Wednesday, June 28, 2006

MEDIA

To quote Don Imus' ironic prediction of his own doom. "My goal is to goad people into saying something that ruins their life, " Imus said.From both consuming the media and listening to some reporters privately, I think that this attitude is becoming much more prevalent in the media than it used to be, but is far from universal and far from being the majority sentiment. The vast majority of reporters, I am convinced, are primarily interested in getting relevant information out for the benefit or entertainment of their readers.

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=35625

*

Next to New Hampshire, Pennsylvania is probably the most conservative blue state in America. A strong right wing media presence--led by Richard Mellon Scaife, a major funder of just about every group of economic conservatives in America and the publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, a Bible of Pennsylvania conservative politics--has created an unrepresentative echo chamber of conservative ideas in what ought to be a state with a consistent liberal and centrist majority.

The Capitol Press corps in Harrisburg is a product of this conservatism. To the best of my knowledge, no African-American, or person of Asian or Latino descent, has been a Capitol correspondent for a daily Pennsylvania newspaper, radio, or television station for nearly 30 years. If any signifucant number of existing Capitol reporters have voted for a Democratic Presidential nominee, those persons have done an excellent job in keeping it--and the values that could produce such a vote--a secret.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:GjYYJdbaHO4J:state-rep-mark-cohen-dem-pa.dailykos.com/main/2+%22daily+kos%22+mark+cohen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

*

As one who occasionally helps colleagues with speeches, and who had speechwriting duties as a U.S. Senate intern years ago, I am not sure where this line of inquiry is leading.

Ultimately, it is the duty of whoever speaks words, or allows written words to carry one's name, to stand behind the words that will be attributed to oneself. A Ted Kennedy or John Kerry speech written by Robert Shrum is still a Ted Kennedy or John Kerry speech.

I guess the issue here is whether fraud is involved. If Jesse Malkin is in fact the main author of Michele Malkin's works, does this mean he is fraudulently allowing his words to come from the mouth of an Asian American woman? Is this this arrangement the equivalent of a white owned construction business pretending to be minority owned to fit in under affirmative action guidelines?

In other words, should the byline sometimes read by Jesse Malkin? Or should the byline always read by Michele and Jess Malkin?

Or should we merely recognize that popular figures have more demands for words by them than they can fulfill, and that a large number of words attributed to prominent people are in fact written by others, concepts of authenticity to the contrary?

These are sometimes troubling issues, and they show why letters in a famous person's own handwriting are so valued as unquestionably the person's own work.

April 4, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Gup7dUlQNqYJ:www.bopnews.com/archives/003121.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=350

*

The fairness doctrine helped reinforce a politics of moderation and inclusiveness. The collapse of the fairness doctrine and its corollary rules blurred the distinctions between news, political advocacy, and political advertising, and helped lead to the polarizing cacophony of strident talking heads that we have today.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:Gz9kVhLBEbUJ:longburn.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_longburn_archive.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=454

*

I strongly agree with you that liberal media are virtually non-existent. What we have are some media--like the Inquirer and Daily News--which give some coverage to a few liberal positions and some endorsements to a few liberal politicians. But we virtually never have any mass media--not counting specialized publications such as The Nation that clearly target the liberal audience--that devote themselves evangelistically to promoting a wide range of liberal causes and candidates.

June 3, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=259765#post259765

*

The problem with Knight Ridder ownership has been that it has no real stake in the region. It sees neighborhoods as markets, citizens as consumers, businesses as potential advertisers, and the city of Philadelphia and its residents as targets to attack for the edification and enjoyment of its suburban readers. As a result of this depersonalized approach, both the Inquirer and Daily News have suffered extremely low market shares compared to newspapers in many other cities.Under the leadership of people such as John Knight and Eugene Roberts, the Philadelphia Inquirer was in the 1970's and early 1980's at the forefront of American journalism. Under today's leadership and its immediate predessessors, it has sunk into mediocrity and ever-increasing negativity.There is value in having a newspaper owned by people with a history in our region and a future in our region. We do not need the neutrality of nihilism or the objectivity of those whose dominant feelings are anger, envy and hopelessness. Climbing a bureaucratic ladder--as Knight Ridder editors have, by definition, excelled in doing, is not necessarily a very high form of human achievement. The Knight Ridder bureacracy has seemed to excel in expelling those with visions of excellence in favor of time servers and nitpickers.I look forward to a Tierney/Toll era at the Inquirer. While I would have preferred Democratic ownership, I think an honest Republican allegiance is preferable to the editorial posturings, evasions, and duplicities that we now have. This area is overwhelmingly Democratic, and Republican strongholds are harder than ever to find. I have a degree of faith that the public will be able to hold any new locally based leadership to standards of fairness easier than it can dealing with a far-away corporate headquarters.

May 24, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=254213#post254213

*

Numerous media boycotts have been announced over the years, for both extreme media negativity and for perceived media bias. Both newspaper circulation (except for free newspapers) and television news viewership continue to hit new lows every year. An awful lot of people are fed up with what passes for news, and this trend shows no sign of slowing down.I would urge those concerned about excessive coverage of violence to write to offending media outlets, and encourage others to do so. Announce public meetings on the subject, and send out press releases on your meetings and your letters. Set up one or more websites and blogs on the subject. Get across the point that distorted perceptions of reality adversely affect the quality of life in the Delaware Valley. Meet with alternative media sources that woiuld be sympathetic with your point of view to encourage them to publicize your concerns.A boycott probably would be more effective if it is the culmination of a long attempt at persuasion rather the beginning of such an attempt. It's difficult to escalate if you have already launched your most dangerous weapon, and its difficult to maintain serious public interest if your most dangerous weapon has proven to be ineffective.

May 15, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=250257#post250257

FRENCH WINE BAN

Having successfully led opposition in the Pennsylvania legislature to efforts to ban the sale of French wine in Pennsylvania, and then having successfully defended my actions on the O’Reilly Factor on May 8, 2003, (”You might have convinced me,” O’Reilly told me)I am glad to see the anti-French hysteria has waned and the France bashers have generally gone on to other things. I am one of many Americans who will be working to cure whatever ill effects of French bashing remain for many year to come. Our common history has produced too much good for it to be destroyed for narrow partisan political reasons.

December 24, 2003

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:7slWai5pWlwJ:paxnortona.notfrisco2.com/%3Fp%3D1084+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=337

*

The American people understood that France was an independent country which had been helpful to the U.S. at key times in important ways, and Americans simply did not believe either in restricting their own consumer rights or in politicizing trade with other countries

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:vWv4dyHrNeAJ:francoamericanrelations.quickseek.com/+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=427

*

ARTS

The Barnes is coming to Philadelphia, and far more residents of Montgomery County will see its exhibits in downtown Philadelphia than would see it if it stays in Lower Merion. One would never know this the way some folks talk, but Philadelphia and Montgomery County (which was a part of Philadelphia County for the first hundred years or so of Pennsylvania history) are not foreign countries.The simple fact is that far more residents of Montgomery County are going to see the Barnes exhiibits if they are in Philadelphia than they would if they remain in Lower Merion. A good chunk of Montgomery County is in Philadelphia every month, probably a far higher chunk than is in Lower Merion every month.

October 14, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=25582

*

If I am elected to Congress, I will work to increase the federal budget for the arts, just as I have successfully done in Pennsylvania.

October 30, 2003

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CXUd0LCxmm0J:www.leanleft.com/archives/2003/02/20/1017/+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=327

*

PARKS

Judge John Herron's decision preserving Burholme Park in its totality for future generations despite massive political pressure on the other side is a great victory for community interests.Sixty years ago, Temple University tried to take over Hunting Park for its own purposes, and was defeated by the resistance of the Fairmount Park Commission. Temple's presence in Philadelphia is far, far larger now than it was then, but Hunting Park remains. Temple's experience followed that of the University of Pennsylvania, which failed to take over a city park about 100 years ago, and is perhaps now 100 times as large as it was then.Judge Herron, a former prosecutor whose reputation as a reformer allowed him to be elected on a reform slate backed by Governor Robert P. Casey in 1987, spent nine days generally long days, in the courtroom hearing detailed testimony on the case.One witness to the proceedings told me that Herron was so thorughly prepared that he knew the facts of the case and the law relevant to the case better than the well-prepared and vigorous lawyers on either side.This decision is victory for all the many scores of thousands of people who visit Burholme Park on a regular basis, including me and my family. It is a victory for those Friends of Burholme Park activists who refused to be discouraged, such as Tim Kearney, Fred Maurer, Jean Gavin, and Paul Canty and for attorney Sam Stretton and his associates.I especially like Judge Herron's statement, quoted by the Inquirer, to the effect that the park adds value to living in the city of Philadelphia for many Philadelphians. He is absolutely right about that: nearness to parks of substantial size is a stabilizing factor for the city of Philadelphia, which increases city revenues from real estate taxes and real estate transfer taxes. To cut the size of Burholme Park would be a real negative for the future of its surrounding and nearby neighborhoods.There is plenty of available space in Philadelphia for Fox Chase Cancer Center to expand. I like the idea of former Rep. George Kenney of using the land at Byberry; there also may be suitable land in around my district in or near the Cardone company complex on the old Sears on the Boulveard distribution center headquarters. Had the Fox Chase Cancer Center been willing to consider alternatives earlier, they could have had what is now the very large property owned by a Toyota dealership on Cottman Avenue.I believe that the Fox Chase Cancer Center should be working immediately on its expansion plans, should forego prolongation of the controversy, and drop its appeal. Appellate courts in Pennsylvania are bound by Judge Herron's finding of the facts; all they are allowed to reverse is his finding of the law relevant to the facts. His thorough preparation and extraordinary judicial craftsmanship makes any reversal of his decision highly unlikely.

December 9, 2008

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/architecture-urban-planning/71394-save-burholme-park-3.html#post953560

*

More statues are hardly the top priority for an underfunded park system.The park needs more money for maintenance, planting, recreational and environmental facilities.The statues are all or virtually all funded and maintained by donations. It is unlikely that the Hunting Park site is high up on anybody's radar screen for donations.

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=36227

*

I agree with many of the details of the strategic plan, and especially the view that what is needed is strong public and private leadership to put together the pieces of public and private policies that will determine the Park's future. Closely allied with leadership is the question of money, a question which the Plan skirts. The City appropriated $11 million for the Park in 1970 under Mayor James Tate--which, adjusted for inflation, is about $50 million in today's money. But the City in 2004 only appropriated $14 million. This is an unexplained shortfall that should be carefully investigated and reversed to the degree possible. Second, there should be an aggressive plan to get more funds from the Pennsylvania and federal governments as well. And all funds that the park helps raise stay in the park--we have to move towards this goal over time. Certainly, there is no shortage of maintenance problems for park commissioners to focus on. And there is no shortage of bold steps--such as the luring of the Barnes Museum to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that represents the Commission's most recent landmark success--either. But public advocacy--and advocacy to relevant funders at state, federal, and private sector levels--is a vital key. With strong leadership from the Park Commission members, top staffers, and the wonderful welter of advocacy and improvement groups that have sprung up around the Park, the Park can build upon its past successes and achieve new levels of greatness.

May 15, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:MI83FCzz2tUJ:www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ppall/blog/comments.jsp%3Fblog_entry_KEY%3D20735%26t%3D+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=287

*

Yes, Pete McPhillips, Burholme Park is in Perzel's district. That fact alone--to say nothing of his position as Speaker of the House--gives him some leverage in this this matter. Formally, it is a decision of the Fairmount Park Commission and the City of Philadelphia, both of which support this decision.This is far from the first time that there has been a proposal to take land from Fairmount Park for other purposes. Both Benjamin Franklin Parkway and the Schuylkill Expressway were built on what was then part of Fairmount Park, as was the Art Museum. (The Fairmount Park Commission still maintains a substantial degree of control over the Benjamin Franklin Parkway).In the early 1940's, then State Representative James H.J. Tate--later Mayor of Philadelphia from February, 1962 through the early days of January, 1972--led the successful opposition to Temple University's takeover of Hunting Park, something hundreds of thousands of Hunting Park users over the years should be grateful for. So therefore Temple built all along Broad Street, taking over one piece of land at a time.Currently, LaSalle University has won permission to eventually take over a park at Ogontz and Lindley Avenues; one of Councilman David Cohen's last official acts was to oppose this. As Philadelphia land becomes more valuable, there may well be other plans to raid both Fairmount Park and the considerable number of other parks under the direct control of the Philadelphia Department of Recreation.The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a state park in Northeast Philadelphia--Benjamin Rush State Park. I held up approval of a plan to put what is now the Delaware Valley Veterans Home there until the geographical description of the land was corrected, agreement was reached on what land would be substituted, and agreement was reached that if the state ever gave up on getting the necessary federal approval for the Delaward Valley Veterans Home, then the land would revert back to the Benjamin Rush State Park.I had leverage in this decision--which ultimately resulted in a decision that pleased both advocates for veterans and state parks--because state legislative approval was required. No state action is required for Burholme Park to give up land to the Fox Chase Cancer Center.

May 28, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256891#post256891

*

I agree that the Fox Chase Cancer Center should find other ways to expand than by taking over part of Burholme Park. I have made clear my opposition to the takeover. I was a featured speaker yesterday in the dedication of an historical marker commemorating the long history of the Whitaker Mills textile plant complex, and the generous decision of the heirs of the Whitaker family to donate the land to the Fairmount Park system.Fairmount Park should be gaining land over time, not losing it. Parkland should not be considered a landbank except in extraordinary circumstances.But I am not on the Fairmount Park Commission, nor am in City Council, nor do I either represent the Burholme Park area or does my district even even border the Burholme Park area, although it is close to Burholme Park.One of the leaders of the movement to maintain the full size of Burholme Park is Tim Kearney. Kearney is, for the second consecutive time, the Democratic nominee against House Speaker John Perzel, who does represent Burholme Park. A Kearney victory--or even a Kearney close race--would send a very clear message that Northeast Philadelphia voters want Burholme Park to be maintained as it.Kearney also agrees, as do I, about the general economic points you are making. His victory--or even strong showing--would send a real message to state legislators in Harrisburg that they should be more proactive in trying to create meaningful economic benefits for the average citizen.

May 28, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256774#post256774

*

Northwood is a wonderful neighborhood, and I was sorry that the 2001 Legislative Reapportionment Plan had to take it away from my district as part of the decennial redrawing of district lines because of population changes.I last visited the Northwood Park when I went with many other family friends and relatives to console Flora Becker, Judge Becker's widow, last Wednesday night. The park is small but beautiful, and it adds to the general perception of Northwood as a beautiful urban oasis. Walking down Judge Becker's block, I saw anew the many positive qualities of Northwood that kept him living in the modest house in which he grew up for his entire life.Changing the name of Northwood Park would be a blow to the strong neighborhood identity that exists there. Naming it after a police officer who was killed in the line of duty would only reinforce the fear of crime and lead to more flight from the neighborhood. Other ways to remember the dedicated and conscientious Officer Skerski would be much more appropriate.

