In an AP story out of Harrisburg published in its
Sunday edition today,the Erie Times-News finally caught
up with Pennsylvania's pending energy catastrophe,
the deregulation of electricity rates, a story first
broken here (see below) more than a week ago.
Within the next two years, the deregulation of electricity
rates engineered 22 years ago by former Governor Tom Ridge
will cause them to skyrocket in northwestern Pa. by
50 percent.
____________________________________________________________
Ex-Gov. Tom Ridge's hidden legacy emerges
from the shadows, a ticking time bomb
The long-standing love affair which a majority of
Pennsylvanians have had with former Governor Tom Ridge
is likely to come to a screeching halt for many of
them in the next couple years.
That’s when one of Ridge’s hidden gubernatorial
legacies, a ticking time bomb, emerges after two
decades from the shadows.
A product of the law of unintended consequences,
it’s the impending reversal of the deregulation of
electrical rates throughout the commonwealth which
Ridge sponsored and championed as governor in the
mid-1990s.
The return to unregulated electricity rates
will complete the triple whammy of energy consumer cost
explosions, and exacerbate the adverse economic
impact which has followed the dramatic increases in
gasoline and heating fuels over the past year.
Depending upon location within the state, electric rates
are expected to jump anywhere from 12 percent to 72
percent in 2010 and 2011, with a statewide average of
more than 40 percent.
That’s when the rate caps imposed by the Electricity
Generation Customer Choice and Competition Act - signed
into law by Ridge in 1996 after a robust campaign
promoting it - will expire.
The catalyst for the concerns about a forthcoming crisis in the
skyrocketing consumer cost of electricity is a study recently
released by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC).
It found that if the rate caps were to come off today, electric
rates in Pennsylvania would rise virtually overnight by an average of 43
percent, and impose a calamitous burden on home, commercial and
industry users.
The spike in electric prices is expected to be highest in the western
part of the state, where they look to rise by as much as 67 percent
in Allegheny County, and 50 percent in northwestern Pa., according to
the PUC study.
Some experts believe impending deregulation will precipitate a mass
exodus of industry and commerce from Pennsylvania, cause thousands
of small businesses throughout the commonwealth to fail, result in
massive unemployment, and further impoverish low income residents,
all of which the 1996 deregulation act was designed,
over-optimistically as it turns out, to forestall.
After the fall, the act will allow electricity producers to charge
rates based upon their costs of production and delivery.
Previously, they could not recover those costs through proportional
rate increases because of the ceiling placed on rates by the 1996
act, signed by Ridge after a high visibility promotional campaign.
But with the caps due to come off at staggered intervals throughout
the state in 2010 and 2011, electricity producers will be able to
charge rates which putatively reflect their costs of acquiring the
fuels needed to generate electricity – primarily oil, natural gas
and coal. Those costs have risen exponentially since the electric
rate caps were first applied in 1997.
Normally, the powerful electricity-producing lobby would have been
able to thwart passage of legislation in 1996 regulating and
putting caps on electrical rates. But what gave deregulation its
impetus in the mid-90s was a disarming Faustian bargain between the
popular Ridge administration and the general assembly on one hand,
and the electric industry on the other, the unintended consequences
of which are only now beginning to appear.
It provided that in exchange for acquiescing to rate caps, the
industry would be allowed by the state through the PUC to bill and
recover from consumers the costs of constructing new electrical
generating plants, a practice previously disallowed.
Ridge’s rationale centered on the theory that lower electrical rates
than those in other states would attract new industry to
Pennsylvania, produce tens of thousand of new jobs, and give rank
and file Pennsylvania users more affordable electricity.
In the first years following deregulation, Pennsylvania surpassed
other states in electrical rate-lowering, ranking first in the
nation. In a February 7, 2001 press release Ridge said: “Once again
we were named the No. 1 state for electric deregulation. Why? We
have plenty of juice…we’re plugged in. Customers have greater
choices. And consumers and businesses have saved $3 billion. So if
any companies in California are listening,” Ridge gloated, “come on
over to Pennsylvania. We’ll leave the lights on for you.” Ridge said
at the time deregulation “will create more than 36,000 new jobs in
Pennsylvania by 2004.” That never happened.
Ridge’s theory was based on the optimistic premise that the capped
rates would bring new electric-producing competitors into the state
and lower rates overall through wider competition. The flaw in the
theory was that it self-destructed.
Newcomers couldn’t compete in Pennsylvania with the big existing
producers. Even with the rate caps, existing producers were able to
generate healthy profits since deregulation went into effect 20
years ago because of the absence of new competition.
With the unshackling of the rate caps two years hence, they will
make a killing of unprecedented proportions at the expense of
consumers unless the legislature and the PUC enact and devise
remedies to interdict them against what is expected to be a
powerful lobbying effort by the industry to make sure the rate caps
disappear forever.
How is retribution exacted from a former governor whose failed
vision 20 years after the fact results in punitive consequences on
an unprecedented scale for his onetime constituents?
By elevating him, apparently, to one of the nation’s leading
cabinet level positions and widespread celebrity.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The road to kingmaking
In her column published August 24, Liz Allen, the
Erie Times-News's newly-anointed "public editor,"
so-called, successor to Kevin Cuneo in that position,
appealed to readers to "help frame the issues" relating
to the upcoming general election on Nov. 4.
The newspaper would use the input, Liz said, to enable
its editorial board to reach decisions with respect
to editorial endorsements.
Since time immemorial, the Erie Times-News and other
self-promoting newspaper more interested in purveying
influence rather than information, have been publishing
editorials endorsing or not endorsing candidates and
ballot issues in the final rundown to upcoming elections.
This is an archaic and arrogant practice which over
the decades has detracted rather than contributed to
the electoral process.
It’s one that has never been acceptable among intelligent
and thinking citizenry, and is growing less and less
palatable as self-serving newspapers like the Times-News,
poseurs of objectivity, make recommendations pro or con
which reflect their own biases, vested and financial
interests, not the general public’s. It's influence-peddling
of the rankest kind.
Here’s what one prominent newspaper founder, owner and
publisher, Al Neuharth whose newspaper, USA TODAY, with
the largest circulation in the nation, more than
two million, has said about this counterproductive
and despicable practice:
“Enlightened newspaper editors and owners have come
to understand that when they endorse a political
candidate their news coverage becomes suspect in
the eyes of readers, even though most reporters
are basically fair and accurate.
“When USA TODAY was founded in 1982, we decided our
role was to inform, educate, entertain, debate, but
not dictate. That built trust among readers and is
one of the reasons the "Nation's Newspaper" has the
largest circulation in the country.
“If decision-makers at newspapers quit trying to be
kingmakers, they and their readers would benefit.”
Amen.
Erie Times-News's newly-anointed "public editor,"
so-called, successor to Kevin Cuneo in that position,
appealed to readers to "help frame the issues" relating
to the upcoming general election on Nov. 4.
The newspaper would use the input, Liz said, to enable
its editorial board to reach decisions with respect
to editorial endorsements.
Since time immemorial, the Erie Times-News and other
self-promoting newspaper more interested in purveying
influence rather than information, have been publishing
editorials endorsing or not endorsing candidates and
ballot issues in the final rundown to upcoming elections.
This is an archaic and arrogant practice which over
the decades has detracted rather than contributed to
the electoral process.
It’s one that has never been acceptable among intelligent
and thinking citizenry, and is growing less and less
palatable as self-serving newspapers like the Times-News,
poseurs of objectivity, make recommendations pro or con
which reflect their own biases, vested and financial
interests, not the general public’s. It's influence-peddling
of the rankest kind.
Here’s what one prominent newspaper founder, owner and
publisher, Al Neuharth whose newspaper, USA TODAY, with
the largest circulation in the nation, more than
two million, has said about this counterproductive
and despicable practice:
“Enlightened newspaper editors and owners have come
to understand that when they endorse a political
candidate their news coverage becomes suspect in
the eyes of readers, even though most reporters
are basically fair and accurate.
“When USA TODAY was founded in 1982, we decided our
role was to inform, educate, entertain, debate, but
not dictate. That built trust among readers and is
one of the reasons the "Nation's Newspaper" has the
largest circulation in the country.
“If decision-makers at newspapers quit trying to be
kingmakers, they and their readers would benefit.”
Amen.
What they need is a break from their breaks
An Associated Press article in the Times-News today reported on the likely agenda of the Pennsylvania General Assembly's upcoming nine-day session, concluding it with this statement: "After all that, lawmakers will need a break." Then they'll go on a three-month holiday "break."
Just the facts please!
Pennslvania legislators don't need anymore breaks. They're nearly the highest paid in the country, with the highest perks anywhere, which they wildly abuse; the largest legislature in the nation with twice as many members as the commonwealth needs per capita; twice as many staff persons as they need who spend most of their time campaigning for the reelection of their employer; have granted themselves and their families the finest retirement and medical benefits anywhere, and only meet in session two or three days out of the week when they're not out on a "break."
They don't have to worry about health benfits or high gas prices because the taxpayers pay for them all through an exhorbitant health program legislators designed for themselves, and auto travel allowances they voted to give themselves. Give ME a break!
Just the facts please!
Pennslvania legislators don't need anymore breaks. They're nearly the highest paid in the country, with the highest perks anywhere, which they wildly abuse; the largest legislature in the nation with twice as many members as the commonwealth needs per capita; twice as many staff persons as they need who spend most of their time campaigning for the reelection of their employer; have granted themselves and their families the finest retirement and medical benefits anywhere, and only meet in session two or three days out of the week when they're not out on a "break."
They don't have to worry about health benfits or high gas prices because the taxpayers pay for them all through an exhorbitant health program legislators designed for themselves, and auto travel allowances they voted to give themselves. Give ME a break!
Pennsylvania's "farmland preservation" boondoggle
Like an Autumn rite, each fall as the exquisite aroma of
ripening Concord grapes permeates the eastern Erie County
countryside, the Erie news media hone in on the usual
suspects for quotes and sound bites on the qualitative
and quantitative aspects of the grape crop, including
estimated tonnage per acre and sugar content.
Together those factors determine the gross value of
the harvest.One or two prominent grape farmers are
briefly interviewed for their take on the condition
of and prospects for the year’s crop; an expert over
at the regional agricultural experiment station is
consulted on more technical aspects; and a manager
of the Welch Grape Juice plant in North East, the
largest of its kind in the world, lends his expertise
on the subject from the perspective of the global marketer.
Occasionally an agronomist is called in to add academia’s
glossy imprimatur to the process.These formulaic media
reports are relentlessly simplistic, predictable and
invariably misleading or worse because the print and
broadcast reporters who produce them know little or
nothing about the subject, often drowning in arcana
and missing the big story.
For example, last year about this time, the Erie Times-News
ran an editorial commenting upon the prospective economic
impact of the grape crop on Erie County and beyond, summing
it up with the headline “Grape industry rebounds” and
concluding that “Agriculture is a roller coaster business,
as growers know all too well. But right now, these purple,
golden and green vineyards are producing plenty of green.”
But only a week or so earlier, The Times-News ran an article
which said just the opposite. A grape farmer the newspaper’s
reporter talked to said - despite what looks like an excellent
crop - growers expect little more than a break-even year,
with a harvest of six to seven tons of grapes per acre.
At this year’s expected prices, the grower said, income
from that level of production will barely cover production costs.
