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

In my 7 years in the Pennsylvania legislature, I think I've learned a few basic truisms, one of which is: If you want to make a constituent mad, raise their taxes, but if you want to make a constituent furious, cut their services.

If constituents notice an extra $5 a week coming out of their paychecks, I may receive an angry e-mail. But if the pothole on their street is not fixed or they receive a letter telling them their mother-in-law can no longer stay in the county nursing home and must instead come live with them, I am likely to receive a very insistent personal visit.

This adage is particularly germane to the current budget impasse. We have a $3.3 billion budget deficit and unlike the federal government, we can't print or borrow money. We have to actually balance the budget, and the only two ways to do that are to cut expenditures and/or increase revenues. The governor has proposed some deep and painful cuts, but has also suggested increasing taxes as part of the mix. The Republicans who control the Senate have taken an absolutist position that they will not support any increased taxes, for any purpose. Their unwillingness to compromise is the reason we continue to be deadlocked.

In floor debate, and during press conferences, my Republican colleagues continue to cite polls to support their assertion that "the people of Pennsylvania don't want to pay any more taxes." The problem with that statement is that it is both technically true and extremely misleading because it is an inaccurate reflection of where the people actually stand.

Certainly, if you ask people, "Do you want to pay more taxes?" the majority will say no. But that question doesn't tie lower taxes to the loss of services which will surely follow. It presumes a consequence-free world where we don't actually have to pay for the services we want. Of course, if you ask the opposite question, "Do you want government services improved?" the result will be lopsidedly affirmative. Asking either question in a vacuum will fail to give you a true picture of how people feel.

Even generically linking lower taxes to service cuts will paint a misleading picture. In a recent Quinnipiac poll, by a margin of 55% to 35%, people said they oppose raising taxes even if it means a cut in state services. But this is an unrevealing question because when you ask if people want services cut without identifying those services, they tend to imagine someone else's services. Everyone has, in their mind, a group of services they don't think are worthy; but those are rarely the services they, or people they care about, receive.

It is only by linking taxes to a specific service that you can learn where the public really stands. And when that is done, it becomes clear that people want government services and are willing to pay for them. That same Quinnipiac Poll found that by a margin of 53% to 43%, Pennsylvanians would be willing to pay higher taxes to "avoid cuts in state spending on such things as health care and public schools."

Of course, if the Republican budget proposals pass, there will be dramatic cuts in both of those categories, and this is clearly not what Pennsylvanians want. Quinnipiac did not ask if people would pay higher taxes to preserve public safety, or ensure a clean environment, or invest in infrastructure, or job creation, but other pollsters in other states have. People who overwhelmingly oppose higher taxes initially become very supportive of them when faced with the real-life consequences of the cuts they face.

Further proof that people want, in the words of Mario Cuomo, “only the government we need, but all the government we need” can be found in the various referenda placed on ballots around the state. In my own county and municipality, people recently voted overwhelmingly to tax themselves more to pay for open-space preservation. Again, many of these people would tell a pollster that they oppose tax increases for unspecified purposes.

I think that while the Republican position on the budget is certainly sincere, it is also wrong. Failing to raise the revenues to invest in basic services will hurt real people and do great damage to Pennsylvania's future. And while we can have legitimate philosophical differences, the one thing I do not believe the Republicans can fairly claim is that theirs is a future the people of Pennsylvania want.

I have recently introduced SB 935, a bill that would legalize same-sex marriage in Pennsylvania.

I do so now for several reasons. First, because many other states are moving to consider this issue, including Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa and Washington D.C. which have recently passed legislation. New York and New Jersey soon will. Further, a bill banning same-sex marriage was recently introduced in the Pennsylvania Senate and it is important to provide the legislature with a timely pro-civil-rights, pro-family alternative. But mostly, each day in which gay Pennsylvanians are denied their fundamental human rights is a profound injustice.

The case for same-sex or gay marriage is simple. The state and federal government confer hundreds of benefits upon married couples that are unavailable to single people. This is done to facilitate and encourage marriage, which benefits our entire society. We should be doing with gay couples what we do with straight couples; encouraging them to enter permanent, monogamous, stable and legally recognized unions.

The arguments against gay marriage are much more complicated.

First, we are told that we need to “protect traditional marriage”. But from what? What bad thing has happened to straight couples in states where gay couples can marry? Studies show straight-marriage rates remain the same in those states. So do divorce rates, birth rates, and rates of domestic violence. There is no change whatsoever in the status, behavior or happiness of married heterosexual couples when a married gay couple moves in down the street.

We hear that some organizations that disapprove of gay marriage might act out if such marriages are allowed. For example, in Massachusetts a Catholic adoption agency didn’t want to adopt to gay couples and closed down. This argument is akin to the “Heckler’s Veto” concept. In First Amendment law some have tried to ban certain speech by saying it would upset the listener who would then “Heckle” or otherwise cause a disturbance. For example, if civil-rights workers were allowed to march in the South, that would upset local racists and they might throw rocks. The Courts have consistently rejected the argument that threats based on disapproval were a justification to ban speech. Similarly, there is not a justification to stop people from marrying the person they love either.

We also hear the frankly strange argument that if we legalize gay marriage we will somehow have no choice but to legalize polygamy, incest and inter-species marriage. Not so. We draw reasonable lines all the time in all areas of the law. You can drive 65, but not 95. You can keep a gun, but not a truck bomb. Similarly, you can marry one partner, but not an Aardvark. Any law involves line drawing. It seems reasonable that the line should be drawn where it allows each person the opportunity to have a life partner.

The fact is that there is no reasonable alternative to recognized same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples exist and always will. Many of them are raising children. Many opponents of gay marriage preach that children should not be raised out of wedlock, but the one sure way to raise the number of children being raised out of wedlock is to deny their parents the chance to marry. They also urge young people to delay sexual relationships until marriage. But if gay people can’t marry, what would they tell a gay teen about when it is appropriate for them to have a sexual relationship?

Gay couples are denied many of the basic rights and services straight couples take for granted. This includes everything from Social Security Survivor Benefits to mandatory leave to care for a sick partner. Further, they and their children are forced to live under a legal framework that treats their families as somehow not legitimate. There are literally thousands of such unjust burdens placed upon people who want nothing more than to start a family. Simple decency demands an end to this.

I am under no illusions that this bill will become law in the short term. However, I also have no doubt that 15 years from now same-sex marriage will be legal in all 50 states, and people will be as ashamed that we ever banned it as they are now that we ever banned inter-racial marriage. My hope is that by introducing this bill now, we will start the discussion we need to have and bring the day of equality a little closer.