Yesterday, I heard my first ad of the Pa presidential campaign. It was an Obama radio spot, aimed at young people, imploring them over and over and over that they have to register Democratic to be able to vote in the primary. I suppose this means that it has begun... (I will write more at some point, but I am about 99% likely to vote for Obama.)

On that note, I am sure most of you have noticed the plethora of "guides to PA" that Newspapers have been publishing. (Ie, "this is what water ice is.")

The City Paper has put out something a little more useful, under the the title "The Pandering Guide." The basic idea is that, like the Iowa Caucuses forcing candidates to announce themselves "Ethanol Queens" and the like, Pennsylvania has just a few needs. As the CP notes, our needs don't generally involve propping up agribusiness, and instead focus on... poverty and infrastructure and all that cheery stuff:

So, Barack and Hillary, forget all that talk about the "right way" to order sandwiches, and behold the true path to Philadelphians' hearts: cold, hard cash, and some serious political promises. And hey, unlike corn ethanol, these panders have the benefit of being worthwhile.

So, they want solutions from the candidate. Maybe we should ask for one, too... What program is our ethanol?

A while back, we requested a bunch of data from the City on business tax records. The idea was that before we start cutting taxes more, we should look at the data, so that we can use reality-based policy making. (See here and here.) The City said they needed thirty days to respond to their request. The solicitor told us that, in effect, as long as names of businesses were shielded, it was our right to get the information. However, thus far, the Department of Revenue has only given us a small piece of information. So, with the legal opinion of their own law department saying they are obligated under the law to give us the info, we are going to try one more time. (More on this new request in a follow-up post.)

However, we did get a small piece of info from the City so far, and at the very least, we can see just who these tax cuts benefit. The chart below divides the 77,000 payers of the BPT (in 2006) into two categories: The first (the red bars) is businesses that paid over $100,000 in business taxes. There are 446 of these. The second category is everyone else- the 76,600 payers of the BPT that paid less than 100,000 in taxes in 2006. They represent 99.5% of the number of BPT payers.

The second and third sets of columns show us two main numbers: how much each category of business would save from elimination of the gross receipts tax, and how much each category of business would save from cutting the net income tax from 6.5% to 4%.

I had to put those blue arrows in, because otherwise, it is hard to see how much the bottom 99.5% of Philly businesses save from BPT cuts- $574 a year from net income cuts (over a long period of time), and $734 a year from the elimination of the gross receipts tax. The net income tax cut, for example, would be about enough for 99.5% of Philadelphia businesses to hire one minimum wage worker for all of... two weeks. I know it is called job killing and all that by Philly Forward and the like, but... I don't see it.

The vast majority of Philly businesses don't get a whole lot from tax cuts. How about the 446 that make up the top one-half of one percent? They do just fine. As the red bars show, the two tax cuts net them $149,000 and $77,000 bucks a year, respectively. The top 0.5 percent of our businesses together take over 50% of the total tax breaks.

Again, just the net income portion of tax cuts: Biggest 446 businesses net an average of $149,000 a year. The other 76,000? About 500 bucks.

If we want to target tax breaks to small businesses, fine. But, we should be clear about a couple things: Even at the biggest projection of tax breaks, the vast majority of Philly businesses will not be 'saved' by an extra 100 dollars a month. And, they will not all of a sudden be able to hire a number of additional workers. What will happen is that the biggest 446 businesses will get themselves a nice chunk of change.

We will have more data soon, when the City gives us the information that they are legally obligated to give us. But for now, even with this most basic data, I think City Council and the Mayor should slow down on BPT cuts and figure out if there is a targeted way to help small businesses. Because this is not it.

We will follow up, with our new request within the next day. Again, if the city decides to cut taxes, that is a policy decision. But we should make it with reality-based decision making, not hidden numbers and empty slogans.

Pennsylvania has a health care crisis for patients as well as doctors. We have a chance right now to make a difference in this crisis if you call your State House member right now. I mean NOW.

Message: I support passage of SB 1137 with the Eachus Amendment. Vote 'Yes' on the Eachus Amendment only, pass SB 1137 and expand access to over 200,000 uninsured Pennsylvanians.

