This blog is now located at http://daylinl.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://daylinl.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

There are, in this world, a number of things people just take for granted. The sky is blue, wheat is a plant, all of the proposed political reforms in Pennsylvania are good. The weird fact however is, that absolutely none of these pieces of conventional wisdom are at all true (except for the first two).


As a co-chair of the Senate Cost-Cutting Commission I have seen the hundreds of E-mails we solicited asking citizens to suggest ways to cut costs in state government. A percentage of E-mails are interesting, by which I mean BOTH kinds of interesting. The interesting that leads you to say "Wow, that's a really good idea", and the other kind of interesting which leads you to say "Wow, One of Xenu's Planets is missing some of its Body Thetans". But by far, the most common suggestions (about 8 out of ten) are some variation of the following:

"I have an idea on how to cut costs. How about we start by cutting legislator's pay...to ZERO!! Then, lets cut the size of the legislature, term-limit them, make them part-time, eliminate their pensions and their health care and stop reimbursing them for mileage and hotels. Then, when all that's done, lets cut the pipes on their water fountains. Who the hell are they to get water just because they are thirsty. And the heat, lets get rid of that too. Oh, and if there's a way to make their shoes too tight...etc."

I'm sure it feels good to bash legislators. We have chosen a profession where part of the job description is being called stupid, corrupt, insane, incompetent, smarmy perverts. People can even call us these things anonymously. There is something very empowering about sitting in your underwear in your mother's basement, eating Cheetos and typing your musings into a computer ("I SAID, I'll be done in a minute MOM!!"). Anyway, where was I? Oh yes...smarmy perverts. Right.

The problem with the "legislators are bad people" meme is that it is almost entirely untrue. And the "reforms" based on it are almost all really bad ideas which would do great damage to our state. I know this is not a popular position to take, but if I cared about being popular, I'd probably drop my "Apple Pie Sucks" crusade.

First, I've seen firsthand that the overwhelming majority of people you elect to represent you are very smart, extremely honest, competent, hard-working people who care a great deal about making Pennsylvania a better place. There are bad apples (which incidentally make bad pies) like there are in any profession. There are bad plumbers (see "Joe the...), bad butchers (see ...of Seville) and bad goat herders (see...uh...Harvey the Bad Goat Herder). But when the press write that the PA Legislature is corrupt, they are taking the bad exception and disingenuously making it the rhetorical rule.

Most of us have never given or received a bonus for political work and I frankly have never even been offered a bribe. Although people have offered me money to "go away and leave me alone" that pre-dates my political career and doesn't directly impact public policy. Further, the budget didn't pass late because we are lazy, or forgot about it. It passed late because we have divided government with sincere and strongly-felt disagreements about the role of government. In other words, the budget passed late because individual legislators were fighting to do what the people of their districts elected them to do, whether that be cutting taxes or fighting to save important programs.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against all reform. I believe that if we instituted 2 reforms, we would solve 90% of our political problems. Specifically, we need to end political gerrymandering (which is, incidentally, my bill) and publicly finance campaigns so elected officials don't have to ask people they represent for money. As for the rest of the reforms, here's a quick primer on why they are bad ideas:

Term Limits - It's amazing to me that people who spend so much time complaining that politicians have too much power, support this obscene power grab. I have never been to Venango County, mostly because they have an Apple Pie Festival each year and I can't be a part of such an abomination. But it seems to me that the people of Venango County should be the ones to pick their representatives, not me. If I voted for term limits, I'd be telling the Apple Pie Queen and the rest of the Venangoians that even if they like their Senator, I know better and I am going to prohibit them from choosing who they want.

Aside from being anti-democratic, term limits result in people running the legislature who have only been there for a couple of years. I prefer to have someone who has been through a few things as Speaker or President Pro Tempore of the Senate, rather than some dude who is still saying things like "uh..how do you get to the men's room?" or "uh...how do you get out of the men's room?"

Shrinking the legislature - It is important to note that we already have one of the smallest legislatures in the nation, judged by the only reasonable measure of such things, which is how many people we each represent. It's not very revealing to say that we have more legislators than Idaho. There are no people in Idaho. Literally. No people. Not one. Most people don't know that. Except for in Idaho, where everyone, which is no one, knows that. The average state Senator in America represents 160,000 people. Pennsylvania Senators represent 275,000. Making the districts bigger would only mean poorer constituent service, concentration of power in fewer hands, and districts which are easier to Gerrymander and marginalize groups of voters.

