"The only good solution is to privatize the ports. This would not mean transferring them to well-connected corporate cronies, but rather, as Brad Spangler suggests, ceding control to the people who work and use the ports and who are not tainted by the corporate state. I'd prefer real profit-oriented ports with owners who risk their own capital to bureaucratic ports with politicized managers.
The other thing to do is to liquidate the empire in order to drastically reduce the odds that someone will want to do our society grave harm."
Free Association: What To Do About the Ports
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Pennsylvania Constitution does not need a makeover
Be careful what you wish for
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, February 12, 2006
The Pennsylvania Constitution does not need a makeover. The commonwealth does need new politicians -- governor, legislators and judges. A constitutional convention -- called for in the name of good government -- could be a catastrophe. Do Pennsylvanians really want to risk losing control of the convention to the same morally bankrupt politicians who were responsible for the pay-raise/pay-repeal fiasco?
There is a much better reason why the state's citizens should not be seduced by the temptation.
"What change in language would matter if the language is already clear?" said Bruce Ledewitz, a law professor at Duquesne University and an expert on the Pennsylvania charter. Mr. Ledewitz is co- director of the law school's state Constitution Web site (paconstitution.duq.edu/). It is a must-read for anyone who wants to learn about the text, history and meaning of the near-forgotten document.
The only thing wrong with the state Constitution is that so few Pennsylvanians know much about it. If they did, they would discover a magnificent document that, if adhered to by the politicians in Harrisburg, would be the definition of good government.
One of the arguments for a constitutional convention is that it would be a simple way to reduce the size of the 253-person Legislature, plus their bloated staffs.
"The irony is the Legislature's size was increased on purpose to prevent corruption," Ledewitz said about a series of good-government constitutional reforms in 1874. The thought was to have so many representatives that bribing a critical mass of them would be almost impossible.
My, my, how times have changed.
If Pennsylvanians want fair taxation -- the government not playing favorites with this special-interest group or that -- it's already codified in the Constitution.
"I say to my students that our whole tax system is in radical violation of the state Constitution," Ledewitz said. Article 8, Section 1, mandates that all taxes shall be uniform on the same class of subjects.
When Tom Murphy was mayor of Pittsburgh, he went to the Legislature on behalf of a financial services company that had threatened to leave the city, Ledewitz said. The state created an exemption to the Pittsburgh Business Privilege Tax for companies in the securities industry. "That is an obvious and complete violation of the uniformity clause," Ledewitz said.
The mischievous machinations that led to last summer's pay-jacking were another radical violation of the Constitution. Several actually.
The bill dealt with more than one subject. It was not considered for three days by each chamber of the General Assembly. And it authorized an unconstitutional pay raise -- labeled as an "unvouchered expense" - - for the legislators. To name a few of the violations.
Ledewitz can name more. Many, many more.
The more Pennsylvanians learn about their contract with the government, the more they will realize that no fix is needed for something that is not broken.
By Dimitri Vassilaros
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Sunday, February 12, 2006
The Pennsylvania Constitution does not need a makeover. The commonwealth does need new politicians -- governor, legislators and judges. A constitutional convention -- called for in the name of good government -- could be a catastrophe. Do Pennsylvanians really want to risk losing control of the convention to the same morally bankrupt politicians who were responsible for the pay-raise/pay-repeal fiasco?
There is a much better reason why the state's citizens should not be seduced by the temptation.
"What change in language would matter if the language is already clear?" said Bruce Ledewitz, a law professor at Duquesne University and an expert on the Pennsylvania charter. Mr. Ledewitz is co- director of the law school's state Constitution Web site (paconstitution.duq.edu/). It is a must-read for anyone who wants to learn about the text, history and meaning of the near-forgotten document.
The only thing wrong with the state Constitution is that so few Pennsylvanians know much about it. If they did, they would discover a magnificent document that, if adhered to by the politicians in Harrisburg, would be the definition of good government.
One of the arguments for a constitutional convention is that it would be a simple way to reduce the size of the 253-person Legislature, plus their bloated staffs.
