All Hail Lenzner

On March 27, Port Authority of Allegheny County will cut routes, frequencies, buses, and drivers from their payroll in an effort to survive.

Private bus company Lenzner Coach Lines is taking up the slack for one route. They are paying Port Authority for the ability to offer reduced service. There will be no free senior and student rides. There will be no discounted disability service. There will only be 4 roundtrips per week day with no weekend trips. You will have to reserve an entire month's worth of trips to step on the bus. If Port Authority offered that service for the bargain-basement price of $3.25 each way, there would be riots in the street. But Lenzner will be charging $5.00 each way and make a profit. Yes, Port Authority, people would rather pay higher fares than not take the bus.

Of course, the Port Authority brought in only $93 Million in operating revenue (i.e. fares) in 2010. They had $397 Million in expenses. Employee wages and salaries alone accounted for $143 Million. Yes, current fares don't even cover current employee wages. That doesn't include employee benefits (like the costly pension system) which were an additional $126 Million in 2010. These are astounding numbers which actually tell you that fares mean very little in the grand scheme of things.

The state helped out significantly by dropping $184 Million in the bucket last year. The county offered a relatively piddling $27 Million on top of that. With the cost of pensions continuing to explode (a $13 Million increase just last year), reading these numbers seems pretty bleak. Port Authority is not sustainable even if it could triple its fares and not lose any riders. State government led by Governor Corbett would rather just shut their eyes, plug their ears, and ignore the problem.

It's easy to blame Port Authority's runaway expenses. But if you think Port Authority's expenses are ridiculous, keep this in mind:
PennDOT alone has a budget of $3.8 Billion, which is completely independent from the Turnpike budget, and the thousands of Pennsylvania county municipality road budgets.

So in short, Port Authority needs to make these cuts. There is no knight in shining armor stepping in to pony up 10% more in funding every year just to cover increased pension obligations. And in 10 years, I won't be too surprised to learn that Lenzner is operating more and more of our bus lines and light rail. We've brought this on ourselves by blaming Port Authority and shutting our eyes. I just feel bad for Grandma.

My advice to Lenzner? Don't start offering any of those pesky pensions.

Pro-Choice and Pro-Safety

I make no secret on this blog or in real life that I am pro-choice. I despise the weekly protests at Planned Parenthood downtown which mostly serve to deter women without health insurance from getting birth control and reasonable gynecological services.

But being pro-choice does not mean that I want a free-for-all for abortion clinics. It means I want no woman to be forced to use unsafe practices to make her choice. It means I want an end to shoddy back-door clinics. But here in Pennsylvania, state health officials overlooked this task for the last 15 years. 15 years!!! Luckily, here in Pittsburgh, when inspections resumed in 2010, no grave dangers were discovered. Unfortunately, for women in Philadelphia, that was not the case. Two women are dead, and hundreds of babies were aborted in ghastly ways.

Shame on a former pro-choice governor for neglecting safety at the expense of choice. Shame on Pennsylvania's state health officials for sitting idly by at the expense of our women and children. Shame on the reactionary politics for only resuming inspections after the Philadelphia clinic owner was brought to trial. Shame on the residents of Pennsylvania for not demanding better service from our state officials. Shame on us all if this happens again.

The Polls Are Open

It's a happy coincidence that I'm back in the country for election day. It's jet lag though not excitement that has me blogging this early in the morning.

Your Western Pennsylvania Election Run Down:

Governor

It's a toss-up for which is the most important election this year. Since I'm a proponent of all things local, I'm going to say the race for governor is the most important. Harrisburg once again recently showed that they are completely inept by failing to pass a Marcellus Shale drilling tax. Here in Pittsburgh, our pension crisis is coming to a head because of Harrisburg's inaction. Let's put someone in the governor's chair who actually has a chance of addressing those issues.

Tom Corbett:

"Tom Corbett may not be in a hurry to enact a severance tax on natural gas drillers, but if elected Pennsylvania’s next governor, the current attorney general will begin immediately to reform state government."

