Some Philly Issues
Can someone explain to me how and why the PA legislature repealed their pay raises? Was there any organized pressure to force this and where did it come from? The Inquirer makes it sound like it was just a lot of angry letters to the editor. Is this possible?
Sandy Smith has a nice article in City Paper on how Ed Bacon brought too much of the suburb into the city.
posted by Victor Laszlo @ 11/04/2005
8 comments
8 Comments:
Certainly, the pressure brought by "grassroots" organizations (such as Neighborhood Networks) had something to do with the repeal - unfortunately, a signficant percentage of those groups were right-wing zealots fomenting anger against government representatives (so they reduce government to a size that it can be "drowned in a bathtub").
There is a discussion on the repeal vote over at:
http://youngphillypolitics.com/node/351
Thanks Dumpling. So it looks like it was the right that was more organized and effective than the left on this. (When the right-wingers get something through they're zealots, but when the left does it it's democracy right?
Ok, good catch there - I should have been less partisan with my language. But then again, I'm not going to pretend that I don't have a perspective.
Some background: I had something of a problem with NN and other advocates of raising the minimum wage climbing into bed with right-wing grassroots organizations (is that better?) in the whole pay-raise backlash thing. I don't like rabble-rousing as a tactic, and more importantly, it seemed to me to be short-sighted and potentially damaging to folks like our very own contributor, Mark Cohen, who sponsored the mimimum wage bill but also voted for the pay raise.
With all due respect, Mark, I for one, do not share your perspective on the validity of the pay raise on its own merits. And I would suggest to you that you will only further alienate most "progressives" as long as you continue to try to justify either the pay raise, or the way the legislation was passed.
I am confused by the fact that you seem to be "out of touch" on that issue. In the past, you have justified the pay raise by making what I consider to be somewhat degrading comparisons to teachers' salaries. There is a large space between "dumbing down" the legislature and paying legislators in such a way as to compete with the salaries of corporate lawyers. And even if there weren't, in today's fiscal environment when those same legislators are cutting social service, they should at least have some political sensativity in how they go about trying to increase their own pay.
On the other hand, I had questions about the linking the pay raise issue to the minimum wage issue, and would be curious if you have seen any negative impact, or benefits, recently as a result of that linkage by some activists.
Mark,
I'm still confused by your approach on this issue. Regardless of the merits of legislator's salaries, I think it is clear that the vast majority of progressives support neither the pay raise itself, nor the manner in which it was originally legislated.
I don't expect that you're going to defer to my political consultancy expertise, but I am absolutely convinced that you will not be able to make signficant inroads on this issue if you continue your current approach: For you to compare your salary to teachers or corporate lawyers will convince no one. Further, for you to continue to not acknowledge and address dirctly the specifics of how the pay raise was handled from a public relations perspective also seems very myopic.
I'm not excusing the bandwagon jumping that's been happening on this issue: I dont support the approach of Baer or NN, but it seems to me that your approach is only likely to exacerbate the problem. I also know that every well-meaining progressives involved in this issue have a differing perspective with respect to the advisibility of linking the issues.
I'm also quite sure that NN is not going to drop the minimum wage issue. Whether the fact that they linked the issues has ultimately had a negative effect or not, the minimum wage issue is a defining issue for a large percentage of NN members. Given that what you called for (for NN to drop the issue) is not going to happen, it seems it might make more sense for you to, (1) suggest alternative ways that NN could mitigate against the negative impact of its having linked the issues, (2) help NN members to appreciate how there may have been a negative impact from the linkage, and (3) help NN to create functional mechanisms so that similar mistakes are not made in the future (if, in fact it was a mistake), so that NN can be more "focused" in the future, and so that the general membership can better understand the forces at play that contributed to the organization linking the topics in the first place.
Mark Cohen: Thanks for this interesting perspective. Can you say if there are particular right-wing or corporate groups that lobbied against the pay increase? The Inquirer is reporting that it was a result of voter anger and not corporate lobbying:
"They did it because of you, the lethal weapon pointed at their collective head, threatening an Election Day massacre. They did it because voters from Erie to South Philly, from the Poconos to Pittsburgh, said enough was enough."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/13076633.htm
"You did it. You, the voters of Pennsylvania, got the Harrisburg pols to pay attention."
http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/13076624.htm
Vic,
Copied whole from Youngphillypolitics:
Well, Momma warned that there’d be days like this. It looks like conservatives are on the verge of outmaneuvering progressives once again.
