Take the Twitter users @JessiBelle91, @BecksBecky, and @RedBloodBruce.  They’re just some good ol’ fashioned, hard-workin’, red-blooded Americans with genuine political interests, right?  I’m sure they’d each be outraged — OUTRAGED — if you suggested that they’re shill accounts set up by an ill-informed Republican Internet Strategist.

It’s just that for three people who claim to be from New York City, New York, and Kalamazoo, TN, they sure do seem to have an awful lot of ideas crop up at the exact same times.  And hey, look at this — they’re posting using APIs, too.  I guess using copy / paste via the website is too time-consuming.  You’d have to keep logging in and out over and over, and, I’m sure they have alien conspiracy theories to scurry back to.

The thing is, Twitter is by far the easiest platform on which to fake the appearance of support for your given position or company.  Create an account with a clever-but-relevant name, purchase a few thousand followers, and post away.  Repeat four or five times, throw in a script to bounce your propaganda around via RT, and you’re in business.  Spammers — whoops, I mean “affiliate marketers” — have been doing it for years.

It is almost impossible to screw this up.  And yet, here we are.  So without reflecting on the validity (or lack thereof) of the underlying political astroturfing, this stands as a basic message to all who seek to manipulate the social media crowd:  In order to succeed, you first must try.  Because whoever is responsible for this certainly did not.

Next week, we’ll discuss how lobbyists are applying “new” marketing techniques like concern trolling, link farming, and email.

* – I guess I shouldn’t use the word “fake”.  Just because a parade is well-choreographed doesn’t make it fake.

* – There’s a catch.

It’s as if Peter Falk, dressed in full Columbo attire, reached down from above, tapped Rendell on the shoulder as he was walking away from his congratulatory speech, and said “Oh!  Er uh, there’s just one more thing.”

Because it would be asinine for our legislature to do things like sane people would, this year’s budget was passed with the assumption that Pennsylvania will receive $850 million in federal funding.  Unfortunately, it’s beginning to look like we won’t.

I don’t know how you do your own personal budget, but I’m willing to make a fairly safe bet that at some point in the process, you add up all your assets and distribute them among your liabilities.  Your paycheck gets carved up between rent, mortgage, car payments, student loans, day care, food, taxes, retirement, healthcare, credit cards, and whatever other obligations you have.  Simple enough, right?

Naturally, that’s not how they do things over in the legislature.

The 2010-2011 budget clocked in at $28.04 billion.  Of that, $850 million is anticipated — but not guaranteed — to come from the federal government.  At just over 3% of the total budget, it appears to be a fairly small slice.  If your personal paychecks totaled $5000 in a given month, this would be like allocating $150 of your budget.

The problem is, that’s not entirely accurate.  Sure, it’s 3% of the total budget.  But $850 million — $850,000,000.00 — is a lot of money.  I mean, a LOT.  If you put that in a savings account today (yes, I know, you wouldn’t put that much money in a single account; bear with me), then even today’s paltry 1.25% interest rates would earn you a whopping $10.6 million in interest annually.

If you divide $850 million by a salary of $45,000 (a number I’ve admittedly pulled out of nowhere to represent the annual salary of a state employee, from the most entry-level grade-1 employee to the highest executives), it would pay a full year’s salary for 18,667 employees — or a lifetime 35-year salary for 533 employees.  In fact, those numbers are actually higher, as this doesn’t account for the state income and sales taxes paid by those employees.

$850 million is enough to a school district the size of Central Dauphin for the next half-century.  For that matter, it’s enough to give 50+ schools the size of Central Dauphin one year of taxpayer-free operation.

$850 million would be enough to pay off the remaining debt on the Harrisburg incinerator, AND pay the city’s entire operating budget for the next eight years, AND hand out a generous $4.75 million refund to all 47,500 (estimated) city residents (that’s $100 per person, to clarify), AND devote nearly $30 million to city beautification (actual dogparks, anyone?).

$850 million would give every Pennsylvanian six cases of “Pennsylvania Style Lager” (you know that $9.99 30-case of beer you see at the distributor?  The stuff you buy when Keystone Light is “too high-brow” for your function?  The stuff you get when you “ain’t servin’ none o’ that there fancy elitist Bud Light stuff”?  Yeah … it’s like spilling a can of Coors Light into a puddle along Front Street, then lapping it up three days later).  Or, one case of the really good stuff.

