I’m Sick Of Hearing About Sunday Hunting

I’m Sick Of Hearing About Sunday Hunting

The controversy raging among outdoors enthusiasts in Pennsylvania these days is whether to allow hunting on Sundays.  Sportsmen contend they should be able to hunt on one of their few days off from work.  Many hiking groups and farming organizations say they deserve this day of rest from the loud bangs and hoards of hunters.  I'm personally sick and tired of the whole controversy over Sunday hunting.

I have a somewhat unique perspective on the issue of Sunday hunting.  I come from a family of hunters, though I no longer hunt myself.  Some of my best childhood memories are of my Dad and me bundled up against the winter chill and searching for rabbits, squirrels or deer.  We never bagged too many, but this experience instilled in me a lifelong passion for the outdoors.  These days, I'm an avid hiker and backpacker, and President of an Appalachian Trail maintaining club.  Thus, I sort of have a foot in both worlds, those of hunters and non-hunting outdoor enthusiasts.

I believe that the causes of the friction between these two camps, as well as the possible solution, can be summarized in two words:  stereotypes and politics.  Let me elaborate.  Unfortunately, hunters and non-hunters don't interact with each other to any great degree.  As a result, both camps can fall into the trap of using stereotypes to characterize the other side.  Non-hunters tend to think that all hunters are a bunch of gun nuts that want to shoot anything that moves and don't care about gun safety.  Hunters tend to think non-hunters are a bunch of lefty tree hugger vegetarians who want to take away their firearms.  As for politics, most hunters tend to be somewhat right of center.  Most non-hunters are somewhat left of center.  Each side tends to focus on their political differences with the other folks, rather than focusing on what they have in common.  I maintain that if hunters and non-hunters spent more time with each other, they would find ways to get past their differences and work together in those areas where they have common ground.

Here's what I like to say to my non-hunter outdoor lover friends.  Hunters are much like you in many important ways.  They have a deep love of the outdoors.  They want to preserve our precious wild spaces so that their children and grand children can experience them.  The vast, vast majority of hunters are very careful with firearms.  Most of them have taken hunter safety courses.  It is really quite safe to hike during hunting season, as long as you take reasonable precautions such as wearing blaze orange.  After all, when was the last time you heard of a hiker getting shot by a hunter?  Another thing to keep in mind is that many of our best trails in Pennsylvania go through state game lands.  We're allowed to hike there thanks to hunters and our friends at the PA Game Commission. 

Here's what I say to my hunter friends.  Non-hunter outdoor lovers are much like you in many important ways.  They love the outdoors and the beauty of nature that you experience during hunting season.  They just choose not to take firearms into the woods.  The vast, vast majority of non-hunters have no problem with the responsible use of guns.  There simply is no conspiracy among hikers to take away your guns.  Like you, non-hunters want to see wild spaces preserved so they can take their children and grandchildren outside to experience them.  They want to turn off the Xbox and take the kids out to experience the original interactive game - the wonders of the natural world.

I say both hunters and non-hunters should first walk a mile in the other’s shoes, and then find ways to cooperate toward achieving common goals.  Hunters, go on a hike with one of the local trail clubs.  You’ll find folks who share your passion for the outdoors, but choose to express it a little differently than you.  Non-hunters, go on a hike during the fall or winter hunting seasons on one of our great trails that extends through state game lands.  One good choice is the Appalachian Trail and Darlington Trail near the top of Blue Mountain along the border of Cumberland and Perry County.  Be sure to wear plenty of blaze orange.  You might hear a bang every once in a while, but you’ll experience great views and the quiet pristine beauty of our Keystone State.

We lovers of the outdoors have some real enemies to contend with.  These include overdevelopment of our remote wild spaces, environmental degradation and pollution, and invasive plant and animal species.  Let’s spend our energies on these real problems, rather than fighting amongst ourselves.

All Hail Holy Saint Grover!!

