Category Archives: government, law, and politics

Holding Politicians Accountable

Operation Clean SweepRemember that raise PA legislators gave themselves? Well, Operation Clean Sweep Pennsylvania isn't the only group torqued by it. Common Cause Pennsylvania wants in on the butt-kicking.

"A citizens lobby called Common Cause/Pennsylvania is considering a wide range of options, including a lawsuit and two pieces of legislation, to fight the pay raise that state legislators approved for themselves in the early-morning hours of July 7."

"'We are exploring all our options, including the litigation option,'' said Executive Director Barry Kauffman."

"Despite unsuccessful lawsuits against previous raises, one in 1986 by a group called the Consumer Party and another in 1995 by Harrisburg activist Gene Stilp, Duquesne University law school Professor Bruce Ledewitz believes the Legislature's action this time clearly violated the state constitution, which prohibits a legislator from getting a raise during his or her term."

"To avoid the constitutional prohibition, legislators are calling their raises, which began taking effect on Monday, "unvouchered expenses'' rather than actual raises."

When I last checked, CC/P hadn't posted anything on their site about potential legislation or litigation. I'll be sure to keep an eye on them and let you know if they need support.

On another front in the war for accountability in politics, I received the following in an email from the Libertarian Party.

"Does the Bush Administration Take Its Job Seriously?"

"(Washington, D.C.) On Wednesday, 14 Marines deployed to Iraq from Ohio were killed when their armored vehicle hit a roadside bomb. The attack is one of the deadliest attacks to take place in Iraq. Days earlier, six Marines from the same unit were killed in a fire-fight near Haditha."

"Meanwhile, Republican President George W. Bush set out yesterday to begin his five-week vacation in Crawford, Texas. The planned vacation will be the longest presidential getaway in 36 years (Richard Nixon spent over a month at his San Clemente estate in 1969)."

"While Bush's aides and enablers defend the president's aggressive vacationing, it is simply poor leadership on the part of the Commander in Chief. While American soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen are disallowed from simply returning to the United States as scheduled and risks their lives in Iraq each day, the President of the United States enjoys the comfort and pleasures of his Crawford ranch."

"'As a self-professed 'Wartime President', George W. Bush needs to start taking his job seriously by showing the leadership that our troops deserve,' said Shane Cory, director of communications for the Libertarian Party."

"Cory continued, 'Throughout his presidency, Bush has wrapped himself in patriotic rhetoric by using the troops as the focus of American pride. It's time for Bush to take a step toward working as hard as they do by simply staying on the job and finding a way to bring our troops home.'"

Amazing…I actually agree with the Libertarian Party on something other than the need to break the two-party's stranglehold on this country. Adding shock to amazement, here's another idea I agree with.

"Libertarians upset about a Supreme Court ruling on land taking have proposed seizing a justice's vacation home and turning it into a park, echoing efforts aimed at another justice who lives in the state."

….

"The plot mirrors the party's ongoing effort to get the town of Weare, about 45 miles to the southeast, to seize Justice David Souter's home. Souter's property is also the focus of a proposal by a California man who suggested the town turn the farmhouse into a 'Lost Liberty Hotel.'"

Three Thumbs Down: Specter, Santorum, and Doyle

My congressmen, Senator Arlen Specter (R), Senator Rick Santorum (R), and Representative Mike Doyle (D), all voted in favor of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.H.R. 6 Booo.

SaveOurEnvironment.org said the following prior to debate.

"America deserves a safe, clean, affordable energy future. A forward-looking, responsible energy bill satisfies four basic principles, all of which can be achieved with technologies available today."

….

"The pending legislation does next to nothing to advance these principles. Instead, it includes the following provisions that would increase our reliance on oil and widen the federal budget deficit."

The bill would:

increase our dependency on foreign oil by widening loopholes in existing fuel economy rules;

limit the rights of states and local citizens to participate in decisions related to the location of liquefied natural gas and other energy facilities and the content of hydropower dam licenses;

waste taxpayer dollars to subsidize nuclear power, oil and other big energy companies;

put electricity consumers at risk by repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act;

open the door to oil drilling in the Western Arctic Alaska and offshore without setting aside key wildlife areas for protection and conducting a seismic inventory of oil and gas off the Florida, North Carolina and other coasts that could harm fish, waterfowl and other marine inhabitants.

Thankfully, the bill passed without a provision for drilling in ANWR. Still, the bill is deeply flawed and I'm displeased with my congressmen for supporting it.

How did your congressmen vote?

A New Pigeon Hole?

I've often said that I hate the two-party political system, but if I'm forced to use a partisan label, I call myself a Casey Democrat. After reading this, I think I might be a sort of white Cosby Republican. Socially conservative and fiscally liberal? Yeah, I dig that. (HT: Ambiviblog)

On a related note, I was shocked to hear that Al "Rent-a-Mob" Sharpton is urging blacks to stop blindly supporting the Democratic Party. Somebody had to say it, but did it have to be him?! (HT: PowerBlog!)

Pittsburgh Fights Panhandling and Supports Culture

I was already excited about this news story.

"A proposal to severely restrict panhandling in the City of Pittsburgh was introduced in City Council today."

Pittsburgh’s professional panhandlers drive me nuts and I’d like to see the practice banned altogether. Before you call me heartless and unsympathetic, come to Oakland sometime and witness these phonies for yourself. Anyhow, I thought any effort to combat them would be a step in the right direction.

Then I read this.

"Busking — defined as the public provision of entertainment without a vocal request for money — would be expressly permitted."

Those who’ve lived in Da Burgh for a little while is probably well aware of its inability to retain young people after graduation from one of our fine collegiate institutions. Most of the time, it seems our legislators not only have no intention of fixing the problem (witness the mayoral ads focusing almost entirely on the elderly), but they also seem intent on making it worse. Supporting busking, however, is a step in the right direction.

Buskers contribute to the cultural atmosphere of a city. It’s not like they’re jingling a cup and annoying people for a living. They’re entertaining people. They’re contributing to the ambiance. They’re fun.

Let’s hope this trend continues so Pittsburgh can stop hemorrhaging young people.

[For the record, I had to rewrite this post because I’m an idiot and read "expressly permitted" as "expressly forbidden". – Funky]

John Roberts’, Catholicism, and Abortion

Rob Carr of Unspace has some questions for his Catholic friends in the blogosphere.

"Hypothetical situation: Let�s assume, for the sake of the argument, that the Constitution had a line in it that said 'Abortion shall be available to all.' It doesn�t � this is a hypothetical question, a 'gedanken experiment.' That�s German for 'thought experiment.'"

"If Roberts were a Supreme Court justice and he were asked to rule on the constitutionality of a law that totally banned all abortions (remember, folks – 'gedanken'). The law is clearly unconstitutional under our hypothetical gedanken experiment. "

"As a Roman Catholic, would he be permitted to rule that the Constitution says the law is unconstitutional? Or would he, because of his faith, be required to rule that the law is constitutional?"

Continue reading