Part-time legislature - This is the dumbest idea of all. Lets say you were getting brain surgery, either medicinal or cosmetic, doesn't matter. Would you rather have a full-time Brain surgeon or a guy who sells Lazy-Boy recliners full time, but cracks open a cranium for a few days every other year? Whether you like the results or not, legislators do important work. They decide how our education system works as well as numerous complicated health care programs. They make life or death decisions involving capitol punishment or abortion, they run our state's transportation system. I prefer that the person who does that spends all of their time learning, reading, studying, talking to interested parties and experts and debating these critical issues rather than someone who pops by every few months and says "So, the state pensions need fixin', I guess I can squeeze that in before lunch. I have to show a Buick LaSabre this afternoon."

When I talk to people who favor these reforms, it really all comes down to one thing. Most of the time, people don't like the policy result on some issue. They may think abortion shouldn't be legal, or that there should be more gun control or their taxes are too high. And they are mad that the world is not as it should be. So they think that by hurting legislators they will be avenging an evil policy decision (or a series of them). But the fact is, that they will really just be punishing their state.

Daylin

Today was an amazing day. No, they didn't invent a new hair-growth product. Today we in the Judiciary Committee defeated an effort to enshrine bigotry in our State Constitution. We beat, by a margin of 8-6, SB 707 which would have constitutionally prohibited same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania. Since my job in the minority generally consists of voting "no" on stuff that's going to pass anyway, it was a great feeling to win one.


There are many amazing things about today's vote. First, it happened in Pennsylvania. Too often on social issues we spend our time cursing out the wild-eyed liberals of Mississippi or complaining that the Burqas favored by the Taliban are too revealing. I don't mean to overstate it, but we have signs saying "Leaving Pennsylvania, Entering Gomorrah" near the borders on all of our interstates.

The other thing that was amazing was the fact that this bill passed the very same Committee that passed a more restrictive bill just 2 years ago by a 10-4 margin. There has been only one change in personnel. This means that 3 Senators actually changed their minds! In doing so they showed great personal courage.

I love when people display courage, even though I am myself afraid of many things. I'm afraid of spiders, snakes, photos of spiders and snakes, people spelling S-P-I-D-E-R or S-N-A-K-E or even people misspelling those words. I'm afraid of clouds, most sauces, especially those with a cream base, tigers, heights, guys who want me to pay my bar tab, shirts, tissues, nuclear war and those peep chicks they sell at Easter. You get the idea.

I was also thrilled that this was a bi-partisan effort. The NO votes included 5 Democrats and 3 Republicans. We hadn't done anything truly bi-partisan since the Republican vs. Democrat Twister tournament this past Christmas. Lets just say that some of those guys from Lancaster County are really flexible.

There were some aspects of this epic journey that troubled me. In particular the E-mails I received. Most were supportive of my efforts to bring equality to Pennsylvania. But the many that were not, were truly frightening. Since this is a family BLOG (in the sense that whole families avoid reading it) I won't repeat actual language. I'll just say that there's an awful lot of hate out there. And I struggle to understand where it comes from.

I plan to write more about the origins of homophobia in the near future. But for now, my hats off to the brave, wise, and enlightened Senators who vote for equality today. They have made millions of gay people they'll never meet feel as if they just a little bit more included in the human family. That's not a bad day's work. Plus, there's no physical labor involved, which is always a plus.

To the Editor:

In the March 12 edition of The Delaware County Daily Times there was an editorial which contained a "Parting Shot" opposing legislation I have introduced requiring insurance companies to provide coverage for non-hospital in-patient treatment for eating disorders. Currently some (although not all) insurance policies only cover acute, crisis care for eating disorders. They will pay the bills for a woman who is rushed to the hospital near death and force-fed until she is back to a survivable weight. But they will not pay to actually treat the disease.

The treatment widely considered the most, if not the only effective protocol for curing eating disorders involves weeks or months of intensive in-patient therapy at a facility that specializes in treating such disorders. Absent this treatment, a patient is overwhelmingly likely to continue starving themselves and wind up right back in the hospital. Many will die.

The editorial, which tastefully says the thought of my bill is "making some people sick" does begin compassionately enough by acknowledging that "nobody likes eating disorders". I'm certain this is a great comfort to the families of those suffering. But the editorial then goes on to make the same argument we hear every time we ask health insurance companies to actually pay for some health care. It claims that "legislation like this" presumably requiring health insurance companies to pay to treat sick people, contributes to "spiraling health insurance rate increases". (The editorial does not specify what other mandated treatments it opposes under the same logic. Mammograms? Colon Cancer Screening? Expensive Chemotherapy?)

