SEPTA Special Service for Sports Complex This Weekend

from the inbox:

SEPTA Readies Extra Service for Busy Week at Sports Complex

PHILADELPHIA, PA (August 9, 2011) – SEPTA has extra service ready to accommodate thousands of fans attending a series of major events at the Sports Complex in South Philadelphia this week.

Lincoln Financial Field will be packed with fans Wednesday for USA-Mexico soccer, and Thursday for the Eagles first preseason game. Then on Friday, the first-place Phillies return from a triumphant West Coast trip to take on the Washington Nationals for a three game series at Citizens Bank Park.

SEPTA has extra service ready for each event, including Sports Express service on the Broad Street Line. The Broad Street Line serves the Sports Complex via AT&T Station, with subway connections easily accessible from the Market-Frankford Line, Regional Rail and a number of SEPTA bus and trolley routes.

Here’s SEPTA’s game-plan for the event-filled days ahead.

USA vs. Mexico Soccer, Lincoln Financial Field, 9 p.m. Wednesday
• Ten Sports Express trips will supplement regularly scheduled service on the Broad Street Line. Extra service runs every 10 minutes starting at 6:25 p.m.
• There will be six additional trips on the Market-Frankford Line startinhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifg at 7:05 p.m. The Market-Frankford Line provides a free and convenient connection to the Broad Street Line at City Hall/15th Street.

Eagles vs. Ravens, Lincoln Financial Field, 7:30 p.m. Thursday
• Eight Sports Express trips will run on the Broad Street Line, with extra service starting at 6:08 p.m. and continuing every 10 minutes thereafter.
• Four additional trips will be added to the Market-Frankford Line, with service starting shortly after 6 p.m.

Phillies vs. Nationals, Friday-Sunday, Citizens Bank Park
• Friday & Saturday, both at 7:05 p.m.: Sports Express service starts approximately one hour before the first pitch, with extra trips running every 10 minutes.
• Sunday, 1:35 p.m.: Sports Express service every 10 minutes starting at 12:18 p.m.

For full schedule and fare information, visit www.septa.org.

Best Heart Surgeons in PA

The August issue of Consumer Reports has an interesting rating chart for heart surgeons. The top rated surgeons / practices for Pennsylvania are:

Cardiothoracic Surgeons of Lancaster, PC (Lancaster)
Cardiothoracic Surgical Associates of West Reading (West Reading)
Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery (Danville)
Dr. Russell Stahl, Dr. Brian Mott, Dr. Charles Stivala (Sranton)
EHPP -- Cardiothracic Surgical Associates (Greensburg)
ESSA Heart and Vascular Institute (East Stroudsburg)
Hamot Flagship CVT Surgeons (Erie)
Main Line Cariothoracic Surgeons -- Lankenau Hospital (Wynnewood)
McGinnis Thoracic and Carfiovascular Surgial Associates (Monroeville)
Saint Vincent Cardiovascular Surgery (Erie)
Tristate medical Group -- Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery (Beaver)
Wyoming Valley Health Care System (Wilkes-Barre)

There you have it. If you're going to have a heart attack, try to do so near one of these places.

The Way It Stands Now -- Internet Service

Apologies again for the sketchy posts lately. We haven't had home Internet service for five days (!) Sometimes I can tap into a neighbor's wireless (with permission, of course) but that really isn't a solution. Here's hoping tomorrow brings better luck.

Which State Senator Posts His Expenses?

Earlier this week I posted a blog entry outlining which state representatives put their legislative expenses online. While many areas of governmental transparency are dependent on a group decision -- laws or regulations that need a majority of votes to be enacted, this is one that is solely up to the individual legislator. He or she decides what goes on his or her legislative website.

As before, I used a master list of state senators taken from the general assembly's website. To look at each senator's individual site I used the linked list of senators from the Democratic Senate site (www.pasenate.com) and the Republican Senate website (www.pasenategop.com). The senatorial sites don't quite use the same type of uniform template that the state representatives do so it took me a little longer to get the hang of how they are arranged. On my first sweep through I didn't see that anyone had their expenses posted. Then near the end of the entire research process I found one senator who had the information on a second level menu, under "news room." To make sure I wasn't missing anything I went back and checked everyone's second level menus. Unfortunately, no one else had the information available that I could see. And, really, if you have to go below second level menus you might as well put the info in a basement cabinet somewhere -- no one is going to find it.

So, according to my findings, the only state senator to post his legislative expenses is (drum roll please):

Jeffrey E. Piccola (Rep), District 15

For the state reps, roughly 10% had their expenses online (20 of 203). The senate has a poorer showing. Of the 50 senators (20 Dems, 30 GOP) only the one made them available that I could see, that's about 2%. Like the state representatives, none of the leaders of either party led by example, or if they did the example they wanted to set was to keep the information out of the public eye.

If this is important to you, and you are not in Sen. Piccola's district, please make your feelings known to your state senator, and ask about it during campaign season.

This is just appalling.

[On a personal note, thanks to my neighbor for letting me tap into his wireless as my is still down.]

No Blog Post Tonight

I would love to post a meaty blog entry this evening about which of the Pennsylvania state senators makes their expenses public. Unfortunately my Internet provider disagrees. After 40 minutes on the phone they decided they should be able to solve my connectivity problem In a day or two. Typing an entire post on my Phone isn't feasible. As soon as the problem is fixed I'll post

Which State Reps Post Their Expenses?

Transparency in government is frequently a matter of policy requiring a group vote. There are few areas for individuals to take action on their own. However, here in Pennsylvania state representatives and senators have such a choice. Each elected official has a brief official state website, providing committee memberships, district, basic biographical information, contact data, and little else. The party caucuses (House Democrats, House Republicans, Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans) link to fuller websites for each official in their caucus. The caucus sites for state representatives follow very clear templates; the design for Republican and Democratic templates vary but contain many of the same elements. It looks as though each representative selects from a list of options or asks for specific items to be placed on the left hand sidebar. Most include biographical information, district information, news, contact information, images, and related data. Most Democrats have a “how we voted” link. Representatives in rural areas had links to hunting and fishing license information.

