Monthly Archives: December 2011

The 2004 election revisited, part 4: Ohio

Posted on by
Reply
Rep. Conyers

Revisiting the 2004 election. Part 4–Ohio.

Heading toward the new year, following up previous 2004 election entries. This history may become newly relevant.

GWBush and his ‘brain’

On Election Day 2004, the close states were hit hardest: Voters in some areas in Ohio, Florida, Iowa and New Mexico suffered significant problems casting their votes successfully. Most of the problems were not widely reported, although subsequent efforts in Congress to address the situation did draw some media attention.

Ad hoc committee on election abuses 2004

Anecdotal evidence bears out the thesis presented by statistical researchers, posted previously, that the problems were indeed widespread.

Take for example Mercer County, Ohio, where following the election the information below was relayed to me.

At the time, Washington Journal had just run an article titled “How the Bush camp won Ohio,” remarking that “in some small conservative counties which have experienced net job losses nearing 10% of business payrolls, Republicans still lined up for the president. In Mercer County, which has lost 5% of its jobs in the last four years, residents voted 3-to-1–15,022 to 4,924–for Mr. Bush, a sharp increase over his winning margin in 2000.”

The none-too-subtle subtext here seems to be either that voters in Ohio were peculiarly dumb or, putting the same idea more charitably, that Team Bush successfully persuaded people to vote against their own interest.

book: What Happened in Ohio?

The voter on the ground in Ohio offers a rational second opinion, noting that “this is very peculiar since over 4,800 people voted in this year’s Democratic primary” in Mercer County. So “Mercer County has over 30,000 registered voters and yet Kerry was only able to pick up a measly 87 additional votes compared to the March primary”?

Not only did Kerry allegedly receive only 87 votes above the total cast in the Democratic primary, but Gore had over 5,200 votes in 2000 (when there were 6,227 fewer registered voters in Mercer County).

The reader provides some relevant numbers:

Mercer County, Ohio:

Year 2000:       25,079 registered voters; 18,285 votes cast

Bush 12,485

Gore 5,212

Ralph Nader 392, Howard Philips 13, John Hagelin 24, Pat Buchanan 125, Harry Brown 43

Year 2004:       31,306 registered voters, 20,058 votes cast

Bush 15,022

Kerry 4,924

Other 112

The same reader adds that people might think “this is a conservative county and that many voters may have switched to Bush especially with gay marriage on the ballot. But with 5 percent of the people losing their jobs in the past four years in this county, I think people are far more concerned about putting food on the table and meeting mortgage payments than worrying about gay people getting married.”

Be it noted that Mercer County, Ohio, is among the places where turnout increased in 2004 over 2000. As the researchers previously quoted point out, higher turnout historically favors the challenger, not the incumbent. Voter registration also increased from 2000 to 2004 in Mercer County, by 6,227.

Rampant problems voting in Ohio

Many Americans saw the video footage of voters patiently waiting in line to vote in Ohio, in 2004. Mercer County was by no means the whole story, and the previously indicated statistical anomalies were amply reinforced by anecdotal report from around the state.

Readers and other correspondents sent me an ongoing and growing list of anomalies, deceptions and intimations of vote fraud in Ohio. Part of the list follows.

Discrepancies:

  • Returns certified by officials recorded that all but 10 registered voters in the Miami County, Ohio, town of Concord voted on Election Day. So far, the election challenge team has identified more than 10 registered Concord citizens who did not vote.
  • About 580 more absentee voters were certified in Mahoning County than election board officials identified.
  • Cleremont County was among the counties with challenges to contested returns. In December 2004 a team of volunteer attorneys pored over election records at the Cleremont County Board of Elections, with the Board’s cooperation.
  • In Lucas County, four elections officials were suspended after mistakes or worse in the election.
  • In Cuyahoga County, a third of all provisional ballots cast were thrown out because of alleged registration irregularities.
  • The Associated Press reported a difference of over 17,000 votes in Kerry’s favor after the election more than in the initial vote tallies.
  • In December 2004, Rep. Conyers and Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee asked Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell to respond to inquiries about voting irregularities.

