Posts in month: June, 2010

The Legislature has proven its fear of and subservience to special interests in the latest budget compromise.

The DEP is going to see its funding cut by 9%.  That’s at a time when Marcellus Shale drilling is rapidly poisoning and destroying our environment.  I’m sure Drillers are loving this particular “cost-saving” measure.  See, “cost-saving” is another amorphous word (as per yesterday’s essay) as this will only incur epic costs in the long run.  Without DEP inspectors going to drill rigs, we may not find out about spills and environmental harm.  As a matter of fact, even at the funding levels we have now, we’re missing spills and environmental harm.  Now it’ll be easier for drillers to abuse Pennsylvania’s land in their unmitigated pursuit of profit.  Thanks, Legislature, for helping them on their way.

In addition, State Parks will see their funding cut.  Hell, if we’re going to let drillers destroy nature unabated, we don’t need State Parks.  Who wants to appreciate natural beauty?  Not the Legislature, that’s for sure.

Libraries will also see cuts… again.  Allowing the community to access information and participate in learning and cultural programs is definitely not worth funding.  Who wants people accessing information?  Not the Legislature.

The sad fact of the matter is that raising taxes in certain areas should’ve been viewed as necessary.  Lowering and broadening the sales tax would’ve made perfect sense.  Pay 4%, rather than 6%, on Chips, but instead of avoiding a tax on candy, we pay it!  That raises money, and is totally reasonable.  Why are candy and cigars exempt from taxes anyway?

There are many other ways to raise revenue that were ignored, like the Delaware Tax Loophole, which allows big corporations headquartered in Pennsylvania to pay ZERO in taxes.

This budget is an abysmal failure and yet another example of the control special interests have over the political process.  It’s also yet another reason why we need publicly financed elections, and a ban on lobbying.

As per the tagline of this website, Progressive, Liberal, and Partisan in NEPA, I’ve naturally demonstrated a predilection for disgust and ridicule leveled at the Republican Party.  Over the past few months, though, I’ve observed something I suspect may have always been present in American voters: a total disgust with both sides of the aisle.

This is but one of many realizations that have led me to reconsider my partisanship.

In Britain, for example, the Conservative Party formed a coalition government with the Liberals leaving out the Labor Party (considered center-left).  I could never see that happening in America, but it’s inspiring to see nonetheless.

Setting aside Obama the President, Obama the Campaigner routinely spoke about hope, change, and unity, which, though they are abstract, hard-to-define terms, resonate with people and are positives voters can latch onto.  As a result of his rhetoric, he won handily.

A libertarian friend of mine and I share a mutual distrust of government and corporations.  It turns out liberals and libertarians (who often vote or identify as conservatives) share quite a few ideological viewpoints.

Partisanship, for me, has always been a statement.  I’ve been a proud Democrat since the day I registered: we passed the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, the Voting Rights Act, Medicare, and on and on.  That’s worthy of pride.  In addition, ever since I was young, and I imagine it’s the product of being half Mediterranean (Italian and Lebanese), I’ve always believed that passion and forthrightness in any situation is necessary.  Standing idly by and remaining quiet are not an option, as readers of this site, I’m sure, have guessed.  If people don’t ask questions, they won’t get answers.  If people don’t speak up, they won’t be heard.

I like to think of myself as an unapologetic liberal and I probably always will.  Where I have begun to, let’s say, evolve, is that I’m starting to think that being unapologetically liberal doesn’t mean I have to be unabashedly anti-conservative.  Believe it or not, this is an important revelation for me.

Take my lack of trust in corporations and their influence over government, for example.  This influence leads me to distrust government, as well.  Most voters, regardless of political persuasion, do not enjoy the level of influence that businesses and the wealthy have over government.  The solution I often hear from conservatives is, “Less government!” and my typical reaction is to say, “Then renounce your Social Security benefits.”  But I realize that many believe less government will mean less corruption, less horror visited upon our lives.  I mean, what chance to we have when the government decides to do much of anything that benefits business over the individual?  Not much.