One option available to representatives of both parties is their expense data. This is the amount spent on salaries for staff, office rent, insurance, janitorial services, and things like that. It can be provided in annual or monthly form. You would think that elected officials who were in favor of transparency would take whatever individual actions they could in that direction. I decided to check and see which state representatives made this information available on their websites. Using the caucus websites, (www.pahouse.com for Democrats and www.pahousegop.com for Republicans), I clicked through all of the legislators on each caucus and then made notes on a printed copy of the full alphabetical list of state representatives from the state assembly website. This is tedious but easily replicated. I encourage interested voters to double check their own state rep and also encourage reporters to verify my findings. I think this is important.

These are the state representatives that make their expenses available on their website (name of rep, party, district number):
Ryan P. Aument (Rep) 4
Mike Carroll (Dem) 118
Jim Christiana (Rep) 15
Eugene DePasquale (Dem) 95
Gordon Denlinger (Rep) 99
Jaret Gibbons (Dem) 10
Keith Gillespie (Rep) 47
Glen Grell (Rep) 87
Seth M Grove (Rep) 196
Susan C Helm (Rep) 104
David S Hickernell (Rep) 98
Sid Michaels Kavulich (Dem) 114
Jim Marshall (Rep) 14
Kevin P Murphy (Dem) 113
Mark T Mustio (Rep) 44
Josh Shapiro (Dem) 153
Justin J. Simmons (Rep) 131
Matthew Smith (Dem) 42
RoseMarie Swanger (Rep) 102
Randy Vulakovich (Rep) 30

Here’s some of the things I noticed. No one in a leadership position in either party makes their expenses public. That surely sends a signal to the House in general and not an especially good one. Two candidates looking at higher office, Josh Shapiro who is running for Montgomery County Commissioner, and Eugene DePasquale who is mulling a run for state Auditor General, are on the list. There are 203 state representatives and only 20 have their expenses on their website. That is 10%. You can’t tell me the rest don’t have it up there because it’s too difficult to do. At least 15 reps managed to have the trout stocking schedule on their site, and a number had the antlerless deer license availablility. It can’t be more difficult to put expenses up than to link to the trout stocking schedule. There are definitely some names I expected to be on the list that weren’t. Nor is inclusion of expenses district dependent. Rick Taylor, who previously represented the 151st district, posted his expenses. The current rep for the 151st district, Todd Stephens, doesn’t.

Seeing how much your rep spends on newspaper subscriptions or bottled water won’t tell you a lot about how they will govern, and you can’t compare the staff expenses of someone with a compact district who only has one office to someone with a larger district who has several offices to staff. But what matters is the willingness of our elected officials to make this information public.

If your state rep is not on the list you might ask him or her about it. Next year when the house is up for election ask the candidates if they will make this information public. It is one campaign promise that is easily kept.

The brevity of the list, and the ratio of Democrats to Republicans, disappointed me. I had hoped for better. Certainly given the poor showing in this regard any rhetoric on the importance of open records or transparency will sound very hypocritical.

Tomorrow: the state senate

Schwartz on Debt Ceiling Compromise

from the inbox:http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

Schwartz STATEMENT ON BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Rep. Allyson Schwartz issued the following statement after voting in favor of the Budget Control Act of 2011.

“First and foremost, this bill removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy and ensures America meets its obligations.

“There are rare moments that have been this dramatic and few votes that could have caused such serious consequences for every American.

“Had we defaulted, current and prospective homeowners, small business owners, students and their families, and so many other Americans could have seen interest rates skyrocket. If Congress had not acted tonight, interest rates paid by the government would have increased, leading to higher costs for every taxpayer.

“America has never failed to meet its obligations and Congress has never threatened to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States. And, led by President Obama, we would not let that happen.

“Let’s be clear, this is not the perfect bill. There were other proposals that would have made better choices for our country by taking a balanced approach and making more substantial spending cuts than the bill we voted on tonight.

“But, this is a moment that demanded compromise and action.

“This legislation cuts $2.7 trillion from federal spending over 10 years. It protects Medicare and Social Security for America’s seniors, does not inhibit our economic recovery, and is fair to middle class Americans.

“It is now time for Congress to focus our efforts on promoting an environment for private sector job growth.”

The Debt Ceiling Deal

from the inbox, a note from the White House:

BIPARTISAN DEBT DEAL: A WIN FOR THE ECONOMY AND BUDGET DISCIPLINE

The debt deal announced today is a victory for bipartisan compromise, for the economy and for the American people. The agreement:

· Removes the cloud of uncertainty over our economy at this critical time, by ensuring that no one will be able to use the threat of the nation’s first default now, or in only a few months, for political gain;

· Locks in a down payment on significant deficit reduction, with savings from both domestic and Pentagon spending, and is designed to protect crucial investments like aid for college students;

· Establishes a bipartisan process to seek a balanced approach to larger deficit reduction through entitlement and tax reform;

· Deploys an enforcement mechanism that gives all sides an incentive to reach bipartisan compromise on historic deficit reduction, while protecting Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries and low-income programs;

· Stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by preventing the middle class, seniors and those who are most vulnerable from shouldering the burden of deficit reduction. The President did not agree to any entitlement reforms outside of the context of a bipartisan committee process where tax reform will be on the table and the President will insist on shared sacrifice from the most well-off and those with the most indefensible tax breaks.

Mechanics of the Debt Deal

· Immediately enacted 10-year discretionary spending caps generating nearly $1 trillion in deficit reduction; balanced between defense and non-defense spending.

· President authorized to increase the debt limit by at least $2.1 trillion, eliminating the need for further increases until 2013.

· Bipartisan committee process tasked with identifying an additional $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction, including from entitlement and tax reform. Committee is required to report legislation by November 23, 2011, which receives fast-track protections. Congress is required to vote on Committee recommendations by December 23, 2011.

· Enforcement mechanism established to force all parties – Republican and Democrat – to agree to balanced deficit reduction. If Committee fails, enforcement mechanism will trigger spending reductions beginning in 2013 – split 50/50 between domestic and defense spending. Enforcement protects Social Security, Medicare beneficiaries, and low-income programs from any cuts.

1. REMOVING UNCERTAINTY TO SUPPORT THE AMERICAN ECONOMY

· Deal Removes Cloud of Uncertainty Until 2013, Eliminating Key Headwind on the Economy: Independent analysts, economists, and ratings agencies have all made clear that a short-term debt limit increase would create unacceptable economic uncertainty by risking default again within only a matter of months and as S&P stated, increase the chance of a downgrade. By ensuring a debt limit increase of at least $2.1 trillion, this deal removes the specter of default, providing important certainty to our economy at a fragile moment.

