Temp

==Dan Sullivan and others wrote, in part: ==
=== Voters' Choice Act and ballot access===
No brainer: We already support this and should think in terms of
working with the other minor parties to campaign for it.
===Uncounted Write-in Votes===
Also see electronic voting machines.
The write-in problem is a policy and procedure one. Many counties
simply do not count write-in votes. The commonwealth does not pressure
counties to provide this information for the final tally. The
technology is there and it works. They simply choose not to use it
because they do not see negative repercussions for failing to follow
election law.
===Leasing the turnpike.===
I am opposed to it for several reasons. One is that the gasoline burned
by people using the turnpike pays for other roads, so turnpike users
are paying twice. Another is that turnpike ownership would not be
"free enterprise," but would be a licensed monopoly. A third is that it
is essentially a concealed borrowing scheme, so this administration
can have a lot of money to play with and say it is not raising taxes.
However, a turnpike toll is nothing but a road tax. People whose
communities are dependent on the turnpike will indeed be paying a
tax in perpetuity so other people can get "free" mass transit.
===The REAL ID drivers license.===
I'm sure we are all opposed to this. The question becomes how do we
get the legislators to oppose it? This is one of those issues where we
clearly see the dangers but most people don't care. Maybe it would
help to have images of old movies with Nazis saying, "Papers? Vere
are your papers?" The good thing about the old Soviet dictators is that
reaction against them caused us to make a point of not being like
them.
===Act 1 (the shift from property to income taxes)===
I posted against that.
===Constitutional convention===
There was some discussion about that. The problem is that we won't
get the convention we want, but the convention legislators want. Once
it looks likely that the convention will happen, lobbyists will start
cramming their pet ideas into it, and legislators will obligingly go
along. Lobbyists will also get their cronies elected as delegates.
==Draft==
Whereas political reforms are desperately needed in
Pennsylvania and there are calls for a state constitutional
convention; and
Whereas only the state legislature has the authority to
convene and define the scope, focus and limits of said
convention; but
Whereas the current state legislature has proven itself to
be too undisciplined and unreliable to manage said
convention without undue risk to the State, its citizens and
their fundamental rights; so be it
RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania opposes
convening a state constitutional convention at this time and
urges everyone to consider the enormous downside risk to the
State, its citizens and their fundamental rights should
opportunistic, business-as-usual, special interests control
said convention; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event that this legislature
convenes a constitutional convention, the Libertarian Party
of Pennsylvania urges all Pennsylvanians to monitor every
suggested reform as if it is our very last chance at limiting
state government's intrusions into our wallets and
pocketbooks, finances, private property, gun safes,
automobiles, bedrooms, classrooms, doctor's offices, voting
booths and our fundamental rights declared in Article 1 of
the Pennsylvania constitution.
====comment====
Well stated. Do we need the second paragraph? It could be said that
only the Council of Censors has the authority to convene a convention.
It could be changed to:
> Whereas the state legislature claims the unique authority to convene
> and define the scope, focus and limits of said convention; but
I might include words that instruct the legislature to obey the
constitution we have, rather then monkey around under the hood.
Jim
====comment====
Tim M wrote:
The reason I would see for a state convention is to correct some serious
defect in the constitution it's self. What appears to be defective is the cabal
who are responsible for protecting and defending the constitution abuse it at
any self serving whim, as recently highlighted by but not limited to the
instant pay raise.
If we open Pandora's box of political reform - in a process most likely
controlled by the very people the constitution was meant to restrain - I am
skeptical that meaningful reform would come of it.
We will do well to continue to be tireless advocates for them to stick to
the constitution as written, or replace them in office rather then craft
duplicate clauses so they can be ignored as well.
==== re-write comment from Mark C====
That said, how about this rewrite? I'm tempted do drop the
entire last "Further Resolved" part for brevity's sake. I like
the way it reads, but it's probably better suited for a LTE.
--------------------
Whereas political change is desperately needed in
Pennsylvania resulting in calls for a state constitutional
convention to facilitate that change; and
Whereas the recent state legislatures have proven themselves
too undisciplined and too unprincipled to follow the current
Pennsylvania constitution, suggesting that wholesale
personnel changes in the legislature would be more
productive than a constitutional change; so be it
RESOLVED that the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania opposes
convening a state constitutional convention at this time and
urges everyone to consider the enormous downside risk to the
State, its citizens and their fundamental rights should
opportunistic, business-as-usual, special interests control
said convention and maintain control of the state
legislature; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event of a constitutional
convention, the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania urges all
Pennsylvanians to monitor every suggested reform as if it is
our very last chance at limiting state government's
intrusions into our wallets and pocketbooks, finances,
private property, gun safes, automobiles, bedrooms,
classrooms, doctor's offices, voting booths and our
fundamental rights declared in Article 1 of the Pennsylvania
constitution.
==== Dave W comment====
 From attending the hearing, I gathered that a large part of the
problem that they are trying to address is the over reaching power of
the PA Supreme Court that they grabbed from an interpretation of an
amendment made in the last Constitutional Convention. This has
resulted in the Supreme Court being able to overturn the Assembly's
attempt to overturn their own pay grab. Given that, I think that they
would be better off to try to amend the Constitution the traditional
way to solve this problem. A very specific single problem such as
that does not justify the risks of opening up Pandora's Box.
Especially if you consider that the last Constitutional Convention
caused the very problem they are trying to solve. I also have a
strong feeling from attending the hearing that public opinion is
generally not in favor of a Constitutional Convention. Hopefully this
trend will continue in the two hearings to follow.