Problems with voting-machine technology:

  • In Mahoning County, election observers have testified under oath, more than a dozen voting machines switched Kerry votes to Bush votes repeatedly, while voters watched.
  • Citizens in Trumbull County using electronic machines, who voted for Kerry, saw their votes register as votes for Bush. Subsequent hearings in Trumbull County, as elsewhere, partially brought to light further possible election fraud.
  • A public hearing at the Warren Heights and Trumbull Library, in Mahoning Valley, where the vote count went to Bush, recorded thousands of complaints of voting irregularities.
  • Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and other members of the Congressional Black Caucus pointed out that more than half the votes cast in Ohio and the nation were recorded on electronic voting machines owned by Republicans, with no audit trail. One voting machine company, Diebold, also manufactures ATMs (automated teller machines) that do provide a paper receipt for transactions.

Low-tech old-fashioned vote suppression:

  • In Franklin County and other counties, largely Democratic precincts suffered a shortage of voting machines. All the precincts where voting machines were short and lines were long were Democratic precincts. Voters in more affluent neighborhoods reported no shortage of voting machines and no problem with long lines.

Obstruction and failure to investigate by public officials:

  • In December 2004 a legal team partly comprising volunteer attorneys issued subpoenas to top election officials in ten counties where vote-count fraud was suspected.
  • The subpoenas, a first step in interviewing people under oath, were rejected by the Ohio Secretary of State, Republican Kenneth Blackwell. Blackwell served as co-chair of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio.
  • Ten depositions were served by the election challenge legal team; the other side filed a motion to stop the process; the challengers responded.
  • A lawsuit was filed at the Ohio Supreme Court, charging that a fair vote count would give the state and the presidency to John Kerry rather than to Bush. Notice of depositions was sent to George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell to appear and give testimony in Moss v Bush et al. The election challenge lawsuit was filed Dec. 17. Blackwell, the Bush-Cheney campaign, and Ohio’s Republican electors had ten days to respond. Each side then had 20 days for discovery or to gather additional evidence, plaintiffs going first. The Bush-Cheney team moved as slowly as possible, to run out the clock until the Jan. 20 inauguration.

Company logo

Subsequently, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee found that one precinct in Youngstown, in Mahoning County, recorded a negative 25 million votes. Back in Mercer County, Judiciary found that only 51 votes were recorded for one voting machine showing that 289 people cast punch card ballots president–a loss of 248 votes. The county’s website reported that 51,818 people cast ballots but only 47,768 ballots were recorded in the presidential race, including 61 write-ins, meaning that approximately 4,000 votes, or nearly 7%, were not counted for a presidential candidate.

Problems with Triad GSI voting technology company in Ohio reported on the Internet, not in print

Problems with vote technology in Ohio were not restricted to Diebold. Some concrete information is provided below, involving another major voting machine company, Triad GSI, based in Xenia, Ohio.

The following is a 2004 affidavit by the Hocking County, Ohio, deputy director of elections, Sherole Eaton. It deserved wider dissemination than it received. Ms. Eaton deserved not to be fired for being a whistleblower.

[Text follows:]

  “On Friday, December 10 2004, Michael from TriAd called in the AM to inform us that he would be in our office in the PM on the same day. I asked him why he was visiting us. He said, “to check out your tabulator, computer, and that the attorneys will be asking some tricky questions and he wanted to go over some of the questions they may ask.” He also added that there would be no charge for this service.

