Western PA, economically liberal? (Philadelphia, Republic: employment, calculated, income tax)

[pman]

there's nothing inherently wrong with PAT being run more like a business. the key is what, exactly, someone means when they say it. most people complain that PAT is inefficient and spends too much money for the service they provide...which, in a way, is complaining they don't operate more like a business. Operating like a business could be seen as continually experimenting with service to increase ridership and lower costs...that would be a good thing. OTOH, if, "operate like a business" means operate only routes that are profitable, that could be a bad thing, since service would only run to dense areas and poorer areas and very little to white collar areas where people own cars. I don't see how being a slave to one party is going to improve anything. mind you, the Democrats have been in control and still have not been able to secure funding for transit, owing in part to the balance of the PA legislature. in some ways, localization could work, particularly if state taxes were lowered.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

sometimes wonks end up on the economic liberalism side, even if they can't admit it.

Oh, absolutely. Wonks have helped identify when market mechanisms can be used to better allocate public resources. Wonks have helped identify cases of regulatory capture. And so on.

The problem is that if you only listen to the wonks when they say what you want to hear, and ignore them when what they are saying doesn't accord with your ideological commitments or political interests, then things can go very, very wrong.

the point isn't that texas is perfect, no place is, but that it has resulted in more robust economic growth (more than just taxes, they are simply more business friendly...read bureaucracy).

You really have to control for other factors before making a causal assertion about the reasons for Texas's gross economic growth. That said, I do think there are good reasons to care about things like lowering the administrative burden of regulatory and tax compliance for businesses. Of course many regulatory and tax complications are there precisely because some business or industry wanted something favorable for itself stuck in the relevant code. So keeping things simple on a systematic basis often includes telling individual business and industries "No".

still, PA is in no danger of not taxing.

Aren't we? We are underinvesting in various areas, and while you can summon up political coalitions to lower some taxes, raising other taxes to compensate meets with fierce political resistance. Maybe some grand bargain will be struck, but I think the more likely scenario is that we will continue to grossly underinvest in key areas.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

the key is what, exactly, someone means when they say it. most people complain that PAT is inefficient and spends too much money for the service they provide...which, in a way, is complaining they don't operate more like a business.

I agree with you this all depends on what the person means, but I would note that I don't think efficiency is exclusive to businesses, nor indeed a necessary characteristic of business (maybe I know too many people in business).

OTOH, if, "operate like a business" means operate only routes that are profitable

In this context, I think that is more or less exactly what it means. Transit service would be restricted to cases where revenues would be sufficient to allow sharing with private partners.

I don't see how being a slave to one party is going to improve anything. mind you, the Democrats have been in control and still have not been able to secure funding for transit, owing in part to the balance of the PA legislature. in some ways, localization could work, particularly if state taxes were lowered.

Personally, I'm not trying to make a pro-Democratic argument. I do think the Republicans have morphed into a specifically anti-urban party, and that is unfortunate. I also think they have largely abandoned any sense of real fiscal responsibility, and are actively misleading the public about the hard choices we sometimes have to make, and that is also unfortunate. But that doesn't mean I think the Democrats are somehow wonderfully pro-urban, wonderfully fiscally responsible, politically courageous, or so on. They are just sorta ordinarily bad, while the Republicans have recently become extraordinarily bad.

Oh well. I've been around long enough to know that this too will pass.

[pman]

how about a well run business? having worked on both sides its far more likely that a government agency will.be inefficient anf lack focus on the actual.servicr they provide while.enriching connected consultants. inefficiency is certainly alive.and well in the private sector but the two are not equal. im a bit less antirepublican...on a national level the dems are extraordinarily incompetent whichh is why were having these swings. at a state level im no aure i agree the republicans are that bad. ridge did push the keystone project

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

on a national level the dems are extraordinarily incompetent whichh is why were having these swings.

Compared to the Heckuva Job Brownies? The architects of the trillion dollar hunt for WMDs in the desert that didn't exist, the financial crisis that caused the Great Recession, and the combination of tax cuts and spending expansions that have left us no room to address that recession or other pressing needs in an adequate fashion?

If you start with the conviction that government can never be anything but incompetent and corrupt, and then don't even try to do better, very bad things happen. Again, the Democrats are not necessarily masters of good governance, but the Republicans have recently become philosophically dedicated to know-nothingism and incompetence.

at a state level im no aure i agree the republicans are that bad. ridge did push the keystone project

We shall see. PA at one time did indeed have a lot of decent Republicans, but as relative Republican registration has shrunk in the state, the Movement-Conservative/Tea-Party nutcases have gradually taken over the primaries. But at this point we have no choice but to see if the state Republicans can simultaneously cater to that sort of primary constituency and nonetheless find a way to govern responsibly despite what they have promised.

[pman]

as weve seen registration is illusory...pa as a moderate swing state is alive and well. corbett was very much the moderate candidate from the republican party.


btw the national dema have supported the same policies that led to the great recession. there is no change there. i didnt support the bush era republicans now did i even vote for corbett but i gota say you sound very partisan.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

as weve seen registration is illusory...pa as a moderate swing state is alive and well.

The Democrats were getting shellacked nationally, in large part due to massive turnout differences. The fact that a non-incumbent Democrat like Sestak almost won anyway shows that PA has in fact moved in a relatively Democratic direction for statewide elections, even if in an election like this that wasn't quite enough.

corbett was very much the moderate candidate from the republican party.

I think that is his natural inclination. The question is whether his primary voters and fellow elected officials and corporate bankrollers will let him govern that way.

btw the national dema have supported the same policies that led to the great recession. there is no change there.