Do you really trust that he's going to change his tune after he's elected and in power? Judge the man on what he's actually done - not on his promises. Judge him on what he has done, such as joining the health care suit to overturn much needed health care reform in this country.

Dan Onorato:

I'll admit it that I flip-flop on Dan Onorato. He has certainly made choices locally that I disapprove of, but that will be the case with any candidate that you have detailed knowledge of. There is no perfect candidate, but there is a "best" candidate in this election. That is Dan Onorato. He has accomplished a lot (controversially) in his time as County Executive of Allegheny County. He's making the county more energy efficient, investing in our green space, and recently announced a major breakthrough of the Allegheny trail. As governor, he will be in the position to fix the property tax miasma throughout the state and maintain his hard line on limited tax increases.

Senator

Toomey:
From his site: "Throughout his time in Congress, Pat voted for legislation to protect innocent life, strengthen marriage, and protect the traditional values upon which this country was founded."
Would those be the same values that made black men slaves and denied women the right to vote? No thank you.

Toomey's cure for the economy: "cutting taxes and decreasing regulation." Really? Really? Haven't we had enough of short-term fixes that screw us in the end?

Sestak:
His grassroots campaign upset surprised us all in the Spring when he emerged victorious over Arlen Spector. He needs your help to do it again. For information on why you should vote for Sestak, see the Post-Gazette's endorsement of Sestak.

Get out and vote!

Full of Gas in Harrisburg

If there's one thing I've learned in my time in Pennsylvania, it's that you can rely on our State Legislators in Harrisburg to drag their feet. This is the same Legislature which in 2009 didn't pass its annual budget until almost 3 months after it was due.

Marcellus Shale (the huge rock formation containing huge amounts of hard-to-extract natural gas covering most of Western Pennsylvania) has been in the news for years. Companies have been ramping up operations to build wells and extract the lucrative gas since 2008. Now in the middle of a budget crisis in 2010 where our roads and public transportation options are facing severe cuts, the Legislators are finally proposing a tax on this process which is harmful to the environment and has already put billions of dollars in the pockets of investors.

Today, the State House is finally voting on a bill to tax the shale deposits. The only questions are: how much and how? Do you tax on the quantity of the gas as it is extracted from the ground or on the market value once the gas is sold or a combination of the two (as Governor Rendell supports). The current bill will only tax the gas as it is extracted, but it is set to be one of the highest rates in the nation. Of course, this is in front of the House. Once (and if) the bill reaches the Republican-controlled Senate, they will inevitably compromise and lower the rate and/or change the methodology.

Finally, once they can agree on the tax, they need to agree where the money should go - a combination of State general fund and an environmental fund to counteract the damages imposed by drilling.

Needless to say the drilling companies have predicted doom and gloom if the bill is passed in Pennsylvania. And Legislators are hesitant to pass a law so close to an important mid-term election. Will they pass the law before they leave for campaigning break in mid-October? I'll wager my bus fare because if they don't pass the law, I won't be taking the bus anymore anyways.

As a note, all other 24 Marcellus Shale states have already passed a tax. Pennsylvania is dead last.

Designated Drivers to the Rescue

Anecdotal evidence walking in the South Side on a Friday night says that people in Pittsburgh have a major drunk-driving problem. But what do you do when you're drunk and you're out with your car? A new company aims to take away one pathetic excuse for the drunk drivers. You (or your concerned friend) call 1-877-U-BMYDD. For a reasonable fee, they will drive you and your car home. You can also reserve their driving services ahead of time on their website. But if you are the type of person to get smashed with your car, you're probably not planning ahead, are you?

Now, we just have to convince Pittsburgh drivers that they shouldn't be driving drunk. This week, there is a state-wide push to crack down on drunk drivers.

"Pennsylvania Department of Transportation officials said drunken driving increases as the summer comes to an end. According to records, last year there were more than 450 alcohol related crashes in Pennsylvania on the weekends surrounding Labor Day."

