When Editorials Collide

Every now and then the editorial board over at the Tribune-Review takes issue with something the editorial board over at the Post-Gazette publishes.  More often than not, they don't like what they read.  Surprising, I know.

Which in itself is fine.  Conflicting between editorial boards is a good thing.  But only if both are honest with, you know, the facts.

And we all know by now that the relationship between Scaife's braintrust and the facts is iffy, at best.

Take a look at this from this morning:

Huh?: Those economic “scholars” at The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler once again are shilling for a higher minimum wage — this time for fast-food workers and to $10.50 an hour. And, hey, it argues (a word we use loosely), it would raise the price of a Big Mac by only a nickel. “That's a small amount to pay for meaningful change,” it says. Actually, it's a steep price to pay, given that the real result would be fewer of these entry-level jobs.

What they're talking about is this P-G editorial.  Look closely at how the braintrust characterizes the idea of raising the minimum wage to $10.50.  Now let's go see what the P-G editorial board actually says about it:

The low wages don't do great things for the restaurants, either. According to Time magazine, the National Restaurant Association estimates that a fast-food outlet sees 75 percent turnover in employees every year. The story also reported that a letter signed by more than 100 economists said that raising the minimum wage to $10.50 would add only a nickel to the price of a Big Mac.

That's a small amount to pay for meaningful change. We think most Americans would be willing to fork over a few more cents for a Happy Meal if it meant happier times for the workers who make them.

Wait, you mean that wasn't just an argument from the editorial board, but it was from something from Time Magazine?  And it's a group of 100 economists who are making the argument NOT the P-G editorial board? 

Huh, I guess that still would be some real "economic 'scholars'" but just not at the P-G.  Funny how that part got left out.  The argument looks a lot different if it comes from 100 economists, doesn't it?

Here's the Time article, by the way - the real source of that idea.

But why would those actual "economic scholars" say that about raising the minimun wage to $10.50?

Here's what they say from the petition:

We, the undersigned professional economists, support the “Catching Up to 1968 Act of 2013, ” sponsored by Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida. This measure would raise the federal minimum wage from its current level of $7.25, established in 2009, to $10.50 per hour , and with automatic increases indexed to inflation thereafter.

As is conveyed by the title of the bill itself, the real , inflation-adjusted, value of the federal minimum wage has fallen dramatically over time. In 1968, the real value of the minimum wage was $10.65, so that, in fact, an increase today to a $10.50 federal minimum would not even bring the minimum wage fully back to the 1968 standard.

And:

Businesses can readily absorb these small cost increases through minor increases in prices and productivity as well as enabling low-wage workers to receive a slightly larger share of businesses’ total revenues. On average, even fast-food restaurants, which employ a disproportionate share of minimum wage workers, are likely to see their overall business costs increase by only about 2. 7 percent from a rise today to a $10.50 federal minimum wage. That means, for example, that McDonalds could cover fully half of the cost increase by raising the price of a Big Mac, on average, from $4.00 to $4.05.

And as to whether that will decrease  minimum wage employment, they say:

Opponents of minimum wage increases frequently argue that such measures will mean fewer employment opportunities for low-wage workers because businesses will be less willing to hire workers at the increased wage level. But the weight of evidence from the extensive professional literature has , for decades, consistently found that no significant effects on employment opportunities result when the minimum wage rises in reasonable increments. This is because the increases in overall business costs resulting from a minimum wage increase are modest .

And there's more:

Moreover, the overwhelming factor determining employment opportunities for low - wage workers is macroeconomic conditions — whether the economy is growing or in a recession. Thus, in 1968, when the U.S. minimum wage reached $10.65 in real dollars, the overall unemployment rate was 3.6 percent. By contrast, during the depths of the 1982 recession, the real value of the minimum wage had fallen to $8.05 while unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent

You can even check out the economic scholarship supporting the petition here.  Where's the work supporting the braintrust's position?  Someplace NOT bought and paid for by Scaife foundation money, that is.

There's a lot behind the P-G editorial, isn't there?  Not so much for the editorial from the braintrust.

When editorials collide, said George Pal to his bride, I'm gonna give you some terrible thrills.

I Am Not Sure The Braintrust Knows How To Read

Take a look at this from today:

Come again?: The Toledo, Ohio, Block Bugler editorializes that since the Framers could not have envisioned DNA testing, swabbing the mouth of those arrested for their DNA is not a Fourth Amendment violation. Neither could the Framers have envisioned high-speed printing presses. Does this mean The Bugler has no First Amendment right to publish? [Bolding in original.]

