Senator Daylin Leach invites you to participate in our democracy at his Town Hall Meeting. The event is free and open to the public. No RSVP necessary. Please join in the discussion on Thursday, January 28th at 7:00 p.m. at the Upper Merion Township Building – Freedom Hall - located at 175 W. Valley Forge Rd., King of Prussia, PA. For more information call 610-768-4200 or email scharles@pasenate.com

To the Editor:

On November 24th I saw in the Times Herald an editorial by a Star Parker entitled "Sodom in the Nation's Capital". Intrigued by the unabashed offensiveness of the title, I read on. The article castigated the Washington DC City Council for its imminent decision to join the states that have legalized same-sex marriage. While I usually refrain from responding to this sort of diatribe, this is an issue I've been very involved in and I found the editorial so misguided that I felt compelled to respond

As best I can tell, Ms. Parker's argument is essentially that the problems in DC related to poverty, poor public schools and the spread of AIDS will somehow be worsened by the advent of marriage-equality. For this proposition she sites no actual evidence, and the logic of this strange assertion is not obvious. Ms. Parker just claims that religion is important, even George Washington thought so and that somehow adhering to religious values and the admonitions of George Washington will solve people's problems, and that these things are inconsistent with gay people getting married. Hence "Sodom".

The biggest problem I have with Ms. Parker's argument is that she feels entitled to claim both George Washington and God as supporters of her homophobic opinions. As a supporter of full civil and human rights for gay people I am not willing to cede to people like Star Parker. The God I pray to has absolutely no problem with gay people or gay marriage. He wants everyone, including those who he has created as gay, to be happy, and find loving partners with which they can raise stable families.

Ms. Parker may pray to a different God. But we do not live in a theocracy. Neither of us has the right to use the power of the state to force our religion on those who do not share it. I have no desire to make anyone live under my religious beliefs. If Ms. Parker doesn't believe in same-sex marriage, she shouldn't marry someone of the same sex. I have no problem with that. But Ms. Parker has no right to deny others who disagree with her the right to live their lives as they see fit, whether she approves or not.

Ms. Parker also offers no evidence that George Washington would adopt her views towards gay people. All she cites is her assertion that our first President would want us to "rise above our baser instincts" (her quote, not his). By "baser instincts" I can only assume that Ms. Parker means sex, specifically gay sex. But there is nothing "base" about wanting to commit to a monogamous, life-time relationship with one partner for the purpose of raising a family. That is a noble instinct, and one we should encourage and enable. If Ms. Parker is truly concerned about poverty and AIDS, marriage is her answer. Married people are far less likely to be impoverished or to be spreading disease. That is why the brave officials in DC are to be commended, not condemned by people who allow their bigotry to overcome their humanity, or their logic.

Senator Daylin Leach

When you follow politics closely, every election night comes with its exhilarating wins and heartbreaking losses. Some years there are more of one than the other, but every year is, to some extent, a mixed bag. This year, the toughest loss for me to watch was the decision by the voters of Maine to (albeit narrowly) overturn by referendum the legislature’s legalization of same-sex marriage.

As a strong supporter of same sex marriage, I was naturally disappointed with the outcome of the election. As I watched the final results came in, however I found myself feeling disquiet beyond that usually elicited by being on the short end of a vote. Something seemed fundamentally wrong to me about the process itself.

At first I thought that my unease was caused by my general antipathy towards government by referendum. I believe we should elect people whose judgment we trust and assign to them the full-time task of studying issues, going to hearings, meeting with stakeholders, participating in debates and coming to the best solution. This seems to me far preferable to distilling complex issues down to one line on a ballot, to be decided in a moment, with no study, by people who often came to vote for things completely unrelated to that issue.

Referendum also makes one of the most important legislative functions, compromise, impossible. If I see a ballot initiative asking if I want to spend $10 million on education, I may think that’s too high. But I could support an additional $5 million. In the legislative process, that lower, more reasonable figure might actually be the final product. In a referendum, it’s all or nothing, guaranteeing extreme results that up to 49% of the population never buy into.

Finally, voters don’t have to square the circle. For example, in states with referendum provisions, voters routinely vote to both cut their taxes and increase spending on services they like on the same day. Unlike the legislature, voters don’t have to make it all add up, which can lead to budgetary disaster.

Yet, as I thought it through, I found my concerns went deeper. There is something profoundly wrong about putting the basic human rights of a minority up to a vote of the majority. Rights are rights, whether or not the majority agrees with them. And while there may be an argument (a weak one, as I’ve explained) for voting on a given tax, or whether to build a highway, individual rights belong to the individual, not 51% of the community.