Apparently whoever writes and edits the editorials at the
Times-News doesn’t bother to read the articles the reporters
write.But the Times-News and other Erie media can’t see the
vineyard for the grapes.
Expect to see any day now a dreary re-run of this fictional
narrative masquerading as fact.
The real story which the Erie news media have missed and
ignored for years has nothing to do with cyclical crop
and harvest dynamics.
Rather it’s a gradual trend over the past two decades
which represents a paradigmatic shift in the grape farming
culture. It has quietly transformed the grape growing corps
in eastern Erie County with a long tradition of self-reliance
from hardy independent folks of yore to government hand-out
recipients of hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars
subsidized by taxpayers at all levels of government, local,
state and federal.
This transformation is the regrettable but unintended
consequence (at least for the mindless masses who have
supported it) of something euphemistically known as
the state Farmland Preservation program, enacted into
law in 1987 by the Pennsylvania general assembly
under the most false of pretenses, yet enthusiastically
heralded by the Times-News and other Erie news media
as the salvation of Farmland Pennsylvania.
Back about two years ago, The Times-News published an
article bearing the garish headline: “Dying on the vine,
Concord grape growers struggle to hang on.” A reality
check indicated otherwise.
While one could sympathize with a few who were hurting,
the greater majority of grape vineyard owners in Erie
County, especially in the east county, have done very well,
thanks to enormous state subsidies many of them have
received under the so-called farmland preservation program.
It's a get-rich scheme for a select few at the expense of
millions of Pennsylvania taxpayers.
In 2005, that ill-advised scheme got a healthy multi-million
dollar boost with the passage of the so-called “Growing
Green II” ballot proposition by Pennsylvania voters which
provided an unspecified but massive amount of funding for
the program.During the past 18 years since the program's
inception in 1989, more than 50 Erie County farmers within
seven municipalities have collectively received more than
$7 million from state and local taxpayers for selling
development rights on their farms to the county or state
under the program.
By selling the development rights to the state for a
negotiated sum the farmers agree to continue that
acreage in farming activity in perpetuity and never
use or sell it for non-farming development purposes.
Statewide, about $1 billion has been poured into the
program, which was launched with a $100 million
statewide general obligation bond issue approved
by Pennsylvania's voters in 1987.
The massive subsequent funding - ten times the original
amount approved by the voters - however was not
subjected to a vote of the people, but has been
surreptitiously approved incrementally by the legislature
and successive governors, both Republican and Democrat.
The awards to individual farmers in Erie County since they
began participating in the program in 1994 range from a
high of $832,000 for 595 acres committed to the program
to a low of $30,000 for 20 acres. Total acreage committed
to non-development of farmlands in Erie County since the
program began is upwards of 3,000.
Guess what virtually all of them have used some of the
windfall they collected from the state for : to develop
their non-preserved farmland!The Farmland Preservation
Program, a huge financial boondoogle on behalf of
participating farmers, real estate developers, land
speculators, money changers and other promoters
throughout the state, is jointly administered and
funded by the state and county governments, with
some funds available from township and federal sources as well.
The Erie County Planning Department administers the
program locally under state- mandated procedures.
One of the program's more insidious features is that
it contains no disclaimers prohibiting state or local
legislators or officials who have used their public
offices to create and administer the program from
exploiting and profiting from it by participating,
a clear violation of ethical precepts.
While there is no evidence that this has occurred in
Erie County, there is no guarantee that it won't. It
has occurred frequently in other parts of the state
where the program is being implemented far more
extensively.
While local and state officials and
bureaucrats repeatedly claim the program has widespread
public and farmer support, in the case of the public,
it's unlikely the general public would be supportive
if it knew what is really going on behind the extravagant
claims of its supporters.
But it doesn't, because of the failure of the news media
to expose it.At the same time, prospectively eligible
farmers who hope to participate in this giveaway program
would be foolish not to support it, given the enormous
subsidies it makes available to them with no real commitment
on their part. Whoever said there’s no free lunch, never
heard of Pennsylvania’s farmland preservation program.
The program’s purported goal is to assure permanent
preservation of viable agricultural lands in order to
protect the state's agricultural economy and culture.
Its objective is "to slow the loss of prime farmland
to non-agricultural uses," according to the state
Bureau of Farmland Preservation in Harrisburg, which
administers the program at the state level.
But since its idealized inception nearly two decades
ago, the program has taken a sharp turn to the right.
Elsewhere in the state, for example in Lancaster
County, the largest agricultural county in the
state - compared to which the Erie County program is
a mere drop in the bucket - it has had the diametrically
opposite effect of opening more farmlands to developmen
t at much higher prices, putting them out of reach of
all but the most affluent.
In a smaller way, it has had the same effect in eastern
Erie County and will continue to expand here. In one
notable instance in southeastern Pa., the state paid a
Montgomery County farmer $3.7 million for the property
rights to his 70 acre farm, an average of about $53,000
per acre. Another farmer there was paid $48,000 per acre.
Inevitably, this will happen in Erie and other participating
counties as well, albeit on a lesser but munificent scale.
While farmers who participate in the program sell the
development rights to their land, they can continue to
raise, harvest, market and utilize any livestock,
crops or products grown or derived from them for their
own benefit, in effect, double dipping into the state
and local taxpayers' pockets.
They also retain sub-surface rights to any mineral deposits,
such as oil and/or gas. The commercial reality which enables
the so-called preservation program to gobble up more land
than it preserves derives from the fact that the portion of
the farmers' land not preserved which adjoins reserved land,
over time becomes much more valuable on the real estate
housing and commercial market.
That's because private purchasers can be assured the
non-preserved farmland they buy on which to build their
homes or businesses won't be blighted by unsightly
housing, business or industrial developments on adjoining
land owing to its preserved farmland status. Their back
and front yards will remain forever open to scenic farmland vistas.
This hastens and expands development on non-preserved
farmland, as participating farmers jump at the opportunity
to exploit rising market prices precipitated by the
diminishing amount of land available for development.
It also gives them a windfall with which to launch
housing and other developments on their non-preserved
farmland, thus removing that acreage from farming,
an alarming trend which has already begun in east
Erie County.
How the “farmland preservation”
boondoggle works.
The monetary amount participating farmers or owners
of farmland receive for their land sought to be
preserved, called "easements," is derived from the
difference for which their land would sell for
farming purposes compared to how much it would
fetch for development purposes.
As a hypothetical if somewhat simplistic example,
if Farmer A offered to buy 500 acres from Farmer B
for its market value of half a million dollars for
farming purposes, and a real estate developer
offered Farmer B $750,000 for the same acreage
for residential, commercial or industrial development,
the state/county would pay Farmer B the half million
dollars plus the $250,000 difference to place his
acreage in the farmland preservation program instead
and retain its farming function.
North East grape farmers outnumber by far those
from other parts of Erie County who have been awarded
funds under the program since its inception. Plans were
initiated last year to curb participation of North East
farmers in the program in an effort to spread its limited
funding around to other parts of the county previously
less favored.
There are four possible funding sources for the farmland
preservation program: the county, state and, rarely,
federal and township governments. The program was initially
funded by a $100 million general obligation bond approved
by the voters in 1987, which was heavily lobbied by certain
farming, real estate interests, banks, land developers,
well-organized land trusts in the nation and others.
The bond issue, though controversial, was readily passed
by more than 2 to 1, with 1,172,483 voting for it, 575,330
against. Pennsylvania voters naively supported the bond
issue because of its superficially attractive features
and deceptive patina which over the years continue to
over-ride the program's hidden mercenary realities which
defeat the purported goal of farmland preservation.
Over the years, more than half as much has been expended
on the program annually as was provided by the initial
$100 million bond issue, although no voter approval has
been obtained for the additional funding.Since its
inception in 1989 through Sept., 2003, the state and
57 of Pennsylvania's 66 counties have paid about one
billion dollars to preserve about 300,000 acres of
farmland, according to state figures.
In some southeastern Pennsylvania farming areas, county
and municipal bonds have been floated to expand the
farmland preservation program because of limitations on
government funding.Authorization of these bonds has been
fueled by special interest groups having nothing to do
with farmland preservation except to profit from it by
exploiting the development it is supposed to curb, but
which in fact it generates, such as realtors, banks,
land developers, general and sub-contractors, and others.
Meanwhile, rank and file voters, duped by the program's
duplicitous promoters and the news media's failure to
expose them, continue to be led down a merry path.
Amortization of these bonds shifts the burden for
their repayment onto future generations who have no
say in whether they want to assume this burden of
debt for a program that has more to do with profiteering
and accelerated development of rural landscapes than
with farmland preservation.
Pennsylvania owns the dubious distinction of leading
the nation in the number of farms and acres of farmland
protected, about 300,000. But this distinction is
double-edged, because the longer range effect, as
noted earlier, has been to open up more farming
land to development faster than would otherwise
have occurred, but at much higher prices than lower
income folks most in need of affordable housing can pay for it.
Back in 1987, when the $100 million general obligation
bond proposal was placed before the state's voters, it
was aggressively lobbied by farming and other special
interests which would benefit from it. But there was one exception.
In Lancaster County, Donald L. Ranck, a prominent and influential
farmer in Paradise Twp., along with a handful of devoted
supporters, launched a vigorous campaign opposing the bond
issue and the program on grounds that, as formulated, its
long-range effects would adversely impact both farmland
preservation efforts and the interest of taxpayers throughout
the state, without commensurate benefits.
Today, Ranck still actively opposes the relentless expansion
of the program, while advocating reforms which would sustain
the preservation of Pennsylvania's farmland without the
deleterious effects he and others claim it promotes in its
present form, but so far with limited success in the face
of politically powerful development interests.
His proposed reforms would also significantly reduce its
exploitation of taxpayer dollars. Says Ranck: "The best
prevention for farmland development is allowing landowners
to keep their development rights, keep their building rights,
keep their management rights. The worst loss of farmland
occurs next to 'preserved' farms. This is so obvious you
may wonder why the preservation gang can't see it. "We
believe they can, but continue their charade for their
own personal profit. Future generations will curse them
for it!" Rank predicts.
Currently, portions of 3,000-plus farms and mor than 400,000
acres have been preserved statewide through the program.
But the Commonwealth is not keeping track of how much
non-preserved farmland has been lost to development as
a result of the program since its inception nearly two
decades ago.
Nor is it letting it be widely known how
many hundreds of millions of dollars, now approching
$1 billion, millions of state and national taxpayers
have paid for the disproportionate benefit of a very few.
ripening Concord grapes permeates the eastern Erie County
countryside, the Erie news media hone in on the usual
suspects for quotes and sound bites on the qualitative
and quantitative aspects of the grape crop, including
estimated tonnage per acre and sugar content.
Together those factors determine the gross value of
the harvest.One or two prominent grape farmers are
briefly interviewed for their take on the condition
of and prospects for the year’s crop; an expert over
at the regional agricultural experiment station is
consulted on more technical aspects; and a manager
of the Welch Grape Juice plant in North East, the
largest of its kind in the world, lends his expertise
on the subject from the perspective of the global marketer.
Occasionally an agronomist is called in to add academia’s
glossy imprimatur to the process.These formulaic media
reports are relentlessly simplistic, predictable and
invariably misleading or worse because the print and
broadcast reporters who produce them know little or
nothing about the subject, often drowning in arcana
and missing the big story.