May 26, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256519#post256519

*

The problem with the Logan Triangle land is that it is not totally impossible to build there. It is just extremely expensive. There is no reason for any business or residential developer to pay a heavy premium to build there. But the fact that it is barely possible under extremely limited circumstances to build there has inhibited recreational development. Philadelphia hates to close the door on the potential for new tax ratables.What makes the most sense to me, as I have argued in another post, is to have the city lease the land to the Fairmount Park Commission for a 99 year period at $1 a year, with the right to get it back with substantial notice, say five years. The day might well come when development of Broad Street is such that the land becomes extremely valuable for private investment, but many of us are unlikely to live to see that day.Any substantial building there--a recreation center no less than houses or businesses--is in great structural danger without a massive financial investment. I think it makes much more sense to have an extension of Hunting Park there, which could include various various recrational activities that enhance living in the surrounding neighborhoods.

May 25, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256141#post256141

*

Neither 16th and Stenton (West Oak Lane) or the empty land caused by the removal of the sinking homes (Logan) are in Olney. Olney is the area close to (SURPRISE!) Olney Avenue, both to the east and the west of it. All neighborhood boundaries are vague and in the eye of the beholder, but 16th and Stenton and the Logan sinking homes are clearly out of the Olney area.In a sense, it would be great if it was totally impossible to build there. Then the focus would be on competing plans for a park (we could easily extend the nearby Hunting Park) and an urban farm. The urban farm idea might not cost the city anything, but the park would be far more useful to every day life.The problem is that, with enough investment to strengthen the foundations, commercial buildings could be built there. Similarly, if one was one going to build $500,000 houses there, one could spend enough money for strong foundations to cover the basic instability of the land.The rub is obvious: there is no good reason at the current time to build anything there. The neighborhood as it now stands is simply not attractive to people who want to invest large sums of money in either commercial space or housing. Nor is there any likelihood of imminent change.So, barring some deep-pocket suitor, i.e. Temple (which has no reason to want to build anything there either), what makes the most sense to me is a 99 year lease at $1 a year to the Fairmount Park Commission, which the city could cancel with, say, five years advance notice. Some day that land could well be valuable for other purposes, but in the meantime neighbors could use the land for constructive recreational pursuits.

May 20, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=253281#post253281

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES

One of the most consistently radical unions in America is the United Electrical Workers, which left the CIO over 50 years ago in a McCarthy-era dispute.The United Electrical Workers has long taken the position that no union leader should be paid more than the highest paid worker. The result of this principled position is the vast majority of their union leaders leave to take jobs elsewhere and the union leadership experiences gained with the United Electrical Workers are ultimately applied to the benefit of other unions (and sometimes corporations) which pay considerably higher salaries.The argument that salaries of public sector workers can never be raised because others are suffering is so widespread that public sector unionism has become nearly universal in an age in which private sector unionism is down to 8% of the total. The only reason that the federal government does not have collective bargaining for its workers is that Congress passed a law against it.It is not the low income workers who pay the vast majority of taxes. Pennsylvania exempts low income people from the state income tax, and thanks to legislation pushed through by my father, Councilman David Cohen, the City of Philadelphia will do likewise after the Street Administration ends.Next to the public sector, the largest concentration of union workers is now in the non-profit sector, where the same arguments are raised against higher salaries as in the public sector. Community Legal Services, the United Way, and many other non-profits have unionized professional and non-professional employees because those who devote their lives to improving the welfare of those who need help most are victimized by appeals that they can't in good conscience get salaries at or near their market value as long as others are suffering.It is the goal of right-wing business leaders to drive down the income of the middle class in the direction of the income of the poor. That should not be the goal of progressives.It is the goal of right-wing business to dumb down the public sector by depriving it of experienced leaders. That should not be the goal of progressives either.Those who believe that the Medicaid cuts should be restored should organize on that basis. Conflating Medicaid cut restoration--a $250,000,000 cost--with salary increases for legislators, judges, and district attorneys--a $5,000,000 cost--is a diversion from solving the underlying problems affecting low income people.

July 5, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sY2Thxvoej4J:youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/07/kudos-to-john-street.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=257

JUDICIAL SELECTION

The danger of so-call "merit selection" is that it leads to a system of unaccountable executive power in which the case of Bush v. Gore, where the U.S. Supreme Court stopped a recount which likely would have led to a Gore Presidency, becomes the standard judicial operating procedure.Let's be clear: "merit selection" is the equivalent of turning the management and complete control of the henhouses over to the foxes. "Merit selection" has no inherent standard other than approval of the dominant power structure. Only in rare circumstances is there any objective comparison of the qualifications of would-be judges under "merit" selection. Instead, nebulous praise is offered for the most sellable characteristics of whoever the "merit" appointee is. New Jersey, one of the states in clear contention for being the most corrupt in the nation, has long had "merit selection" for its judges."Merit selection" keeps the public out of the process. Having the public as part of the process is a safeguard. Taking the public out of the process is a regressive step backwards.To the best of my knowledge, there has not been a single study objectively comparing the quality of judges produced under "merit selection" with the quality of judges produced by popular election. The improvement in quality has always been assumed, and therefore not a fit subject of actual investigation.Recent press accounts of the efforts of Arlen Specter to secure a third Circuit nomination for Carolyn Short, a former aide of Specter's whose legal website advertised her aggressive defense of corporate leaders accused of sexual harassment before she resigned to join Specter's office, focused on the fact that Short was married to Joseph Torsella, a Democratic candidate for Congress in 2004. They could have mentioned also that her late father Robert Short was once Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.That she was married to a recent Democratic Congressional candidate disqualified Short for the 3rd Circuit according to inside sources familiar with the federal decision-making. So Specter has apparently worked out a deal whereby Short will replace Judge Pratter on the Pennsylvania district court when Pratter is confirmed for the 3rd Circuit. Short's campaign contributions to Specter and Rick Santorum were approvingly noted by the Evening Bulletin.If there were genuine concern about merit, every leader of the Bar Association in Pennsylvania would be calling press conferences to denounce this situation. In the real world, however, we see absolute silence from the legal establishment. Public opinion polls of the legal profession nationally have found the legal profession to be about 65% to 70% Democratic in party affiliation. But the federal courts are now over 85% Republcan. Republican Party affiliation and activity is key to "merit" as long as we have a Republican President, and the reverse would be true if we had a Democratic President.Strong partisan Democrats occasionally quote Harry Truman: "I always vote for the better candidate. That's the Democrat." This kind of partisanship is the essence of the federal judicial selection process. It serves as a stern warning for those who idealistically believe that "merit selection" offers a genuine improvement in quality of judges.

October 16, 2007

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/politics/45354-system-unaccountable-executive-power-danger.html#post601745

*

The fact is that the Governor is the most important official in state government. He has tremendous powers over appointments, the implementation of laws, and the granting of contracts.All a governor has to do with a merit selection panel is to make certain that it includes among its recommendations those people the governor wants to appoint. It does not really matter who else the panel recommends or who sits on the panel.Just about any governor just any time can get just about any panel to recommend the people he wants to appoint among a large of people. I know this a wild coincidence, but each governor has disproportionately found merit appointees among those who supported his gubernatorial candidacy. Unless there is some meaningful definition of merit, merit basically translates into support for the Governor demonstrated by the nominee or his key backers. This is similar to the federal definition of merit that has long prevailed, with support for the President the key criterion for the vast majority of appointments.

September 14, 2007

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=577287#post577287

*

The essence of judicial reform is the taking away of power from the citizenry and the turning of power now in the hands of the public at large to whoever is Governor of Pennsylvania and whoever the key backers of whoever is Governor are.I have personally known Governors Milton Shapp, Dick Thornburgh, Bob Casey, Tom Ridge, Mark Schweiker, and Ed Rendell and Acting Governor Mark Singel. They are all fine men. Four out of the seven of them are lawyers. But none of them are omniscient. All of them have disproportionately found the qualities of merit in the ranks of their supporters when it came time to make appointments.I do not like the auction-like qualities of some judicial (and other) elections. Nor do I like gubernatorial administrations being dominated by large campaign contributors or fundraisers. In the worst case circumstance, if I have a choice between having judges decided by who spends the most money in judicial elections and between who raises and/or contributes the most money to a governor's campaign, I would prefer the former.There is nothing magical about either elections or appointments. But elections give the public a say in who their judges are, and that fact alone serves to screen out extremists and create a significant public debate about who the best judges are. There is no similar public debate, for instance, when it comes time to filling vacancies for unelected administrative law judges in workers compensation, public utility regulation, environmental law, or other areas of state government.

September 13, 2007

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=576241#post576241

*

Investigative reporting has been sorely lacking in comparing the chances of public interest attorneys, plaintiffs' attorneys, union attorneys and corporate attorneys of gaining seats on the federal bench -- or in examining the client and prior law firm base of judges who have ruled that gun manufacturers have no liability to families of murder victims; that tobacco companies have no liability to families of cancer victims; that the scope of permissible affirmative-action programs should be steadily reduced.

Advocates of “merit selection” hew to the line that merit is to be determined by the nebulous criterion of reputation rather than by objective measurable criteria. They do not seek civil service tests or advanced legal degrees or even extra hours of continuing legal education to measure legal knowledge, or any specific measure of legal scholarship, or any specific measure of experience, objectivity or character. They believe that the definition of merit varies from individual to individual, from case to case, from day to day.

A system of elections in which all citizens have the right to participate is more likely to serve public interests than a system in which participation is limited to economic, legal and political elites.

March, 1998

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wv&vol=fall99%5C26653c&invol=1

*

I hope anybody who is hurt by a narrow loss on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will remember the great victory of defeating a progressive centrist judge on the basis of his expense vouchers. Many thousands of individual Pennsylvania citizens--perhaps even millions of Pennsylvania citizens--will suffer financial losses far greater than Nigro's expense vouchers as a result of his loss.As a result of his loss, the weaker financial party will be disadvantaged in areas ranging from divorce to governmental benefits to individual dealings with corporations and governmental agencies. It ain't about expense vouchers, folks. It's about whether you want a Democratic Supreme Court and all the policy which that imnplies or an all Republican Supreme Court by 2020 as Republicans probe for weaknesses in Ralph Cappy and Max Baer in future elections.The attitude of "I am for the Democrat as long as there is nothing he or she can be attacked on" is the attitude that is the most effective form of Republican propaganda yet devised. If a Democrat is alive, there is something he or she can be attacked on.In California, Democrats had the sense to know that empowering right-wing Republicans is not a good idea. Some day, hopefully soon, Pennsylvania Democrats may reach the same conclusion. If we don't, we are doomed to be an insignificant minority in Pennsylvania despite our voter registration lead, and our core constituency will suffer greatly.

November 10, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ag8RK7lYcOcJ:aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-we-dont-want-your-firstborn.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=310

*

HATE CRIMES

Hate crimes deserve to be taken even more seriously than ordinary crimes because they victimize all they threaten as well as all they directly harm.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:syoQCmmmnK0J:www.theamancioproject.org/About_Hate.htm+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=191

ISRAEL

Racism claims superiority, while Zionism merely claims difference. Racism seeks the persecution of long powerless groups, while Zionism seeks to protect the members of a group long persecuted. Racism seeks to degrade its victims, while Zionism seeks to protect those who have been victims. The U.N. was right to repeal its discredited resolution.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:CF8g39vxyksJ:rchaimqoton.blogspot.com/2006/04/reactions-to-zionism.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=410

*

AIPAC plays valuable roles in expanding the pro-Israel communities in the United States, and in putting them in touch with those who influence the direction of American foreign policy. AIPAC is a diverse, broad-based organization which seeks to synthesize the views of its backers with objective information to pursue the advocacy of policies that benefit both the United States and Israel. No organization can better articulate the American interests in a strong U.S.-Israel military alliance than AIPAC can.

http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/American_Israel_Public_Affairs_Committee_-_Supporters/id/608067

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

"The cumulative effect of the Bakke, Grutter, and Bollinger cases is that no one has a legal right to have any demographic characteristic they possess be considered a favorable point on their behalf, but an employer has a right to take into account the goals of the organization and the interests of American society in making decisions. This is a moderate, inclusive position that ably balances the various legal interests involved."

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:CRPZnWpmP8kJ:www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Affirmative_action+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=170

*

NEIGHBORHOODS

I believe that communities are renewable year after year, generation after generation. But people are hurt because they know too little about what has gone before them, and in many cases they know too little about what has gone after them.Neighborhoods represent our past, present, and future. The very poetic Rennaissance scholar, Yale President, and Commissioner of Baseball A. Bartlett Giamatti described city life as an agreement where people who are not related to each other act as though they are. That describes my experience in every neighborhood in which I have lived, and is a reason to prefer a life where you can get to know your neighbors well to one where you are walled off in some moat-like enclave.There is an awful lot of expressions of doom and gloom here... I do not wish to minimize the serious problems that Philadelphia faces, but I do think there is a lot of untapped energy, resources, and good will in our city, and we have a lot more potential than we used to have to be a lot better off in the future than we are now.

June 10, 2007

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=506466#post506466

*

Mayoral candidates should be champions of our neighborhoods, and investments therein. The sixpack of current Democratic mayoral prospects (Jonathan Saidel of Northeast Philadelphia should be added to the above list) is a collection of strong leaders, some or all of whom will have a continuing influence on city government for years to come even if they lose.The center city boom sends various messages. Government investment in developing regional attractions in neighborhoods works. It benefits the neighborhoods as well as the city as a whole. It leverages private investment. It gives people a reason not only to stay, but to help attract friends, family members, and coworkers to join them.The deindustrialization of Philadelphia clearly has negative effects in terms of loss of taxes and people. But, by freeing up considerable amounts of land, it offers the chance to have a Philadelphia with far more shopping, parking, parkland, housing, and tourist attractions. The Fairmount Park system was established to limit what was seen as the negative effects of industrialization in the 1800's, and we are clearly seeing a boom capitalizing on the deindustralization of the late 1900's and the 21st Century.Maintaining the industry we have and attracting more--while maintaining the positive effects of deindustrialization in terms of neighborhood livability--is a balancing act that mayoral candidates and other Philadelphia leaders should be addressing.All candidates should be asked to answer questions such "Why Should People Live in Philadelphia When They Could Live Anywhere Else?" That is the key question we have to understand and become conversant in. The old reasons-- needing to having the vast majority of the city free from racial minorities, having a lot of rediculously low-priced housing, of having systems of religious education that were numerically competitive with the public school system, having large families whose lives were all interwoven with each other, not knowing how to drive, etc.--apply to a lower and lower percentage of the population today.What Philadelphia needs are accurate and compelling rationales for making one's life here. This is a matter of developing new realities more than new marketing strategies. This is a matter of being able to see the future clearly, and being able to act competently and vigorously on the basis of what we see.

