The following is from the Web site of Dante Picciano:

Waste Coal Cogeneration Plant

On August 25, 2008, scientists from the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) held a public meeting in Hazleton, Pennsylvania about the results of their investigation into the polycythemia vera cancer cluster in this area. The main point being reported in the press is that the federal agency confirmed the presence of a polycythemia vera cluster - the first and only cluster of polycythemia vera ever recorded in the United States. We have three specific comments on the meeting.

First, the federal scientists also reported that they found three areas within Luzerne, Schuylkill and Carbon counties with a significant elevation of the polycythemia vera rate. The three areas were identified as an area south of Hazleton and north of Tamaqua, an area south of Frackville and an area in eastern Carbon County near Jim Thorpe.

Dr. Vincent Seaman, a research toxicologist at the ATSDR, stated that a conservative estimate of the polycythemia vera rate in these three areas was four times higher than the rest of the tri-county region. In October 2007, the ATSDR reported that the rate in the tri-county region was approximately 4 times the state rate (see Archives: ìPolycythemia Vera Cancer Epidemic, November 9, 2007). Thus, it is fair to state that the ATSDR results indicate an approximate 16-fold increase in the polycythemia vera rate in these three areas.

The ATSDR report did not indicate what is the cause of this polycythemia vera epidemic but did identify hazardous waste sites, air pollution and coal mining operations as three environmental similarities in these areas. We can go farther than the ATSDR.

In 2006, Sue Sturgis, a reporter from North Carolina reviewed the Pennsylvania Department of Health’s data of reported cases of polycythemia vera by county for the years 2001 through 2003 and suggested a possible association between polycythemia vera and power plants that burn waste coal (see Cancer researcher confirms possible link between polycythemia, waste-fuel-burning power plants, December 7, 2006, www.hometownhazards.com.

In 2007, we published an article indicating that there was evidence suggesting a possible link between the polycythemia vera and waste coal burning power plants (see Archives: ìPointing the ATSDR in the Right Direction,August 24, 2007).

There are waste coal burning power plants in the three areas identified in the ATSDR report. We can only hope that the scientists at the ATSDR will open their eyes and look at the most likely cause of the polycythemia vera epidemic.

Second, a representative from the office of Senator Arlen Specter announced that Senator Specter had arranged for $262,000 in federal funding for Drexel University School of Public Health in Philadelphia to investigate the polycythemia vera problem in this area. The full Senate, the House of Representatives and the President must still approve the appropriation.

We found this direct appropriation to a school in Philadelphia to be of particular interest. In 2007, Senator Specter wrote about the initial ATSDR report as follows, “I am heartened by the study’s findings that there are no environmental or occupational causes for the disease….”

In addition, the usual method for funding scientific research is to give the money to a federal agency such as the National Institutes of Health and have a scientific panel select the best proposal for the funding. I am suspect of the motives of any politician who is heartened by findings of no environmental or occupational causes and who gives money directly to a university in his hometown.

Finally, in 2006, the Pennsylvania Department of Health reported statistically significant increases in the incidences of buccal cavity (mouth), cervix, colon-rectum, larynx, leukemia, polycythemia vera, skin (malignant melanoma), stomach and uterus cancers in the tri-county area. However, the government scientists have failed to follow up on any of these cancers other than the polycythemia vera cancers.

Perhaps our elected officials can put some pressure on the federal and state scientists to do their jobs.

Reducing the Size of the General Assembly

Matthew J. Brouillette

08.19.08

Testimony before the House State Government Committee. Thank you, Chairwoman Josephs, and members of the House State Government Committee for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of reducing the size of the Pennsylvania legislature.

My name is Matthew Brouillette and I am a president and CEO the Commonwealth Foundation, a public policy education and research organization based in Harrisburg.

At 253 Members, Pennsylvania has the 2nd largest state legislature in the nation, trailing only New Hampshire which with 424 members boasts the 3rd largest legislative body in the world (rivaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives and the British Parliament. But as you all know, New Hampshire is the epitome of a citizen-run legislature, where members receive only $100 per year for their part-time and limited legislative service.

In addition to being one of only four truly full-time legislature in the nation, Pennsylvania is among the most highly “professionalized,” according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This takes into account legislative pay, number of days in session, and staff per legislator.

In terms of compensation, Pennsylvania legislators are the 4th highest paid in nation at over $76,000 in base pay per year (trailing Michigan at $79,650, New York at $79,500, and California at $116,000 in 2008). In terms of support staff, the Pennsylvania General Assembly has the 2nd highest number of legislative staff (after New York, as of 2003) with over 11.6 staff members per legislator (an increase of 106% since 1978).