For example, last year about this time, the Erie Times-News
ran an editorial commenting upon the prospective economic
impact of the grape crop on Erie County and beyond, summing
it up with the headline “Grape industry rebounds” and
concluding that “Agriculture is a roller coaster business,
as growers know all too well. But right now, these purple,
golden and green vineyards are producing plenty of green.”
But only a week or so earlier, The Times-News ran an article
which said just the opposite. A grape farmer the newspaper’s
reporter talked to said - despite what looks like an excellent
crop - growers expect little more than a break-even year,
with a harvest of six to seven tons of grapes per acre.
At this year’s expected prices, the grower said, income
from that level of production will barely cover production costs.
Apparently whoever writes and edits the editorials at the
Times-News doesn’t bother to read the articles the reporters
write.But the Times-News and other Erie media can’t see the
vineyard for the grapes.
Expect to see any day now a dreary re-run of this fictional
narrative masquerading as fact.
The real story which the Erie news media have missed and
ignored for years has nothing to do with cyclical crop
and harvest dynamics.
Rather it’s a gradual trend over the past two decades
which represents a paradigmatic shift in the grape farming
culture. It has quietly transformed the grape growing corps
in eastern Erie County with a long tradition of self-reliance
from hardy independent folks of yore to government hand-out
recipients of hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars
subsidized by taxpayers at all levels of government, local,
state and federal.
This transformation is the regrettable but unintended
consequence (at least for the mindless masses who have
supported it) of something euphemistically known as
the state Farmland Preservation program, enacted into
law in 1987 by the Pennsylvania general assembly
under the most false of pretenses, yet enthusiastically
heralded by the Times-News and other Erie news media
as the salvation of Farmland Pennsylvania.
Back about two years ago, The Times-News published an
article bearing the garish headline: “Dying on the vine,
Concord grape growers struggle to hang on.” A reality
check indicated otherwise.
While one could sympathize with a few who were hurting,
the greater majority of grape vineyard owners in Erie
County, especially in the east county, have done very well,
thanks to enormous state subsidies many of them have
received under the so-called farmland preservation program.
It's a get-rich scheme for a select few at the expense of
millions of Pennsylvania taxpayers.
In 2005, that ill-advised scheme got a healthy multi-million
dollar boost with the passage of the so-called “Growing
Green II” ballot proposition by Pennsylvania voters which
provided an unspecified but massive amount of funding for
the program.During the past 18 years since the program's
inception in 1989, more than 50 Erie County farmers within
seven municipalities have collectively received more than
$7 million from state and local taxpayers for selling
development rights on their farms to the county or state
under the program.
By selling the development rights to the state for a
negotiated sum the farmers agree to continue that
acreage in farming activity in perpetuity and never
use or sell it for non-farming development purposes.
Statewide, about $1 billion has been poured into the
program, which was launched with a $100 million
statewide general obligation bond issue approved
by Pennsylvania's voters in 1987.
The massive subsequent funding - ten times the original
amount approved by the voters - however was not
subjected to a vote of the people, but has been
surreptitiously approved incrementally by the legislature
and successive governors, both Republican and Democrat.
The awards to individual farmers in Erie County since they
began participating in the program in 1994 range from a
high of $832,000 for 595 acres committed to the program
to a low of $30,000 for 20 acres. Total acreage committed
to non-development of farmlands in Erie County since the
program began is upwards of 3,000.
Guess what virtually all of them have used some of the
windfall they collected from the state for : to develop
their non-preserved farmland!The Farmland Preservation
Program, a huge financial boondoogle on behalf of
participating farmers, real estate developers, land
speculators, money changers and other promoters
throughout the state, is jointly administered and
funded by the state and county governments, with
some funds available from township and federal sources as well.
The Erie County Planning Department administers the
program locally under state- mandated procedures.
One of the program's more insidious features is that
it contains no disclaimers prohibiting state or local
legislators or officials who have used their public
offices to create and administer the program from
exploiting and profiting from it by participating,
a clear violation of ethical precepts.
While there is no evidence that this has occurred in
Erie County, there is no guarantee that it won't. It
has occurred frequently in other parts of the state
where the program is being implemented far more
extensively.
While local and state officials and
bureaucrats repeatedly claim the program has widespread
public and farmer support, in the case of the public,
it's unlikely the general public would be supportive
if it knew what is really going on behind the extravagant
claims of its supporters.
But it doesn't, because of the failure of the news media
to expose it.At the same time, prospectively eligible
farmers who hope to participate in this giveaway program
would be foolish not to support it, given the enormous
subsidies it makes available to them with no real commitment
on their part. Whoever said there’s no free lunch, never
heard of Pennsylvania’s farmland preservation program.
The program’s purported goal is to assure permanent
preservation of viable agricultural lands in order to
protect the state's agricultural economy and culture.
Its objective is "to slow the loss of prime farmland
to non-agricultural uses," according to the state
Bureau of Farmland Preservation in Harrisburg, which
administers the program at the state level.
But since its idealized inception nearly two decades
ago, the program has taken a sharp turn to the right.
Elsewhere in the state, for example in Lancaster
County, the largest agricultural county in the
state - compared to which the Erie County program is
a mere drop in the bucket - it has had the diametrically
opposite effect of opening more farmlands to developmen
t at much higher prices, putting them out of reach of
all but the most affluent.
In a smaller way, it has had the same effect in eastern
Erie County and will continue to expand here. In one
notable instance in southeastern Pa., the state paid a
Montgomery County farmer $3.7 million for the property
rights to his 70 acre farm, an average of about $53,000
per acre. Another farmer there was paid $48,000 per acre.
Inevitably, this will happen in Erie and other participating
counties as well, albeit on a lesser but munificent scale.
While farmers who participate in the program sell the
development rights to their land, they can continue to
raise, harvest, market and utilize any livestock,
crops or products grown or derived from them for their
own benefit, in effect, double dipping into the state
and local taxpayers' pockets.
They also retain sub-surface rights to any mineral deposits,
such as oil and/or gas. The commercial reality which enables
the so-called preservation program to gobble up more land
than it preserves derives from the fact that the portion of
the farmers' land not preserved which adjoins reserved land,
over time becomes much more valuable on the real estate
housing and commercial market.
That's because private purchasers can be assured the
non-preserved farmland they buy on which to build their
homes or businesses won't be blighted by unsightly
housing, business or industrial developments on adjoining
land owing to its preserved farmland status. Their back
and front yards will remain forever open to scenic farmland vistas.
This hastens and expands development on non-preserved
farmland, as participating farmers jump at the opportunity
to exploit rising market prices precipitated by the
diminishing amount of land available for development.
It also gives them a windfall with which to launch
housing and other developments on their non-preserved
farmland, thus removing that acreage from farming,
an alarming trend which has already begun in east
Erie County.
How the “farmland preservation”
boondoggle works.
The monetary amount participating farmers or owners
of farmland receive for their land sought to be
preserved, called "easements," is derived from the
difference for which their land would sell for
farming purposes compared to how much it would
fetch for development purposes.
As a hypothetical if somewhat simplistic example,
if Farmer A offered to buy 500 acres from Farmer B
for its market value of half a million dollars for
farming purposes, and a real estate developer
offered Farmer B $750,000 for the same acreage
for residential, commercial or industrial development,
the state/county would pay Farmer B the half million
dollars plus the $250,000 difference to place his
acreage in the farmland preservation program instead
and retain its farming function.
North East grape farmers outnumber by far those
from other parts of Erie County who have been awarded
funds under the program since its inception. Plans were
initiated last year to curb participation of North East
farmers in the program in an effort to spread its limited
funding around to other parts of the county previously
less favored.
There are four possible funding sources for the farmland
preservation program: the county, state and, rarely,
federal and township governments. The program was initially
funded by a $100 million general obligation bond approved
by the voters in 1987, which was heavily lobbied by certain
farming, real estate interests, banks, land developers,
well-organized land trusts in the nation and others.
The bond issue, though controversial, was readily passed
by more than 2 to 1, with 1,172,483 voting for it, 575,330
against. Pennsylvania voters naively supported the bond
issue because of its superficially attractive features
and deceptive patina which over the years continue to
over-ride the program's hidden mercenary realities which
defeat the purported goal of farmland preservation.
Over the years, more than half as much has been expended
on the program annually as was provided by the initial
$100 million bond issue, although no voter approval has
been obtained for the additional funding.Since its
inception in 1989 through Sept., 2003, the state and
57 of Pennsylvania's 66 counties have paid about one
billion dollars to preserve about 300,000 acres of
farmland, according to state figures.
In some southeastern Pennsylvania farming areas, county
and municipal bonds have been floated to expand the
farmland preservation program because of limitations on
government funding.Authorization of these bonds has been
fueled by special interest groups having nothing to do
with farmland preservation except to profit from it by
exploiting the development it is supposed to curb, but
which in fact it generates, such as realtors, banks,
land developers, general and sub-contractors, and others.
Meanwhile, rank and file voters, duped by the program's
duplicitous promoters and the news media's failure to
expose them, continue to be led down a merry path.
Amortization of these bonds shifts the burden for
their repayment onto future generations who have no
say in whether they want to assume this burden of
debt for a program that has more to do with profiteering
and accelerated development of rural landscapes than
with farmland preservation.
Pennsylvania owns the dubious distinction of leading
the nation in the number of farms and acres of farmland
protected, about 300,000. But this distinction is
double-edged, because the longer range effect, as
noted earlier, has been to open up more farming
land to development faster than would otherwise
have occurred, but at much higher prices than lower
income folks most in need of affordable housing can pay for it.
Back in 1987, when the $100 million general obligation
bond proposal was placed before the state's voters, it
was aggressively lobbied by farming and other special
interests which would benefit from it. But there was one exception.
In Lancaster County, Donald L. Ranck, a prominent and influential
farmer in Paradise Twp., along with a handful of devoted
supporters, launched a vigorous campaign opposing the bond
issue and the program on grounds that, as formulated, its
long-range effects would adversely impact both farmland
preservation efforts and the interest of taxpayers throughout
the state, without commensurate benefits.
Today, Ranck still actively opposes the relentless expansion
of the program, while advocating reforms which would sustain
the preservation of Pennsylvania's farmland without the
deleterious effects he and others claim it promotes in its
present form, but so far with limited success in the face
of politically powerful development interests.
His proposed reforms would also significantly reduce its
exploitation of taxpayer dollars. Says Ranck: "The best
prevention for farmland development is allowing landowners
to keep their development rights, keep their building rights,
keep their management rights. The worst loss of farmland
occurs next to 'preserved' farms. This is so obvious you
may wonder why the preservation gang can't see it. "We
believe they can, but continue their charade for their
own personal profit. Future generations will curse them
for it!" Rank predicts.
Currently, portions of 3,000-plus farms and mor than 400,000
acres have been preserved statewide through the program.
But the Commonwealth is not keeping track of how much
non-preserved farmland has been lost to development as
a result of the program since its inception nearly two
decades ago.
Nor is it letting it be widely known how
many hundreds of millions of dollars, now approching
$1 billion, millions of state and national taxpayers
have paid for the disproportionate benefit of a very few.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Area State Legislators: Should House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese step down over bonusgate scandal?
