On May 5th, Governor Rendell's budget office released a new analysis of the plan to pay for Access to Basic Care [ABC], a comprehensive plan to provide health insurance to thousands of Pennsylvanians that have been going without it.

In short, the plan to pay for ABC is sound.

This analysis answers the argument from critics that the bill does not have adequate funding. We do. Now all we need is the political will to get this done.
The uninsured do not have powerful Harrisburg lobbyists to represent them. They are hard-working individuals who are trying to make ends meet and worrying about how they are going to afford to see a doctor if they get sick. It’s time we do something for them to make their lives a little easier. That’s what public service is supposed to be about.

From Budget Secretary Michael Masch:

On the Monday night beating depicted above, which has made national news, Philadelphia Police Commissioner Ramsey:

"We have 6,700 members on the city police force," Ramsey said to CNN's John Roberts. "Occasionally we have someone engaging in conduct we're not especially proud of. It happens in any large organization.

Ramsey said the beating should be placed in context.

"We're going through a difficult time this week," Ramsey said.

From the same Inky story:

As he left a morning press conference at FOP headquarters, Nutter commented on his interviews with the national media.

"They're coming in on the tail end of things," Nutter said. "To them it's just one more story. But you can't understand what's happening in this city unless you look at what happened on Saturday and Sunday.

"That's not a justification for what the officers did," Nutter continued. "But that was an anomaly. The incident is not representative of what the department is all about."

The context, the murder of a police officer, Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, on Saturday night, whose killer was caught last night. Again, Mayor Nutter:

Nutter said he felt "anger and disgust" last night as he met Floyd at police headquarters.

"I wanted to see the person who had done this," he said. "It's a disgrace."

He said a "serious message" needed to be sent.

"Stop shooting each other," Nutter pleaded. "Everyone may not have had a storybook childhood," he said, adding that a rocky up-bringing was no excuse for killing another human being.

I don't have much analysis to offer, not sure what to think of it all. Anyone else?

This is very cool:

HARRISBURG -- A bill that would amend the state constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage is in a deep coma and is probably dead, at least for the rest of this session.

Faced with staunch opposition to the measure in the Democrat-controlled House, the main sponsor, Sen. Michael Brubaker, R-Lancaster, asked the Senate last evening to table the bill indefinitely, and it agreed.

.....

But Mr. Brubaker said last evening he'd learned the bill, if it did get through the Senate, would be sent to the House State Government Committee, where it likely wouldn't be acted on anytime soon. That panel is chaired by Rep. Babette Josephs, D-Philadelphia, who strongly opposed putting a ban on same-sex marriage into the constitution. Democrats control the House by a slim margin of 102-101.

In other words, Rep. Josephs just did what no Democrat in the Senate could do: Stop awful, ridiculous and bigoted legislation from even coming to a vote. Very, very cool.

Elections have consequences, and this vote shows how important it is that Democrats keep- and build- on their 1 vote majority in the House.

Kudos to Rep. Josephs for standing up for common sense and basic humanity.

In the days following the shocking, repulsive, execution-style murder of Philadelphia police officer Sgt. Stephen Liczbinski, there has been a renewed focus on the power of the NRA specifically and the gun lobby generally. (For example, see Jill Porter's column today, or Mike Nutter's comments from Monday.)

While I welcome that scrutiny, and think it is common-sense that we keep assault-weapons off the street, I can't help but think that an all-out effort to go after the assault-weapons ban- rather than, for example- handguns- is a really misguided effort.

First, let's think about the murder of Sgt. Liczbinski, who was callously killed, right after telling onlookers to tell his family he loved them. If the alleged killers are insane enough to simply execute a cop, would they be less likely to do so with a shotgun? With a high-caliber handgun? In other words, if we went back in time, and put in a strict assault weapons ban, would he be alive? I doubt it.

Second, how many of the 400 or so people killed on our streets yesterday were slain by people using assault weapons? I would guess it is a distinct minority. How many were killed by handguns?

My point is- when the overwhelming majority of those murdered are done so with handguns, why aren't we focusing there?

The assault weapons ban was passed in 1994 amid widespread panic from a spate of mass shootings, which continued with shootings in places like Columbine high school in 1999. To put this in context, in Columbine, 13 people were killed, 12 of them kids. In Philly last year, 68 high-school age (15-19) kids were killed. In other words, we have a Columbine level massacre of our children every 9 weeks (not to mention the amount of young men slightly older who are killed). How many of them would be saved by renewing the assault weapons ban?

