it had to make a grand charitable gesture to engender goodwill, and make the state insurance commissioner seem like Scrooge if he complained about UPMC’s excess margin.
I don’t think UPMC cared that much about getting a double tax credit (from the city and the school board), although I’m sure they felt it would have been nice. But I guess their assessment of the problems it might cause, and the likelihood it could cause lawsuits to arise, changed rapidly from last Monday to today. I think UPMC got what is wanted, though. There is still some hypothetical tax-incentive for other non-profits to donate, including Highmark (with its own large excess margin of over 300 million in 2005 and almost 3 billion in reserves. The trick for UPMC is to get non-profits (or anyone else) to contribute after next year, to trigger UPMC’s matching grants. If Highmark kicks in a million and a half dollars each year, after this next year, UPMC will match with its own million dollar contribution. The Pittsburgh Promise will benefit, and UPMC will be winning a strategic war, getting Highmark to put more money into this charity than UPMC does. Since everybody could get the same tax credit, and at least UPMC is assured of getting the tax credit, that is a small but essentially positive factor. In fact, UPMC is probably counting on everyone claiming the credit, giving it as their incentive to donate to the PP.
So UPMC has essentially won a tactical battle, having magnanimously given up their request/demand for the tax credit from the city. There had been some suggestion that non-profits should kick in some property tax dollars during the election, but mostly in terms of “wouldn’t it be nice”. UPMC had raised its own talk about that this past Monday, people wondering if a state senator or representative had tipped UPMC off or something. Mostly, though, I think UPMC was doing its own maneuvering to give future donors to the PP some incentive. In that regard its hard to see them as anything but successful.
I want to say something about the death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. Pakistan has been something of a nightmare for us for years, all the way back to the eighties, when I guess we turned to them as our non-arab ally in the region. they are nuclear armed and seemignly a short step from becoming another terrorist-controlled state. As it is, we can't get to Osama Bin Laden, whom is believed to be in Pakistan. As allies, they have been a problem. So we apparently pinned our hopes on Bhutto, and surprise, now she is dead. We are saps, and dangerous ones at that.
I’ve come to believe that UPMC did have a subtle agenda, but its target was not the city or the state legislature, rather it is the state insurance commissioner. Currently we have an acting commissioner, and given that state senate is republican controlled, th-our governor may not want to spend political capital to get someone acceptable to the republicans and risk offending his own party. Especially since Rendell is trying to shepherd through legislation on a state malpractice fund in surplus, and what to do with that surplus. Now is the perfect time for UPMC to have a low profile statewide, or at least a low negative profile. We tend to forget that UPMC is both a health care provider and a health insurance provider. As such, it is likely to get even closer scrutiny from the state insurance commissioner, especially if it runs a 600 million dollar profit; er, ... surplus; sorry, ... excess margin. To be perfectly honest, I am not sure whether the health insurance wing or the hospital part ran the surplus, or if they did together. Regardles, UPMC probably felt it had to make a grand charitable gesture to engender goodwill, and make the state insurance commissioner seem like Scrooge if he complained about UPMC’s excess margin.
I don’t think UPMC cared that much about getting a double tax credit (from the city and the school board), although I’m sure they felt it would have been nice. But I guess their assessment of the problems it might cause, and the likelihood it could cause lawsuits to arise, changed rapidly from last Monday to today. I think UPMC got what is wanted, though. There is still some hypothetical tax-incentive for other non-profits to donate, including Highmark (with its own large excess margin of over 300 million in 2005 and almost 3 billion in reserves. The trick for UPMC is to get non-profits (or anyone else) to contribute after next year, to trigger UPMC’s matching grants. If Highmark kicks in a million and a half dollars each year, after this next year, UPMC will match with its own million dollar contribution. The Pittsburgh Promise will benefit, and UPMC will be winning a strategic war, getting Highmark to put more money into this charity than UPMC does. Since everybody could get the same tax credit, and at least UPMC is assured of getting the tax credit, that is a small but essentially positive factor. In fact, UPMC is probably counting on everyone claiming the credit, giving it as their incentive to donate to the PP.
So UPMC has essentially won a tactical battle, having magnanimously given up their request/demand for the tax credit from the city. There had been some suggestion that non-profits should kick in some property tax dollars during the election, but mostly in terms of “wouldn’t it be nice”. UPMC had raised its own talk about that this past Monday, people wondering if a state senator or representative had tipped UPMC off or something. Mostly, though, I think UPMC was doing its own maneuvering to give future donors to the PP some incentive. In that regard its hard to see them as anything but successful.
I want to say something about the death of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan. Pakistan has been something of a nightmare for us for years, all the way back to the eighties, when I guess we turned to them as our non-arab ally in the region. they are nuclear armed and seemignly a short step from becoming another terrorist-controlled state. As it is, we can't get to Osama Bin Laden, whom is believed to be in Pakistan. As allies, they have been a problem. So we apparently pinned our hopes on Bhutto, and surprise, now she is dead. We are saps, and dangerous ones at that.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Alternative absolution...