For instance, should we put what God you can pray to up to a vote? How about whether or not a person has the right to advocate a certain position on an issue, or whether or not they have a right to remain silent if arrested? Maybe we could vote on what books can be read, or whether married couples can use contraception? Obviously, most of us would recoil from such suggestions.

We can examine recent history to see how such votes might go: fifty years ago, if we had put desegregating public schools up to a vote in the South – or much of the North for that matter – would it have passed? How about allowing African Americans to drink out of Whites-Only water-fountains? Even in the context of marriage, at one time, a vote on whether one could marry outside their race would have lost overwhelmingly in much of the country. In some places, it might still lose today.

So what troubles me is that it seems incongruent, and frankly, a little icky to have majorities decide whether a minority is entitled to their human rights. It would, in concept, be like having white people vote on whether black people could sit in the front of the bus, or having Christians vote on whether Muslims can pray publicly. I’d like to think that – in this day and age – those votes would go well.. Even so, it still wouldn’t feel like the right thing to do.

It is estimated that 3% of Mainers are gay. Therefore, 97% of the people, whose own lives are utterly unaffected by the status of same-sex marriage, got to give thumbs up or thumbs down on someone else's marriage. Marriage was called by the United States Supreme Court “fundamental to our very existence." Yet gay people are denied the right to marry because a slim majority of straight people don't feel like giving it to them. That process, more than the result, should make all of us, and our spouses, lose some sleep tonight.

REPLY to Patrick Gleason
From: Senator Daylin Leach

I'm not certain who my "buddies in Harrisburg" are. But I'll do my best to respond to what I can understand of Mr. Gleason’s argument.

Mr. Gleason objects to my assertion that people shouldn't sign a pledge to NEVER increase taxes because such a pledge is inevitably made without knowing what spending cuts honoring such a pledge would require. He says two things in this regard.

First, he claims that there are "barriers" to knowing this information, which is my point exactly. If you don't now know all the information you will need to know in the future, why take some silly pledge that ties your hands when the facts become available? In essence you are pledging to do something in the future regardless of what the facts may be at the time. Maybe that's how Mr. Gleason’s "buddies" do business, but it doesn't seem very prudent.

Second, he suggests I should instead ask what families and business who are "struggling" (presumably I don't have to ask those not struggling) will have to sacrifice in order to pay higher taxes. That is a legitimate question. It should be asked. And the answer to that question will dictate what spending and taxes should occur. That is why I have not taken a pledge to ALWAYS raise taxes. So Mr. Gleason suggests a question, but is then indifferent to the answer.

I would note that when asked, the people who Mr. Gleason refers to often do support paying more in taxes. Here's a small example. In Montgomery County a few years ago there was a referendum where people were asked if they would be willing to pay higher taxes to preserve open space. Almost 80% said yes. A Quinnipiac Poll taken just a couple of months ago found that a strong majority of Pennsylvanians support paying more taxes to avoid cuts in education and health care.

Finally, Mr. Gleason makes an argument that I do struggle to understand. I had said that the analogy frequently used by those on the right about running government like a family is misapplied. When a family is trying to make ends meet, it of course cuts out discretionary spending on things like movies and vacations. But before it cuts out core expenditures, like say…feeding the kids, it looks into finding new sources of revenue.

Similarly, while the government must, and should, and did make cuts, there are certain core functions like say…feeding the kids, that it must avoid cutting for the good of society. So before such core functions are cut, government must look for new sources of revenue.

Mr. Gleason then somehow claims that in making this argument I am calling for “burglarizing” and “robbing”. I think a reasonable response to this would be HUH????. But I’ll try to do better.

If Mr. Gleason is claiming that taxation is stealing, he is, with all due respect, truly veering off into serious wack-job territory. Even those furthest on the right support SOME taxes, if only to enforce laws against abortion and provide police protection to Tea-Partiers. Even Glenn Beck hasn’t called for the complete elimination of all government and the institution of full-on anarchy. And once you support ANY taxes, you, as one of the thieves, can no longer sanctimoniously claim that taxes are stealing.

All of this goes to say what I said in my original post. There are times when it is appropriate to cut taxes and times when it is appropriate to raise them, depending on the circumstances. So taking some silly pledge that you will never raise taxes no matter what the circumstances is irresponsible.


