In an Inquirer editorial yesterday scolding City Council for taking a second look at tax cuts, the Inky editorial board showed how embarrassingly out of touch they are with everyday Philadelphians.

First, in a nutshell, the Inquirer wrote an editorial that demanded that- fiscal realities be damned- the City better keep cutting business taxes. The editorial was kind of high-comedy.

First, here is the background though: reading between the lines, the City budget is in very bad shape, much worse than projected in Nutter's first budget proposal. The pension bond issue isn't happening, transfer tax revenues aren't coming in, and the City is faced with a basic reality: in a shrinking economy, its pretty hard to cut taxes and not cut services. So, that is the context of this editorial (and the closed door budget sessions for Nutter).

The funny thing is that the editorial doesn't particularly make logical sense. It simply wants to have it both ways. For example, there are passages like this:

It's time for the heavy lifting that's missing in the Nutter administration's first stab at the budget. With good reason, the $4 billion budget was described as crowd-pleasing. It proposed smart new investments that should be retained in some form - for police and fire protection, parks, the community college, and more.

Cool, smart new investments, great! (Which means increased spending...) But, of course, it also says things like this:

But now that the economy is faltering, there is some talk at City Hall of halting the tax cuts. That's the worst message Mayor Nutter and City Council could send to workers, businesses and residents.

Ending the meager wage- and business-tax cuts already on the books - as well as failing to push ahead with the business cuts proposed by the mayor - would signal that the city is headed in the wrong direction.

Instead, Nutter and Council need to take a hard look at the spending side of the ledger.

The paper even acknowledges that Nutter is already cutting spending 3 to 5 percent across City budgets, says we need to spend more in certain areas, then simply demands Nutter figure it out with increased 'efficiencies.' What efficiencies are they talking about? The efficiencies of taking back the money we were going to spend on Fairmount Park? Laying off some social workers? The editorial board doesn't say.

Since we are not in la-la land, and each city department is already cutting 3 to 5 percent from their spending, the blunt reality is that these savings can come from one thing: service cuts. (The Ed. Board is also clearly getting ready to go after the Unions in negotiations, so get ready for that when it happens. But that isn't now, so, the cuts couldn't even in theory come from attacking city workers.)

So, after I read the editorial, I sat here wondering if there is any way I could see how the Inquirer's priorities measure up against actual people in the City of Philadelphia. So, using these new fangled internets, and a search engine thingamabob, I used the google, and typed in "Philadelphia Priorities."

Well I'll Be A Monkeys Uncle! The very first thing that came up on the google is an actual poll by the Economy League of Philadelphia (funded by those communists at the Chamber of Commerce)- that asks Philadelphians about their priorities. And, it even specifically talks about what Philadelphians think about the debate over taxes verses services.

Shiver my timbers, look at what the heading says:

Taxes and Spending: Most Unwilling to Reduce Services to Cut Taxes

Most Philadelphians would favor maintaining the current level of taxes and services in the city, but more than one third would prefer “more city services, even if that meant taxes would have to be raised.” Only 10 percent would prefer “lower taxes, even if that meant city services would have to be cut.”

Surely that must be an error, so I looked a little deeper at the numbers:

If you had to choose, which of the following would you favor:

• More city services, even if that meant taxes would have to be raised: 38%
• Lower taxes, even if that meant city services would have to be cut: 10%
• Maintaining the current level of taxes and services: 45%
• Unsure/No Answer: 7%

Great Caesar's Ghost! In other words, almost 4 times as many Philadelphians would rather see taxes raised for more services, than cut for less. And, by a margin of 83% to 10%, Philadelphians would prefer at minimum to keep current taxes while not cutting services.

And since business tax cuts are all the rage, it would have been even crazier if the people were asked specifically about business taxes... Heavens To Betsy!, they were asked that too:

If Philadelphia taxes were to be cut, almost equal numbers would like to see the wage tax and the real estate tax cut; few would cut the taxes on businesses. If taxes had to be raised, however, a majority would prefer the taxes on businesses be raised. This is true of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.

So, the Inquirer Editorial board is bizarrely out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Philadelphians? And, for that, they are attacking City Council for apparently having some common sense?

Goodnight Irene!

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?

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.

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.

Philly Safe and Sound, the controversial non-profit over seeing a million different programs for kids, decided yesterday that it was closing shop, right as a state audit was being released that didn't exactly look good for the organization.

The state report, issued last Thursday, concluded that Safe and Sound had lax financial controls and doled out money to community-based providers without first signing contracts with them.

Safe and Sound branded the state report unfair and disputed many of its assertions.