· Mechanism to Ensure Further Deficit Reduction is Designed to Phase-In Beginning in 2013 to Avoid Harming the Recovery: The deal includes a mechanism to ensure additional deficit reduction, consistent with the economic recovery. The enforcement mechanism would not be made effective until 2013, avoiding any immediate contraction that could harm the recovery. And savings from the down payment will be enacted over 10 years, consistent with supporting the economic recovery.

2. A DOWNPAYMENT ON DEFICIT REDUCTION BY LOCKING IN HISTORIC SPENDING DISCIPLINE – BALANCED BETWEEN DOMESTIC AND PENTAGON SPENDING

· More than $900 Billion in Savings over 10 Years By Capping Discretionary Spending: The deal includes caps on discretionary spending that will produce more than $900 billion in savings over the next 10 years compared to the CBO March baseline, even as it protects core investments from deep and economically damaging cuts.

· Includes Savings of $350 Billion from the Base Defense Budget – the First Defense Cut Since the 1990s: The deal puts us on track to cut $350 billion from the defense budget over 10 years. These reductions will be implemented based on the outcome of a review of our missions, roles, and capabilities that will reflect the President’s commitment to protecting our national security.

· Reduces Domestic Discretionary Spending to the Lowest Level Since Eisenhower: These discretionary caps will put us on track to reduce non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level since Dwight Eisenhower was President.

· Includes Funding to Protect the President’s Historic Investment in Pell Grants: Since taking office, the President has increased the maximum Pell award by $819 to a maximum award $5,550, helping over 9 million students pay for college tuition bills. The deal provides specific protection in the discretionary budget to ensure that the there will be sufficient funding for the President’s historic investment in Pell Grants without undermining other critical investments.

3. ESTABLISHING A BIPARTISAN PROCESS TO ACHIEVE $1.5 TRILLION IN ADDITIONAL BALANCED DEFICIT REDUCTION BY THE END OF 2011

· The Deal Locks in a Process to Enact $1.5 Trillion in Additional Deficit Reduction Through a Bipartisan, Bicameral Congressional Committee: The deal creates a bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Committee that is charged with enacting $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction by the end of the year. This Committee will work without the looming specter of default, ensuring time to carefully consider essential reforms without the disruption and brinksmanship of the past few months.

· This Committee is Empowered Beyond Previous Bipartisan Attempts at Deficit Reduction: Any recommendation of the Committee would be given fast-track privilege in the House and Senate, assuring it of an up or down vote and preventing some from using procedural gimmicks to block action.

· To Meet This Target, the Committee Will Consider Responsible Entitlement and Tax Reform. This means putting all the priorities of both parties on the table – including both entitlement reform and revenue-raising tax reform.

4. A STRONG ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO MAKE ALL SIDES COME TOGETHER

· The Deal Includes An Automatic Sequester to Ensure That At Least $1.2 Trillion in Deficit Reduction Is Achieved By 2013 Beyond the Discretionary Caps: The deal includes an automatic sequester on certain spending programs to ensure that—between the Committee and the trigger—we at least put in place an additional $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by 2013.

· Consistent With Past Practice, Sequester Would Be Divided Equally Between Defense and Non-Defense Programs and Exempt Social Security, Medicaid, and Low-Income Programs: Consistent with the bipartisan precedents established in the 1980s and 1990s, the sequester would be divided equally between defense and non-defense program, and it would exempt Social Security, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement. Likewise, any cuts to Medicare would be capped and limited to the provider side.

· Sequester Would Provide a Strong Incentive for Both Sides to Come to the Table: If the fiscal committee took no action, the deal would automatically add nearly $500 billion in defense cuts on top of cuts already made, and, at the same time, it would cut critical programs like infrastructure or education. That outcome would be unacceptable to many Republicans and Democrats alike – creating pressure for a bipartisan agreement without requiring the threat of a default with unthinkable consequences for our economy.

5. A BALANCED DEAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESIDENT’S COMMITMENT TO SHARED SACRIFICE

· The Deal Sets the Stage for Balanced Deficit Reduction, Consistent with the President’s Values: The deal is designed to achieve balanced deficit reduction, consistent with the values the President articulated in his April Fiscal Framework. The discretionary savings are spread between both domestic and defense spending. And the President will demand that the Committee pursue a balanced deficit reduction package, where any entitlement reforms are coupled with revenue-raising tax reform that asks for the most fortunate Americans to sacrifice.

· The Enforcement Mechanism Complements the Forcing Event Already In Law – the Expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts – To Create Pressure for a Balanced Deal: The Bush tax cuts expire as of 1/1/2013, the same date that the spending sequester would go into effect. These two events together will force balanced deficit reduction. Absent a balanced deal, it would enable the President to use his veto pen to ensure nearly $1 trillion in additional deficit reduction by not extending the high-income tax cuts.

· In Securing this Bipartisan Deal, the President Rejected Proposals that Would Have Placed the Sole Burden of Deficit Reduction on Low-Income or Middle-Class Families: The President stood firmly against proposals that would have placed the sole burden of deficit reduction on lower-income and middle-class families. This includes not only proposals in the House Republican Budget that would have undermined the core commitments of Medicare to our seniors and forced tens of millions of low-income Americans to go without health insurance, but also enforcement mechanisms that would have forced automatic cuts to low-income programs. The enforcement mechanism in the deal exempts Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare benefits, unemployment insurance, programs for low-income families, and civilian and military retirement.

Prez O on Debt Ceiling Deal

from the inbox, remarks from President Obama:

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
8:40 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. There are still some very important votes to be taken by members of Congress, but I want to announce that the leaders of both parties, in both chambers, have reached an agreement that will reduce the deficit and avoid default -- a default that would have had a devastating effect on our economy.

The first part of this agreement will cut about $1 trillion in spending over the next 10 years -- cuts that both parties had agreed to early on in this process. The result would be the lowest level of annual domestic spending since Dwight Eisenhower was President -- but at a level that still allows us to make job-creating investments in things like education and research. We also made sure that these cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on a fragile economy.

Now, I've said from the beginning that the ultimate solution to our deficit problem must be balanced. Despite what some Republicans have argued, I believe that we have to ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share by giving up tax breaks and special deductions. Despite what some in my own party have argued, I believe that we need to make some modest adjustments to programs like Medicare to ensure that they’re still around for future generations.