Daylin


__________________________________________________________________

A Response for Senator Daylin Leach

From Patrick Gleason

Yesterday PA Senator Daylin Leach (D-Montgomery) added a new entry to his blog in which he explains why he believes Senator Jane Orie (R-Allegheny) was “foolish and irresponsible” for ever signing the Taxpayer Protection Pledge that she broke last week with her vote for the budget.
Leach laments that the Pledge “does not mention which services the signer is willing to cut in tough times.” Here Leach is simply regurgitating the same tired line repeated by tax hike proponents who like to ask, “what would you cut from the state budget?” Never mind the barriers to getting all of the information necessary to best answer that query, I have a better question for Leach – what should the families and businesses already struggling to pay the bills cut from their budgets or sacrifice in order to pay higher taxes?

Leach opines that “it makes as much sense for a state legislator to pledge never to raise a tax as it does for a family breadwinner to pledge never to seek additional income.”

Let’s ignore the fact that this analogy doesn’t really work unless you believe that the proper role of government is to be the provider or “breadwinner” for all. Maybe Leach does. However, sticking with Leach’s family budget theme, let’s consider a better analogy for the state budget process. Here we have the equivalent of a family spending as much as it wants, with no regard for their income, savings, or the job stability of the bread winner(s). Once means have been exhausted the family, rather than stop spending, they proceed to burglarize area businesses and steal from neighbors to cover the bills. That’s how Leach and his buddies do budgeting in Harrisburg.

Fun work if you can get it

The Americans For Tax Reform, a conservative anti-tax advocacy group, is blasting my colleague, state Senator Jane Orie (R–Allegheny), for breaking their Taxpayer Protection Pledge to oppose any and all tax increases based on her vote last week in favor of the state budget.

In case you’re unfamiliar, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) was founded in 1986 to help promote the Reagan administration’s efforts to change the tax code. It is run by Grover Norquist, who also holds leadership positions with the National Rifle Association, the American Conservative Union, and – interestingly – the Islamic Free Market Institute (his wife is a former director). The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is meant to be an agreement between a candidate and the voters. Signers agree they will “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes.” Over two hundred members of Congress and over a thousand state legislators have taken the pledge. Norquist's stated purpose in circulating this pledge is to shrink government to the size where you can "drown it in a bathtub".

I am a freshman senator, and while I like and have worked with Senator Orie, I can't pretend to know her well enough to understand why she signed this pledge. I imagine it was a campaign decision. It's not hard to score points with voters by promising them you'll never raise their taxes. Conveniently the pledge does not mention which services the signer is willing to cut in tough times. In any event, Senator Orie was right to disregard the pledge when faced with a budget crisis that mandated increasing state revenue to continue core government functions.

The Taxpayer Protection Pledge is foolish and irresponsible. From a governing standpoint, it makes as much sense for a state legislator to pledge never to raise a tax as it does for a family breadwinner to pledge never to seek additional income. No one can predict the future or divine what policies will be called for in a changing world. The pledge only serves to appeal the most dedicated anti-tax proponents on the right side of the political spectrum. There could be similar pledges on the left. I could, for instance, pledge to oppose, under any circumstances, any cuts to services which would hurt children or the elderly. This would be equally foolhardy.

When common sense dictates that candidates win by appealing to centrist voters, why make such a pledge? The answer is that common sense has gone out the window in many of our legislative elections. The broken process by which we draw the boundaries of legislative districts – commonly called Gerrymandering – has created a system where the party membership of the winning candidate is predetermined in nearly every race. In such a system, an incumbent legislator worries less about losing in November than they worry about losing in April – to a member of their own party in a primary election. Because the most conservative Republicans and the most progressive Democrats are most likely to vote in primaries, what you’d think would happen has happened: the center has all but ceased to exist in legislative bodies.

Which brings us back to Senator Orie and the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The day after she voted for the Senate’s revenue package, conservatives in Pennsylvania hammered her for breaking the pledge. Grover Norquist himself called her a “tax hiker” and said Pennsylvanians “should know who went against their promise to voters.” Anyone thinking about running further to the right of Orie in the next primary has been handed an enormous gift. All because of a silly pledge, written decades ago, by somebody who may never have even been to Pennsylvania, and certainly didn’t understand our budget process and the challenges we would face in 2009.

Legislators need to be flexible to be responsible. We must be prepared to made decisions in the best interests of our constituents that reflect the realities of our times – even if it means casting tough votes. Senator Orie had the guts to do this, and she should be applauded.

But the next time someone, in the process of asking for your vote, makes a pledge to do or never do something – no matter what – ask them if they can see the future. Because if they can't, they have no business signing a pledge designed to appease ideologues who have the luxury of never having to govern themselves.


Daylin

Recently, as the Pennsylvania budget crisis has droned on, there has been a good deal of attention paid to how we, as a state, spend money. One of the programs which is most frequently attacked and ridiculed in the media and blogosphere is what are called WAMs. There has been a great deal of self-righteous and sanctimonious denigrating of the WAM as a useless vestige of some undefined form of corruption. But is that really true? Well, like most things which are oversimplified on the internet, the reality is a bit more complicated.