If you're worried about health care costs, then you might as well let whoever answers the phone know that you support HB 2005 as well. That bill gives the insurance commissioner power to make sure that healthcare savings get passed on to insurance purchasers (as well as forbidding insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions).

A lot has changed about the big new plan to cover more people, and I'll try to write more about this soon. But call with this message now. We've got a shot at getting a lot more coverage for people.

You can look up your legislator with the little box in the upper left cover of this box. You'll need your Zip+4. If you don't know it, you can look that up here.

So, according to today's Washington Post, the federal Housing and Urban Development may have revoked local housing funds as political retaliation on behalf of Kenny Gamble:

After Philadelphia's housing director refused a demand by President Bush's housing secretary to transfer a piece of city property to a business friend, two top political appointees at the department exchanged e-mails discussing the pain they could cause the Philadelphia director.

"Would you like me to make his life less happy? If so, how?" Orlando J. Cabrera, then-assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, wrote about Philadelphia housing director Carl R. Greene.

"Take away all of his Federal dollars?" responded Kim Kendrick, an assistant secretary who oversaw accessible housing. She typed symbols for a smiley-face, ":-D," at the end of her January 2007 note.

Cabrera wrote back a few minutes later: "Let me look into that possibility."

Crazy, huh?

This week, Greene sent copies of the e-mails to Sens. Arlen Specter (R) and Robert P. Casey Jr. (D) of Pennsylvania. Greene called the e-mails evidence of HUD's retribution for his refusal to give public property to Gamble. He urged the senators to demand that Jackson and his deputies explain their motives. Jackson is set to testify about HUD matters today before the Senate Banking Committee.

Casey said that he has "serious questions" about the e-mails and that "80,00 low-income Philadelphians deserve answers."

Right on Casey (for once). You can read the article yourself for more details. Basically it's about the crazy Bush administration strong-arming PHA on behalf of Gamble's Universal Homes (it's not clear from the article whether Gamble sanctioned HUD folks cutting off funds to PHA).

This is a great, crystal clear example of not only why we need to boot out the Republicans (particularly these Bush people) in 2008, but also why we need to nominate the Dem who has the best grasp of urban policy issues.

Talk about political gamesmanship--cutting off millions in funds to deal with a severe affordable housing crisis in Philadelphia for the sake of a lot? Jeez.

I know I am not the first to break this story, but in case you have not heard, Sen. Vince Fumo is expected to formally withdraw his bid for re-election in the 1st state Senatorial district today.

This leaves Anne Dicker, John Dougherty, and Larry Farnese to duke it out on their own.

Woa. Read more here.

Love him or hate him, there's no denying that Fumo brought a lot of money home from Harrisburg to Philadelphia. And perhaps of even more use, he has showed us that local members of the state legislative delegation can wield a tremendous amount of power (definitely not the norm in the Philly delegation).

Now if only we could find someone to use that power for good...

The Media Mobilizing Project got big time coverage today in The New York Times. Todd Wolfson and the MMP crew really are getting new media tools in the hands of new and hard-pressed communities.

I met Todd through my work at PUP, and I have to confess that I was pretty skeptical about what his organization was trying to do when he first told me about it. You could even say I was skeptical to the point of being discouraging.

I can be accused of many things, though, but not of failing to acknowledge it when I'm demonstrably wrong. The fact that MMP really is getting normal people to use these tools has been well (and prominently) documented today. Click read more for the details!

A month ago, in a California town just north of L.A., a fifteen-year old boy was sitting in a school computer lab when a classmate shot him in the head. The boy, Lawrence King, died a few days later. The classmate who shot him did it because King was gay.

I hope you are disgusted. I hope you are wondering what you can do so it won’t happen again.

Ten years ago, I stood at a vigil for Matthew Shepard asking myself the same questions. The young men who murdered Matthew Shepard said that he had come on to them and that they had panicked. So they tortured him and left him tied to a Wyoming fencepost on a cold fall night three days after my eighteenth birthday.