How about they "crack down" every weekend on the South Side? Of course, it's hard to have effective checkpoints when even the cops drive under the influence. But it's promising that BeMyDD is expanding to Pittsburgh after successfully launching in 3 Ohio cities. According to Men's Health, Cleveland, Cincinnati and Columbus are all doing better than us at addressing drinking with ranks of 73, 72, and 83 respectively, but Pittsburgh's ranking of 59th means there are a lot of cities with a lot more work to do. This is one list that I'm glad we're not topping.

Dear American Women

90 years ago today, your foremothers and forefathers were celebrating the passing of the 19th Amendment and your right to vote. The passing was the result of a multi-year effort fraught with ups and downs. Of the 36 required states, Pennsylvania was the 7th state to ratify the amendment. Many states voted against women's suffrage in 1920 including Mississippi who did not jump on board until 1984.

Don't waste your rights and the efforts of your foremothers. And don't forget that with enough effort, you can change the status quo.

Sincerely,

pghisacity

Who Respects Freedom of Religion?

It's the dog days of summer in Pittsburgh, and elections are starting to heat up in Pennsylvania. Voting day in this mid-term election is Tuesday November 2. Joe Sestak is fighting it out with Pat Toomey to take Arlen Specter's space. Joe made waves earlier this year when he pulled off a Democratic Primary upset against Specter. In the meantime, he's gained some major support from the party with New York City Mayor Bloomberg endorsing Sestak this week in light of his pro-Constitution stance in light of the effort to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

"Joe believes there is a Constitutional right to religious freedom and separation of church and state that applies equally to all Americans," Sestak spokesman Jonathon Dworkin said. "But he is not looking to say what is best for New York - as long as that right is respected - he is focused on Pennsylvania."

Meanwhile, Toomey has spoken out against the building of a mosque in Lower Manhattan.

"It is provocative in the extreme to build a mosque in the shadow of ground zero," said Toomey spokeswoman Nachama Soloveichik. "Islamic leaders should be encouraged to move the mosque elsewhere."

A recent poll shows Toomey has pulling ahead in the Senate race with a 9-point advantage. Public Policy Polling finds that in spite of an advantage in registered Democrats, Democrats are less likely to vote in this election. I, for one, will be trying to prove them wrong on November 2. I hope that the Republican party pulls more stunts like trying to limit freedom of religion in the run-up to these mid-term elections because I think they will find that us Democrats do get riled up about more than "change." As soon as we start limiting freedom of religion, we stop being a free democracy and start on the path to a religious state. No thank you.

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Wine Kiosks

In the past, I have lambasted the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board's newest project: wine kiosks. However, now that the wine kiosks are rapidly expanding and making their way to 14 Western Pennsylvania Giant Eagles by September, I'm starting to embrace the idea.

How they work? You're allowed to buy wine from a sophisticated vending machine.

A customer must first scan his driver's license by inserting it into a slot on the kiosk, then peer into a camera so that an LCB employee working at an office in Harrisburg can determine that the customer is the same person pictured on the license.

So what's the next step? Why not have independent stores with the same "safeguards"? Why not have Giant Eagle employ sommeliers next to their wine kiosk who can answer questions and determine which wines fill up the kiosk? Why not let Dreadnought Wines in the Strip District have their own kiosk filled with their own chosen wines?

Who's complaining? The Independent State Store Union. Members of this union know their jobs are at risk. It's unfortunate for the folks who work at the state stores. They have a pretty swell gig with a guaranteed pension in a market that has been ever-increasing for as far back as anyone can remember. But change is inevitable and cushy state pensions are on the chopping block. Ultimately, more options for buying wine will mean more jobs. So I say: Bring on the wine kiosks and may more change keep coming.

The Libraries versus the Cigars - or Money Talks

The Pennsylvania State Legislature pulled a marathon session last week to pass the state budget on time. They deserved to go out and celebrate this weekend. Maybe they smoked some cigars - the typical celebratory tobacco product? It would be especially fitting as once again, the State Legislature opted against taxing cigars.