Given these facts, it is no surprise that Pennsylvania’s General Assembly is the most expensive operating legislature in the nation (even spending more than California’s $260 million and New York’s $220 million). In the current 2008-09 fiscal year, $332 million was appropriated for the operations of the House, Senate, and legislative support services. This is up from $88 million in 1984-85Â-an increase of 84% after adjusting for inflation.

Obviously these nation-leading numbers do not reflect well on the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so it is no surprise that there are proposals to reduce the size of the General Assembly. Over two years ago, we testified on this very issue before a Senate Committee (RE: Sen. John PippyÂ’s SB 890 which would reduce the General Assembly by 40% from 203 House members to 123, and from 50 Senators to 30) and produced a policy brief, which I have included with my testimony.

Our analysis and critique then still applies now. Allow me to highlight a few of the salient points.

Our conclusion is that reducing the size of the Pennsylvania General Assembly could impact three areas of state government operations: First, it could lead to a reduction in the cost of the legislature. Second, it could provide greater accountability and transparency in legislative processes. And finally, it could bring about different public policy outcomes.

We emphasize could because reducing the size of the legislature on its own-as a stand-alone reform-will not likely improve either state government’s efficiency in spending taxpayers’ money or state government’s policymaking effectiveness. In and of itself, this structural change would only have a minimal effect on the costs and benefits to citizens.

I will, however, briefly address each of these three potential areas of impact.

First, many proponents suggest that a smaller legislature will cost taxpayers less money. But barring other reforms, these savings will be minimal. The operating cost of the General Assembly, though large, represents only a fraction of the Commonwealth’s $60 billion operating budget. Additionally, reducing the number of legislators would not automatically result in an equivalent reduction in either direct or indirect costs to taxpayers.

Indeed, even if a 25% reduction in the number of legislators resulted in a 25% reduction in the legislative budget, the savings would amount to approximately $7 per Pennsylvanian. Of course, this is not totally insignificant, but far greater savings can be achieved through other, more substantive cost-cutting policy changes and reforms.

The second area of possible impact is in legislative accountability and transparency. We believe that a smaller legislature could be a component of a broader set of reforms. Reducing the size of the legislature (and making larger legislative districts) could result in greater accountability and transparency by leading to the adoption and implementation of more substantive reform measures. A smaller legislature may also increase the chances of making the legislative process more open, transparent, and independent of special interests. But none of these outcomes are guaranteed by any means.

There are potential downsides, including a reduction in the attention an elected official can pay to a larger number of constituents, and the possibility of further concentrating power in the hands of a few legislative leaders. For these reasons, we emphasize that reducing the size of the legislature can only lead to increased accountability and transparency if it is complemented with other critical reforms.

Finally, the potential impact of reducing the size of the General Assembly on policy outcomes is unclear. A number of academic studies comparing state legislative size to policy measures reach different conclusions. Some find that states with smaller legislatures spend less per-capita than states with larger legislatures; while other studies conclude that larger constituent size results in more spending (thus shrinking the legislature would lead to more state spending). There is no clear evidence linking legislative size with other measures of state policy, such as economic freedom or tax burden-two important measures of a state’s potential for lasting prosperity.

Several studies, however, have found that state spending, tax burden, and economic freedom vary much more closely with legislative “professionalization” than size. The number of staff per lawmaker, the pay of lawmakers, and the time in session have a strong correlation with the level of spending, taxes, and regulations enacted by state government.

States with highly professionalized legislatures spend more per-capita, have a higher tax burden, and have a higher, more burdensome level of regulation than do states with part-time, citizen-led legislatures. Thus, reforms that move Pennsylvania away from a full-time, professional legislature will have a much greater impact on improving policy outcomes than just reducing the number of members.

I have qualified the Commonwealth Foundation’s support of reducing the size of legislature to needing additional, more substantive reforms. Two of the most important measures we’ve identified include Limited Terms and Limited Sessions:

* Limited Terms. Pennsylvania currently limits the number of terms the governor can serve. Similar limits should be placed on members of the General Assembly to restore the ideals of public service and a truly representative body of the citizenry.

* Limited Sessions. Pennsylvania is among only a handful of “full-time” state legislatures with an unlimited number of session days. Limiting the number of session days, coupled with limited terms, would also return Pennsylvania to a citizen-led legislature.

