Daylin's Blog

This blog has moved

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:57:00 +0000

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.

A Primer: Why Not All Reform Is Good for PA

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Mon, 05 Apr 2010 16:26:00 +0000

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

Day of Reckonling on Marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:40:00 +0000

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.

REPLY: "Parting Shot" Opposing Legislation

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:05:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 16:23:00 +0000

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

Why the Supreme Court's Decision Could Be Good for Gun Control

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:21:00 +0000

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.

Cost Cutting Life Lesson

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 21:01:00 +0000

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.

Reply: Who Will Champion the Sensible Center of PA Politics?

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:31:00 +0000

Reply: Who Will Champion the Sensible Center of PA Politics?

Recently, Tim Potts posted a column he’d written in support of a Constitutional Convention in PA. I think he’s misguided. But hey, its America. Tim’s been pushing his “all-legislators-are-evil-and-corrupt” nonsense for years (it’s just tragic that Tim isn’t running the state. We’d definitely be a utopia by now!) and nobody pays all that much attention. However, a Google Alert notified me that I was mentioned in the column so I read it and after doing so felt compelled to respond.

Tim and I had debated this issue a week or so earlier. I don’t mind Tim disagreeing with me and he was certainly nice enough during the debate. But his column so thoroughly misrepresents and distorts my position that it is unrecognizable. I’ve always been taught that when someone resorts to distorting your argument, it's because they don’t have a good rebuttal to your actual one. This appears to be the case here.

I oppose a Constitutional Convention. Tim claims that in articulating my opposition, I stated in effect that we should be “terrified and mistrustful of each other.” He then claims that I said (using quotation marks) “Just look at your neighbors. We may be crooks, but at least we dress a lot better than you do.”

Let me first set the record straight and then tell you what I actually did argue. First, with the exception of the pronouns, I never actually said any of those words. Further, I never said, nor do I believe, that we should be terrified or mistrustful of our neighbors. I never would say that we (legislators) are all crooks because I know for a fact that 95% of us are not crooks and I consider it offensive for someone to call a whole class of hardworking honest people crooks. And anybody who knows me even slightly knows that I don’t dress better than anybody. I have no idea what Tim is talking about in any of his representations of my position. And again, the fact that he won’t tell you what I really said suggests that he doesn’t have a compelling reply.

Here’s what I do believe: A Constitutional Convention is a bad idea for several reasons. First, it is not clear that it could be legally limited in scope. If it is not, we could have 40 or more issues decided in a few days in an almost unchangeable way. We could have a new Constitution that permanently enshrines public policy on everything from abortion to gay marriage, to caps on malpractice damages, to guns to legislative pay. We could require unattainable super-majorities to pass legislation that this or that interest group doesn’t want to see passed. And we could have it all come to the voters for approval in one up-or-down vote.

There are changes I’d like to see in the Constitution. I’ve actually introduced the bill to amend the Constitution to change how we do redistricting. However, I think the difficulty of the amendment process which makes every change in the Constitution semi-permanent, requires us to be thoughtful before making such changes. The idea of making hundreds of changes all at once is risky, and our current constitution is not so broken as to justify that risk.

Even if a Convention could be limited, I look at the bills that have been introduced to authorize and limit a Convention and I’m troubled by the limits they purport to set. They allow discussion of issues that the right in Pennsylvania politics supports, like caps on damages and limits on the ability of the legislature to raise taxes, but they are not only silent on, but actually explicitly say that things liberals might be interested in talking about, like creating a graduated income tax, are forbidden to even be raised. In other words, a lot of this movement seems to be an effort to make conservative policies the permanent status quo, regardless of who may win a given election.

These are my concerns as expressed in my debate with Mr. Potts. Reasonable minds can differ on the merits of what I’ve said. But you’ll notice I never expressed terror at my neighbors or anybody else. And I certainly never played the Wardrobe Card. When I was a lawyer trying cases, the judge used to instruct the jury that if someone misleads you on one fact, it is reasonable that he or she may mislead you on other things as well.

If Mr. Potts is so willing to mislead you about my arguments, what else is he misleading you about?

Daylin

____________________________________________________________________________

Who Will Champion the Sensible Center of PA Politics?

By: Tim Potts

It’s been more than four and a half years since the Pay Raise of 2005, three years since the beginning of the Bonus Scandal investigation, and a year since the beginning of one of the most grotesque displays of lousy priorities that any budget process has ever seen.