"The irony is the Legislature's size was increased on purpose to prevent corruption," Ledewitz said about a series of good-government constitutional reforms in 1874. The thought was to have so many representatives that bribing a critical mass of them would be almost impossible.
My, my, how times have changed.
If Pennsylvanians want fair taxation -- the government not playing favorites with this special-interest group or that -- it's already codified in the Constitution.
"I say to my students that our whole tax system is in radical violation of the state Constitution," Ledewitz said. Article 8, Section 1, mandates that all taxes shall be uniform on the same class of subjects.
When Tom Murphy was mayor of Pittsburgh, he went to the Legislature on behalf of a financial services company that had threatened to leave the city, Ledewitz said. The state created an exemption to the Pittsburgh Business Privilege Tax for companies in the securities industry. "That is an obvious and complete violation of the uniformity clause," Ledewitz said.
The mischievous machinations that led to last summer's pay-jacking were another radical violation of the Constitution. Several actually.
The bill dealt with more than one subject. It was not considered for three days by each chamber of the General Assembly. And it authorized an unconstitutional pay raise -- labeled as an "unvouchered expense" - - for the legislators. To name a few of the violations.
Ledewitz can name more. Many, many more.
The more Pennsylvanians learn about their contract with the government, the more they will realize that no fix is needed for something that is not broken.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Local Tax Enabling Act is Invalid!
From: "Ken V. Krawchuk"
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 5:07 pm
Subject: Wage Taxes and the Pennsylvania Constitution
Folks:
Speaking of wage taxes, did you know that the local, non-property taxes
in Pennsylvania (from little taxes like the nuisance $5 occupational
privilege taxes, to big taxes like the treasured 1% earned income tax that
school boards love to levy) are all based on Act 511 of 1965, colloquially
known as the Local Tax Enabling Act?
Did you also know that Article 3, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution says, "All bills for raising of revenue shall originate in
the House of Representatives...", the identical wording as in the
Constitution for the United States of America?
And did you know that if you go to a law library and look at the
annotation near the very top of Act 511, it said "SB 425", as in "Senate
Bill 425"?
Unless the House has decided to refer to one of their bills as a "Senate
Bill", obviously the Local Tax Enabling Act did not originate in the
House. Legally speaking, it's "void ab initio" (meaning "bad from the
start") and not a valid law.
Our friends in the Supreme Court have upheld this unarguable violation of
our Constitution, saying (paraphrasing) that no one complained soon
enough. Got that? So if they passed a law against freedom of religion,
for example, and no one notices right away, it's law? Cut me a break!
This is only another piece of proof that there is not an ounce of
integrity left in Harrisburg, not in the legislature, the courts, or the
executive branch. The culture of corruption has permeated their every
action for decades. They may just have well printed our Constitution on
toilet paper and distributed the rolls to every bathroom throughout the
Commonwealth as a constant reminder. Pay raises and repeals, nuisance
taxes, red light cameras, etc. are only the symptoms. The disease is
their lack of integrity, and PaCleanSweep is the cure.
We can disagree over gay marriage, gambling, levels of school funding,
term limits, legislature size, etc., but one thing we should never lose
sight of is our integrity. The Constitution is our job description, love
it or hate it, and if our oaths of office mean anything, then our duty is
clear: We follow the constitution.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned about the very issue
Pennsylvania faces today: "If the Constitution be wrong in any particular,
let it be corrected by amendment in the way that the constitution
designates. But let there be no change through usurpation; for though
this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Indeed.
- Ken
--------------------------------------------
Ken Krawchuk
Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998, 2002)
Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04)
Krawchuk '02
c/o PO Box 260
Cheltenham, Penna. USPO 19012
(215) 881-9696 (voice)
(215) Krawchuk (fax)
Inquiries@...
www.KenK.Org
Date: Thu Feb 9, 2006 5:07 pm
Subject: Wage Taxes and the Pennsylvania Constitution
Folks:
Speaking of wage taxes, did you know that the local, non-property taxes
in Pennsylvania (from little taxes like the nuisance $5 occupational
privilege taxes, to big taxes like the treasured 1% earned income tax that
school boards love to levy) are all based on Act 511 of 1965, colloquially
known as the Local Tax Enabling Act?