Lawrence’s murderer, Brandon McInerney, or lawyers on the boy’s behalf, may argue a similar gay panic defense. Shepard’s murder brought national attention to hate crimes, and now Lawrence’s fourteen-year old murderer may be punished under the new law. I wonder if Brandon wasn’t wondering about being gay himself, and rather than coming out like Matthew and Brandon had, his coping mechanism was this violence.

How can a hate crimes conviction—or even hate crimes legislation—prevent murders like these? Sending men and boys who have brutally murdered classmates, acquaintances, and maybe even lovers or sex partners, through our prison system does not address the (self-)hate that drives these crimes in the first place.

Let's not forget: queers are murdered in Philadelphia, too.

(Philadelphia - 3/4/08) - Outside the City of Philadelphia's Neighborhood Health Center #10 Tuesday, Philadelphia leaders gathered to call on the Northeast House Delegation to support Cover All Pennsylvanians [CAP]. "As a person working without insurance, I'm at risk every day of losing my job because of an injury or sickness whose care I won't be able to pay for," said, Andre Butler, Chair of the Philadelphia Unemployment Project Board and member of the Health Center #10 Community Board.

Speaking through a representative, Deputy Mayor for Health and Opportunity, Don Schwarz, MD, said in a written statement, "It is for this and many other reasons that I am standing with you all today, as health care is being debated in Harrisburg, to affirm my support for CAP, Cover All Pennsylvanians, a proposed health insurance package that would prove health insurance to the uninsured in Pennsylvania."

A hearing of the State House of Representatives Appropriations Committee considered the benefits and funding sources for CAP this afternoon. CAP would cover doctor visits, tests, hospitals stays and prescriptions. Most of the funding would come from existing pools, with a slight increase in tobacco taxes covering the rest. A vote on CAP and reforms in the small group insurance market is expected in the State House next week.

This primary is like a lantern screen onto which pretty much any cultural construct can be projected.

Kia Gregory recently posted here. She's a good columnist, and she talks about a lot of things that loom hugely in the lives of a lot of people in this city, and which shockingly few other writers touch. But she also wrote this, in a list of reasons why she loves Barack Obama:

Hillary sometimes comes off like an angry drag queen.

and

She’s proven she can’t control her husband.

That's shameful. Actually it is f---ed, the same way Hillary Clinton has been, by everyone, and I mean that in the Catherine MacKinnon sense (subject-verb-object). Gloria Steinem, another very white girl, rightly got in a lot of trouble when she tried to defend her claim that America is more comfortable with (a very certain type of) black man in power, than they are any woman. (Also Kia Gregory, also pretty problematic: "Obama is the better candidate. He just happens to be black. He’s not running as a black candidate.") But there is some there, there.

I was watching Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer on tv, with the sound off, and I was thinking about the drag queen thing (which Ms. Gregory quoted, kind of out of context, from Matt Taibbi, who is not really the best one to go to on gender issues, whatever his other charms). Anyway, there's also some there, there. There's a drag-like element to Hillary, and to other women who have to navigate the--I'd argue, unnavigable--gulf between the conventional markers of feminity society expects from every woman and the conventional markers of power and authority. Barack Obama, though African-American, makes DE II comfortable. He makes me comfortable. He seems smart, calm, competant. He looks really good in a suit (another thing Ms. Gregory notes).

I don't think anyone, even those who hate her, thinks Hillary isn't as smart or smarter than Barack. It's Yale Law versus Harvard Law, for god's sake. But she doesn't make people comfortable, she makes them uncomfortable, and her uneasy blend of power and femininity looks like drag because it is. There is no model for that blending, because each of those poles demand conflicting things.

Helen Mirren in Prime Suspect is the closest thing I've ever seen to a woman in power who is still totally a woman, and still powerful. She's a chief detective in a British police agency who is constantly negotiating a power structure that was not built with space for women; the men below and above her actively collude to impede and undermine her. And she's not young, but she's hot. She gets home, alone, or to her older white professor lover, or her younger black detective lover, gets undressed to just a half-buttoned white shirt, pours some whiskey, and she is at that moment powerful and sexy and human without any of those things being in conflict. That's what a woman looks like without the drag queen mask. And that is what all the half-sketched-out women in the Wire miss: they, together, reflect all the fragmented projections that are placed on women. D'Angelo's girl is needy and sexually manipulative, Daniels's wife gains power and turns cold and loses her marriage, Kima is is all boy, Rhonda, well I'll leave the race and gender stuff there alone.