June 27, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=20378

*

New stadiums in center city would have cost city taxpayers a lot more money than the stadiums cost in South Philadelphia. There would have been substantial land acquisition costs, plus the need for a greatly expanded transportation infrastructure to match the transportation infrastructure long in effect near the sports complex.Even though Governor Tom Ridge sold the state aid for the stadiums to the legislature on the premise that one-third would be paid for by the state, one-third by the city, and one-third by the teams, the city of Philadelphia wound up paying for a majority of the costs. The city share could have easily hit 75% to 80% with a center city location, which would have greatly limited the city's ability to make further wage-tax cuts.The Olympic Committee is not alone in liking the vast amount of empty space used as parking space around the stadiums. You will recall that it was the Wachovia Center in the sports complex--not the Convention Center--that was the site of the 2000 Republican National Convention for precisely the same reasons. The Convention Center was relegated to auxiliary roles for the Republican National Convention because its lack of outside empty space made it less valuable for those running the Convention.Furthermore, the magnet that is center city has to keep growing in the public mind if the city of Philadelphia is to reverse its long-term population decline. The concept of center city Philadelphia continues to expand into North Philadelphia, Fishtown, Bridesburg, and South Philadelphia. I am running into more and more professionals who are choosing to move into South Philadelphia: this is a good thing. The sports complex, the rebuilt Navy Yard, riverfront condos, the spread of high quality restaurants, charter schools, and many other factors are increasingly sending the message that the South Philadelphia of the 21st Century will be much more of a magnet for successful people than was the South Philadelphia of the 19th and 20th Centuries.

June 27, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=272654#post272654

*

We are seeing more than the upward mobility which has always caused some people to move out of whatever neighborhoods they have grown up in or started a family in.What we are also seeing is widespread economic underachievement due to a lack of adequate economic opportunity, and a growing downward mobility from people who cannot meet the lifestyle of their parents or cannot sustain the early momentum of a good record in school or a good start in the workforce.One can always find similarities with the past in any set of current problems. But some of what the Brookings Institute reports is genuinely new and deeply disturbing.

June 25, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=271454#post271454

*

Neighbors have problems with LaSalle students too. A former landlord at what was then named Ogontz Manor--now it is called The Manor--once told me that he preferred to rent to community folk instead of college students because the community folk did a better job maintaining the apartments and were less noisy.President Bush kept reporters at bay in the 2000 Presidential campaign with his now-famous statement that "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Bush's young and irresponsible phase lasted well into his thirties, and undergraduates are generally in the 17 to 23 year old range.College administrators everywhere could improve community relations by giving college kids help in maintaining apartments and homes, from advice on cleaning, to recommendations on who to call for services, to strong admonitions against late-night noisy parties, especially on weekdays. Helping college kids grow up would win community support and reduce the adversarial relationships that too often exist.

June 11, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=264061#post264061

*

I have had enough contact with Tacony elected officials and community leaders to believe that Tacony has a very good leadership team of people with vision and competence and dedicated to the welfare and future of the community.I would hope that the owner of the Tacony gym would get the place fixed up so that the community can continue its rise to becoming one of the most attractive neighborhoods in the city.

June 11, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=264057#post264057

*

The idea of suburban paradise certainly is a mainstay of American culture, a--of equal importance--major stimulus to the real estate industry. Many people are sold on the idea of buying a starter home and then gradually making further home purchases until one arrives in the most exclusive neighborhood possible.This has not always been the way home purchases have been been seen. My father deserves a footnote in the history of American real estate development because as a young lawyer he write a highly regarded law review article (with Albert B. Gerber) urging federal courts to get rid of the "after-acquired property" doctrine under which people could only borrow based on currently assets and not on the basis of projected future earnings. The New Deal federal courts ultimately followed this advice from him and many others, and in doing so greatly expanded the opportunities for home ownership across America, including suburban development and the dramatic expansion of Northeast Philadelphia.Before the after acquired property doctrine--originally a conservative response to the perceived radicalism of Andrew Jackson--was repealed in the 1940's, less than a third of all Americans owned their own homes. Today over two thirds of all Americans own their own homes. This fact alone indicates a massive change in the social fabric.Yet, David Cohen paradoxically was a believer that neighborhoods were communities, and that neighborhood residents were community members. Contrary to the view of one of his contemporaries--who told me he was moving because "the community is moving and I want to go with them"--he believed that a housing purchase should indicate at least a long-term commitment to a neighborhood if not a life-time commitment, and that community membership was forever renewable with each new member moving in.So deep was his belief that housing indicated neighborhood commitment that he was barely aware of other perspectives. I once made the unremarkable observation that many people see housing primarily as a consumer purchase, and he discussed this with me and others for weeks afterwards.Philadelphia is certainly competing with suburbs every day. New housing in Philadelphia is helpful for us, but we have to both improve our neighborhoods and document their strengths must more than we have. And we have to undermine the belief that a high-quality neighborhood is established by the lack of members of racial minorities. We need more objective criteria than that to have any chance at all of being truly competitive.

June 4, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=259942#post259942

*

A few years ago, my brother served as head of the Overbrook Farms Club, a civic organization dedicated to betterment of that community. As a result of his activism, I got to meet many leaders of the Overbrook Farms community at various events that he hosted.I am very impressed by the time so many put into various community improvement projects, from improving the local park to studying the architecture and history of local houses. This is clearly a bunch of can-do people, who already have a significant record of community achievement.Of course, many problems remain. But I cannot help but be optimistic that the people of the community include in their ranks many who are more than equal to the problems. I feel that Overbrook Farms is certainly a community that deserves consideration in residential home-buying decisions.

May 28, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256829#post256829

*

When the Northeast Branch of the YMCA closed, many people in Northeast Philadelphia were horrified. They worked to set up a new organization for the same facility, and obtained a large amount of state funds to keep things going. Stan Cohen (no relation to me) is the Executive Director, and by all accounts he has done a good job.By tapping state government as a major funding source, the Northeast Community Center laid the basis to appeal to various foundations and corporations as well. Dues and fees thus make up a lower percentage of the costs than at many other facilities due to the extensive fundraising, and the costs there should be lower.There has been no talk of the NE Community Center closing, so clearly it is doing OK from a financial point of view. Nor has the NE Times or News Gleaner, to the best of my knowledge, published any attacks on the services offered by the facility. Nor has any constituent offered any complaints to me about it. I have had a couple of occasions to visit the facility, and everything looked fine.

May 25, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=255931#post255931

*

Last year, in the last few days of the legislative session, the General Assembly considered HB 1954 amending the First Class City Home Rule Act. The original intent of the Legislation was to give the city the power to update fines and fees in the city that were limited by state statute. There was no opposition to the bill.

However at the last minute, the state Senate inserted an amendment that looked innocuous a first glance, giving the City Council the power to appeal zoning board decisions in court. The bill passed in the closing hours of the session.

We now know that the amendment was inserted at the behest of the billboard industry. And we now know that the amendment’s intent was to seriously restrict the rights of citizens and neighborhood groups to challenge the rulings of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. We now know that it was intended to cripple ongoing citizen efforts to have the city’s zoning ordinances enforced fairly and uniformly in every neighborhood in the city. We now know that the amendment was intended to reverse the success neighborhood groups are having when they challenge overreaching variances granted by the ZBA.

The amendment created a –quote-- “aggrieved person” who is permitted to appeal decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The language further stated that a “aggrieved person” specifically—and I quote-- “does not include taxpayers of the city that are not detrimentally harmed by the decision of the zoning board…” –close quote. This is restrictive language that its authors hope will deny legal standing to most of the city’s community groups on zoning issues.
We do not yet know for sure, whether the new law will have its intended effect. But the issues involved are too important to ignore or to leave to chance. As soon as the bill passed and its true intent became apparent, I led a campaign by Philadelphia legislators to write and call Governor Rendell asking that he veto the legislation. We did not succeed in that effort.

HB 1954 became Act 193 of 2004. It became a cynical attempt to take away the right of citizens to have a meaningful say neighborhood zoning decisions-- a cynical attempt to silence the citizen. And it became, I am sorry to say, one of the worst pieces of legislation of 2004. (My office staff had fun spoofing Act 193 with the Silence of the Lambs movie poster, but the sentiments are real)

Regularly, the ZBA grants variances (exceptions) to zoning ordinances requested by businesses, developers and home owners. Most of those variances are no doubt legitimate but in all too many cases the ZBA has overreached its authority and the courts have said so. If this law stands the rights of the citizens in anti blight organizations, historical societies, preservation groups, crime watch organizations, and other legitimate community organizations will have less say as some development interests continuously seek unwarranted and legally overreaching variances and exceptions from zoning ordinances.

So I stand here today to announce that I, and 22 of my legislative colleagues, have introduced House Bill 1698 to repeal that portion of act 193 that attempts to limit the rights of citizens to challenge the decisions of the ZBA, restoring the law to its pre-2004 condition.I do not believe that citizens should have less say in the issues that affect their neighborhoods and community—they should have more. The public has every right to seek to argue that zoning ordinances passed to protect the community be enforced as written, or that variances are too broad or inappropriate. Community groups have every right to intervene to protect a historic area or buildings, the quality of a residential neighborhood, or oppose nuisance bars, clubs and “businesses,” or to have its views and vistas unobstructed by billboards-- just to give a few examples. They have a right to see that their zoning ordinances are enforced.

June 13, 2005

http://www.goppelt.net/pdf/hb1698remarks.doc

*

Zoning law can be a valuable tool for community preservation. It allows community residents a say in what businesses and what level of traffic and what level of outside influences shall be in their community.

June 13, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=265250#post265250

*

I went to Penn as undergraduate, beginning 40 years ago this September. I have represented area near LaSalle University in the legislature for more than 32 years now, and represented LaSalle itself from 1974 to 1981.Neighbors have problems with LaSalle students too. A former landlord at what was then named Ogontz Manor--now it is called The Manor--once told me that he preferred to rent to community folk instead of college students because the community folk did a better job maintaining the apartments and were less noisy.President Bush kept reporters at bay in the 2000 Presidential campaign with his now-famous statement that "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." Bush's young and irresponsible phase lasted well into his thirties, and undergraduates are generally in the 17 to 23 year old range.College administrators everywhere could improve community relations by giving college kids help in maintaining apartments and homes, from advice on cleaning, to recommendations on who to call for services, to strong admonitions against late-night noisy parties, especially on weekdays. Helping college kids grow up would win community support and reduce the adversarial relationships that too often exist.

June 11, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=264061#post264061

*

It's good to see Northwood taking these proactive steps. Improving communities under stress can be difficult, but it is possible to reverse deterioration and set higher standards.The Northwood residents who are leading and working in this effort deserve the thanks not only of their neighbors, but of all Philadelphians.

June 7, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=261839#post261839

*

Local history is important, and the history of Northeast Philadelphia is important for many reasons. Northeast Philadelphia today is in a state of change; a study of history shows it has always been in a state of change. This should both reassure some people that change is manageable, and provide some guidance as we deal with the changes of today and tommorrow.We have seen in center city that promoting history can lead to enormous economic benefits. We can reap some of these benefits in the Northeast by promoting our industrial heritage, and the many contributions of Northeast Philadelphians to the welfare of our city, state, and country.In his memoirs, Chase Whitaker describes himself a "rural" boy because he grew up surrounded by Philadelphia farmland. The idea of living in "rural" Philadelphia jars modern sensitivities. He was talking about the early 20th century in which some of our still-living senior citizens were alive.In Northeast Philadelphia's post-World War II period of vast growth, the attractions were the rural or suburban atmosphere, the newness of many of the homes, and the exclusiveness of various neighborhoods in a an era in which housing discrimination was not only legal, but an accepted and widespread fact of life.Today's Northeast will never again be the post-World War II Northeast. But it can continue to be a desirable collection of neighborhoods as long as we recognize that new reasons for people to live here must develop over time to repalce the old ones that no long apply.

May 29, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=257010#post257010

*

16th and Stenton Area Should Not Be Ruled Out
As the state legislator who represents the area around 16th and Stenton, I know it as a heavily middle class African-American neighborhood with a growing Asian population centered in the Philip Murray House, a non-profit senior citizens residence.Whether one should move there depends on many things besides one's budget. How convenient is it to your jobs and the other places that are important to you? Is it helpful to you to be close to Broad Street and Cheltenham Avenue, which are both major transportation arteries? Is it helpful to you to be within a short drive of Northeast Philadelphia, Northwest Philadelphia, Center City, and Eastern Montgomery County? I think the answers to these questions are generally yes.Property values have gone up here less than in many other parts of the city.This may be a good opportunity to buy at a low price. Or it may be an indication that it is not as good an investment as property elsewhere. Predicting future market values is a difficult task.There is not a lot of night life in this neighborhood. Years ago, residents killed a proposed hotel here. It is a purely middle class residential neighborhood, and the neighbors very much want it to stay that way. If you would like to discuss it with me further, call my legislative office at 215-924-0895 or 215-924-3690.

Post Date 5.11.06
http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=248567#post248567

*

My opponent in the upcoming election contest has charged that my work on developing the Delaware riverfront shows that I do not know the boundaries of my district. This line of reasoning assumes that everyone in my district lives their lives solely within the district’s boundaries.In fact, the vast majority of the people living within the 202nd Legislative District work outside the district and engage in recreational activities outside the district. What determines the value of their homes depends, in significant part, on the occupational and recreational activities that are available near their homes.The Delaware River waterfront is only a short drive away from my constituents in Northeast Philadelphia. To whatever degree we are able to replace unused and underutilized factories with modern factories, office buildings, homes, parks, and trails, we will be tremendously increasing the value of living in Northeast Philadelphia for my constituents and all other residents of the Northeast.The encouraging growth of population in Center City is due in large measure to a massive investment of public money in the Convention Center, hotels, theaters, and other entertainment venues.I am determined that there be a similar increase in public investments in Northeast Philadelphia so that our neighborhoods, no less than Center City’s neighborhoods, will be seen as desirable destinations for middle-class families.

October 28, 2004

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:YX2GBm-KJWYJ:www.northeasttimes.com/2004/1028/letters.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=192

*

For many years, there seemed to be a cold war going on between Temple University and various civic groups over the future of North Philadelphia. Temple wanted to keep expanding, and North Philadelphia residents were concerned that Temple expansion threatened the development of new housing forf North Philadelphia residents.The last confrontation there that I remember was over the construction of the Liacouras Center. But since then, there has been continued construction of new buildings for Temple, a massive increase in the amount of new housing for North Philadelphia residents, and a general spirit of optimism as to North Philadelphia's future. We even had the Shriner's Hospital move from Northeast Philadelphia to next door to Temple's Children's Hospital, building North Philadelphia's attractiveness and increasing their service capacity simultaneously.Since the battles over the Liacouras Center, I have heard nothing about Temple/North Philadelphia tensions. Is the cold war over? If not, what are the issues we are going to be hearing about in the future?