In a land where common sense and political sense were congruent we would see by now a much different political landscape in PA than we have. We would see a new method to ensure that pay raises are determined and awarded through a public process. We would see an Integrity Caucus of lawmakers determined to ensure that taxpayers aren’t bilked for millions of dollars to rig elections and reward the riggers. We would see lawmakers, who get an extra tax-free $163 per day just for showing up and who are sitting on a surplus of $180 million, refuse to cut $12 million from the elderly and disabled who must rely on SSI.

So where is the new law to rationalize compensation for public officials? Where are the laws with clear lines between right and wrong that can be easily enforced and that carry penalties harsh enough to prevent wrongdoing? Where is the mandate to adopt, on time, priorities that meet the needs of citizens?

Nowhere. The response has been, “We’re sorry, sort of. You can trust us now, sort of. We won’t do that again, at least not while you’re looking.”

Citizens sometimes can count on the minority in the House to make a little noise, but no one – no one – has been as aggressive about integrity as they are about unconstitutional WAMs for sidewalk beautification, Little League fields, minor league hockey rinks and anything else that will make them look good even as they continue to do bad.

Senate Republicans lately are putting on a happy face with their proposed new “ethics” rules. Forget that they haven’t enforced the rules they already have. Forget that these and much tougher rules should have been in place for the last, oh, 200 years.

The great leap forward for which they want lavish credit is just marking time. If their rules are tougher than current law, where is their plan to enact a tougher law? If their rules are weaker than current law, what the hell good are they? Rules are the junk food of governance, and they know it.

Our political leaders can’t even say “integrity” much less enact it. The best they can do is talk about “reform,” a word so meaningless that it ought to be banned from the political lexicon. If they mean “improvement,” they should say it and prove it. And if it’s a fig leaf for more hidden nasty bits, there’s a better word than “reform” for that, too.

Instead of leading PA to a less corrupt and more honest future, they’re simply waiting for citizens to get even more discouraged than we already are.

At the end of January, the disconnect between government and governed was stark in a Franklin & Marshall College Poll. Among voters, 69-72% percent don’t know who they want for governor, but 72% know what they want from government. They want a Constitution convention where they can repair a government that doesn’t give a damn about ordinary citizens if it gets in the way of politicians’ egos, ambitions and tax-funded venality.

Last weekend’s PA Progressive Summit brought all of this home to me anew. At the Friday night presentation of Democratic candidates for governor, no one tried to narrow the divide between the 72% who don’t care about any of them and the 72% who do care about integrity in government.

Then in my Saturday afternoon “debate” with Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, more of problem became clear. His chief argument against a Constitution convention was that we should be more terrified and mistrustful of each other and how we might change our government than we are of our lawmakers and how they already have dismantled democracy.

Instead of accepting the challenge to ensure that the sensible center of our citizenry has the chance to repair the manifest wrongs of the most criminally prosecuted legislature in America today, opponents of a convention like Leach say, in essence, “You think we’re bad? Just look at your neighbors. We may be crooks, but at least we dress a lot better than you do.”

With leadership like this, the best we can expect is a new economic development and tourism campaign: “Welcome to PA, where no one can trust anyone, so please just empty your wallets and go away quietly.”

To the best of their ability, our political parties and leadership seek to ensure that the voices of most citizens are never heard. Whether through excessive partisanship, gerrymandered legislative districts, onerous restrictions on voting and running for office, and other insults to representative democracy, what passes for political leadership in PA is doing its best to make elections contests that produce nothing but bragging rights for themselves.

There is a sensible center in our citizenry. Who among the politically ambitious will have the guts to champion their agenda?

The first step is to sign the petition for a referendum this fall where citizens can decide whether to have a Constitution convention. Go to www.democracyrisingpa.com.

Lawmakers who don’t want one can say so. But we all deserve the chance to vote on it.

The writer is the President of Democracy Rising PA

TOWN HALL MEETING - Thursday, January 28th at 7:00 p.m.

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 18:51:00 +0000

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

Letter to the Editor

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:08:00 +0000

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

On Voting by Referendum in Maine

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:36:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:06:00 +0000

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

Pledge Does Nothing for Process

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:15:00 +0000

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

Are WAMs Really Bad?

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 20:03:00 +0000

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

Town Hall Meeting - October 1st at 7:00 p.m.

