Well, the Republican tax "reform" plan is out. To no surprise, it steers most of the benefits to the top 1% while giving a pittance to the Middle Class-- when it doesn't actually raise their taxes. (Which it does for 12% next year, and 28% within ten years.) But there's another problem with this bill: it also throws in a repeal of the Johnson Amendment.

To refresh your memory, the Johnson Amendment protects nonprofit organizations and the political process by prohibiting the use of tax-exempt funds for partisan politics. There has been a campaign recently to repeal it, led by Pat Robertson and the usual gaggle of Religious Right lobbying and litigation orgs. (You know, the Christian Taliban.) And in pursuit of this aim, these moralists are not above telling downright lies. They whine that it violates their Free Speech rights, preventing them from addressing political issues from the pulpit. This has never been the case. All it prevents is endorsing or opposing candidates using church resources, an acceptable tradeoff for the privilege (not right) of tax exemption. The vast majority of religious groups are fine with the Johnson Amendment. At any rate, it's hard to see why anyone's political activity should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

Here's why it's a good idea to keep the Johnson Amendment: Suppose a shady billionaire wants to buy politicians. By funneling his money through a compliant church, it's not only secret, but it's tax-deductible, too. It would degrade churches into political action committees, and since they're on the payroll, it would make their role of "speaking truth to power" more difficult. It also creates an un level playing field. Churches, and only churches, receive this boon. Other nonprofits would still be under the prohibition. To name just a few, Common Cause, Public Citizen, People for the American Way, and the Sierra Club. Do their Free Speech rights matter? Or maybe it's not about Free Speech at all-- it's about religious favoritism.

Repealing the Johnson Amendment is just another step along the way to Theocracy in this country.  You don't need to listen to me on this, listen to C.S. Lewis, who called Theocracy "the worst type of government".  This is just one good reason to oppose the Republican tax "reform" plan.  Further aggravating income inequality in this country, and adding to the deficit and the National Debt are two more.

Sincerely,
Stephen Van Eck
Rushville, PA

I have a new-found respect of sorts for George W. Bush. He was the mouthpiece for a speech writer's triumph of vacuity. Most public figures would have had sufficient self-respect to scrap the speech as so much pablum. Not Bush. If you didn't hear it, count it as one of your better moments.

It was one of those rococo orations that sound impressive but say nothing that can be criticized. It, oh so cleverly avoided mentioning the president's name. It is an assumption that many concluded was somehow critical of Pres. Trump, but exactly how is also an assumption.

Here are four excerpts from that speech presented in New York City, October 19, showing how Bush managed in the same presentation to say something by saying nothing, by stating something boldly that is a cliché, and by espousing common knowledge as revelatory.

Example: “The health of the democratic spirit itself is at issue. And the renewal of that spirit is the urgent task at hand.” Sounds like something both Republicans and Democrats and everyone else would agree with.

Example: “The 20th century featured some of the worst horrors because dictators committed them.” Now that's a novel thought.

Example: “No democracy pretends to be a tyranny. Most tyrannies pretend they are democracies. Democracy remains the definition of political legitimacy.” In the western world, who would take issue with that?

Example: “Here in New York City, you know the threat of terrorism all too well.” True enough, but the irony escaped Bush. Twelve days before his speech an immigrant from Uzbekistan, Sayfullo Saipov, used a truck to plow through a crowd leaving eight dead while shouting, “Allah Akbar.”

Saipov was a winner of the diversity lottery, signed into law by then-President George W. Bush. Before his murderous act, he used chain immigration to bring 26 members of his family into the U.S. (Pres. Trump has red-penciled both the diversity lottery and chain immigration in his Rise Act bill.) Back to irony.

So here we have George Bush censoring Pres. Trump when it was Bush who initiated a contrived war with Iraq. It was called Operation Iraq Freedom (2003-2011). Precisely 4,526 U.S. servicemen were killed, and approximately 50,000 Iraqi civilians were, as they say, collateral damage. And for what?

Richard Clarke, the nation's top counter-terrorism official under former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, accused Bush of committing war crimes in his 2003 invasion of Iraq.

“We have established procedures with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague,” said Clarke, “where people who take actions as serving presidents or prime ministers have been indicted and have been tried.”

In 2010, a complaint was filed against George W. Bush and seven others in his administration in the ICC for their policy of “extraordinary rendition.” Extraordinary rendition is the extra-judicial transport of a detainee to a nation where extreme methods are used to extract information. It is torture by proxy.

In 2012, the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission in Malaysia found George Bush and eight others in his government guilty of being war criminals for the “torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” of Iraqi prisoners.

Yet six years after the conclusion of Operation Iraq Freedom, George Bush has never expressed regret over that useless war that has left Iraq in tatters to this very day.

For George W. Bush to have the gall to find fault with Pres. Trump without reflecting on the carnage and criminality of his past indicates that he is---at the very least---criticizing the wrong person.

Sincerely,
Bob Scroggins
New Milford, PA

Despite the broad availability of news through (albeit dwindling) newspapers, radio, TV and social media, we often hear complaints about “transparency” in national and state government: what are they doing for us – to us – and how are they doing it?  Power and secrecy are intimately entwined, the powerful endeavoring to limit access to information.  The Latin phrase "ipsa scientia potestas est" (knowledge itself is power) is attributed to Francis Bacon from the 16th century.  Is the situation much different at the local level, among our county, borough, township and school governments just because we’re smaller and we happen to know the people who serve us as neighbors, and some of us can simply call them on the phone?

Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Act (otherwise known as the Open Meetings law or the Right to Know law) goes back to at least 1984, with subsequent amendments.  The idea is that it is in the public's interest for public bodies to be as open as possible so that the community can make its own judgements, that the bias should be toward openness rather than secrecy – in other words, transparency.

The law, not to mention the ethics of it, requires that “agencies” (municipal councils, boards and the like) deliberate only in public session, and that they provide the maximum information to their constituents.  Private (“executive”) sessions are allowed only for very specific reasons, and must be reported to the public with as much specificity as possible.  A 1993 decision of the state’s Commonwealth Court regarding executive sessions stated that the Sunshine Act “requires that even though it is in the public interest that certain matters be discussed in private, the public has a right to know what matter is being addressed in those sessions.”  Further, the agency must report the reasons for such sessions and "[t]he reason given, of course, must be meaningful. It must be more than some generalized term which in reality tells the public nothing. To simply say 'personnel matters' or 'litigation' tells nothing.”

Some years ago, the Susquehanna County Commissioners of the time were censured for violation of the Sunshine Act by getting together regularly over a meal at a local restaurant.

It is seductive for councils and supervisors to minimize the amount of detail provided to their publics: the less information is published, the fewer questions will come up at the next meeting, right?  Why bother everyone with the messy details of our budget, line by line?  (After all, they only have to pay for it.)  Isn’t it convenient for, say, township supervisors to chew the fat in the garage once in a while? 

Granted, most local officials in our rural communities aren’t paid much.  School boards spend more money than any other public body in our county, yet members serve gratis, they are paid nothing at all.  But they do, after all, “serve” their publics; their constituents need to know how well (or poorly) they are doing the jobs they are elected for.  Along with power, corruption breeds in the dark.

I have been reporting on local government for the Transcript for more than 20 years.  By and large your elected officials are just people trying to do the best job they can.  For example, in my experience they try very hard to keep from increasing tax rates; they pay them, too, after all.  They are also hemmed in and intimidated by lawyers and insurance companies.  You need to give them a break sometimes.  But you also need to keep them honest and on their toes.

Sincerely,
Ted Brewster
Vestal, NY (and Harford)