PoliticalAction.com: Political Action Committee Homepage



Posts Tagged ‘PA’

Gettysburg Address

Tuesday, November 19th, 2013

Gettysburg, PA — In the middle of a field being dedicated as a cemetery for the mass burial site of Civil War casualties, President Lincoln said on November 19, 1863:

“Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that this nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The American dream would be for all politicians to be this concise.

Genetically Engineered Crops

Tuesday, May 28th, 2013

What the Farm Aid Organization has to say about GMO food:

With a new mission to squash “burdensome” regulation and play nice with U.S. businesses, the Obama Administration has been in a frenzy green-lighting genetically engineered (GE) crops.

Just weeks into the new year, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack announced the full deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready alfalfa—a genetically engineered crop variety designed to withstand Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The move gave the OK for commercial planting to take place this spring without restrictions. A week later, USDA announced the deregulation of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, followed by the deregulation of Syngenta’s Enogen corn, a variety genetically engineered for biofuel production. Meanwhile, the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) is now considering the commercial release of genetically modified salmon.

With a new onslaught of GE products hitting the market it’s no wonder the public has some questions, as you do, Jerry. So, what’s the big deal about genetic engineering?

The short and not-so-sweet of it is this: GE crops present real risks, fewer choices for both farmers and eaters and offer unclear benefits except to the companies that develop and market them, and thus pocket major profits.

Risky Business for Farmers
One of the biggest problems GE crops have presented in the real world is the contamination of non-GE crops. The newest wave of deregulated GE crops presents a very real risk that such contamination will happen again.

Take alfalfa, which is pollinated by bees. Bees can generally cover a five-mile range as they buzz from plant to plant, collecting and spreading pollen. Since bees don’t tend to observe property lines or fences, GE alfalfa pollen could, for example, be spread to and pollinate a non-GE alfalfa plant, in turn contaminating a neighboring field with GE genes.

This cross-fertilization would be especially disastrous for organic farmers. If organic fields are contaminated, an organic farmer’s certification is at risk, since the use of GE crops is prohibited under the organic label. Losing organic certification would mean his or her goods can no longer be sold for the premium price that helps cover the higher costs of growing organically. Organic livestock farmers would face similar consequences if their cattle consumed contaminated alfalfa, and the organic industry as a whole could suffer from severe supply problems if organic alfalfa can’t be maintained with integrity. Canada’s organic canola industry suffered this fate, and is virtually extinct due to contamination from GE canola.[1]

GE contamination hurts conventional farmers too. A prime example occurred in 2000, when genes from Aventis’ StarLink GE corn showed up unexpectedly in the nation’s food supply and U.S. export markets. While StarLink corn only represented 1% of planted corn acreage, it ultimately contaminated at least 25% of the harvest that year.[2] Traces of StarLink corn also showed up in taco shells, even though the variety wasn’t approved for human consumption. The fiasco led to a massive recall of over 300 food products. Export markets started rejecting American corn and corn prices plummeted.[3] Corn farmers ultimately filed a class-action lawsuit against Aventis, who forked over $112 million in settlement. Three years later, StarLink genetics were still detected in the U.S. corn supply, well after the crop was pulled from the market.[4] Millers and food manufacturers are concerned the same thing will happen with Syngenta’s Enogen corn intended for biofuel production, which could contaminate corn for human consumption and seriously threaten foods processed with corn–based ingredients.

USDA recognized such risks when it conducted an environmental impact statement (EIS) for GE alfalfa. This past December, Secretary Vilsack acknowledged “the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa — a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad.”[5] Despite such concern, USDA approved the planting of GE alfalfa for this spring without any indication of how it will prevent the type of costly contamination that threatens to occur.

Into the Wild: “Superweeds” and other environmental hazards
In addition to the very real risks of GE-contamination, there are numerous accounts of superweeds developing from the overuse of Roundup herbicide on Roundup Ready crops. Fifteen years after Roundup Ready corn and soy first debuted, there are now at least 10 species of Roundup-resistant weeds identified in more than 22 states, as well as superweeds sprouting up in Australia, China and Brazil.[6]

Superweeds undermine the environmental benefits that GE crops are claimed to offer by reducing soil tillage, pesticide applications and soil and water contamination.[7] Affected farmers must now resort to more toxic chemicals, increased labor or more intense tillage of their fields to address superweeds on their farms. The newly approved Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets will only exacerbate that problem. And as companies like Bayer, Syngenta and Dow Chemical work on their own pesticide-resistant crops (including one designed to resist 2,4-D, a component of Agent Orange!),[8] even nastier superweeds may be on the horizon, with even nastier pesticides being used to control them in the ever-escalating arms race against weeds and pests.