In summary, our analysis suggests that a reduction in the size of the Pennsylvania General Assembly could improve the lawmaking process, but only if it includes other, more comprehensive reforms.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I would be happy to answer any questions from the committee.

# # #

HAMBURG, PA - In a statement released today, state senate candidate Dennis Baylor claimed that one more victory like his recent win of a spot on the November General Election ballot would utterly ruin his candidacy.

In an unusual move, Baylor acknowledged that the effort required to access the ballot in Pennsylvania has left his campaign broke. “At the official close of business at the Pennsylvania Department of State on Friday, I learned that there had been no challenges to my nominating papers, which was welcomed news; but I also learned that only 84 cents remained in my campaign account” Baylor said.

The candidate claims that the problems of accessing Pennsylvania’s ballot goes well beyond the ridiculous number of signatures that Independent candidates must gather, and is exacerbated by the fact that the state systematically denies such candidates equal political opportunity. “I not only have the right to run for office — I have the right to win” Baylor said. “The state’s administration of its already biased election laws can not be in a manner that creates further obstacles than those that already exist in law.”

Even though his campaign is nearly broke, Mr. Baylor is determined to get out his message of lower taxes through cutting government, improving health care, the quality of education in the Commonwealth, and the environment. He is also determined to lead the fight against the upcoming rise in electric rates for residents and businesses in the 29^th district and restore regulations to combat usurious interest rates.

Mr. Baylor also said that notwithstanding his gaining a spot on the November ballot, he plans to go forward with his federal lawsuit to address the remaining obstacles to equal political opportunity for all.

View a recent Commonwealth Foundation video on waste on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. No matter how one feels about leasing the toll road, the waste must end.

Numerous newspapers have carried the story, about Deputy Speaker of the House Josh Shapiro’s call for Deweese to step down as Majority Leader. That following is typical:

House Dem wants DeWeese to resign post

Monday, August 04, 2008

By Tracie Mauriello and Tom Barnes, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

HARRISBURG — A House Democrat who has been a supporter of House Democratic leader H. William DeWeese called today for Mr. DeWeese to step down from his party caucus leadership post.

Rep. Josh Shapiro, a second-term House member from Montgomery County and the deputy speaker of the House, said Mr. DeWeese has lost all public confidence because of the dozen House Democrats or staff members charged in the Bonusgate scandal.

“It’s beyond the time that we change the business-as-usual in Harrisburg,” he told reporters today. “If these Bonusgate allegations are true, our state government is broken.”

He said Mr. DeWeese, who has represented Waynesburg in the Legislature for 30 years and has led House Democrats since 1993, should step down for five reasons:

• The alleged Bonusgate abuses “occurred on his watch,” and even though Mr. DeWeese claims he knew nothing about them, he was still the leader when the bonuses were allegedly given out for political work in 2006.
• “We need a break from the past. We must enact real change for the people of Pennsylvania.”
• Even if he didn’t know about the alleged Bonusgate abuses, “Bill DeWeese doesn’t have the public’s trust and we need leaders that do have that trust.”
• Apparently, no one in the Democratic caucus felt comfortable about telling Mr. DeWeese about the alleged abuses, which, according to a grand jury report, went on for months at a time.
• With Mr. DeWeese as House Democratic leader, Democrats will have a harder time widening their current one-vote margin of control of the House in what should be a Democratic year in Pennsylvania, with presidential candidate Barack Obama leading Republican John McCain in the polls.

In a separate development today, another Montgomery County Democrat, Rep. Rick Taylor, added his voice to the call for Mr. DeWeese to step down as caucus leader.

“He has become a lightning rod for controversy,” said Mr. Taylor, who is at least the seventh Democrat to urge Mr. DeWeese to step down from leadership.

“We need to get back to the issues,” he said. “Unfortunately this scandal has cast a cloud over our efforts to reform Harrisburg.”

So far, Democratic Reps. Harry Readshaw of Carrick and Matt Smith of Mt. Lebanon are also among those who want new House leadership.

There might be a House Democratic meeting, when legislators return to the Capitol in mid-September, to choose new leadership.

Harrisburg, Pa. August 1st is the filing deadline for Independent candidates in Pennsylvania, and because of Pennsylvania’s laws which allow ballot challenges up until August 8th, August 1st is also the first day that Independents file.

Arriving at the Department of State’s - Bureau of Commission, Elections and Legislation - at noon, I was the first Independent candidate to file, this election cycle.

