April 7th, 2007
On April 5, the 3rd circuit denied a rehearing in Rogers v Corbett, the ballot access case filed by the Green, Constitution and Libertarian Parties last year. The issue was whether the state could force a party to submit 67,070 signatures to place its statewide nominees on the ballot, if it had polled enough votes in the prior election to meet the state’s definition of “political party”. A rehearing request had been pending since August 2006.
Now, the case will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
from www.ballotaccess.com
Monday, April 9, 2007
Saturday, April 7, 2007
Penguins to talk with community surrounding arena
4/6/2007, 7:14 p.m. EDT
The Associated Press
PITTSBURGH (AP) — The new president of the Pittsburgh Penguins has agreed to meet with neighborhood leaders seeking a development fund and minority hiring as part of a $290 million arena being built in the area.
"We anticipate having meetings with community members in the Hill District on the redevelopment of the Lower Hill," President David Morehouse said Friday. "It's far too early to anticipate what the outcomes of community meetings will be."
Some community members are seeking $10 million for the neighborhood hosting the arena and related redevelopment promised by casino license winner Don Barden. A proposal delivered to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato also calls for annual payments for 30 years to a development interest and that 30 percent of arena and development jobs be reserved for minorities.
Morehouse said he would consider a minority hiring plan. On the request for development money, he said he was "not going to discount offhand anything I haven't seen." A spokesman for Barden declined comment, saying he had not seen the proposal.
Marimba Milliones, a Hill District businesswoman and a leader of the effort, said a contribution of $10 million to neighborhood development "is actually very conservative when you compare it to the list of public dollars going to the arena for the Penguins."
_
The Associated Press
PITTSBURGH (AP) — The new president of the Pittsburgh Penguins has agreed to meet with neighborhood leaders seeking a development fund and minority hiring as part of a $290 million arena being built in the area.
"We anticipate having meetings with community members in the Hill District on the redevelopment of the Lower Hill," President David Morehouse said Friday. "It's far too early to anticipate what the outcomes of community meetings will be."
Some community members are seeking $10 million for the neighborhood hosting the arena and related redevelopment promised by casino license winner Don Barden. A proposal delivered to Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Allegheny County Chief Executive Dan Onorato also calls for annual payments for 30 years to a development interest and that 30 percent of arena and development jobs be reserved for minorities.
Morehouse said he would consider a minority hiring plan. On the request for development money, he said he was "not going to discount offhand anything I haven't seen." A spokesman for Barden declined comment, saying he had not seen the proposal.
Marimba Milliones, a Hill District businesswoman and a leader of the effort, said a contribution of $10 million to neighborhood development "is actually very conservative when you compare it to the list of public dollars going to the arena for the Penguins."
_
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Pennsylvania Gun Registration Legislation Introduced!
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Please Contact Your State Legislators Today!
The Gun Registration Act of 2007, House Bill No. 760, sponsored by State Representatives Angel Cruz (D-180), Rosita Youngblood (D-198), Cherelle Parker (D-200), Jake Wheatley (D-19), Lisa Bennington (D-21), and Lawrence Curry (D-154) has been introduced in Harrisburg.
This misguided proposal would require every gun in Pennsylvania to be registered with the state, and each firearm would have to be re-registered annually. The registration would cost law-abiding gun owners $10 per gun each year. Of course, criminals won’t pay anything BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T REGISTER GUNS! In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85 (1968)) that since felons are prohibited from owning firearms, compelling them to register them would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, if a law-abiding gun owner fails to register it, he or she will be jailed and lose his or her rights FOREVER.
The measure would require each gun owner submit to fingerprinting, have a background check, and to include passport-style photos for the registration cards. The registration card for each gun would then have to be carried with that gun at all times. To make matters worse, if the state should reject your application for any reason, YOUR GUNS WILL BE CONFISCATED!
Please call your State Representative today at (717) 787-2372 and your State Senator at (717) 787-5920 and ask them to oppose HB760!
Enough is enough!
It's time for all Pennsylvania NRA members’ voices to be heard!
To find further contact information or help identifying your legislators
please use the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.
Please Contact Your State Legislators Today!