Again, I am all for taking on the gun lobby, and think the assault weapons ban is common-sense. But, if it is handguns that are felling people in Philadelphia- including most police officers that are killed- why does one especially repulsive killing shift that focus? If you tell me that this is the first volley, OK. But, if like in 1994, this is basically the end of possible successes, then why are we focusing here?

One reason this year's election seems so long is because it really began when the 2006 election ended. That contest, which saw Democrats unexpectedly sweep both the House and the Senate, finally turned in favor of the good guys—after distractions over relatively minor issues—because it finally became a mandate over one sweeping, presidential issue: George W. Bush. The electorate, of course, mandated a change.

That’s where we started. Now, with Democrats battling longer than expected, and voters again getting distracted by relatively minor issues like whether Barack listens to his ex-minister or Hillary listens to economists, Philly For Change is launching a new campaign to focus attention back to the BIG issues: Bush, his policies on war, healthcare, Social Security and the environment, and the one man who stands in the way of changing them.

That’s why from now until November and in more ways than one, Philly For Change is Philly Against McCain.

Unless you are Hillary Clinton, and refuse to bother with those "elite economists," things start looking dark.

This month, Harper's magazine published a 'sky is falling' article on its cover (uploaded here in pdf format, or read an abridged version here), stating that the economy is worse than we know. It charts how the calculation of government numbers (like the Consumer Price Index) has shifted and shifted again to make sure things look like they are moving in the right direction. For example:

[Nixon] proposed albeit unsuccessfully—that the Labor Department, which prepared both seasonally adjusted and non-adjusted unemployment numbers, should just publish whichever number was lower. In a more consequential move, he asked his second Federal Reserve chairman, Arthur Burns, to develop what became an ultimately famous division between "core" inflation and headline inflation. It the Consumer Price Index was calculated by tracking a bundle of prices, so-called core inflation would simply exclude, because of "volatility," categories that happened to he troublesome: at that time, food and energy. Core inflation could he spotlighted when the headline number was embarrassing, as it was in 1973 and 1974. (The economic commentator Barry Ritholtz has joked that core inflation is better called "inflation ex-inflation"—i.e., inflation after the inflation has been excluded.)

The adjustments continued: Reagan shifted the mechanism for accounting for housing costs, and pulled military servicemembers and suddenly classified them as 'employed' instead of outside the labor force. And then under Clinton, employment statistics shifted again:

Although expunged from the ranks of the unemployed, discouraged workers had nevertheless been counted in the larger workforce. But in 1994, the Bureau of Labor Statistics redefined the workforce to include only that small percentage of the discouraged who had been seeking work for less than a year. The longer-term discouraged—some 4 million U.S. adults—fell out of the main monthly tally. Some now call them the "hidden unemployed." For its last four years, the Clinton Administration also thinned the monthly household economic sampling by one sixth, from 60,000 to 50,000, and a disproportionate number of the dropped households were in the inner cities; the reduced sample (and a new adjustment formula) is believed to have reduced black unemployment estimates and eased worsening poverty figures.

This week the Inquirer wrote about just these people: outside of the statistics but not in a viable job. They talked to a former rower with a biochemistry degree who was laid off and is cobbling together work landscaping, financial consulting, and Ebay selling. And they talked to YPP's Mark Price about the gap between what the numbers show and how people are living here in the Philadelphia area:

As the bad economic news piles up, most people focus on the unemployment rate. But economists say these other measures of underemployment are also important indicators of economic distress. They tend to rise with unemployment, compounding the negative numbers. ....

Mark Price, a labor economist with Pennsylvania's Keystone Research Center, lists the ingredients for what he terms "the most liberal definition of unemployment": people who are unemployed and looking for work, people who want jobs but have given up looking for one, and people who have taken part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work.

These measurements provide the broadest measure of labor underutilization, according to Price.

Last month, 9.2 percent of the workforce fell into one of these three categories.

These are among the numbers to watch if economic woes deepen, especially because the job market never fully recovered from the recession of 2001, Price said.

The 9.2 percent, which better captures the lived reality of people trying to pull together paychecks that will pay their bills, is huge. Stark.

