PENNSYLVANIA IS APPROACHING THE UNGOVERNABLE

          As a lawyer and unabashed progressive liberal I am not proud to be   a Pennsylvanian or a registered democrat within its borders.  Our Commonwealth’s legal and governmental institutions are operating in a manner that makes the federal dysfunction appear to be a well oiled machine.  Elected democrats are making matters worse.  Let me count the ways.

                   The promise of a socially enlightened Democratic Governor has degraded into a budget impasse that is beginning to cause irreparable damage to the very individuals who were to receive an increase in badly needed services. Moreover, while education was the centerpiece of Governor Wolf’s campaign, poor school districts are being strangled as they struggle to maintain even the most basic learning environment.  Somehow, making the sick, suffering and most needy in Pennsylvania go through a near death experience before the cavalry arrives does not seem fair or just. 

          No solution is in sight as Pennsylvania’s credit rating prepares to plummet and legislators wait for the party across the aisle to blink. The budget is not the place to draw an ideological line in the sand as human services scramble to save what they can. It is a place for old fashioned horse trading to get the services up and running for those who need them.

          Our Democratic Attorney General and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court are the laughing stock of the nation.  Kathleen Kane’s legal license has been removed because of pending perjury charges and is now ineffective as Pennsylvania’s top prosecutor.  The only function in which she can excel is to slowly release her hoard of sensitive emails that continue to embarrass a Supreme Court Justice and possibly other members of the “old boys’ network” who she claims are responsible for her difficulties.  While no one can seem to explain how the offending emails and the perjury charges are related these two important Commonwealth institutions continue to lose credibility and respect.

          The Supreme Court suffered a previous blow when another sitting member, Justice Seamus McCaffery, resigned last October as a direct result of the email scandal.  I was encouraged that a new group of reformist candidates were running for the three Supreme Court openings in November. The opportunity to reshape Pennsylvania jurisprudence for decades to come seemed like a breath of fresh air.

           My elation with the democratic Supreme Court candidates was severely dampened with the recent wave of attack ads sponsored by democratic interest groups.  Predictably, the Republican candidates are now responding with attack ads of their own.  In my view these ads are unnecessary, unprofessional, confusing to voters and undermine the legal profession and our highest court.  This is exactly the wrong message for so called reformist candidates to send.

          With the Governor’s office, legislature, Attorney General and Supreme Court paralyzed by inaction or scandal, what is to be done? One can only hope that all candidates for the Supreme Court will denounce the attack ads in an attempt to return a semblance of decorum to these important campaigns. Further, let us hope the ghosts of former Governors Tom Ridge and Ed Rendell return to the halls of Harrisburg to help guide our misplaced lawmakers to a commonsense solution to the budget debacle.  Lastly there is always the possibility that Attorney General Kane will cop a plea deal and sail off into the sunset to join the disgraced politicos who have preceded her. 

          Only then can Pennsylvania return to the ranks of the commonly mediocre rather than the present borderline ungovernable.

         

          

EXPENSES FOR HOME LAND SECURITY GET A FREE PASS

          Of all the social and political topics swarming around in the fall air, those involving human life seem to invoke the most emotion.  Abortion, euthanasia, gun control, capital punishment and terrorist attacks first appear as black or white issues:  do something or people die.  Of course there are embedded shades of gray.  When does life begin? Is the right to die a democratic liberty?  Do more guns cause or prevent mass killings?  Do certain killers deserve to die?  How much expenditure is too much to prevent another attack against the homeland?

          In my view this last topic, terrorism, generates the least discussion and disagreement among the public. There is little debate concerning the massive amounts of money and willingness to accept less privacy associated with protecting the homeland.  There is little discussion as to whether the federal government should continue to have a blank check to take whatever action necessary to prevent future terrorist attacks.  One insight into this lack of pushback against the expense and intrusion of homeland security is a recent July 2015 Rasmussen poll.  It found that 52% of Americans believe the United States is a more dangerous place than before 9/11.

          The FBI definition of terrorism is: “a violent act dangerous to human life that violates federal or state law and appears to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction.”

          Most people get the “violent act” part and stop there.  They do not consider the “affect the conduct of government” portion of the definition.  Since 9/11 Congress has spent over two trillion dollars on the war on terror.  This includes our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and the most recent efforts against ISIS.  This figure does not include another two trillion dollars in direct economic costs to the economy following 9/11.  Nor does it include the non economic impact of increased surveillance on Americans resulting from the Patriot Act and other policies.

          I am now in the camp that believes our war on terrorism since 9/11 have made matters worse and increased the terrorist threat.   This month we celebrate our fourteen year anniversary of Afghan military involvement.   The ongoing quagmire has gained no strategic advantage and been a fertile recruitment tool for ISIS. Moreover, I believe that if the enormous costs of homeland security and the war on terror had been applied to repairing America’s infrastructure and ongoing social problems, we would be better off as a country.  How can we as a nation find that cutting entitlements to needy Americans is preferable to scaling back these bloated programs?

          The truth is that terrorism has done more harm to the nation since 9/11, not by killing Americans, but by changing our goals and priorities. To use the FBI definition, the terrorism threat is: “affecting the conduct of government.” This is exactly the result that Osama Bin Laden had in mind by bringing down the twin towers. His strategic goal of long term US entanglement in the Mid East combined with worsening economic and social problems that threaten our democratic institutions (that cannot be addressed because of the expensive war on terror) has come to pass.  Bin Landen may be dead but the impact of his actions continues and is growing.

          I do not know the true cost benefit analysis of our war on terror. It is impossible for the average person to factor in the plots that may have been averted.  I do know that tenfold more Americans die from gun violence than from acts of terrorism.  On the other hand, large financial commitments to prevent a massive killing field and trillion dollar losses like 9/11 may be justified, if security efforts are in fact responsible for this result.

           I simply wish that this issue would generate some of the emotion and debate as other topics involving potential loss of life in America.  Are we getting our monies worth with the war on terror and homeland security and are the tradeoffs worth it?  Hopefully the new election cycle will place this topic front and center.