June 28, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=272803#post272803

*

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

LOBBYING

A lobbying job seems to be the goal of a high percentage of Congress, too. I have not done the actual count, but I would be surprised if there were not more former members of both houses of Congress employed as lobbyists than there are current members of Congress. The salaries are incredible: Jim Greenwood of the Biotechnology Industry Organization makes $650,000 a year salary, and salaries and income in the range of $300,000 to $500,000 are increasingly common. When serving in Congress is increasingly seen as an important credential on a resume rather than as an opportunity to serve the public, our country is deep trouble. Raising the Congressional salaries might help, but the main question is the motivation of the people elected to Congress. It is certainly a good idea to ask prospective candidates whether they aspire to a job as a lobbyist and whether they will accept a job as a lobbyist if offered one. It is certainly a legitimate topic of public discussion. As for Pennsylvania governors, former Governor Tom Ridge is wieghing lobbying offers reported to be in the vicinity of $2 million a year, and former Governor Mark Schweiker is a $450,000 dollar a year lobbyist in his role as President of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commoerce. Governor Robert P. Casey did lobbying work on children's issues (I do not know if he was paid), and Governors Raymond Shafer and Dick Thornburgh relocated to Washington, D.C. and did a lot of well-paid corporate legal work (I do not know if either registered as a lobbyist). The problem of politicians angling for well-paid positions is a much bigger problem than the alleged problem of career politicians. Career politicians tend to focus on the long-term public interest, while all the incentives for those with corporate ambitions are to focus on the narrow self-proclaimed interests of business.

June 25, 2006

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:uoCwmxt9o54J:www.psotd.com/posts/1119361190.shtml+%22MARK+B+COHEN%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=157

WASTE

As a Pennsylvania legislator who has long supported efforts to limit out of state dumping in Pennsylvania, I agree that the legal situation is murky and that clear long-range solutions lie in limiting the amount of waste through recycling, biodegradables, and other environmentally friendly methods.

December 21, 2003

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:oOsrHDah_UkJ:www.ospolitics.org/mt/mt-comments.cgi%3Fentry_id%3D685+%22MARK+B+COHEN%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=141

INTERNET

Governmental Access For Bloggers Can Help Change the Conversation and the Agenda
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Tue Oct 17, 2006 at 08:56:02 PM PDT
Today, one of my staff members informed me that he had learned that a National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) staff member was preparing an article for the NCSL's monthly magazine on the issue of governmental access for bloggers and he wanted to know if I would be interested in commenting for that article. "YES!" I wrote on the memo he had sent me.
If there are going to be real changes in public policy, there are going to have be real changes in what constitutes news and who helps define what is news.
Today, for example, in a debate about zoning powers to regulate gambling casinos in Philadelphia, I spoke in favor of municipal zoning regulation of Philadelphia casinos early in the debate and introduced an amendment late in the debate to take out language stripping the Philadelphia zoning board of power to regulate casinos. All too many reporters in state capitols around the nation and in Washington function as conservative and/or Republican talking heads, trying mightily to create the widespread belief that Democratic goals are impractical and incapable of realization and that Democrats and civil servants themselves are inherently untrustworthy.
Every Democrat voting in the House and a few Republicans voted to consider my amendment, but the Republican majority was united enought ot stop it from being considered nevertheless.
An inexperienced person might be confident that I had done something newsworthy. After 33 years in the legislature, I have no such confidence. Reporting my efforts--and the efforts of all Democrats in Philadelphia--to represent the interest of Philadelphians does not fit into the theme of public sector irresponsibility, corruption, and apathy that all too much of the Philadelphia media wants to advance. My activities will likely either be totally ignored or greatly downplayed with the excuse that they are insignificant because they were unsuccessful.
Consistently not reporting or underreporting unsuccessful legislative initiatives deprives the public of knowledge as to what decisions are being made and who is making them. It falsely conveys that government is a monolithic entity closed to public input when in fact government is a divserse entity capable of being influenced for the public good.
The ultimate sin for a reporter to commit in today's world of cynical journalism all too often seems to be to allow information about the possibilty of positive change to be spread among the public.
Those in government who want to change the world need to change who decides what news is. We need to reach out to bloggers and get them to cover what goes on in our bailwicks whenever possible. We need to reach out to the union press, the college press, the neighborhood press, the association press to create a new journalism of hope and possibility to compete with and coexist with the dominant journalism of cynicism and despair.
Bloggers themselves need to challenge the definition of what news is. Merely taking newspaper articles and commenting on them in a positive light can only add to the influence of the mainstream media. Unless one considers oneself to be auditioning for a job as a professional journalist, one should not be aping the journalistic definitions of what news is. The existing definitions of news downplay the grassroots and the netroots and have the practical effect of ratifying and reifying the status quo.
Bloggers need to ask different sets of questions. They should be asking how public policies affect the average citizen. They should be asking why many citizen positions are ignored. They should be asking who benefits from various public policy proposals. They should be searching out differences within governmental hierarchies and letting the public know the significance of internal debates.
I would love it if we had so many progressive bloggers in Pennsylvania that we could regularly have a presence of progressive bloggers in the state capitol. We are far from being there yet. Nor do blogs generate enough money to pay for a full-time presence either individually or in a blogger pool.
But a physical presence can be overrated. The muckraker I.F. Stone--whose I.F. Stone's Weekly was a classic in getting the true story out year after year--ignored personal contacts with politicians and concentrated on distilling public governmental documents. He was incorruptable in part because he distant from the personalities involved.
Fact-based bloggers can emulate Stone,who, I am proud to brag,is the greatest journalist who ever lived in my legislative district. Documents may be more often be useful than articles. And articles should be distilled for key facts as was Stone's trademark and carefully scrutinized as to what message they are seeking to convey and what the political significance of that message is.
Governmental officials should be reaching out to the blogging communities and other sources of news outside the mainstream media by giving them the ability to help redefine what news has been made and what the definition of news is. Conference calls for bloggers and meeting with bloggers are good tools to help get the messages out in a world in which blogging is generally an avocation or a mission rather than a career.
Suppose a blogger is able to attend press conferences, public speeches, and the like? I think the general policy should be to allow this access. Getting bigger rooms if necessary is a far better solution than denying access if a lot of bloggers are suddenly available. Any standards for giving bloggers press priviliges should apply to bloggers across the board, so that we do not wind up with a conservative media just getting echo chamber reinforcement from conservative bloggers.
In recent years, conservative bloggers have been far more unified and more on message than progressive bloggers. Progressives clearly value independent thinking more than being a cog in a public relations machine. This creativity and receptivity to new ideas offers the demonstrated and continuing possibility of making real contributions to the public conversation that is democracy.
Bloggers are here to stay for the forseeable future. By helping them help define agendas for public policy, public officials and citizen leaders are giving previously ignored public concerns and interests a chance to edge out of oblivion and into the center arenas of decisionmaking.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/17/23562/118

*

The netroots have some work to do to win over leaders of the grassroots. Meeting in Nashville on August 17, 2006, the National Conference of State Legislatures narrowly passed a resolution reported by its committee of Communications and Information Technology opposing net neutrality.

Cable companies and other businesses clearly favoring the development of a two-tier Internet had obviously lobbied the committee and other members. There had been no similar effort by netroots proponents of network neutrality to lobby the state legislators from the vast majority of states who were in attendance.

August 17, 2006

The demographic reason for the August 17, 2006 passage of a resolution by the National Conference of State Legislators (NCSL), meeting in Nashville, opposing federal net neutrality legislation was missing from my diary entry yesterday, but it is obvious with 20/20 hindsight: younger legislators were dramatically underrepresented at the annual NCSL conference, as they almost always are.

Younger state legislators are less likely to attend NCSL events for a variety of reasons: they are newer to their legislative seats, so they need to spend more time campaigning; because they are newer, they have fewer institutional responsibilities, so they find the NCSL policy-oriented debates less interesting; they are more likely to have young children at home, so going to NCSL is more burdensome; they have less seniority, so their legislative leadership prefers to send others when there is more interest in attending than slots available due to budgetary limitations.

August 19, 2006

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:GjYYJdbaHO4J:state-rep-mark-cohen-dem-pa.dailykos.com/main/2+%22daily+kos%22+mark+cohen&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2

*

We need an increase in media diversity. We must bring back the fairness doctrine, reverse the concentration of ownership, and get a Democratic majority on the FCC before they have a chance to reduce Internet access to the property of major corporations.

December 21, 2003

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:yqA878WITeQJ:blogcritics.org/archives/2003/12/21/093408.php+%22MARK+B+COHEN%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=140

*

We have a governmental influence peddling all around us, especially at the federal level. The last people we should be attempting to regulate are bloggers. The rise of bloggers is a hopeful sign of the rise of an evergrowing group of thoughtful Americans, and it should be encouraged wherever possible.Those who fear bloggers are a far bigger threat to American democracy than bloggers are. Bloggers are a 21st century check and balance to potential governmental abuses, and should receive the same protections as professional journalists.

June 29, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:HMVRD8L5W54J:aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2005/06/bloggers-in-dc.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=345

*

JUDICIARY

This suit is an outrageous attack on the integrity of our state courts. The fact is that the state Supreme Court has voted to declare the age 70 retirement provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution as not in violation of federal age discrimination law and not modified by any subsequent constitutional provision--despite the fact that many judges would personally like to continue serving after age 70 at full salary and with guaranteed tenure. The amount of money at stake for individual judges in this decision far exceeded the amount of money at stake in the pay raise issue.Similarly, it was alleged that judiciary would not vote to declare any portion of the casino legislation unconstitutional because they wanted they wanted the pay raise. But they voted to declare that local zoning approvals were needed under the Pennsylvania constitution, despite the fact that this will slow down the implementation of casino gambling to the chagrin of legislative leaders.I do not always agree with the decisions of Pennsylvania appellate courts. But allegations that the appellate judges are self-interested actors who ignore their responsibilities to the state and federal constitutions are totally false, demagogic, and mean-spirited.

October 7, 2005

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1613#2607

GAY MARRIAGE

We are debating the wrong thing. We should be debating whether or not to emulate Vermont with civil unions or New Jersey with domestic partnerships instead of whether or not to ban future state legislators from doing something to stop gay and lesbian people from having rights when they commit to each other.Let us be clear: the state has no rational purpose in discouraging monagamous relationships in the gay community. The state has no rational purpose in setting up roadblocks towards gay people taking care of each other. The state has no rational purpose in seeing that gays in 2006 have lesser rights to form binding relationships than slaves did in 1806: no state, to the best of my knowledege, banned slaves from marrying.The last time Pennsylvania wrote discrimination into the constitution was in 1838, when it banned African-Americans from voting. It took almost 40 years to get this abombinable provision removed from the Pennsylvania constitution.The 61 votes on final passage against the gay marriage amendment dramtically underestimates the pro-human rights strength in the Pennsylvania House. Over 30 legislators who voted for the gay marriage ban on final passage voted for the Nailor amendment, which would have preserved the legislature's right to provide for civil unions or domestic partnerships.Some of the yes votes were from political expediency or mere habit. Others are from lame ducks who will soon be leaving the legislature. The hidden news of the vote is that support in the legislature for extending basic human rights to gay people is at an all-time high.

June 10, 2006

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=3563#5855

*

Adding the votes of those who voted to change the language to preserve civil unions and domestic partnerships, and those who voted to send the whole mess back to committee, and those who were absent but indicated support, there are about 112 out of the 203 House members who appear to favor some sort of legislative action to give gay and lesbian people substantial marriage rights.

Hopefully, the full Senate will go along with the Senate Judiciary Committee and give the radical right a choice only between outlawing what is already illegal–gay marriages–and doing nothing at all.

On a practical, every day level, the real issue is whether the legislature is going to seek to have the voters expand the existing legal ban on gay marriage to civil unions and domestic partnerships.It certainly seems that there is a likely bipartisan, bicameral majority in favor of the preservation of legislative ability to create new rights short of marriage. What we need is active citizens to work on this if we can stop the constitutional amendment from banning it.

June 17, 2006

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:tNp6qgsXAwUJ:www.stier.net/blog/2006/06/07/sad-day-for-the-pa-constitution/+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=285

*

Lost in the press coverage of the house's 136-61 passage of the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage is the coverage of the Nailor amendment, which sought to preserve the right of a future legislature to pass civil union or domestic partnership legislation. Over 30 legislators (I do not have the roll calls in front of me I as write this, so I can't now give an exact number) voted for the Nailor amendment who also voted for the bill.In other words, just as the House was acting to ban gay marriage, there was record support for the possibility of civil unions or domestic partnerships.We should be debating the respective merits of the different approaches of Vermont--civil unions--and New Jersey--domestic partnerships--instead of debating whether or not to ban future legislators from granting gay and lesbian people full civil rights.To the best of my knowledge, no state that allowed slavery ever banned the marriage of slaves. For Pennsylvania to ban gay and lesbian people the right to marry would be to say that they should have one less right than even slaves enjoyed.The last time Pennsylvania put discrimination into the Pennsylvania Constitution was in 1838, when it banned African-Americans from voting in Pennsylvania elections. It took nearly 40 years to get that noxious amendment out of the Pennsylvania Constitution.Pennsylvania ought to put either civil unions or domestic partnerships into the law before a constitutional amendment comes up for a vote in November, 2008. Pennsylvanians should have some experience with expanded rights for gay and lesbian people so they can make an informed judgment if the angry rhetoric of opposition forces towards full human rights really describes reality.Some people think the rush to ban gay and lesbian marriage, civil unions, and domestic partneships has to do with a desire to raise turnout for the Republican nominee in 2008. That is likely part of it. I think though that the major reason is that right wing forces are well aware that their opposition to full marriage rights increasingly comes off as mere uninformed intolerance and bigotry, and that polling numbers show that their position is plummeting in voter appeal. They want to try to get what is increasingly likely to be a transient majority to place their opposition to full human rights into stone.If you share my concerns, please call your state senator and ask him or her to either defeat the amendment outright (the best tactic) or change it so that it goes back to the House again for approval. The same version has to pass both the House and Senate in two consecutive legislative session before a Pennsylvania constitutional amendment goes before the voters for approval.

June 10, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=263497#post263497

*

I have been quoted on the radio and in at least one newspaper as opposing a Pennsylvania constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in our state.
Not one person called or wrote or emailed to express disagreement or displeasure. Nor have I heard yet from constituents mobilized by any kind of campaign against gay marriage.
My sense is that the issue has peaked, and that the right will have to do a lot of work to rev it up again. I believe there is an at least one national poll confirming my anecdotal impression.

April 17, 2006

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:j84Jy-XWSBwJ:ballotblog.typepad.com/ballotblog/2006/04/national_politi.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=450

*

"It is the people who get married who define the meaning of marriage" is a great line. It is a good rebuttal to those who want to believe that gay marriages represent a moral crisis threatening traditional marriages; actually they represent a moral awakening against the acceptance of casually available sex without love or commitment.