$850 million would buy every Pennsylvanian a pet monkey.  (edit: Sorry, we already have a legislature)

$850 million would fund major progress towards eliminating the homeless problem in Pennsylvania.  While exact numbers are difficult to come by — largely because homelessness is such a fluid problem — it would go a long way towards building or enhancing shelters that provide 24-hour access to showers (try getting a job when you haven’t showered in two weeks), food (free groceries help, but not when you can’t refrigerate them), means of contact (try applying for even a temp labor job without an address), basic medical treatment (you and I already foot the bill when someone without insurance visits the ER), and basic counselling.

$850 million would revitalize the dead zone near the intersection of Market & Cameron Streets in Harrisburg — and then some.  Imagine that row of vacant warehouses converted into loft condos, boutique shops (think a St. Thomas Roasters satellite instead of Starbucks), restaurants, and office space.

$850 million may only be 3% of our state’s annual budget, but it’s still a massive amount of cash.

And yet to our legislature, $850 million is throwaway amount.  Because it represents only a fraction of the Pennsylvania’s budget, they aren’t interested in its implications.  They don’t even have a contingency plan if it gets denied.  They passed the budget assuming — and knowing the risk — that the $850 million would make it through.

Now that it’s looking like it won’t, what do we do?

Earlier this month, his office issued a subpoena demanding private information on users critical of his campaign.  With growing accusations that his office has improperly flexed its muscle to help his gubernatorial campaign, perhaps they finally realized that flexing their muscle to help his gubernatorial campaign might not be the best way to respond.

Because if he was truly right — if he truly believed he had such powerful evidence that he needed to invoke the power of a grand jury in order to hear it — he should never have backed down.  You don’t give up a fight when you’re right, and we don’t pay our politicians to back down when they’re pursuing a just cause.

Let’s assume — for the sake of argument — that Corbett’s subpoenas really were part of a criminal investigation.  And let’s assume that the use of a grand jury to seek evidence for a criminal trial that has already concluded is somehow appropriate.  And, just to play devil’s advocate, let’s assume that CasablancaPA really is Brett Cott.

Assuming Corbett was right on all counts, that leaves just one question unanswered:

With Cott having been rushed off to prison immediately after his sentencing, why is the blog and Twitter account in question still being updated?

Either CasablancaPA is not Cott, or the account password has been shared across multiple people.  Tom Corbett was either wrong in his assumption about the account’s true owner, or he willfully used his office’s power to obtain the names and IP addresses of innocent citizens who happened to criticize his campaign.

He subpoenaed Twitter and Google to reveal the identity of some people who have been critical of his campaign for governor.

By itself, that is deeply disturbing.  Contrary to common belief, political candidates and elected officials are not barred from seeking legal relief from claims of defamation.  The circumstances of a successful claim go far beyond the scope of this site and I’ll leave the discussions of such to far more intelligent people than myself.  But at the most simple level, if Tom Corbett can prove that the users in question knowingly posted false information, then yes — he could possibly be successful in a defamation suit.

Let us assume — for the moment — that this is exactly the case.  Let us assume that the users DID knowingly post false information.  And let us assume — again, just for a moment — that Corbett’s claim is otherwise perfectly valid.

That still wouldn’t justify Corbett’s actions.  He isn’t bringing a civil suit; he has used his power as the Pennsylvania Attorney General to issue these subpoenas as part of a criminal proceeding (his words, not mine).  But the criminal proceeding that these posts are allegedly a part of has already handed down a conviction.  This begs the question:  Why?

Why spend taxpayer dollars to “uncover” this alleged “proof” when the defendant in the matter has already been convicted?

Why wait until after Corbett secured his party’s support in this week’s primary election?

Why, for that matter, wait until after a conviction has already been handed down in the very criminal matter Corbett is using to excuse this action?

Why are the Republicans and teabaggers, who have spent the last few months shrieking about how “the liberals are destroying our Constitution” and “the Democrats are taking away your personal liberties”, conspicuously silent?  Is the First Amendment not constitutional enough for them?  Or do Republicans just get a free pass on this sort of thing?