He arrived at about 12:30PM. I hung his coat up and it was very heavy. I made a comment about it being so heavy. He, Lisa Schwartze and I chatted for a few minutes. He proceeded to go to the room where our computer and tabulation machine is kept. I followed him into the room. I had my back to him when he turned the computer on. He stated that the computer was not coming up. I did see some commands at the lower left hand of the screen but no menu. He said that the battery in the computer was dead and that the stored information was gone. He said that he could put a patch on it and fix it. My main concern was – what if this happened when we were ready to do the recount. He proceeded to take the computer apart and call his offices to get information to input into our computer. Our computer is fourteen years old and as far as I know had always worked in the past. I asked him if the older computer, that is in the same room. could be used for the recount. I don’t remember exactly what he said but I did relay to him that the computer was old and a spare. At some point he asked if he could take the spare computer apart and I said “yes”. He took both computers apart. I don’t remember seeing any tools and he asked Sue Wallace, Clerk, for a screwdriver. She got it for him. At this point I was frustrated about the computer not performing and feared that it wouldn’t work for the recount. I called Gerald Robinette, board chairman, to inform him regarding the computer problem and asked him if we could have Tri Ad come to our offices to run the program and tabulator for the recount. Gerald talked on the phone with Michael and Michael assured Gerald that he could fix our computer. He worked on the computer until about 3:00 PM and then asked me which precinct and the number of the precinct we were going to count. I told him, Good Hope 1 # 17. He went back into the tabulation room. Shortly after that he (illegible) stated that the computer was ready for the recount and told us not to turn the computer off so it would charge up.

Before Lisa ran the tests, Michael said to turn the computer off. Lisa said, “I thought you said we weren’t supposed to turn it off.” He said turn it off and right back on and it should come up. It did come up and Lisa ran the tests. Michael gave us instructions on how to explain the rotarien, what the tests mean, etc. No advice on how to handle the attorneys but to have our Prosecuting Attorney at the recount to answer any of their legal questions. He said not to turn the computer off until after the recount.

He advised Lisa and I on how to post a “cheat sheet” on the wall so that only the board members and staff would know about it and and what the codes meant so the count would come out perfect and we wouldn’t have to do a full hand recount of the county. He left about 5:00 PM.

My faith in Tri Ad and the Xenia staff has been nothing but good. The realization that this company and staff would do anything to dishonor or disrupt the voting process is distressing to me and hard to believe. I’m being completely objective about the above statements and the reason I’m bringing this forward is to, hopefully, rule out any wrongdoing.”

This dramatic material was ignored by the larger media outlets. It was followed up in the online Free Press, by Ken Hoop here and by Victoria Parks here. Investigation by the House Judiciary Committee found copious indications of problems with Triad GSI. Daily Kos pointed out that the Rapp family behind Triad GSI was headed by a longtime contributor to the Republican Party.

The Judiciary Committee’s analysis stated,

“Based on the above, including actual admissions and statements by Triad employees, it strongly appears that Triad and its employees engaged in a course of behavior to provide “cheat sheets” to those counting the ballots. The cheat sheets told them how many votes they should find for each candidate, and how many over and under votes they should calculate to match the machine count. In that way, they could avoid doing a full county-wide hand recount mandated by state law. If true, this would frustrate the entire purpose of the recount law–to randomly ascertain if the vote counting apparatus is operating fairly and effectively, and if not to conduct a full hand recount. By ensuring that election boards are in a position to conform their test recount results with the election night results, Triad’s actions may well have prevented scores of counties from conducting a full and fair recount in compliance with equal protection, due process, and the first amendment. In addition, the course of conduct outlined above would appear to violate numerous provisions of federal and state law. As noted above, 42 U.S.C. §1973 provides for criminal penalties for any person who, in any election for federal office, “knowingly and willfully deprives, defrauds, or attempts to defraud the residents of a State of a fair and impartially conducted election process, by . . . the procurement, casting, or tabulation of ballots that are known by the person to be materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent under the laws of the State in which the election is held.” Section 1974 requires the retention and preservation of all voting records and papers for a period of 22 months from the date of a federal election and makes it a felony for any person to “willfully steal, destroy, conceal, mutilate, or alter” any such record.398 Ohio law further prohibits election machinery from being serviced, modified, or altered in any way subsequent to an election, unless it is so done in the presence of the full board of elections and other observers. Any handling of ballots for a subsequent recount must be done in the presence of the entire Board and any qualified witnesses.399 This would seem to operate as a de facto bar against altering voting machines by remote access. Containers in which ballots are kept may not be opened before all of the required participants in are attendance.400 It is critical to note that the fact that these “ballots” were not papers in a box is of no consequence in the inquiry as to whether state and federal laws were violated by Barbian’s conduct: Ohio Revised Code defines a ballot as “the official election presentation of offices and candidates…and the means by which votes are recorded.” OHIO REV. CODE § 3506.01(B) (West 2004). Therefore, for purposes of Ohio law, electronic records stored in the Board’s computer are to be considered “ballots.” Triad’s interference with the computers and their software would seem to violate these requirements.”