GE crops pose additional environment risks, such as threats to biodiversity or unintentional harm to other insects and animals in the ecosystem, many of which are beneficial to crop production. But remember, there’s absolutely no recall on GE genetics. Once they’re out there, they’re out there for good. What’s more, once a crop is fully deregulated, USDA currently conducts no monitoring of any kind to see if a GE crop has harmed the environment.[9] To date, we are completely unequipped to deal with all of these consequences. (For more on how GE crops are regulated, see this Ask Farm Aid column from 2009).

Do I eat GE foods?
What does all this mean for eaters? Do we eat GE foods? The quick answer is: almost certainly.

Remember that the vast majority of our corn and soy come from GE seed, and that these crops are generally used as feed for cattle, hogs and poultry, or otherwise used in the many processed foods found in grocery store aisles. Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop grown in the U.S. and is most commonly used to feed dairy cows and beef cattle.

So, if you drink milk, eat beef, enjoy the occasional slice of bacon with your breakfast, order chicken in your Caesar salad or ever indulge in processed foods, cereals and desserts with ingredients like high fructose corn syrup and soy lecithin, GE crops are part of your food chain. Unfortunately, you can’t be sure when you eat them or in what form, because there is no requirement to label foods with GE ingredients. As discussed above, the release of GE alfalfa also puts several organic foods at risk for contamination—further eroding our choice as consumers to avoid GE foods if we wish.

Little research has been conducted to examine whether GE foods present risks to human health—such as allergens or toxins—but it seems prudent that this be investigated rigorously before GE foods hit the market. Many countries, including countries of the European Union, Japan, Australia and Brazil, have banned the cultivation of GE crops or require labeling of GE foods as precautions.

Feeding the World? The Silver Bullet That Misses the Target
Defenders of GE crops argue they are desperately needed to feed the world’s ever-growing population and address world hunger. Some have accused critics of GE technology as being shortsighted Luddites at best, and irresponsible at worst.

But to date, GE crops have done little to address hunger worldwide—yield results have been mixed globally, and are nominal for America’s family farmers. A recent study of historical yield data in the U.S. found that herbicide-resistant genetics in GE corn and soy didn’t increase yield any more than conventional methods.[10] Perhaps more importantly, the GE varieties hitting the market aren’t focused on yield in the first place. Developing a crop for herbicide resistance or biofuel production is quite different than selecting for plant traits that encourage plant growth, drought resistance or other traits that would actually help address food security worldwide. Moreover, companies haven’t invested their dollars in the staple crops of food insecure populations worldwide, such as millet, quinoa or cassava. We will need much more than Roundup Ready alfalfa to solve world hunger.

The Seedier Side of GE: Who Benefits
So if farmers, eaters, the environment and the world’s undernourished won’t appreciably benefit from the government’s recent GE green-lighting parade, who will?

Most GE crops hitting the market are developed by multinational companies such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Dupont and Dow Chemical to increase their sales and push their related pesticides. For example, Roundup Ready crops are all engineered to withstand Monsanto’s toxic herbicide Roundup. With Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets on the market, Monsanto can expect increased profits from its new seeds, as well as increased sales of Roundup herbicide to douse all those new seeds.

GE crops are also patented, which grants several privileges to corporate seed giants. For example, companies have repeatedly restricted independent research on the risks and benefits of GE products, which is perfectly legal under patent law, but severely limits objective examination of the efficacy and safety of GE crops.[11] If that weren’t bad enough, patents have given companies the power to pursue lawsuits against farmers for illegally “possessing” patented GE plants without a license. Monsanto has famously sued thousands of individual farmers for patent infringement when their fields were contaminated with GE genes.[12]

With the power to own and patent genetics, seed companies can demand even more control over the market as a whole. The seed industry has suffered enormous concentration of power in the past few decades, with at least 200 independent seed companies exiting the market in the last fifteen years and four companies now controlling over 50% of the market. This consolidation means farmers have far fewer options for seed varieties. Meanwhile, farmers have seen the sharpest rise in seed prices during the period in which GE crops rose in prominence.[13]

In this sense, the deregulation of new GE varieties comes as a slap in the face to the farmers and eaters who put their trust in the USDA and Department of Justice as they examined antitrust abuses in our food system this past year, including specific investigations into Monsanto and the seed industry. The newest wave of GE products will only further corporate control over our food supply, putting the interests of corporations far before the needs of farmers and eaters.