Last night, I couldn’t sleep and picked up a book of George Orwell essays that’s been sitting on my night stand for some time.  I always find it fascinating that both liberals and conservatives throw accusations of “Orwellian” at their ideological opposites.  We see the worst people can be in each other, but both groups use the same terminology.  How is that even possible?  It got me thinking.

So, I read Politics and the English Language, the ideas of which appear in 1984 in the form of Newspeak.

The essay opens thus:

“Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.”

As an English teacher, I can agree with this statement on many levels, but this opening is actually a set-up to discuss political discourse.  Orwell points out that politicians in particular speak in general terms that tend to be very ambiguous, abstract, and hard to define, since people will then supply their own definitions and see the politicians as they see themselves, rather than uniquely or as individuals.  Take for example phrases like patriot, freedom, justice, and fascism.  As Orwell states, “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.’”  How often does political rhetoric devolve into generic name calling?  As for patriot, how does one define that?  Patriotism differs for everybody.  So does freedom.  So does justice.  So if a politician employs these terms, we can all say patriotism, freedom, and justice are good, while fascism is bad, sure, but what has actually been said?  In effect, nothing.

This abuse of political terminology is easy, because it avoids being, in effect, substansive.  Expediency is important for politicians, as the more forthright and descriptive they tend to be, the less accessible to the masses they become.  We can all connect to words like “patriot” but when we get into the minutia of a policy discussion in a speech, all of a sudden, the politician is elitist or out of touch or the latest I’ve heard, not emotive enough.  Each of these words and phrases serve as yet another example of words without substantive meaning it today’s political discourse.

I’m not immune to this.  Words like progressive and liberal are just as superfluous as any.  Progressive is a word that sounds great, who doesn’t want to be progressive?  But what it means, even to self-identified “progressives” is illusory.

All of these considerations have led me to a conclusion I’d reached some time ago, but for different reasons: that politics is the realm of superficiality.

As I said, abstract rhetoric and catch-phrases are endearing.  The success of Sarah Palin with gotcha journalism, drill, baby, drill, and her use of freedom and phrases like true patriot (as opposed to a false patriot?) or real Americans (as opposed to fake Americans?) are all amorphous enough that anybody who feels ostracized by government (which most of us do) can get on board with.  Real American?  I’m one of those!

That’s not to say Sarah Palin’s popularity is universal, it’s more to say that, where it exists, it’s understandable.

On the opposite end, Obama’s rhetoric is very, very generic, but the terminology, as opposed to Palin’s or the GOP’s, tends to be framed positively.  Instead of attacking institutions, Obama talks of bringing everybody together.  While disgruntled voters may respond well to attacking, negativity tends not to resonate with most people.

The partisan responses to political figures of various ideological stripes is addressed by Orwell, “Orthodoxy, of whatever color, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style.  The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos… and the speeches of under-secretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of speech.” That is, they are generic.  Orwell continues, “[a politician] may almost be unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church.  And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensible, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.”

Another on my list of recent realizations came when I got into a debate on a Tea Partier’s Facebook Page about the length of a bill.  Commenters were upset about the length of the upcoming Banking Bill, which stands at roughly 2,000 pages.  My response, sarcastically, was to ask how many pages would be acceptable.  Many like to point out the brevity of the Constitution, in contrast.  I realized quickly, though, that criticism of the length isn’t really about the length at all and that my response was unfair.  The criticism is rooted in a distrust of government and thereby the contents of the bill itself.  Inevitably, corporate and special interests will have gotten their little tidbits in the bill, which makes it worth of suspicion.  That’s something I can get behind.  That’s something everybody can get behind.

I have my idea of a solution, but that digression is unnecessary at this point.  The ultimate point is that my partisanship, and any partisanship, is unhelpful.  We draw battle-lines and remain mutually suspicious of people because we group them generically by ideology.  This isn’t me saying that both liberals and conservatives have great ideas that we all need to listen to – that would be similar generic political rhetoric.  Instead, what I’m saying is that the generic definitions in and of themselves are unhelpful.