First, the term "WAM" doesn't actually exist in law. That epithet is actually a press invented acronym for "Walking Around Money". This deliberately conjures up images of unscrupulous politicians in dark suits, with cash falling out of their pockets, walking around handing out gifts to their buddies, or keeping the money for themselves. None of this is true. Actually, the legal term is "Legislative Initiative Grants" administered under "The Department for Community and Economic Development" (DCED) and there is no cash.

The way DCED Grants work is that a certain amount is passed as part of the budget in open session. Each caucus then gets access to a percentage of the total, and legislative leaders then divide that amount up among their members. Organizations can apply to receive grants. Members can then decide which projects in their district get funded within the constraints of the total amount of money available and the legal parameters of allowable grants. The legislators do not have unbridled discretion. The recipients must be non-profits and non-sectarian. Further, they must provide proof that they spent the money as they represented they would. The names of all grant recipients are public information.

The theory behind making legislators choose the recipients is that they are the ones who actually know their districts. They know what projects are worthy and where the greatest need is. They know which grant applicants are responsible and trustworthy and who are not. Further, we as legislators are politically accountable for the grants we recommend. Placing the decision in the hands of some committee in Harrisburg, composed of people who have never been to my district would probably not lead to a better result.

I can't speak for other legislators and I can't promise there has never been an abuse of the system in some way. But I am very proud of the grants I have brought to my district. They have included defibrillators for police departments and Thermal Imaging Cameras that will save the lives of our First Responders. They have helped support Meals-on-Wheels and Eldernet and our senior centers, which provide valuable services to our senior citizens. They have supported ambulance services and bought uniforms for local little-leagues. They have beautified our side-walks and helped drain our storm-water.

Further, these were not a way to reward political or personal friends. Almost none of my grant recipients were either social friends of political contributors. Further, I have specifically recommended grants requested by organizations headed by people who affirmatively opposed me in my various elections.

The press likes to portray these grants as a re-election tool. Do they help us get re-elected? Marginally I suppose, in the way anytime a legislator does something to benefit their district, it helps them. But most incumbents are in such gerrymandered districts, and incumbency is such a powerful advantage in terms of fund-raising, that grants are a tiny factor. So eliminating them might make some people feel good. But we should acknowledge that many critical, non-profit entities that serve our communities will be hurt or themselves eliminated. If this happens, will we all really be better off?

Daylin

Senator Daylin Leach invites you to participate in our democracy at his Town Hall Meeting. The event is free and open to the public. No RSVP necessary. Please join in the discussion on Thursday, October 1st at 7:00 p.m. at the Haverford Township Free Library located at 1601 Darby Road in Havertown PA. For more information call 610-768-4200.


American Town Hall Meetings

As originally understood, an American Town Hall Meeting was a time when people would come together in a public building to legislate policy and budgets for their community - a practice still used in the United States, notably in New England. More recently, the term has been co-opted by the political process to describe a campaign event where voters have a chance to ask questions of a candidate, and where the candidate has a chance to show the voters that he or she is just like them - a real person - often going so far as to make their point by loosening their tie, rolling up their sleeves, or even wearing jeans!

Town Hall Meetings were in the news this past summer, when members of Congress held gatherings in their districts to discuss the debate over Health Care Reform with remarkable results. Wide-eyed radicals on both sides of the issue took to the microphones, making caffeine-laced diatribes against their representatives and the President. Angry crowds - often organized by special interest groups with stakes in the outcome of the health care reform debate - shouted down members of Congress when they tried to respond. American citizens on both sides of the issue accused other citizens of being Un-American and subscribing to every -ism under the sun, and of generally trying to destroy the Republic.

Town Hall Meetings are an opportunity for people to come together and solve problems, not a chance for individuals to grandstand or highlight the issues that divide us. We are living in serious times, and serious times call for serious people to confront our shared problems head on - not by reciting canned speeches or chanting shallow slogans - but by having a real discussion about what kind of country and Commonwealth we want to leave to the next generation of leaders.

Now, I'm not expecting that we'll solve all the problems of the world at my upcoming Town Hall Meeting. For one, it isn't even in a Town Hall - it's at the Haverford Free Library. Nevertheless, I look forward to a candid dialog about the important issues that face Pennsylvania, including the ongoing budget impasse, the looming pension crisis, our achievements in progressive environmental policy, education funding, and problems in our political process. I hope you will be able to join me!

Daylin