Cigars are addictive and cause cancer. Cigars are an expensive, luxury product costing up to and over $1,000 each. Yet, we don't tax cigars. Cigar bars are exempt from the smoking ban. Why do we as a state continually choose to reward cigar smokers while having a hefty cigarette tax?

"Altria and Cigars International, also hired Harrisburg lobbyists to help them bring their message directly to policy-makers."

How much do you want to bet those lobbyists handed out cigars to lawmakers for the holiday weekend? Maybe if the Carnegie libraries wanted to avoid the 8.4% cut in library funding that also passed in this budget they should have created some hybrid cigar bar libraries.

The State Liquor Store Hoax

Once again, the subject of privatizing the state liquor stores has been raised, and once again we hear the alarmist cry.

Rebecca Shaver, state executive director of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said she supports the current state system and is particularly concerned about an increase in the number of liquor stores."If there is a larger number of licenses being issued, which leads to more availability, which leads to more consumption, we prefer that the system that we have in place remains in place," she said.

But is it true that more liquor stores leads to more drinking and drunk driving? Yet 17.6% of our population admits to binge drinking (7th in the nation). In sheer numbers, Pennsylvania ranked 4th in the nation for number of alcohol related fatalities (which is partly reflected by our #6 population rank). When it comes to underage drinking, we fall in the list to #22 with 30% of our minors drinking. Though 20% of them binge drink (which puts us at #18). There's only one other state in the nation (New Hampshire) which has a state run liquor store. Shouldn't we be tied for last with them in all these statistics if state run liquor stores can prevent drinking and drunk driving?

The farce of the matter is that our politicians hide behind our well-meaning alarmists in order to keep the profits from the state liquor stores headed into the general fund. We do not maintain state liquor stores for safety or to prevent underage drinking. We maintain these stores because they bring in record profits every year. The state has no business in running liquor stores. It's a bloated business that sends out glossy advertisements in the newspaper every week, and severely limits entrepreneurship in the state. The 621 state-run liquor stores could be small businesses that pay taxes and contribute to our society. Instead, we have a monopoly which does not adapt to the individual needs of each region. Instead of attempting to limit alcohol consumption and educate consumers about the dangers of alcohol, the PLCB (Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board) is planning self-serve kiosks and wants to re-brand itself with a new name, such as "Table Leaf."

Customers spend an average of three minutes in a liquor store, PLCB Chairman Patrick J. Stapleton told a state House-Senate committee recently. He called that “unacceptable.”

Officials said the renovations and new focus could generate more money for the state. The PLCB provided the state with more than $518 million for the 2008-09 fiscal year.

Rebecca Shaver, do you really want the PLCB chairman plotting on how to get customers to spend more time in the liquor store?

Raising Bus Fares and other Taxes

Steve Bland, Port Authority's CEO, is facing some tough choices. An unexpected cut in state funding (due to the state's moronic dependence on inappropriately tolling Interstate 80) is forcing Port Authority to face $25 Million in less funding. The authority is pondering cutting routes, cutting service (including eliminating nights & weekends), and increasing fares.

Mr. Bland said the authority is reluctant to raise the $2 base fare for Zone 1 because that would hurt its lowest-income customers and affect routes that are the most cost-effective.

On some urban routes, the authority's cost per passenger is less than the $2 fare, he said. Meanwhile, on routes that serve outlying suburbs, the per-passenger cost is $7 or more and the fare just $2.75.

So what Mr Bland is saying is that lowest-income customers are actually helping to subsidize the outer zone customers? Sure, raise those outer zone fares. But keep in mind that if you make a round-trip bus fare on par with parking downtown, more people will drive and park downtown. Of course, if the state can get its act together and find some funding, most of these threats can be eliminated. From Marcellus Shale to chewing tobacco, there are lots of untapped revenue sources in this state. Unfortunately, legislators are afraid they'll lose their jobs if they raise the gas tax or find other tax sources. It's up to you to tell your legislator he or she will lose their job if they allow these massive public transportation cuts to happen.