The local team said that one of the most troubling aspects found by an accounting firm hired by the state to examine Safe and Sound's books was "that numerous vendors had only post-office boxes and no physical addresses [and] that different vendors were listed at the same post-office box and different vendors had the same physical addresses."

As long as the services that Safe and Sound were going to provide will still be there for Philly kids, then the loss of Safe and Sound is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Philly Safe and Sound organization started as one of 5 similar nonprofits in cities around the Country, with money and supervision from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (as part of their Urban Health Initiative). As I understand it, the point was to provide data driven analysis and research of the best and most effective ways to improve child outcomes in Philly. (The sister programs were in Oakland, Baltimore, Richmond and Detroit.)

However, what Safe and Sound grew into was a largely outsourced Department of Human Services, with much of the City's resources, but with little of the the City's oversight. That is a recipe for disaster.

The underlying current in all of this is that the programs themselves- especially after-school programs for at-risk kids- are still desperately needed, whether Safe and Sound exists or not.

I think this was a good overall day for the progressive community. First, Tony Payton wins. Thank goodness. Thank goodness. Thank goodness. This was defense against the machine, and Tony won pretty big.

I was in that district today, and a big credit has to go to Laborers' Union. They were everywhere for Tony, and actively engaged in what they were doing.

Thank goodness.

Larry Farnese wins. Also, thank goodness.

More as it comes, but a big congratulations to Vanessa Brown, Kenyatta Johnson, Larry Farnese and Tony Payton.

Despite my general immaturity level, and the heated nature of some of these races, I have little desire to rub these victories in. (OK, I will probably mention Marge Tartaglione at some point, but not Guy Lewis.) Seeing my old man lose up close and personal has certainly made me realize how rough it is to be a candidate for office, and how rough it is to lose.

Quickly checking in...

Couple things:

Generally, turnout does seem high. In my parent's division in Germantown, they had 350 voters before 6 PM and the after-work rush. There is only like 550 voters in the division total, so that is a very good sign.

In the first district, Doc has a ton of people, everywhere. It will be a shock if he loses, with all his money.

Also, MSNBC has an exit poll that says 67% of voters thought Clinton attacked Obama unfairly. That might be a hint this will be a little closer than most people assume.

Update, with some early results:

Doc: 39
Farnese: 43
Dicker: 18
89 Percent Reporting

Payton: 63
Lewis: 37
76 Percent Reporting

KYW HAS PROJECTED TONY THE WINNER.

Youngblood: 65
Davis: 35
30 Percent Reporting

KYW HAS PROJECTED ROSITA THE WINNER.

Kenyatta Johnson: 66
Harold James: 34
80 Percent in.

KYW HAS PROJECTED KENYATTA THE WINNER.

That would be a big change.

Oh yeah, and Clinton-Obama: 54-46, 33 pct in.

Most of us know the story of Tony Payton, right? Young, progressive guy who took on the machine, and won, in 2006? In Tony’s first term in office, he brought home money into his district, and right away started working on big picture, transformational bills such as the REACH scholarship program that would effectively send scores and scores of Pennsylvania children to college for free.

But, after defeating the party in 2006, Tony is again under fire for not kissing the ring of ward leaders Marge Tartaglione and Danny Savage. So, they have decided to go after Tony with repulsive tactic, after repulsive tactic. It doesn’t matter whether Tony is good, or terrible- he has not kissed their ass, and he won't kiss their ass, and so their petulant response is to aim their fire at him, with an unknown, but party backed candidate Guy Lewis.

On the national level, bloggers have used the slogan more and better Democrats. In other words, we want to take seats from the GOP where we can, but we also want to improve on the Democratic seats we have. However, in this case, we clearly have to play defense. We have a young guy who is already thinking about big picture, transformative legislation. We need to keep him in Harrisburg.

Here is the bottom line: Tony can still win this thing. He has the backing of Rendell, Nutter, et al. But, he needs our help to do it. As Philly for Change chair David Sternberg said to me on email, it is scary that this race is both winnable, and up to us.

I am spending my free time on election day working for Tony at the polls, joining at least a couple other YPP readers. Will you? If you can help Tony out, call Dave at 215-906-7288 or email him at davidsternbe@gmail.com.

Next week, I am voting for Larry Farnese for State Senator. Till then, I am mentally checking out of the First District race.

I have said plenty about Doc. While I think he has some legit good qualities: ie, a true Philadelphia populist streak- they are far outweighed by all the negative stuff. Plus, I think he will be indicted, which will just be super for our district.