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:29:00 +0000

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

Pennsylvanians Oppose new Taxes?? Not so fast.

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:32:00 +0000

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.

Same-Sex Marriage in Pennsylvania

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 20:29:00 +0000

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.

Skating Away...

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:20:00 +0000

Howdy -

I had originally intended to write at least two, maybe three separate blogs about what it was like to be in DC for the inaugural. But as I was swept in the vortex of all of it, I found I had no time to even collect my thoughts, let alone write them down, accidentally delete them, curse at my computer, and then write them down again, which is my usual writing process.

Thus, as I lie on my hotel bed with my laptop, freshly returned from my 10 hour Inaugural ordeal, I can do nothing but offer one grand, sweeping first-hand account of history. It will be epic, like "Gone with the Wind" except things turn out better for Atlanta, or like "Moby Dick" except that calling me "Ishmael" is likely to just confuse me. It will be like the Torah, except with very little religion and much less begetting. It will be grand poetry, like the stuff that doesn't rhyme, a trilogy in two parts, a haiku with infinite syllables, a legend, a myth and a self-help book. And it all starts with my car getting towed.

My wife Jen, our friend Dina and I drove to DC at about midnight on Sunday night. This was my idea, the theory being that there would be no traffic at that time. The theory was correct, but apparently so was the theory that there would be no traffic on Monday morning. THAT theory would have allowed us to sleep at home, drive at a reasonable hour, and not park my car in the private garage of my friend Adam.

Be that as it may, we slept at Adam's place for a few hours Sunday night. When we awoke Monday morning we had a difficult time finding our car in his lot. That's because it wasn't there. It had been towed by a man who called himself "Turtle" and for the low, low price of $205 I could have my very own car back. When I went to pick up the car I tried to show Turtle my disapprobation by giving him the cold shoulder. I discovered however that Turtle was remarkably taciturn and refused to demonstrate any noticeable interest in the health of our relationship. To demonstrate, allow me to recount a portion of our conversation

What do I owe you?

TURTLE

Give me 205 dollars

Do you find that you are self-actualized in this job?

TURTLE

(scratches his arm)

Pause

(blows his nose)

Where'd you get the name Turtle?

TURTLE

Give me 205 Dollars

After I got my car back, we checked into our hotel. It was the hotel hosting most of the Pennsylvania contingent. The decor was really nice...in 1956. Now, not so much. The first thing we did was watch some news. One of the interesting phenomena that occur when you go to one of these huge historic events is that you are right in the middle of things, yet since your perspective is limited, you have no idea what is going on. This was the case at the Democratic National Convention in Denver and I was committed to trying to keep up with what was happening as I witnessed it.

After that we had to go to a restaurant near Union Station for a dinner I threw for about 25 people. We got in a cab and quickly realized that the carefree-no traffic morning was gone. The roads were packed. After paying $21 to go three blocks in 45 minutes we got out and walked. It was then we first recognized that Washington had become Obama-city. Each street corner had bling-stands selling everything from Obama buttons and T-shirts to towels, jewelry and "Obama Cologne". That's right. Apparently, for $15 you can smell like Barack Obama.

As we walked further (there was a lot of walking this week) we noticed that almost every store had some Obama sign or painting in the window. Delis had ads for various Obama sandwiches or salads. Thousands of people were scurrying on each crowded street with the word "Obama" on them somewhere. I was here in 1993 and 97 for the Clinton inaugurals and they were nothing like this. Now, I am a huge Obama fan. I was an early supporter, a delegate at the convention and a Barack vote in the Electoral College. Sure, I've shaved Barack's visage into my hair and have the permanent "Yes We Can" facial tattoo. But the hero worship I saw in DC this week was a bit much even for me.

Later Monday night we went to the Pennsylvania "Yes We Did" party at the hotel. It was seemingly packed with everyone who had ever been to Pennsylvania. The featured band was "Sister Sledge", whose last hit "We Are Family" came out slightly before "Billy Don't be a Hero" and was first played at the Eisenhower Inaugural. But some things are timeless. Not that, but some things. At one point, Midge Rendell, our First Lady, elegant, and surprisingly rhythmic took the stage and danced with the band and for a brief moment, all 248 candidates for Governor in 2010 seemed to embrace Barack's call to unity. We went to bed feeling like we were about to witness a new era being born.