February 19, 2004

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:6b5tvwZglycJ:www.ratcliffeblog.com/archives/2004/02/why_marriage_ma.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=328

*

A constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be a tacit concession that the U.S. Constitution allows states to offer gay marriage. Those who want to ban gay marriage should discuss whether the threat of gay marriage is lesser or greater than the threat of bin Laden, whether it is coded yellow, orange or red. They should be pushed to identify those who have changed their sexual orientation to gay as a rresult of the legalization of gay marriage, or those marriages that have broken up since the legalization of gay marriage. They will have enormous difficulties showing any effects whatsoever. Making efforts to stop gay marriage a major national issue will only operate to reinforce the existing gravitas gap plaguing the Bush Administration.

February 7, 2004

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sPxXbBhlZXcJ:busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2004/02/some_questions_.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=433

*

STATE LEGISLATURE

About twenty years ago, Democratic Leader James Manderino passionately tried to persuade the House Democratic Caucus to vote with him on an issue. Just about every single legislator who got up to speak in the meeting strongly disagreed with him. Finally, after an hour or two of internal debate, Manderino yielded to the Democratic members.On the House floor that afternoon, Manderino made an emotional speech arguing for the very position he had tried unsuccessfully to persuade his Democratic colleagues not to take earlier that day. Every single Democrat voted with his new position, the original position of the vast majority of the Democratic Caucus members. A long-time lobbyist then told me "Manderino's amazing. He really controls his caucus."Official records do not always tell what the truth about a subject really is.

July 20, 2007

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=535846#post535846


*

The Pennsylvania Legislature is one of the few full-time state legislatures in America, and its informal motto could be described as "preparation counts." We plan, we deliberate, we pass balanced budgets, and occasionally we do something--like establishing senior citizen low cost prescriptions, a state system for encouraging organ donation, Martin Luther King's birthday as a state holiday, mail voter registration--that puts us in the forefront of national leadership for the worthwhile, progressive causes.

This session has begun with two rather earthshaking events. First came the election, of social services advocate Republican Dennis O'Brien as Speaker as the Democratic nominee over incumbent Republican Speaker John Perzel following the late December official certification of a narrow 102-101 Democratic majority due to major gains in Eastern Pennsylvania.

Then came the dramatic, disturbing, and somewhat puzzling 139 count indictment of Democratic Senator and long Senate Appropriations Committee Democratic Minority Chairman Vincent Fumo on charges of misappropriating over $2 million of State Senate and non-profit funding for his own use. Fumo is a man of formidable intellect, and a net worth of about $25 million, largely earned while in the Senate in a series of brilliant busines deals.

Politically, Fumo is a formidable mixture of outspoken liberalism against the war in Iraq, for a woman's right to choose and gay rights, and pragmatic center-right leadership on issues of gun control and business taxation. He claims to delivered about $8 billion worth of funds to Philadelphia during his years in Senate, beginning in 1979.

The first order of business in the O'Brien Speakership has been the creation of the Speaker's Commission on Legislative Reform, which I am the senior member of. We are initially focused on making the rules of the House making the rules of the House lead to operations that are more transparent to the public and more internally democratic. Our goal is to be able to present at least a preliminary report to the House for the essential operating rules by March 12, 2007.
Serving on this commission, and being free of the hassles of dealing with an active calendar of important legislation during our start-up period, has given me an opportunity to reflect on both the big issues of internal governance and the factors that led me to serve in the legislature and stay in the legislature for thirty-three years now. My retrospective and introspective thoughts have been strengthened by numerous conversations with our 50 new legislators--a longtime high for one session--in which I have endeavored to compare my pre-election motivation and experiences with theirs.

"We are a decision-making body and not a debating society," I said at one point in our commission deliberations. My point was that we have to focus on how our procedures affect legislative outcomes, and not just on encouraging debate. Some of the most active legislative debaters in the House are on this commission: myself, Democrats Greg Vitali, Curtis Thomas, Kathy Manderino, Bob Freeman, and Tom Tangretti, and Republicans David Argall, Curt Shroder, and Sam Rohrer quickly come to mind in this category.
But a high school debating society got me to really focus on the possibility of active political involvement when I was in high school: I was a floor leader and the secretary of the Political Union of Central High School.

I had been canvassing for Democratic candidates in my home election division under my father's direction since I was five years old, and had the social awareness to volunteer to tutor poverty-stricken kids in North Philadelphia at the Clara Baldwin House. The Political Union--modeled upon the Yale Political Union which had a similar influence upon John Kerry a few years earlier--also led me to get involved actively at age 15 in seeking donations of books for Mississippi black school children, who in the early and mid- 1960's often were encouraged to drop out from the public schools before reaching high school.

The Political Union also focused me on practical politics. After I was assigned as a college freshman to interview members of the Philadelphia City Council, I concluded--with a mixture of accurate understanding and the typical self-confidence of Ivy League students--that they were burned out and largely clueless.

I was the first to urge my father David Cohen, then a newly elected Democratic wardleader with an extensive record of community service and a good mixture of labor, business, civic, and civil rights clients as an attorney, to run for a newly vacant district city council seat.
I was quite active in his successful campaign, and in each of his ten subsequent campaigns for Philadelphia municipal office from 1967 through 2003. I was also can active volunteer in his Council office while in college, helping initiate the now-traditional City Council practice of taking stands on major national issues. I helped him with research on air pollution and zoning questions, and stimulated his actions against Nixon's ultimately defeated nomination of G. Harold Carswell.

When he returned to City Council as a Councilman at Large in 1980, I used my knowledge of state legislative rules reform--which I had first been a leader of in 1979--to help him reform the City Council rules. The modern and regularly updated Mason's Manual superseded the much vaguer Jefferson's Manual as the Supreme legislative authority, and numerous brass knuckle stratagies and rhetorical attacks were suddenly out of order.
I continued to help him on various City Council projects throughout his record nearly 26 year tenure as Councilman at Large, culminating in my initiation and his relentless pushing for passage of a wage tax cut--finally enacted in 2004-- for low-income Philadelphians.
Participating actively in politics as a college student in the Vietnam War era--and having a father who regularly spoke at peace demonstrations--made me more engaged and less alienated than the vast majority of my fellow students. Before my father was elected to City Council, I was appointed as a Congressional intern by Congressman, later mayor, William J. Green, and after his election I won a statewide competition run by a non-profit organization headquartered at Franklin and Marshall college to serve as an intern to Senator Joseph S. Clark.
I signed up on the Penn campus to participate on the advisory committee for the 1970 White House conference on Children and Youth, an opportunity to contrast my experience as a somewhat privileged college student with the experiences of many others in less fortunate circumstances. I was one of the first fourteen students elected to the University Council, the advisory board for Penn President Gaylord P. Harnwell, the former head of the physics department and an authority on atomic energy and education in various foreign countries such as the Soviet Union and Iran.

I also began to develop ties to Pennsylvania state government, serving on outgoing Governor Raymond P. Shafer's Youth Advisory Council and on Governor to be Milton Shapp's campaign staff.

February 13, 2007

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/14/01439/3622

*

Anti-Perzel, Anti-Legislature, Pro-Santorum Leader Bob Guzzardi Hails My Understanding of His Goals
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 08:10:39 PM PDT
Bob Guzzardi, an anti-Perzel, anti-legislature, pro-Santorum political maverick who occasionally funds Democrats whose elections he believes strategically advance his political goals, has given me a rare accolade: I understand what motivates him and many of his cohorts.
Writing on the conservative grassrootspa website on December 31, 2006, in the midst of furious politicking over the House speakership in which he participated to some degree as a critic and an opponent of ultimately defeated House Speaker John Perzel, Guzzardi wrote:
"Mark Cohen has understood, correctly, that it is the pro growth limited government, economic freedom and every expanding intrusion of government into private business decisions that is infuriating to many of us, and the unconstitutional nature of slots and payjacking and the constant dealmaking undercutting economic freedom....

A Perzel defeat, he said, would remove "a major obstacle not only to open records and real Lobbyist Disclosure with effective implementation, but also an obstacle to individual initiative, individual empowerment--personal freedom."
Guzzardi's quote in the Grassrootspa archives is apparently unlinkable--or at least beyond my capacity to link--but it is comment number 5 recorded at 7:13 a.m. December 31,2006 to the Grassrootspa posting "Capitolwire:Other House Members May Not Vote for DeWeese, Perzel" posted at 10:09 p.m. on December 30, 2006.
Guzzardi is a self-proclaimed Reform Conservative. He hopes to defeat many members of the legislature in the 2008 Republican primaries and take control of the House in 2008 with an anti-governmental spending Republican majority. He was a key player in the defeats of 13 legislative Republicans in the 2006 primaries, including Senate President Pro Tempore Robert Jubelirer and Senate Majority Leader Chip Brightbill.
Currently, Pennsylvania legislative Republicans often oppose Democratic spending plans for the low-income, but counter them by proposing other spending--often greater than the spending that they oppose--to benefit middle class, upper middle class, and wealthy Pennsylvanians.
Expanding the clientele for governmental spending--Guzzardi and I both agree--is hardly the way to curb governmental spending. I have argued on the House floor that, since Biblical times, helping the poor has been a core factor in maintaining the legitimacy of governments.
One challenge we Democrats face in the Pennsylvania legislature is the bait and switch tactics so widely employed by the right, and sometimes by others in the political system. It is now a commonplace saying in Washington that the Republicans promise to end abortion and deliver tax cuts for the rich. Similarly they promise democracy in the Middle East, and deliver a potentially endless war in Iraq that will soon have added over $1 trillion to the federal deficit.
In Pennsylvania, we are treated to endless discussion about the legislature's procedural flaws, some of which, indeed, raise valid points.
But for a good number of people like Guzzardi, the real issue is the overall direction of the public policy that the legislature makes, and not sideshows like the legislature's habit of meeting in the wee hours of the morning, or not immediately posting the text of floor speeches on the Internet.
This session will be a session of reforms--perhaps the most concentrated session of reforms ever. But we have to keep in mind what our public policy goals are, and whether or not the reforms advance or hinder them.
We also have to keep in mind that for many people like Guzzardi, reforms are not the real point. It's great when we Democrats can find solid reasons to make common cause with people of opposing ideology, but we have to recognize the differences in underlying goals at the start, and study the actual issues motivating right-wing attention to the legislature in the first place, and not assume that the internal workings of the legislature are the fundamental grievance.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/13/222437/141

*

Pennsylvania House Republican Leader Sam Smith Backs "Representative Form of Democracy"
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Thu Jan 11, 2007 at 09:25:54 PM PDT
January 2, 2007 was the historic day in Pennsylvania political history in which Democratic-backed Republican Dennis O'Brien defeated Republican-backed Republican John Perzel to win the hotly contested race for Speaker in the narrowly (102-101)Democratic Pennsylvania House. The events leading to this election, the election itself, and the analysis and aftermath of this election have all been chronicled by me extensively in numerous Daily Kos diaries.
In the broad sweep of American social, technological, and political history, though, there is a chance that the most important event on the House floor that day was the speech of Republican Minority Leader Sam Smith, likely composed on the spur of the moment to some degree due to the unexpected nature of the day's events.
Smith referred to the increasing role of the Internet in both business and politics. He said that "The challenge is going to be about" whether the legislature "will ultimately devolve into some kind of electronic town meeting and a pure democracy." "I would argue, Mr. Speaker," Smith said, "that the challenge for us is to maintain this great Commonwealth and this great country of ours as a representative form of democracy."
"I have been saying for the last year and a half or two years that one of the real challenges we have before us is how we go about doing this business," Smith said. "You know, 15, 18 years ago you got a few letters from constituents, handwritten letters; you knew what that meant. If you got a few phone calls, you knew what that meant. If you got a petition that was signed by 40 or 50 people, you knew what that meant.
"In the last few years, while it has changed in the business world, the world of the Internet, the world of communications, of bloggers, and all of those reams of writing that are out there, our world that we conduct this business in has changed....Who would have thought 10 years ago you would buy a car over the Internet, and just in the last few years, Mr. Speaker, that challenge has come to this body, to the world of legislation, the fact that you can be sitting on the (House) floor and you have constituents emailing you about the debate that is before you at the very moment.
"You know," Smith continued, "when this representative democracy was created and the Constitution was put forth and the days were put into the calendar for dealing with the issues...it was, you know, a couple days' ride to your district, perhaps in many cases, and today it is a couple seconds ride over the internet."
Smith's analysis is stated in the conversational from of debate that dominates the legislature, in which generalizations are made with little or no sourcing. For the last several years, all state house members have had internet accessible laptops on their desks, so they can get the text of bills and amendments before them, do quick research on the subject matter of legislation, and correspond with constituents who have emailed them in quick order. Multi-tasking has come to the House floor and made it sometimes a somewhat quieter place.
Smith's concern is the uncertainty that legislators feel about how to weight the significance of the constituent contacts they now receive. If five handwritten letters was once considered an avalanche of constituent outpouring, how should 50 emails be rated? To what degree has communication with elected officials become so easy that it has become devalued?
As the legislator with the most active record of participation in online communities, I believe that there are both similarities and differences between the online communities and the traditional constituencies with whom legislators are used to dealing.
Like the traditional constituencies, the online communities are composed of sincere people who a legitimate concern for public policy. But I have found that email correspondents are both more opinionated and better informed, more ideological and less deeply rooted in their neighborhoods, more interested in discussions and less likely to want to meet face to face than traditional constituent advocates. They are probably less representative of their fellow constituents, but more likely to have meaty factual content behind what they believe.
These generalizations may not be true everywhere, and certainly will be less true over time as easy internet access and use of the blogosphere becomes closer and closer to first being widespread, and ultimately being nearly universal.
One thing that I think is indisputable is that the range of public discussion has deeply widened, and more and people are available to enter the public square and help shape our common future. It matters who these people are, and what they say they want, but the rise of the Internet, the blogosphere, and email are all steps in the continuing democratization of America and the world.
To the best of my recollection, Smith's speech is the first one given on the floor of the Pennsylvania House about the role of the Internet in our deliberations. My guess from attending National Conference of State Legislatures meetings and seeing the widespread lack of Internet savvy among my colleagues present there is that it is at least one of the first given in any legislature anywhere.
Smith deserves credit for beginning this discussion among state legislators, because it is difficult to understand the environment of which one is a part. As the great communications theorist Marshall McLuhan wrote decades ago, "No one knows who discovered water, but it probably was not a fish."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/12/02554/0802