In an earlier post last week I noted that I had sent e-mails
to the five state House members - three Democrats and two
Republicans - who represent this area whether they would
publicly call for Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, to
step down as majority leader for his role in the current
bonusgate scandal now being investigated by the state
attorney general (See August 25, Erie Times-News columnist
trumps newsroom).
So far, ten of DeWeese's fellow House Democrats downstate
have called for him to step down.
Here's the question I posed to area legislators:
As you know, your House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese was
not one of the eight legislators, all Democrats, indicted
recently by the Grand Jury investigating the so-called
Bonusgate scandal.
However, that investigation by the state attorney general's
office is continuing, and it's a virtual certainty that
others will be implicated.
So far, ten of your Democrat colleagues in the House of
Representatives have asked Rep. DeWeese to step down
as majority leader even though he wasn't indicted because
he is/was very close to some of the principals who
have been, and because this scandal occured, so to speak,
"on his watch."
It's generally believed that it is inconceivable Rep. DeWeese
did now know about the bonus gate activities in which case
he is culpable by association; or, if he didn't, he's an
incompetent leader.
Can you tell me whether you believe Rep. DeWeese should
step down as majority leader or,as one of your House
Democrat colleagues has suggested, resign from the
legislature and abort his reelection campaign?
RESPONSES
Of the five area state legislators, three have responded
to my question. They are Reps. Pat Harkins (D), Rep. John Evans (R)
and Rep. Curt Sonney (R). Reps. Flo Fabrizio and John Hornaman,
both Democrats, have not responded.
Here's Rep. Evans's response:
Dear Mr. LaRocca
"As a Republican member of the House, I do not have a vote for
Democratic leadership positions. Only members of the Democratic
Caucus have the ability to address the viability of Rep. DeWeese's
leadership. Thank you for your concern regarding this matter.
John Evans
In a subsequent response,Rep. Evans added these comments:
Dear Mr. LaRocca,
Perhaps there is a reason that only Democrats are calling
for him to step down. They elected him as their leader.
Your question would be a different story if you were
talking about our Republican leader Sam Smith, as I
voted for him to be the Republican leader. It makes
no difference what any Republican thinks about removing
Deweese as leader since we can do bsolutely nothing about
his leadership status. I hope this addresses your
question.
John Evans
Here's my response:
Dear Rep. Evans,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You may have a point.
However, I believe the point you're missing is the role
of legislator as a filter of information for his and her
constituents.
Legislators are our eyes and ears in Harrisburg.
Especially in light of the fact that here in Erie
County the only daily newspaper covering all or
most of three key counties does not staff the
legislature or central state government in Harrisburg
from the Northwest PA perspective.
Whether or not there is sorely needed legislative reform
going forward depends upon whether the mass of public
opinion is behind it. That will only happen if you and your
colleagues inform the public of the critical need for reform
(about which I'll have more to say to you later)in light of
the corruption which the attorney general has uncovered,
with still more to come, perhaps implicating some Republicans.
If you and your colleagues remain silent on the issues
and feed me and the public coordinated responses that
don't address them realistically, there's nothing to
launch and sustain reform. Fortunately, ten Democrat legislators
downstate have not taken that position.
Joe LaRocca
Here's Rep. Sonney's response:
"Thank you for your website submission from Aug. 8th. As a
Republican I'm sure that Rep. DeWeese could care less about
my thoughts on him stepping down. You asked if I believe if
he should step down from his leadership role? Absolutely!
As you mentioned in your email, it happened "on his watch"
therefore, he should be held responsible for the actions of
his caucus' members and staff. Furthermore, you asked if he
should end his re-election campaign, fortunately we live in a
great country that allows the people of his district to decide
who will represent them in Government. I would hope that the
good citizens that he currently represents will not send him
back to Harrisburg."
Here's Rep. Harkins's response:
Mr. Larocca,
Thank you for your interest in Mr. DeWeese.
I have been working on a number of issues in my district
the past month(Education, Healthcare, Property Tax
Reform) that not being in Harrisburg I have not had the
chance to talk to the rest of the Democratic Caucus
to see what is actually going on. What do you think I
should do?
Pat Harkins
In response to Rep. Harkins's question to me above,
"What do you think I should do?" I replied as follows:
Dear Rep. Harkins
As I indicated, Rep. DeWeese has not been indicted for an
alleged crime, so this is not a case of presumption of innocence.
The question is whether Rep. DeWeese knew what was going on with
respect to bonus gate, even if he wasn't a participant, which
he may have been.
If he did know or participated, he's complicit. If, as
he says, he didn't, then he's an incompetent leader.
That's an issue for his House followers to judge. In
either case, I believe he should step down. Apparently,
at least ten of your Democrat colleagues agree.
I personally believe Rep. DeWeese is complicit based on
eveything I've read, including his own published statements
in one or all of the state's four major newspapers: the
Harrisburg Patriot News, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the
Philadelphia Inquirer and the Allentown Call (Forget the
Erie Times-News. They're clueless).
I don't see how House Democrats can claim any credibility
going forward if DeWeese remains in the caucus leadership
in any capacity. Democrat credibility may not be salvageable
in any case, depending upon what happens with the ongoing
investigation.
My experience is that corruption is contagious, doesn't
respect political boundaries, and it's possible
that some Republicans may be implicated, in which case
the entire House's credibility is at stake. Unless those
presumably like you who were not implicated make a vigorous
and transparent effort to clean House, so to speak, its
future looks even more dismal.
As can be seen, all three legislators who responded
to my query danced around the question.So I again posed the
question: This time Rep. Harkins replied:
Joe, as I said before I have not been in Harrisburg to speak with the
rest of the Democratic Caucus or Rep. DeWeese. We have nine session days
scheduled for the fall session and the election is on Nov. 4th. and if
the voters in his district feel they want to vote him out that is their
prerogative.
If the man has not been indicted or convicted of a crime I
have no reason to ask him to resign. I am as frustrated as you that only
Democrats have been indicted in this probe and the more I see the more I
suspect that there is a political motive involved here. After the
November 4th. election we Democratic House members will meet to
reorganize and at that time we will see who would be best to lead our
caucus. If this is a political ploy to weaken the Democrats in November
I am very concerned with who might try to lead the Republicans and serve
as speaker of the House. Stay tuned!
Rep. Pat Harkins
I responded:
Dear Rep. Harkins:
Thanks for your amplification. I believe the test of whether
it's a political ploy depends enirely on whether the attorney
general finds that some Republicans are implicated. As I said
earlier, I believe large scale corruption such as this is
contagious and crosses party lines.I will be very surprised,
as well as suspicious, like you, if some Republicans are not
implicated.
I don't understand why you feel you need to consult with
the other members of your caucus. This is a matter of
individual conscience. Apparently ten members of your
caucus downstate individually believe he should step down
as majority leader and have publicly said so.
You say that "if the voters in his district feel they want
to vote him out that is their prerogative." However, regardless
of whether Rep. DeWeese is indicted and/or convicted of a crime(s), his
failure of leadership, which is undeniable, greatly transcends
his district and has both statewide and national impications
because of the adverse effect bonusgate has had in corrupting
Pennsylvania's treasury and electoral processes.
Your constituents and the constituents of every other legislator
outside DeWeese's district have a compelling stake in whether he
continues to wield leadership power statewide.
Sincerely,
Joe LaRocca
to the five state House members - three Democrats and two
Republicans - who represent this area whether they would
publicly call for Rep. Bill DeWeese, D-Greene County, to
step down as majority leader for his role in the current
bonusgate scandal now being investigated by the state
attorney general (See August 25, Erie Times-News columnist
trumps newsroom).
So far, ten of DeWeese's fellow House Democrats downstate
have called for him to step down.
Here's the question I posed to area legislators:
As you know, your House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese was
not one of the eight legislators, all Democrats, indicted
recently by the Grand Jury investigating the so-called
Bonusgate scandal.
However, that investigation by the state attorney general's
office is continuing, and it's a virtual certainty that
others will be implicated.
So far, ten of your Democrat colleagues in the House of
Representatives have asked Rep. DeWeese to step down
as majority leader even though he wasn't indicted because
he is/was very close to some of the principals who
have been, and because this scandal occured, so to speak,
"on his watch."
It's generally believed that it is inconceivable Rep. DeWeese
did now know about the bonus gate activities in which case
he is culpable by association; or, if he didn't, he's an
incompetent leader.
Can you tell me whether you believe Rep. DeWeese should
step down as majority leader or,as one of your House
Democrat colleagues has suggested, resign from the
legislature and abort his reelection campaign?
RESPONSES
Of the five area state legislators, three have responded
to my question. They are Reps. Pat Harkins (D), Rep. John Evans (R)
and Rep. Curt Sonney (R). Reps. Flo Fabrizio and John Hornaman,
both Democrats, have not responded.
Here's Rep. Evans's response:
Dear Mr. LaRocca
"As a Republican member of the House, I do not have a vote for
Democratic leadership positions. Only members of the Democratic
Caucus have the ability to address the viability of Rep. DeWeese's
leadership. Thank you for your concern regarding this matter.
John Evans
In a subsequent response,Rep. Evans added these comments:
Dear Mr. LaRocca,
Perhaps there is a reason that only Democrats are calling
for him to step down. They elected him as their leader.
Your question would be a different story if you were
talking about our Republican leader Sam Smith, as I
voted for him to be the Republican leader. It makes
no difference what any Republican thinks about removing
Deweese as leader since we can do bsolutely nothing about
his leadership status. I hope this addresses your
question.
John Evans
Here's my response:
Dear Rep. Evans,
Thanks for your thoughtful response. You may have a point.
However, I believe the point you're missing is the role
of legislator as a filter of information for his and her
constituents.
Legislators are our eyes and ears in Harrisburg.
Especially in light of the fact that here in Erie
County the only daily newspaper covering all or
most of three key counties does not staff the
legislature or central state government in Harrisburg
from the Northwest PA perspective.
Whether or not there is sorely needed legislative reform
going forward depends upon whether the mass of public
opinion is behind it. That will only happen if you and your
colleagues inform the public of the critical need for reform
(about which I'll have more to say to you later)in light of
the corruption which the attorney general has uncovered,
with still more to come, perhaps implicating some Republicans.
If you and your colleagues remain silent on the issues
and feed me and the public coordinated responses that
don't address them realistically, there's nothing to
launch and sustain reform. Fortunately, ten Democrat legislators
downstate have not taken that position.
Joe LaRocca
Here's Rep. Sonney's response:
"Thank you for your website submission from Aug. 8th. As a
Republican I'm sure that Rep. DeWeese could care less about
my thoughts on him stepping down. You asked if I believe if
he should step down from his leadership role? Absolutely!
As you mentioned in your email, it happened "on his watch"
therefore, he should be held responsible for the actions of
his caucus' members and staff. Furthermore, you asked if he
should end his re-election campaign, fortunately we live in a
great country that allows the people of his district to decide
who will represent them in Government. I would hope that the
good citizens that he currently represents will not send him
back to Harrisburg."
Here's Rep. Harkins's response:
Mr. Larocca,
Thank you for your interest in Mr. DeWeese.
I have been working on a number of issues in my district
the past month(Education, Healthcare, Property Tax
Reform) that not being in Harrisburg I have not had the
chance to talk to the rest of the Democratic Caucus
to see what is actually going on. What do you think I
should do?
