Republicans gerrymander Pennsylvania districts

You’re surprised?  

Under current law and court decisions, legislative districts must be substantially equal in population, and the boundaries must be contiguous.  Other than that legislators can be quite creative, as a glance at the preliminary district maps in today’s Morning Call will show.

The most egregious gerrymander in the local area is the excision of Summit Hill from the 122nd House District.  If you go to the official preliminary map at <http://www.redistricting.state.pa.us/Maps/index.cfm> and look very carefully  at Carbon County, you will see a sliver on the western side lumped in with Schuylkill County.  That sliver is Summit Hill.  (A warning:  the color contrasts on the map are not very good.)

Why did the Republicans remove Summit Hill?  Because Representative Heffley has not exactly lit up the night skies over Harrisburg.  He is vulnerable, and what better way to protect him than to remove one of the most Democratic municipalities from his district.

A petition is being circulated in the Summit Hill area to keep the borough in the 122nd.  Individuals may also write to the Commission, although I don’t think they accept emails.  Send your letter to 2011 Legislative Reapportionment Commission, North Office Building, Room 104, Harrisburg, PA 17120.  You have until November 30.  They won’t listen to you. 

Finally, we recently had a Democratic Governor and one chamber controlled by Democrats.  Why didn’t they implement a neutral reapportionment commission?  A number of states have done this.  Why is Pennsylvania always at the end of the line, the bottom of the pile, the back of the pack?  Look at the current legislative priorities--selling state stores, protecting natural gas drillers, wrecking public schools with vouchers, failing to act on property tax reform, suppressing the vote.  

Small Stream Advisory

In 1972 Congress adopted and President Nixon signed the Clean Water Act to protect, in the words of the Act, “all the waters of the United States.”  Any commercial developer who wished to dredge a body of water or dam up a stream or fill in a wetland had to obtain a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.

Under the George W. Bush Administration the protections were limited to navigable waters.  Although I have canoed the Aquashicola and Mahoning Creeks, they would not be considered navigable under the Bush guidelines. 

Earlier this year the Obama administration proposed new guidelines that protected American streams and wetlands--the same standards that had been applied for decades after the Clean Water Act was passed.  This irritated developers, and in response, the House passed legislation denying the EPA and the Army Corps from carrying out the guidelines.  Now Repuiblican Senators Barasso of Wyoming and Heller of Nevada have introduced legislation to do the same thing in the Senate.  Approximately two million miles of small streams are at risk.

I read in the New York Times a few days ago that college students aren’t as enthusiastic for President Obama as in 2008.  Given the Republican candidates and the Republican Congress and the Republican Supreme Court, I have actually become MORE enthusiastic.  This country and its environment cannot afford to have a Republican president.

In China I'd be in trouble

Chinese government offices, including the Central Propaganda Department and the State Council Information Office, send directives to various media outlets on what they may report.  Harper’s Magazine (Dec. 2011 issue) has reprinted some of these directives:  

All websites are requested to immediately remove the story “In China 94 Percent Are Unhappy; Top-Heavy Concentration of Wealth.”

Regarding Shanghai’s and Chongqing’s experiments with initiating property taxes, opinions that property taxes steal money are not to be reported.

All websites are requested to immediately remove photos and news reports regarding Chengdu bus explosion.

Do not report on the sinkholes caused by coal mining in Shanxi.

China is doing well economically.  Its people have a work ethic that puts ours to shame.  The Chinese government has loosened many aspects of government control.  Nevertheless, China is still a dictatorship with press censorship and arbitrary rules; I’m glad I don’t live there.

Feeling stupid

If citizens were ranked by their political knowledge, I’d be in the top 1%.  That isn’t bragging; it is a simple fact.  I read three newspapers every day.  I have a Ph.D. in political science.  I know a lot of stuff.  

Nevertheless, when I voted last Tuesday, I didn’t know a single fact about any of the five school board candidates on my ballot.  I didn’t even have the cue of party, since the candidates had cross-filed.  These are people who make policy that will affect our children and grandchildren.  They determine our school property tax.  They are important, and I knew nothing about them.  I can’t remember any analysis or candidate profiles in the Times News. 

I felt very stupid, and I ended up not voting for any school board candidate.  I must do better next time, but I’m not sure where I can even get information.  Any suggestions?

An Honest Man

During a newspaper strike, New York Mayor LaGuardia read the Sunday funnies over the radio.  In that tradition I’ll bring you one of today’s strips.

“Doonesbury” features an interview with “an honest man.”  He discusses the voter I.D. bills Republican legislators are pushing in state after state.  He also points out that the Bush Department of Justice found voter fraud to be almost nonexistent.  

In the next panel he says this:  “Republicans should make the case on its merits!  We don’t give a flying fig about ‘fraud.’!  We just want to suppress turn-out of Democrats to keep the wrong kind of people from voting!”

“For the love of god, show some spine!  If we’re gonna try to steal elections, we shouldn’t make it worse by insulting voters’ intelligence!”

Exactly.  Gov. Corbett and the Pennsylvania Republican legislators know that fraud is not a problem.  They know their purpose is to suppress votes.  Why can’t they at least be honest about it?

Flat tax

Every four years at least one Republican candidate can be counted on the introduce the idea of the flat tax.  The arguments advanced are, first, that the flat tax is fair, taxing everyone equally; and second, that it is simple, allowing us to get rid of all the complicated regulations contained in the present I.R.S. code. 

Let’s address the fairness issue first.  A flat tax will make the rich richer.  According to the recent Congressional Budget Office study, the top 1% of income recipients received (I refuse to use the term “earned”) 275% more in 2007 that they did in 1979, adjusted for inflation.  In this same period earnings for middle class households increased by less than 40%.  Some flat taxers like Herman Cain would make matters even worse, excluding dividends and imposing the flat tax a tax on wages alone.

The simplicity argument is completely bogus.  I do my own taxes.  Once I have my income figured out, I turn to the tax table and find what I owe.  I can do that in less than two minutes.  I could put that on three lines on a postcard.  1. income.  2.  tax from table.  3.  amount owed.  The problem is figuring out what my income is.  That takes hours and hours.  Do I count Carbon County fair winnings?  What about the yard sale profits?  Scrap metal sales?  Do I count every retirement benefit?  Can I deduct medical costs or the college fund for my grandson?  I will have to do the same thing with a flat tax.

Not one of the Republicans who tout the simplicity of the flat tax explain how it will eliminate the problem of determining income.  Because it won’t.

The Utah Compact, one year later

One year ago the Utah Compact was unveiled.  It was an effort to deal with the immigration issue in a reasonable and humane way, and I was so impressed with the attempt, I signed it.  It was a more conservative plan than I would have drafted, but it does not call for mass deportations, throwing children out of school, or scapegoating immigrants.  It’s a good starting point.

The Mormon church did not officially endorse the Compact, although many of its leading members supported it.  That Mormons are divided on this issue was shown in Tuesday’s election in Mesa, Arizona, where Spanish-speaking moderate Jerry Lewis won in a recall election against Russell Pearce, one of the most anti-immigrant politicians in America.  Both candidates were Mormons.  According to the Deseret News, the Compact played a role in Pearce’s defeat.

If you would like to check out the Compact, go to <utah.compact@gmail.com>.  You might even want to sign it.