And the debate goes back and forth over whether violence has to stop before eonomic development occurs (see this weekend's New York Time Magazine on an anti-violence initiative that is modeled after attempts to contain contagious disease). But in 2005 almost forty percent of working-age African American men in Philadelphia were unemployed or outside the labor force (see page 8). It's that number, not the manipulated overall federal unemployment rate, that determines what life is like in communities like Philadelphia's:

Two University of Washington social demographers analyzed 1970 and 1990 census data to examine all forms of violent deaths in Chicago - homicide, accidental death and suicide - and determine whether race or economic opportunity was the key predictor.

"Both black and non-black communities show generally similar responses to endemic joblessness in terms of mortality," Gunnar Almgren, lead author of the study, said. "Race is not an explanation for differences in violent death rates. It's about jobs. If you isolate any group from jobs, it is going to have negative effects, and inner-city black-community levels of joblessness are higher than any other group."

As the Democratic contest continues on, the media has finally picked up on a simple fact: that apart from an absolute avalanche of super delegates supporting her (which will not happen), Hillary Clinton cannot win this nomination. So, while she sends around NRA-like mailings against Obama (oh, the irony), we wait for the inevitable to become clear.

One of the remaining undeclared super delegates- Bob Brady- has to my knowledge not officially announced he is voting for Obama. He did announce, however, he would support who the voters of his district supported. That was Obama, by a wide margin.

So, Rep. Brady, get going. You know all about healing political parties, right? It is time to come out for Senator Obama officially, and start that process before it is too late.

Yesterday I wrote about the absurdity of the City Commissioners office deciding that, despite common sense and a mission statement that includes: "reporting Unofficial Election Results for Philadelphia County."

So, following our theme of open government, I sent a Open Records Request (pdf of the letter here) to the City Commissioners Office, as well as to other interested parties. My hope is not that they give us a password, but that they simply get rid of the passwords. If they do simply give us a password, I am going to send it far and wide, and post it here.

There is absolutely no justification for a Commissioners Office to password protect election returns, when reporting those returns are one of the only functions it has.

The text of the letter is below:

Open government can be a real pain in the butt.

It is something easy to promise during a campaign. And there are some facets of open government that are easy and palatable- like the Mayor putting his daily itinerary online. But, and I mean this without any sarcasm whatsoever- truly open government can be a real pain for those in power. That is true even for a new Mayor who I think genuinely believes in transparency and sunshine.

I bring this up because yesterday, this happened:

Mayor Nutter, who ran for office on a promise of making City Hall business more transparent, yesterday tried to have reporters removed from a budget briefing that he held for City Council.

A Nutter aide, joined by a police officer, insisted that the briefing was a private matter. Reporters, citing the state's Sunshine Act on public meetings, refused to leave.

After some debate, Nutter started the briefing by saying that the briefing could be private if Council didn't deliberate or make any decisions.

"I'm not going to waste anybody's time arguing about it," said Nutter, adding that he reserves the right in the future to hold private briefings.

Reporters remained for the 30-minute briefing.

The article summarizes the Sunshine Act pretty effectively, and I encourage you to read it. What they Mayor was trying to do was to get around the Act so that he and Council could negotiate on the budget, making any official meetings more formalities than anything else. This is a page straight out of the worst days of the SEPTA Board, where they would meet privately, decide to hike fares, then publicly come out and vote. It is unacceptable for a guy who campaigned the way Nutter did, with ambitious promises about how government would conduct its business.

I really hope those close to the Mayor will hold him accountable here, because his position- that he can meet in private as long as he gives a legalistic definition of "deliberations," is far from the best practices of open government that he promised. I don't think this means he is evil or doesn't think open government is a good thing. But, I do think it shows that certain promises are a lot easier to make when you aren't in power. And when you really have a couple things you would like to hash out with City Council without those damn reporters listening in, this is what you do.

Additionally, you can read between the lines a little and tell that the media present in the room felt bullied by the Mayor to leave (ie, the presence of the police officer, etc). So, to the City Hall press corp- from Patrick Kerkstra of the Inquirer, and Catherine Lucey and Chris Brennan of the Daily News, to Mike Dunn from KYW and Susan Phillips of WHYY (see her account at It's Our Money)- a big, big thank you comes from all of us who believe in both the importance of the media as a watchdog, and in open government generally.

Later today, we will have yet another official open records request for the City. In the meantime though, it is cool that members of the local media have the back of those who believe that sunshine is the biggest disinfectant.