[emphasis added]

Not much help from John Kerry?

Posted on by
Reply

Apropos of the 2004 election–

No ‘do-overs’? Well, no, but how about court cases? The Department of Justice?

Kerry

Just got a somewhat awkwardly timed appeal for money, sent out over the signature of Sen. John Kerry:

“Here’s a lesson seared into all of us: in elections, there are no do-overs.

We only get one shot to keep the Tea Party from taking over the White House.

We only get one shot to send progressive leaders to Washington. We only get one shot to do our job in 2011 so the DSCC can do its job in 2012.

And 2011 will be over in a matter of hours.

The stakes are huge and there’s no room for error or apathy: Ten Senate races are toss-ups. Our majority is a thin four seats. The DSCC is $185,000 short of its year-end goal. And this could be your last chance to do something about it.

Any dollar we don’t raise in 2011 is a dollar we can’t use in 2012. So please click here to contribute $5, $10 or more today!“

As said, the timing is somewhat off. Even aside from its being a plea for money–shortly after news reports on the wide and widening income gap between members of Congress and other Americans–this looks pretty limp.

‘No do-overs’ is the last refuge of the scoundrel, in political elections.

Regarding election fraud–including all the stale tactics of vote suppression that keep being used and re-used–the Democrats need to start looking alive. All of the Blue Dogs who went down to defeat in 2010 had either passively or actively opposed any effort to protect the integrity of the vote.

Wiser Dems would introduce legislation to protect the integrity of the vote, they would clarify to the public how they did it, and they would carry the narrative of local opposition into opponents’ districts back home.

The 2004 election revisited, part 3

Posted on by
Reply
Election Integrity

Revisiting the 2004 election. Part 3.

Still working in the holiday season—a useful change of work from hearing about Gingrich/Santorum/et al. is to remember the problems in 2004. Whoever wins the GOP nomination this year will have to do some fancy stepping to win the White House. Re past tactics, forewarned is forearmed.

Title says it all

On March 31, 2005, a group of solidly credentialed faculty scholars and researchers released a comprehensive study of the discrepancy between exit polls, in the 2004 election, and the published vote results.

The researchers found no “statistically-plausible explanation for the discrepancy between Edison/Mitofsky’s exit poll data and the official presidential vote tally.” The irregularities in the presidential election thus posed “an unanswered question of vital national importance that demands a thorough and unblinking investigation.”

Election Integrity

The comprehensive investigation failed to take place, although some members of Congress including Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) pursued inquiries. Where did the information go? Not into print in major newspapers. Not onto the airwaves. Like the U.S. Constitution, it is accessible on the Internet.

The 27-page “Analysis of the 2004 Exit Poll Discrepancies” reinforces earlier studies along the same lines, with further detail on election 2004. Authors and endorsers include professors in statistics, numerical analysis, computer studies, finance and mathematics from the U. of Utah, U. Wisconsin, Cornell, U. Pennsylvania, U. Illinois, Southern Methodist University and Notre Dame among others.

The introduction notes numerous election problems, including

  • “voting machine shortages;
  • ballots counted and recounted in secret;
  • lost, discarded, and improperly rejected registration forms and absentee ballots;
  • touch-screen machines that registered ‘Bush’ when voters pressed ‘Kerry’;
  • precincts in which there were more votes recorded than registered voters;
  • precincts in which the reported participation rate was less than 10%;
  • high rates of ‘spoiled’ ballots and under-votes in which no choice for president was recorded;
  • a sworn affidavit by a Florida computer programmer who claims he was hired to develop a voting program with a ‘back door’ mechanism to undetectably alter vote tallies.”