Pat Harkins
In response to Rep. Harkins's question to me above,
"What do you think I should do?" I replied as follows:
Dear Rep. Harkins
As I indicated, Rep. DeWeese has not been indicted for an
alleged crime, so this is not a case of presumption of innocence.
The question is whether Rep. DeWeese knew what was going on with
respect to bonus gate, even if he wasn't a participant, which
he may have been.
If he did know or participated, he's complicit. If, as
he says, he didn't, then he's an incompetent leader.
That's an issue for his House followers to judge. In
either case, I believe he should step down. Apparently,
at least ten of your Democrat colleagues agree.
I personally believe Rep. DeWeese is complicit based on
eveything I've read, including his own published statements
in one or all of the state's four major newspapers: the
Harrisburg Patriot News, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the
Philadelphia Inquirer and the Allentown Call (Forget the
Erie Times-News. They're clueless).
I don't see how House Democrats can claim any credibility
going forward if DeWeese remains in the caucus leadership
in any capacity. Democrat credibility may not be salvageable
in any case, depending upon what happens with the ongoing
investigation.
My experience is that corruption is contagious, doesn't
respect political boundaries, and it's possible
that some Republicans may be implicated, in which case
the entire House's credibility is at stake. Unless those
presumably like you who were not implicated make a vigorous
and transparent effort to clean House, so to speak, its
future looks even more dismal.
As can be seen, all three legislators who responded
to my query danced around the question.So I again posed the
question: This time Rep. Harkins replied:
Joe, as I said before I have not been in Harrisburg to speak with the
rest of the Democratic Caucus or Rep. DeWeese. We have nine session days
scheduled for the fall session and the election is on Nov. 4th. and if
the voters in his district feel they want to vote him out that is their
prerogative.
If the man has not been indicted or convicted of a crime I
have no reason to ask him to resign. I am as frustrated as you that only
Democrats have been indicted in this probe and the more I see the more I
suspect that there is a political motive involved here. After the
November 4th. election we Democratic House members will meet to
reorganize and at that time we will see who would be best to lead our
caucus. If this is a political ploy to weaken the Democrats in November
I am very concerned with who might try to lead the Republicans and serve
as speaker of the House. Stay tuned!
Rep. Pat Harkins
I responded:
Dear Rep. Harkins:
Thanks for your amplification. I believe the test of whether
it's a political ploy depends enirely on whether the attorney
general finds that some Republicans are implicated. As I said
earlier, I believe large scale corruption such as this is
contagious and crosses party lines.I will be very surprised,
as well as suspicious, like you, if some Republicans are not
implicated.
I don't understand why you feel you need to consult with
the other members of your caucus. This is a matter of
individual conscience. Apparently ten members of your
caucus downstate individually believe he should step down
as majority leader and have publicly said so.
You say that "if the voters in his district feel they want
to vote him out that is their prerogative." However, regardless
of whether Rep. DeWeese is indicted and/or convicted of a crime(s), his
failure of leadership, which is undeniable, greatly transcends
his district and has both statewide and national impications
because of the adverse effect bonusgate has had in corrupting
Pennsylvania's treasury and electoral processes.
Your constituents and the constituents of every other legislator
outside DeWeese's district have a compelling stake in whether he
continues to wield leadership power statewide.
Sincerely,
Joe LaRocca
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Special prosecutor in legislative corruption scandal unwarranted
The Associated Press reported Monday that the Democratic nominee
for Pennsylvania state attorney general, John Morganelli, has
called for appointment of a special prosecutor to take over the
legislative corruption investigation launched by the incumbent
AG Tom Corbett a Republican. Morganelli is currently district
attorney in Northhampton county.
So far in the wide-ranging investigation. a grand jury has indicted
eight sitting legislators, one former legislator and three staff
members linked to them, all Democrats. Corbett has publicly stated
that the investation is on-going, that Republican legislators and
staff are also targets, and that more arrests are pending.
It was reported last week by the Harrisburg Patriot-News that Corbett
has begun interviewing Republican legislative staff as part of
the on-going investigation.
Although Corbett bungled the felony case against former State Rep.
Linda Bebko-Jones, D-Erie, recently who plea bargained down
charges that she forged signatures on her reelection petition
see August 25 post, Justice perverted), it would be a huge mistake to
hand over his ongoing investigation on legislative corruption
to a special investigator.
As pointed out in the AP article, that would require reenactment
of an expired law authorizing appointment of a special prosecutor.
More importantly, it would effectively put the investigation of
legislative corruption into the hands of the legislature,
currently controlled by Democrats. The result would be the
fox guarding the chicken coop.
While Republican Corbett has so far failed to produce any information
linking fellow Republicans in the legislature to the biggest legislative
corruption scandal in the commonwealth's history as promised, unless
and until there's credible eveidence that Corbett's not being evenhanded,
he should be free to pursue the investigation unfettered.
for Pennsylvania state attorney general, John Morganelli, has
called for appointment of a special prosecutor to take over the
legislative corruption investigation launched by the incumbent
AG Tom Corbett a Republican. Morganelli is currently district
attorney in Northhampton county.
So far in the wide-ranging investigation. a grand jury has indicted
eight sitting legislators, one former legislator and three staff
members linked to them, all Democrats. Corbett has publicly stated
that the investation is on-going, that Republican legislators and
staff are also targets, and that more arrests are pending.
It was reported last week by the Harrisburg Patriot-News that Corbett
has begun interviewing Republican legislative staff as part of
the on-going investigation.
Although Corbett bungled the felony case against former State Rep.
Linda Bebko-Jones, D-Erie, recently who plea bargained down
charges that she forged signatures on her reelection petition
see August 25 post, Justice perverted), it would be a huge mistake to
hand over his ongoing investigation on legislative corruption
to a special investigator.
As pointed out in the AP article, that would require reenactment
of an expired law authorizing appointment of a special prosecutor.
More importantly, it would effectively put the investigation of
legislative corruption into the hands of the legislature,
currently controlled by Democrats. The result would be the
fox guarding the chicken coop.
While Republican Corbett has so far failed to produce any information
linking fellow Republicans in the legislature to the biggest legislative
corruption scandal in the commonwealth's history as promised, unless
and until there's credible eveidence that Corbett's not being evenhanded,
he should be free to pursue the investigation unfettered.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
News bias at the New York Times
I sent the following query to David Stout at the
New York Times, whom I knew briefly when I worked
with him at the Erie newspaper back in the 60s. It's
in connection with the New York Times's regular feature,
Talk to the Newsroom, in which designated
Times editors and reporters respond to questions
from readers about their respective roles at the
newspaper, a kind of behind-the-scenes view.
The column was written by Stout over period of several days
a couple weeks ago. His current position at the Times is
"continuing news editor" whereby he rewrites, edits and
updates articles appearing in the Times on a continuing
basis throughout a news cycle. My query and Dave's response follow:
"Q. As an obviously committed and ethical journalist, how
do you deal internally and intellectually as you write and
rewrite news copy, with prevailing criticism from credible
quarters, including some by The Times's public editor, that
The Times has a pronounced liberal or leftist bias, not only
on its editorial and Op-Ed pages, but in its news columns as
well, sometimes on Page One?
— Joe LaRocca, North East, Pa."
"(A) Joe, your question is more complicated. It's true that our
editorial page is known, in general, for a center-to-left
orientation, as opposed to a center-to-right leaning.
"But our Op-Ed page has certainly presented conservative
viewpoints as well, unless I completely misunderstand David
Brooks and William Kristol and, before them, William Safire.
Of course, I expect some readers to distrust me because I
work for The Times — and others to give me the benefit of
the doubt for the same reason. I expect some readers to
see a motive in what I write, or don't write.
"I wrote an article about the execution in Texas of a man who
killed a store manager in a robbery seven years ago. It was
a brief article, in no sense a reconstruction of the case,
and I did not mention the victim's name. Therefore, a reader
told me in an e-mail, I was obviously sympathetic to the killer,
and shame on me and The Times.
"Now, how does one respond to an accusation like that?
Of course, how I see the world — and the news — is influenced
by my life experience. It is not influenced by what I think
the high-ranking editors think I should think. But I know some
people will think otherwise, no matter what. It's part of the job."
I believe Dave responded as candidly as he could under the
circumstances. I believe him when he says his writing "is not
influenced by what I think the high-ranking editors think I
should think. But I know some people will think otherwise, no
matter what. It's part of the job."
But there's a pervasive mind-set at the Times which subtley colors
the conscious or sub-conscious zones of its newswriters and editors
to which some of them succumb to one degree or another. As Dave
said, it's a complicated question.
While working in Alaska as a news journalist back in the 70s and 80s,
I was the chief field correspondent for the Times in Alaska for a number of years, writing mostly for its national, business and travel news desks. I knew I had to tailor the stories I wrote for the Times to conform to its ideology or they
wouldn't be published.
Since I had a high rate of publication there despite heavy
competition from staff writers for space in the newspaper,
I must have succeeded in tilting my stories to the Times
editors' satisfaction.
That is,I admit, a form of professional prostitution, and any
newsperson who doesn't acknowledge his or her susceptibility
is a liar.
But I justified it on grounds that if I didn't go with the
Times tilt, none of the reporting and writing I did which I felt
was important for its readers to be exposed to would see the
light of day. Half a loaf is better than none.
Dave's comment pertaining to the New York Times's Op-Ed page
is somewhat of a dodge. I did not say, of course, that the OP-Ed
Page is EXCLUSIVELY liberal or leftist. But David Brooks and
Bill Kristol are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The Op-Ed Page is PREDOMINANTELY liberal, featuring other
leftist writers like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Ebert,
Maureen Dowd, Tom Freidman, Nicholas Kristoff and others. It's a
bias which is unfortunately all too often garishly reflected
on its news as well as its editorial pages.
TheTimes recently took a lot of heat for publishing an Op-Ed article submitted by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, then refused to publish a response by the Republicn nominee John McCain unless he rewrote it to conform to certain guidelines prescribed by the Times.(Sounds like the practices of another smaller, more obscure Times newspaper).
New York Times, whom I knew briefly when I worked
with him at the Erie newspaper back in the 60s. It's
in connection with the New York Times's regular feature,
Talk to the Newsroom, in which designated
Times editors and reporters respond to questions
from readers about their respective roles at the
newspaper, a kind of behind-the-scenes view.
The column was written by Stout over period of several days
a couple weeks ago. His current position at the Times is
"continuing news editor" whereby he rewrites, edits and
updates articles appearing in the Times on a continuing
basis throughout a news cycle. My query and Dave's response follow:
"Q. As an obviously committed and ethical journalist, how
do you deal internally and intellectually as you write and
rewrite news copy, with prevailing criticism from credible
quarters, including some by The Times's public editor, that
The Times has a pronounced liberal or leftist bias, not only
on its editorial and Op-Ed pages, but in its news columns as
well, sometimes on Page One?
— Joe LaRocca, North East, Pa."
"(A) Joe, your question is more complicated. It's true that our
editorial page is known, in general, for a center-to-left
orientation, as opposed to a center-to-right leaning.
"But our Op-Ed page has certainly presented conservative
viewpoints as well, unless I completely misunderstand David
Brooks and William Kristol and, before them, William Safire.