On Tuesday, Inauguration Day, the alarm went off at 6:30 a.m., interrupting the recurring dream I have involving me repeatedly hitting Celine Dion with a goose. I'm not sure what the dream means, but I find it very relaxing. Our entire posse than gathered in our room and prepared as if going into battle. The forecast called for wind chills in the low teens, so each of us had a detailed layering plan.

We also gathered our tickets and maps. Each ticket had a color which determined how close you were going to be to Barack at the magic moment. Jen and I had highly coveted orange tickets because I was an elector (although I told my friends that the orange tickets were for "smart people"). People with orange tickets had seats, as did some of the people in the purple section. There was also a green section and a silver section which involved standing and started a full half mile away from the stage. All of us had some color but no more than a few of the same color, so we all had to split up.

As we left the hotel at 8:15, we began the two mile walk to the Capitol. At first, the crowd was thin, but thickened with every block. It was frigid, but there was a palpable purpose in our collective strides. We all really felt that we were walking into history and everyone knew that everyone else felt the same. There was, however, a problem.

All of the streets were blocked. We asked a police officer where we should go to get in and were told to go to First Avenue. When we got there we found we were joining 10,000 people or more already packed into a narrow street. After about an hour the crowd had ballooned to over 20,000 and they were not letting anyone in. As the crowd compressed, the risk of someone being tramped to death became dangerously high. Fearing that "someone" might be me, I became panicked and used my brute force and my talent for irony to force my way (along with Jen) out of the pack an onto another street which was much better organized. Of everything I experienced this week, the (what I am calling) "Purple Ticket Apocalypse" was by far the biggest and potentially most consequential glitch.

Finally, we made it into our seats about 80 yards away from the podium and dead center. The seats couldn't have been better and by now the weather was sunny and brisk. I stood on my seat and looked backwards and saw a sea of people stretching back past the Washington Monument. It was breathtaking. I felt at last that all of my effort; the long drive, the cold, the endless walking, the near-death by crushing, dealing with Turtle, it had all been worth it. Now, all I had to do was sit back, on the same ground where Martin Luther King said "I have a dream", and face the same Capitol dome Martin faced while I watched that dream come true.

The ceremony was started by a man with a deep voice announcing each dignitary as they came out. When the man announced "The President of the United States, George W. Bush," 2 million people spontaneously started singing "Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey Hey, Goodbye". I thought this was uncalled for. I'm certainly no fan of President Bush, but insulting him as he departed seemed gratuitous. I tried to distract the crowd by starting another song, "Don't sit Under the Apple Tree with Anyone Else but Me", but it never really caught on.

Finally, Barack approached the podium to take the oath. Dozens of people around me broke out in tears even before he said a word. Almost all of them did so from the sheer historical heft of the moment, (the one notable exception was the woman whose tears were the result of me crushing her foot with my chair leg).

Then something amazing happened, Chief Justice John Roberts flubbed the oath of office. Keep in mind, this is a 39 word oath that every second-grader has memorized. The Chief Justice knew for the past 4 years that this moment would come. You'd think he'd have nailed this. Him messing it up is like the Pope mis-stating the Lord's Prayer, or a groom completely getting tangled up during "I DO".

After the Inaugural address, there was a great moment. The tradition is that the incoming and outgoing Presidents and Vice-Presidents go to the back of the Capitol where there is a farewell ceremony. There are handshakes all around and then the Vice President gets in a limo and the now ex-President gets on a helicopter and flies back to Crawford, Texas (I think that's where they all go, at least since Milliard Fillmore, but I'll have to check on that).

Dick Cheney apparently sprained a back muscle and thus was in a wheelchair. It was a fitting end to his tenure as the Torquemada of the administration to see him wheeled into his car, whacking small children with his cane to get them out of his way. Sometimes, when they weren't in his way, he'd swoop his chair over to whack them anyway.

Then, President Obama hugged President Bush and walked him to the Helicopter. The crowd in front of the capitol was slowly dispersing to the exits. But many of us stopped to watch the ceremony on the giant TV screens dotting the nation's mall. It seemed like an eternity but eventually the helicopter blades started rotating, and hundreds of thousands of people started chanting "LIFT, LIFT!!" Finally, it did, to tumultuous applause.

But then the helicopter went off of the TV screens and emerged over the dome of the Capitol directly above us. The crowd went crazy and started jumping up and down and waving wildly. To George W. Bush it probably looked like the crowd was waving "Good-bye". But on the ground, it was clear the crowd was waiving "good riddance". Then, the copter gone, we walked out onto the familiar sidewalks of First Avenue. And although the streets of DC looked the same, the world felt completely different.