Campaigning Florida-Feeney style, 2004

These authors are not political hacks, whatever that term means. They are not hired guns paid to spin election results. They are genuine experts with earned credentials in the fields of inquiry, not backgrounds in public relations. They show a scholarly and patriotic passion for the truth.

“Under such circumstances” as the problems in this election, the authors wrote,

“we must rely on indirect evidence–such as exit polls, or analysis of election result data–as a check of the overall integrity of the official election results. Without auditability or transparency in our election systems, the role of exit polls as a trigger for further scrutiny is of paramount importance.”

They conclude,

“If the discrepancies between exit poll and election results cannot be explained by random sampling error; the “Reluctant Bush Responder” hypothesis is inconsistent with the data; and other exit polling errors are insufficient to explain the large exit polling discrepancies, then the only remaining explanation – that the official vote count was corrupted – must be seriously considered.”

Regrettably, the polling company, Edison/Mitofsky, did not release all the raw data from the exit polling. Having published the exit polls–referred to in previous posts–the company went back later and changed the published exit polls to make them conform retroactively to published vote tallies. It also attempted to repudiate its own original exit polls.

The exit polls were dismissed with argument, not fact.  A typical argument was that Bush voters were more reluctant to be interviewed by pollsters than were Kerry voters.

The faculty scholars make short work of this claim. As they point out,

“The Senate and presidential races were both questions on a single exit poll survey. If Bush supporters were refusing to fill out this survey as hypothesized, the accuracy of the exit poll should have been just as poor in the Senate races as it was in the presidential race. The presidential and Senate poll results derive from exactly the same responders.”

However,

“In 32 states, Senate elections took place on the same ballot with the presidential race. The exit polls were more accurate for Senate races than for the presidential race, including states where a Republican senator eventually won (pages 19-24).”

[emphasis added]

As the researchers point out, even while exit polls across the nation were being debunked as unreliable by the White House and its partisans, the accuracy of those same exit polls for Senate races was not questioned. The conclusion: “There is no logic to account for non-responders or missed voters when discussing the difference in the accuracy of results for the Senate versus the presidential races in the same exit poll.”

Nationally,

“The many anecdotal reports of voting irregularities create a context in which the possibility that the overall vote count was substantially corrupted must be taken seriously. The hypothesis that the discrepancy between the exit polls and election results is due to errors in the official election tally remains a coherent theory.”

“In fact, the burden of proof should be to show that the election process is accurate and fair. The integrity of the American electoral system can and should be beyond reproach. Citizens in the world’s oldest and greatest democracy should be provided every assurance that the mechanisms they have put in place to count our votes are fair and accurate. The legitimacy of our elected leaders depends upon it.”

Then and now, the points are unassailable:

  • “Well-documented security vulnerabilities and accuracy issues have affected voting equipment” back to the 1960s.
  • “The recent and ongoing proliferation of sophisticated computerized vote recording and tallying equipment” has drastically enhanced capabilities for vote-tampering.
  • “That the lion’s share of this equipment is developed, provided, and serviced by partisan private corporations only amplifies these serious concerns.”
  • “The fact that, in the 2004 election, all voting equipment technologies except paper ballots were associated with large unexplained exit poll discrepancies all favoring the same party certainly warrants further inquiry.”

As previously written, close-outcome states needing attention after the 2004 election included Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Iowa. Some of the work on these problem areas will be posted.

One example: researcher Richard Hayes Phillips did magnificent work on election problems in Toledo, Ohio.

What we need meanwhile, among other things, is for our so-called ‘backwaters’ not to be left to the tender mercies of the GOP, corporate-funded influence groups, anti-human quasi-religious organizations, and the DC political press. It is wrong to neglect small towns and rural areas.

Returning to that interesting analysis from a reader in North Carolina who compared the NC 2004 early turnout to 2000 early turnout–

In 2004, the SBOE recorded 705,462 early voters. In 2000, there had been 393,152 early voters–an increase of 312,310.

Furthermore, in 2000, early voters were 46% Democrat and 38% Republican. In 2004, early voters were 50.4% Democrat and 36% Republican. That’s a 6-point net gain in Democratic turnout.