So I think that Hillary does suffer from all this. I don't have statistics and polling or some way of objectively comparing the reductive narratives the media insists on imposing on everyone at every turn. But I will argue you to the ground if you tell me that Hillary is not hurt by the position she is in (I think spending a couple minutes reviewing Chris Matthews' random association hyper-analysis of Hillary's comportment would give you a pretty solid exhibit one). Her husband screws her and screws her by screwing someone else, and we screw her for that. What would a Hillary look like, for example, who didn't need to project Lieberman-level foreign policy aggressiveness?

Kia Gregory also wrote in that column that "When I heard Obama speak at a journalism convention about the image of him and his wife Michelle and their two daughters on the White House lawn, I got goosebumps." Me too. In the end, I honestly think when I weigh race and gender (and it is hard not to, even if it is pointless to try), I think it matters more to have a black president right now than a woman one. It is ridiculous that so long after the civil rights era the image of a black first family is still so foreign, and as sad as it is I think that having a black man white people think is "articulate" and with whom they are comfortable in the highest office in the country could set off a real and sudden and revolutionary shift. But Hillary can't make the same jump. Even if she were elected, and little girls suddenly really thought they could be president, they would still have to figure out how to do that without ending up in drag.

There's so much rhetoric about the demographics and symbolism of the Clinton-Obama split in the Democratic electorate (young/old, black/Latino, male/female, rich/poor, vision/experience, change/restoration, etc.) that it's refreshing to read journalism that breaks down what this means, and why campaigns for candidates who don't differ sharply on much really don't seem to like each other.

This Washington Post piece on union organization in Ohio reads in part like typical on-the-campaign-trail stuff, but also notes that while most of the AFL-CIO unions have backed Clinton, Obama's won most of the the splinter group Change To Win, including the Teamsters, the hotel and service workers, and others. Change To Win broke with the AFL-CIO over political and organizational strategy, and has a greater emphasis on grassroots organization and expanding the base of union workers.

Likewise, The Nation has an excellent piece that reads the Clinton/Obama split in the light of Howard Dean's 2004 Presidential campaign and his management to date of the DNC. Since Dean lost in 2004, it wasn't clear whether his message and his strategy was really the wave of the party's future or just a neat new way to raise some money. Likewise, Dean was criticized for devoting DNC funds to organization in all fifty states rather than focusing on a few battlegrounds to build a larger congressional majority.

Well, now Obama is riding Dean's wave, connecting with younger and affluent voters on the web, organizing precinct-by-precinct from the bottom up, and winning delegates by rallying Democrats and independents in heartland states. He's Dean with vastly more charm, more profile, and more discipline. Meanwhile, the Clinton folks are stinging at the fact that they're not only unable to beat back Obama, but may find it difficult to win the war of ideas and resources against a vindicated Dean at the DNC.

That title sounds a bit like a "What I Did Over My Summer Vacation" essay - because this is essentially going to be a comment with a title stuck on it as opposed to a "post" (in keeping with Dan's request that we write posts).

Actually, the calculus is fairly simple:

I see little of significant difference between them policy-wise. So, as much as I dislike "identity politics," or whatever the right term is, my decision for supporting Obama is based on how I judge the campaigns they've run, and my sense of the comparison between Obama and Clinton as people.

Around 5:45 this morning, I groggily turned on my computer, and realized that insanity was about to rain down on Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and each of us. With Hillary Clinton’s wins in Ohio and Texas, there is little question that the race for President is coming to Pennsylvania. (As noted by just about everybody.) This is the first time we have had a say in the Democratic primary in many of our lifetimes. And, frankly, largely because we didn’t do what Mark Cohen wanted, and move up our primary like everyone else, the focus on PA- the last major state remaining, will be bizarrely intense.