The economy is tumbling. The AP reported this morning that jobs have dropped for a year now.

The number of newly laid off workers filing claims for unemployment benefits soared last week.

The Labor Department reported Thursday that claims for unemployment benefits rose by 35,000 to 380,000. Private economists had expected claims would rise by a smaller 18,000.

The story goes on to suggest that we're due to lose another 70K across our economy.

Here in PA, we've got a chance to extend healthcare coverage to many of the people who will be laid off here, at affordable prices, and thereby ease the suffering of many workers out of work. It's money that's stopping it.

Smokers have been taxed here, among other things, to create a fund that cuts malpractice premiums (at the very least) in half across PA. We collected much too much tax money for that fund and now the state wants authorization to reallocate part of that money into paying for the uninsured.

With another dime per pack on cigarettes and reallocating this money that's just sitting, we could cover many of the uninsured here. In a few years, I believe, the program would reach all of them.

The man-on-the-street will have a lot less money in his pocket, soon, when he loses his job and when a general economic tightening reins in the hours, the bonuses, the overtime, the promotions, the raises and the tips or commissions of others. We can, at least, insure that he remains whole and healthy through this downturn.

The Senate R's are coming out with their own plan this week. It's not likely to cut a break to consumers. They are more than content to let their sick constituents get sicker and destroy the liquidity of working families who catch a bad break in order to stay tight with doctors and hospitals. We can't let them do it. SB 1137 is the right vehicle to maintain health through the coming recession and it should simply pass.

The Inky reports:

Said Chuck Ardo, Gov. Rendell's press secretary, "I can tell you unequivocally that if a pro-slavery bill were to reach the governor's desk, this governor would certainly veto it."

Have you been following this story? An African-American preacher, among many other crazy conservatives, testified at a hearing on Monday FOR a bill that would BAN same-sex marriage, civil unions, and possibly domestic partnership in the state constitution.

Sen. Fumo shot back that this was wrong, even if the legislature passed it. The preacher challenged him, and Fumo said that if there was a secret ballot, the legislature would likely pass a pro-slavery bill [apparently to make the point that majority opinion is not always morally right].

As a result, Fumo has gotten himself and this bill into the headlines.

The appropriations committee is scheduled to vote on it on Monday, and there is a very good chance it will pass. After that, it goes the Senate floor, where it is also likely to pass. That means the only way to stop it from going onto the ballot next year, where it will help pull out conservative R voters, is in the House. Scary huh?

It's interesting then that there has not been much in-depth coverage of the likelihood of this bill's passage which is pretty depressing for someone who is actually being denied most of the rights being discussed already, and will now see even more taken away. It's certainly a regional economic development prohibiter worthy of a lot of attention (remember City Council has already passed a resolution in opposition, with the dissent of the Rs and Anna Verna).

And there's also been very little probing coverage of what Fumo said and why.

It's some reflection (as of course is Obama and Wright and Clinton and all of the surface-level race conversation at the national level) of how bad Americans are at talking about and thinking about and dealing with racism and oppression. And obviously Fumo messed up. He was being really hyperbolic to make a point and he stepped over the line and offended his colleagues who can't believe that he thinks that of them.

And African-American legislators aren't happy either. From a John Baer column:

But Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Thaddeus Kirkland tells me: "It was very insensitive from such a senior senator. It's unfortunate folks don't stick to the issue at hand . . . to equate it [a gay marriage ban] with slavery is wrong."

Asked if he thinks the Legislature is racist, Kirkland said, "No, I don't."

Senate GOP Leader Dominic Pileggi said that if Fumo actually believes a majority of the Senate would vote to reinstate slavery, "It's hard to see how that wouldn't require an apology."

But this where there could be a bit more probing done by the reporters covering this.

Like, hmm. Raise your hand if you think it's plausible that there are racist members of the state legislature.

I mean Rep. Kirkland has to say that, and to accuse colleagues of being willing to vote to reenact slavery is pretty offensive, but come on...no racists in the state legislature?

And this from Sen. Anthony Williams (my Senator) about Fumo:

"Totally unacceptable," said fellow Philly Sen. Anthony Williams, a member of the Pennsylvania Legislative Black Caucus.

"And my view of my colleagues is they are not closet racists," he said, "They may not know everything about black culture . . . [but] I don't know the Amish and I don't hate them."

Ok. Sure.