That's why the second part of this agreement is so important. It establishes a bipartisan committee of Congress to report back by November with a proposal to further reduce the deficit, which will then be put before the entire Congress for an up or down vote. In this stage, everything will be on the table. To hold us all accountable for making these reforms, tough cuts that both parties would find objectionable would automatically go into effect if we don’t act. And over the next few months, I’ll continue to make a detailed case to these lawmakers about why I believe a balanced approach is necessary to finish the job.

Now, is this the deal I would have preferred? No. I believe that we could have made the tough choices required -- on entitlement reform and tax reform -- right now, rather than through a special congressional committee process. But this compromise does make a serious down payment on the deficit reduction we need, and gives each party a strong incentive to get a balanced plan done before the end of the year.

Most importantly, it will allow us to avoid default and end the crisis that Washington imposed on the rest of America. It ensures also that we will not face this same kind of crisis again in six months, or eight months, or 12 months. And it will begin to lift the cloud of debt and the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over our economy.

Now, this process has been messy; it’s taken far too long. I've been concerned about the impact that it has had on business confidence and consumer confidence and the economy as a whole over the last month. Nevertheless, ultimately, the leaders of both parties have found their way toward compromise. And I want to thank them for that.

Most of all, I want to thank the American people. It’s been your voices -- your letters, your emails, your tweets, your phone calls -- that have compelled Washington to act in the final days. And the American people's voice is a very, very powerful thing.

We’re not done yet. I want to urge members of both parties to do the right thing and support this deal with your votes over the next few days. It will allow us to avoid default. It will allow us to pay our bills. It will allow us to start reducing our deficit in a responsible way. And it will allow us to turn to the very important business of doing everything we can to create jobs, boost wages, and grow this economy faster than it's currently growing.

That’s what the American people sent us here to do, and that’s what we should be devoting all of our time to accomplishing in the months ahead.

Thank you very much, everybody.

END 8:44 P.M. EDT

2nd Annual Shirley's Run

Mark your calendars:

2nd Annual Shirley’s 5K Run and 1 mile Dog Walk
Sunday Morning, August 21nd, Maple Glen , PA
Presented by the Maple Glen Community Association
Visit: www.shirleysrun.org

It’s Fast! It’s Fun! But… It Will NOT Last!

Best goodie bag around.

Entertainment provided by Sound Sensation DJs.

For Runners: Only $20 until August 8th. ($10 for ages 19 and under)
For Dogs and their escorts: Only $10 until August 8th
For Both the Run and Dog Walk: Only $25 until August 8
(Pet sitters will be available to hold your dog while you participate in the run)
Anyone who participates in both events will receive a very special prize: An autographed copy of “My Million Dollar Mom” The book Ross wrote about his mother Shirley’s life

Shirley Schriftman loved animals. She also loved watching two of her sons Ross and Lee run races. As I small child, she used to watch the Boston Marathon while sitting on her Father’s shoulders at Coolidge Corner 2 miles from the finish line and a half mile from her home. Her stories inspired Ross to start running marathons. Shirley’s last BAA Marathon was in 2005 watching Ross compete. It was her last trip to her home town before she developed Alzheimer’s disease.

In her memory Shirley’s Run raises funds for the Shirley Schriftman Fund for Animals; a donor advised fund at the Montgomery County Foundation.
www.mcfoundationinc.org. The fund supports animal rescue and animal training organizations in the Montgomery County area.

The 5K Course is a fast one with a nice down hill toward the end. It is an out and back course through neighborhood roads in Maple Glen. (See the course map on the website)

Meet Happy Girl, Shirley’s Katrina Rescue Dog. Visit our sponsors and the local charities that will be at the event. There may also be an opportunity for you to adopt an animal.

Register today for Shirley’s Run by visiting www.shirleysrun.org. Only the first 200 runners who register will receive the commemorative race shirt with the logo of Shirley with her animals that can be seen on the website. Only the first 100 dogs registered will receive the commemorative dog kerchief.

SEPTA Ridership Up

from the inbox:

Riders took nearly 334 million trips on SEPTA’s buses, trains and trolleys over last year – surging to levels not seen since the late 1980s, the Authority reported today.

SEPTA’s Fiscal Year 2011 Ridership and Revenue Report was released today at the monthly SEPTA Board meeting. The fiscal calendar covers the 12-month period from July 1-June 30.

The report shows steady system-wide gains throughout the year. Ridership was up 4 percent, or 13 million trips. The 334 million trips represent SEPTA’s highest yearly total since 1989.

Public transit use is up nationwide, largely due to higher gas prices. SEPTA’s ridership gains, however, came in a year during which fare increases were implemented and local unemployment rates showed little improvement. Due to capital funding reductions, SEPTA was also forced to cut 25 percent of its capital budget, which put dozens of improvement projects on hold. These types of factors can easily stunt ridership growth, particularly if the gains are tied directly to gas price fluctuations.

SEPTA, however, continues to welcome a steady stream of new riders – a trend that started months before gas prices spiked. General Manger Joseph M. Casey credits aggreshttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifsive efforts in recent years to improve SEPTA’s aging infrastructure, as well as customer service-focused initiatives, for helping attract and retain new riders.

“Despite very challenging economic conditions, we’re seeing sustained ridership growth,” Casey said. “That’s extremely positive, and we look forward to the possibilities ahead as these conditions improve.”

Ridership increases were recorded across the region and on all of SEPTA’s modes of travel. Trips on City Transit Division buses, trolleys and subway/subway-elevated rail increased four percent. Regional Rail trips were up by nearly a half-million, and the year-end total of 35.4 million is just shy of the ridership record set it 2008. Suburban Transit Division bus, light- and high-speed rail modes also jumped 5 percent.

To view the 2011 Ridership and Revenue Report, visit www.septa.org/reports

Two Views of Medicare D

Two studies on Medicare Part D have crossed my inbox and twitter feed this week. I haven't read either of them in full, only skimmed or read the abstract. I will freely confess that all of this is over my head so you should definitely read for yourself. Compare and contrast as you please.

From Douglas Holtz-Eakin (former CBO director and current president of American Action Forum) and Michael Ramlet (Director of the Forum’s Operation Healthcare Choice), we have "Cost Shifting Debt Reduction to America’s Seniors: Medicare Part D Rebates Would Dramatically Increase Drug Premiums." The full pdf report is 7 pages long. Here is the summary:

The United States faces a daunting budgetary outlook. To avert an impending debt crisis, policymakers must tackle the unsustainble growth in entitlments in general, and Medicare spending in particular. Imposing mandatory prescription drug rebates in Medicare Part D has been proposed as a solution. In this report, beneficiary data is used to evaluate the impact of introducing Medicaid-style rebates into the Medicare Part D program. Despite any cosmetic appeal, such rebates would dramatically raise, not lower, the premiums paid by America’s seniors and seriously undermine proven success in harnessing competition in entitlement programs.