What is a Democrat?  A Liberal?  A Republican?  A Conservative?

We are all individuals, ultimately, who, on our own, defy labels by the very fact that we are individuals.  As such, my realization about partisanship is that, for me, it will be more important in the future to focus on root cause for disagreement, rather than generic assumption.

It seems to me now, in retrospect, that this should be a given and maybe, cognitively, it is.  But it isn’t a practice because, as Orwell points out, it’s far too easy to slip into the vocabulary of broadness and presumptive labels.

Last year, I had the privileges of reading some of my short stories at the Pages & Places Book Festival in Downtown Scranton.  The event was wonderful – panels, authors, people all over downtown, and, of course, books!  I highly encourage people to attend this coming October and I’ll be posting reminders as the time draws nigh.

The reason I’m writing about this so early is that Christopher Hitchens will be coming!  I imagine he won’t be all that popular with local residents, given this religiosity of this area, as he is a very prominent atheist and the author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, which was nominated for a National Book Award.

Hitchens has just released an autobiography at age 61 entitled Hitch-22, with apologies to Joseph Heller, I’m sure.

Aside from prominent atheism, he is a prolific social commentator and wrote a fascinating article about American education, which I routinely return to for guidance and insight.  Hitchens (who taught at UPitt) points out that dialectic approaches to teaching are absent in America (or at least on the decline) and reminds us that asking questions about material (the dialectic, or Socratic method) is the best way to achieve understanding.  I teach AP classes, so this is essential.  There is no memorize and regurgitate for the purposes of testing.  There is analysis, synthesis, and understanding.  Incidentally, this helps with testing, too, and leaves students with a critical thinking ability that will stick with them through life.

Education aside, Hitchens is, of course, in the sights of conservative evangelicals (maybe literally in the sights of Palin) due to his consistently vehement and vitriolic assault on all things religion (no religion is spared).  His work excoriates the negative aspects of religion and points out the positives, like the Golden Rule for example, aren’t exclusive to religion.  Atheists can be moral and ethical without religion.  Sometimes the religious don’t see how that’s possible.  In addition, he cites passages from various holy works that condone immoralities and atrocities in both literal and figurative senses.  The Old Testament is rife with examples, and, for anybody familiar, I don’t need to provide reminders.

All in all, it’s rather exciting to see Hitchens coming to the area.  I always enjoy his perspective and his rather brash approach when dealing with those who hold opposing viewpoints.

Pages & Places, headed up by Liz Randol, has scored here and this year’s incarnation of the festival promises to be exciting.  Maybe people will even protest!

According to a source at the Capitol (yes, I talk to people there), at 3 AM last night a deal was reached regarding a severance tax on Marcellus Shale drilling.  Whether or not this will make it through is unclear, as negotiations are ongoing.

This shines some light (provided by natural gas) on today’s Times article, which should frighten anybody with the fortitude to resist industry.  Marcellus Shale drillers say they’ll support a tax as long as a law is passed allowing them to drill on the land of property-owners who have not signed leases for drilling.  That’s the compromise secured by Sen. Scarnati, the head of the Republicans in the Senate and a recipient of mega-amounts of cash from gas drillers.

So, if I want to put the environment before lease-money, drillers want to be able to legally drill on my land anyway.  How is this legalized theft even under discussion?  When I read The Iron Heel by Jack London years ago, corporations therein, when they couldn’t get what they wanted fairly, changed the law to get what they wanted.  When they couldn’t get what they wanted in the courts, they installed the judges.  London’s vision of America is sadly a reality and the warning signs are all over the place.  Yet we remain pretty silent.  This industry want should not even be considered.

Oh, and if anybody out there forgot, the drillers are poisoning us.  Just a friendly reminder.