We are the new Iowa. And so, to mark this occasion, and to simply deal with the reality of what is coming, we will be spending some time on YPP looking at the national race. Frankly, the time we spend on it will be directly proportional to how much time everyone out there wants to spend on it.

In the grand scheme of things, Pennsylvania’s delegates will not matter that much, because I suspect they will be fairly close, and Obama will still be ahead in pledges delegates when it is over. In all likelihood, an Obama win ends the race. A Clinton win and who knows what happens.

We will be feeling this out as we go along, but the first thing I think would be useful is for interested people to write posts- not comments, but, everyone their own posts- on why they support Clinton or Obama. What about Obama, for example, made Seth Williams pack up his kids, and drive to Springfield, Illinois, to see Obama start this journey? Or, what made Tony Payton spend his limited time off in cold New Hampshire, volunteering? Conversely, what does it feel like for a veteran of the women’s movement to see a woman with a legitimate chance at being President? I would like to see how many personal stories we can collect from Philadelphia progressives about their thought process going through this choice.

The same basic ground rules will follow for YPP as they always do… the more positive you are, the more persuasive you can be. But, over the next six weeks, the first thing I would like to do is to here from as many people as possible as to who they are supporting, and why. (And, if they are undecided, why, too.)

As always, this is still a local, Philly and PA focused site. So, in that vein, what do you see happening for our City, and its entrenched problems, under your candidate? Are there specific policies or political stands you can point to?

Additionally, I would like to figure out how volunteers from each campaign can have their own ‘space’ within YPP to let others know what they can do to get involved with each campaign. For now, if you are working for a campaign, please put in the topic of your post “Obama Volunteer” or “Clinton Volunteer.” I will put links up on the side of the page, so that those who want to get involved with each campaign can see what is going on. Maybe this will amount to nothing- but I know Seth Williams for example, will have lots of opportunities for Obama supporters to get involved.

I hope this race will be run somewhat positively, and if I see one of those 3AM ads here, I will throw up a little. But, bottom line, national politics here we come, if you all are so inclined. Please, please, please, be decent to each other.

In the end, this is unlike any local race for 99.99% of us, because we don’t know these people, we don’t have loyalties, they are not our neighbors. In a way, this is really a time for everyone to be free and unfettered in who they choose. Idealistic, even.

What do you think? And, would you be willing to reach out to others in our various communities and see if they will share who they are supporting, and why?

...why this little tidbit makes me happy about Mayor Nutter:

Sometimes it's good to be mayor.

Mayor Nutter is such a huge fan of the gritty HBO drama, The Wire, that he has organized a special City Hall screening of the series finale Sunday night.

“As a fan it’s tremendous,” said Nutter, who squeezed in a viewing of the season opener in the jam-packed days before his inauguration. “I want to say thank you to HBO for responding.”

Wendell Pierce, the actor who portrays affable Detective Bunk Moreland, is scheduled to attend. Nutter hopes other actors from the show will sign on also.

The Wire is not so much a TV show as it is a stunning, ridiculously powerful indictment of the neglect of American cities, and the people within them. If you read this site, if you care about Philadelphia, trust me, you need to see the show.

I am only partially kidding when I say that it heartens me that Nutter is a huge fan of the show. If you don't watch the show (cough- Ray- cough), you might think I am being weird.

But, if you do watch it, you know exactly what I mean, right? Mayor Nutter is a devoted fan of the Wire, and that makes you feel a little better about where we are going in the next 3.9 years.

"Perhaps, if we adequately invested in our children and in education, kids who now grow up to be criminals could become productive workers and taxpayers... Today, the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country and, year after year, we grossly underfunded childcare, Head Start and the overall needs of our children.

-US Senator Bernie Sanders, responding to a report that 1 in every 99 Americans, including 1 in every 9 African-American men between the ages of 20 and 34, is currently in jail.

Monica Yant-Kinney wrote a column this weekend on Ronald Cuie, the head of Philadelphia's new deputy mayor in charge of the Office for the Reentry of Ex-Offenders.

She notes the tasks of the office:

Created by Mayor John F. Street, the Mayor's Office for Reentry has served nearly 3,000 former inmates since 2005, teaching them everything from how to pay bills to why not to lie on job applications.