Immigration Laws in Pennsylvania

One thing always strike me about anti-immigration rhetoric and laws. Laws tend to target the immigrant and not the folks employing illegal immigrants. Case in point, the recent controversial Arizona law which makes it possible for the police to essentially harass anyone who's not lily white. This method of targeting the immigrant ends up dividing families and encourages a police state. Immigrants don't come to America because they like the weather. They come to escape hardship and get jobs. If the jobs don't exist, they won't flood our gates. In Connecticut they have scheduled immigrant pick-up stops where you can get a laborer for the day. They also have plans to build full-fledged shelters at the stops. The residents of Connecticut don't care because they get cheap labor without thinking of the long-term health care, schooling, and judicial costs. This is repeated in Home Depots across the country. If someone gets in trouble, it won't be the day employer, it will be the laborer, who will get kicked out of the country and replaced by yet another cheap immigrant laborer. It's a vicious cycle and ultimately the people who get the most hurt are the immigrants.

However, Pennsylvania's latest laws actually aim to target those employers who get cheap immigrant labor, then undercut responsible employers in state bids.

House Bills 1502 and 1503 require employers to verify the social security numbers of their employees if they are going to bid on state projects. These house bills (which you can read in their entirety and discuss at the new site Mygov365.com if you're so inclined) target the employers instead of the employees. Of course, they're still not perfect. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is quick to point out that the methods for determining whether someone has a valid social security number are flawed. However, these house bills also have overwhelming bi-partisan support. I'll be watching these closely as they goes through the State Senate.

Grand Jury has Grand Goals

Until yesterday, the sole job of 35 Salaried PennDOT employees was to handle legislative requests - to the tune of 246,000 requests per year. On the Democratic side of the state house, there are at least 10 "PennDOT Specialists" who submit those requests.

The House Republican spokesman, Steve Miskin is livid about the changes. The Tribune-Review quoted the following:

"You're saying the legislator, the vocal representative for that community, can't help their constituents out? That is their job. That is what they're supposed to do."

Steve, your job is to enable constituents to get what they need. It's not to bloat our government beyond repair. What's next? Does the state legislature have special PLCB (Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board) specialists that will place special orders for you when you can't figure out how to do it yourself? Honestly, if you can't figure out how to register your car or get a driver's license, you probably shouldn't be driving.

The grand jury investigated the entire state house and identified these easy pickings as the first steps in attempting to reform Harrisburg. The grand jury is also recommending reducing the size of the legislature, implementing term limits, eliminating per diem supplements, and increasing the term length from 2 years to 4 years. Those changes are pretty radical and will require a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania. These changes will only happen when pigs fly unless we put pressure on the state government. This is an election year for governor, so us voters have some sway this year. Both Onorato and Corbett claim that they want state-wide reform. Let's push our candidates to implement real reform this year and start to chip away at the country club that is our state Legislature.

Happy Primary Day

If you're registered for the Republican or Democratic party, today is the day to get out and vote. Read up on the issues including my run-down of the Governor and Senator candidates. Then make your own decision.

If you're not registered for a party, but you live in Pennsylvania's 12th District (Murtha's former district), then get out and vote because they are having a special election to replace the late Representative Murtha.

Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief as we get a short break from being bombarded with awful election commercials like this one.



Thanks to 2 political junkies for sharing this one.

Senate Candidate Rundown

The most exciting race in the upcoming Democratic primary has to be the battle for the Senate.

Everybody that discusses the Senate race refers to Specter's fame. Everyone is supposed to know Specter inside and out because of his long history in the senate. However, if you've moved to Pennsylvania since the last time he was up for election, maybe you (like me) don't know much about him.