(You can read more about the American Action Forum on wikipedia).

This week's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) has an article on Medicare D. "Implementation of Medicare Part D and Nondrug Medical Spending for Elderly Adults With Limited Prior Drug Coverage" by J. Michael McWilliams, MD, PhD; Alan M. Zaslavsky, PhD; Haiden A. Huskamp, PhD is behind a paywall but you might be able to find a paper or online copy at your local public library (remember those?). An abstract is on JAMA's website so you can get the gist. Here's their conclusion:

Conclusion Implementation of Part D was associated with significant differential reductions in nondrug medical spending for Medicare beneficiaries with limited prior drug coverage.

In other words, JAMA is saying that the prescription benefits in Medicare D lowered the amount of money seniors spent on other types of health care.

An Outdoor Miscellany

A handful of environmental / cultural links have accumulated so instead of three short posts let's put them together into one longer one.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar today announced the designation of four new National Historic Landmarks in four states. One of these is in Pennsylvania:

The Schaeffer House in Schaefferstown, Heidelberg Township, Pennsylvania is nationally significant as a rare intact example of a colonial-era building type within the Pennsylvania German architectural tradition. It is quite possibly the only surviving Weinbauernhaus, a type that incorporates domestic functions and spaces used for the production of alcoholic spirits within a single building.

If you find yourself wanting to commune with nature, but aren't sure where the commune is, there is a handy dandy website to help you with that. Take a look at Explore PA Trails (www.explorepatrails.com). It currently indexes 367 trails, for a total of 7,586 miles.

Trails are not only good exercise they are good business, spurring the growth of recreation oriented businesses. Forest lands and trees keep carbon out of the atmosphere. From "Forests' clean-air role is bigger than anyone knew," by Sandy Bauers, Inquirer, July 22, 2011:

The group found that the forests sock away far more of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, than anyone thought.

They absorb about a third of all carbon dioxide emitted by fossil-fuel burning, or about 8.8 billion tons a year. The amount dwarfs that taken up by other land uses, such as grasslands or pastures or suburban shrubs.

Schwartz Summer Picnic

This past Sunday Congresswoman Allyson Schwartz held her 4th annual Friends and Family Barbeque. It was beastly hot and even a short shower just before the event started didn't cool things down. Nonetheless when I was there there about 60 people in attendance, mostly clustered in the few shady spots available. I didn't catch all the public remarks people made but Schwartz talked about the importance of being involved in the democratic process and not becoming complacent. Last year people kept telling her she didn't need to worry about the election but she had a closer race than thought. She also discussed briefly her work on the Foreign Affairs Committee and the importance of foreign aid and what a small percentage of the federal budget is spent on it. Schwartz also acknowledged a group representing her Sikh constituents, who were there in colorful turbans.

Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, candidates for Montgomery County commissioner were there and gave a brief update on their campaign. They have knocked on over 1,000 doors and opened two new offices on Saturday.

Other candidates were present and introduced, including
Kathryn Boockvar, candidate for Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Judge
David Wecht, candidate for Pennsylvania Superior Court

State Rep. Eugene DePasquale, who may or may not run for Pennsylvania Auditor General next year.

Richard Haaz, candidate for Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas
Josh Shapiro and Leslie Richards, candidates for Montgomery County Commissioner
Linda Hee, candidate for Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds
Will Holt, candidate for Montgomery County Sheriff

Bill Rubin, candidate for Philadelphia City Council, 10th district
Stephanie Singer, Philadelphia City Commissioner

After the formal remarks were over the candidates walked around talking to people and answering questions. I noticed one man getting autographs from Schwartz for his children.

Judge Wecht and State Rep. DePasquale had driven a long way and, perhaps for that reason, were the least known. They are running for, or considering running for, statewide office. Kathryn Boockvar is also running for a statewide office but is from Bucks County, and so has had more opportunity to get to know Montco and Philly voters. The other candidates were running for an office included, at least in part, in Schwartz's congressional district.

This is a nice inexpensive event, even if the weather doesn't always cooperate.

PA Airport Projects Stopped

Congress failed to pass legislation on Friday giving the FAA the authority necessary for work to continue on airport modernization projects around the country. One of those projects is in Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, an over $18 million project to build a new air traffic control tower at Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport. Contractor: Donald J. Keating Co. Other projects on the work stop list are:

Limbach Company LLC Pittsburg, PA Plumbing, construction $175,000
CUSA Consulting Corp. Erie, PA Fire life safety, construction $112,000
Limbach Co. Inc. Oakdale, PA Boiler, construction $205,000
Nationwide Construction Group PA, NY Construction, physical security $718,000

A complete list is available at: http://www.faa.gov/news/media/workstop/

Prez O Tonight on Debt Ceiling Efforts

from the inbox:

9:01 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. Tonight, I want to talk about the debate we’ve been having in Washington over the national debt -- a debate that directly affects the lives of all Americans.

For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in. In the year 2000, the government had a budget surplus. But instead of using it to pay off our debt, the money was spent on trillions of dollars in new tax cuts, while two wars and an expensive prescription drug program were simply added to our nation’s credit card.

As a result, the deficit was on track to top $1 trillion the year I took office. To make matters worse, the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -– on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off. These emergency steps also added to the deficit.

Now, every family knows that a little credit card debt is manageable. But if we stay on the current path, our growing debt could cost us jobs and do serious damage to the economy. More of our tax dollars will go toward paying off the interest on our loans. Businesses will be less likely to open up shop and hire workers in a country that can’t balance its books. Interest rates could climb for everyone who borrows money -– the homeowner with a mortgage, the student with a college loan, the corner store that wants to expand. And we won’t have enough money to make job-creating investments in things like education and infrastructure, or pay for vital programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Because neither party is blameless for the decisions that led to this problem, both parties have a responsibility to solve it. And over the last several months, that’s what we’ve been trying to do. I won’t bore you with the details of every plan or proposal, but basically, the debate has centered around two different approaches.