While I realize there's a vigorous debate surrounding Maryland v King, the braintrust does itself no favors by misrepresenting both what the Supreme Court said and then what the P-G said about it.

First, let's go back to what the braintrust said about the decision:

The Supreme Court's Monday decision affirming the right of police, without probable cause and without a warrant, to take DNA samples from those they arrest (but supposedly only for serious crimes) is chilling.[Emphasis added.]

Now let's take a look at the "Held" section of the decision:

When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. [Emphasis added.]

Notice anything?  I even bolded/italicized the important words for any braintrust visitors that may be visiting.  If there's any nuances of difference between an arrest supported by probably cause and a search done after that arrest though unrelated to it, they should have explained them.  As it is, the braintrust gets it wrong by omitting such details.

Yea, I know - what a surprise!!

The issue here, and it's pointed out in the P-G editorial, is:

There's no argument that a DNA sample taken from someone arrested by the police is a search of sorts, but the key word in the amendment is "unreasonable." On reasonableness grounds, the majority had the best of this argument. The decision to restore the conviction of a man arrested on a different charge but identified and subsequently tried as a rapist because of a DNA test was the right one.[Emphasis added.]

But let's get on to the main point here: go back and read what the braintrust's take on the P-G editorial

Now read what the P-G actually wrote:

DNA, of course, can be a window into family histories and genetic dispositions, which might be alarming if the Maryland law did not specifically limit testing to identification. Only those charged with serious crimes are tested. Fourth Amendment purists might be reassured but Justice Scalia was not, basing his analysis as always on what the tyranny-fearing Founding Fathers might have thought.

The trouble with this is that DNA testing could not be dreamed of in their day -- indeed, fingerprinting was at least a century away from being used. Besides, the purist approach sells the Founding Fathers short. They were not against scientific progress and were resolutely practical men. If they had to choose between a hypothetical threat and a reasonably applied test that beyond doubt can convict the guilty and exonerate the innocent, they might have decided as the Supreme Court did.

Seems to me, that by the braintrust's own argument they'd have to reject the use of fingerprints by police as well.  I mean, since the founders could not have envisioned fingerprinting either....

But that's a question for another day.

David Conrad Disagrees With The P-G's Wagner Endorsement

While we usually don't have "guest bloggers" here at 2PJ, when a friend of the blog emails in (unsolicited, by the way) such a powerful commentary, the idea of just leaving it sit in my in-box unread by anyone else just doesn't seem right.

Ladies and Gentlemen, David Conrad:

The Post Gazette endorsed Jack Wagner for two reasons that I want to refute:

1. Bill Peduto's too compromised by his position on City Council. In the paper's eyes, Council is irredeemable and Bill's got too many enemies, fatwas, and blood feuds running there to work with them if he becomes Mayor.
2. Bill is, on the other hand, too cosy with our county executive Rich Fitzgerald. The PG doesn't want that kind of concentrated power running Allegheny county. Otherwise the PG calls Peduto hardworking, progressive, inspired, uncorrupted, and an all around decent guy who's partnered with them - the PG itself - to promote particular projects in Pittsburgh.

Reminds me of the joke about the producer and the scriptwriter, "We love this, we're behind you, we believe in you and we want to be a part of this. So we're gonna pass."

This schizophrenia in Pittsburgh's paper of note comes from the cold war between its owners, the Block family, and its managing editors. In other words between the money and the people on the ground. But more on that later.

POINT 1

Bill's been swimming with Council's sharks for more than a decade and there hasn't been a single corruption charge against him. If anything his time on Council has made him MORE progressive. He's turned away from the mad infighting to national and international sources of urban growth, studied them and tried to bring pieces of their programs to Pgh. He's not fighting for kickback dollars on building projects, or trying to settle Ward scores. He's not looking ahead to a seat on the board of Duquesne Light.

More importantly, Murphy's and Ravenstahl's administrations each in their own way demonstrated that a Mayor doesn't need to be beholden to or lovey dovey with Council to get stuff done. In fact he can ignore them half the time. If he's a driven powerhouse of a man like Murphy or the late Dick Caligiuri he can do amazing things, if he's a morally compromised teenager like Luke R he can ....well blacken the name of an entire political organization and hopefully go to jail.

What I'm saying is that there's no absolute power to corrupt anyone absolutely in any part of Pgh city government. The measure of the man determines how he'll use it. I think Bill's shown himself to be finely drawn. You can't buy him. He's a political creature. That's what he wants, the power, the work, not the payoff which could follow.