A friend of mine in Susquehanna County has barium in his water now.  But since he doesn’t have any documents proving it wasn’t there before drilling, he has no recourse.  As in, the drillers and the DEP said, “Too bad” and told him to deal with it on his own.  His property value is ruined.  He has to buy bottled water.  Barium is used in drilling and it’s cancer-causing.

Why are we so accommodating to drillers?  It’s like we’re begging them to make money at the expense of our health and environment.

When an organization endeavors to prove its value to the community by performing its own statistical and economic review of itself, anybody looking should maybe do a double-take or two.

According to the University of Scranton, it does lots of great stuff for Scranton.  This is, of course, indisputable.  Residents and politicians alike know and understand that the University of Scranton provides economic benefits to the city.  The contention that many have is that the University doesn’t provide enough to the City to warrant not paying taxes.  After all, they get police and fire protection from us.  They use our infrastructure.  They routinely take property off of the tax rolls, shifting the burden to the rest of us.

It’s important to take note of the methodology used by da U, which happened to have been a model inherently favorable to universities.  That’s number one.  Number two, which I mentioned earlier, is that they evaluated how awesome they are.  I mean, if, on a scale of 1-10, I had to rate myself, I would probably be a little biased.  Unless I had self-esteem issues.  But neither I, nor the University, have self-esteem issues.

Here is my proposed compromise: All university properties directly related to education, as per law, must be exempt from property taxes.  The City, however, should endeavor to tax residence halls or residential properties used to house students.  The reason for this is two-fold: residences removed from the tax rolls account for the majority of properties the city has lost and University-owned residences have no role in educating students.

The legality of this would have to be determined by lawyers, but it seems, at least on its face, reasonable and workable (If I do say so myself, anyway – remember, I’m a 10).

The University of Scranton hasn’t given any PILOTs (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) in a few years.  It’s time, instead, to tax their properties, or assess fees on their properties, which do not serve a direct educational purpose.  This would, of course, include other local colleges and universities and would generate revenue for the city while requiring institutions of higher education to pay their fair share (other than illusory numbers from economic impact studies).

Many people complain about taxes at Scranton City Council meetings, but about eighty cents on the dollar goes to the Scranton School District.  People should be paying close attention to what we’re getting for those tax dollars.

I’m a teacher, as many readers know, and I’m a product of the Scranton School District (a proud West Side graduate) and I had a superb education.  Years ago, I heard an aphorism about parenting that stuck with me, “Every parents’ goal is to see their child do better than they themselves did.”  This resonates with me now, because I see the parallels with teaching.  I want my students to have a better education than I did.

Since so much of my property taxes go to the Scranton School District and I’m a teacher, I looked on with interest at today’s report from the Times on the performance of local school districts.

For all our money, this is what we got: Out of 21 sets of standards, the Scranton School District was at the state average on 10.  That is less than half.  In attendance, Scranton is 454^th of 500 school districts.  In graduation, Scraton is 362^nd of 500 school districts.  Scranton is 396^th in per pupil spending, which is absolutely ridiculous because the district has a budget almost the size of Lackawanna County.  If we have a budget this big, why are we only 396^th, where is all that money going?  Pocono Mountain is only slightly bigger than Scranton and they are 62^nd in per-pupil spending.  This is pretty bad and we can do better.  In fact, we have.

In my younger days, I went to John Marshall Elementary School (I’m a Marshall Man, as many friends affectionately call it), which used to be a Blue Ribbon School – a wonderful mark of success, it’s national recognition showing that a school improved in all academically tested areas.  Now, the district is closing the school and having Highland Associates (of Cordaro-Munchak alleged bribery fame) build a multi-million dollar facility to replace it.  You’ve read my complaints about this: Western Wayne is building a state-of-the-art green elementary for millions less.  Why couldn’t we?  In any case, what happened to the district with the Blue Ribbon schools?  We’re below the state average, that’s what’s happened.