*

Republicans Name Perzel Speaker Emeritus, Give Him Staff and Leadership Office Space
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Tue Jan 09, 2007 at 09:57:13 PM PDT
In a move that demonstrates the ever-resilient nature of John Perzel, Republican leaders in the State House have voted to name him Speaker Emeritus, and give him extra staff and leadership office space.
This means that Perzel has, depending on his wishes, either a graceful position from which to exit the Pennsylvania House for a much more lucrative private sector career, or a platform from which to launch another bid for a third term as Speaker.
This should be an easy agreement to sell to rank and file Republican members, because it does not require any incumbent Republican leader to be bumped out of his position, nor does it require any Republican caucus committee chair to be removed.
It is also a sign that the opposition to him in the House Republican Caucus, which goes far deeper than the six Republicans willing to join Dennis O'Brien and the Democrats, has limits in scope and intensity.
Perzel, like George Bush, epitomizes big government Republicanism. He used state grants for local projects to win the support of many Democrats for key pieces of the Republican agenda, and played a key role in getting six legislators elected on the Democratic ticket to switch to the Republican Party, and three other Democrats to vote for him for re-election as Speaker. It was the Democratic countermove of backing an available Dennis O'Brien, a Republican social services advocate who has long been distanced from Perzel, for Speaker that drove him out of power. Earlier diaries of mine have discussed this in great detail.
The Perzel era brought new power to the Republican Party, as his dealmaking as Majority Leader and Speaker disempowered the Democratic Party under Republican Governors Tom Ridge and Mark Schweiker. Under Governor Ed Rendell, who took office in 2003, Perzel worked to make Rendell pay the highest possible price for support of his initiatives. Rendell was a key player in the recruitment of O'Brien as the Democratic Speaker candidate for Speaker.
A fearsome fundraiser, a master manipulator,a successful strategic takeover specialist for ailing Philadelphia governmental functions, a European style Social Democrat of sorts seeking more governmental funds for the middle class, a quintessential improvisational post-modern politician, John Perzel has already left quite a legacy in Harrisburg and Philadelphia with his innovation and cunning during 18 years as an elected Republican leader.
Until recently, Perzel was given the lion's share of the credit for restoring the Republicans to majority status after twelve years in the minority, and then keeping them in the majority for another twelve years.
But more recently, conservatives have started looking askance at the fiscal costs of his maneuvers, and have used Perzel's lack of articulateness as a weapon against him, blaming him for the Democrats' 2006 resurgence.
While Perzel's strengths and weaknesses obviously have had an impact, the fact remains that Perzel gained majority power in a national period of Republican legislative dominance, and lost majority power in a year of nationwide Democratic gains. National political trends play a lot bigger role in Pennsylvania politics than Pennsylvania politicians like to admit.
In the Fall of 1994, my fellow Democratic leaders and I had lunch with Lieutenant Governor Mark Singel, then the Democratic candidate for Governor. Singel had previously served about a year as Acting Governor due to Governor Robert P. Casey's serious medical conditions, and would later serve as Chairman of the Democratic State Committee.
Singel reviewed his own campaign polls, which showed that he and running mate U.S. Senator Harris Wofford were decisively beating Congressmen Tom Ridge and Rick Santorum at the same time as national polls were showing Democrats going down to defeat in virtually every state.
Singel said he hoped the polls were right, but added "It's hard for me to believe we are strong enough to withstand a national landslide." He and Wofford ultimately were not, and Ridge and Santorum won.
Whatever blame Perzel deserves for losing the state house to the Democrats, and whatever credit the Democrats deserve for our campaign skills and strategies and excellent roster of qualified and overqualified candidates, we must not forget to credit the man who I believe is the single most important reason for our success: George W. Bush.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/10/01022/5028

*

Moving Offices Due to New Majority Status Brings Back Memories
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Mon Jan 08, 2007 at 09:28:22 PM PDT
Today was moving day for me and the staff assigned to me, and the staff and the movers did a great job in getting us from the 4th Floor--the minority office locations--to the first floor--the majority office locations. The issue is not the quality of the office space (there is nothing wrong with the minority offices) but the symbolism involved in moving from the somewhat out of the way 4th Floor to the much-traveled 1st Floor.
Democratic Caucus Administrator Dan Surra, a legislator from Elk County in rural Pennsylvania, had tried mightily to get the Republicans to vacate their offices in mid-December and speed up this process. But Republican Speaker John Perzel was busy wooing Democrats to ignore the will of the Democratic caucus and re-elect him instead. All of Perzel's scheming came to naught when Democrats united on Republican social services advocate Dennis O'Brien for Speaker, and secured control of the agenda, the commmittees, majority status, and office space.
In my 33 years in the legislature, this is the third time I have gone from minority status to majority status. The first was 1974, when I had been in the legislature as a member of the minority for 5 and a half months. The second was 1982, when I had been a member of the minority for four consecutive years. And now, with the Democrats regaining the majority in 2006, I have been a member of the minority for twelve consecutive years.
How long we stay in the majority depends on individual choices and chance occurences beyond anyone's control. For instance, Democratic Rep. Robert Freeman is considering running for Mayor of Easton against the Republican mayoral incumbent in 2007. His victory and resignation would create a vacancy. Hopefully, one or more Republicans is also considering for running for municipal office this year.
A feature of the minority offices for elected leaders not shared by the majority offices for elected leaders is some common office space which is subdivided among the leaders. Sometimes this is a nuisance because the noise level can get high. But sometimes this leads to helpful collaboration as well.
One day in May, 2003, I got a call from Bill O'Reilly's office challenging me to debate him on my position opposing the banning of French wine in Pennsylvania liquor stores, a position I had written on extensively in letters to fellow House members.
My initial inclination was to turn it down. But one of my staff members argued strongly that I should go on. Two staff members from other leadership offices then interjected themselves into the discussion and argued that I should accept, saying that I probably knew much more about the legal issues involved than O'Reilly did, and that I could win the debate. Outvoted 3 to 1, I accepted the debate, prepped extensively for it over the next 72 hours, and did well enough to have O'Reilly say I "might have convinced" him, and never received another invitation from O'Reilly again.
The majority offices have no common private space. Going from one office to another inevitably involves the public. Depending on who one runs into, this can have consequences either good or bad. Last week, for example, on the swearing in day in which we elected our Speaker, a Philadelphian from a neighboring legislative district ask me to pose for pictures with members of his family. I posed for several different pictures, and this perhaps impressed a wandering Philadelphia television reporter who had never interviewd me before, who then interviewed me at length about the Speaker's election.
The office I am in was the office filled by the prior majority caucus chair, Republican Eleanor Z. Taylor of West Chester. It was her retirement after 30 years in the legislature that gave the rising Democrats the ability to win the open seat by a final margin of 28 votes in the town which proudly hosts West Chester State University. Certainly, boosting student registration there will be a major priority there for both political parties.
Our Democratic winner--the woman who put us in the majority--is Barbara McIlvaine Smith. She is the fourth member of her family to serve in the legislature, but the first since the 1920's, when one of her ancestors was one of the early women to serve, shortly after women gained the right to vote. Other family members of hers served in the legislature in the 1800's and the 1700's.
After we unload the boxes and get this office into good shape, one of my first priorities will be to invite Barbara into the office that she gained for me. She is a great woman, and will undoubtedly give her constituents the kind of vigorous representation that they deserve. Our challenge as a party and as legislative body will be see that having a Democratic majority creates positive change in the interest of the people of Pennsylvania.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/9/02822/63655

*

How Perzel Bullied O'Brien Into Becoming the Democratic Standard Bearer for PA House Speaker
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:24:44 PM PDT
As former Republican House Speaker John Perzel thinks about his downfall and ponders whether to plot a comeback to a House leadership post or an exit strategy from the House, he must be having some second thoughts.
How was he to know without having a cyrstal ball that the unstated taunt he threw at fellow Northeast Philadelphia Republican Dennis O'Brien year after year, decade after decade, would someday lead to one of the most incredible events in Pennsylvania politics? How was he to know that at the precise moment in which he would most need O'Brien's support, O'Brien would become the successful candidate of the Democratic Party to oust him from the Speakership?
The inherent question of bullies everywhere--What are you going to do about it?--was dramatically answered by O'Brien on January 2, 2007. On that date, shortly after 12:00 noon, the Democrats handed him an army of supporters--99 votes in all, with just 102 votes need for him to become Speaker--and, given that a handful House Republicans were looking for a Republican Perzel alternative to back, made him the instant favorite for Speaker. As unwarned Republicans looked on with stunned horror, O'Brien beat Perzel 105 to 97, with O'Brien's own vote not recorded in his favor due to his young son's monkeying with the switch.
The bullying to which Perzel subjected O'Brien was an example of the overpersonalization that sometimes occurs in politics. O'Brien, an extrovert's extrovert, exuded warmth and self-confidence. Four years after being elected to the State House, he had nearly defeated incumbent Republican Congressman Charles Dougherty in the Republican primary with the active support of the leadership of the Republican City Committee.
His near success in the Republican Congressional primary came with a price however: he surrendered his seat in the legislature, and John Perzel became the senior Republican legislator in Philadelphia in terms of consecutive legislative service. Not even O'Brien's return to the legislature two years later could change that.
Whereas success seemed to come easy to O'Brien because of his personality, goals, and achievements, success for Perzel meant grindlingly hard and repetitious work. From day one as a candidate for the legislature, Perzel felt he had to woo each voter, each worker, each contributor, individually. No one worked harder as a political mechanic than Perzel did, or showed more pride in his work ethic of persistent individual outreach.
The year O'Brien first was elected to the House, 1976, on his first try, was the year Perzel lost his race for the House. But Perzel relentlessly kept on working, and, in the Republican year of 1978, ousted the Democratic incumbent Francis Gleeson, a passionately Democratic attorney who suffered from the seemingly quaint notion that legislators should study issues in depth and make at least some decisions on the merits and not on the basis of politics.
Perzel's relentnessness and political zealotry came with the cost that people who opposed him REALLY OPPOSED him. Gleeson, for instance, would dutifully campaign for every Democratic opponent of Perzel from 1980 through 2006. So Perzel learned that he had to find ways to help the people he hurt.
The classic Perzel maneuver was the takeover. He used the authority of the legislature to give himself the power to appoint the controlling people for the Philadelphia Parking Authority, the Philadelphia School District, and the Philadelphia Convention Center.
A key motive in all these takeovers was patronage in the form of jobs and contracts, but Perzel took care to operate within the zone of responsibility and innovation, and to offer side payments to his victims. Philadelphia teachers lost significant union bargaining rights, for instance, but gained a 25% pension increase. Some teachers felt this was a fair trade, and the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers morphed from angry critic to enthusiastic Perzel supporter.
Perzel got on the intoxicating treadmill of creating and then appeasing numerous enemies in a dazzling series of bold strikes and creative maneuvers, becoming one of the most powerful legislative leaders in the history of Pennsylvania and one of the most powerful politicians in the history of Philadelphia.
Meanwhile, Dennis O'Brien was busy being Dennis O'Brien, a nice guy who cared about the disabled, the retarded, the autistic, the crime victim, the accident victim, a guy who didn't need a lot of power to win because everybody liked his personality, his platform, and his record of achievement and results.
In 2000, the year the increasingly powerful Perzel won by less than 100 votes against a wheelchair bound crime victim who had become a passionate advocate for the disabled--the kind of guy who would never run against Denny O'Brien--O'Brien did not have a Democratic opponent for the first time.
In 2001, Perzel led the Republican redistricting efforts for Philadelphia, and I led the Democratic redistricting efforts for Philadelphia. For different reasons, we both agreed on abolishing the vacant seat of recently elected Republican Judge Christopher Wogan, but Perzel surprised me with an inquiry to our staff negotiators: what did we think about abolishing O'Brien's seat as well? Before we could formulate a response, Perzel dropped the idea, but not until he had it leaked to the press and given O'Brien a copy of a map with his district cut up into little pieces.
Perzel had first won election as a Republican leader in 1988, after earlier defeats. O'Brien would have liked to have been a Republican leader too, but Perzel's presence in the Republican leadership team in a caucus with only a handful of Philadelphians pretty much elimated his chances. And Perzel clearly outworked and outmaneuvered O'Brien to gain political power: Perzel wanted to be number one most of all and O'Brien most of all wanted to help people who needed help.
If Perzel could have merely accepted that his approach to politics and life was different from O'Brien's, he would likely be Speaker of the House today. But he could not do that. Throughout his life, he had climbed out of poverty and dysfunctional family circumstances through working harder than just about anyone else. He had accumulated far more political power than O'Brien, and for some inexplicable reason, it became important to him that O'Brien face the reality of Perzel's power on a daily basis.
So Perzel would regularly organize press conferences with other Northeast Philadelphia Republican Northeast Philadelphia legislators, and O'Brien would not be invited to participate. Perzel would regularly make clear to media, Republican activists, and Republican campaign contributors, how close other Northeast Philadelphia legislators were to him and the vast power he came to wield--all except O'Brien.
One day my close friend Frank Oliver--the ranking Democrat (Democratic Chairman in Pennsylvania legislative language)--on the Health and Human Services Committee--complained to me that he needed other committee assignments because Perzel was not allowing any significant number of bills to be referred to the Health and Human Services Committee, chaired by O'Brien. Serving on the Health and Human Services Committee had become almost meaningless, he said.
Years later, however, when Perzel had allowed O'Brien to serve as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, my close friend Babette Josephs--the Democratic Chair on the State Government Committee-- would express happiness that the State Government Committee gained jurisdiction from the Judiciary Committee over tort reform issue, because Perzel knew that O'Brien would not rubberstamp Republican policies on these issues.
Before becoming President, Senator John F. Kennedy told his wife Jacqueline that "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much." Dennis O'Brien had reached his breaking point before John Perzel--the master of the politics of using power to entice support one person at a time--had convinced Tom Caltagirone, the Democratic Chair of the Judiciary Committee--to bolt the Democratic Party decision to back Democratic leader Bill DeWeese for Speaker.
Suddenly, the Democratic Party needed Republican allies it could work with to accept the verdict of the voters that it was the party that should govern the House.
Despite the political perils that opposing one's party on a high profile issue like control of the House potentially pose, Dennis O'Brien was available.
James Madison, the constitutional architect of the theory of checks and balances, the theory of ambition being made to combat ambition, would have been proud. The system worked to sharply reduce the power of the man who had exploited the system all too well for personal and partisan gains.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/6/0730/97939