It’s almost amusing to hear Budget Secretary Charles Zogby complaining about the state’s projected revenue shortfall in 2012.  This is a situation totally constructed by the Corbett Administration.  While running for Governor, Mr. Corbett signed Tea Party favorite Grover Norquist’s pledge not to raise taxes under ANY circumstances.  As a result, he will not propose a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas.

Pennsylvania is the only state with significant Marcellus gas resources that does not impose a severance tax.  Even oil and gas friendly states like Texas and Louisiana have a severance tax.  Imposing a reasonable severance tax simply will not drive the drillers away, as long as the tax is competitive with that imposed by other states.

The reason the situation is almost amusing, but not actually so, is because of the impact Gov. Corbett’s genuflection to St. Grover is having on the citizens of Pennsylvania.  Our schools will be underfunded and teachers will be laid off.  Many low income Pennsylvanians will go without health insurance due to the cancellation of adultBasic.  The list goes on and on.

Most folks agree with the Corbett Administration that we need to tighten our fiscal belts in these tough economic times.  But, it defies logic to refuse to tax Marcellus Shale gas when everyone else is doing so.  One is forced to conclude that this Administration must be in the pocket of the oil and gas interests.

Here’s a simple question for the Corbett Administration – what is more important to you:  blind obedience to St. Grover or looking out for your constituents, the citizens of the Keystone State.  I guess we already know the answer to that one.

Two Shining Lights Amid The Squalor

For most folks in Central Pennsylvania, this has been a tough few weeks.  This is especially true of those associated with Penn State University and fans of Penn State football.  People we know and respect have been shown to have feet of clay.  But, it seems to me that, in most unsavory scandals, there are a few persons or organizations that make tremendous contributions and cover themselves with glory.  One example is the Watergate scandal, where the Washington Post, and specifically journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, made many of the critical discoveries.  I’ve noticed the same thing with the Jerry Sandusky Penn State scandal.  I would like to shine the light on two exemplars amidst the squalor.

It is now clear that our Governor, Tom Corbett, has served us well under trying circumstances over the past several years.  The Sandusky investigation was turned over to the Attorney General’s office due to the Centre County District Attorney having a conflict of interest.  By all accounts, General Corbett and his staff did a fine job of investigating the scandal.  Equally important, there were no leaks of any significance during the investigation.  Once General Corbett became Governor Corbett, the work was turned over to our current AG, Linda Kelly.

Surely the past year or so must have been excruciating for General and then Governor Corbett.  He clearly knew that the investigation was likely to rock the Penn State football program and the University, and perhaps end the career of arguably the most powerful and revered man in the Commonwealth, Joe Paterno.  He must have wondered why Penn State was doing nothing to reduce the impact of this cancer within its vital organs.  All of this was no doubt running through his mind while he was running a high profile campaign for chief executive of the state.  He couldn’t speak about this with anyone other those directly involved in the investigation.  I don’t know how he was able to pull it off.

Since Sandusky has been indicted and Gov. Corbett has been able to speak a bit more freely, he has set exactly the right tone as an ex-officio member of Penn State’s Board of Trustees.  He correctly points out that we need to focus not on a football coach or a university, but on the defenseless children who were violated and how little was done to protect them.  Some, probably including Coach Paterno, may have barely fulfilled their legal duty, but they certainly failed these children morally.

I am perhaps the ideal person to praise our Attorney General and now Governor for his incredibly competent, moral and ethical behavior.  I’m a registered Democrat who voted for his opponent in the gubernatorial race.  I have significant differences with the Governor in some policy areas, such as his administration’s environmental policy and the decision not to impose a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas.  But, I have never doubted Mr. Corbett’s competence and ethics, and I was not disappointed here.  All of us, Democrats, Republicans and independents, should praise Governor Corbett for his exemplary performance in handling the Sandusky scandal.