If Tom Corbett does truly feel he’s been slandered, he should do what the rest of us do:  Pay for a civil suit out of his own pocket.  To use his office’s power (and taxpayer funding) to handle his campaign’s dirty work is reprehensible at best.

EDIT:  The struck section above was incorrect.  The subpoenas were issued in early May, well before the primary elections.

Pennsylvania’s annual budget impasse (2009 edition) is well underway.  Today, June 30th, is the deadline for a budget to be passed as per state law.  Naturally, our legislature and governor are all too busy having a pissing match to be bothered to actually do their jobs.  But they’ve all found plenty of time to spread a lot of misinformation.  Despite what Governor Rendell might suggest, AFSCME’s 2008 lawsuit did not declare that state employees must not be paid.  Here’s why:

Before I go any further, let me remind everyone that I am not a lawyer.  What follows is merely my opinion.  My assumptions are just that — assumptions.  You should  consult with a legal professional before making any plans.

First, here’s a link to the case.  Read it yourself and come to your own conclusions.  There are three points that I find very interesting:

• Pennsylvania’s Secretary of Administration asked all agency heads to categorize employees into one of four categories using her descriptions:  “FLSA Covered Critical”, “FLSA Covered Non-Critical”, “FLSA Exempt” (typically “executives, employees in policy positions, attorneys, and employees in similar positions”), and “Special Funded” (whose paychecks are funded outside of normal sources).  Note that the state’s own classification descriptions include the phrase “FLSA Covered”.  So, Pennsylvania recognizes that its employees are covered under the FLSA.
• The union did not challenge Rendell’s authority to furlough state employees.  Rather, they want to court to verify or disprove Rendell’s statement that the FLSA requires him to furlough employees.  The union says that the FLSA supersedes the state constitution — remember this, as it’s important later.
• The governor counter-sued, asking the court to confirm that under the Pennsylvania constitution, he is required to furlough state employees if no funds have been appropriated for salary.

Bear with me, because it’s going to get a little hairy.  The court’s decision discusses the interaction between federal law and a state’s constitution.  It talks about the current judicial climate in regard to “…State sovereignty, inherent to our system of federalism…” and how past cases (such as AFSCME v Casey) might be viewed today.  The court speaks at great length on their (rightful) belief that federal laws, such as the FLSA, were never intended to override the state’s constitution.  If you were to stop reading the court’s decision halfway through page 11 — as, presumably, our governor has — you would be left with the mistaken impression that the court said that the FLSA does not apply to state employees because it does not override Pennsylvania’s constitution.

And this is where it goes from “hairy” to “ugly”, because that’s not what the court says at all.  While the court makes it clear that the FLSA does not trump the state constitution, they quickly point out that this doesn’t really matter, because the article in question has nothing to do with the FLSA:

In any case, applying the FLSA to Pennsylvania State employees does not lead, inexorably, to the conclusion that Congress intended the FLSA to preempt Pennsylvania’s constitutional requirement that only funds in the treasury that have been appropriated by the General Assembly may be spent. The language of the FLSA does not support such a conclusion.

The court is saying that no, the FLSA does not trump Article III, Section 24 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, largely because the FLSA has nothing to do with that section of the constitution.  The FLSA talks about things like minimum wage, overtime requirements, and recordkeeping.  And by way of court cases, it also talks about timely payment of wages.  The referenced section of the PA Constitution talks about where the money needs to come from:

No money shall be paid out of the treasury, except on appropriations made by law and on warrant issued by the proper officers; but cash refunds of taxes, licenses, fees and other charges paid or collected, but not legally due, may be paid, as provided by law, without appropriation from the fund into which they were paid on warrant of the proper officer.

To put it another way, the FLSA says “I don’t care where the money comes from; you must pay your employees, and you must pay them on time.”  The PA Constitution says nothing about on-time payment or even required payment, but says “The money must first be appropriated”.  Put simply, the constitution talks about where the money comes from, and the FLSA tells you what to do with that money.  The two laws do not overlap, and this is the opinion held by the court:

Assuming that the FLSA requires the payment of wages on time … it does not follow that Article III, Section 24 of the Constitution has been nullified with respect to FLSA-covered employees.  First, the FLSA does not contain any instructions to employers that lack the funds to make payroll on time.  It simply increases their liability by giving employees the right to seek liquidated damages.  Accordingly, there is no basis for inferring that Congress intended to countenance, let alone require, a raid upon a State treasury for monies that do not belong to any agency or public official until the day they are actually appropriated.