On one level the editorial is correct. Although covering eating disorders alone won't add much if anything to the cost of health insurance, it is true that the cumulative affect of requiring health insurance companies to pay for medical care is to raise premiums. Of course another thing that contributes to the rise in premiums is the enormous profits that health insurance companies continue to report each quarter.

But putting that aside, the logic of the editorial is that the less insurance companies cover, the cheaper insurance will be. And again, that is true. In fact, if we want insurance to be really cheap, insurance companies shouldn't have to cover anything at all. If they never have to pay anything, policies will be close to free! The problem of course is that if insurance companies don't pay for treatment to make sick people better, it's difficult to see what value these companies add to our health care system (other than profits for themselves).

So if we're going to require insurance companies to pay for anything at all, it is necessary that there be some standards to determine what such coverage should be. It seems to me that requiring payment for proven treatments which have been shown to cure devastating, often fatal diseases is a reasonable standard. Under such a standard, the treatment requirement in my eating disorders bill would easily qualify.

Keep in mind, that the editorial's argument is not logically against my eating disorders bill only. It is an argument against requiring insurance companies to ever pay anything towards our health care out of the billions and billions of dollars they take in from us each year. That would indeed result in cheaper premiums, but I'm not sure it would be a comfort to any of us the next time we get sick.

Daylin


=======================================================================

Parting Shot

State Sen. Daylin Leach, D-17, of Upper Merion, is holding a press conference in Harrisburg Monday to unveil "landmark legislation" that would require health insurers in the state to cover non-hospital, in-patient treatment for eating disorders. On the surface, that sounds like a nice idea.

Nobody likes eating disorders. But the truth is, it's legislation like this that has contributed to spiraling health insurance rate increases that have pushed basic coverage beyond the reach of many. What is worse? Having a policy that doesn't cover non-hospital treatment for eating disorders, or not having a policy at all? Do us a favor, senator. Drop this idea. Just thinking about it is making some people sick.

NOMINATE YOUR FAVORITE LIBRARIANS

Two librarians will be selected —
one from a public library and one from a school library
17th Senatorial District

FOR OUTSTANDING SERVICE
• Special Programs
• Knowledge of her/his facility and resources
• Commitment to helping the public

DEADLINE: MONDAY, APRIL 5, 2010
Go to my Website for a Nomination Form
http://www.senatorleach.com/events/Librarian_Award_Flyer_2010.pdf

AWARDS CEREMONY
April 16, 2010 • 8:30 a.m. — 10:00 a.m.
American Reading Company • 201 South Gulph Road King of Prussia, PA

A few days ago, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonald vs. Chicago. The issue in this case is whether or not states and local municipalities are subject to the 2nd Amendment right to carry a gun.

Of course these days, when the conservative 5 Justices "hear argument" what that really means is that they are collectively reliving that magical night they first denied a stay of execution, or whatever else it is that people who have already made up their minds and have no interest in what the dude in the suit standing before them is saying, do.

Our favorite 5 are nothing if not predictable. You don't even have to know the issue before the court to know who is going to win. All you need to know are the litigants. So for example, if it's a prosecutor vs. a criminal defendant, well then the prosecutor is going to win. If it's a civil-rights plaintiff vs. a company accused of discrimination, then the company is going to win, unless the plaintiffs are white guys, in which case the white guys are going to win. In fact, its a pretty good rule of thumb that if the case is white guys against anyone else for any reason the white guys are going to win.

So lets take a little test to see if I've made this clear. Here are three hypothetical cases. See if you can guess (without even knowing the facts of the case) who will win each one. Litigant A or Litigant B.

A) Exxon Mobile

vs.

B) An environmentalist named "Rainbow Smock" who keeps his hair in a bun

A) Dick Cheney

vs.

B) A Muslim detainee named Achmad el-Detainee

A) Walmart

vs.

B) A member of "Feminist Warrior Nation" who wears a bra made out of hemp

If you answered "A" to all 3, you are a genius. If you answered "B" to any of the above, you are what we call an un-genius. In any event, once you understand this construct, it won't be hard to figure out who is going to win McDonald vs. Chicago.

However, I do not view this as a bad thing. First, let me tell where I am coming from. Despite what Ted Nugent says, I am not in favor of taking everyone's guns away from them. Parenthetically, Nugent is also lying about me being the inspiration for "Cat Scratch Fever". I favor reasonable gun restrictions mostly designed to prevent straw purchasers from buying 100 guns at a time and selling them to young, underage, juvenile children or criminals, or people who like to eat other people's liver with fava beans and a good Chianti.

For example I support limiting the number of guns one can purchase to one per month. If you are married that means you and your lovely bride can buy 24 guns a year, enough to invade Peru. That seems sufficient, even to the Peruvians who would probably surrender without a shot being fired. I have long argued that even given the 2nd Amendment, one-gun-a-month would easily be constitutional.