In the interest of maintaining this reputation for “fair and balanced” opinions I am occasionally told I have, I feel the need to say that all liberals are commie weenies. Whew, glad I got that out …wait what no that’s not what I wanted to say at all …
I have to say that there is another way to look at the supposed antics of Our Mayor (his new preferred form of address) with regard to the Pittsburgh Promise. He has said he knew about the broad outlines of the UPMC contribution to the plan as long ago as six months (suspiciously around the time of the Mario Lemieux Invitational Golf Boondoggle). He also said he knew more specifics three months ago, just in time not to be able to answer specific questions about the Pittsburgh Promise and the contributions non-profits make to the city accurately during the debates. By the way, I characterized this as lying to the voters, perhaps that was a bit harsh, although I’m not sure how th-Our Mayor would suggest it be framed. But however you describe it, Outted Mayor … I mean Our Mayor did not give details with (what he describes as) the best of intentions – because UPMC told him not to release those details, presumably until December 5th. I believe th-Our Mayor suggested UPMC would have pulled their donation if he had spilled the beans early, although that stretches the bounds of credibility. Stiil, the question is, what did those interim specifics consist of? It’s possible they did not include UPMC’s request for a future tax credit on hypothetical (state legislature generated) taxes on non-profits. It’s just as possible that Jeffrey Romoff called th-Our Mayor and Roosevelt over to his place on Sunday and told them UPMC was going to make this demand, tax credits one for one on the future UPMC donations to the PP from both the city and the school board. Th-Our Mayor could be entirely blameless (this time) in terms of revealing the truth to the citizens of Pittsburgh. There is, literally, no way to know short of getting (time stamped) internal documents from UPMC or the Mayor’s office showing that, probably emails. But even without this “evidence”, I think its important to consider all the possibilities. Th-Our Mayor may have turned over a new leaf, and be trying to provide his constituency with the best governance he can. At an affordable price. I hope.
By the way, I wanted to repeat an idea I raised in my response to Char’s comment on my previous post. I suggested other non-profits, such as Highmark or Pitt or CMU, might want to try donating to the Pittsburgh Promise after next year on the off chance the state legislature might create a tax on non-profits after next year. If the legislature decided to make the tax effective the year they passed it, then these non-profits might greatly reduce their expose, by possibly taking advantage of UPMC’s deal, and avoiding both city and school board taxes. Such action by other nonprofits would greatly increase UPMC’s matching gift in the future, for the next nine years. Possibly all the non-profits in the city would do this, or perhaps many would not. But all that did would be doing the city a fair service, with UPMC’s dollar match on their dollar fifty.
And for those people who wonder why the legislature might even consider such a tax, I suggest that the issue of how poorly Act 47 addresses the long term problems of the city was raised in the last election. Our Mayor largely ignored those questions, but DeSantis raised them at least obliquely, and some blogs have talked about them. I think they got into some newspaper stories too, but those stories stopped showing up once it was clear the debates were going to be fluff pieces. The legislature could raise (yet another) special tax just for distressed cities, one on non-profits. It could be payroll, property or the legislature could just tax donations to non-profits. The tax could be used to apply specifically to long term issues, or it could just go into the legislature’s bonus fund. Personally I don’t think its going to happen soon, but if the city stays in Act 47 for another couple of years, and slips back into deficit, the legislature might start to get tired of us, and punish us by hurting our non profits.
I have to say that there is another way to look at the supposed antics of Our Mayor (his new preferred form of address) with regard to the Pittsburgh Promise. He has said he knew about the broad outlines of the UPMC contribution to the plan as long ago as six months (suspiciously around the time of the Mario Lemieux Invitational Golf Boondoggle). He also said he knew more specifics three months ago, just in time not to be able to answer specific questions about the Pittsburgh Promise and the contributions non-profits make to the city accurately during the debates. By the way, I characterized this as lying to the voters, perhaps that was a bit harsh, although I’m not sure how th-Our Mayor would suggest it be framed. But however you describe it, Outted Mayor … I mean Our Mayor did not give details with (what he describes as) the best of intentions – because UPMC told him not to release those details, presumably until December 5th. I believe th-Our Mayor suggested UPMC would have pulled their donation if he had spilled the beans early, although that stretches the bounds of credibility. Stiil, the question is, what did those interim specifics consist of? It’s possible they did not include UPMC’s request for a future tax credit on hypothetical (state legislature generated) taxes on non-profits. It’s just as possible that Jeffrey Romoff called th-Our Mayor and Roosevelt over to his place on Sunday and told them UPMC was going to make this demand, tax credits one for one on the future UPMC donations to the PP from both the city and the school board. Th-Our Mayor could be entirely blameless (this time) in terms of revealing the truth to the citizens of Pittsburgh. There is, literally, no way to know short of getting (time stamped) internal documents from UPMC or the Mayor’s office showing that, probably emails. But even without this “evidence”, I think its important to consider all the possibilities. Th-Our Mayor may have turned over a new leaf, and be trying to provide his constituency with the best governance he can. At an affordable price. I hope.
By the way, I wanted to repeat an idea I raised in my response to Char’s comment on my previous post. I suggested other non-profits, such as Highmark or Pitt or CMU, might want to try donating to the Pittsburgh Promise after next year on the off chance the state legislature might create a tax on non-profits after next year. If the legislature decided to make the tax effective the year they passed it, then these non-profits might greatly reduce their expose, by possibly taking advantage of UPMC’s deal, and avoiding both city and school board taxes. Such action by other nonprofits would greatly increase UPMC’s matching gift in the future, for the next nine years. Possibly all the non-profits in the city would do this, or perhaps many would not. But all that did would be doing the city a fair service, with UPMC’s dollar match on their dollar fifty.