The reader points out that one would expect John Kerry to gain “at least several percentage points over Al Gore’s showing four years ago. But when the votes were tallied, Kerry registered virtually no improvement on Gore’s vote in North Carolina (Kerry 43.6%, Gore 43.2%).”

The reader anticipates possible objections:

  • Crossover voting might be a factor. But nothing indicates that crossover voting was bigger in 2004 than in 2000.
  • Southerners might have voted more for Gore than for Kerry. But that does not explain why Democratic turnout increased significantly, while GOP turnout decreased.

All in all, it was reasonable to expect Kerry to perform better in North Carolina in 2004 than Gore did in 2000, even aside from the fact that John Edwards was on the ticket. Although Kerry could not have won the state, there’s still an issue.

Again–as he points out–if Kerry got 47% in North Carolina, he would have another 130,000 votes in his column. “It’s not enough to win the state’s 15 electoral votes, but a 4-point upward shift across the country is in line with the exit poll projection of a 51-48% popular vote lead for Kerry.”

Four points or less would have moved close states to Kerry, costing George W. Bush the election.

“When I was in school . . .” Aren’t any GOP candidates parents?

Posted on by
Reply

“When I was in school . . .” Aren’t any GOP candidates parents of students?

The interminable cable conversation on Iowa continues in Iowa. Today there’s another “C’mon, Man!” moment. This time it’s Newt Gingrich, out on the stump talking about education.

Gingrich, in happier days

First Gingrich says, predictably, that we have to shrink the federal Department of Education. Then he says, rightly, that we have to move away from standardized testing that can lead to teaching to the test.

Nobody’s wrong all the time.

Then he adds that we also need to reduce state regulation of education. Not just the federal government but also the states need to move out of the way, so parents can take over. Gingrich:  we need to go “back” to a time when parents were in control, when parents worked things out with their local school board.

This was my Huh? moment. I do not recall parents’ having any power, or any to speak of, in the schools back in the years Gingrich refers to.

Indeed, Gingrich then goes on to have it both ways. “Back when I was in school,” he says, a kid who got into trouble at school got into trouble again at home. Point being, parents tended to back up the teacher.

For what it’s worth, that is the way I remember it, too.

The difference between me and Gingrich–among others–is that I have experience with education more recent than my childhood. Setting aside their own high school and college years, aren’t Gingrich and the rest parents? It never comes up when they’re talking about education, somehow. The line is always “When I was a kid/in school . . .”

Never, “When I was dealing with my kids’ teachers . . .”

Or, “When my own kids were in school . . .”

Or, “Dealing with my kids’ school/s . . .”

Much less, “My own kids were fortunate enough to have good teachers, good camp counselors, good coaches. I feel for . . .”

Side note: Having failed to get on the GOP primary ballot in Virginia, Gov. Rick Perry is suing the VA Republican Party.

As said, nobody’s wrong all the time.

It is always a bit funny to watch another of our anti-litigation, pro-“tort reform” Republican candidates take to the courts, though. Perry is also adding to the taxpayers’ cost for funding the federal courts. He might even arguably expand federal government. We’ll see whether he inveighs against activist judges, should he win in court.

The 2004 election revisited, part 2

Posted on by
Reply

Revisiting the 2004 election. Part 2.

Still in the spirit of the holidays, following up on the 2004 presidential election

Electoral College, 2004

Not merely was the Electoral College manipulated. What happened in November 2004 to the popular vote? The question is raised by, among others, Jonathan D. Simon, J.D., of the non-profit Verified Vote 2004, and Ron P. Baiman, Ph.D., Institute of Government and Public Affairs, U. of Illinois-Chicago.

Baiman and Simon’s paper, “The 2004 Presidential Election: Who Won the Popular Vote? An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data,” focuses on disparities discussed by U. Penn research professor Steven Freeman, quoted previously.