*

Democrats Salvage Majority Control of Pennsylvania House By Electing Social Services Leader Speaker
by State Rep Mark Cohen Dem PA
Tue Jan 02, 2007 at 09:56:22 PM PDT
(From the diaries. Best to get the skinny on the drama in PA today from the horse's mouth, so to speak -- kos)
In a dramatic come from behind victory, the Pennsylvania House Democrats salvaged majority control of the legislative calendar, committee make-up, and legislation by electing House Judiciary Chairman Dennis O'Brien-- a Republican long a leader in efforts to increase funding for autism victims, the mentally retarded, and the physically disabled--as Speaker of the House.
O'Brien defeated incumbent two-term Speaker John Perzel, whose 18 years as a Republican House leader have been full of intrigue, Machiavellian maneuvers, patronage power grabs, guerilla warfare both against Democrats and against House traditions of responsible party government, the naked display of ruthless political power, and a series of dumb statements.
It is not that Perzel's methods never produced anything good. As Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell noted, Perzel was ultimately a key player in increased educational funding, improved environmental protections, expanded property tax relief for senior citizens, and increasing the Pennsylvania minimum wage. But the tortuous maneuvering that was often required to gain Perzel's support, coupled with all his negatives, led Rendell to help recruit O'Brien to be the Democratic nominee for Speaker.
The process of recruiting O'Brien began New Year's Eve, after Democrat Tom Caltagirone had infamously publicly pledged to support Republican John Perzel. With the Democratic lead of 102 to 101, the Caltagirone defection would have been decisive were it not for Republican disillusionment with Perzel.
We had hoped, from public and private statements, that angry Republicans would have supported Democratic leader Bill DeWeese for Speaker. Failing that, we hoped we and they could have agreed on another Democrat. But those talks did not pan out,and supporting O'Brien became our only option to regain the power of the majority that Tom Caltagirone had taken away from us.
The main bait for O'Brien was that he would suddenly be in a powerful position to achieve goals in improving social services safety nets for the disabled, the retarded, and those with autism, as well as continuing his lifelong work to improve law enforcement.
He did not agree to switch his registration to the Democratic Party, but he did not refuse to do so either. He expressed concern about his longstanding relationships with Republicans, and he obviously wants time to consider what to do next. "I'll take it one step at a time," he told what was probably the best attended press conference he ever had.
O'Brien represents parts of the northern part (the Bucks County border area) of the same part of the city of Philadelphia that I represent--Northeast Philadelphia. His area, although it has a Democratic registration majority, is more Republican than mine. But many of the Republicans in the district are Republicans largely because they like the constituent service and personality of Dennis O'Brien.
As one who has occasionally been on the receiving end or his persistent persuasive efforts, I can testify to his relentlessness. Once, he asked me to support one of his efforts because "I always support you." I gave him a large number of cases where that was not true. "Alright, I don't always support you," he said with exasperation and fear that my list of differences would go on for a long time,"but you ought to to support my bill because it's the right thing to do for the public."
As best as I can remember, I supported, and spoke in favor, of his bill.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, long a passionate believer in encouraging Northeast Philadelphia Republicans to join the Democratic Party, was helpful in encouraging O'Brien to accept our Speaker nomination. He publicly praised O'Brien for having "a passion for change....a passion for trying to help people....(and) fundamental fairness."
In placing O'Brien into nomination, Majority Leader DeWeese, himself the choice of House Democrats for Speaker, called O'Brien "a fine-hearted idealistic Republican." He said his election would lead to "a rennaisance for this chamber."
The O'Brien nomination took House Republicans totally by surprise. I am told on good authority that a House Republican caucus that ended less than an hour before the Speaker's election began did not even consider the possibility of an O'Brien candidacy. Those who watched Perzel's facial expressions saw him in a state of utter shock when O'Brien was placed in nomination by DeWeese.
In the first speakership election I participated in, in 1975, the Democrats had 114 seats out of 203, and the Republicans nominated an anti-abortion Democrat against the pro-choice Democrat who was the choice of the Democratic caucus. The choice of the Democratic caucus got enough Republicans on his side to prevail.
It is a sign of where Pennsylvania politics has been that 32 years later our choice was between two Republicans. But hopefully it is a sign of the future that the winning Republican was the candidate of the Democratic Party.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/3/01556/83136

*

When the legislature raised its base salary to $81,050, howls of indignation were heard. How can the legislature truly represent the people while earning more than the average citizen, it was asked. The legislature five months later then repealed the salary increase, with only one dissenting vote from a legislator who would be defeated for re-election.The total silence concerning the $107,000 a year or so that City Council members will receive in 2008 is one of many, many typical examples of the politically motivated selective indignation that create the "surreal" political atmosphere you have complained about. One reason that it is difficult to motivate people to engage in political activities is the large numbers of political activists year in and year out who attempt to turn indignation on and off like a light switch.$81,050 is outrageous for legislators who have sessions and committee meetings year around but $107,000 is fine for City Council members who usually have no official meetings in July, August, and most or all of September. The legislative base salary, after the repeal, is now about $73,600. I seriously doubt any Council candidate has pledged, or will pledge, to keep his or her salary at the legislative level or below.And, if John Longacre is "not against the casinos themselves," what is his position on them if Philadelphia gets to decide their fate? Does he want Philadelphia to approve them at their currently approved locations, at different locations, or not at all?

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=36090&page=2

*

Jewell Williams and John Myers are both dedicated members of the Pennsylvania House. Myers has been ahead of the curve in pushing to limit gun trafficking. Williams has long engaged in extraordinary outreach to his disproportionately low income community, trying to build a strong sense of community responsibility and service there. The negative comments about them have no factual basis.

October 1, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?t=24786

*

Various schemes suggested above to avoid budget deadlocks miss the vital point that budgets have to be balanced (except at the federal level) and no one knows for sure how much revenue will come in until the end of the current fiscal year. Further, revenues from the current fiscal year influence the statistical validity of revenues for the next fiscal year.The state does not know what the revenues are because the revenues are a result of individual decision-making. How much money anyone spends on sales tax depends on questions like: how often do you go out to eat? Do you buy a new car this year, or put it off for a year or two?How much income tax anyone pays depends on questions like: should I seek to work more overtime? Should I get a second job? A balanced budget is a very difficult goal to attain. Requiring early budget decisions would only make it even more difficult, as there would be far more reliance on statistical projections and far less reliance on verifiable facts.

July 7, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=277692#post277692

It's interesting to see the support of NewDealDem, TalkRadioBug, and RuggerAl for term limits. Elected officials get elected one term at a time, and voters are able to throw them out if they choose. Certainly, the voters are capable of throwing out incumbents if they choose to, as shown by the defeat of the Senate President Pro Tempore, the Senate Majority Leader, the Chairman of the House Labor Relations Committee, the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs and Emergency Preparedness Committee,the Chairman of the House Finance Committee, the chairman of the house select committee investigating the appropriateness of faculty political expressions (I forget its exact name), the Vice Chair of the Appropriations Committee, and numerous others.But mandating term limits would be a big mistake. It would convert the legislature into a bunch of people whose primary motivation would be finding a job when they leave the legislature. It is far better than legislators focus on earning the support of their constituents than earning one or more job offers from employers who have their own axes to grind which may well not be in the public interest. Rather than empowering the public, term limits takes power away from the public because the relevance of average citizens to a legislator's future is reduced.Term limits also dramatically reduce the knowledge base a legislator has--both in terms of the details of many issues and the competence of his colleagues. Rather than reducing the influence of political machines, it increases the influence of political machines, because legislators who do not know each other well lack the capacity to make decisions about leadership elections and committee appointments.Term limits are a bad idea whose time has passed. Certainly, advocates of term limits can oppose any incumbent they like for re-election, but the voters should retain the right to make the final decisions as to who goes and who stays. Keeping this power in the hands of the voters strengthens them, while taking it away from the voters weakens them.

June 26, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=271502#post271502

*

In April, 2006, the Republican-controlled House passed my bill raising the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.15 in two steps ending in 2007. This benefits over 800,000 people and adds hundreds of millions of dollars in income to low-income families. I have been publicly promised Senate action by the end of this month.Earlier this month, the Senate passed my previously passed House bill allowing direct electronic access by organ procurement organizations to verify an individuals organ donor status. Any individual willing to be an organ donor upon his or her death may have body parts that can help many other people. Many thousands of people needing transplants of body organs or tissue should benefit by this step cutting bureaucracy in the organ donor process. It should also save Pennsylvania some money, as there will be far less need for Pennsylvania employees to help organ procurement organizations.Later tonight, the House will vote on House Bill 39, which has been amended by a conference committee and passed by the Senate after I vigorously denounced the original version which gave a very low percent of its revenues to Philadelphians. House Bill 39 in its current form raises the number of Philadelphians receiving property tax rebates from over 20,000 at the current times to over 80,000 upon passage. It will dramatically increase the amount of money given to the current extremely low income beneficiaries while simultaneously increasing the number of beneficiaries by raising the ceiling on income earned by senior citizen beneficiaries from $18,000 to $35,000. All told, it will be $1 billion dollars in senior tax relief, plus a reduced wage tax for the working citizens of Philadelphia, which will be funded by gambling revenues when they are available and current lottery ticket sales (which have doubled during the Rendell Administration). Along with other Democratic leaders and active Democrats, I have been pushing property tax reduction from state funds for many years.

June 14, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=265732#post265732

*

The biggest change during my tenure in the legislature has been the rise of the individual legislator. Time and again, individual legislators have shown that they have answers for pressing problems that command the support to be enacted into law.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:VFf5v_JRC5QJ:www.answers.com/topic/state-legislature+%22MARK+B+COHEN%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=106

*

Pennsylvania has many difficult challenges to overcome, now and in the future. Working together-- across the lines of party, country, region, demographic groups--we can give the people of Pennsylvania the secure, prosperous, and exciting future they deserve.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:pYWGamMOnGsJ:www.keystonepolitics.com/UserInfo-RepMarkBCohen.html+%22MARK+B+COHEN%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=110

*

The House and Senate each have access to statements made in the course of floor proceedings and access to the text of bills. The Senate site has some extras. Both the House and Senate sites link to each other. The Senate site is more up to date: it has Journals through March 22, 2006, while the House site has journals only through the end of 2005.These Internet postings only began in 2005, so journals from prior years have to be searched in libraries.The link for the Senate is: http://www.pasen.gov/index.cfmThe link for the House is: http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/home/hj/hj.cfmThe general practice in both bodies is that bills that are uncontroversial or unimportant but undefeatable should not be debated. This is usually but not always adhered to. For instance, when I introduced an appropriations amendment for $100,000 in spending for a public awareness campaign on suicide prevention earlier in 2006, it seemed appropriate to get free public awareness on PCN (which covers all floor proceedings and many committee proceedings) for this issue, and so I spoke in favor of a measure that I knew would sail through anyway.

May 26, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=256509#post256509

*

Shawn Flaherty has the honesty, integrity, creativity and experience to be a great state legislator. I look forward to him being a dramatic improvement in performance over his predessessor from day one of his legislative tenure.

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=3015#4569

*

Recent Northeast Times editorials have been increasingly angry and full of name-calling. As a general rule, I object to this style of public debate. Public debate should encourage participation of those who are the most informed, and those who are the most inquisitive. A pattern of denunciation discourages such participation. Whatever clarity is gained by verbal assaults is offset by drastic reductions in balance, objectivity, fairness and credibility. Further, a sense of community is built when people talk to each other.As Bill Clinton once said, "We have to stop pointing fingers at each other so we can join hands."A sense of community is destroyed when discussion of public issues is reduced to bitter, distorted and inaccurate public attacks.Building community has long been the Northeast Times’ most important product. This new editorial tone seriously undermines that creation of community at a time when many new people are moving into our neighborhoods and starting to read the Northeast Times for the first time.These reflections are directly stirred by the editorial of Aug. 4. I deeply regret that I did not step up earlier as a clear pattern was building. I guess I hoped that the editorial anger would fade out. Instead, it appears to have become institutionalized.Dealing directly with the Aug. 4 editorial, Northeast Philadelphia legislators are obviously not "bums" and Ed Rendell is obviously not "a pansy," whether that word is used to mean a weak or effeminate man, or that word is used to mean a homosexual. (Many homosexuals are deeply offended by the use of that word to describe them.)Nor are Philadelphia legislators "naughty," whether that word is used to mean dishonest or that word is used to describe the immoral sexual behavior. Using words with these kinds of dual meanings is at best poor writing and at worst an incitement to hatred that should not be repeated in the future.The Northeast Times seems most aggrieved at the decision of the Pennsylvania Legislature to vote itself an immediate increase in unvouchered expenses despite the Pennsylvania Constitution provision banning an immediate increase in salary. But unvouchered expenses are not legally the same as salary.If I applied for a mortgage and I was asked what my salary was, I could be accused of fraud if I include the unvouchered expenses as part of my salary.Pennsylvania legislators are 253 out of many millions of Americans whose work requires them to expend personal funds out of the salary they receive. The average American teacher, for instance, expends about $1,000 a year out of his or her salary for classroom materials.Similarly, the average Pennsylvania legislator spends considerably more than $1,000 a year for organizational events, ads for organizational events, help for individuals in need, organizational memberships, credit card interest on reimbursable expenses filed late or processed slowly, etc.Unvouchered expenses will reimburse legislators for these costs of job related expenses not directly reimbursed by the legislature.Some legislators will be able to document to the IRS that they pay more out of their salaries than the amount provided for them in unvouchered expenses.Those legislators who cannot document that they pay more of their salaries in job related expenses will pay taxes on any money they cannot document as legitimate to the IRS.As anybody who has struggled with IRS-required record keeping knows, not being able to document expenses in accordance with the requirements of the IRS does not mean that the expense was never incurred. It may mean instead that the necessary receipts were misplaced or never obtained.Those who insist that unvouchered expenses are the same as salary, despite opinions of both the Commonwealth Court and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to the contrary, argue that the constitutional ban on immediate salary increases is so clear that the opinions of Commonwealth Court judges and Supreme Court justices should be irrelevant. These critics have either forgotten or never learned how judicial interpretation works.There are two basic theories of judicial interpretation. The technical term for judicial interpretation is judicial construction. The first theory is one of strict construction: the law means precisely what it says and no more than what it says. The second theory is one of liberal construction: the law means whatever its full social purpose is or what it can be argued to be.Generally speaking, strict construction has long been more popular among judges than liberal construction, especially in state courts throughout America.An important secondary theory of judicial construction is the theory of stare decisis, which means the decisions as to what the law means should stay the same over time.Pennsylvania’s constitution, like the constitution of states generally, is far longer than the Constitution of the United States. Strict construction has always been more popular on state courts, including Pennsylvania’s, than federal courts because of this.State constitutions are inherently about details, and therefore state judges tend to take careful note about what is included and what is not included when interpreting constitutional provisions.Gene Stilp, who challenged the legislature’s pay increase and increase in unvouchered expenses in 1995, has filed a challenge to the 2005 increase in Commonwealth Court hoping that new judges will reverse prior court decisions.Despite my friendship with Stilp and some of the other critics of the legislature’s action in increasing pay and unvouchered expenses, I firmly believe that the legislature acted in the public interest in doing so.I have little doubt that Pennsylvania courts will follow the theories of strict construction and stare decisis and reject any legal challenges filed by Stilp or anyone else. The increases in legislative pay and unvouchered expenses are in the public interest because they help the legislature retain and attract dedicated people, while increasing and maintaining ethical standards that are much higher than in many other states.In New Jersey, for instance, many legislators have other governmental jobs, and New Jersey law requires that other governmental employers give the New Jersey legislators paid time off whenever legislative business requires.New Jersey legislators also can receive payment for state governmental leasing of buildings they own or performing legal, real estate, and other professional services for state agencies. None of these forms of economic subsidy for legislators is allowed in Pennsylvania, nor should it be.In Arkansas, until recently, legislators were able to be paid as lobbyists while serving in the legislature. The same is true with the British Parliament.In Texas, even today, legislators are allowed to be paid for lobbying the executive branch, and their pensions are far higher than those of the Pennsylvania legislators.In Alaska, the speaker of the house has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars a year doing work for companies regulated by the state. Again, none of this happens in Pennsylvania, nor should it.Despite claims that Pennsylvania legislators will have the second highest salaries of legislators from the 50 states, Pennsylvania legislators will receive income far less than many typical American state legislators receive.When I go to national meetings of state legislators from other states, I sometimes hear about the private planes they own; their extensive ownership of businesses, real estate, and stocks; and their extensive earnings from governmental agencies and businesses interested in influencing them. They earn far more than I do; they just earn it in ways that are entirely or somewhat hidden from the public.Rising salaries and unvouchered expenses keep the Pennsylvania legislature in the hands of middle-class people and out of the crosshairs of those who investigate systematical governmental corruption. It means that legislatures will not be dependent for income on executive branch governmental agencies or private businesses with their own legislative agendas.The Pennsylvania Legislature has significantly aided in the building of Philadelphia’s economic base through the funding and other help for the establishment and the expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center, the Constitution Center, the civilian uses of the Philadelphia Naval Yard, the Avenue of the Arts, the Kimmel Center, riverfront development and alternative forms of public education such as charter schools and independent schools for children with discipline problems, as well as many neighborhood-specific programs. The Pennsylvania Legislature has both increased numerous criminal sentences and advanced a growing number of crime prevention measures, to protect citizens against murderers, rapists, sexual predators and numerous perpetrators of white collar fraud.The Pennsylvania Legislature is full of dedicated and decent people. Working with them in a constructive manner can expedite many future improvements for Northeast Philadelphia and its citizens.