I mean racist or not, when it comes to service to African-Americans by the state Senate particularly, how well are people of color doing? Take a look at the state of PA job growth, African American unemployment rates, housing rights, protection from predatory lending, wage growth, access to capital, access to quality education...and well, the Senate is not exactly performing at 110%.

But does this have much to do with the issue at hand? Yes and No.

Yes in the sense that you can never compartmentalize oppression or ignore a chance to make connection, but no in the sense that Fumo has made potential allies wary of him at a time when his leadership is needed by making a pretty outrageous statement.

But Fumo did say some other stuff at the hearing that was great, like this from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

The hearing turned at times into a verbal sparring match between Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, and various advocates for the amendment who argued that homosexuality is immoral and that government should encourage relationships that involve procreation. They said same-sex unions would undermine God's plan and cause traditional marriage to become undervalued and obsolete.

Mr. Fumo railed back, calling those arguments ignorant.

"If two homosexuals are allowed to get married, is that going to affect your marriage? Your marriage is that weak you're going to get a divorce over that?" he said to Philadelphian James Horn, a father of eight who testified in favor of the constitutional amendment.

Or this from the Harrisburg Patriot-News:

Throughout the hearing, advocates and opponents interrupted testimony with applause and heckling so often that committee Chairman Gib Armstrong, R-Lancaster, struggled to keep control of the hearing with the raucous crowd's outbursts.

That proved even more of a challenge during a lively exchange between former gubernatorial candidate Peg Luksik of the Pro-Life Coalition, who supported the amendment, and Sen. Vince Fumo, D-Philadelphia, who opposed it.

"This amendment is attempting to formalize in the constitution discrimination against people who are of the same sex and want to live together," Fumo said.

Luksik said marriage is an institution that "needs and deserves additional protections because of the attacks that have been made by judges across the country that have sought to redefine the institution of marriage." That's why the state's 1996 marriage-protection law is no longer enough, she said.

But yeah, the slavery comment was over the top...which reminds me, at the end of the day, you gotta love John Dougherty for saying this (from Inky):

"It obviously doesn't help with the advancement of gay rights," Dougherty said. "But maybe he is smarter than everyone else. Maybe he is looking to set up an insanity defense for his trial."

I am not sure if it does hurt the advancement of gay rights, rabid homophobia among Senate Republicans and handful of Dems is doing just fine thank you, but yea, Fumo is kinda nutty. It's gonna be a fun 7 months before he leaves office.

And meanwhile, Inquirer and Daily news: can you actually cover the rest of the action on the bill as in depth as you have covered Fumo? Jesus, is it too much to ask that our newspapers cover the issues as well as the antics?

As most people know, we elect three people- the City Commissioners- that are supposed to oversee our elections. Many agree that it is a little odd that we need to elect three people, each with their respective staffs to oversee our electoral process. But, voting is sacred, and the idea of three elected officials to make sure that as many people vote as possible- and that our elections our fair and transparent- isn't such a bad one.

So, I would like to cite all the important reforms the Commissioners have made over the past few years to help as many Philadelphians vote as possible:

OK, OK, so they haven't actually done much on the whole voter thing. But, maybe I am being unfair. After all, at least they have a website where you can see election returns. I thought, for example, it would be interesting to see the results for my ward. So, straight from Phillyelection.com are the available results:

Yeah, that is right: nada. The election returns, compiled by elected officials who are paid a lot of money to run those elections, can't actually be seen, because the Commissioners keep their results password protected. Only in Philly could this happen.

Despite the absurdity of password protected election results, my YPP co-editor, Rapping Ray Murphy, actually called up the Commissioner's office and asked if he could have a password so that he could actually view results. Rambling Ray can tell you more, but, he was basically asked who he was calling with. And when he said he was a citizen, was basically scoffed at, and told he needed to put a request in writing, which would then take 20 days to respond to.

Open government is so pesky. Politicians like to talk about it, but when they are actually in office, people requesting information from them can be a real annoyance. But... election returns, in a City that pays three elected officials to oversee all of this? How much more basic can you get?

What is wrong with this picture? There is a rental suitability law in Philly, that largely protects low-income people from slumlords. (The bill was pushed through by Rick Mariano, right before he resigned to go to prison, so that he could have a legitimate legacy before he left.) It was a nice gesture, and was passed over opposition from landlord groups.