Ralph Nader’s ballot access team was right behind me, to file 55,000 signatures to access Pennsylvania’s ballot. More than twice the roughly 25,000 required. If laid end to end his submittal would be more than ten miles long.

Ralph Nader's filing!

NADER TO ASK PA SUPREME COURT TO RE-OPEN BALLOT CASE

Citing criminal indictment of 12 Pennsylvania Democrats and ongoing Grand Jury probe in connection with the Democrats’ 2004 “Nader effort,” Petition will ask PA high court to re-open judgment assessing costs

HARRISBURG, PA - Ralph Nader today announced that he will ask the PennsylvaniaSupreme Court to re-open a decision ordering him to pay $81,102.19 in litigation costsarising from the Democratic Party challenge to his 2004 presidential nomination papers.

Nader said criminal charges that Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett filed earlier this month against 12 Pennsylvania Democrats for criminal conspiracy and theft of taxpayer funds in connection with the challenge is newly-discovered evidence that warrants the Court’s consideration.

“The Pennsylvania Democrats’ effort to deny Pennsylvania voters the choice of voting for the Nader-Camejo candidacy in 2004 appears to have been a criminal conspiracy massive in scale, involving virtually the entire House Democratic caucus staff, and top Democratic leadership,” Nader said. “According to the Grand Jury, millions of dollars in taxpayer funds, resources and state employees were illegally used for political campaign purposes - including to remove the Nader-Camejo ticket from the ballot. We will therefore ask the Supreme Court to re-open the case so that it may consider this new evidence of criminal misconduct.”

On August 22, 2006, a divided Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed an order that Commonwealth Court Judge James Gardner Colins entered on January 14, 2005, which approved without opinion a bill of costs that the large Pittsburgh-based law firm Reed Smith, LLP jointly submitted with Philadelphia-based attorneys Gregory Harvey of Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP and Brian A. Gordon, a solo practitioner. The costs arose from a challenge the attorneys filed, purportedly on behalf of eight Pennsylvania voters, to the nomination papers that Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo submitted as independent candidates for President and Vice President in the 2004 general election.

A Grand Jury presentment accompanying Attorney General Corbett’s criminal charges makes clear, however, that the challenge was prepared by no fewer than 50 state employees, working in their official capacities, on taxpayer time, using taxpayer resources, at the direction of their supervisors - House Democratic Whip Mike Veon and House Democratic Leader H. William (”Bill”) DeWeese’s Chief of Staff, Michael
Manzo, both of whom are among the indicted.

The Grand Jury found that state employees divided the Nader-Camejo nomination papers with “a law firm which was ultimately involved in filing the challenge,” and that a DeWeese staffer and a Veon staffer were each appointed to coordinate “the dissemination of materials and information to the aforementioned law firm.” Three members of Veon’s
staff “even drove boxes of materials necessary for the challenge filing to Harrisburg, where they were delivered to the challenge attorney.”

“The Grand Jury did not identify any law firm by name,” Nader said, “but nevertheless, this law firm apparently prepared its challenge to our nomination papers in direct cooperation with Pennsylvania Democrats who now face multiple criminal charges for theft and misappropriation of taxpayer funds. This newly discovered evidence of
criminal misconduct raises serious questions about the role of the law firms that brought the challenge and the propriety of the bill of costs that these firms submitted.”

Nader said that the judgment affirming the bill of costs cannot be enforced until such questions are addressed, and that if the law firms were cooperating with the indicted Democrats, then the judgment must be vacated as the product of a criminal conspiracy.

Nader noted that Camejo had already paid Reed Smith $20,000 to settle his share of the judgment, which should be returned to him. Nader did not settle and has previously opposed the judgment due to alleged improprieties by Reed Smith in prior proceedings.

The Grand Jury found that employees and resources of the House Democratic Caucus were routinely used to conduct petition challenges against candidates who ran against Democratic candidates. The Nader petition challenge, the Grand Jury concluded, was virtually a caucus-wide endeavor to which “a veritable army” of Democratic staff
members - allegedly no fewer than 50 - contributed “a staggering number of manhours,” many dedicating an entire week to the effort.

The state employees received $188,800 in taxpayer-funded bonus checks for their work on the “Nader effort” and other political endeavors in 2004. Most checks were delivered from the Pennsylvania Treasury on or about December 16, 2004.