And for those people who wonder why the legislature might even consider such a tax, I suggest that the issue of how poorly Act 47 addresses the long term problems of the city was raised in the last election. Our Mayor largely ignored those questions, but DeSantis raised them at least obliquely, and some blogs have talked about them. I think they got into some newspaper stories too, but those stories stopped showing up once it was clear the debates were going to be fluff pieces. The legislature could raise (yet another) special tax just for distressed cities, one on non-profits. It could be payroll, property or the legislature could just tax donations to non-profits. The tax could be used to apply specifically to long term issues, or it could just go into the legislature’s bonus fund. Personally I don’t think its going to happen soon, but if the city stays in Act 47 for another couple of years, and slips back into deficit, the legislature might start to get tired of us, and punish us by hurting our non profits.
Friday, December 21, 2007
How much in tax savings?
So no one will confirm this to me, and I always mis-trust things that seem to be simple math. Plus we are talking about hypothetical, future dollars that are in fact likely never to be an issue. Still ...
UPMC put a tax agreement related to the Pittsburgh Promise in front of the school board a couple of days ago, which it immediately passed.It is apparently similar to the one currently in front of city council. Of course these agreements give UPMC a dollar for dollar tax credit (on future, hypothetical taxes on non-profits from the state legislature). I do not know of any current dollars UPMC gives to the school system, by the way. Since both the school board and the city have been asked for these (hypothetical, future) tax credits, that means (to me) that UPMC's PP dollars will do double duty, one dollar of donation counting for one dollar of taxes in two places. It's not like the city will lose two dollars of tax (nor the school board), but UPMC is saving itself twice as much tax money.
A couple of observations. I noticed, second hand, that Robert Cindirch, the UPMC lawyer (and former federal judge), claimed not to know anything about the city agreement. Cindrich said something about reducing Pittsburgh Promise donations by the amount of future tax liabilities, the opposite of the written agreement (could we have Judge Cindrich's proposal in writing? I thought not). George Specter said he also knew nothing about the UPMC tax resolution, but that's not as surprising.
And starting next year, the money UPMC donates will be dependent on other donations. If there was a tax on non-profits, UPMC would have no control over how tax it could save.
No matter what, by the way, the city has lost the million and a half UPMC would have donated to the Pittsburgh Service Fund (or whatever it's called). I believe UPMC says the donation to the PP will take the place of the donation to the PSF. (c'mon, you guys could spare another million and a half...please?)
The Post-Gazette thinks that council should agree to the conditions, and I tend to agree. Maybe the agreements won't stand up in court, or (more likely) the state legislature won't try to tax non-profits. In fact, these agreements might influence the legislature, might cause them to set this issue aside in favor of finding more ways to get themselves more bonuses. Or the Act 47/ICA teams will simply nulify the city's agreement with UPMC, say it doesn't have the authority to do it. At the end of the day, I can't help but say more power to UPMC. They took a small risk in trying to avoid some future taxes, and if they can get away with it, I think city council should let them. If taxes on non-profits come down the pike, the city will still have more money than before, anda flagship scholarship program.
I still say ten thousand dollars is not enough for Ethics Board to investigate this Mayor.
UPMC put a tax agreement related to the Pittsburgh Promise in front of the school board a couple of days ago, which it immediately passed.It is apparently similar to the one currently in front of city council. Of course these agreements give UPMC a dollar for dollar tax credit (on future, hypothetical taxes on non-profits from the state legislature). I do not know of any current dollars UPMC gives to the school system, by the way. Since both the school board and the city have been asked for these (hypothetical, future) tax credits, that means (to me) that UPMC's PP dollars will do double duty, one dollar of donation counting for one dollar of taxes in two places. It's not like the city will lose two dollars of tax (nor the school board), but UPMC is saving itself twice as much tax money.
A couple of observations. I noticed, second hand, that Robert Cindirch, the UPMC lawyer (and former federal judge), claimed not to know anything about the city agreement. Cindrich said something about reducing Pittsburgh Promise donations by the amount of future tax liabilities, the opposite of the written agreement (could we have Judge Cindrich's proposal in writing? I thought not). George Specter said he also knew nothing about the UPMC tax resolution, but that's not as surprising.
And starting next year, the money UPMC donates will be dependent on other donations. If there was a tax on non-profits, UPMC would have no control over how tax it could save.
No matter what, by the way, the city has lost the million and a half UPMC would have donated to the Pittsburgh Service Fund (or whatever it's called). I believe UPMC says the donation to the PP will take the place of the donation to the PSF. (c'mon, you guys could spare another million and a half...please?)
The Post-Gazette thinks that council should agree to the conditions, and I tend to agree. Maybe the agreements won't stand up in court, or (more likely) the state legislature won't try to tax non-profits. In fact, these agreements might influence the legislature, might cause them to set this issue aside in favor of finding more ways to get themselves more bonuses. Or the Act 47/ICA teams will simply nulify the city's agreement with UPMC, say it doesn't have the authority to do it. At the end of the day, I can't help but say more power to UPMC. They took a small risk in trying to avoid some future taxes, and if they can get away with it, I think city council should let them. If taxes on non-profits come down the pike, the city will still have more money than before, anda flagship scholarship program.
I still say ten thousand dollars is not enough for Ethics Board to investigate this Mayor.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The Mayor admits ....