Arlen Specter

Arlen Specter is the incumbent and the longest serving Senator in Pennsylvania. He made waves last year when he switched parties from Republican to Democrat after his vote on the Stimulus bill made him a pariah. Not many politicians have the guts to do that, and it's earned him quite a bit of friends at the top-level of the Democratic party. Most notably President Obama is a staunch supporter of Specter. Since his party switch, he has voted with the Democratic party 95% of the time, but he also has a history of taking a stance against Republicans, criticizing President Clinton's impeachment and President Bush's wiretapping of US citizens. He supports a woman's right to choose, gay rights, and has other liberal leanings. However, he historically voted with the Republican party including voting for the Iraq war (along with 29 of the 50 Democratic Senators that were in office at the time).

Joe Sestak

Honestly, Joe Sestak strikes me as a bit smarmy. He's a little too-polished for my liking. I like that he has a history of being a democrat, and his platform is clearly resonating in Pennsylvania as he is jumping leaps and bounds in the polls. Sestak is currently a Congressman from the Eastern part of the state looking to move up the ladder. Politically, he supports Roe v. Wade, received an F from the National Rifle Association, and has voted with the Democratic majority on the Stimulus Act and Health Care Reform amongst many others.

Either way, the winner will ultimately face off against the Republican, Pat Toomey. Much of the fear and hoopla about this senate race involves who will be the better Toomey opponent. This smacks to me a lot of old politics. When Hillary Clinton was facing Barack Obama, I heard a lot of the same rhetoric. That they shouldn't slash each other, that Clinton would make a better McCain opponent, but happily, we all know how that turned out. So I'm not going to let that influence my decision.

But honestly, I'm torn. I admire Specter's long history as an independent thinker in the Senate, and given his senior status he holds many choice committee positions. I also like listening to him talk. But Sestak is obviously the classic Democrat who in general lines up with my ideals more closely. However, Sestak is a current Congressman who can continue to serve the party admirably in that capacity.

Whoever wins the Democratic primary election, I will gladly vote for him in the November election against the slime-ball Pat Toomey who wants to amend the US Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, disagrees with Roe V Wade, and much more.

How are you voting?

Time To Get Serious About our Bridges

Fact: Pennsylvania bridges are in horrible shape.

"Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of structurally deficient bridges, with 5,646," the governor said. That is more than the deficient bridges in the New England states, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio and Virginia combined.

Fact: Pennsylvania legislators are idiots. After the Bush administration rejected tolling of interstate 80 on the grounds that the tolls were going to spent on other roads besides 80, Pennsylvania legislators decided to ask the same exact question of the Obama administration. Needless to say, the "ask mommy" approach didn't work. Only now are they considering asking for the right to toll and repair those particular roads. But this time, it's an emergency and their casting their net as wide as interstates 95, 81, and 79.

Fact: Pennsylvania legislators are cowards. Legislators are afraid to raise taxes this year to solve this emergency problem because it's an election year. Of course, this isn't a unique problem to Pennsylvania. To them I say, it's a lot worse to have a bridge collapse on your watch than to raise taxes. Ask Minnesota. The I-35W Mississippi River bridge in Minneapolis was rated "structurally deficient" for years before this heavily used bridge's 2007 collapse. PennDOT has started to make progress on repairing the thousands of structurally deficient bridges in Pennsylvania, but the progress is slow and steady. With a lack of funding we will again lose ground.

Minnesota learned their lesson the hard way. After the bridge's collapse, the state legislature passed a $0.055 per gallon fuel tax. Let's take our lessons from them and save our bridges before its too late. Of course, the best way to save our bridges from further deterioration is to decrease their usage. According to Port Authority of Allegheny County, one bus can take up to 60 cars off the road. One light rail vehicle can take up to 125 cars off the road. A double-pronged approach of repairing bridges and increasing funding to public transportation will go a long way towards solving our problems in Pennsylvania.