-David Weiser-
====comment ====
My own view is that even the amendments have tended to deteriorate
both the PA Constitution and the US Constitution, and that a
convention would make things worse still.
I think it is too early to "polish the knobs" on Mark Crowley's
proposal, the purpose of which is just for us to have an understanding
we can agree upon. Then, if people want to serve on a PA
Constitution Committee, we can try to identify other people and other
groups whose views are more or less compatible with our own, and
also research arguments against calling the convention. The two tasks
are intertwined, as the people who are opposed will bring arguments
we can build upon. Our role would be to make distinctly libertarian
arguments that resonate with those who might support us.
-ds
==== comment ====
I like the last "Further Resolved", though I think it should be more
detailed. I think it should be there for the case where if the
Constitutional Convention is convened, we have an official solid
stance on how we feel that it should be dealt with.
-David Weiser-
==MORE == 
* Bob Barr
==Process of Libertarian Party==
> I approve of this plan, with all it's faults. I imagine that
> some challenges that will pop up will include the size of
> county level parties, and the ongoing debate as to whether
> or not the LP should focus more on getting candidates
> elected or if it should focus more on being an activist
> group. I think this plan might actually resolve some of the
> latter. So where do we begin? Would this be something to
> bring up at the LPPa convention?
Those of us who are interested and motivated could still working
now, beginning with soliciting LPPa board members for feedback.
We just could not represent ourselves as speaking on behalf of the
LPPa until the LPPa board formally approves it or something like it.
The board should definitely appoint the organizing committee and at
least the chairs of the issues committees. The core issue positions
should also be subject to board approval. Meanwhile, an informal
sense of the board would be enough to give self-starters something to
sink their teeth into.
Fund-raising makes everything else easier, so I would suggest that the
board form a fund-raising sub-committee if it does not already have
one. Those who have donated the most themselves tend to the be best
fund-raisers because they speak from the authority of having put their
money where their mouths are. For the same reason, those who have
done the most volunteer work tend to be the best volunteer recruiters.
It will probably be quite a while before we can afford a paid fund-
raiser, a paid organizer and a paid publicist, so everything has to be
done by volunteers. It's a lot of effort at first, as we "get the kite into
the air." However, each success is like a little breeze.
Here is what I will do, pending LPPa board approval.
I will help develop, train and advise the organizing committee, but I
will not serve on it. This is because I will be more trusted as an trainer
and adviser if I do not vote on policy directing.
I will assist the fund-raising sub-committee.
I will serve on the Ron Paul committee.
I will serve on the tax committee if the LP adopts a resolution similar
to the one I proposed earlier.
Now the question becomes, who else will serve on these or other
committees? We don't need a lot of committees. It's better to have two
or three that are very effective than 20 that aren't getting much done.
There is a reality that effective committees need the full attention of
the board and the organizing committee, and also need dedicated
volunteers. Thus, the priorities given each committee will be a
dynamic compromise between which ones the board and the
organizing committee are most interested in supporting and which
ones have the most committed and effective volunteers.
I want to note that this is NOT a question of "whether or not the LP
should focus more on getting candidates elected." Rather, this is an
indirect approach to getting candidates elected. Its premise is that
potential candidates (and the party itself) become electable by
accomplishing things and developing broader constituencies who will
help them.
-ds
== ==
== ==
News from the Pennsylvania General Assembly
10/17/2006, 7:50 p.m. ET
The Associated Press	 	
ALLENTOWN BASEBALL: The Senate unanimously approved a measure that would take away the city of Allentown's ability to tax the sales of tickets at professional sporting events. The bill goes to the House for consideration.
	
POLLUTION PENALTIES: The Senate unanimously approved legislation to increase penalties for people who pollute the state's waterways. The bill would make intentional violations of Pennsylvania's Clean Streams Law a felony — rather than a third-degree misdemeanor — and boost penalties from a maximum of five years in prison and a $25,000 fine to a maximum of seven years in prison and a $50,000 fine. Attorney General Tom Corbett supports the legislation. The bill goes to Gov. Ed Rendell for consideration.
CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE: Rep. Samuel Rohrer, R-Berks, called for a legislative study of how Gov. Ed Rendell's plan to increase the number of children covered by state-subsidized health insurance would affect private-sector health insurance programs. Rohrer is sponsoring a resolution calling for the study of the Cover All Kids program to be completed within nine months. Rendell's administration hopes to begin offering the benefits in January using $4.4 million set aside in the state budget, but lawmakers have yet to pass legislation that would establish guidelines for the program.
CHILD PHOTOGRAPHS: The Senate unanimously approved legislation that would require state child welfare agencies to keep a photograph in a child's case file. The legislation is named for 4-year-old Kristen Tatar. The bill goes to Gov. Ed Rendell for consideration.
QUOTEWORTHY:
"I think it's an important step forward on an issue that is essential to the health and well-being of Pennsylvanians." — Kathleen McGinty, the state secretary for the Department of Environmental Protection, on a 17-3 vote by a state board on a proposed rule that would give Pennsylvania a tougher prohibition on mercury emissions from its coal-fired power plants.
LOOKING AHEAD:
The Senate Transportation Committee will hold a public hearing Wednesday on legislation that would require automakers and dealers to disclose information relating to vehicles that are equipped with event data recorders or sensing and diagnostic modules.
IN FACT:
Falkner Swamp Reformed Church in near New Hanover, Montgomery County, is the oldest congregation in continuous existence in the evangelical and reformed church. It was organized Oct. 15, 1725, by Rev. John Philip Boehm, who founded the German Reformed Church in Pennsylvania. The present building dates to 1790.