From the Busman’s Holiday’s post on the Mayor’s statement concerning UPMC, the Pittsburgh Promise and City Council:
“The two biggest questions I got asked when I was running for office was, non-profits don't give enough, and you failed on the Pittsburgh Promise. And guess what, I had the answer to those questions in those debates, but I kept my mouth shut. Because I didn't want to jeopardize this program, just like council did yesterday with their actions.”
Actually, Mr. Mayor, you did more than keep your mouth shut. When Dr. DeSantis proposed using the voluntary contributions from non-profits to increase the funding level of the city’s pensions or pay down our debt, you asked Dr. Desantis how he would make up the budget shortfall. You knew then you were going to do the same thing, reduce the city’s revenue to the tune of a million and a half, and now you stand here today and say you kept your mouth shut? You intentionally misled the voters. And you are hiding behind UPMC, saying you keep your mouth shut for their benefit, even though in fact you did much more than keep your mouth shut.
Its actually incredible, we find ourselves right back at January 2007, with the Mayor lying and blaming everyone else. He keeps telling us, month after month, that he has learned so much, and then he turns around and pulls another stunt, tells city council it must do his bidding without question or hesitation. Mind you, someone like Doug Shields doesn’t make council look any too good either, but the Mayor has to bear the bulk of the blame for this one. If he had announced the tax and voluntary contribution component of UPMC’s Pittsburgh Promise donation on December fifth, and asked council to hold hearings shortly and consider the package within a couple of weeks, people might have decided (calmly and deliberately) that 10 million in scholarship dollars is worth the tax or contribution hit the city and school board would take. But to take up the issue on December 17th and demand quick passage of the tax credit resolution guarantees that people will balk.
Ten grand is not going to be enough for the Ethics Board.
“The two biggest questions I got asked when I was running for office was, non-profits don't give enough, and you failed on the Pittsburgh Promise. And guess what, I had the answer to those questions in those debates, but I kept my mouth shut. Because I didn't want to jeopardize this program, just like council did yesterday with their actions.”
Actually, Mr. Mayor, you did more than keep your mouth shut. When Dr. DeSantis proposed using the voluntary contributions from non-profits to increase the funding level of the city’s pensions or pay down our debt, you asked Dr. Desantis how he would make up the budget shortfall. You knew then you were going to do the same thing, reduce the city’s revenue to the tune of a million and a half, and now you stand here today and say you kept your mouth shut? You intentionally misled the voters. And you are hiding behind UPMC, saying you keep your mouth shut for their benefit, even though in fact you did much more than keep your mouth shut.
Its actually incredible, we find ourselves right back at January 2007, with the Mayor lying and blaming everyone else. He keeps telling us, month after month, that he has learned so much, and then he turns around and pulls another stunt, tells city council it must do his bidding without question or hesitation. Mind you, someone like Doug Shields doesn’t make council look any too good either, but the Mayor has to bear the bulk of the blame for this one. If he had announced the tax and voluntary contribution component of UPMC’s Pittsburgh Promise donation on December fifth, and asked council to hold hearings shortly and consider the package within a couple of weeks, people might have decided (calmly and deliberately) that 10 million in scholarship dollars is worth the tax or contribution hit the city and school board would take. But to take up the issue on December 17th and demand quick passage of the tax credit resolution guarantees that people will balk.
Ten grand is not going to be enough for the Ethics Board.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The other, other shoe ...
I think it is possible to be of two minds on this UPMC Pittsburgh Promise/Pittsburgh Service Fund thing. On the one hand, we are talking about 10 million dollars this year for the Pittsburgh Promise. That will be a very good start for the program. The whole amount will probably not be used by 2008 graduates, so the remainder can generate interest for future years. By comparison, the million and a half the city is giving up is only a small part of the budget, which is in surplus anyway this next year and for a few years to come. The lack of the million and a half will accelerate the coming shortfall, but it would come anyway. And the city’s pension shortfall and other debt dwarf the million and a half; UPMC would have to start kicking in its entire “excess margin” to make much of a difference there.
The Pittsburgh Promise program could have a very beneficial effect on the city as well. If the students police themselves, control their behavior issues with an eye towards getting a college education and a way out of poverty, a lot of the problems in the city’s schools will go away. It may increase parental involvement in the schools as well. I realize I am implying that only poor kids have behavior problems, and I’m sure that’s not the case. But it may be that schools in poorer neighborhoods have more problems because the students don’t feel like they have much of a future, and rich kids who do have behavior problems have better access to treatment and tend to get passed along as merely “eccentric” anyway. If the Pittsburgh Promise succeeds it may not replace the million and a half lost to the city, but people may feel a bit better about the city.
On the other hand, it is possible to conceive a scenario where the Mayor and the School Superintendent had prematurely announced a program last December, were handed an incredible gift by UPMC (possibly at the Mario Invitational), sat on the details during the election and even through the announcement of the gift five weeks after the election. Now the messy details come out as council is set to adjourn for the year, and the Mayor tries to ram UPMC’s conditions through council. The Mayor had stated that he did not give UPMC or the Pens anything in exchange for the admission to play golf with Joe Theismann and Sidney Crosby. In fact, he suggested he was having business meetings while playing golf. Because this Mayor has lied to the press and reacted hostilely to their questions in the past, it is not hard to believe e could be concealing information in this case. He may have known the whole details of UPMC’s intention to donate up to a hundred million and the conditions attached since June, and this young Mayor may have been so dazzled by the size of the donation that he was distracted from what he was committing the city to give up.