Did you also know that Article 3, Section 10 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution says, "All bills for raising of revenue shall originate in
the House of Representatives...", the identical wording as in the
Constitution for the United States of America?
And did you know that if you go to a law library and look at the
annotation near the very top of Act 511, it said "SB 425", as in "Senate
Bill 425"?
Unless the House has decided to refer to one of their bills as a "Senate
Bill", obviously the Local Tax Enabling Act did not originate in the
House. Legally speaking, it's "void ab initio" (meaning "bad from the
start") and not a valid law.
Our friends in the Supreme Court have upheld this unarguable violation of
our Constitution, saying (paraphrasing) that no one complained soon
enough. Got that? So if they passed a law against freedom of religion,
for example, and no one notices right away, it's law? Cut me a break!
This is only another piece of proof that there is not an ounce of
integrity left in Harrisburg, not in the legislature, the courts, or the
executive branch. The culture of corruption has permeated their every
action for decades. They may just have well printed our Constitution on
toilet paper and distributed the rolls to every bathroom throughout the
Commonwealth as a constant reminder. Pay raises and repeals, nuisance
taxes, red light cameras, etc. are only the symptoms. The disease is
their lack of integrity, and PaCleanSweep is the cure.
We can disagree over gay marriage, gambling, levels of school funding,
term limits, legislature size, etc., but one thing we should never lose
sight of is our integrity. The Constitution is our job description, love
it or hate it, and if our oaths of office mean anything, then our duty is
clear: We follow the constitution.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned about the very issue
Pennsylvania faces today: "If the Constitution be wrong in any particular,
let it be corrected by amendment in the way that the constitution
designates. But let there be no change through usurpation; for though
this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary
weapon by which free governments are destroyed."
Indeed.
- Ken
--------------------------------------------
Ken Krawchuk
Libertarian for Pennsylvania Governor (1998, 2002)
Past Chair, Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (2002-04)
Krawchuk '02
c/o PO Box 260
Cheltenham, Penna. USPO 19012
(215) 881-9696 (voice)
(215) Krawchuk (fax)
Inquiries@...
www.KenK.Org
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Unholy alliance: politicians and judges
Does anyone really doubt that the Pennsylvania legislature and judiciary collude regularly to expand their power and stifle dissent?
Group alleges legislature, court colluded
By Mario F. Cattabiani and Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Staff Writers
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania's leading watchdog group alleged in a lawsuit yesterday that the highest ranks of the legislature traded millions in state aid to the courts for favorable decisions dating to 1999 - and possibly culminating last summer in generous pay raises for more than 1,000 judges.
A state Supreme Court spokesman called the accusations "preposterous."
The allegations were laid out in a revised federal court challenge in Harrisburg to last summer's legislative pay raise, in which Common Cause of Pennsylvania contends that there has been political "back scratching" between top House and Senate members and the state Supreme Court for years.
At the heart of the new allegations is the contention that, seven years ago, legislative leaders negotiated with the high court to fund the state's judiciary, fearing that if they did not, the justices would rule against them on two suits involving constitutional challenges.
Given that history, Common Cause alleges it is more than likely that last summer's unpopular pay raises were the result of a similar deal between Chief Justice Ralph Cappy and legislative leaders.
"What we are telling the court is that this may not be a unique instance, that this may have been going on at various levels for quite a few years," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause. "We are asking the [federal] court to get to the bottom of it. If it is going on, it needs to be stopped and the federal courts need to put the hammer down."
Speaking on behalf of Cappy, Tom Darr, deputy court administrator of Pennsylvania, said: "It is regrettable that an organization like Common Cause, which has always stood for the principles of good government, would file such a frivolous lawsuit."
He added: "A preliminary reading shows the allegations to be preposterous, baseless and reckless and the relief sought ridiculous."