The Gun Registration Act of 2007, House Bill No. 760, sponsored by State Representatives Angel Cruz (D-180), Rosita Youngblood (D-198), Cherelle Parker (D-200), Jake Wheatley (D-19), Lisa Bennington (D-21), and Lawrence Curry (D-154) has been introduced in Harrisburg.
This misguided proposal would require every gun in Pennsylvania to be registered with the state, and each firearm would have to be re-registered annually. The registration would cost law-abiding gun owners $10 per gun each year. Of course, criminals won’t pay anything BECAUSE CRIMINALS DON'T REGISTER GUNS! In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85 (1968)) that since felons are prohibited from owning firearms, compelling them to register them would violate their 5th Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, if a law-abiding gun owner fails to register it, he or she will be jailed and lose his or her rights FOREVER.
The measure would require each gun owner submit to fingerprinting, have a background check, and to include passport-style photos for the registration cards. The registration card for each gun would then have to be carried with that gun at all times. To make matters worse, if the state should reject your application for any reason, YOUR GUNS WILL BE CONFISCATED!
Please call your State Representative today at (717) 787-2372 and your State Senator at (717) 787-5920 and ask them to oppose HB760!
Enough is enough!
It's time for all Pennsylvania NRA members’ voices to be heard!
To find further contact information or help identifying your legislators
please use the "Write Your Representative" feature found at www.NRAILA.org.
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Judge: County sheriff must be elected
By Jason Cato
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Allegheny County's longstanding tradition of electing a sheriff will carry on, at least for another five years, a county judge ruled today.
Common Pleas Judge Eugene B. Strassburger III sided with the Sheriff's Association of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its lawsuit to keep the county and Chief Executive Dan Onorato from holding a public referendum in May asking voters to decide whether the county sheriff should remain an elected position or be appointed by the chief executive.
Strassburger wrote in his 15-page order and opinion that the county is prohibited from changing its form of government more than once in five years.
In 2005, the county amended its form of government by alllowing six of 10 row offices to be appointed rather than elected. Appointed department heads now include the medical examiner, register of wills, prothonotary, recorder of deeds, clerk of courts and jury commissioners. The four court-related offices are being phased out this year.
The county attempted to circumvent the five-year rule by having the decision on the sheriff's position take effect in 2010.
Strassburger said his ruling should not be viewed as an opinion on the outcome of any future referendum. That decision would be left up to the voters.
"Let us see what the effects are of the 2005 amendments to the home rule charter providing for appointive row offices, and after the five year moratorium, if the County Council and county executive still desire, this referendum would be timely," Strassburger wrote.
The 15-member County Council voted in February to amend its form of government and put the sheriff question to voters. The nixed referendum essentially would have combined the sheriff's office and county police under the executive branch.
Proponents of the change said consolidating the sheriff's office and county police would create a leaner, more efficient law enforcement agency. Opponents argued it would give the chief executive, who would appoint the sheriff, too much power.
Onorato proposed the legislation.
The sheriff's office guards the county courthouse, transports inmates and serves official papers. In recent years, the office has employed more than 180 workers with annual budgets exceeding $11 million.
Jason Cato can be reached at jcato@tribweb.com or 412-320-7840.
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Allegheny County's longstanding tradition of electing a sheriff will carry on, at least for another five years, a county judge ruled today.
Common Pleas Judge Eugene B. Strassburger III sided with the Sheriff's Association of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its lawsuit to keep the county and Chief Executive Dan Onorato from holding a public referendum in May asking voters to decide whether the county sheriff should remain an elected position or be appointed by the chief executive.
Strassburger wrote in his 15-page order and opinion that the county is prohibited from changing its form of government more than once in five years.
In 2005, the county amended its form of government by alllowing six of 10 row offices to be appointed rather than elected. Appointed department heads now include the medical examiner, register of wills, prothonotary, recorder of deeds, clerk of courts and jury commissioners. The four court-related offices are being phased out this year.
The county attempted to circumvent the five-year rule by having the decision on the sheriff's position take effect in 2010.
Strassburger said his ruling should not be viewed as an opinion on the outcome of any future referendum. That decision would be left up to the voters.
"Let us see what the effects are of the 2005 amendments to the home rule charter providing for appointive row offices, and after the five year moratorium, if the County Council and county executive still desire, this referendum would be timely," Strassburger wrote.