The other organization that should be singled out for praise is the Harrisburg Patriot-News.  The P-N took the lead in investigating the Sandusky scandal months ago.  They seemed to realize early on the grave consequences this might have for Penn State, its football program and Coach Joe Paterno.  The capstone was the P-N’s brave editorial on the front page of the newspaper last week calling for Paterno and Pres. Graham Spanier to leave or be fired.  The decision to express the paper’s editorial opinion in so public a way was criticized by many.  But, subsequent events and the abrupt change in public opinion have shown that the P-N got it exactly right.

There is little doubt that the full nature of this scandal would never have come out except for the tireless investigative reporting of the P-N.  In the past week, I’ve heard several national news outlets mention that the P-N has taken the lead in reporting this story.  How often does a mid-size regional newspaper get mentioned prominently in the New York Times and on National Public Radio?

Newspapers like the P-N seem to be under fire from all sides these days.  Their revenue sources are in decline, due to the rise of alternative media outlets.  Classified ads, once the backbone of a newspaper’s revenue, are now in decline in the wake of free alternatives like Craig’s List.  Lots of younger folks get all of their news from broadcast TV or cable.  Ideologues rant on talk radio about how the newspapers put their own spin on the news, rather than reporting it.  Many have said that newspapers have become the buggy whips of this new millennium, rendered irrelevant by new technology.  The P-N’s outstanding reporting and editorial response to the Sandusky scandal show that reports of the death of the regional newspaper are greatly exaggerated.  We still desperately need these independent voices to keep our politicians and public figures honest.

Here’s a figurative toast to two outstanding voices amid the squalor of the Sandusky Penn State scandal, Gov. Tom Corbett and the Harrisburg Patriot-News.

Paterno and Spanier Must Go

This post is in response to this editorial in the Harrisburg Patriot News:  http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/our_view.html


I'm an outspoken person who likes to think he can write a little bit. So, it pains me just a little to acknowledge what true professionals can do.

The Harrisburg Patriot-News' front page editorial of November 8 perfectly summed up my opinions on this subject. I've been a fan of Joe Paterno since the eighth grade, when he was named to replace Rip Engle. He put Penn State football on the map, winning two national championships, and probably deserving a couple more.  He did it all by avoiding the shady tactics that have brought down many fine programs.

But, it's time for Joe to end his long and illustrious career. Perhaps Joe and Dr. Spanier didn't engage in criminal behavior. But, both have failed the children and young adults placed in their care.  Joe did report Sandusky's behavior.  But, he didn't follow up and insist that the proper authorities be notified and proper action taken.

They both need to go, and soon.  I certainly hope Joe will announce his resignation right away.  He needs to go out on his own terms, and not force the University to take action.

A Facile Right Wing Dismissal of "Occupy Wall Street"

Here is a link to Lowman S. Henry's op-ed piece in the October 16 Harrisburg Patriot-News:  http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/10/tea_party_strives_for_change_o.html

After reading Mr. Henry’s piece, it occurred to me that pretty much anyone can write a similar piece.  All one has to do is listen to Rush Limbaugh, then flip over to Sean Hannity.  Then, you just write down their talking points, and, bingo, you’re done.

Mr. Henry’s premise is that while the Tea Party movement is a well- reasoned, deeply felt grass roots movement, Occupy Wall Street is just a bunch of kooks who put on funny costumes and want the government to take care of them.  It’s an interesting idea, but where is the support for his premise?  I searched through his article for facts and statistics to support his concept, and came up empty.

While I don’t support every aspect of Occupy Wall Street, I have no doubt that they are well-meaning people whose anxiety about our country’s future is deeply felt.  What enrages Occupy Wall Street is that we are increasingly becoming a nation of haves and have nots.  Unlike Mr. Henry, let me offer some facts. 