The suit provides as evidence conversations held behind closed doors between Republican members of the House in June 1999.
During that internal caucus meeting, then-Majority Leader John M. Perzel (R., Phila.), now speaker of the House, allegedly told colleagues that they were moving ahead with the court funding because "we cannot afford to have the courts rule against us" on the two suits. One suit involved workers compensation, the other an increase in the state tax on gasoline for highway-improvement projects.
Perzel's comments came after members of the caucus complained that the legislature should not give in to "blackmail" by the court, the suit contends.
Former Rep. Ed Krebs, who was at the meeting, attested to the allegation in an affidavit filed with the amended suit. In it, he also alleges that then-Speaker Matt Ryan told fellow Republicans that another member, J. Scot Chadwick, had acted as a negotiator with the Supreme Court on the matter.
In an interview yesterday from his Lebanon County home, Krebs said, "To me, it meant that if we didn't give them the money for the courts, we would lose the cases. It was a quid pro quo."
Krebs retired from the House in 2002 after serving 12 years.
Chadwick, a former Republican representative from Bradford County, told the Associated Press that he did consult with court officials over the 1999 legislation, but that the meeting was informational, not a quid pro quo negotiation.
"I think that would be very wrong," he said. "I am an attorney by training and that would raise a red flag with me immediately."
The high court wound up ruling in favor of the legislature in both cases.
That wasn't the only instance of possible collusion, according to the suit.
Last summer, the suit alleges, Cappy lobbied the legislature hard to implement the pay raise, which increased legislative salaries as well as those for judges and other state officials. It was rescinded in November by a contrite legislature that had been whipped in public-opinion polls.
The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to both the pay raise and the legislature's move to overturn it. Cappy has recused himself from hearing the case.
That lawsuit quotes an August e-mail about the pay raise that was allegedly written by Republican Senate employee Suzanne O'Berry to Matthew Brouillette, head of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"I watched the formulation of all this up close with my 'special connections' to certain offices, and it was much more unsavory than a lot know," O'Berry wrote, according to the suit. "... I will say that family dining debate has become much more exciting."
O'Berry is married to Mike Long, a top aide to Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer (R., Blair). Jubelirer is among the defendants named in Common Cause's suit.
O'Berry told the Associated Press that she does not recall the e-mail and had no other immediate comment.
Just last week, Perzel asked Cappy and the court for guidance in crafting a lobbying disclosure bill that would withstand legal scrutiny.
Attempts to reach Perzel and Jubelirer were unsuccessful yesterday.
The Common Cause lawsuit asks the federal court to declare unconstitutional private conversations between judges and members of the executive or legislative branches about legislation that might come before them.
Joining in the lawsuit with Common Cause are the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and state Rep. Greg Vitali (D., Delaware) among others. The defendants include top legislative leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, as well as Gov. Rendell and state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.
Group alleges legislature, court colluded
By Mario F. Cattabiani and Angela Couloumbis
Inquirer Staff Writers
HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania's leading watchdog group alleged in a lawsuit yesterday that the highest ranks of the legislature traded millions in state aid to the courts for favorable decisions dating to 1999 - and possibly culminating last summer in generous pay raises for more than 1,000 judges.
A state Supreme Court spokesman called the accusations "preposterous."
The allegations were laid out in a revised federal court challenge in Harrisburg to last summer's legislative pay raise, in which Common Cause of Pennsylvania contends that there has been political "back scratching" between top House and Senate members and the state Supreme Court for years.
At the heart of the new allegations is the contention that, seven years ago, legislative leaders negotiated with the high court to fund the state's judiciary, fearing that if they did not, the justices would rule against them on two suits involving constitutional challenges.
Given that history, Common Cause alleges it is more than likely that last summer's unpopular pay raises were the result of a similar deal between Chief Justice Ralph Cappy and legislative leaders.
"What we are telling the court is that this may not be a unique instance, that this may have been going on at various levels for quite a few years," said Barry Kauffman, executive director of Common Cause. "We are asking the [federal] court to get to the bottom of it. If it is going on, it needs to be stopped and the federal courts need to put the hammer down."