Nader praised Attorney General Corbett and the Grand Jury for their diligence, but urged further investigation into evidence that the Nader-Camejo nomination papers had been sabotaged. Nader said that petition circulators discovered and expunged approximately 7,000 fake signatures prior to submitting the petitions, which suggested a
widespread and systematic effort to sabotage them. A tiny number of the signatures planted through mischief or sabotage (687 or 1.3 percent of the petition total) escaped detection, and for this reason Nader and Camejo were ordered to pay $81,102.19 in costs.

Nader said he would investigate the possibility of vacating Judge Colins’ opinion, which grossly mischaracterized the foregoing facts as an indication of widespread fraud in the nomination papers. As Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Thomas Saylor emphasized in his dissenting opinion of October 22, 2004, there is “no evidence” to
support this mischaracterization. Press reports nevertheless mistakenly and consistently quote Pennsylvania Democrats who repeat this defamatory claim - even after the recent criminal indictments of 12 such Democrats.

“This was one of the most fraudulent and deceitful exercises ever perpetrated on Pennsylvania voters,” Nader said. “The conduct of the Pennsylvania Democrats, through their criminally indicted representatives, shocks the conscience of those who believe in
government of the people, by the people and for the people.”

Nader said that he would call on the United States Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission to investigate criminal misconduct not only in Pennsylvania, but also in other states such as Illinois, where similar illegal activity may have occurred.

“The alleged misconduct extends beyond the misappropriation of public resources and taxpayer dollars to force the Nader-Camejo ticket off the ballot,” Nader said, “and strikes directly at the First Amendment right of all Americans to run for office and to choose candidates in open and competitive elections.”

- End -

MISS LEGISLATIVE REFORM 2008 CONTEST

TO BE HELD IN CAPITOL ROTUNDA

Miss Legislative Reform 2008 will be crowned in the Capitol Rotunda on Monday, July 28, 2008 at 11 a.m. The contest is open to all Pennsylvania residents who want Legislative Reform. The winner will receive a job with the legislature from Democratic Majority Leader Bill Deweese for $45,000 and a complete health and benefit package worth $10,000. (A thank you to all Democratic caucus members for keeping you’re your current leaders who have such good judgement. We could not have had this contest without you.)

Why: Recently it was noted that being a beauty queen can be an advantage in securing employment in the legislature. We thought that if there is a contest with contestants representing various Reform Agenda items, the legislature will notice the Reform Agenda items and actually pass them and maybe hire the individual contestants.

Who can enter the contest: Anyone who wants to work on Legislative Reform

Where: Pennsylvania Capitol Rotunda

When: 11a.m., Monday 28, 2008 Please arrive by 10:30 a.m. Heels are worn at own risk on the tiled floor of the Rotunda. (Note that Miss Rainy Day 2008 is chosen on July 29^th in Green County, Mr. Deweese’s home county, and we did not want to interfere with that contest. A former Miss Rainy Day 2001 currently works for Mr. Deweese’s caucus.)

What: All contestants will choose the reform agenda item of their choice. Sashes with that reform agenda item on it will be given to the individual contestants to wear with their gowns.

Dress: Evening gowns with tierras. No swimsuit competition.

Competition: Each contestant will wear an evening gown and tierra. Each contestant will be asked what they would do to reform the Pennsylvania legislature. (We are already sure they also want world peace.)

Age: 18 on up; all welcome. Contact Gene Stilp for details 829-5600

Judges: We are currently looking for judges. Ralph Cappy and Russell Nigro have refused.

]]> http://dennisbaylor.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/miss-legislative-reform-2008-contest/feed/ dennisbaylor http://dennisbaylor.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/what-is-babette-bonus-babe-josephs-thinking/ http://dennisbaylor.wordpress.com/2008/07/20/what-is-babette-bonus-babe-josephs-thinking/#comments Sun, 20 Jul 2008 14:43:31 +0000 Dennis Baylor http://dennisbaylor.wordpress.com/?p=117

Rep. Babette Josephs, chairman of the House State Government Committee, and is trying to trick her colleagues into forgetting that she had already stymied a bonus ban.

Only recently Rep. Josephs decried John Eichelberger’s bonus ban bill - which passed the Senate unanimously last October - as being flawed (even though there is an amendment to address the specific flaw). Instead, Rep. Joseph’s proposes starting a new bill effectively identical to Sen. Eichelberger’s legislation.

Why a new bill, rather than amend and pass an existing bill? Is it because Sen. Eichelberger critizied the Bonus Babe for not taking action? To delay and obfuscate? Or simply for personal glory?

Does anyone have the slightest idea what Babette Bonus Babe Josephs is thinking?