In 2007, the last year for which such information is available, the top 1% of the US population held 43% of the country’s financial wealth and 35% of the total net worth. By contrast, the bottom 80% of the population has only 7% of financial wealth and 19% of the total net worth. The percentage held by the very wealthy has been steadily increasing during the past generation, and dramatically so since 2001, when the Bush tax cuts on the rich came into effect.  The last time we had this much wealth disparity was the gilded age of the robber barons.  Many folks feel that they’ve been playing by the rules, but the American Dream is just a game that is rigged against them.  These concerns are the genesis of Occupy Wall Street.

It is counterproductive to dismiss the concerns of either the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street.  Mr. Henry’s right wing talking points bring us no closer to a solution to our country’s problems.

The Republican Tea Party's Brave New World of Disrespect

Did you see what happened at the Republican Presidential debate in Florida recently. A gay Iraq war veteran rose to ask a question AND WAS BOOED. Even worse, not a single candidate on the dais rose to defend his right to speak.

Welcome to the new Republican Tea Party - where we respect and honor all of our brave veterans..., except for gays and lesbians, of course.

Everyone is certainly entitled to express his or her opinion.  That's what these brave veterans fought to defend.  But, there's a word for behavior like that exhibited at the Republican debate - DISGRACEFUL!!

Criticizing Warren Buffett For Doing His Job

I read Frank Ryan’s op-ed piece in the September 6 Harrisburg Patriot-News. Here is a link to it:  http://www.pennlive.com/editorials/index.ssf/2011/09/warren_buffett_complains_about.html

After cutting through the accounting-ese, his main point seems to be that Warren Buffett is a hypocrite because he first criticizes the current federal tax code but then uses it to benefit his company, Berkshire Hathaway. My reaction is “Huh?” I wonder if Mr. Ryan has ever practiced accounting in a business setting, as opposed to serving in the Marine Corp Reserves and lecturing on ethics.

It’s not the least bit hypocritical or unethical for Mr. Buffett to use the federal tax code to the advantage of his company while competing in the marketplace with all of the other companies that are undoubtedly doing the same thing. In fact, if Mr. Buffett were to ignore the benefits of structuring that the government allows companies to take advantage of, he would be violating his fiduciary duty to his company. Because Berkshire Hathaway is a public company with millions of shareholders, he would probably be liable for damages to these very shareholders. As the CEO of a public company, Buffett is not free to ignore tax code provisions that would benefit his company just because he doesn’t agree with them.

Warren Buffett believes that our tax code should be changed so that the rich pay their fair share. Many of us would like to see the laws changed so that companies will be more focused on whether a particular transaction will be profitable over the long term, rather than whether it will be beneficial under the tax code. But, neither Mr. Buffett nor any other CEO of a public company is about to unilaterally disarm and refuse to take advantage of these provisions, while they are still in effect. To accuse him of being hypocritical is just silly.

ARE WE OVER-TAXED? THE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE SAYS NO.

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said: "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function." With that in mind, let me make a modest proposal. Yes, we do have to reign in government spending. But, the objective evidence shows that we are not over-taxed.

Most people agree with the first statement. But, the second one is absurd on its face, isn’t it? All we hear these days is how overtaxed we are, and what a drag this is exerting on our economy and its ability to prosper and create jobs. But, recently, a commentator on a national show noted that federal taxes are currently 14% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the lowest since 1948. Who was this commentator, some liberal Democrat, right? Sorry, it was Reagan’s budget chief, David Stockman, a strong fiscal conservative.

It is simply a myth that we are overtaxed. Corporations and rich individuals currently have the smallest percentage of their incomes taxed in generations. Sure, the Tea Party rants about how high their theoretical tax rates are. But, no one with an IQ above room temperature actually pays those rates, because of all the exclusions, deductions and other loopholes available to them. The rich and corporations hire high priced accountants and tax advisors to take full advantage of all the loopholes. We don’t need higher tax rates. If we had a cleaner, simpler tax system, we could have lower marginal tax rates but still raise more revenue.