Until recently, I have stayed somewhat silent on Anne v. Larry. I always thought Larry, with his Fumo money, had a better chance to win, and to me, beating Doc is paramount. But, considering that I have volunteered for Anne in 2006, know her reasonably well and think she generally has progressive instincts, I told her on email I was not going to openly criticize her on the blog as I made up my mind.

But, Anne really screwed up with all the stuff that has gone down. There is too much smoke surrounding her meeting with the Doc team to not believe what is being rumored: that after a meeting with them, she has decided to go right after the base of Larry. Now, has sent emails around (or emails from her address) which also basically chide any progressive for thinking about not voting for her, and preemptively blame them for any loss.

Forget whether her new strategy is magically going to make her win (which it won't). To me, it simply shows a lack of judgment to take advice from the Doc campaign, and it was not something we ever would have heard about except it was in the paper. And, it follows a pattern (like with backing Tom Knox) that I am uncomfortable with, in someone who self-identifies as a leader of the progressive movement in Philly, and who's bff calls "one of the most important people of the last 20 years." I don't think she has the staff or money to win, and I don't think she is particularly trying anymore, and is instead going for second place.

As for Larry, I have no illusions that he is a progressive dynamo, or that he is not deeply connected to the Fumo machine. And, I doubt you would find a website that was more critical of him in 2006 than this one. But, since 2006, what I have seen from him is that while he may not always be as progressive as we like initially, he will work very hard, and that he legitimately believes in representing the interests of his district. If he wins, I think the progressive community can help him become a pretty good Senator.

So, I am done. I will even lay off of Doc for a couple days. Instead, I would like to focus on other issues, and other candidates (like Byron Davis, Tony Payton and Vanessa Brown), where I think we can make a real difference.

Bumped back up. -Dan

As someone who was somewhat agnostic about what to do about the Doc-Dicker-Farnese First District race, I am stunned by this:

THE TOP TWO aides to state Senate candidate Anne Dicker left her campaign over the weekend, following several days of intrigue over the possibility that she or attorney Larry Farnese would get out of the race.

Dicker said yesterday that she'd fired her campaign manager, Karim Olaechea, after a series of disagreements on the direction of her campaign - and a conversation with political consultant Larry Ceisler, an adviser to the third candidate in the Senate race, union leader John Dougherty.

Dicker's finance director, Matt Goldfine, decided on his own to follow Olaechea out the door.

First, it is widely understood that a 3 person race benefits John Dougherty. The idea that Anne is getting campaign advice from Larry Ceisler- who has long worked for Doc- is totally bizarre. We can all agree that that is not particularly normal campaign behavior, right? Good.

And what was that advice that Anne got from the Dougherty campaign that she bought into? Apparently, it was... to go hard after the votes of Larry Farnese. Huh?

Now, we can all understand why Doc would want Anne to go after Farnese, and therefore seal a Doc win. But, for someone like me, who generally understood that with no Fumo, the least desirable outcome was a Doc win, this raises serious questions about the judgment of Anne Dicker.

Let's remember, she got a lot of crap from the progressive community when she supported Tom Knox in the Mayoral election. Now, with a whole host of progressive groups endorsing her, she is trying to help John effin' Dougherty? I doubt she told PfC et. al. that was going to be her fallback strategy. (I would say this calls into judgment the whole Dicker campaign, but her campaign staff appears to have quit in protest that her new goal has shifted to cutting down Farnese. Now, because they have principles, they are in the newspaper as being 'fired.' Hey guys, keep your head up.)

This campaign has gone from a mess, to a total joke.

Who wants to be depressed? This weekend, the Inquirer posted the test scores of Philly schools. Recognizing the problems with school testing, I nevertheless went through, and pulled out the scores of some notable Philly high schools. Students were put into three categories: Advanced, Proficient and Basic/Below basic.

What is clear, and obvious enough to people who have been here a while, is that we have a tale of two school districts: The magnet schools like Central and Masterman, and everybody else. Check out the numbers below:

As expected, the magnet schools do just fine. While a school like Central might have some problems, kids who go there come out prepared to go to college.

But, the large majority of our kids don't go to magnets, and are in neighborhood schools that are dramatically bad. There is obviously a lot of room for debating how much of this is the schools themselves, and how much of this is our general destructive society. But, entire schools with zero kids testing as advanced? Schools with 90 percent of kids at basic or below basic levels? The word that most comes to mind for me is... shameful.

We are producing thousands of young men and women who have little reading or writing skills, little to no chance to go to college, and little prospect of making a decent wage.

Fixing our schools will cost a lot of money- about a billion dollars apparently. But the price we will pay as a society for inaction, and a continuation of these obvious failings, is immeasurable.