Beer Revolutions

I'm all for relaxing liquor laws and restricting the PLCB, so at first glance State Sen. John Rafferty's proposed new bill to expand beer sales sounds great. But even I have to blink an eye and hold on a minute when I read this:

'A crowd of about 150 people, many from the Sheetz store chain, held signs calling for a "Beer Revolution" in Pennsylvania, with others reading "I Drink and I Vote," "Free My Beer" and "Get Your Hands Off My 6 Pack."'

Sheetz is involved in this proposed beer legislation in a very heavy-handed way. And this multi-state chain is involved because they see a lot of dollar bills in their future, not because they truly believe in the freedom of beer sales.

When Sheetz is the business writing the bill, the beer distributors are going to be hurt. According to the Post-Gazette:

Currently, most beer is sold by state-licensed beer distributors, and only by the case or keg; under the new bill, they also would be able to sell one or two six-packs.

At least this is a start, but to get the beer distributors on board, a crucial piece of any beer law change puzzle, Sheetz Senator Rafferty is going to have to offer them a lot more.

And this "revolutionary" new law doesn't actually fundamentally change our antiquated system of limited beer licenses, it merely changes which business entities can buy which licenses.

Pennsylvania, it's time for a real beer revolution by the people and for the people - not a Sheetz gas station revolution. If Sheetz can be the motivator that's great, but let's have our state legislators actually tackle this issue in a fair and balanced way.

To Table Games Or Not

"Some think live table games are a bad hand." Some think over-legislation is bull shit. In particular, me. Either make live table games legal and tax them, or don't. Don't make certain live table games legal and others illegal so that an electronics game vendor can make an extra buck.

Not surprisingly, Rich Orlando, President of TDN Money Systems, "the largest supplier of electronic table games to the state's nine casinos", does not want live table games.

But Mr. Orlando also believes the demise of electronic table games could end up costing the state money. He argues that the games -- in essence slot machines -- produce on average more revenue than will the live versions, which are more labor intensive and will have a far lower tax rate.

Let's debunk this:
1) Table games are more labor intensive. Therefore, they require more people to be working at the casino? They generate more jobs? Which generate more taxes?

2) If casinos will make more money by having electronic table games than live table games, they will have more electronic table games. That's a free market. Let's not shackle yet another free market. Pennsylvania already does that enough (*ahem* PLCB).

I have 2 questions:
1) Why are table games being taxed less than electronic games?
2) Why is the Post-Gazette giving Mr Orlando the time of day?

Study Highlights Pittsburgh's Lack of Immigrants

The Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative has released a study stating that Philadelphia was under-counted in the 2000 census. Their goal? To direct more moneys to Philadelphia for the upcoming 2010 census count.

"The report finds that almost all of the cities studied have less money and fewer staffers for this Census than they did in 2000."

And the results of this study? Philadelphia was under-counted by 8,326 residents. Pittsburgh was over-counted by exactly 752 residents. They claim that certain groups are "hard-to-count" including low-income renters, immigrants, African Americans and Hispanics.

Additionally, there are groups of folks that they tend to over-count, typically non-
Hispanic whites with more than one residence.

From the PEW report:

After each Census, the Census Bureau conducts research to determine roughly what percentage of those groups it missed. Using that research, a noted Temple University statistician, Eugene P. Ericksen, found that the 2000 count likely missed an estimated 8,326 Philadelphians, or about 0.5 percent of the city’s population.

So what is the scientific evidence used in this study?

Eugene P. Ericksen, Temple University, at the request of the Philadelphia Research
Initiative calculated the ratio of under-counts/over-counts to true population to be -1.84
percent for non-Hispanic blacks, -3.17 percent for Hispanics and 1.09 percent for non-Hispanic whites. Eugene doesn't appear to actually account for those other "hard-to-count" groups including low-income residents and renters.