I say this because of how courts interpret individual rights. No right is absolute. The classic example is the one about not being allowed to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Apparently you can yell "Fire" in an empty theater, but very few people bother. In any event, there are lots of restrictions on free speech and lots of exceptions to every constitutional right. The way the courts evaluate this is that they apply a level of what they call "Scrutiny" (A technical legal word. The layman's term is "Scrutiny") to any law that allegedly impinges on a constitutional right.

If the right is a fundamental right, which we'll assume the right to keep and bear arms is, then the court applies "Strict Scrutiny" to any law that restricts the right to own a gun. In applying Strict Scrutiny the court will look at how serious or severe the impingement on the right is and balance that against how important the state interest in the law is. I talk like this a lot, which is why I'm rarely invited to parties.

In the case of one-gun-per-month, the restriction is extremely slight. Again, you and Martha...24 guns a year every year. Lots and lots of guns. If you are a licensed collector, you can buy more and take Peru back from the other couple who invaded it first!! On the other hand, the state's interest in preventing drug-addled, insane juveniles from randomly shooting people is pretty substantial. In fact, if you are being shot at, you are likely to say "Holy Crap, that state interest is REALLY substantial!!" So given the normal constitutional balancing test, one-gun-a-month is very likely to survive.

The court actually applying that test, or even articulating a new test is good news because currently, I get a ton of e-mails telling me that one-gun-a-month and other such bills are "unconstitutional." And the Supreme Court's jurisprudence so far allows them to do this. That's because in the Heller case, which for the first time in 230 years or so found an individual right to bear arms, specifically said that they were not saying what level of scrutiny should be applied to gun laws or how. (Heller dealt with DC's law. Since DC is a federal city, a second case is required to determine if the right to carry a gun applies to the states.)

So while it is inevitable that the court will rule 5-4 that Heller also applies to the States, the court will be forced to at least articulate some methodology for testing state gun laws in the future. The court says the right is absolute. But that would mean that meth addicts could carry machine-guns into elementary schools. I think that this might be a bit much even for Scalia. Thus, there must be some balancing test and almost anyone they could conjure up would make most gun control laws short of total confiscation of all guns constitutional.

This would do two good things. Those who oppose even the most reasonable gun laws could no longer say such laws are unconstitutional, and they could no longer say that our real agenda is taking away all guns from everyone because that would be unconstitutional. This would save lives and enable Ted Nugent to calmly rest his head on his pillow, which is stuffed with large, powerful guns.

I learned a valuable lesson about the risks of complaining last week. You'd think I'd have learned that years ago when I told my high school disciplinarian that "non-corporal punishment just isn't reaching me". In this case, I wrote to my caucus asking why we were buying into the PA Senate's Cost Cutting Commission. I pointed out that this seemed to be a Republican Commission, with a guaranteed Republican Majority designed to push Republican talking points and elect its Republican Chair to Congress. Plus, the large elephant logo didn't help.

I chastised my leadership for saying this was a good idea and suggested vocally (or as "vocal" as you can be in an E-mail) that we let the public know just how bad this was. In response, my leadership appointed me to the Commission. Hence the life-lesson.


Upon reflection, which for me consists mostly of ordering Thai food and taking a nap, I decided that despite my misgivings, I should accept the offer to join. It would give me a public platform to express my concerns publicly, allow me to fight for the importance of government services to the people who receive them, and to claim my really cool "I'm on the Friggin Budget Commission!!" T-shirt and throw rug.

Our first meeting validated the importance of having someone like me, specifically, someone very, very much like me, on the Commission. Our first witness was a kindly man of 85 who served in the Thornburg administration. He suggested that the best way to save money was to not replace people when they retire or otherwise leave government. It didn't seem to matter how important the job they were doing was.

His argument was that if you just randomly cut 10% or 20% of all government employees, "government will continue to work? That is true in a sense. If you reduce government employees from 85,000 to 75,000 there won't be a huge sink hole that swallows up all of Pennsylvania. Government will continue to "work" on some level. But that/s true if you reduce the number of government employees to 3. Government will still work, but on a much lower level. For example, traffic enforcement will deteriorate to one of the 3 government employees standing on the side of the road yelling "SLOW DOWN" to passing motorists. But if that is what is expected of government, it will still work.

We will be meeting every other Monday until mid-June, or until they stop telling me where the meetings are. I will use that time to ensure that both sides of the story are told, and of course I will also use that time to reflect on how I should always resist the urge to complain.