And Paul O’Malley, board president, wants to lay off teachers.  That’s going to help?  Increasing class size will not help students do better.  It’s common sense.  It’s in statistics.  And I’m a teacher, I’ve seen it.  Thirty students in a room is a disaster.  That’s 30 egos, 30 different sets of wants and needs.  Lower class sizes will increase performance, hands down.

There should be two goals in mind for the Board: treating taxpayers fairly and providing a great education for the kids.  Both groups deserve better than we’ve gotten.

A few times, particularly in exchanges in the comments, I’ve defended the integrity of our legislative system, arguing that more legislators, rather than less, is better for voters as it means easier access to those elected to represent us.  On that note, I called my Representative, Kevin Murphy, regarding my concerns about the Pension issue and about Drilling.

The pension “fix” that passed bothers me because it doesn’t really fix anything.  It now takes teachers ten instead of five years to get vested.  I don’t think that’ll save millions.  Now, to get full benefits, new teachers will have to be 65, another increase.  I don’t think that’ll save anything for decades, since the people this law will affect haven’t actually become teachers yet.

So, I pointed out that I felt new teachers were being punished unfairly while the problem isn’t actually addressed.  Allow me to summarize.  Representative Murphy said that these measures would help, although more would need to be done to achieve solvency.  The problem he cited, which is similar to how I view this dilemma, is that the choice is between punishing taxpayers or teachers for the mistakes of Gov. Ridge, and then Rendell, who both allowed for a pension holiday, thereby underfunding the pension for two years, which then affected the health of the fund in the long term.

How exactly this will be solved remains a mystery, but Rep. Murphy believes that the measures they’ve taken will give them a short respite to both insulate districts from tax hikes and give the Legislature time to find an appropriate fix.

As for drilling, Rep. Murphy shares my concerns about the effects on the environment and supports legislation being proposed to ensure that drilling is safe.  The problem, he said, is that the state allowed the bonanza to begin without actually studying its potential impact on both the environment and local infrastructure.  His district (the 113^th), though not directly impacted just yet, like Susquehanna County and other places where water is flammable, it’s coming.  Land has been leased in the Abingtons (the district is in part of the Abingtons) and, of course, we all share a similar water table.

It was a pleasure to talk to Kevin Murphy about the issues.  He’s always very candid and accessible.  That’s really the point.  When there is an issue, it’s always best to contact your legislator.  Yes, yes, sounds cliché, but asking questions is the only way to get answers.

For the umpteenth time in the last few weeks, Republicans united to defeat an extension of unemployment benefits.  I’m sure they’re proud to kick Americans while they’re down.

The reason Republican keep providing for stomping on the needy is that the deficit is too high.  The $30 billion that this bill requires is nothing compared to the billions we’ve spent on war.  But that doesn’t seem to concern them.  The military-industrial complex and America’s War Machine needs to be fed, but when it comes to citizens to be fed, well, the GO(B)P doesn’t mind.  “Get a job, bums!” seems to be their motto.  But there are no jobs to get.  The government is supposed to provide for the general welfare of the populace, that’s part of the Constitution.

Letting people suffer when you have the power to help them is abominable, and yet the Republican Party is all for it.  I know people who have been laid off and they do not enjoy it.  COBRA is expensive to maintain and they’re paying taxes and they’re paying bills.  Unemployment is not, as Republicans like to call it, “Funemployment.”  Instead, it’s worrying about whether or not eviction is coming, whether or not the next bill will get paid.

Their strategy, it seems to me, is to make sure the country remains in the doldrums and then, when November rolls around, they’ll blame Obama and hope to pick up seats. Obama should get aggressive (somehow I don’t think that’ll ever happen) and point out that Republicans are stonewalling, as a matter of routine, anything that’ll help alleviate the burden on the unemployed.  “Kick em while they’re down!” is the GO(B)P motto.

With the Cook Congressional Report ranking the Kanjorski-Barletta race as a Toss-Up, we have reason to be more interested.  I still think Kanjorski is the favorite.  Despite his recent comments, Barletta is a tried-and-true brown-people hater.  He tried to run them out of town, despite his law being unconstitutional.  Democrats have the registration advantage in the 11^th district, which, I think, keeps Kanjo in the cushion zone.