Jack Wagner's a machine politician. He has connections in Harrisburg that could smooth certain processes between our city and the capital but...how smooth do we want things between Corbett's Harrisburg and City Hall? Do you want drilling concessions at the city border which, if you've forgotten is, going roughly clockwise - Swissvale, just East of Banksville and North of Washington's landing?

Where Jack's been doing his work is probably more unsavory and just as dirty as Bill's backyard. Which is our backyard. I'd rather have someone who knows it and the bullies within that need a lesson.

Plain and simple, Luke's campaign money went to Jack. He accepted it. More importantly, the Dem powers that be - and if you think they don't exist I'm not a conspiracy theorist and you're a dreamer - they said, Yes Luke you can move that money to back Jack. Ipso facto Jack's their new man. Luke was their old one. Jack will have to owe them. Anyone humming a Who tune?

POINT 2

The plain fact of the matter is Pittsburgh will never be a great city...let me rephrase that...it will never have the political intelligence and might commensurate to its greatness until the day comes when the city IS the county. You've all read the numbers down the decades how we've gone from 600,000 to what is it now 307, 488? (Although I think we've just started to add a few, if only in Lawrenceville.)  Point is, Pittsburgh isn't a city. It's a city-state. It's a heartland of sorts to the Steeler nation and it stretches spiritually almost to the Ohio and West Virginia borders, up 79 to the fields of Meadville and as far East on the turnpike till DVE dies.

Okay maybe I'm exaggerating.

But Pittsburgh as a force and as a physical entity should shed its political borders. Philadelphia did, Buffalo did, Indianapolis has, Portland will...melt the city into the county, save all that municipal waste the suburbs complain about - while they live off the shoulder of the city like pilot fish - and at the same become a regional power to rival Philly in size.

What makes Pittsburgh truly "small", what is making it smaller is its small ambitions and its petty crimes. We have a political culture that fights over what it perceives are limited resources. We horde power and money in line offices that shouldn't exist, we hold fast to doctrines both laborite and managerial which sound respectively proud and real politic but eventually lead to paralysis, we sell out for payoffs that wouldn't pay off the balance of a car.

Redefine the pie. Get out of the engine room, as my dad used to say, and realize there's a ship to sail. Insert your own metaphor.

On a practical level, I hope the Mayor and the County Exec DO work hand in hand. I hope they get along like David Lawrence and (an elected) Richard Mellon, or Dick Caliguiri and Henry Hillman (or Elsie). We NEED to move as a body that's at least county wide and these guys are our chance to do it. They're not, neither of them and even their enemies couldn't pin it on them, they're not crooks. They're decent men who've arrived at just the right time.

Because in 5 years Pittsburgh's going to blow up on the national scene. We're going to have even more powerful health care, university and resource based industries, we're going to alter the map on urban farming and urban redevelopment. We're going to be a culinary, printmaking, bookmaking, beer making, and town making model for the entire country. You're gonna be flying to Portland Oregon to drink boutique coffee a decade late or Austin Texas to see SouthXSouthwest and you're gonna take out the airline magazine of your choice and there's gonna be an article about Pittsburgh, the phoenix from the industrial flameout, the emerald city risen from the brownfields, the gem of the Appalachians  that held fast against fracking (okay Brian, maybe The Paris..), and you're going to laugh. And hopefully turn around. Or have your head turned around when you get back and arrive where we first started and know the place for the first time.

And if we don't have the political vision to run alongside that urban assault, to assist and guide it, to check and delay it, we're going to be a war zone. Libertarians in the Cranberrys of their minds vs the radicals of Greater Homestead. We'll fracture even more and fight over smaller and smaller pieces of Pittsburgh's pie while the foundations despair and the drilling, banking and insurance companies chuckle.

Don't let it happen. You vote for Jack Wagner you vote for the past. Which needs to stop happening in Pittsburgh over and over again.

Listen to the PG's editors writing BETWEEN the lines of the editorial their owner demanded. Listen to the backlash.

Pick a good man not a party.

Shorter Post-Gazette Mayoral Endorsement

Ravenstahl's a putz and Peduto rightfully opposed him, but that proves he can't work well with Ravenstahl's minions on Council so you shouldn't vote for him. Wagner contemplated maybe running against Ravenstahl in the fall but wouldn't jump into the primary until Ravenstahl dropped out which proves how brave Wagner is and how unconnected to the Ravenstahl crowd he is so you should vote for him. Also, Wagner works well with Republicans so he will work well with Council which is all Democrats. Policies? We don't need no stinkin' polices. The End.

Tips for Mayors