http://forums.philly.com/n/mb/display.asp?webtag=kr-localnews&msg=4322.15

*

Bill Rieger has gotten terrible press because of his minimalistic approach to the duties of the job--he focuses on what he thinks is important and lets a lot of other things go-- and because he is rarely at his district residence and is more easily found at his residence outside his district. He is a man who is easy to underestimate, but who nevertheless holds the record for House Democrats for the longest tenure in the history of Pennsylvania. In 40 years in the House, he never gave a speech on the House floor. Yet, many consider him one of the more influential members of the House. He is often persuasive as a Co-Chair of the Philadelphia (Democratic) Delegation; he is emphatic that no one vote against money for Philadelphia.He rarely talks to the press. Yet, as Chairman of the House Ethics Committee, he put out one of the most influential press releases in the history of the House, a press release that shamed a legislator attempting to sell his services as a communications expert to lobbyists into dropping the idea before a single penny was paid to him.He rarely introduces bills. But one who wants to know the history of issues over the last 40 years--what was tried, what succeeded, what failed, who the key players were--Bill Rieger is often a good source.A longtime wardleader and protege of former Mayor James Tate, Rieger has been generally considered to be a machine politician. But he beat a longtime incumbent in a Democratic Primary to win his seat in 1966. And in the battle to succeed himself this year, he gave decisive support to "outsider" candidate Tony Payton.He knows and likes a lot of lobbyists. But as Chairman of the Committee on Professional Licensure, he pushed through a bill giving the public membership on all the professional licensure boards.He never went to college. But served for many years on the Board of Temple University, whose hospital, medical, and dental schools are in his district and near his home. He is given a lot of credit by longtime Temple President Peter Liacouras and others for keeping the Temple Dental School alive.He rarely attacks anyone publicly. But privately, he volunteers numerous examples of ethical lapses that annoy him and--he makes clear--that others should always avoid. He is a moralist in his personal life too--always making clear that each night the legislature breaks at a reasonable time he goes home to his wife.He and I go back a long way. He knew my late uncle Al Lipshutz for decades before he entered the legislature. Al was an active Democrat, and was an early Tate choice to run for the seat that Rieger won. But he stunned Tate by turning down his suggestion, making way for Rieger. The year after he was elected, Rieger strongly backed my father for a vacant 8th District Council seat.Although we go back a long way, we are polar opposites in many ways. He delegates much more than I do. I enmesh myself in public policy debates, while he tends to avoid them. I led the successful effort to establish legislative district offices; for years, Rieger maintained perhaps the least visible legislative district office. I engage in many forms of outreach; Rieger thinks that it is better to have people seek him out. I was one of the first legislators to do the job full-time, which is now the norm; Rieger is still one of staunchest advocates for legislators maintaining another occupation.Rieger has been called a dinosaur, but he has survived because he has been responsive to changes. He morphed from a businessman to a backer of labor; from a champion of white ethnics to a staunch ally of the black community; from a man close to Mayors Tate and Rizzo to a trusted advisor to a much younger generation of political leaders; from a teller of ethnic jokes to an outspoken opponent of any slur.Rieger is a twenty-first century version of George Plunkett of Tammany Hall, who about a hundred years ago gave a series of candid observations to a reporter that are likely still used in political science classrooms today. Anyone who could persuade Rieger to talk into a tape recorder could put together another political science classic.We in the Philadelphia Delegation all will miss Bill Rieger's presence this year.For a short time, it looked like there might be no one on the ballot for the Democratic nomination to succeed him, because three of the four candidates to succeed him could not meet the ballot requirements, and a fourth was unsuccessfully accused of not meeting them.Tom Waring of the Northeast Times--who has never been able to interview Bill Rieger--asked me to comment on the race. "If Payton stays on the ballot, he is going to have an extraordinary opportunity," I said. "I'm sure he will make a fine legislator. But if he's kicked off the ballot, Bill Rieger's warming up in the bullpen."There was wishful thinking in that statement; Rieger made it clear once again at the retirement dinner that he was determined to retire. But I will miss his Harrisburg presence, and so will many in both Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

June 3, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=259453#post259453

*

Rieger was the first to arrive at the LaVigna dinner, and enjoyed every minute of it. It was a nice gesture of closure for him.I said we are polar opposites in many ways. My record is one of involvement in a far wider range of issues, and far greater proactivity than his is. There are clearly positive things about his record,however, and I pointed some of them out. I think you learn more about people and the political process if you ask what strengths enabled them to go as far as they did, instead of just bemoaning the fact that they are in office. This is especially true when they are leaving office and have conceded that someone else might do a better job in the future.If one looks at the ideal legislator as set forth by John Baer and other advocates of limited government, Rieger comes close to the ideal, unless you include term limits in the ideal. His attendance record in Harrisburg saved the taxpayers from paying for too many per diems; he never went to legislative conferences; he did not propose many bills costing taxpayers money; he always maintained another source of income throughout his 40 years in the legislature, staying connected to the business community; he was absent on the vote for the pay raise; he was modest in his view of what the legislature could accomplish. The limited government ideal does not include a disputed residency of course, but the passivity that is perceived about Rieger is definitely part of the ideal.Geno, one can come up with lists of projects that perhaps should have been in Rieger's district had Rieger been able to get state funds for them. But I am a little bit leery of the issue of neighborhood "decline." As some people frequently use that word, it primarily means the moving in of racial minorities, especially low-income racial minorities.That is inevitable, especially in areas of inexpensive housing such as Rieger represents. Our 21st century challenge is to accomodate the demands of minorities for housing while maintaining the quality of neighborhoods. I know from your prior posts that you are in general agreement with me on this perspective.

June 3, 2006

http://www.phillyblog.com/philly/showthread.php?p=259755#post259755

*

Those who express random thoughts to legislative committees are oftensurprised and appalled to find themselves the instigators of law.

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:M0KWWu8qzjoJ:mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/httpd-dev/199601.mbox/%253C199601260001.TAA00488%40telebase.com.%253E+%22MARK+B+COHEN%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=158

*

I favor increased state funding for all urban school districts, increased funding across the state for special education, extracurricular activities, after-school tutoring, school libraries, and encouraging parental participation. We need new programs for pre-school, for all children, magnet schools before high school, and greater efforts for dropout prevention and re-entry.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:oDCKLsnUz0cJ:pa.lwv.org/philadelphia/voterguide.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=236

*

Government is not like a private multinational corporation which stockpiles many billion dollars of reserves. A balanced budget is required by the state constitution; the state government tries to spend what it receives in taxes.Therefore, all times are "fiscally troubled" times. There is never enough money to solve every problem, especially in times like the present when the federal government--run by Republicans in the House, Senate, and White House-- cuts hundreds of millions of dollars (about $350 million in state aid in 2005-2006).What the Pennsylvania government spends its revenues on depends upon the will of the citizens, as expressed by whom they send to represent them in Harrisburg, especially what party they send to represent them in Harrisburg. Unfortunately, most legislative districts in both the House and Senate are represented by Republicans who have very limited empathy for the plight of the less fortunate and who often run without opposition. Dissent from their extremely conservative policies in their home districts is rather rare, creating the rebuttable presumption that they are indeed speaking for their constituents.With the pay raises, the base salaries for Pennsylvania legislators are lower than that of many thousands of other public sector workers: experienced and well-credentialed teachers and principals, police who put in a lot of overtime or obtain advanced rank, professional aides in city and state departments in both the legislative and executive branches of the city, state, and federal governments, heads of departments and the vast majority of their deputies, etc. The bill raising legislative salaries also raised the salaries of judges, district attorneys, cabinet members, and the Governor, whose salaries were generally far higher than the legislature's before and after the pay raises.I believe that legislative salaries should be high enough to attract many persons of competenceand integrity to seek the positions and work at them full-time and overtime when necessary or advisable.It sent the wrong message when people like my Widener University School of Law law school classmate Kelly Lewis (R-Monroe County) resigned from the legislature immediately after winning re-election to take a well-paid lobbying job. It sends the wrong message in Congress when the number of former Congress members working as lobbyists exceeds the number of members sitting in the current Congress.The people control the decision as to who their legislators are. That decision is more meaningful--and the people are hence more powerful--when the job is financially worth winning. When the job entails a significant financial sacrifice to the winner, the public's power over the winner becomes somewhat attenuated. Denying a person the chance to make a financial sacrifice is hardly the heaviest of punishments.

July 5, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sY2Thxvoej4J:youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/07/kudos-to-john-street.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=257

*

The main difference between Pennsylvania and other state legislatures is the degree of time and expertise that goes into legislative decisionmaking.The National Conference of State Legislatures says that Pennsylvania is one of the four most full-time states in the country, based upon how many legislators have significant outside income and how many days they spend on legislative business.Pennsylvania is classified with New York, California, and Michigan in this top-ranked category. While Pennsylvania's legislature is far from perfect, and far too conservative in my judgement, we do function with a high level of competence.California's notorious inability to come even close to balancing a budget or to regulate utilities led to the recall of Gray Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger.New York has frequently failed to pass a budget for most of the year the budget is to cover, and has failed to get all too many of its members to adhere to ethical standards in financial and personal matters.Michigan, like Pennsylvania suffering from massive deindustrialization, has failed to deal with the problem of developing a new employment base as well as Pennsylvania or other states have.With a Democratic majority and more progressive Democrats, the Pennsylvania legislature could do better things. But what it does, it does competently because of significant attention to detail. (I do not deny that further improvements are possible.)In the days of the Soviet Union, they got by with their legislative body meeting all of three days a year and merely rubberstamping whatever they were given to vote on. Until the 1950's, the Pennsylvania legislature often came uncomfortably close to the Soviet model. No comparison with other states is valid unless there are considerations of time spent and outside income earned.Income disclosure of legislators is generally limited to souces rather than amounts, so exact comparisons are difficult. But in many other states it is quite common for legislatures to composed of highly paid attorneys,other professionals, businesspeople, and association executives, who earn far more each year than do the vast majority of Pennsylvania legislators.Pennsylvania may be the 2nd highest paid legislature in terms of base salary paid for out of state funds, but I doubt we are anywhere near the top tier in terms of average income earned each year by members of the General Assembly.I believe it is far better in terms of public policy to have legislators financially dependent on taxpayers than on employers or partners with significant legislative agendas of their own.

July 5, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:sY2Thxvoej4J:youngphillypolitics.blogspot.com/2005/07/kudos-to-john-street.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=257

*

Being a good legislator requires skills in writing and interpreting the law, communicating with other citizens, helping others solve sometimes complex personal problems, communicating with the media, managing governmental staff,helpoing private sector leaders, and engaging in persuasive speech with many people who are experts in different fields. These skills have significant market value and are often found most readily with those who have advanced degrees.There are no educational requirements for the legislature, yet the voters have repeatedly elected people with one or more graduate degrees for the positions. There are no minimum hours required, yet the voters have repeatedly elected men and women who regularly work sixty hours or more a week.Those who believe the greatest of all possible injustices in this society is having a legislature that is well-paid compared to the average citizen or (to say the same thing differently) adequately paid for a professional person should aggressively seek poorly educated candidates with records of having been repeatedly fired from the jobs they have held to run for the legislature. Such people probably won't do very much, but they will be very grateful to serve in the legislature if somehow elected and will be highly unlikely to vote to raise their salaries.

November 10, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ag8RK7lYcOcJ:aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-we-dont-want-your-firstborn.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=310

*

If what the voters truly want is a legislature that will not seek to raise its salary, it should vote for legislative candidates whose dismal record of performance and low level of credentials will not lead them to think they are worth more money. If what the voters want is a high performing legislature--which, contrary to the angry rhetoric is what they have now--they should understand that people who work extraordinarily long hours, spend many weeks a year away from their families, and have the ability to earn more money if they leave the legislature, are likely to think themselves worthy of pay raises.

November 10, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ag8RK7lYcOcJ:aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-we-dont-want-your-firstborn.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=310

*

I would say that the belief in the highly qualified, hard working,honest and responsive legislators in other states who have earned the enthusiastic support of their constituents is a myth that has not been documented at all by any opponent of Pennsylvania legislative pay raises.The fact is that many state legislatures around the country are riddled with legal corruption, conflicts of interest, and part-timers who do not have the ability to adequately serve their constituents.

November 10, 2005

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:ag8RK7lYcOcJ:aboveavgjane.blogspot.com/2005/11/no-we-dont-want-your-firstborn.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=310

*

I dispute that Democracy Rising is in any meaningful way a liberal organization. It's platform of calling for a smaller legislature that meets less frequently in which candidates are to be made more dependent on personal wealth due to restrictions on out of district campaign contributions is hardly a liberal platform.Democracy Rising has leaders with liberal roots, but they have clearly moved far, far to the right--right of even the Commonwealth Foundation, which does not approve of reducing the size of the legislature.

June, 2006

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:KvwY_YQUP0kJ:ferrickspoliblog2006.blogspot.com/2006/06/whole-pig.html+%22mark+b+cohen%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=412