But, cashing in on this, Barletta is getting 9/11 Rudy 9/11 Guiliani 9/11 to come stump on his behalf.  How 9/11 sweet.  9/11.

Too bad Rudy Guiliani is a hack who exploited tragedy to give himself PR.  Calling on 9/11 every other word to curry support is shameful.  Not to mention that he wasn’t the most stellar or popular Mayor before 9/11 happened.  Oh, and his ethics record isn’t squeaky-clean either.  9/11.

I’m betting it’ll take more than an opportunist to boost Barletta.

Gort has a pretty nice defense of Paul Kanjorski and, after re-watching the clip, I can understand that the context was murky.  It still sounds bad.  Barletta actually did choose to go after Kanjo, demanding an apology (did the brown people in Hazleton get an apology after your racist law was struck down?) and Kanjorski’s response was very solid.  Rather than apologize, he hits Republicans for creating non-issues.  Good move!

Here’s Barletta:

Hazleton, PA – Hazleton Mayor and 11th Congressional District candidate Lou Barletta demanded that Paul Kanjorski apologize for comments he made during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing Wednesday in which he called some people “defective” and said minorities are not “good American people.”

Kanjorski said: “We’re giving relief to people that I deal with in my office every day now, unfortunately. But because of the longevity of this recession, these are people – and they’re not minorities and they’re not defective and they’re not all the things you’d like to insinuate that these programs are about – these are average, good American people.”

“Kanjorski must apologize for saying some people are ‘defective.’ He said Wednesday that ‘defective people’ are not ‘average, good American people,’ so who are ‘they?’” Mayor Barletta asked. “Also, Kanjorski, in his own words, said Wednesday that minorities are not ‘average, good American people.’ This is outrageous and shows how out of touch Kanjorski is with the real world.”

Here’s Kanjorski:

Congressman Kanjorski is tired of people, and too often Republicans,
criticizing solid and needed government programs that are meant to help
Americans who face tough economic times, often beyond their control, as
too many people are experiencing right now. In his impassioned plea for
conferees to adopt Pennsylvania’s model program to help homeowners
facing foreclosure to stay in their homes, the Congressman was stating
that many people insinuate that those who benefit from government
programs are those not looking for jobs, but that those suggestions are
wildly inaccurate.

As Congressman Kanjorski stated, these programs are meant to help people
and families throughout the country who are unable to afford basic
necessities, including those in the Congressman’s district in
Northeastern Pennsylvania who he hears from every day. Anyone trying to
politicize this issue clearly doesn’t get it. Congressman Kanjorski is
fighting for all Americans who are struggling. Any statement saying
otherwise is grossly misinformed. The full video clip, rather than an
edited version, speaks for itself and doesn’t take the Congressman’s
remarks out of context.

UPDATE:  Here is a link to Kanjorksi’s House page, which has links to statements from Chakah Fatah, Maxine Waters, Eli Cummings, and quite a few others defending Kanjo.

At 3:25 today, Bob Sheridan delivered a letter to Harry McGrath demanding a recount.  He included a request that all ballots be impounded until an impartial entity can count the ballots independent of the Democratic Party.

When I heard this, I called Sheridan, who said irregularities warrant investigations.

I have heard of multiple “irregularities” and, as many readers know, posted about the one Bob Sheridan brought to light.  There are additional issues and I’m waiting to hear back from certain individuals who are currently dealing with lawyers before I print anything.  It looks to be getting serious!

While I’m more than happy to bash Barletta whenever the opportunity presents itself, Paul Kanjorski, whom I have issues with, decided it would be cool to act like Barletta in such a way that I have to bring it to light.

Kanjorski would make a better Representative than Barletta.  He votes the right way, for the most part, and we all know Barletta would walk in lockstep with the Republicans since, you know, Republicans don’t do anything to upset their corporate overlords.