The bottom line?
Surely, this is a lot to take in. Genetic engineering is a complicated topic, with a broad set of consequences for our society. There are many questions left unanswered about how GE will impact farmers and eaters, and even less clarity about how these impacts will be managed.

Until our regulatory system and the biotech companies themselves properly address the risks inherent in GE crops, farmers and eaters have a right to reject them. Releasing GE crops into the fields without mitigating their risks is gambling with our health, our environment and livelihoods of family farmers.

Know Your Voting Rights

Monday, November 5th, 2012

PENNSYLVANIA —

Your vote is your voice and your right. That’s why our efforts to protect the right to vote did not end with the Oct. 2 court decision that put a hold on the voter ID law for this election.

We have been working hard to educate voters about the fact the voter ID law is not in effect for now — a challenging task with the commonwealth’s misleading “Show it!” campaign and misinformation circulated by the state and several townships. We fought in court, unfortunately unsuccessfully, to force the state to clarify the state of the law to the public. Make sure you know your rights on Election Day by reading our voters’ rights brochure (in pdf).

ACLU of PA is part of a large coalition of groups who are working to identify and respond to problems on Election Day. Around the sate, we have lawyers on the ground, ready to go to court if needed to defend the right to vote. Call the Election Protection Hotline at 866-OUR-VOTE (866-687-8683) to report any problems.

Thank you for supporting us throughout this crucial fight to make sure every eligible voter gets to cast a ballot.

Sincerely,

headshot signature
Reginald T. Shuford
Executive Director, ACLU of Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania Kids and the Election

Saturday, November 3rd, 2012

Dear friend of liberty,

I’m disappointed to tell you that two weeks ago the Pennsylvania state Senate voted to criminalize Pennsylvania’s teenagers for the very human experience of coming to terms with their sexuality.

In a move that showed more concern for what occurs in our teens’ bedrooms than for real criminals, the Senate passed legislation to criminalize underage teens for “sexting,” the electronic distribution of semi-nude, nude, or sexually explicit images.

Would you like to find out if your state senator was one of 12 senators who voted against this bill? You should then take one minute to contact your state senator and share your feelings about the vote on the sexting bill.

Incredibly, the bill, which was signed by Governor Corbett last week, even criminalizes victims of abuse. For example, a teen could produce a picture of herself or himself in a state of semi-nudity and send it to one other person, such as a dating partner. If that picture is later distributed to others against the will of the person in the photo, she is still guilty of a crime, compounding her suffering as a victim.

This is a public health issue that is best handled by parents and child development professionals, not the government and not district attorneys. Tell your state senator that you support civil liberties and Pennsylvania’s kids.

In liberty,

Andy Hoover
Legislative Director
ACLU of PA

Sam Rohrer is running for PA governor

Monday, December 7th, 2009

He led the fight against Real ID in Pennsylvania.

He introduced the 10th Amendment resolution in PA.

State Rep. Sam Rohrer (R – 128 – Berks/Chester counties) announced on November 17th that he’s running for governor. His primary opponents are Tom Corbett, Attorney General (establishment favorite; neocons first choice) and Rep. Jim Gerlach (neocons second choice).

All the RP activists know who he because of Real ID. Democrats are changing registration to help in Sam’s campaign. The goal: eliminate property taxes in PA.

If all the C4L, 9/12, WTP groups etc. get behind him, he has a chance to win!

http://www.samrohrer.org/

Pennsylvania’s Rally for the 10th Amendment – Sam Rohrer 03-16-09

PA Governor Ed Rendell to Suspend Laws of Economics for Three Years

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

Governor calls CF’s job loss projections “ludicrous”

Commonwealth Foundation President and CEO Matthew J. Brouillette issued the following statement in response to Gov. Rendell’s critique of the Commonwealth Foundation’s economical modeling projections that Pennsylvania would have nearly 24,000 fewer jobs as a result of his proposed 16 percent hike in the state personal income tax:
__________________________________________________________________________

“Gov. Rendell’s critique of the Commonwealth Foundation’s projections of job losses under his proposed tax increase as ‘ludicrous’ is historically and economically ignorant.