A strange left-right alliance united to call for the repeal of the unpopular legislative pay raise. As Dan has already noted, this issue has been a tremendous organizing asset to conservatives across the state. Some argued that despite the mileage conservatives have gotten out of the pay raise, progressive organizations would benefit as well.
Too bad it didn’t work out that way. On Election Day, it looks like the anti-pay raise movement could be partially responsible for preventing two progressive candidates from being retained on Pennsylvania State Supreme Court. Click “Read More” for my analysis.
After severing 10 years on the bench, two Philadelphia-area justices face a retention election. Justices Russell Nigro and Sandra Schultz Newman have been endorsed by numerous progressive organizations and highly rated by the Pennsylvania Bar Association. From an excellent article in the Philadelphia Citypaper:
So why should Philadelphians care about who sits on the state Supreme Court? A court that meets a mere seven weeks a year. A court whose most well-known justice earned his notoriety through an addiction to prescription drugs.
What's at stake now that Philadelphia has the chance to put not just one, but two natives on the state's highest bench?
Ask Ed Rendell.
"If you don't think it matters in your life, that a Philadelphia judge get on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, then you're dead wrong," he told the crowd at the Northeast gathering. "It matters in dollars and cents. A court decision about five years ago said that the state should pick up the cost of our courts; $100 million. If Russell gets on the court — and he's not allowed to say it, but I will — we could get those court costs back and with $100 million we could hire 1,700 new police officers in the Philadelphia police department. So get out and vote.
Conservative organizations have been urging Pennsylvania voters to reject Nigro and Newman on the basis that they both benefited from the legislative pay raise. Of course, neither of them had any role in approving the raise, but that doesn’t matter to the right-wing. They are out for blood. Already emboldened by Sen. Robert Jubelirer reversal on the issue, a rejection of Newman and Nigro by Pennsylvania voters will be a another feather in their cap.
The people who are leaders of the anti-pay raise movement are the same people who want to take Pennsylvania back to the Stone Age. They want to eliminate the right to privacy and a woman’s right to choose. They want to break the backs of labor unions. They want to roll back affirmative action. They refuse to fund public transit. They want to pass TABOR and destroy the entire public sector. They want a low-wage economy that benefits the economic elite.
In short, these people are not our friends.
Vote YES on judicial retention and help deny conservatives a political victory.
I am not sure that all Republ
Submitted by DanielUA on Sun, 11/06/2005 - 7:38pm.
I am not sure that all Republicans would be thrilled with "no" votes on retention, because that means Rendell gets to appoint 2 justices. Would they trade one republican and one democrat for two democrats?
» login or register to post comments
Interesting point
Submitted by Ben Waxman on Sun, 11/06/2005 - 7:50pm.
I just got into a debate about this with a conservative-leaning friend. He claims he is voting "no" because of how Nigro and Newman interpreted the PA Constitution in the pay raise case. He doesn't like the Young Conservatives of PA and the Club for Growth (who are the people really behind the anti-pay raise movement) but says he is still voting no.
I pointed out to him that since Rendell is making the appointments, there was no political impact of throwing out Nigro and Newman. It was only symbolic—and the symbolism shows the strength of YCOP and allied organizations. Conservatives are using the pay raise to build their own power in a very strategic way—a “no” vote on retention helps them even more. They don’t really care who is on the Supreme Court, particularly because they think Newman (who is a Republican) is too liberal. They’d most likely rather have two Democrats than a liberal Republican.
» login or register to post comments
simple
Submitted by Ben Waxman on Sun, 11/06/2005 - 7:52pm.
Shorter version: The vote will be percived as a show of strength for YCOP and the other anti-pay raise conservatives-- people who are trying to overthrow the current Republican leadership. I'd rather have people like Perzel in charge than some of the nutcases from the T.
» login or register to post comments
Thanks that's interesting. I don't know how people stay up on all this crap.
Post a Comment
<< Home