The 15-member County Council voted in February to amend its form of government and put the sheriff question to voters. The nixed referendum essentially would have combined the sheriff's office and county police under the executive branch.
Proponents of the change said consolidating the sheriff's office and county police would create a leaner, more efficient law enforcement agency. Opponents argued it would give the chief executive, who would appoint the sheriff, too much power.
Onorato proposed the legislation.
The sheriff's office guards the county courthouse, transports inmates and serves official papers. In recent years, the office has employed more than 180 workers with annual budgets exceeding $11 million.
Jason Cato can be reached at jcato@tribweb.com or 412-320-7840.
Monday, March 26, 2007
Voter referendum -- shift to reduce property taxes
Our very own Jim Barr is quoted in this article.
Rachel Weaver
Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Renters will pay more under Act 1, and there's no guarantee that all homeowners will pay less under the state's broadest attempt at tax reform in a decade.
Voters in the May 15 primary will decide whether they want to shift taxes in their district -- to reduce property taxes, some people would see their income tax spike. Most school districts -- more than 450 of 501 -- favor increasing the earned income tax at a rate of 1.05 percent or less, instead of a personal income tax.
Either way, school districts aren't supposed to collect more money -- only shift who pays, if voters support it.
"Act 1 is not school funding," said Scott Shewell, director of public relations for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, based in Mechanicsburg. "It's a property tax relief bill. There is no benefit to the school board if the referendum is passed and no drawback if it isn't."
For decades, Pennsyl-vania legislators have argued over the best way to collect taxes, and how to reduce property taxes. Gov. Ed Rendell signed the Taxpayer Relief Act in June 2006 to give public school districts the means to lower property taxes, especially senior citizens, via funding provided by gaming revenue. The last major attempt at tax reform came in 1998, Act 50, with measures so complex that most school districts disregarded it.
This time around, school district leaders must offer voters the option of shifting taxes.
"Educating voters about what the question is about is our biggest concern," Shewell said.
"Someone who doesn't understand will read the first sentence asking 'Do you want to raise the income tax to supplement a decrease in property tax' and think the school district is asking them if they want to raise taxes."
And some worry that in attempting to shift the tax burden, the legislation creates new problems.
"The state has basically pitted a class warfare, working people versus retired people," said Kevin Fischer, president of the Baldwin-Whitehall school board, which is recommending a 1 percent increase in earned income tax. "If I were retired and not earning income, I would be voting 'yes.' Why wouldn't I want $500 in my pocket and be paying less in taxes?
"As a wage earner, I'm voting 'no.' Why do I want additional wage taxes?"
Winners and Losers
Renters will lose out under the tax-shifting plan.
No matter which tax gets the OK, people with leases pay more.
"Anyone with a paycheck will start chipping in," said Mike Storm, assistant press secretary with the state Department of Education. "Everyone will be shouldering the same burden."
Shewell calls Act 1's effect on renters a "triple whammy."
"They have the most to lose under Act 1," he said. "They're getting no property tax relief. Their earned income tax will go up, if that's approved. And most landlords calculate the amount of property tax into the cost of rent, so many will see increases in rent."
Dual-income families also could pay more. If an earned income tax is raised, anyone who works will see the tax go up. Property tax reduction, however, is limited to one homestead exemption per property; this amount varies from district to district.
"Even if you are a single-wage earner, you will see your property tax decrease but your income tax could go up," Shewell said. "If you make right around the average (income), it's not a great deal for net tax relief."
Senior citizens who still work, but who do not own a home also could lose out if voters support increasing the income tax -- because as renters, they would not qualify for the homestead exemption, yet they would see tax on their income go up. Some lower-income seniors would see at least a partial savings by the expansion of the property tax and rent rebate program - which gives up to $650 per year, depending on income.
The earned income tax option is most beneficial to seniors. It includes tax on compensation and net profits. Personal income tax includes tax on compensation, net profits and other kinds of income, such as interest and dividends, which would hurt seniors who depend on investment income.
Some residents are already frustrated with Act 1.
"The whole thing is a sham," said Shirley Turnage, who's lived in the Franklin Regional School District for 60 years. "It was thrown together. There's no explanation of how taxes will be collected and who will be collecting them."