Many of the clients have been out and foundering for years. Cuie wants prisons to allow his caseworkers to start training inmates for work before they are released.

The reentry office commits to mentoring ex-offenders for 18 months. That, plus a new $10,000 tax credit businesses can receive for hiring former inmates, may sway wary employers to take a chance on an unproven workforce.

Without question, it is a hugely important role, and I really give the Mayor credit for getting that. I spent some time interning in the field of employment law, and the role criminal records play in denying people jobs is immense. Trying to get the business community on board, as Nutter as done with talks in front of the Chamber of Commerce and others, is very smart.

Jennifer wrote about this topic not long ago though, and I think it is important to return to something she mentioned when talking about Cuie:

As it was, he spent only three years in prison for his conviction ("robbery, aggravated assault, unlawful restraint, false imprisonment and criminal conspiracy"). Presumably when he got out, he had at least some of the safety net that a once-high-ranking city official is likely to have.

This all makes him pretty atypical of the people coming out of prison and back to Philly neighborhoods. He's clearly spent time and energy since his release devoted to helping make systemic changes in the prison and re-entry systems. Hopefully he will serve as a literal bridge to those in power who think they are detached from the problems of those in prison, those getting out, and their families. And hopefully he has come to understand the huge structural obstacles people who aren't deputy mayors face when they have to restructure a life after incarceration.

In other words, the office is not giving people second chances if they never had a legitimate first chance, at least as most of us would understand it.

The reality is that many people growing up in our City and Country have had very little chance at all. That is not something the Mayor by himself can change (Clinton, Obama: Please beat McCain.). But it is to note that even with some mentoring and a potential 10k tax credit, the large majority of people coming out of prison are likely under-educated, to say the least. And they are still entering a market that lacks good paying jobs, whether you have a record or not.

All of this is not to denigrate what the Mayor is doing or how important a well-functioning office for re-entry is. It is to note just how large a hole that we have dug ourselves into as a City and Country. It is going to take an amazing effort on both the national and local level to even think about climbing out of it. The 10k tax-credit is incredibly important, but, it is no magic bullet.

... Or rather, people I am not sick of, specifically three of them (Link:)

After learning that battered women in Philadelphia are largely responsible for serving their attackers with court stay-away orders, aghast City Council members yesterday called upon the Committee on Public Safety to explore alternatives to a process they deemed dangerous for abuse victims.

"The current system . . . is absolutely preposterous and untenable," Councilman Bill Green said in a statement. "Not only are we causing the abuse victim additional mental anguish, but we are placing the victim in additional danger of physical harm."

Green, along with Council members Maria Quinones Sanchez, Curtis Jones Jr. and Blondell Reynolds Brown, introduced a resolution authorizing the safety committee to hold hearings on the service of protection-from-abuse orders, or PFAs.

Yesterday's resolution was prompted by a Daily News series on domestic violence that ran in late December.

The series followed one victim's exhausting and frightening quest to serve her alleged attacker with a temporary PFA issued by Family Court.

Quinones Sanchez, Green, and Jones, Jr. To paraphrase my hero, Ronald Reagan, there they go again.

Basically, we have a stupid, asinine law that women who get protective orders against their abusers must... actually serve those orders themselves. If women felt like they were in danger, they could call 911 and get police to accompany them, which about half do.

I am sure calling 911 is a barrier for some women in the first place. And, even if the police do a good job of accompanying them whenever they are asked, it is ridiculous that we are putting abused women in the position where they have to unnecessarily confront their alleged abuser.

We have some good Councilpeople who have served for a while (Kenney, Tasco, Goode, etc.), but sometimes bringing in new people is simply helpful because they can look at stupid things that have gone for a long time, and simply say "WTF?"

My BFF, Donna Miller, is chair of the Public Safety Committee, and yet to set hearings. Hopefully this happens soon.

Nice job, Daily News. This is just another example of how important local print media can be.

-----------

Update: Please see the comments below from Seth Levi, from Councilman Green's office, who clarifies (and corrects me, on) what exactly happens when woman get protective orders.