Of course, I expect some readers to distrust me because I
work for The Times — and others to give me the benefit of
the doubt for the same reason. I expect some readers to
see a motive in what I write, or don't write.
"I wrote an article about the execution in Texas of a man who
killed a store manager in a robbery seven years ago. It was
a brief article, in no sense a reconstruction of the case,
and I did not mention the victim's name. Therefore, a reader
told me in an e-mail, I was obviously sympathetic to the killer,
and shame on me and The Times.
"Now, how does one respond to an accusation like that?
Of course, how I see the world — and the news — is influenced
by my life experience. It is not influenced by what I think
the high-ranking editors think I should think. But I know some
people will think otherwise, no matter what. It's part of the job."
I believe Dave responded as candidly as he could under the
circumstances. I believe him when he says his writing "is not
influenced by what I think the high-ranking editors think I
should think. But I know some people will think otherwise, no
matter what. It's part of the job."
But there's a pervasive mind-set at the Times which subtley colors
the conscious or sub-conscious zones of its newswriters and editors
to which some of them succumb to one degree or another. As Dave
said, it's a complicated question.
While working in Alaska as a news journalist back in the 70s and 80s,
I was the chief field correspondent for the Times in Alaska for a number of years, writing mostly for its national, business and travel news desks. I knew I had to tailor the stories I wrote for the Times to conform to its ideology or they
wouldn't be published.
Since I had a high rate of publication there despite heavy
competition from staff writers for space in the newspaper,
I must have succeeded in tilting my stories to the Times
editors' satisfaction.
That is,I admit, a form of professional prostitution, and any
newsperson who doesn't acknowledge his or her susceptibility
is a liar.
But I justified it on grounds that if I didn't go with the
Times tilt, none of the reporting and writing I did which I felt
was important for its readers to be exposed to would see the
light of day. Half a loaf is better than none.
Dave's comment pertaining to the New York Times's Op-Ed page
is somewhat of a dodge. I did not say, of course, that the OP-Ed
Page is EXCLUSIVELY liberal or leftist. But David Brooks and
Bill Kristol are the exceptions that prove the rule.
The Op-Ed Page is PREDOMINANTELY liberal, featuring other
leftist writers like Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Bob Ebert,
Maureen Dowd, Tom Freidman, Nicholas Kristoff and others. It's a
bias which is unfortunately all too often garishly reflected
on its news as well as its editorial pages.
TheTimes recently took a lot of heat for publishing an Op-Ed article submitted by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, then refused to publish a response by the Republicn nominee John McCain unless he rewrote it to conform to certain guidelines prescribed by the Times.(Sounds like the practices of another smaller, more obscure Times newspaper).
Who's picking whom at the Erie Times-News?
Erie Times-News writers, editors and proofeaders need to brush up on who/whom usage. In his column today, Ed Mead wrote:
"Kennedy has always been ready to support the Democratic Party, whatever it does or whomever (SHOULD BE WHOEVER) is running.
In his article today in which he wrote Governor Rendell predicted John McCain would not pick Tom Ridge as his runnning mate, John Guerriero wrote:
"But Horton said it doesn't matter who (SHOULD BE WHOM) McCain picks as his running mate because the Erie delegate said he thinks Obama will win Nov. 4. Many polls now show a close race between Obama and McCain."
Guerriero's article is typical of the one-sided coverage the Times-News has given to the Obama/McCain contest. While it's cleverly nuanced, it's worth incalculable thousands of dollars in political advertising and promotion to the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign, while at the same time detracting from the McCain campaign.
"Kennedy has always been ready to support the Democratic Party, whatever it does or whomever (SHOULD BE WHOEVER) is running.
In his article today in which he wrote Governor Rendell predicted John McCain would not pick Tom Ridge as his runnning mate, John Guerriero wrote:
"But Horton said it doesn't matter who (SHOULD BE WHOM) McCain picks as his running mate because the Erie delegate said he thinks Obama will win Nov. 4. Many polls now show a close race between Obama and McCain."
Guerriero's article is typical of the one-sided coverage the Times-News has given to the Obama/McCain contest. While it's cleverly nuanced, it's worth incalculable thousands of dollars in political advertising and promotion to the Democratic presidential nominee's campaign, while at the same time detracting from the McCain campaign.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Erie Times-News columnist trumps newsroom
It's revealing that a major statewide political story
with potentially profound local implications was broken
locally by a gossip columnist, and underscores the
ineptitude of the Erie Times-News's feeble news department.
Last week Ed (Mathews)Mead broke the news locally that the
prolonged investigation by the state attorney general
has spread from Democrat wrongdoers in the state
legislature to their Republican counterparts, as
promised earlier by the AG.
It comes as no surprise to Pennsylvanians in Pittsburgh,
Harrisburg, Philadelphia and elsewhere throughout the
Commonwealth, as their newspapers had been writing
about this new development several days earlier. But not
a peep from the Times-News until Ed's column last week.
A couple weeks ago I sent e-mails to the five legislators
from the Erie area - three Democrats and two Republicans
- asking them whether they would publicly call for House
Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, a Democrat of Greene County,
to step down from his post.
They are Pat Harkins, Flo Fabrizio, John Hornaman, Democrats;
Curt Sonney and John Evans, Republicans.
Already, ten Democrat legislators from downstate have
pubicly called for DeWeese to resign as majority leader.
While DeWeese is not one of the eight Democrats in the
legislature who have so far been indicted in the wake
of the investigation - with more apparently to come,
including Republicans - the corruption unearthed so
far came under his watch, and betrays, if nothing else,
a failure of leadership. That alone should trigger his
resignation.
It's also virtually inconceivable that DeWeese knew
nothing of the illegal goings-on over the past few
years that funneled more than $1 million of taxpayers'
funds to Democrat election campaigns,and corrupted the
state's electoral process, since it involved other
members of the House leadership, and it's possible
that he may also come under indictment as the
investigation proceeds.
But even if he doesn't - DeWeese is masterful at
covering his tracks - he should be thrown under
the bus by his legislative colleagues for allowing
these alleged crimes to occur under his leadership.
So far, I've received responses to my e-mails only
from one local Democrat and one Republican, Pat
Harkins and Curt Sonney respectively.
One can only surmise from the deafening silence on
the part of the other three that they don't want
to rock the boat because they fear they too may
become implicated as targets in Attorney General
Tom Corbett's deepening investigation. Why else
would they keep mum?
with potentially profound local implications was broken
locally by a gossip columnist, and underscores the
ineptitude of the Erie Times-News's feeble news department.
Last week Ed (Mathews)Mead broke the news locally that the
prolonged investigation by the state attorney general
has spread from Democrat wrongdoers in the state
legislature to their Republican counterparts, as
promised earlier by the AG.
It comes as no surprise to Pennsylvanians in Pittsburgh,
Harrisburg, Philadelphia and elsewhere throughout the
Commonwealth, as their newspapers had been writing
about this new development several days earlier. But not
a peep from the Times-News until Ed's column last week.
A couple weeks ago I sent e-mails to the five legislators
from the Erie area - three Democrats and two Republicans
- asking them whether they would publicly call for House
Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, a Democrat of Greene County,
to step down from his post.
They are Pat Harkins, Flo Fabrizio, John Hornaman, Democrats;
Curt Sonney and John Evans, Republicans.
Already, ten Democrat legislators from downstate have
pubicly called for DeWeese to resign as majority leader.
While DeWeese is not one of the eight Democrats in the
legislature who have so far been indicted in the wake
of the investigation - with more apparently to come,
including Republicans - the corruption unearthed so
far came under his watch, and betrays, if nothing else,
a failure of leadership. That alone should trigger his
resignation.
It's also virtually inconceivable that DeWeese knew
nothing of the illegal goings-on over the past few
years that funneled more than $1 million of taxpayers'
funds to Democrat election campaigns,and corrupted the
state's electoral process, since it involved other
members of the House leadership, and it's possible
that he may also come under indictment as the
investigation proceeds.
But even if he doesn't - DeWeese is masterful at
covering his tracks - he should be thrown under
the bus by his legislative colleagues for allowing
these alleged crimes to occur under his leadership.
So far, I've received responses to my e-mails only
from one local Democrat and one Republican, Pat
Harkins and Curt Sonney respectively.
One can only surmise from the deafening silence on
the part of the other three that they don't want
to rock the boat because they fear they too may
become implicated as targets in Attorney General
Tom Corbett's deepening investigation. Why else
would they keep mum?
Rep. Bebko-Jones case: Justice perverted
In a recent editorial, the Erie Times-News lauded the
state attorney general’s office for its handling of
the case of former State Rep. Linda Bebko-Jones,
who entered into a plea agreement on felony charges
for falsifying signatures on her re-election
petition, noting among other things that Bebko-Jones
has been in poor health since her indictment.
It's a classic case of justice perverted based upon not
what one has done, but whom one knows.
While I feel sorry for Ms. Bebko-Jones's sad dilemma,
there are ample public resources that would have
been available to sustain her medically and
otherwise - like those available to thousands
of her former constituents - had a faceless
bureaucrat in the state attorney general's office
not arbitrarily and irrationally adjudged the
punishment applied under her watered-down plea
bargain "appropriate.”
What the editorial neglected to mention is that
Bebko-Jones also received a lump sum $65,000
severance payment that would otherwise had
been forfeited if the original felony charges
had not been waived under the feckless and
ludricous plea bargain negotiated by her attorney
and the attorney general's office. It also
neglected to mention that she will likewise
retain the extravagant health and medical
benefits legislators have granted unto themselves.
While Bebko-Jones's 14 years as a state legislator
are cited by the editorial in her defense, who
knows what other questionable deeds she may have
perpetrated over the years under the thin cloak of
presumed legislative immunity? Capable of one,
capable of others?
There's no doubt that in going along with the
plea agreement, the state attorney general's
office pandered to the celebrity political
clout reflected upon Bebko-Jones's attorney,
David Ridge, by his famous brother Tom Ridge,
Corbett's fellow star Republican.
Does this mean that Mr. Corbett will also plea
bargain down the felony charges in the indictments
laid against the ten Democrat legislators so far
in the on-going legislative bonus gate scandal,
with more apparently to come, some Republicans
included, so that they too may retain their
plush legislative retirement plans, severance
pay and health benefits?
If not, Mr. Corbett could justifiably be accused
of applying a double standard. With his injudicious
handling of the Bebko-Jones case, the attorney
general has started up - or down, depending upon
one's perspective - what lawyers and judges like
to call "a slippery slope."
Perhaps all the legislators indicted in the bonus
gate scandal should retain David Ridge as their
attorney. (Not to worry, David. I won't demand a
cut of your lucrative fee, if they do).
There's no need to enact new law to govern legislative
corruption cases as suggested by the Times-News editorial.
All that's needed is for the attorney general's office
to enforce rather than eviscerate existing law on a
case by case basis.
state attorney general’s office for its handling of
the case of former State Rep. Linda Bebko-Jones,
who entered into a plea agreement on felony charges
for falsifying signatures on her re-election
petition, noting among other things that Bebko-Jones
has been in poor health since her indictment.
It's a classic case of justice perverted based upon not
what one has done, but whom one knows.
While I feel sorry for Ms. Bebko-Jones's sad dilemma,
there are ample public resources that would have
been available to sustain her medically and
otherwise - like those available to thousands
of her former constituents - had a faceless
bureaucrat in the state attorney general's office
not arbitrarily and irrationally adjudged the
punishment applied under her watered-down plea
bargain "appropriate.”