But Kanjorski got really, really stupid today:

Oops!

So, basically, Kanjo said the finance bill won’t help minorities and other defective people, only “Good Americans.”  Barletta will probably stand up and agree with him (although it would be politically better for Barletta to criticize Kanjo).

Paul Kanjorski needs to apologize.  It looks bad and sounds bad even if the context isn’t quite so black and white.

The Boy Scouts organization, America’s version of the Little Pioneers, likes to discriminate against gays, since, I suppose, it’s patriotic and what God wants.  The Boy Scout motto, “For God and Country” obviously points to that.  In addition, I recently had the pleasure of seeing a Boy Scout gathering (I used to be one years ago) in which they were doing their “For God and Country” schtick, but then added, “especially God.”  I found that odd.  But what’s far worse is that the Boy Scouts, as an organization have argued that they have the right to discriminate against gays.

Because of their codified discrimination, they have received much justified criticism.  In the city of Philadelphia, the Boy Scouts happen to be set up in a city building.  Philadelphia, after the BS didn’t change their discrimination policy, tried to evict the BS.  A court said they couldn’t.

This is too bad, since we just had an American court come out and say it’s okay to discriminate against gays without fear of loss of entitlements from governing bodies.  So, what will happen if the Boy Scouts decide to ban black people from joining?  Would that be okay?

Discrimination is wrong, whether it’s on the basis of sexuality or skin color.  Philadelphia should have the right to evict its discriminatory and homophobic tenant if it wants.

Yesterday, I got into a discussion with commenter canoe about the merits of shooting down SAPA, the Scranton-Abington Planning Association.  The plan put forward by SAPA would have made the area’s zoning laws more cohesive, drove development in certain areas, limited sprawl, and conserved land.  It sounded like a good deal to me.  I read about it on SAPA’s poorly constructed website.  I’ve read about it in the news.

Canoe’s contention that SAPA didn’t do enough to inform Council or the public about its benefits is a good point, SAPA did not.  I don’t necessarily think that it’s reason to abandon it though.  To that effect, Councilman Pat Rogan, whose main concern was its exclusion of nearby areas and its potential costs, said he was open to revisiting this issue and learning more about it.  Good for him.  Hopefully something constructive comes of this.

Since Scranton has the strongest infrastructure of the communities involved in SAPA, along with SAPA’s concentration on Scranton for development, it seems as though the adoption of this plan would’ve benefitted the city immensely.  Rather than a business park on a former farmer’s field in the Abington’s, zoning would push it into Scranton.  That would increase the tax base, which is a concern of Councilman Rogan’s.

At least the issue isn’t totally dead.

While Tom Corbett is busy being sued for mismanaging his office (because he does all the hypocritical things he charges Democrats with), a new Public Policy Polling poll came out saying he’s up ten points on Dan Onorato.

At first I thought, “Wow, that’s no fun.”  But then I realized that last PPP poll had Corbett up 14 points.  So Onorato is gaining ground and the campaign hasn’t even started.

Corbett, right now, has a big money advantage, but, as I love to point out over and over, Democrats have a huge registration advantage.  Ten points in June is very surmountable for Onorato, who just challenged Corbett to 14 debates.  My guess is Corbett will not accept this at all, since the debates will only raise Onorato’s profile.  It’s a good move on Onorato’s part, though.

Oh, and it turns out Corbett took thousands from BP officials.  Nice. He should probably give it back, lest people start wondering if he’s for offshore drilling in Erie.

Wyoming County DA Skumanick went on a quest to punish girls for sexting.  As I’ve written, sexting is dumb, but forcing kids into re-education programs by threatening them with criminal charges isn’t all that smart.  And, it turns out, it was a violation of their civil rights!

So now Wyoming County has to pay the legal fees associated with the suit, which is going to cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars.  This could’ve been avoided had they not elected an overzealous moralist.  It should serve as a warning.