The Governor’s campaign to raise taxes on working Pennsylvanians and small businesses ignores the basic laws of economics. By denying that citizens and businesses would respond to higher taxes, the Governor ignores the fact that people will have less money to spend, and small business owners will have fewer resources to invest in their enterprises.

What is truly ludicrous is that Gov. Rendell ignores the historical evidence that individuals and businesses respond to higher taxes by relocating to states or countries with lower tax rates. This is why Pennsylvania has been one of the largest out-migration states in the nation.

Gov. Rendell’s claim that Pennsylvania has the 2nd lowest income tax rate also distorts the facts in pursuit of his political agenda. Nine states have no income tax, or tax only dividends and interest. Most states have lower starting personal income tax rates, standard deductions, and additional tax credits or deductions. Thus, Pennsylvania ranks much higher in state income tax revenue collected per capita—28th highest, to be exact.

The Governor also conveniently ignores that Pennsylvania has local income taxes which are among the highest in the nation. In terms of state and local income taxes per person, Pennsylvania already ranks 16th highest. Most importantly, when the overall tax burden is considered—including income, corporate, sales and property taxes—Pennsylvania has the 11th highest state and local tax burden in the nation. That makes us already uncompetitive relative to other states, which is why we rank 34th in the nation in job growth under Gov. Rendell’s tenure. Raising or creating new taxes will only make things worse for Pennsylvania.”

###

Thanks to The Commonwealth Foundation for this article

The Commonwealth Foundation (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org) is an independent, non-profit public policy research and educational institute based in Harrisburg, PA.

Rendell’s 16% Income Tax Increase Will Cost 24,000 Jobs

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

PA already has 28th highest personal income tax collection per capita in the nation

HARRISBURG, PA — In response to Gov. Ed Rendell’s proposed 16% increase in the Personal Income Tax, the Commonwealth Foundation projected the economic impact of taking an additional $1.5 billion out of the private sector.

“Today Gov. Rendell revealed that he cares more about growing government than ensuring Pennsylvanians have good-paying jobs,” said Matthew Brouillette, president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation. “As every respected economist knows, a recession is the worst time to increase taxes. Doing so now would add thousands more Pennsylvanians to the unemployed ranks.”

Using the Pennsylvania State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (PA-STAMP), an economic modeling program developed by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University, the Commonwealth Foundation projects that a 16% increase in the PIT (from a rate of 3.07% to 3.57%) would result in 23,960 fewer jobs next year.

Effect of Tax Changes on PA Jobs
Projected Jobs 2009-10
0.5% PIT Increase 1% PIT Increase 2% PIT Increase
Latest Estimates 5,156,122 5,156,122 5,156,122
With tax change 5,132,162 5,108,489 5,061,631
Effect of Tax Change -23,960 -47,633 -94,491
Sources: Governor’s Executive Budget, Beacon Hill Institute

“Rendell’s desire to extract more than $4.5 billion out of the economy over the next three years is a continuation of the same failed economic strategy of trying to tax and spend our way to prosperity,” said Brouillette. “Despite increasing state government spending by more than double the rate of inflation, Pennsylvania’s economic growth lags the national average and ranks among the worst in the nation.

Does Gov. Rendell really believe that more of the same will cure our economic ills?”

Brouillette said that Gov. Rendell’s argument that we can “afford” a personal income tax increase because we have the second lowest rate among the 43 states that impose such a tax is misleading. “According to the Tax Foundation, the same source cited by the Governor, Pennsylvania has the 28th highest personal income tax collection per capita,” he said. “In other words, while our rate may be amongst the lowest, the amount the state takes from working Pennsylvanians is far higher than the Governor suggests.”

The Commonwealth Foundation (www.CommonwealthFoundation.org) is an independent, non-profit public policy research and educational institute based in Harrisburg, PA.

“Furthermore,” Brouillette said, “We need to look at the overall burden on taxpayers. Pennsylvanians shoulder the 11th highest state and local tax burden in the nation. So a PIT increase is hardly as innocuous as the Governor would suggest. In fact, it would be downright destructive to our ability to recover from this economic downturn.”