What the editorial neglected to mention is that
Bebko-Jones also received a lump sum $65,000
severance payment that would otherwise had
been forfeited if the original felony charges
had not been waived under the feckless and
ludricous plea bargain negotiated by her attorney
and the attorney general's office. It also
neglected to mention that she will likewise
retain the extravagant health and medical
benefits legislators have granted unto themselves.
While Bebko-Jones's 14 years as a state legislator
are cited by the editorial in her defense, who
knows what other questionable deeds she may have
perpetrated over the years under the thin cloak of
presumed legislative immunity? Capable of one,
capable of others?
There's no doubt that in going along with the
plea agreement, the state attorney general's
office pandered to the celebrity political
clout reflected upon Bebko-Jones's attorney,
David Ridge, by his famous brother Tom Ridge,
Corbett's fellow star Republican.
Does this mean that Mr. Corbett will also plea
bargain down the felony charges in the indictments
laid against the ten Democrat legislators so far
in the on-going legislative bonus gate scandal,
with more apparently to come, some Republicans
included, so that they too may retain their
plush legislative retirement plans, severance
pay and health benefits?
If not, Mr. Corbett could justifiably be accused
of applying a double standard. With his injudicious
handling of the Bebko-Jones case, the attorney
general has started up - or down, depending upon
one's perspective - what lawyers and judges like
to call "a slippery slope."
Perhaps all the legislators indicted in the bonus
gate scandal should retain David Ridge as their
attorney. (Not to worry, David. I won't demand a
cut of your lucrative fee, if they do).
There's no need to enact new law to govern legislative
corruption cases as suggested by the Times-News editorial.
All that's needed is for the attorney general's office
to enforce rather than eviscerate existing law on a
case by case basis.
Ask not where's the outrage, ask where's the coverage
In an editorial recently, the Erie Times-News asserted
that reform of the Pennsylvania General Assembly's
legislative practices is so "serious" and the
investigation into them by the attorney general is so
"important, but has itself consistently failed to give those
issues the serious coverage they deserve.
The editorial said "The bonus scandal may not
have raised as much outrage yet as the pay raises."
The bonus scandal has diverted millions of taxpayer
dollars to partisan political election campaigns,
illegally kept bona fide third party candidates off
the ballot and thoroughly corrupted Pennsylvania's
statewide electoral process. It's far more outrageous
than the despicable midnight pay raise debacle.
Yet except for a scathing column or two by Pat Howard,
it has received little meaningful coverage by the
Times-News, which accounts for the dearth of public
outrage in this area.
As the only daily newspaper in Pennsylvania's fourth
or fifth largest city, the Times-News has long shirked
its responsibility to staff the legislature and the
governor's office in Harrisburg on a fulltime basis,
relying mainly on anemic AP coverage and occasional
rewrites or pick-ups of other newspaper's articles
for its meager coverage of the state legislature's
and the governor's enormous impact on our daily lives.
Why, for example has Governor Ed Rendell expressed
no outrage over bonusgate or the lack of legislative
reform? Is it because so far only legislators within
his political party have been implicated?
At the very least, The Times-News should make the half
dozen area legislators of both parties within its
coverage area accountable for their actions in
Harrisburg and investigate what role, if any, they
may have played in the bonusgate scandal.
Did they, for example, with their votes or silence,
actively or clandestinely, support the vile decisions
and actions by their leadership - especially by the
unctuous majority Leader Bill DeWeese - which led to
the indictments, with many more to come?
that reform of the Pennsylvania General Assembly's
legislative practices is so "serious" and the
investigation into them by the attorney general is so
"important, but has itself consistently failed to give those
issues the serious coverage they deserve.
The editorial said "The bonus scandal may not
have raised as much outrage yet as the pay raises."
The bonus scandal has diverted millions of taxpayer
dollars to partisan political election campaigns,
illegally kept bona fide third party candidates off
the ballot and thoroughly corrupted Pennsylvania's
statewide electoral process. It's far more outrageous
than the despicable midnight pay raise debacle.
Yet except for a scathing column or two by Pat Howard,
it has received little meaningful coverage by the
Times-News, which accounts for the dearth of public
outrage in this area.
As the only daily newspaper in Pennsylvania's fourth
or fifth largest city, the Times-News has long shirked
its responsibility to staff the legislature and the
governor's office in Harrisburg on a fulltime basis,
relying mainly on anemic AP coverage and occasional
rewrites or pick-ups of other newspaper's articles
for its meager coverage of the state legislature's
and the governor's enormous impact on our daily lives.
Why, for example has Governor Ed Rendell expressed
no outrage over bonusgate or the lack of legislative
reform? Is it because so far only legislators within
his political party have been implicated?
At the very least, The Times-News should make the half
dozen area legislators of both parties within its
coverage area accountable for their actions in
Harrisburg and investigate what role, if any, they
may have played in the bonusgate scandal.
Did they, for example, with their votes or silence,
actively or clandestinely, support the vile decisions
and actions by their leadership - especially by the
unctuous majority Leader Bill DeWeese - which led to
the indictments, with many more to come?
Sunday, August 24, 2008
THE UNFAIR AND UNBALANCED ERIE TIMES-NEWS
I recently wrote three letters to the editor of the Erie Times-News.
The first one follows:
"Washington Post Columnist David Broder exhibited a classic
affirmation of the heralded mainstream media bias in favor
of Barack Obama and against John McCain in his latest column
(August 12)which purports to be a balanced assessment of
their respective views on their presidential
campaigns based upon Broder's interviews of both.
“There are several ways to measure this bias, but let's
take the simplest:Direct quotes by Obama: More than
200 words. Direct quotes by McCain,about 60 words.
“Then Broder drives home Obama's final quote in the
penultimate sentence by stating in the last sentence:
"I think everybody would agree to that last
point." I for one don't.
“In addition, Broder erroneously attributes a racial
slur to McCain which actually originated with Obama
when he famously said recently thatMcCain's supporters
would call attention to the Democrat's unusual name
and the fact that 'he is black,' when in fact it was
Obama who invented that slur.”
The "fair and blanced" Times-News's left wing
editorial page editor refused to publish my letter.
Then on August 2, the Times-News published a
letter to the editor bashing syndicated columnist
Charles Krauthammer, calling him, among other
derogatory names, "a partisan hack" because he
presumed to criticize Democratic presidential
nominee Barack Obama.
The letter bore a headline applied by the editor
which read "Krauthammer unprincipaled,"
an adjective which had not been contained in
the text of the letter.
The highly regarded Krauthammer, who is generally
considered a conservative, is a member of the
Washington Post Writers' Group. His
column regularly appears on the Op-Ed page of
the Erie Times-News. He is one of only two
syndicated columnist the Times-News carries
regularly who has received a Pulitzer Prize
for Journalism.
On August 4, in response, I sent a letter to the editor
praising Krauthammer for his column published in
the Times-News that day as follows:
"Once again Charles Krauthammer has demonstrated he's
the most intelligent and insightful pundit around.
(Ecology argument on oil won’t hold, August 4,2006).
His elegant writing style, his uncommon grasp and
marshalling of elusive and pertinent facts into
a synergistic whole leading to an inescapable and
irrefutable conclusion all contribute to making him
the nation's most credible political scribe. He's
neither liberal nor conservative. Just a first
rate thinker and writer who always hits the nail
squarely on the head."
The "fair and balanced " Times-News's far left
editorial page editor refused to publish the letter.
Then on August 11, the Times-News published
another letter to the editor trashing Krauthammer.
Again I sent in a letter lauding him. Again
the "fair and balanced" Times-News's extreme
left wing editorial page editor refused to
publish it.
Apparently, the left wing doesn't know what the
right wing is doing.
The first one follows:
"Washington Post Columnist David Broder exhibited a classic
affirmation of the heralded mainstream media bias in favor
of Barack Obama and against John McCain in his latest column
(August 12)which purports to be a balanced assessment of
their respective views on their presidential
campaigns based upon Broder's interviews of both.
“There are several ways to measure this bias, but let's
take the simplest:Direct quotes by Obama: More than
200 words. Direct quotes by McCain,about 60 words.
“Then Broder drives home Obama's final quote in the
penultimate sentence by stating in the last sentence:
"I think everybody would agree to that last
point." I for one don't.
“In addition, Broder erroneously attributes a racial
slur to McCain which actually originated with Obama
when he famously said recently thatMcCain's supporters
would call attention to the Democrat's unusual name
and the fact that 'he is black,' when in fact it was
Obama who invented that slur.”
The "fair and blanced" Times-News's left wing
editorial page editor refused to publish my letter.
Then on August 2, the Times-News published a
letter to the editor bashing syndicated columnist
Charles Krauthammer, calling him, among other
derogatory names, "a partisan hack" because he
presumed to criticize Democratic presidential
nominee Barack Obama.
The letter bore a headline applied by the editor
which read "Krauthammer unprincipaled,"
an adjective which had not been contained in
the text of the letter.
The highly regarded Krauthammer, who is generally
considered a conservative, is a member of the
Washington Post Writers' Group. His
column regularly appears on the Op-Ed page of
the Erie Times-News. He is one of only two
syndicated columnist the Times-News carries
regularly who has received a Pulitzer Prize
for Journalism.
On August 4, in response, I sent a letter to the editor
praising Krauthammer for his column published in
the Times-News that day as follows:
"Once again Charles Krauthammer has demonstrated he's
the most intelligent and insightful pundit around.
(Ecology argument on oil won’t hold, August 4,2006).
His elegant writing style, his uncommon grasp and
marshalling of elusive and pertinent facts into
a synergistic whole leading to an inescapable and
irrefutable conclusion all contribute to making him
the nation's most credible political scribe. He's
neither liberal nor conservative. Just a first
rate thinker and writer who always hits the nail
squarely on the head."
The "fair and balanced " Times-News's far left
editorial page editor refused to publish the letter.
Then on August 11, the Times-News published
another letter to the editor trashing Krauthammer.
Again I sent in a letter lauding him. Again
the "fair and balanced" Times-News's extreme
left wing editorial page editor refused to
publish it.
Apparently, the left wing doesn't know what the
right wing is doing.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
"HUBBERT'S PEAK OIL" THESIS IS DEEPLY FLAWED
“For several years now, the conventional wisdom has subscribed to a theory called "peak oil," which stands for the proposition that at some point the availability of petroleum reserves reached a peak in the United States and began irreversibly dwindling.
The theory was first advanced by a book entitled Hubbert's Peak, whose central premise holds that U.S. domestic petroleum supplies peaked in 1970. But it's deeply flawed by a major factual error.
The author failed to take into account the fact that how much producible oil remains within domestic oil provinces depends entirely upon the going market price for oil. For example, at $100 per barrel, much more oil is producible than at $50. Pick your figures.
On Alaska's North Slope, both onshore and offshore, more than 14 billion barrels of oil have been produced since its inception in 1977, flowing at rates ranging between about 1 million and 2 million barrels per day. Nearby is a deposit of what is known as 'heavy oil,' not unlike the Athabasca tar sands in northwestern Canada, which exploratory drilling has shown contains an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil.