The first approach says, let’s live within our means by making serious, historic cuts in government spending. Let’s cut domestic spending to the lowest level it’s been since Dwight Eisenhower was President. Let’s cut defense spending at the Pentagon by hundreds of billions of dollars. Let’s cut out waste and fraud in health care programs like Medicare -- and at the same time, let’s make modest adjustments so that Medicare is still there for future generations. Finally, let’s ask the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to give up some of their breaks in the tax code and special deductions.

This balanced approach asks everyone to give a little without requiring anyone to sacrifice too much. It would reduce the deficit by around $4 trillion and put us on a path to pay down our debt. And the cuts wouldn’t happen so abruptly that they’d be a drag on our economy, or prevent us from helping small businesses and middle-class families get back on their feet right now.

This approach is also bipartisan. While many in my own party aren’t happy with the painful cuts it makes, enough will be willing to accept them if the burden is fairly shared. While Republicans might like to see deeper cuts and no revenue at all, there are many in the Senate who have said, “Yes, I’m willing to put politics aside and consider this approach because I care about solving the problem.” And to his credit, this is the kind of approach the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, was working on with me over the last several weeks.

The only reason this balanced approach isn’t on its way to becoming law right now is because a significant number of Republicans in Congress are insisting on a different approach -- a cuts-only approach -– an approach that doesn’t ask the wealthiest Americans or biggest corporations to contribute anything at all. And because nothing is asked of those at the top of the income scale, such an approach would close the deficit only with more severe cuts to programs we all care about –- cuts that place a greater burden on working families.

So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?

That’s not right. It’s not fair. We all want a government that lives within its means, but there are still things we need to pay for as a country -– things like new roads and bridges; weather satellites and food inspection; services to veterans and medical research.

And keep in mind that under a balanced approach, the 98 percent of Americans who make under $250,000 would see no tax increases at all. None. In fact, I want to extend the payroll tax cut for working families. What we’re talking about under a balanced approach is asking Americans whose incomes have gone up the most over the last decade -– millionaires and billionaires -– to share in the sacrifice everyone else has to make. And I think these patriotic Americans are willing to pitch in. In fact, over the last few decades, they’ve pitched in every time we passed a bipartisan deal to reduce the deficit. The first time a deal was passed, a predecessor of mine made the case for a balanced approach by saying this:

“Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.”

Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan. But today, many Republicans in the House refuse to consider this kind of balanced approach -– an approach that was pursued not only by President Reagan, but by the first President Bush, by President Clinton, by myself, and by many Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate. So we’re left with a stalemate.

Now, what makes today’s stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -– a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before.

Understand –- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money. It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up. In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine. Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it. President Reagan did it 18 times. George W. Bush did it seven times. And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won’t be able to pay all of our bills.

Unfortunately, for the past several weeks, Republican House members have essentially said that the only way they’ll vote to prevent America’s first-ever default is if the rest of us agree to their deep, spending cuts-only approach.

If that happens, and we default, we would not have enough money to pay all of our bills -– bills that include monthly Social Security checks, veterans’ benefits, and the government contracts we’ve signed with thousands of businesses.

For the first time in history, our country’s AAA credit rating would be downgraded, leaving investors around the world to wonder whether the United States is still a good bet. Interest rates would skyrocket on credit cards, on mortgages and on car loans, which amounts to a huge tax hike on the American people. We would risk sparking a deep economic crisis -– this one caused almost entirely by Washington.

So defaulting on our obligations is a reckless and irresponsible outcome to this debate. And Republican leaders say that they agree we must avoid default. But the new approach that Speaker Boehner unveiled today, which would temporarily extend the debt ceiling in exchange for spending cuts, would force us to once again face the threat of default just six months from now. In other words, it doesn’t solve the problem.

First of all, a six-month extension of the debt ceiling might not be enough to avoid a credit downgrade and the higher interest rates that all Americans would have to pay as a result. We know what we have to do to reduce our deficits; there’s no point in putting the economy at risk by kicking the can further down the road.

But there’s an even greater danger to this approach. Based on what we’ve seen these past few weeks, we know what to expect six months from now. The House of Representatives will once again refuse to prevent default unless the rest of us accept their cuts-only approach. Again, they will refuse to ask the wealthiest Americans to give up their tax cuts or deductions. Again, they will demand harsh cuts to programs like Medicare. And once again, the economy will be held captive unless they get their way.

This is no way to run the greatest country on Earth. It’s a dangerous game that we’ve never played before, and we can’t afford to play it now. Not when the jobs and livelihoods of so many families are at stake. We can’t allow the American people to become collateral damage to Washington’s political warfare.

Congress now has one week left to act, and there are still paths forward. The Senate has introduced a plan to avoid default, which makes a down payment on deficit reduction and ensures that we don’t have to go through this again in six months.

I think that’s a much better approach, although serious deficit reduction would still require us to tackle the tough challenges of entitlement and tax reform. Either way, I’ve told leaders of both parties that they must come up with a fair compromise in the next few days that can pass both houses of Congress -– and a compromise that I can sign. I’m confident we can reach this compromise. Despite our disagreements, Republican leaders and I have found common ground before. And I believe that enough members of both parties will ultimately put politics aside and help us make progress.

Now, I realize that a lot of the new members of Congress and I don’t see eye-to-eye on many issues. But we were each elected by some of the same Americans for some of the same reasons. Yes, many want government to start living within its means. And many are fed up with a system in which the deck seems stacked against middle-class Americans in favor of the wealthiest few. But do you know what people are fed up with most of all?

They’re fed up with a town where compromise has become a dirty word. They work all day long, many of them scraping by, just to put food on the table. And when these Americans come home at night, bone-tired, and turn on the news, all they see is the same partisan three-ring circus here in Washington. They see leaders who can’t seem to come together and do what it takes to make life just a little bit better for ordinary Americans. They’re offended by that. And they should be.

The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.

America, after all, has always been a grand experiment in compromise. As a democracy made up of every race and religion, where every belief and point of view is welcomed, we have put to the test time and again the proposition at the heart of our founding: that out of many, we are one. We’ve engaged in fierce and passionate debates about the issues of the day, but from slavery to war, from civil liberties to questions of economic justice, we have tried to live by the words that Jefferson once wrote: “Every man cannot have his way in all things -- without this mutual disposition, we are disjointed individuals, but not a society.”

History is scattered with the stories of those who held fast to rigid ideologies and refused to listen to those who disagreed. But those are not the Americans we remember. We remember the Americans who put country above self, and set personal grievances aside for the greater good. We remember the Americans who held this country together during its most difficult hours; who put aside pride and party to form a more perfect union.