The court has explicitly stated that the Fair Labor Standards Act not only does not pre-empt Pennsylvania’s constitution, but one has nothing to do with the other.  I tried to think of analogy for what’s going on here, and the best I can come up with — and it’s pretty weak, sorry — is that Rendell is declaring that because he signed up for a $40-a-month cell phone plan with T-Mobile, he is no longer required to pay his garbage bill.  If there’s any doubt on the court’s stance, it becomes crystal clear on page 14:

This Court concludes that there exists no conflict between the FLSA and Article III, Section 24; the two provisions address different concerns.  In sum, the Court holds that the FLSA does not preempt Article III, Section 24 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

This case is being twisted and turned into something that it is not.  The sheer volume of FUD coming from our government on this is simply disgusting.

MYTH: The court said Rendell was prohibited from paying state workers without a budget.  REALITY: The court said no such thing.  In fact, the court explicitly stated that the federal law called into question — the Fair Labor Standards Act — has nothing to do with a state’s budget or where payroll money comes from.

MYTH: The court ordered Rendell to require state workers to work without pay.  REALITY: No way.  Not even close.  Read through the decision; the court specifically states that the law does not dictate how employees are to be paid (or not).

MYTH: The court said furloughs are illegal.  REALITY: Again, nothing of the sort.  They did not say furloughs were illegal, nor did they say they were legal.  In fact, they did not address the subject at all.  Courts do not offer their opinions; they answer questions.

MYTH: By giving us back pay, the state has met its obligations under the law.  REALITY: False.  In United States v Klinghoffer Bros. Realty Corp (285 F.2d 487, 491 (2d Cir. 1960)), the US Supreme Court stated that even after overdue wages were paid, an employer is still liable for damages.

MYTH: The court said that the FLSA does not supersede the PA Constitution.  Therefore, the FLSA does not apply to state employees.  REALITY: The first part is true, but misleading.  The court said that the FLSA does not supersede a specific part of the state constitution because it does not cover the same subject matter.  The FLSA talks about on-time payments, minimum wage, and overtime, while that section of the state constitution talks about where the money must come from.  The second part is completely false.  Numerous court cases have upheld that the FLSA does cover government employees (Garcia v San Antonio Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985) is one of the best-known).

MYTH: AFSCME is protecting my interests.  REALITY: If they are, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of it.  Don’t get me started on the “You don’t have to be a member, but you have to pay dues” mentality and how it correlates with AFSCME’s deafening silence on this issue.

In short, contrary to what you might be hearing from Governor Rendell, the court case was a massive victory for state employees.  The court has held that the FLSA and the Pennsylvania Constitution do not conflict because they cover two different areas.  The FLSA doesn’t care where an employer gets their payroll money from, and that section of the Pennsylvania Constitution doesn’t care what happens with that money after it gets appropriated.

Governor Rendell argues that because the state constitution requires employees to be paid with appropriated funds, and because the funds have not yet been appropriated, then the FLSA can not possibly apply.  After all, how can you pay employees with money you don’t have?

The answer is simple:  That’s the employer’s problem, not the employees’.

I urge every state taxpayer — state employee or otherwise — to read through the decision.  It’s in plain English and very easy to follow.

An anonymous source just forwarded me a very interesting email concerning Pennsylvania’s threat to require its employees to work with delayed pay.  While it’s already been fairly well established that federal labor law will apply, our Governor and our legislature seem to think that it does not.  I can not fathom why they would put Pennsylvania taxpayers on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in civil damages by breaking the law.

At any rate, the US Department of Labor — the federal agency tasked with enforcing the Fair Labor Standards Act — seems to disagree with them.  And Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (469 U.S. 528 (1985)), decided almost a quarter century ago, says that government workers are, in fact, protected by the FLSA.

(The precedent used to state that government workers who performed “traditional” duties were not covered.  However, Garcia rightfully asserted that defining “traditional” government duties in this day and age becomes far too complex of an issue.)