Speaking on behalf of Cappy, Tom Darr, deputy court administrator of Pennsylvania, said: "It is regrettable that an organization like Common Cause, which has always stood for the principles of good government, would file such a frivolous lawsuit."
He added: "A preliminary reading shows the allegations to be preposterous, baseless and reckless and the relief sought ridiculous."
The suit provides as evidence conversations held behind closed doors between Republican members of the House in June 1999.
During that internal caucus meeting, then-Majority Leader John M. Perzel (R., Phila.), now speaker of the House, allegedly told colleagues that they were moving ahead with the court funding because "we cannot afford to have the courts rule against us" on the two suits. One suit involved workers compensation, the other an increase in the state tax on gasoline for highway-improvement projects.
Perzel's comments came after members of the caucus complained that the legislature should not give in to "blackmail" by the court, the suit contends.
Former Rep. Ed Krebs, who was at the meeting, attested to the allegation in an affidavit filed with the amended suit. In it, he also alleges that then-Speaker Matt Ryan told fellow Republicans that another member, J. Scot Chadwick, had acted as a negotiator with the Supreme Court on the matter.
In an interview yesterday from his Lebanon County home, Krebs said, "To me, it meant that if we didn't give them the money for the courts, we would lose the cases. It was a quid pro quo."
Krebs retired from the House in 2002 after serving 12 years.
Chadwick, a former Republican representative from Bradford County, told the Associated Press that he did consult with court officials over the 1999 legislation, but that the meeting was informational, not a quid pro quo negotiation.
"I think that would be very wrong," he said. "I am an attorney by training and that would raise a red flag with me immediately."
The high court wound up ruling in favor of the legislature in both cases.
That wasn't the only instance of possible collusion, according to the suit.
Last summer, the suit alleges, Cappy lobbied the legislature hard to implement the pay raise, which increased legislative salaries as well as those for judges and other state officials. It was rescinded in November by a contrite legislature that had been whipped in public-opinion polls.
The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to both the pay raise and the legislature's move to overturn it. Cappy has recused himself from hearing the case.
That lawsuit quotes an August e-mail about the pay raise that was allegedly written by Republican Senate employee Suzanne O'Berry to Matthew Brouillette, head of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative think tank.
"I watched the formulation of all this up close with my 'special connections' to certain offices, and it was much more unsavory than a lot know," O'Berry wrote, according to the suit. "... I will say that family dining debate has become much more exciting."
O'Berry is married to Mike Long, a top aide to Senate President Pro Tempore Robert C. Jubelirer (R., Blair). Jubelirer is among the defendants named in Common Cause's suit.
O'Berry told the Associated Press that she does not recall the e-mail and had no other immediate comment.
Just last week, Perzel asked Cappy and the court for guidance in crafting a lobbying disclosure bill that would withstand legal scrutiny.
Attempts to reach Perzel and Jubelirer were unsuccessful yesterday.
The Common Cause lawsuit asks the federal court to declare unconstitutional private conversations between judges and members of the executive or legislative branches about legislation that might come before them.
Joining in the lawsuit with Common Cause are the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and state Rep. Greg Vitali (D., Delaware) among others. The defendants include top legislative leaders of both parties in the House and Senate, as well as Gov. Rendell and state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
Say NO to new lobbyist rules
Jacob Hornberger’s Commentary
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Congressional leaders from both parties are rushing to enact new laws designed to prevent lobbyists from unduly influencing the members of Congress into selling their votes. Yawn! Wasn’t that what all those ethics rules were supposed to be all about? Wasn’t that what limits on campaign contributions were supposed to be all about? Wasn’t that what campaign reporting requirements were supposed to be all about?
Despite all the current hype over new lobbyist rules, nothing will change as long as the American people keep their massive income-tax funded welfare system in place. With billions of dollars headed into Washington every year, the incentive and opportunity for bribery, both legal and illegal, will be ever-present.