However, now the Nutter administration has decided that amidst a lawsuit from landlord groups, it is not going to enforce the law, until those lobbying groups approve of changes to the bill. Fox, meet henhouse. Please lock the door on the way out, and don't choke on too many feathers.

Given what is actually in the bill, that there is even a mild controversy over this is pretty strange. Because what controversial things did the rental suitability law actually say?

1. That the landlord has completed all requirements from L and I, and has no violations. (Crazy!)
2. That the unit has working smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. (No!)
3. That the unit doesn’t have problems- like lead paint- that can cause health problems in tenants. (Bastards!)
4. That these requirements will be maintained while the tenant is renting the property. (How could they!)

If you were renting a property from someone, wouldn’t you expect/demand that anyway? Of course you would- because if you are reading this blog you are likely reasonably well-educated, more likely than not middle-class, and have a basic understanding that you are entitled to certain crazy things, like a home free of lead paint.

The 'controversy,' in theory, is because landlord groups are complaining that the bill gives tenants too many rights and is too vague. They allege this:

Lawrence Fischer, an attorney for the Apartment Association of Greater Philadelphia, counters that the law is too vague, citing "health and safety" without defining those terms. And Fischer said it lets a tenant manipulate the law to avoid being evicted.

"That's just not right," he said. "Any person who is about to get evicted, all they have to do is concoct an allegation of a violation and it stops the process."

This is frankly laughable. Maybe things have greatly changed from a year ago, but I have actually sat in on Landlord-Tenant Court, at least a year after the bill was passed. To say that the Court or law was in any way stacked towards tenants is a total joke. And, to imply tenants can win by simply inventing violations is a flat out lie.

Landlord-Tenant Court is a piece of Municipal Court that is- as the name suggests- a place where tenants and landlords are supposed to be able to bring and settle disputes. However, tenants almost never actually use their rights, and LT court could more aptly be described as eviction court. What you generally have are low-income tenants, almost never with counsel and almost never with an understanding of their rights, facing landlords, often represented by counsel, who have been through this process before. The power dynamic is dramatically tilted to the landlord. And, while I am sure the tenant must win sometime, I never saw it, on a daily docket with about 30 cases.

Basically, Philly landlords got used to a court that quickly served their needs. Then this law passed, and despite the fact that the overall power dynamic hasn’t changed (because most tenants still don't have counsel and don't know their rights) - landlords got pissed. Now, despite his vote for the bill as a City Councilman, landlords appear to have an ally in Mayor Nutter and the City Solicitor. We have reached bizarro world when the City Solicitor states she is suspending a law protecting low-income people because she doesn't know if it is enforceable, and because... it might not be consistent with the Mayor's goals.

First, what goals are those? And second, I must have missed the lesson in civics class where the Mayor can stop enforcing laws he doesn't care for.

I challenge anyone- for example, the Mayor or the City Solicitor- to sit in on a few sessions of LT court, and then tell us with a straight face that tenants in this city have too much power in the eviction process. As tenant after tenant either doesn’t show up, or has no understanding of their rights nor any comfort level defending themselves, and are then evicted or pressured into a behind-closed-doors mediation process, the reality of the situation will become quite clear.

If the problem here is vagueness- then take the issue to City Council, and let them modify the bill. Because, when low-income advocates get City Council to pass a good bill, and the Mayor simply decides to stop enforcing it, there are some pretty crappy implications that can be drawn.

The Mayor should go back to actually enforcing the law that is on the books, and City Council can- out in the open- hold hearings on possible changes. A situation where the City simply cuts a deal with landlord groups is a shameful joke.

Tonight I'm excited to welcome my long-time friend, co-blogger, and political ally Michael Connery to Philadelphia. Mike, who founded Music for America and who blogs at Future Majority, where I also blog at times, will be at Robbins Bookstore from 6-7 talking about his new book Youth to Power: How Today's Young Voters Are Building Tomorrow's Progressive Majority. If you can't get the basic idea from the title, here's a description from Amazon:

Dear John and Larry,

Well, it’s over. Months of campaigning, a lot of money spent, and you, Larry Farnese, beat you, John Dougherty, in the 1st senate race. So now what?

Well, John, you sent out an email last week that left me wondering. You said:

We will continue to be a force to be reckoned with and will demand accountability and transparency from those elected officials who represent us, here and in Harrisburg. In other words, we'll be watching. And waiting.