Here’s an excerpt from the email I received, which comes from the US Department of Labor:

While employers have the right to change the pay period, recordkeeping laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) require employees to be paid on the established payday in relation to a specified workweek used to determine when overtime pay is due.  This issue is handled by the Wage and Hour
Division (WHD).

Employers can change the paydate, and it’s not necessarily a violation for a company to delay your pay when they move your date back one half period.  But the law could not possibly be clearer:

If you work, you must be paid, and you must be paid on time.

There’s been talk about whether or not federal law even applies due to interstate commerce concerns.  I have to admit I’m staring into a gaping maw when I try to figure that one out.  I am not a lawyer, and given my lack of any legal experience or training, I can’t begin to cover all the ins and outs of what constitutes “interstate commerce” or if it’s even relevant in this matter to begin with.  But I can tell you that Pennsylvania absolutely, positively engages in interstate transactions with other states, other companies, and other persons.  At the risk of sounding naive, how is that not interstate commerce?

There’s one loophole that the state can apply to get out of damages.  The FLSA only requires an employer to pay minimum wage.  So, Pennsylvania can temporarily drop every state employee’s wage to $7.15 an hour. The discrepancy between this and our agreed-upon pay rate would be a civil matter for the courts to take up.  Nonetheless, I think I speak for every Pennsylvania state employee when I say we’d rather get a $536 paycheck (before taxes, pension, benefits, and AFSCME; for myself, I’d take home about $381) every two weeks than no paycheck at all.

No matter what happens, no enforcement action can begin until the first missed payday comes and goes — at the earliest.  Until then, no laws have been broken and no damages have occured.  And there are still possibilities for a successful budget resolution.  We still have two weeks until SAP goes into hibernation.  An actual budget could be passed, or a stopgap funding measure could be enacted.  AFSCME could … do something.  Someone could point out to the legislature that they’ll all have to go home and explain to their constituents why the spending power of 90,000 state employees vanished overnight.

There’s just one problem with that:

WE’RE NOT UNEMPLOYED!

We can not collect unemployment because we are still employed.  I’m not clear on which is worse; being laid off and collecting unemployment, or being forced to work without a paycheck.  Oh sure, we’ll get paid — but it will be somewhere between 1 and 52 weeks late.  I’m sure Honda, Sallie Mae, my mortgage company, and my credit card company will all understand.  And I’m positive Giant will be willing to just let me take whatever food I need and pay for it “later”.

Thanks, guys.  Big help.  Glad to see you’re on this.

There’s an interesting law on the books — one that I’m very familiar with, having used it against a former employer — called the Pennsylvania Wage Payment And Collection Act of 1961.  It’s a very simple law to read, and I suggest everyone (state employee or not) take a look at it.  In short, it states that your employer must pay you on your regular payday, that your employer can not delay payment under any circumstances, and that your employer can not waive your rights by making you sign an agreement.  In other words, if you work, you must get paid.  Period.  The act even goes on to clarify that this explicitly applies to salary, hourly rate, commission, and so on.  It’s a pretty open-and-shut law:  If you work, you must get paid on time.

Read on for some highlights, but my question is this:

Us commonwealth employees are technically employed through the State Civil Service Commission.  Your agency is only a designation; you are technically employed by Pennsylvania.  If the SCSC fails to pay our wages on time, are they on the hook for the criminal and civil penalties prescribed under the Act?

Some excerpts from the law (highlighting is mine):

Every employer shall pay all wages, other than fringe benefits and wage supplements, due to his employes on regular paydays designated in advance by the employer.

No provision of this act shall in any way be contravened or set aside by a private agreement.

Every employer shall keep open to inspection by the secretary or his authorized representative, all payroll records or other records or documents relative to the enforcement of this act. Such inspection may be made by the secretary or his authorized representative at any reasonable time.

Where wages remain unpaid for thirty days beyond the regularly scheduled payday … and no good faith contest or dispute of any wage claim including the good faith assertion of a right of set-off or counter-claim exists accounting for such non-payment, the employe shall be entitled to claim, in addition, as liquidated damages an amount equal to twenty-five percent (25%) of the total amount of wages due, or five hundred dollars ($500), whichever is greater.