I'm a big fan of the prog rock group Jethro Tull (the one thing I share with Dick Cheney). One of my favorite Tull songs is entitled "Skating Away on the Thin Ice of a New Day". As I walked down Mass. Ave, looking for the Obama Lava Lamp I promised to buy my daughter, I thought of a line from that song. "Do you ever get to feeling that...everybody's on the stage and it seems like you're the only person sitting in the audience?" Well today, even though I wasn't literally on the stage (thanks to some particularly aggressive and well-armed secret service agents), I felt that I joined the entire nation (even Turtle) on the stage, standing with our new President. As we skate away on the thin ice of this new administration, I know that I wouldn't have missed this day for the world.

-Daylin

This message and any attachment may contain privileged or confidential information intended solely for the use of the person to whom it is addressed. If the reader is not the intended recipient then be advised that forwarding, communicating, disseminating, copying or using this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the information without saving any copies.

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:33:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:34:00 +0000

As I prepare to go to DC for the Inauguration of Barack Obama, I feel like I'm about to embark on an epic journey. Like preparing to board the Orient Express, or the Schuylkill during rush hour. I am at the base of Everest, packing my rucksack and telling the Sherpas one more time that they shouldn't expect a tip. I am on the coast of Antarctica, about to speed to the South Pole with a hearty "MUSH" to my sled-poodles. I am on the Nina, pushing off of the shore to the new world, waving to the Pinta, and all the Pintonians.

I deliberately chose not to employ the "Enterprise" as a metaphor because I am clearly not going to where no man has gone before. In fact, as I write this, I am told that there are already a million people in DC, camping out, lighting fires, eating the freshly-killed moose culled from the wild plains of Adams Morgan (the National Zoo is most upset). Stated another, less weird way, this is going to get crowded.

Here, some perspective is in order: If you know the Mall in DC, visualize the area from the Capitol steps, where Obama will be sworn in, to the Washington Monument , (which incidentally, I don't think looks like him at all). That 3/4 mile space holds about one million people. Keep going back all the way to the Lincoln Memorial. Now you can accommodate about 2.5 million people. Some estimates say that as many as 4 million people plan to come. All of this is to say that I am becoming pessimistic about my chances of getting a primo parking space.

Not only is it going to be crowded, it's also apparently going to be cold. The weather forecasts all say that the temperature will be in the teens. Many say there will be bitter winds. Some are even calling for locusts. Of course, we've all heard that the secret to staying warm is "layering". So I plan to wear all the sweat-shirts I have in my closet,. That is unless the Eagles make it to the Super-Bowl, in which case I'll just be wearing gym shorts and painting my chest green.

Even though we have tickets, we were told to get there no later than 7:00 AM for the noon festivities. Walking for miles at dawn and standing in the bitter cold for 6 hours next to complete strangers has the potential to be occasionally unpleasant. I'll try to pass the time by striking up conversations with those lucky enough to stand near me. I've even been thinking of conversation starters I could use, like "Yo, you gonna eat that Granola Bar?", or "Can I borrow your coat?" or "Tell me again why I can't borrow your coat.". Hey, at least I'll make some friends.

Even with all of this effort, and despite having tickets as a member of the Electoral College, I'm still likely to be about as close to Barack as I would be if I just went to a pub in Ardmore. The Capitol itself will be a small dot in the distance and Barack's inaugural address will probably sound like someone confirming my filet-o-fish order at a drive-through window. The majestic "Hail to the Chief" will probably be drowned out by the sounds of Sarah Palin drilling Ice-fishing holes on the Potomac.

Some folks have asked why I'm willing to brave all of this when I have a perfectly fine television set in my warm living room. But those people are missing something. I haven't paid my cable bill, so there is no TV. But they are also missing something else. The fact is that all of the inconvenience and the pain will actually help punctuate the experience in my memory. This is first degree history. I'm not looking to just see it, I'm looking for a story, an experience. Someday I want to tell my great-great grandchildren (fish oil - you live forever) what it was like. What it felt like, what it tasted like. I don't want to just say that I watched it on the TV of a neighbor who pays their bills and hopefully stocks their fridge.