For Turnage, who is "old enough to collect Social Security," Franklin Regional's decision to reject the local citizens tax commission recommendation of a .7 percent personal income tax was a triumph. After seniors like Turnage spoke at several board meetings, the board opted in favor of an increased earned income tax question.
"As senior citizens, some of us scrimp and save to make life easier in retirement," she said.
Under the earned income tax plan, Turnage said, the people who use the district's services are the ones who pay -- working parents with children who likely get annual raises.
Turnage is not optimistic about gaming revenues offsetting a drop in property taxes, as the governor has said.
"We're never going to see anything out of it," she said.
"Act 1 is frivolous," said Jim Barr of West View, which is served by the North Hills School District. "There's no real tax relief. It's just something legislators so to make it look like they're doing something."
Carlynton School District is proposing a 1.4 percent personal income tax, though resident Eugene Dwyer doesn't see the point of changing the system.
"If I had to vote right now, I would want to maintain the present structure and forgo what's coming from gambling," Dwyer said.
Savings from Slots
The state Department of Education reports gaming will generate $1 billion each year for local property tax relief, though it is not yet certain when taxpayers will see their share of that relief.
"Once more revenue comes in from slot parlors and it's replaced in the (Pennsyl-vania) lottery, then school districts can cut property taxes further," Storm said.
At the latest, taxpayers will see relief from gambling funds by next year, said Steve Kniley, press secretary for the Department of Revenue.
The state property tax and rent rebate program expanded this year to include more senior citizens, disabled adults and widowers over age 50. The income limit raised from $15,000 to $35,000. Eligible taxpayers are seeing up to $650 in rebates. Enrollment in the program jumped from 300,000 last year to 700,000 this year, Kniley said. This program is different from the homestead exemption, which applies only to property taxes.
Rendell's budget proposal includes using part of a sales tax increase for property tax relief, which the public will see this summer if the budget is adopted. Knively estimates the average household will see $190 in savings.
Rachel Weaver
Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Renters will pay more under Act 1, and there's no guarantee that all homeowners will pay less under the state's broadest attempt at tax reform in a decade.
Voters in the May 15 primary will decide whether they want to shift taxes in their district -- to reduce property taxes, some people would see their income tax spike. Most school districts -- more than 450 of 501 -- favor increasing the earned income tax at a rate of 1.05 percent or less, instead of a personal income tax.
Either way, school districts aren't supposed to collect more money -- only shift who pays, if voters support it.
"Act 1 is not school funding," said Scott Shewell, director of public relations for the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, based in Mechanicsburg. "It's a property tax relief bill. There is no benefit to the school board if the referendum is passed and no drawback if it isn't."
For decades, Pennsyl-vania legislators have argued over the best way to collect taxes, and how to reduce property taxes. Gov. Ed Rendell signed the Taxpayer Relief Act in June 2006 to give public school districts the means to lower property taxes, especially senior citizens, via funding provided by gaming revenue. The last major attempt at tax reform came in 1998, Act 50, with measures so complex that most school districts disregarded it.
This time around, school district leaders must offer voters the option of shifting taxes.
"Educating voters about what the question is about is our biggest concern," Shewell said.
"Someone who doesn't understand will read the first sentence asking 'Do you want to raise the income tax to supplement a decrease in property tax' and think the school district is asking them if they want to raise taxes."
And some worry that in attempting to shift the tax burden, the legislation creates new problems.
"The state has basically pitted a class warfare, working people versus retired people," said Kevin Fischer, president of the Baldwin-Whitehall school board, which is recommending a 1 percent increase in earned income tax. "If I were retired and not earning income, I would be voting 'yes.' Why wouldn't I want $500 in my pocket and be paying less in taxes?
"As a wage earner, I'm voting 'no.' Why do I want additional wage taxes?"
Winners and Losers
Renters will lose out under the tax-shifting plan.
No matter which tax gets the OK, people with leases pay more.
"Anyone with a paycheck will start chipping in," said Mike Storm, assistant press secretary with the state Department of Education. "Everyone will be shouldering the same burden."
Shewell calls Act 1's effect on renters a "triple whammy."
"They have the most to lose under Act 1," he said. "They're getting no property tax relief. Their earned income tax will go up, if that's approved. And most landlords calculate the amount of property tax into the cost of rent, so many will see increases in rent."