In addition to any other penalty or punishment otherwise prescribed by law, any employer who violates any provisions of this act shall be guilty of a summary offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars ($300), or by imprisonment up to 90 days, or by both, for each offense. The good faith contest or dispute by any employer of any wage claim or the good faith assertion of a right of set-off or counter-claim shall not be considered a violation of this act: Provided, That the employer has paid all wages due in excess of the amount in dispute or asserted to be subject to a
right of set-off or counter-claim. Nonpayment of wages to, on account of, or for the benefit of each individual employe shall constitute a separate offense.

I am not a lawyer, but I was able to bring a successful claim against a former employer over a $160 underpayment (which, in turn, wound up costing that employer somewhere in the neighborhood of $800, plus a trip from Philadelphia to Harrisburg) under this act.  There is a definite possibility that legislation will be (or has been) passed exempting the SCSC from this Act, or providing a special exclusion for budget failures.

Because, as we all know, passing the budget on time is simply not an option.

First, I had no polling problems whatsoever.  A handful of McCain supporters were able to circumvent the spirit of Pennsylvania’s election laws, though.  They hung around the end of the line slathering people with McCain “OMG OBAMA IS TEH SEKRIT MUSLIN EVIL TERRIST!!111″ flyers.  Since Pennsylvania’s laws state that political workers (those supporting a candidate or party, not those present to assist in the voting process) must remain 300 feet from the voting booths and 10 feet from the entrance, it was perfectly legal — if not annoying — of them to do so.  In fact, Pennsylvania’s laws regarding the election process are so vague that it would be entirely legal for the McCain camp to set up a booth with a big sign saying “Democratic Voting Station”.  To say that our laws “frown upon” deceptive practices would be a gross overstatement.  Maybe it’s time for reform.

And to those of you thinking “So what?  I’m voting for McCain, what do *I* care?”:  Imagine going to your polling place and seeing Democratic workers doing the same thing.  It’s entirely inappropriate behavior regardless of party.  It completely short-circuits the spirit of what can generously be called our voter protection laws.

Second, there’s been a lot of political talk absent on blogHarrisburg.  This is a good thing, and it’s entirely by design.  The topic comes up from time to time at the meetups, and we all seem to share the same views:  blogHarrisburg is about Central PA, not national politics.  There are approximately 28 billion sites out there covering all sides of the political spectrum; we don’t want to be one of them.  Instead, we’d rather focus on local and, to a lesser extent, state politics.

There are a few exceptions, of course, such as when a presidential candidate comes to the region.  Or when a local candidate’s office does something noteworthy.  They key to inclusion, as with all the other content, is that it needs to uniquely affect us locals somehow.  McCain’s appearance on SNL?  Amusing, but not really what we’re after.  McCain giving a speech to factory workers in Hershey?  Relevant.

So we all take part in an unofficial moratorium on national-level politics.  The beautiful thing about this unspoken rule is that we all do it voluntarily because of our shared opinion.  Nobody on blogHarrisburg is really barred from writing about whatever they want, but we all agree that local news — and local politics — deserves as much coverage as it can get.

Plus, it’s nice to have a politics-free zone once in a while.  We all know that national politics can turn otherwise well-spoken and intelligent people into ranting lunatics through Thanksgiving.  So thanks to everyone who kept focused this year.  There’s been a lot of tempting material, and I’ve had to suppress the urge to blog many times, but as we wind down to the final hours (days?), it was totally worthwhile.

This is America and I will *not* debate with a French moderator ESPECIALLY THE ONE THEY NAMED THE IFILL TOWER AFTER

CINDY JUST TOLD HER ACCOUNTANT TO COME TO THE BUS AND STUFF HER CASH IN THE SEAT CUSHINS>. IS EVERYTHING OKAY?!

Who makes less than 250k a year? Basically the Iraqis who we want out anyways stupids #current

STOP ASKING ME QUESTIONS SO I CAN FOCUS ON THE ECONOMY1 I COULD FIX IT IF YOU JUST SHUT UP AND LET ME PRAY

PANAMA IS TOO IN AMERICA Bristol went on SPRING BREAK THERE!! Silly liberals …

JOHN DOES NOT SPEAK SPANISHI BCZ HE WAS BORN IN THE USA! LEARN TO SPEAK ENGLISH, IRAQIS!!!1!

WOLVERINES!111