The solution to the corruption is not more rules and regulation or even the old bromide about getting “better people into public office.” The only solution is a complete paradigm shift away from the income-tax funded socialistic welfare state that revolutionized American life in the 20th century in favor of the free-market philosophy that once distinguished our nation from the rest of the world.
That would entail a restoration of a system that protects very person’s right to keep everything he earns (i.e., no more IRS and federal income tax) and that protects each person’s right to do whatever he wants with his own money (i.e., no more coerced government welfare). By depriving their esteemed members of Congress of all that federal income-tax money, the American people would simultaneously bring about the disappearance of lobbyists who live their lives wallowing in Washington, feeding at the public trough.
http://www.fff.org/blog/index.asp
Congressional leaders from both parties are rushing to enact new laws designed to prevent lobbyists from unduly influencing the members of Congress into selling their votes. Yawn! Wasn’t that what all those ethics rules were supposed to be all about? Wasn’t that what limits on campaign contributions were supposed to be all about? Wasn’t that what campaign reporting requirements were supposed to be all about?
Despite all the current hype over new lobbyist rules, nothing will change as long as the American people keep their massive income-tax funded welfare system in place. With billions of dollars headed into Washington every year, the incentive and opportunity for bribery, both legal and illegal, will be ever-present.
The solution to the corruption is not more rules and regulation or even the old bromide about getting “better people into public office.” The only solution is a complete paradigm shift away from the income-tax funded socialistic welfare state that revolutionized American life in the 20th century in favor of the free-market philosophy that once distinguished our nation from the rest of the world.
That would entail a restoration of a system that protects very person’s right to keep everything he earns (i.e., no more IRS and federal income tax) and that protects each person’s right to do whatever he wants with his own money (i.e., no more coerced government welfare). By depriving their esteemed members of Congress of all that federal income-tax money, the American people would simultaneously bring about the disappearance of lobbyists who live their lives wallowing in Washington, feeding at the public trough.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
First Tuesday Fraud at the Capitol
Under the Dome: First Tuesday Report
by Tim Potts & Russ Diamond
"The General Assembly ...shall meet at twelve o'clock noon on the first Tuesday of January each year..."
-- PA Constitution, Article II, Section 4
Inside the General Assembly, this Constitutional requirement is known simply as "First Tuesday." So at the appointed hour on January 3, Kathleen Daugherty and I as co-founders of Democracy Rising PA, along with Barry Kauffman of Common Cause/PA, convened in the visitors' gallery of the House of Representatives.
If you had tuned your television to the Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN), you would have seen House Speaker John Perzel bang the gavel and bring the House to order. He immediately recognized "the gentleman from Washington County Mr. Daley" (Rep. Peter J. Daley II, D-Donora), who moved that the House adjourn the session day that had carried over the Christmas and New Year's break.
The Speaker intoned that the motion had passed on a voice vote, and then convened First Tuesday as required by the Constitution. The House recessed at 12:05 p.m. after recording 57 actions on 26 bills by voice vote.
That's what you were allowed to see because PCN can't control the cameras. What you didn't see was that Speaker Perzel was having visual and auditory hallucinations.
There was no Mr. Daley. In fact, not a single elected Representative other than the Speaker was in the chamber. So when the "ayes" out-polled the "nays," it was by the slimmest of margins - that is, zero. And by this same margin, other business occurred by voice vote without a single voice voting. The constitutionally required session was a fabrication and a fraud.
Our Representatives and Senators take an oath to "obey" the Constitution. The Constitution requires them to show up for work on exactly one day a year. Yet despite abundant work to do and an oath taken on a holy book to do it, only the Speaker among 203 Representatives was there.
If lawmakers can't exhibit integrity in the small things, why should we have confidence that they will exhibit integrity in the large things?
Tim Potts, Co-Founder, Democracy Rising PA
------------
Across the rotunda there were actual Senators on the floor, but only a handful. By my count, less than one-third showed up for work on the one day the Constitution requires the General Assembly to convene.