Did this Mayor know, in August, when he talked to the Ethics Board, about UPMC’s gift to the PP, and its included conditions, that let UPMC off the hook if the State Legislature passes legislation taxing non-profits? Did the Mayor know about UPMC’s gift and its conditions when he asked Mark DeSantis, in the debates, how he would replace lost revenue if the Pittsburgh Service Fund was used to pay down debt and/or fund the pension fund to a higher level? Apparently, by agreeing initially to UPMC’s conditions with no open debate or public comment, the Mayor has placed City Council in the position of dashing the hopes of hundreds or thousands of High School Seniors or helping to expedite the financial ruin of the city.
Speaking of which, a commenter on the Burgh Report asked whether the Act 47 team should reopen the budget process. I believe it was the ICA team that signed off on the budget, or possibly both, but it is a good question. Maybe the ICA should come forward and make public the consequences of this situation. At least Luke can take his place among the people who got us into this mess.
The issue of why UPMC is pressing to be absolved from having to pay taxes in the future is a bit puzzling. Is there bipartisan support in the legislature for such a law? Is the support strong enough a bill is imminent? Maybe UPMC figures the only reason to pass such a law would be to help the states two largest (and struggling) cities, and if Pittsburgh say it doesn’t need tax revenue from its largest non-profit, the reason to pass such a bill would go away. I wonder if such a resolution would be legal, apparently UPMC thinks so (and I suspect their legal advice is really good).
The Pittsburgh Promise program could have a very beneficial effect on the city as well. If the students police themselves, control their behavior issues with an eye towards getting a college education and a way out of poverty, a lot of the problems in the city’s schools will go away. It may increase parental involvement in the schools as well. I realize I am implying that only poor kids have behavior problems, and I’m sure that’s not the case. But it may be that schools in poorer neighborhoods have more problems because the students don’t feel like they have much of a future, and rich kids who do have behavior problems have better access to treatment and tend to get passed along as merely “eccentric” anyway. If the Pittsburgh Promise succeeds it may not replace the million and a half lost to the city, but people may feel a bit better about the city.
On the other hand, it is possible to conceive a scenario where the Mayor and the School Superintendent had prematurely announced a program last December, were handed an incredible gift by UPMC (possibly at the Mario Invitational), sat on the details during the election and even through the announcement of the gift five weeks after the election. Now the messy details come out as council is set to adjourn for the year, and the Mayor tries to ram UPMC’s conditions through council. The Mayor had stated that he did not give UPMC or the Pens anything in exchange for the admission to play golf with Joe Theismann and Sidney Crosby. In fact, he suggested he was having business meetings while playing golf. Because this Mayor has lied to the press and reacted hostilely to their questions in the past, it is not hard to believe e could be concealing information in this case. He may have known the whole details of UPMC’s intention to donate up to a hundred million and the conditions attached since June, and this young Mayor may have been so dazzled by the size of the donation that he was distracted from what he was committing the city to give up.
Did this Mayor know, in August, when he talked to the Ethics Board, about UPMC’s gift to the PP, and its included conditions, that let UPMC off the hook if the State Legislature passes legislation taxing non-profits? Did the Mayor know about UPMC’s gift and its conditions when he asked Mark DeSantis, in the debates, how he would replace lost revenue if the Pittsburgh Service Fund was used to pay down debt and/or fund the pension fund to a higher level? Apparently, by agreeing initially to UPMC’s conditions with no open debate or public comment, the Mayor has placed City Council in the position of dashing the hopes of hundreds or thousands of High School Seniors or helping to expedite the financial ruin of the city.
Speaking of which, a commenter on the Burgh Report asked whether the Act 47 team should reopen the budget process. I believe it was the ICA team that signed off on the budget, or possibly both, but it is a good question. Maybe the ICA should come forward and make public the consequences of this situation. At least Luke can take his place among the people who got us into this mess.
The issue of why UPMC is pressing to be absolved from having to pay taxes in the future is a bit puzzling. Is there bipartisan support in the legislature for such a law? Is the support strong enough a bill is imminent? Maybe UPMC figures the only reason to pass such a law would be to help the states two largest (and struggling) cities, and if Pittsburgh say it doesn’t need tax revenue from its largest non-profit, the reason to pass such a bill would go away. I wonder if such a resolution would be legal, apparently UPMC thinks so (and I suspect their legal advice is really good).
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The other shoe ...
Despite the posting date of Tuesday, it took a full day of editing to get this actually onto the blog.
I wanted to post on the KD/PG Sunday Edition of a week and two days ago, about gun control. The guy from Butler county basically said to David Shribman, if you don’t understand what’s wrong with limiting handgun sales to one a month, I can’t explain it to you. Kind of a perfect Catch 22.
But then the Mayor had to raise the specter of the Mario Invitational, which he was invited to by UPMC and the Penguins. First, the Mayor has started to say he will give no cash to CDC’s on the Hill, only buildings. Specifically he is advocating a grocery store, a community center and some kind of YMCA. But no cash. This is the old argument against providing cash to the poor, instead advocating food coupons (food stamps) and housing assistance. If you give the poor money, they will spend it on alcohol and drugs. We don’t want them to do that with our money (we can’t control what they do with their money), so we put the assistance in a form that pleases voters. Not just food assistance, specific boring food assistance (no junk food). Not just housing, specific modern projects in their neighborhoods. I guess Luke figures he has the black vote sewed up, and can afford risking pissing them off in order to pander to some of the white vote.