So I'm down for the discomfort. If you see a guy in a traffic jam smiling and clapping his hands, that will be me. If you see someone whose lost a finger to frostbite, but is still dancing the Macarena, that's me again. If you notice a person who is gone into cardiac arrest due to severe hypothermia, and is being given CPR. and is still singing "Walking on Sunshine" by Katrina and the Waves between chest compressions, you can bet that's your new State Senator, witnessing history, and walking towards the light.

The next installment of this blog will be on Sunday night from DC. Wish me luck!

noreply@blogger.com (Daylin Leach) — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:21:00 +0000

I believe it is important, whenever possible, to witness historical events first-hand. This can be somewhat tricky, in that we often don't contemporaneously know when history will be made, and we've missed a lot of the best history, not having been alive in the past and all. That explains the relatively few eyewitness reports I've written about Charlemagne, although you can bet that if I were alive in 768 I would have hopped on a bus to see his father, "Peppin the Short" bequeath Charlemagne his lands!

In my lifetime, when I sensed history was proximate, I've done all I can to be there. I was at the past 6 Democratic National Conventions. I was at both Bill Clinton Inaugurals, and once spent a weekend drinking with George McGovern (true story).

Sometimes I've guessed wrong about when history will be made. In retrospect getting that "I voted for President Morris Udall" tattoo across my chest was probably a mistake. And when my buddy "Stimps" wrote asking the Beatles to reunite for his high school prom in 1979, I thought it was unlikely they would, but I showed up just in case. The reunion never happened, but I did wind up getting his date to help me wash my car, and we got to listen to a lot of Styx that night.

This past year has seemed to simply crackle with history. We had both the first woman and the first African-American with a serious chance to be elected President. I wanted to be there for as much of it as I could. The first thing I thought was important to do was to back the right candidate (aka: the eventual winner). In an election, backing the winner means access and reflected glory. Backing a loser can mean spending the key moments of the election eating Cheeze-its and flipping channels between CNN and Rachel Ray making tuna-nachos.

The problem is that I almost never back the winner. In fact, my support for a candidate usually guarantees that they are indicted and/or eaten by crocodiles (or both) within days. I've had grown men weeping at my feet begging me to endorse their political opponents. You may have noticed that George McGovern was never President. My guy! You won't be reading many books about Gary Hart's first term. While he was in Biminy on the "Monkey Business," I was at my kitchen table hand-lettering "Go Gary!" yard signs. Tom Harkin? All mine! Ted Kennedy? Quit my work-study job to work for him. Fred Harris, Paul Simon, John Edwards? Me, me, me!

With this history, I was not particularly optimistic as the 2008 cycle got started. There were times when I thought I'd just start the "I [heart] Mike Gravel Fan Club" and be done with it. But then, a miracle happened (no, not Celine Dion's record contract being cancelled, but that would be good too!): I decided to back Barack Obama, and he actually won.

When I came out for Barack, I was one of only a small handful of Democratic elected officials who supported him. Most of the Pennsylvania political establishment was for Hillary. As a result, I had incredible access, and the chance to participate in amazing events. I was asked to speak at rallies and introduce Barack. I got to go to lots of events with famous surrogates. The highlight for me was introducing actress Jessica Lange at a coffee in Bryn Mawr. We really hit it off, although she did give me a funny look when I claimed to be her body-double in all of her action films. I was a delegate at the National Convention, and a member of the Electoral College. Now, I am completing the circle and heading down to DC for the Inauguration of the first man I ever backed from day one as the next President of the United States.

Some of you (Hi Mom!) will remember that I blogged from the Convention in Denver. I will be doing the same from DC. I will try to impart to you some small sense of what it is like from the first hand perspective of someone who loves history, and who thinks they're really funny after their second virgin egg-nog. I hope you enjoy the eyewitness account of Barack Obama's swearing-in.

As I pack for the trip (lots of warm clothes, granola bars, and Dr. Phil tapes) I am mindful of the unique opportunity I have. Even though I will be a small speck in a sea of people, and Barack will probably just be a distant voice on a distorted amplification system, I will be there. I will be there, like the folks in Gettysburg when Lincoln spoke were there. I'll be there like the people at Carpenter Hall or the moon launch or Woodstock were there. I'll have the chance to taste history in a way that watching TV or reading a book can't touch. I hope I can do it all justice.

I also hope that Barack gives me a shout-out during the Inaugural address. I'll keep you all posted!

Daylin