After the Senate was brought to order at 12:10 p.m., a few House bills were logged and Majority Leader Brightbill was recognized. The purpose was to nominate the Senate Pro Tempore, Robert Jubelirer, for re-election to his post.
The nomination was peppered with accolades and seconded by Senators O'Pake and Wenger. There were no other nominations. Senator Jubelirer was unanimously re-elected and sworn in by his wife, a Commonwealth Court judge.
This was an occasion I shall never forget. Standing between enormous portraits of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863 was Senator Jubelirer swearing to "support, obey and defend" our Constitution in 2006. In the wake of July 7, the moment was utterly surreal.
He then accepted the gavel from the Lt. Governor and proceeded to address the few Senators present. During his speech, he referred to First Tuesday as "ceremonial." And this is when I began to understand.
What I began to comprehend is that on a "ceremonial" day, when the General Assembly only superficially "convenes," it is perfectly logical to swear to "support, obey and defend" a document which for the rest of the year seems more like something to be poked, prodded and cajoled in search of loopholes and shortcuts to benefit those doing the cajoling.
Ironic, isn't it?
Our Constitution is not merely ceremonial. The mandates within shouldn't be only technically met. Supporting, obeying and defending the plain language of the document ought to be a year-round vigil. Our most fundamental law must be returned to its rightful place - shielding liberty from abuse by limiting the power of those who govern.
This is what Pennsylvania wants. This is what Pennsylvania needs. This is what Pennsylvania demands.
And in 2006, Pennsylvanians will settle for nothing less.
Russ Diamond, Founder and Chair, PACleanSweep.com
About PACleanSweep
PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to defeating incumbent elected officials in Pennsylvania and replacing them with true public servants. For more information, please visit www.PACleanSweep.com.
by Tim Potts & Russ Diamond
"The General Assembly ...shall meet at twelve o'clock noon on the first Tuesday of January each year..."
-- PA Constitution, Article II, Section 4
Inside the General Assembly, this Constitutional requirement is known simply as "First Tuesday." So at the appointed hour on January 3, Kathleen Daugherty and I as co-founders of Democracy Rising PA, along with Barry Kauffman of Common Cause/PA, convened in the visitors' gallery of the House of Representatives.
If you had tuned your television to the Pennsylvania Cable Network (PCN), you would have seen House Speaker John Perzel bang the gavel and bring the House to order. He immediately recognized "the gentleman from Washington County Mr. Daley" (Rep. Peter J. Daley II, D-Donora), who moved that the House adjourn the session day that had carried over the Christmas and New Year's break.
The Speaker intoned that the motion had passed on a voice vote, and then convened First Tuesday as required by the Constitution. The House recessed at 12:05 p.m. after recording 57 actions on 26 bills by voice vote.
That's what you were allowed to see because PCN can't control the cameras. What you didn't see was that Speaker Perzel was having visual and auditory hallucinations.
There was no Mr. Daley. In fact, not a single elected Representative other than the Speaker was in the chamber. So when the "ayes" out-polled the "nays," it was by the slimmest of margins - that is, zero. And by this same margin, other business occurred by voice vote without a single voice voting. The constitutionally required session was a fabrication and a fraud.
Our Representatives and Senators take an oath to "obey" the Constitution. The Constitution requires them to show up for work on exactly one day a year. Yet despite abundant work to do and an oath taken on a holy book to do it, only the Speaker among 203 Representatives was there.
If lawmakers can't exhibit integrity in the small things, why should we have confidence that they will exhibit integrity in the large things?
Tim Potts, Co-Founder, Democracy Rising PA
------------
Across the rotunda there were actual Senators on the floor, but only a handful. By my count, less than one-third showed up for work on the one day the Constitution requires the General Assembly to convene.
After the Senate was brought to order at 12:10 p.m., a few House bills were logged and Majority Leader Brightbill was recognized. The purpose was to nominate the Senate Pro Tempore, Robert Jubelirer, for re-election to his post.
The nomination was peppered with accolades and seconded by Senators O'Pake and Wenger. There were no other nominations. Senator Jubelirer was unanimously re-elected and sworn in by his wife, a Commonwealth Court judge.