Second, there was this business with UPMC and the Pittsburgh Promise. The Mayor wants to count UPMC’s donation to the PP as a tax credit. Of course, since UPMC pays no property tax now, that’s actually just a smoke screen. (Actually, UPMC does apparently pay some property taxes through its affiliates, but that won’t stop as a result of this donation, so that’s not a concern) But the donation also covers payments made in lieu of taxes, the Pittsburgh Service Partnership something or other. You may remember that during the campaign the Mayor made a big deal about how necessary this fund if to balance the city’s (shaky) finances. Mark DeSantis had proposed using non-profit contributions to specifically pay down the city’s debt and pay up the City’s under funded pensions. The Mayor asked which city services would DeSantis cut, because the city needs every dollar. (Of course, the Mayor waited until after the election to buy himself a new SUV on the city’s dime) Now the city is down a million and a half dollar. Which services will you cut, Mr Mayor.
So the city will have lost a million and a half, probably each year for the next few. Bill Peduto is still offering dire warnings about the city’s finances, but he did manage to get the Ethics Board ten grand, to pay for legal fees and whatever else. I wonder if the Ethics Board will reopen the issue of the Mayor and the Mario Invitational. No quid pro quo, the Mayor said in September. No deals with UPMC or the Pens. I don’t think ten grand is going to be enough.
I wanted to post on the KD/PG Sunday Edition of a week and two days ago, about gun control. The guy from Butler county basically said to David Shribman, if you don’t understand what’s wrong with limiting handgun sales to one a month, I can’t explain it to you. Kind of a perfect Catch 22.
But then the Mayor had to raise the specter of the Mario Invitational, which he was invited to by UPMC and the Penguins. First, the Mayor has started to say he will give no cash to CDC’s on the Hill, only buildings. Specifically he is advocating a grocery store, a community center and some kind of YMCA. But no cash. This is the old argument against providing cash to the poor, instead advocating food coupons (food stamps) and housing assistance. If you give the poor money, they will spend it on alcohol and drugs. We don’t want them to do that with our money (we can’t control what they do with their money), so we put the assistance in a form that pleases voters. Not just food assistance, specific boring food assistance (no junk food). Not just housing, specific modern projects in their neighborhoods. I guess Luke figures he has the black vote sewed up, and can afford risking pissing them off in order to pander to some of the white vote.
Second, there was this business with UPMC and the Pittsburgh Promise. The Mayor wants to count UPMC’s donation to the PP as a tax credit. Of course, since UPMC pays no property tax now, that’s actually just a smoke screen. (Actually, UPMC does apparently pay some property taxes through its affiliates, but that won’t stop as a result of this donation, so that’s not a concern) But the donation also covers payments made in lieu of taxes, the Pittsburgh Service Partnership something or other. You may remember that during the campaign the Mayor made a big deal about how necessary this fund if to balance the city’s (shaky) finances. Mark DeSantis had proposed using non-profit contributions to specifically pay down the city’s debt and pay up the City’s under funded pensions. The Mayor asked which city services would DeSantis cut, because the city needs every dollar. (Of course, the Mayor waited until after the election to buy himself a new SUV on the city’s dime) Now the city is down a million and a half dollar. Which services will you cut, Mr Mayor.
So the city will have lost a million and a half, probably each year for the next few. Bill Peduto is still offering dire warnings about the city’s finances, but he did manage to get the Ethics Board ten grand, to pay for legal fees and whatever else. I wonder if the Ethics Board will reopen the issue of the Mayor and the Mario Invitational. No quid pro quo, the Mayor said in September. No deals with UPMC or the Pens. I don’t think ten grand is going to be enough.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Sic transit Gloria, or Laura Brannigan, or sumpin' ...
Another topic I have been thinking about recently is Public Transit. You may remember back at the end of last year and the early part of this year, the buzz was all about PAT’s proposal to drop 25% of its routes, unless it got more money. This was accompanied by a threat to raise fares at the beginning of next year (2008), ditto ditto more money. I sent a letter to the Port Authority through their public comment mechanism, and I emailed my State Senator (Ferlo) and State Rep (Lisa Bennington). By the way, both replied, and reflecting the fact that both have districts that extend far into the boonies/hinterlands, both complained about overpaid managers and drivers and years of mis-management. In fact, both wanted to see PAT “Right-size” itself, which I suppose means stopping service to the very poor, who are not in their districts and don’t vote much anyway. So much for reformers and populists.
So, of course, PAT did cut itself back 15%, although surprisingly it did not cut the 28X as threatened (I missed the explanation for how that changed, although I am sure there is one, released to the media very quietly). And a fare hike for January suddenly appeared last month, with no public comment period this time (I guess PAT learned its lesson there). This happened even though PAT is due to get new, additional funding from both the State and the County. I had sort of thought the point was that PAT would only increase fares and cut routes if it didn’t get enough funding. I guess the all Allegheny County-appointed board of directors of PAT might have heard the strident complaints from state legislators from far away places like Scranton or York (or places with towns too small to remember). Which is, of course, the point. PAT’s board of directors needs to prove to state legislature that they are just as or more responsive to the concerns of a citizen and (more important) a representative or senator from clear across the state. The Port Authority board, which lives in Allegheny County, is not affected by the fact they live in Allegheny County. The important thing is how people in Wyoming, or Potter, or Lycoming Montour County feel. Because otherwise the state legislature will take its magic club (wands are too prissy) and decide to appoint half of PAT’s board. Probably not with Allegheny County residents.