As Mr. Stockman noted, we have a fairly simple problem – federal taxes are 14% of GDP while federal spending is 24% of GDP. What we have to do is reduce the latter significantly and also increase the former somewhat. If we just increased the tax percentage of GDP to the level it was at in 2000, we would be in fine fiscal shape, if we combined this with some sensible expenditure cuts, such as reducing subsidies to oil and gas companies. If we’re over-taxed now, why was our economy doing so well in 2000, when taxes on upper incomes were much higher?

Another wise commentator hit the nail on the head the other day. David Gergen has advised several Presidents, including Ronald Reagan. He says our biggest problem is that too many politicians today lack imagination and backbone. He says we need to think back to Pres. Reagan, who raised taxes several times. He did it in cases where he was able to cut a deal that benefited his constituents and the country as a whole. He forged several deals with politicians like Tip O’Neill, surely his equal on the other side as an ideological liberal.

Then Reagan went straight to the American people and persuaded them that he was right. He convinced them to tell their political leaders to go along. Gergen says a clever and resourceful leader will succeed in this way. Sure, there is a chance he or she might fail in the attempt. But, isn’t that what leadership is all about. Too many of today’s politicians spend their time looking back to make sure the crowd is following, rather than boldly leading in the right direction. They blindly sign pledges put forward by right wing saint Grover Norquist. Once they’ve signed, they can never go back, no matter how sensible the plan, because they made a promise to Saint Grover.

I believe Ronald Reagan was far too savvy a politician to sign such a foolish pledge. Indulge me as I channel Pres. Reagan. Here’s how I think he would explain a grand bargain to get our country back on a proper fiscal footing:

“I hate raising federal revenue as much as anybody, and more than most. But, I’ve cut a deal with Congress that cuts $4.00 of federal spending for every $1.00 in additional federal revenue. We’ll have a streamlined, simplified tax code that frees businesses to make decisions based on how profitable they will be, rather than on which tax loophole they will qualify for. This is simply too good a deal to pass up. If you really care about your country’s future, you will join me in supporting this agreement.”

Will we ever find politicians with the imagination and guts to break out of the current left-right gridlock? For my future, and especially those of my children and grandchildren, I sincerely hope so.

Give Me Chastity, But Not Yet!!

The Senate Republicans don't seem to be interested in any sort of compromise that would result in a balanced budget, like closing tax loopholes. Instead, they are proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. This reminds me of the famous saying of St. Augustine: "Give me chastity, but not yet."

Apparently, they'd like a balanced budget sometime in the misty distant future, but certainly not today or tomorrow. How can anyone take their position seriously. Are you listening, Tea Party?

Surprase, Surprase, Surprase

Well, to quote that well known sage Gomer Pyle, "Surprase, surprase, surprase". President Obama was born in this country after all. But, we shouldn't be surprised that so many folks were swept up in the silly notion that he was born in a foreign country, despite the clear evidence to the contrary.

It wasn't all that long ago that the previous Administration took us into a war that cost hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives using justifications that turned out to be totally specious. After that experience, it will take a long, long time for people to regain faith in our institutions, if it will ever happen.

Too bad there was no certificate we could have gotten to show there were no WMDs, no nukes, and that Sadaam had nothing to do with 9-11.

First Steps To Balance The Budget

Folks from throughout the political spectrum should be able to agree on one thing – we are living beyond our means. We’ve been doing so since 2001, after a brief sojourn in the 1990s when the budget was balanced. It’s much harder to reach consensus on what we should do about it. Some, like Rep. Paul Ryan, say we must balance our budget solely by cutting federal expenditures. The inevitable result of this will be substantial cuts to programs that benefit the neediest in our society, including ending Medicare as we have known it.