This was an occasion I shall never forget. Standing between enormous portraits of George Washington at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg in 1863 was Senator Jubelirer swearing to "support, obey and defend" our Constitution in 2006. In the wake of July 7, the moment was utterly surreal.
He then accepted the gavel from the Lt. Governor and proceeded to address the few Senators present. During his speech, he referred to First Tuesday as "ceremonial." And this is when I began to understand.
What I began to comprehend is that on a "ceremonial" day, when the General Assembly only superficially "convenes," it is perfectly logical to swear to "support, obey and defend" a document which for the rest of the year seems more like something to be poked, prodded and cajoled in search of loopholes and shortcuts to benefit those doing the cajoling.
Ironic, isn't it?
Our Constitution is not merely ceremonial. The mandates within shouldn't be only technically met. Supporting, obeying and defending the plain language of the document ought to be a year-round vigil. Our most fundamental law must be returned to its rightful place - shielding liberty from abuse by limiting the power of those who govern.
This is what Pennsylvania wants. This is what Pennsylvania needs. This is what Pennsylvania demands.
And in 2006, Pennsylvanians will settle for nothing less.
Russ Diamond, Founder and Chair, PACleanSweep.com
About PACleanSweep
PACleanSweep is a non-partisan effort dedicated to defeating incumbent elected officials in Pennsylvania and replacing them with true public servants. For more information, please visit www.PACleanSweep.com.
Friday, December 23, 2005
‘Slots for Watts’
Government Dependence Masquerades as Energy Independence
Governor Rendell endorses Big-Government Energy Program
Press Release
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania (LPPA)
www.lppa.org
info@lppa.org
1-800-R-RIGHTS
December 23, 2005
Harrisburg, PA – Pennsylvania’s Governor Rendell joined with Senator Harry Reid and other nationally prominent Democrats to announce their “Energy Independence 2020” program. This program calls for a massive government effort reminiscent of the Apollo program with the lofty goals of freeing the United States from dependence on foreign energy sources while somehow reducing energy costs.
LPPA Chair, David Jahn, explained the program’s fundamental flaw, “The governor and his cronies believe that government bureaucrats are somehow smarter than entrepreneurs in determining where to invest individuals’ dollars. Government regulations and big government programs typically end up increasing costs and creating new obstacles to finding new energy supplies.”
LPPA Media Relations Chair, Doug Leard, added, “energy independence is an untenable goal that will only increase energy costs.”
During the oil price spike of 1979, Great Britain was “energy independent”. All its crude oil came from the North Sea. Yet, the price spike impacted Great Britain as hard as it hit Japan, a country totally dependent on oil imports.
The United States imports oil because it is significantly less expensive than domestic solutions. Cutting ourselves off from these options will leave us with fewer, more costly choices.
The best prescription for our current energy issues is the libertarian prescription – to allow the marketplace to function while protecting private property from polluters. Government should eliminate subsidies and reduce bureaucratic regulations. Subsidies promote inefficiency and reward behaviors that serve government and not consumers. Most regulations simply limit the number of competitors facilitating a de facto government-sanctioned monopoly.
Libertarian candidate Jim Babb stated “consumers, not central planners, will drive the market to affordable energy choices.”
Jahn quipped, “I wouldn’t be surprised if Governor Rendell expanded the state’s gambling monopoly to include a ‘Slots for Watts’ program.” Leard followed with, “The best thing Governor Rendell can do to promote energy independence is to keep his limo within the speed limit on the Pennsylvania turnpike.”
The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States with over 600 officials serving in office throughout the nation. The Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania has placed statewide candidates on the ballot more often than any other third party and has championed improved ballot access to provide the voters of Pennsylvania greater choice. Please visit www.LP.org or www.LPPA.org for more information on the Libertarian Party.
Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania
3863 Union Deposit Road #223
Harrisburg, PA 17109
www.lppa.org
1-800-R-RIGHTS
info@lppa.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