Dual-income families also could pay more. If an earned income tax is raised, anyone who works will see the tax go up. Property tax reduction, however, is limited to one homestead exemption per property; this amount varies from district to district.
"Even if you are a single-wage earner, you will see your property tax decrease but your income tax could go up," Shewell said. "If you make right around the average (income), it's not a great deal for net tax relief."
Senior citizens who still work, but who do not own a home also could lose out if voters support increasing the income tax -- because as renters, they would not qualify for the homestead exemption, yet they would see tax on their income go up. Some lower-income seniors would see at least a partial savings by the expansion of the property tax and rent rebate program - which gives up to $650 per year, depending on income.
The earned income tax option is most beneficial to seniors. It includes tax on compensation and net profits. Personal income tax includes tax on compensation, net profits and other kinds of income, such as interest and dividends, which would hurt seniors who depend on investment income.
Some residents are already frustrated with Act 1.
"The whole thing is a sham," said Shirley Turnage, who's lived in the Franklin Regional School District for 60 years. "It was thrown together. There's no explanation of how taxes will be collected and who will be collecting them."
For Turnage, who is "old enough to collect Social Security," Franklin Regional's decision to reject the local citizens tax commission recommendation of a .7 percent personal income tax was a triumph. After seniors like Turnage spoke at several board meetings, the board opted in favor of an increased earned income tax question.
"As senior citizens, some of us scrimp and save to make life easier in retirement," she said.
Under the earned income tax plan, Turnage said, the people who use the district's services are the ones who pay -- working parents with children who likely get annual raises.
Turnage is not optimistic about gaming revenues offsetting a drop in property taxes, as the governor has said.
"We're never going to see anything out of it," she said.
"Act 1 is frivolous," said Jim Barr of West View, which is served by the North Hills School District. "There's no real tax relief. It's just something legislators so to make it look like they're doing something."
Carlynton School District is proposing a 1.4 percent personal income tax, though resident Eugene Dwyer doesn't see the point of changing the system.
"If I had to vote right now, I would want to maintain the present structure and forgo what's coming from gambling," Dwyer said.
Savings from Slots
The state Department of Education reports gaming will generate $1 billion each year for local property tax relief, though it is not yet certain when taxpayers will see their share of that relief.
"Once more revenue comes in from slot parlors and it's replaced in the (Pennsyl-vania) lottery, then school districts can cut property taxes further," Storm said.
At the latest, taxpayers will see relief from gambling funds by next year, said Steve Kniley, press secretary for the Department of Revenue.
The state property tax and rent rebate program expanded this year to include more senior citizens, disabled adults and widowers over age 50. The income limit raised from $15,000 to $35,000. Eligible taxpayers are seeing up to $650 in rebates. Enrollment in the program jumped from 300,000 last year to 700,000 this year, Kniley said. This program is different from the homestead exemption, which applies only to property taxes.
Rendell's budget proposal includes using part of a sales tax increase for property tax relief, which the public will see this summer if the budget is adopted. Knively estimates the average household will see $190 in savings.
North American Union: evolution by stealth?
Wes Vernon
March 26, 2007
A hush-hush meeting held in Banff, Canada, last year seriously explored the issue of how to sneak (yes, that is the right word) — sneak a North American Union (NAU) onto the people of the U.S. Canada, and Mexico. What we are talking about is making a de facto merger of the three countries a fait accompli by the time it's too late to reverse it.
What else can one believe when the term "evolution by stealth" is used? (For background on the NAU, see this column Illegal Aliens and the Secret Monster Highway (Oct. 9, 2006) and AIM Report America's Borders: Going-Going-Gone! (Dec. 22, 2006).
to see more go to:http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070326
March 26, 2007
A hush-hush meeting held in Banff, Canada, last year seriously explored the issue of how to sneak (yes, that is the right word) — sneak a North American Union (NAU) onto the people of the U.S. Canada, and Mexico. What we are talking about is making a de facto merger of the three countries a fait accompli by the time it's too late to reverse it.
What else can one believe when the term "evolution by stealth" is used? (For background on the NAU, see this column Illegal Aliens and the Secret Monster Highway (Oct. 9, 2006) and AIM Report America's Borders: Going-Going-Gone! (Dec. 22, 2006).
to see more go to:http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/070326
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)