One way to get at a possible solution to this dilemma is to look at some statistics. In 2007, the last year for which such information is available, the top 1% of the US population held 43% of the country’s financial wealth and 35% of the total net worth. By contrast, the bottom 80% of the population has only 7% of financial wealth and 19% of the total net worth. The percentage held by the very wealthy has been steadily increasing during the past generation, and dramatically so since 2001, when the Bush tax cuts on the rich came into effect. We have become a nation of haves and have-nots, reminiscent of the gilded age of the robber barons.

There is no question that we will all have to do more with less to balance out federal budget. But, surely the place to start is to eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the rich. They have benefitted richly from our great country. They should be willing to repay their fair share.

Don’t Throw Seniors Under The Bus To Balance The Budget

I was in the optician’s office the other day, waiting for a new lens to be put in my glasses. I was feeling a bit sorry for myself as I struggled to read a magazine without glasses. Then, a fellow came in pushing an elderly lady in a wheelchair. I try not to be nosy, but it was hard not to overhear them.

She had just been to the ophthalmologist, and had been told she needed to have cataract surgery. It became clear that she lives alone without any family close by. The gentleman who brought her in goes to the same church as her, and has been helping her for years, transporting her to appointments and helping her with financial matters. The cataract diagnosis had obviously had upset her, and she struggled to hold back tears as she tried to work out whether or not she should have this surgery at 90 years of age. Her friend from church tried to console her. When she asked what she would owe for the visit to the ophthalmologist as well as this minor repair to her glasses, he had encouraging words. The doctor visit was covered by Medicare and the optician probably wouldn’t charge to fix her glasses.

Folks like this lady can sometimes struggle through what are supposed to be their golden years. Things promise to get even worse for her successors if the plan to privatize Medicare is enacted. Under Rep. Paul Ryan's proposal, seniors and others on Medicare would begin receiving a set amount of money, starting in 2022, to offset the cost of buying a private insurance plan. This plan to replace the federal government's Medicare plan sounds good in theory. Ryan says that applying what he calls "free-market principles" to the insurance market is the best way to control costs.

But, will it really work out that way? The independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says otherwise. CBO’s review of Ryan’s program estimates seniors would end up paying almost twice as much out of their own pockets — or more than $12,510 a year. Altogether, the total cost of health care would be higher. That is why a number of studies show that voucher programs like the one Rep. Ryan is proposing will not reduce health care costs.

Why is that? It turns out that buying health insurance is different from picking out a car or groceries. You and I can figure out which auto will be best for us by comparing different models and using resources like Consumer Reports. We can choose whether we want to buy the name brand box of corn flakes or the generic store brand. But, how many of us can figure out which is the best health care plan for us, given the myriad factors like deductibles, exclusions from coverage, lifetime caps, etc., etc.?

Rep, Ryan says he wants seniors to be covered by a plan that is similar to that currently in effect for federal employees. But, here’s an interesting fact. Under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, costs have risen over 64% over the last five years, far faster than health care costs generally and faster than Medicare costs have increased. Of course, under Rep. Ryan’s plan, the federal government will only be paying a fixed amount to each senior for health care, meaning that our seniors will bear the brunt of higher health care costs.

Now, maybe, you and I can educate ourselves so that we can make an intelligent choice among health care providers. But, is this a burden we want to impose on frail seniors like the lady in my optician’s office? Is it morally right to make her have to figure out which health insurance option is best for her? Is it right to make her bear a steadily increasing share of health expenses as we switch from a program with a good track record of containing costs to one that has let costs rise much faster?

We will all need to make sacrifices to balance our federal and state budgets. Rep. Ryan’s plan mostly imposes the sacrifices on the elderly and less fortunate, those least able to bear it. I think we should couple some cuts to these programs with some revenue increases. These should include a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the rich. We should also close some loopholes in the individual and corporate tax codes that allow those with the brightest lawyers and accountants to avoid paying taxes. Those who have benefitted the most in our society should contribute their fair share. Just throwing the elderly under the bus is the wrong solution to our budget problems.