That depends on the Democrat. In any event, recently the Republicans have been against doing anything to reregulate the financial industry, against anything to restore middle-class financial security, and so on. That apparent failure to learn anything from the financial crisis and resultant recession is a stark difference.

i didnt support the bush era republicans now did i even vote for corbett but i gota say you sound very partisan.

Because I currently think the Democrats are the lesser of two evils?

The truth is that I don't like political parties in general, and there are certainly periods in history where I would have supported Republicans over Democrats. As a general proposition, I think divided governments tend to do better. And so on.

But I do have a very specific problem with the current Fox-News/Tea-Party/Christian-Right/Movement-Conservative-dominated Republican Party. It is anti-science, anti-city, innumerate, xenophobic, war-mongering, corrupt . . . and to the extent there are sane Republicans still around, they are systematically being hounded out of the party for their heresies.

Nonetheless, I hope I am wrong about what this means for the state and Pittsburgh over the next few years.

[sr1234]

Yes, Western PA is becoming more economically conservative. Why? Unions. It may not be the Steel Era anymore but if you have any doubt that unions have power in this state then you only need to look at the Teachers Union strikes that occur within the region every year. The insane demands of Union workers, ignorant treatment of taxpayers, and pension debts is what is fueling this switch to conservatism.

[pman]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

The Democrats were getting shellacked nationally, in large part due to massive turnout differences. The fact that a non-incumbent Democrat like Sestak almost won anyway shows that PA has in fact moved in a relatively Democratic direction for statewide elections, even if in an election like this that wasn't quite enough

not sure about that. Sestak ran a very good campaign with the good PR folks that ran a brilliant campaign for mayor nutter in Philadelphia. they did an effective job in convincing people that toomey was not a moderate and got a huge turnout in Philadelphia (maybe 40%) that was unexpected. The fact that Sestak did not win speaks to the strength of the anti-Democrat sentiment outside Philadelphia. Toomey didn't even bother campaigning there. The real difference in the campaign was, again, the moderates...particularly in the Philadelphia suburbs who voted D in 08 and R this time around.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That depends on the Democrat. In any event, recently the Republicans have been against doing anything to reregulate the financial industry, against anything to restore middle-class financial security, and so on. That apparent failure to learn anything from the financial crisis and resultant recession is a stark difference.

"restore middle class financial security" is pretty vague, nothing the D's have done have really been in support of that. I'd love to think that more people thnk like myself, and have decided that a little give and take between the parties is the lesser of three evils.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

As a general proposition, I think divided governments tend to do better. And so on.

I would have to agree, which is why I spit my vote. I intended on voting D last time around and even back then, I intended on voting R this time around to vote against incumbents, penalize the R's for the horrible management, and then vote for balance. yet I get to watch talking heads talk about how fickle I am.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But I do have a very specific problem with the current Fox-News/Tea-Party/Christian-Right/Movement-Conservative-dominated Republican Party. It is anti-science, anti-city, innumerate, xenophobic, war-mongering, corrupt . . . and to the extent there are sane Republicans still around, they are systematically being hounded out of the party for their heresies

I don't view all Republicans the same. toomey seems, at heart, a fiscal conservative rather than a war mongering neo-con. he's also only one man of 100. corbett seems to be nothing like what you described, whatever else he may be. the only real nut lost handily in Delaware.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Nonetheless, I hope I am wrong about what this means for the state and Pittsburgh over the next few years.

I believe that you will be (though I understand your skepticism). you have to work with the cards that are dealt. The Democrats reallly have been a disappointment since they took over Harrisburg, on key issues I felt they were stronger on. there's a basic tenet that I find is easily applied to Pennsylvania. there are better places, and there are worse places. there is one major difference between now and the 1990's with regards to transportation: gas prices. in the 90's gas prices were at an all time low (adjusted for inflation).

Turzai suggests a combination of a defined contribution or 401(k)-type system for new hires and cash from the proposed sale of the state liquor store system to fund public pensions."I think (Ravenstahl) was on the right track looking for an infusion of outside cash, but that has to go hand-in-hand with substantive changes going forward," Turzai said.

Pension crisis extends far beyond Pittsburgh - Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by pman

The fact that Sestak did not win speaks to the strength of the anti-Democrat sentiment outside Philadelphia.

Well, it speaks to the relatively high turnout among Republicans (and Republican-leaning independents) outside Philly. But again, the same dynamics were leading to much bigger losses in other states. Relatively speaking, after this election Pennsylvania is still going to rank as more Democratic than average. This just happened to be an election in which being averagely Democratic meant huge losses for the Democrats, and being more Democratic than average could still lead to a narrow loss.

restore middle class financial security" is pretty vague, nothing the D's have done have really been in support of that.

Nonsense. The health care reform bill will increase middle class financial security. The cut in the middle class share of the federal income tax in the stimulus, which the Democrats would like to make permanent, would increase middle class financial security. The renewed investments in infrastructure in the stimulus, which the Democrats would also like to extend, would increase middle class financial security. And so on.

toomey seems, at heart, a fiscal conservative rather than a war mongering neo-con.

Club for Growth people like Toomey are not fiscal conservatives. They use that label for themselves, but they are in fact radicals who have helped promote the incredibly irresponsible fiscal policies of the recent past.

corbett seems to be nothing like what you described, whatever else he may be.

The question is not what he would be like free from political constraints. The question is what his party will let him be like, particularly in light of the promises he made in order to get elected.

Oh well. We shall see.