However, because of reservoir dynamics, these reserves are not economically producible at today's market prices for oil, but will eventually be producible at some higher figure depending upon demand.
There are scores of unexplored areas throughout the U.S. both onshore and offshore in state oceanic waters up to the three-mile limit and between three and 12 miles in federal waters overlying the outer continental shelf. Billions of barrels of oil may underlie the tundra in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as well as the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.
Neither Mr. Hubbert, nor anyone, can know when or where more oil may be found until all these prospective areas are identified. In short, Mr. Hubbert has presumed to identify and quantify a natural resource, which is unidentifiable and unquantifiable without further exploration activities.
Thus, his central premise is nonsensical. Mr. Hubbert's research is formidable, but his mind set has led him to the wrong conclusions. This same rationale applies to his similarly erroneous thesis regarding global 'peak oil.'
The theory was first advanced by a book entitled Hubbert's Peak, whose central premise holds that U.S. domestic petroleum supplies peaked in 1970. But it's deeply flawed by a major factual error.
The author failed to take into account the fact that how much producible oil remains within domestic oil provinces depends entirely upon the going market price for oil. For example, at $100 per barrel, much more oil is producible than at $50. Pick your figures.
On Alaska's North Slope, both onshore and offshore, more than 14 billion barrels of oil have been produced since its inception in 1977, flowing at rates ranging between about 1 million and 2 million barrels per day. Nearby is a deposit of what is known as 'heavy oil,' not unlike the Athabasca tar sands in northwestern Canada, which exploratory drilling has shown contains an estimated 20 billion barrels of oil.
However, because of reservoir dynamics, these reserves are not economically producible at today's market prices for oil, but will eventually be producible at some higher figure depending upon demand.
There are scores of unexplored areas throughout the U.S. both onshore and offshore in state oceanic waters up to the three-mile limit and between three and 12 miles in federal waters overlying the outer continental shelf. Billions of barrels of oil may underlie the tundra in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as well as the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska.
Neither Mr. Hubbert, nor anyone, can know when or where more oil may be found until all these prospective areas are identified. In short, Mr. Hubbert has presumed to identify and quantify a natural resource, which is unidentifiable and unquantifiable without further exploration activities.
Thus, his central premise is nonsensical. Mr. Hubbert's research is formidable, but his mind set has led him to the wrong conclusions. This same rationale applies to his similarly erroneous thesis regarding global 'peak oil.'
Friday, August 22, 2008
Ex-Governor Tom Ridge's hidden legacy emerges from the shadows
The long-standing love affair which a majority of Pennsylvanians
have had with former Governor Tom Ridge is likely to come to a
screeching halt for many of them in the next couple years.
That’s when one of Ridge’s hidden gubernatorial legacies, a ticking
time bomb, emerges after two decades from the shadows.
A product of the law of unintended consequences, it’s the impending
reversal of the deregulation of electrical rates throughout the
commonwealth which Ridge sponsored and championed as governor in the
mid-1990s.
The return to unregulated electricity rates will complete the triple
whammy of energy consumer cost explosions, and exacerbate the
adverse economic impact which has followed the dramatic increases in
gasoline and heating fuels over the past year.
Depending upon location within the state, electric rates are
expected to jump anywhere from 12 percent to 72 percent in 2010 and
2011, with a statewide average of more than 40 percent.
That’s when the rate caps imposed by the Electricity Generation
Customer Choice and Competition Act - signed into law by Ridge in
1996 after a robust campaign promoting it - will expire.
The catalyst for the concerns about a forthcoming crisis in the
skyrocketing consumer cost of electricity is a study recently
released by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC).
It found that if the rate caps were to come off today, electric
rates in Pennsylvania would rise virtually overnight by an average of 43
percent, and impose a calamitous burden on home, commercial and
industry users.
The spike in electric prices is expected to be highest in the western
part of the state, where they look to rise by as much as 67 percent
in Allegheny County, and 50 percent in northwestern Pa., according to
the PUC study.
Some experts believe impending deregulation will precipitate a mass
exodus of industry and commerce from Pennsylvania, cause thousands
of small businesses throughout the commonwealth to fail, result in
massive unemployment, and further impoverish low income residents,
all of which the 1996 deregulation act was designed,
over-optimistically as it turns out, to forestall.
After the fall, the act will allow electricity producers to charge
rates based upon their costs of production and delivery.
Previously, they could not recover those costs through proportional
rate increases because of the ceiling placed on rates by the 1996
act, signed by Ridge after a high visibility promotional campaign.
But with the caps due to come off at staggered intervals throughout
the state in 2010 and 2011, electricity producers will be able to
charge rates which putatively reflect their costs of acquiring the
fuels needed to generate electricity – primarily oil, natural gas
and coal. Those costs have risen exponentially since the electric
rate caps were first applied in 1997.
Normally, the powerful electricity-producing lobby would have been
able to thwart passage of legislation in 1996 regulating and
putting caps on electrical rates. But what gave deregulation its
impetus in the mid-90s was a disarming Faustian bargain between the
popular Ridge administration and the general assembly on one hand,
and the electric industry on the other, the unintended consequences
of which are only now beginning to appear.
It provided that in exchange for acquiescing to rate caps, the
industry would be allowed by the state through the PUC to bill and
recover from consumers the costs of constructing new electrical
generating plants, a practice previously disallowed.
Ridge’s rationale centered on the theory that lower electrical rates
than those in other states would attract new industry to
Pennsylvania, produce tens of thousand of new jobs, and give rank
and file Pennsylvania users more affordable electricity.
In the first years following deregulation, Pennsylvania surpassed
other states in electrical rate-lowering, ranking first in the
nation. In a February 7, 2001 press release Ridge said: “Once again
we were named the No. 1 state for electric deregulation. Why? We
have plenty of juice…we’re plugged in. Customers have greater
choices. And consumers and businesses have saved $3 billion. So if
any companies in California are listening,” Ridge gloated, “come on
over to Pennsylvania. We’ll leave the lights on for you.” Ridge said
at the time deregulation “will create more than 36,000 new jobs in
Pennsylvania by 2004.” That never happened.
Ridge’s theory was based on the optimistic premise that the capped
rates would bring new electric-producing competitors into the state
and lower rates overall through wider competition. The flaw in the
theory was that it self-destructed.
Newcomers couldn’t compete in Pennsylvania with the big existing
producers. Even with the rate caps, existing producers were able to
generate healthy profits since deregulation went into effect 20
years ago because of the absence of new competition.
With the unshackling of the rate caps two years hence, they will
make a killing of unprecedented proportions at the expense of
consumers unless the legislature and the PUC enact and devise
remedies to interdict them against what is expected to be a
powerful lobbying effort by the industry to make sure the rate caps
disappear forever.
How is retribution exacted from a former governor whose failed
vision 20 years after the fact results in punitive consequences on
an unprecedented scale for his onetime constituents?
By elevating him, apparently, to one of the nation’s leading
cabinet level positions and, possibly, to the second-highest office
in the land.
have had with former Governor Tom Ridge is likely to come to a
screeching halt for many of them in the next couple years.
That’s when one of Ridge’s hidden gubernatorial legacies, a ticking
time bomb, emerges after two decades from the shadows.
A product of the law of unintended consequences, it’s the impending
reversal of the deregulation of electrical rates throughout the
commonwealth which Ridge sponsored and championed as governor in the
mid-1990s.
The return to unregulated electricity rates will complete the triple
whammy of energy consumer cost explosions, and exacerbate the
adverse economic impact which has followed the dramatic increases in
gasoline and heating fuels over the past year.
Depending upon location within the state, electric rates are
expected to jump anywhere from 12 percent to 72 percent in 2010 and
2011, with a statewide average of more than 40 percent.
That’s when the rate caps imposed by the Electricity Generation
Customer Choice and Competition Act - signed into law by Ridge in
1996 after a robust campaign promoting it - will expire.
The catalyst for the concerns about a forthcoming crisis in the
skyrocketing consumer cost of electricity is a study recently
released by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC).
It found that if the rate caps were to come off today, electric
rates in Pennsylvania would rise virtually overnight by an average of 43
percent, and impose a calamitous burden on home, commercial and
industry users.
The spike in electric prices is expected to be highest in the western
part of the state, where they look to rise by as much as 67 percent
in Allegheny County, and 50 percent in northwestern Pa., according to
the PUC study.
Some experts believe impending deregulation will precipitate a mass
exodus of industry and commerce from Pennsylvania, cause thousands
of small businesses throughout the commonwealth to fail, result in
massive unemployment, and further impoverish low income residents,
all of which the 1996 deregulation act was designed,
over-optimistically as it turns out, to forestall.
After the fall, the act will allow electricity producers to charge
rates based upon their costs of production and delivery.
Previously, they could not recover those costs through proportional
rate increases because of the ceiling placed on rates by the 1996
act, signed by Ridge after a high visibility promotional campaign.
But with the caps due to come off at staggered intervals throughout
the state in 2010 and 2011, electricity producers will be able to
charge rates which putatively reflect their costs of acquiring the
fuels needed to generate electricity – primarily oil, natural gas
and coal. Those costs have risen exponentially since the electric
rate caps were first applied in 1997.
Normally, the powerful electricity-producing lobby would have been
able to thwart passage of legislation in 1996 regulating and
putting caps on electrical rates. But what gave deregulation its
impetus in the mid-90s was a disarming Faustian bargain between the
popular Ridge administration and the general assembly on one hand,
and the electric industry on the other, the unintended consequences
of which are only now beginning to appear.
It provided that in exchange for acquiescing to rate caps, the
industry would be allowed by the state through the PUC to bill and
recover from consumers the costs of constructing new electrical
generating plants, a practice previously disallowed.
Ridge’s rationale centered on the theory that lower electrical rates
than those in other states would attract new industry to
Pennsylvania, produce tens of thousand of new jobs, and give rank
and file Pennsylvania users more affordable electricity.
In the first years following deregulation, Pennsylvania surpassed
other states in electrical rate-lowering, ranking first in the
nation. In a February 7, 2001 press release Ridge said: “Once again
we were named the No. 1 state for electric deregulation. Why? We
have plenty of juice…we’re plugged in. Customers have greater
choices. And consumers and businesses have saved $3 billion. So if
any companies in California are listening,” Ridge gloated, “come on
over to Pennsylvania. We’ll leave the lights on for you.” Ridge said
at the time deregulation “will create more than 36,000 new jobs in
Pennsylvania by 2004.” That never happened.
Ridge’s theory was based on the optimistic premise that the capped
rates would bring new electric-producing competitors into the state
and lower rates overall through wider competition. The flaw in the
theory was that it self-destructed.
Newcomers couldn’t compete in Pennsylvania with the big existing
producers. Even with the rate caps, existing producers were able to
generate healthy profits since deregulation went into effect 20
years ago because of the absence of new competition.
With the unshackling of the rate caps two years hence, they will
make a killing of unprecedented proportions at the expense of
consumers unless the legislature and the PUC enact and devise
remedies to interdict them against what is expected to be a
powerful lobbying effort by the industry to make sure the rate caps
disappear forever.
How is retribution exacted from a former governor whose failed
vision 20 years after the fact results in punitive consequences on
an unprecedented scale for his onetime constituents?
By elevating him, apparently, to one of the nation’s leading
cabinet level positions and, possibly, to the second-highest office
in the land.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