That’s who we remember. That’s who we need to be right now. The entire world is watching. So let’s seize this moment to show why the United States of America is still the greatest nation on Earth –- not just because we can still keep our word and meet our obligations, but because we can still come together as one nation.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Life Sciences Job and Investment Act

U.S. Representatives Devin Nunes (CA-21), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), Pat Meehan (PA-07), William Pascrell (NJ-08), Jim Gerlach (PA-06), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Charlie Dent (PA-15), and Chaka Fattah (PA-02) today introduced the Life Sciences Jobs and Investment Act. The bill, which was introduced in the Senate by U.S. Sen. Robert Casey Jr. (PA), promotes investments in the life sciences by providing targeted and temporary tax relief for businesses willing to grow their American workforce.

“Life sciences are a key component of our economy,” Nunes said. “They support improved life-spans and a superior quality of life. We need to ensure America continues to lead in these important fields. One way to accomplish this is to reduce taxes on foreign earnings if those earnings are re-invested here in the United States.”

“Targeted investments in life sciences are vital to our economy. In Philadelphia alone, life sciences is responsible for one out of every six jobs and generates 15 percent of all economic activity,” Schwartz said. “This legislation will enhance medical innovation, life sciences education and high quality job creation across the country through targeted tax incentives. It promotes the type of opportunity businesses need to create private sector economic growth. Providing business with these tax incentives will ensure America remains on the cutting edge of research and development.”

“This bipartisan legislation will encourage significant investment in the life sciences industry – an industry that is so important to our local economy and to creating high quality jobs in our region,” Meehan said. “Incentivizing life sciences research and development will not only bolster our regional economic growth, it will also keep the U.S. at the forefront of our competitive global economy.”

“Investing in life sciences is smart economic policy,” Altmire said. “By investing in research and development in the United States, we are creating good paying jobs and keeping America at the forefront of scientific research. Tax cuts in these targeted areas will allow scientists and researchers to make investments in the work and hire more employees, just what this economy needs to get moving again.”

“Research and development in life sciences is vital to our economic recovery," Pascrell said. “Encouraging life science research and development will allow our nation to harness the vast resources of our highly-educated workers and develop the next generation of medicine and pharmaceutical technology that will be exported to the world. This is a $29 billion industry in New Jersey. Creating national policy to foster this industry’s growth across the nation will help encourage the billions of dollars in new jobs and construction projects that we expect will be generated by the search for better pharmaceuticals.”

American preeminence in the life sciences industry is threatened by the erosion of investment capital, the departure of highly educated workers, and intense global competition. Many of our competitors, including China and India, are aggressively expanding academic training and research capacity. Meanwhile, that capacity is shrinking in the United States.

The Life Sciences Jobs and Investment Act encourages investment in the United States by reducing the tax burden on the mostly small and medium sized companies responsible for life science research today. Investing in Life Sciences in the United States means:

* Hiring additional scientists, researchers, and comparable personnel engaged in life sciences research;
* Making new investments in research at American universities and post-graduate institutions, state-sponsored incubators, and comparable scientific organizations; and
* Investing in new laboratory and related life sciences research facilities.

To accomplish these goals, the Life Sciences Jobs and Investment Act would allow companies engaged in life sciences research to either double their Research and Development tax credit on the first $150 million invested or repatriate foreign earnings at a reduced tax rate up to that same limit when used exclusively for job creation and research in the United States.

Shapiro Richards Office Openings

Of the three counties I cover Montgomery County posts the most information about events on their website, which makes it easier to cover events there. This weekend I attended two office openings for the Josh Shapiro / Leslie Richards (Democratic) campaign for County Commissioner. Montgomery County is the third largest county in Pennsylvania, larger than Boston and Atlanta. It’s a race that many across the state are watching (see Politics PA’s analysis of the race with a link to their interview of Shapiro & Richards).

The campaign already had two offices, one in Abington, Shapiro’s home territory, and Ardmore (see news articles on these openings at www.shapirorichards.com). This weekend offices in Elkins Park and Lansdale opened. A fifth, in Conshohocken, is due to open next week. More offices open throughout the county before the November election.

The Elkins Park office is near the intersection of Old York Road (Rt 611) and Church Rd (Rt 73) in the Yorktown Shopping Center. It’s at street level, by the exit onto the Old York Rd spur. When I was there Shapiro and Richards were talking to people in small groups. About 30 people, give or take, were there, clustered in conversation. A number of candidates were there. County-wide candidates, Linda Hee (recorder of deeds), Jason Salus (treasurer), Richard Haaz (judge for Court of Common Pleas), and Cheryl Austin (judge for Court of Common Pleas) were among them. Abington Township Commissioner Lori Schreiber (she of the spiky silver hair), and Sean Kilkenny, who is active in county politics, were also present. Olivia Brady of the Montgomery County Democratic Women’s Leadership Initiative was greeting people at the door. If there were other local political luminaries in the crowd I missed them. One wall in the campaign office was covered with brochures, info on local candidates. You don’t always see this and to me it’s a sign that the candidates for the higher (county) office are partnering with candidates for lower (township) office. That’s always a good sign because it implies the higher level candidates will look out for the little guy. I don’t know anything about Cheltenham Township Ward 7 candidate Heidi Morein but her logo is very catchy, appealing, and a design I haven’t seen before.

The Lansdale office is in Sumney Forge Square, at the intersection of Valley Forge Rd and Sumneytown Pike. It’s in the row of storefronts that parallels Valley Forge Rd, at the end furthest from the intersection. The walls in this office were decorated with colorful maps of the area but that might change as it looked like the office was still being finished. Richard Haaz and Jason Salus were at this opening also, as was Olivia Brady. Again people were talking among themselves and the candidates were working their way around the room. There were about 35 people there when I was there. The office has a lot of windows with great views of the surrounding area.

Most campaign offices have both experienced staff and fresh faced newcomers. These were no exception but the youngsters had a bit more polish than most. They were very professional. I’m told that the campaign has attracted a lot of interns; if the people I talked to are examples, the campaign is getting the cream of the crop. While there were candidates and political figures around there were a lot of regular folks, too. I enjoyed some small talk and came away with a few good book recommendations. At each office there was a least one toddler. A campaign that is accepting of small children is a good campaign. (Shapiro has four children, Richards three – that may be a factor.) The informal political events I like the most are those that resemble community gatherings. There was no resume waving or bluster. The candidates moved through the room easily, greeting people they knew, and meeting those they didn’t. The people were pleasant. There wasn’t any GOP bashing. The talk was positive and forward looking. It was a hot day and it’s a tribute to the candidates that that many people would come out in such uncomfortable weather.