The Scranton-Abingtons Planning Association came up with a plan to basically drive development of the area in a unified manner.  Currently, each municipality has its own zoning rules.  That may sound boring and uninteresting, but a single plan for the area would, for example, set aside land for green space, or agriculture, or industry.  So we wouldn’t have ten half used industrial parks in the area, instead we would have five fully used industrial parks.  That’s just one example.  You can read more about the plan on their website.

There is no logical reason for Council to have shot this down, and they didn’t really provide one other than: “This doesn’t look like it’ll benefit us.”

The whole plan is designed to benefit Scranton.  I’d like to see how Council can possibly view this as a negative.

Update: I just spoke to Councilman Rogan, who cited the cost of maintaining the plan and the fact that neighboring boroughs were excluded as reasons for voting against the plan.  The first can be predicted, and is arguably minimal (unless we’re talking about long term economic impact, which isn’t as predictable).  The second can be remedied in time and I don’t think it should have killed the plan — something is better than not enough.

The vote totals are in and it appears the Party pressure won the day and Harry McGrath beat Bob Sheridan 126-103.

Harry McGrath will get another 4 year term as the Chairman of the Lackawanna County Democratic Committee.

I called Bob Sheridan, and here’s what he had to say, “I did this the right way, I did it clean, I made friends along the way.  I lost by 23 votes and I didn’t have any institution on my side.  That’s 103 votes based on talking to people and giving them a message.  I can walk out with my head held high.”

Fighting against the machine is a tough deal, and Sheridan did, indeed, have a good showing.  And you know what, he wasn’t endorsed by the party when he ran for Scranton School Board, and won anyway.  Sounds all right to me.

That headline shouldn’t sound so amazing, but PNC Bank has handled district finance for some time now without having had to bid for the work.  Yesterday, the board voted 5-4 to solicit bids for the work.  The also voted to bar bidders from giving any money or gifts to Board members.

Interesting.

So, PNC has just gotten to keep the business without actually competing with other banks and the Board had to vote to say companies couldn’t give gifts to board members.  Let’s think this one through.

Firstly, the Board has flipped.  The Five who voted for this, Pat O’Malley, Bob Lesh, Chris Phillips, Kathleen McGuigan, and Bob Sheridan had mostly made up the Majority, until Chris Phillips joined them, tipping the balance of power.  Why would Paul O’Malley, Frank Brazill, Brian Jeffers, and Tom Gilbride vote against competitive bidding?  Why would the New Majority have to enact a policy to ban gifting in the first place?

I bring it up.  You decide.

Bob Lesh proposed this change and it’s absurd that Board President Paul O’Malley would call that politics.  I would call that good governance.  And despite Tom Gilbride’s assertion that PNC does the work for free, it doesn’t.  I’m sorry, people who do business with the district don’t take a loss to do it.  Why would PNC even bother?  The kindness of their bankers’ hearts?  Maybe Highland will build the next elementary school without charging.

The bottom line is that getting gifts from people with contracts should’ve been banned a long time ago, and it should be illegal nationwide.  I mean, that’s a huge conflict of interest.  Kudos to the New Majority for doing the right thing here.

There’s a lot of news around about Joe Sestak and Pat Toomey.  So let’s chat.

A new poll from Public Policy Polling has both candidates tied at 41%.  The undecided vote, I’m thinking, would swing to Sestak in the end because of the overwhelming Democratic registration advantage.  On top of that, if all Toomey can come up with is that Joe Sestak has gone to San Fransisco as some kind of criticism, well, it’s not looking that great for the GO(B)Per.  Assaulting some other American city is neither patriotic, or even sensical.  I mean, I’ve been to a few different American cities.  What does it mean if I’ve been to DC?  I’m corrupt?  What about Philly?  That I like Cheese Steaks?  What about Richmond? That I support the Confederacy?

Sorry, Toomey, you’ve only betrayed desperation.  I mean, I love that you’re desperate, but it is sad.