This also explains why Dan Onorato has declared the drivers’ and mechanics’ union bad guys. Which is the other piece of this. In a complicated, cascading house of cards, the extra money the state legislature found for PAT is based on a tolling arrangement on I-80, plus some raised toll rates on 76. That was passed by the state legislature, but is by no means a done deal since the Feds think they have a say in what happens on Federal highways. A couple of (republican) US representatives from that part of the state have started whining to the US Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway is looking at it. By the way, the plan is apparently to only have a few toll booths, at places where out of state trucks tend to exit the highway (such as the Ohio and New York borders on I-80). I guess if a Pennsylvania resident should get a toll ticket from a toll booth, they will not have to pay a toll as long as they exit I-80 at a non toll exit. I guess the idea is out of state truckers would never do that.
Even though the money for PAT may not materialize, the state legislature went ahead put conditions on it. The county had to raise an additional amount of its own for PAT. After all, county citizens are the ones who benefit from public transportation, why shouldn’t they contribute (I think that is actually a quite valid point, one of the few in this sorry saga). Onorato is playing his property tax games, keeping it static so it benefits his aging voter base, so an increase in the property tax rate is out. In fact, Onorato has already planned to lay off a couple of hundred county workers to demonstrate his fiscal responsibility (only in Pennsylvania would a democrat do something like that). What to do, what to do … Fortunately our friends in the state legislature had the solution. Philadelphia has had a drink tax for a few years, so why not Pittsburgh? Of course, it will have to pass the county council, but if they want to be seen raising taxes on their own citizens, so much the better (at least I assume the state legislature doesn’t actually like the state's two largest cities). But the story doesn’t end there. Whether Onorato or someone on PAT’s board or management thought of it, the drivers are still the highest paid in the US (adjusted for regional conditions), the managers and secretaries having been forced into give backs last year or before. So Onorato gets the bright idea that he will hold up the state funding and the drink tax money (plus a $2 a day rental car fee from our one visitor a year) until the drivers union agrees to a wage freeze (which is to last only until Hell also freezes) and to contribute to their own health care. I think retiree benefits are on the chopping block too. This is a clever move, it satisfies people in Lycoming Montour county, if the state doesn’t have to give us the transit money they will gladly use it for bonuses for themselves, it makes the drivers union the bad guys and no one of consequence gets hurt (only nursing home aides, low paid retail staff, waitresses, bus boys and dishwashers, you know, the sort of people who would buy a car if they had any consideration for the rest of us). In retrospect, maybe it was a good idea for PAT to make the moves it has, with the route cuts and the fare hike. At some point, the state may tell us we are now getting (phantom) money from (still hung up in hearings) toll roads and the county may tell us we are getting (phantom) revenues from (uncollectible) taxes on (scofflaw) bars. Around about the time this gets sorted out (the casino will be halfway built at that point), PAT will announce it is out of money again, having bought everyone in the county a Segway.
Yeah, I know, lame ending.
So, of course, PAT did cut itself back 15%, although surprisingly it did not cut the 28X as threatened (I missed the explanation for how that changed, although I am sure there is one, released to the media very quietly). And a fare hike for January suddenly appeared last month, with no public comment period this time (I guess PAT learned its lesson there). This happened even though PAT is due to get new, additional funding from both the State and the County. I had sort of thought the point was that PAT would only increase fares and cut routes if it didn’t get enough funding. I guess the all Allegheny County-appointed board of directors of PAT might have heard the strident complaints from state legislators from far away places like Scranton or York (or places with towns too small to remember). Which is, of course, the point. PAT’s board of directors needs to prove to state legislature that they are just as or more responsive to the concerns of a citizen and (more important) a representative or senator from clear across the state. The Port Authority board, which lives in Allegheny County, is not affected by the fact they live in Allegheny County. The important thing is how people in Wyoming, or Potter, or Lycoming Montour County feel. Because otherwise the state legislature will take its magic club (wands are too prissy) and decide to appoint half of PAT’s board. Probably not with Allegheny County residents.
This also explains why Dan Onorato has declared the drivers’ and mechanics’ union bad guys. Which is the other piece of this. In a complicated, cascading house of cards, the extra money the state legislature found for PAT is based on a tolling arrangement on I-80, plus some raised toll rates on 76. That was passed by the state legislature, but is by no means a done deal since the Feds think they have a say in what happens on Federal highways. A couple of (republican) US representatives from that part of the state have started whining to the US Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway is looking at it. By the way, the plan is apparently to only have a few toll booths, at places where out of state trucks tend to exit the highway (such as the Ohio and New York borders on I-80). I guess if a Pennsylvania resident should get a toll ticket from a toll booth, they will not have to pay a toll as long as they exit I-80 at a non toll exit. I guess the idea is out of state truckers would never do that.