Shapiro is currently a state representative for the 153rd district (most of Abington township, some of Upper Dublin). He has favored, and worked towards, strong ethics laws for elected officials, makes his expense accounts public on his state house site (www.pahouse.com/shapiro) and is widely regarded as an elected official with a bright future. One of his signature pieces of legislation, which has yet to become law, bans texting or handheld cell phone use while driving. One that has passed makes it easier for college students to transfer credits from one public college in the state to another. He’s known for being accessible to the public, holding over 70 townhalls in his six years as a state rep. He also has a reputation for working with people across the aisle. I’ve attended some of the multi-candidate or multi-official events he’s been at and he is frequently acknowledged as the most knowledgeable person in the room, with even more senior politicos deferring to him for facts or opinions.

Richards is on Whitemarsh Township Board of Supervisors and during her three years in office the township has balanced the budget without raising taxes. Like her running mate she has supported efforts to make government more open and transparent. For those who don’t like attorneys, Richards is the only non-lawyer running for county commissioner. She is a senior project manager at a woman-owned civil engineering firm, and has managed projects dealing with infrastructure, such as bridges, and trail development. These skills have served her well helping Whitemarsh complete stormwater projects and on preservation and open space measures. Personal trivia: I think her celebrity lookalike is Project Runway judge (and former Elle magazine fashion editor) Nina Garcia.

The campaign is utilizing not only traditional outreach measures such as knocking on doors, but social media such as Facebook (www.facebook.com/shapirorichards) and twitter (@shapirorichards). They’ve also initiated an “11 for ‘11” program, asking supporters to reach out to 11 friends and family members and encourage them to be voters as well.

As mentioned, another office opens this week in Conshohocken, followed by one of the campaign's quizzo events (see their facebook page for details). I went to an earlier quizzo meet. They're fun, so if you live near Conshy check it out.

Thanks to the Montgomery County Democrats for having an updated events page and to the Shapiro / Richards campaign for putting me on their email list.

Pew Report on Philly Prisons

Last week the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative released a report entitled, "Philadelphia’s Less Crowded, Less Costly Jails: Taking Stock of a Year of Change and the Challenges That Remain," a follow-up to a report issued in May 2010 called "Philadelphia’s Crowded, Costly Jails: The Search for Safe Solutions." The new report is available online as a 29 page pdf including some charts and graphs.

The gist is that over the past year the population of Philadelphia jails as declined. The decrease is attributed to some of the policies or policy changes implemented by the new city District Attorney, R. Seth Williams. Some of the findings are:

In 2010, the pretrial population accounted for 49 percent of the decrease in bed-days consumed, mostly due to the following factors:

· A modest decline in the number of arrests, which parallels a corresponding drop in violent crime.

· Reductions in the overall severity of charges leveled against the accused. This has been due in part to a new approach to deciding what charges to pursue in individual cases, implemented by District Attorney R. Seth Williams, now in his second year in office. When initial charges are less severe, lower bail may be imposed or none at all, resulting in fewer individuals being held pretrial.

· Creation of new programs to divert some less serious cases from the court system, with individuals often being fined or made to perform community service. Among these initiatives are the Accelerated Misdemeanor Program (AMP) and the Small Amount of Marijuana Program (SAM).

· A decrease in the number of admissions to jail on bench warrants, which call for the detention of individuals who fail to show up for court dates. One factor in the decline was not the result of any new practice or procedure. A computer problem caused thousands of new warrants not to show up in police checks for several months, meaning that people during that period were not picked up on warrants who otherwise would have been.

Thirty-nine percent of the overall drop in the jail population came from a reduction in bed-days consumed by those who were alleged to have violated the terms of their probation or parole. This decrease among violators of probation and parole is due to shorter incarcera­tions caused by a streamlining of the court process.

The sentenced population accounted for the remaining 12 percent of the drop, with lengths of jail-stays down here as well. This appears to be the continuing effect of a change in state law that has forced certain sentenced inmates to serve time in state prisons instead of the city jails. Increased use of alternative sentencing programs like electronic monitoring and mental health court may also have contributed to this decline.

Clearing Off the Table

The family suggested, in the gentlest of terms, that I might do something about the stack of papers, magazines, clippings, and whatnot, that were stacked on the dining room table. It had spread from one stack in front of my "place" to take over two chairs and half the table. This will be a multi-step process but today I did sort through the stuff on the table. It was evenly split between blogging and work stuff. Much of it was still interesting but time had passed and the top was no longer quite so relevant. Here are a few of the items were not connected to legislation and therefore might have a longer shelf life:

Chinese anchor babies -- remember all the hubbub about the mythical hordes of women coming to the US to have children for nefarious purposes, but no one had proof of? Well, as it turns out there is an anchor baby issue but it is in Hong Kong not here. Women from mainland China have been going to Hong Kong to have children in such numbers that Hong Kong hospitals are putting a limit on the number of spots in their maternity wards for mainland moms. The attractions are an avoidance of the one-child policy and the fact that babies born there have local residency rights and can return later where there are "greater political and legal protections." (See "Hong Kong moves to curb births by mainland women," by Isabella Steger, Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2011)

Evidence based philanthropy -- Sandy Hingston writes in the June issue of Philadelphia Magazine about effective philanthropy ("How to give your fortune away"). I was fascinated by this paragraph:

The move toward metrics has brought some surprises. “Our team is both highly trained and used to being wrong,” Rosqueta says, grinning. Everybody’s heard of Scared Straight, which introduces at-risk young people to the consequences of bad behavior by taking them to visit prisons. Nobody’s heard of another charity, the Nurse-Family Partnership, which unites first-time low-income mothers with RNs who make home visits from pregnancy until a child’s second birthday. Yet evidence from 30 years of NFP’s work shows a 59 percent reduction in arrests by the time that child turns 15, among other benefits, for a return of nearly six bucks in social benefits for every dollar spent—increased tax revenues, lower welfare costs, reduced costs for health care and other social services. And the high-brand-awareness Scared Straight? A 2003 study found that participants were up to 28 percent more likely to offend in the future than they were before going through the program. It was doing more harm than good.