Philly 2008 statistics:
Total Population: 1,447,395
44.8% Black
11.3% Hispanic
39.0% White non-Hispanic (versus 47.5% total White people)
Total under-count: 8,326 (-0.5%)

Pittsburgh 2008 statistics:
Total Population: 334,563
27.1% Black
1.3% Hispanic
67.6% White
Total over-count: 752 (0.2%)

In Pittsburgh, the census doesn't appear to track the number of non-Hispanic whites versus Hispanics that also identify as white. I assume it's a fairly negligible number.

As a state, then Pennsylvania 2008 statistics:
Total Population: 12,448,279
Black: 10.8% * -1.84% = -24,737
Hispanic: 4.8% * -3.17% = -18,941
White non-Hispanic: 81.4% * 1.09% = 110,448
Total over-count: 66,770 (0.5%)

To put these numbers in perspective, Pennsylvania would have been over-counted by 0.5%, more than twice as much as the city of Pittsburgh which is claimed to be over-counted by 0.2%. Any city with a majority of white residents and a vast minority of Hispanic residents, will show an over-count. Whether you believe our Hispanic residents are systematically under-counted and our white residents are systematically over-counted is a matter of debate. But what this study showcases yet again is our striking lack of Hispanic immigrants. Of the 239 cities in the United States with a population over 100,000 residents, Pittsburgh ranks 232nd in terms of its percentage of Hispanic immigrants. Pittsburgh is not a comparable city to Philadelphia in terms of population or demographics. In my opinion, Pittsburgh was included in their 11 cities list merely to pull more money in the state to Philadelphia. Why doesn't the highly reputable Pew Charitable Trust perform a study on the disparity of Hispanic immigrants to Pittsburgh?

So what is the justification for Pittsburgh's inclusion in the study?

From the PEW report:

The 10 cities examined for this report besides Philadelphia include the five with larger populations—Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New York and Phoenix—
plus five chosen on the basis of their similarity to Philadelphia and their experience in dealing with the Census—Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Detroit and Pittsburgh. No consideration was given to fiscal condition or population growth.

Philadelphia is the 6th largest city in the country. If they had chosen the top 10 in terms of population (actual peers of Philadelphia), would Philadelphia have been dead-last? San Antonio, ranked 7th in population, has a Hispanic population of 61%. Dallas, San Diego, and San Jose round out the top 10. It's pretty obvious why the trust left them out of the running. Why else is Pittsburgh included in this study but to make Philadelphia look better and affect state funding of census studies? I'm only surprised they didn't include Cincinnati in the list - a city which ties Pittsburgh with its meager Hispanic population yet has a higher overall population. My serious question to pose is: Why are immigrants skipping over cities like Pittsburgh (1.3% Hispanic) and Cincinnati (1.3%) in favor of fellow rust belt cities like Rochester (12.8%) and Buffalo (7.5%) and Cleveland (7.3%)?

*Note: The city over-count/under-count numbers are based on the 2000 census, whereas my state numbers are based on 2008 estimates. There are more Hispanic residents in Pennsylvania in 2008 than in 2000 which would result in an even higher over-count back in 2000, but those numbers are harder to parse.

One of these Taxes Is Not Like the Other

"These tax increases, if they come to fruition, would be very bad news for Pennsylvania," contended Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative group.

---

Democratic Tax Proposals

• Cigars and Chewing Tobacco
• Increase in Tax on proposed table games at Casinos
• Marcellus Shale Drilling tax
  

Republican Tax Proposals

• Non-profit arts groups
• Small games of chance (i.e. Fire Department Bingo)
  

I can only imagine that the "conservative group" is siding with the Democrats. Or they have some serious explaining to do as to why they are siding with tobacco, casino, and gas companies instead of non-profit charity organizations.

If the tax on chewing tobacco is too high, maybe some people will quit that cancer-causing habit. If the tax on table games is too high, the casinos won't open table games. If the tax on drilling for gas is too high, ROFL.

But, if the tax on bingo is too high, volunteer fire departments will not be able to afford a new truck. And if the tax on the zoo and theater is too high, school programs will be cut, jobs will be lost, and we will all suffer for a lack of arts in our lives.