Does that mean you are going to run again in 2012?

The count in last week’s election was close, but it wasn’t that close: Larry won the race decisively. It’s your right to run for office, but if you already know you plan to run again, it means you are going to spend a lot of time in the next four years trying to run Larry down.

And that is business as usual right? Dougherty vs. Fumo (with Larry as a proxy)?

That may be the way things have always been, but this fight is getting really, really tired, mostly because you both have more much important stuff to be doing:

Larry. Nobody was harder on you in 2006--at least online--than I was (except maybe Dan). I did not want to see you unseat Babette. And since then, I have gotten to know you better, and I like you--I’ll never forget how you went above and beyond for Philly Against Santorum from tabling in the square to getting me into highrises to speak (your help was especially notable to me as I had written some pretty harsh stuff about you in your 06 election).

So, among the folks who will crawl out from under rocks to tell you, soon-to-be Senator Farnese, how great you are, you can trust me to tell you the truth.

Here it is: there are voters who worry about your ties to Vince Fumo. He is in fact being indicted. Although I think there is a real argument to be made that, despite skimming some off the top for himself, Fumo ultimately brought more money and services to his district than any other Senator in the state, the fact is there is a significant cohort of voters who are tired of Fumo's fiefdom. Fair or not, you are going to need to prove that you are not beholden to Vince Fumo and his political supporters.

Beyond that, you need to vote for, sponsor and shepherd good legislation through the Senate (something Sen. Fumo was often a leader on), and you need to help elect other progressives. There are after all big fights coming up in the State Senate this year like the Philly gun laws, a same-sex marriage ban, healthcare, property taxes, and hey, maybe you can do something about that stupid uniformity clause.

Most important, you have a district that contains some of the wealthiest zip codes in the city, and some of the poorest, and a lot of people in the middle. They all want more services and amenities. But there are some competing interests that have produced racial and class tensions that need to be addressed and, as much as possible, healed.

Your attention being diverted to the Fumo-Doc feud can’t help that healing, or enact any of the other goals above.

As for you, Doc...you have a lot of hiring to do!

According to Tom Ferrick, if we leave out the Laborers, only 1/3 of all building trades members live in the city, and 80% are white, and nearly 99% are men. Meanwhile, 1/3 of all Philadelphians, a larger proportion black than white, live in poverty.

What is wrong with this picture?

I can’t get over the fact that a guy as powerful as you, who built up a union whose membership had been falling, hasn’t done more to hire women and people of color. I know you’ll tell me you’re doing better than some, but the fact is you lead one of the most powerful local unions, (in a sector of employment that’s not portable) and you owe it to the residents of this city, many of whom subsidize local development through their tax dollars, to hire many, many more women and people of color.

Since you won’t be going to the Senate, maybe you can focus all the extra time you had set aside for that on this problem? In this arena, you are more powerful than a State Senator and have the privilege to make real change.

Here are some other things you can do now to demonstrate your leadership:

1) Get all the trades in the state to stop opposing RxforPA. Elected officials listen to you. Lots of people don’t have healthcare. Something needs to be done.

2) Stop propping up Republicans like Mario Civera and Rick Santorum. Your support of Santorum, for dredging or not, was unforgivable in my eyes.

3) Withdraw your current challenge to campaign finance laws, and don’t challenge any more.

Doc, before you pick up the phone to call me, I am not writing this to communicate between you and me, so much as to air the thoughts and ideas I have been hearing from a lot of people in the past few days. I had plenty of chances to say what I thought to your face during the campaign, but speaking on behalf of a larger set of interests, I do challenge you to make significant progress on these issues before you raise the specter of running against Larry in 2012,

The bottom line is that, if you Larry, and you John, both do your jobs well, the people who live in the 1st will benefit. And those citizens need help from both you much more than they need a constant skirmish lasting until the next election (whether for Larry’s seat in 2012, or in a proxy like the 1st councilmanic seat in 2011, DA next year, or maybe a fight against Brady in 2010).

After all, no matter what Anne Dicker did or didn’t do well or right in her own campaign, the 18% of voters who supported her mostly did so because they were sick of voting for either Jets or Sharks, and they want and need real change in their neighborhoods.

The district you live in, and the city you both want to serve, needs more action, and less feuding. As wounds are still healing from the campaign, I hope you’ll both consider that.

Respectfully yours,
Ray