Even though the money for PAT may not materialize, the state legislature went ahead put conditions on it. The county had to raise an additional amount of its own for PAT. After all, county citizens are the ones who benefit from public transportation, why shouldn’t they contribute (I think that is actually a quite valid point, one of the few in this sorry saga). Onorato is playing his property tax games, keeping it static so it benefits his aging voter base, so an increase in the property tax rate is out. In fact, Onorato has already planned to lay off a couple of hundred county workers to demonstrate his fiscal responsibility (only in Pennsylvania would a democrat do something like that). What to do, what to do … Fortunately our friends in the state legislature had the solution. Philadelphia has had a drink tax for a few years, so why not Pittsburgh? Of course, it will have to pass the county council, but if they want to be seen raising taxes on their own citizens, so much the better (at least I assume the state legislature doesn’t actually like the state's two largest cities). But the story doesn’t end there. Whether Onorato or someone on PAT’s board or management thought of it, the drivers are still the highest paid in the US (adjusted for regional conditions), the managers and secretaries having been forced into give backs last year or before. So Onorato gets the bright idea that he will hold up the state funding and the drink tax money (plus a $2 a day rental car fee from our one visitor a year) until the drivers union agrees to a wage freeze (which is to last only until Hell also freezes) and to contribute to their own health care. I think retiree benefits are on the chopping block too. This is a clever move, it satisfies people in Lycoming Montour county, if the state doesn’t have to give us the transit money they will gladly use it for bonuses for themselves, it makes the drivers union the bad guys and no one of consequence gets hurt (only nursing home aides, low paid retail staff, waitresses, bus boys and dishwashers, you know, the sort of people who would buy a car if they had any consideration for the rest of us). In retrospect, maybe it was a good idea for PAT to make the moves it has, with the route cuts and the fare hike. At some point, the state may tell us we are now getting (phantom) money from (still hung up in hearings) toll roads and the county may tell us we are getting (phantom) revenues from (uncollectible) taxes on (scofflaw) bars. Around about the time this gets sorted out (the casino will be halfway built at that point), PAT will announce it is out of money again, having bought everyone in the county a Segway.
Yeah, I know, lame ending.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Laziness incarnate ...
Well, I continue to be spectacularly lazy about posting. The short reason is that the results of the election took a lot of the wind out of my sails. Not that they weren’t unexpected, but I was dismayed to see that so many of my fellow Pittsburghers were willing to place party over a good resume.
The longer reason is that I am also trying to do some of the things I wasn’t during the campaign, like get away on a weekend (and not post from the Bed and Breakfast), read books (instead of posting from the B & B) and get sick (while away at the B & B). I seem to have picked up some sort of eye (tear duct) infection, and I am not sure whether I should stay home or not. I start out fine, but as the day wears on my left eye starts tearing and then gets sore. Ah well, let’s hear it for Presenteeism.
There are lots of things out there well worth talking about, including the newly funded Pittsburgh Promise. Matt H asked where all the nay-sayers are now, and I would like to respond. I think the naysayers did not object in principle or theory to the idea of the Pittsburgh Promise. They objected to announcing an ambitious program before funding was in place. I gather someone was going to leak the news of the program and that’s why Roosevelt and Ravenstahl made the announcement, or at least that is their story. Even if that is true, how long where R & R going to sit on the PP before announcing it? The funding has come literally a year later.
And it came a month after the election. Does anyone wonder what that means? When did UPMC decide to make this donation? Was it truly after the election that they realized they had extra money and needed to do something with it? I find the timing interesting. I don’t think UPMC had some ulterior motive, like denying Ravenstahl the bump that would have come with having a funded Pittsburgh Promise. In fact, my guess is that UPMC had decided some time ago (in the summer, at the Lemiuex thing?) to make the donation, but wanted to avoid being seen as trying to influence the election.
The only thing we know for sure is that UPMC now has a bulletproof argument for avoiding any further Payments In Lieu Of Taxes, or any paying any property taxes. Of course, the state legislature could ignore those arguments and do what it wants to UPMC and Highmark, but the city and the county have lost a lot of leverage. Let’s hope it is worth it.
The longer reason is that I am also trying to do some of the things I wasn’t during the campaign, like get away on a weekend (and not post from the Bed and Breakfast), read books (instead of posting from the B & B) and get sick (while away at the B & B). I seem to have picked up some sort of eye (tear duct) infection, and I am not sure whether I should stay home or not. I start out fine, but as the day wears on my left eye starts tearing and then gets sore. Ah well, let’s hear it for Presenteeism.
There are lots of things out there well worth talking about, including the newly funded Pittsburgh Promise. Matt H asked where all the nay-sayers are now, and I would like to respond. I think the naysayers did not object in principle or theory to the idea of the Pittsburgh Promise. They objected to announcing an ambitious program before funding was in place. I gather someone was going to leak the news of the program and that’s why Roosevelt and Ravenstahl made the announcement, or at least that is their story. Even if that is true, how long where R & R going to sit on the PP before announcing it? The funding has come literally a year later.
And it came a month after the election. Does anyone wonder what that means? When did UPMC decide to make this donation? Was it truly after the election that they realized they had extra money and needed to do something with it? I find the timing interesting. I don’t think UPMC had some ulterior motive, like denying Ravenstahl the bump that would have come with having a funded Pittsburgh Promise. In fact, my guess is that UPMC had decided some time ago (in the summer, at the Lemiuex thing?) to make the donation, but wanted to avoid being seen as trying to influence the election.
The only thing we know for sure is that UPMC now has a bulletproof argument for avoiding any further Payments In Lieu Of Taxes, or any paying any property taxes. Of course, the state legislature could ignore those arguments and do what it wants to UPMC and Highmark, but the city and the county have lost a lot of leverage. Let’s hope it is worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