Key question from 2004

Substantive and solidly researched, the paper bears out the fact that vote tallies diverged significantly from the reasonably expectations based on exit polling. Here quoted for convenience are Baiman and Simon’s main points:

“Executive Summary

  • There is a substantial discrepancy–well outside the margin of error and outcome determinative–between the national exit poll and the popular vote count.
  • The possible causes of the discrepancy would be random error, a skewed exit poll, or breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count.
  • Analysis shows that the discrepancy cannot reasonably be accounted for by chance or random error.
  • Evidence does not support hypotheses that the discrepancy was produced by problems with the exit poll.  [emphasis added]
  • Widespread breakdown in the fairness of the voting process and accuracy of the vote count are the most likely explanations for the discrepancy.
  • In an accurate count of a free and fair election, the strong likelihood is that Kerry would have been the winner of the popular vote.”

Many of us couldn’t have said it better ourselves.

Regrettably, Baiman and Simon’s paper never cracked through the surface in large media outlets. A quick search of the Lexis-Nexis database shows zero mention of the paper in U.S. newspapers. The print press collectively did not quote, or mention, the public statement released through U.S. Newswire Jan. 4, 2005, announcing a press conference at the National Press Club by the authors, other election experts, and activist groups including the NAACP. No magazines ran articles on election fraud as an issue.

The authors echoed questions raised by my North Carolina reader quoted in the previous entry. As they pointed out,

“Although it is the Electoral College and not the popular vote that legally elects the president, winning the popular vote does have considerable psychological and practical significance. It is fair to say, to take a recent example, that had Al Gore not enjoyed a popular vote margin in 2000, he would not have had standing in the court of public opinion to maintain his post-election challenge for more than a month up until its ultimate foreclosure by the Supreme Court. [emphasis in original]

In the 2004 election now under scrutiny, the popular vote again has played a critical role. George Bush’s apparent margin of 3.3 million votes clearly influenced the timing of John Kerry’s concession. Although the election was once again close enough that yet-to-be-counted votes offered at least the mathematical possibility of a Kerry electoral college victory–and although, once again, concerns about vote counting were beginning to emerge from early post-election reports and analyses–Kerry apparently believed that, unlike popular vote-winner Gore, he did not have effective standing to prolong the race.”

Baiman and Simon were well aware of the sensitive situation in Ohio,

“Yet to overturn the Ohio result, giving Kerry an electoral college victory (or even to disqualify the Ohio electors via challenge in Congress, which would deprive Bush of an electoral college majority and throw the election to the House of Representatives), would likely be regarded as unjust and insupportable by a populace convinced that Bush was, by some 3.3 million votes, the people’s choice.

Thus, although the popular vote does not legally determine the presidency, its significance is such that we must give due consideration to any evidence which puts the popular vote count itself at issue.”

[emphasis in original]

Hence the analysis of the anomalies. Citing the historical track record of exit polling and the 2004 results reported by exit polling authority Warren Mitofsky, Baiman and Simon argue convincingly for the credibility of the exit polls.

The crux:

“On election night 2004, the exit polls and the vote counting equipment generated results that differed significantly.”

As the authors remind readers,

“In the early morning of November 3, 2004, a CNN.com website screenshot entitled “U.S. PRESIDENT/NATIONAL/EXIT POLL” posted national exit poll results updated to 12:23 A.M., broken down by gender as well as a variety of other categories.[note] The time of the update indicates that these results comprised substantially the full set of respondents polled on election day, but were free from the effects of a subsequent input of tabulated data used to bring about ultimate congruence between the exit poll and vote count results.”

The outcome of this national exit poll was 48.2% Bush, 50.8% Kerry.

There has perhaps never been a less reported headline in the history of U.S. politics. In a world, or in a political realm, now bating its breath over the possibility that Iowa Christian conservatives may wander from Newt Gingrich to Rick Santorum or vice versa–in an election neither can hope to win–the fact that historically reliable exit polling showed John Kerry on top in the presidential election in 2004 went unremarked.

Baiman and Simon quoted Freeman’s discussion of the close battleground states, cited earlier:

“In particular, the odds against the discrepancies in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania occurring together are computed at 662,000-to-one, or a virtual statistical impossibility that they could have been due to chance or random error.”

The same pattern held on a broader scale:

“Receiving somewhat less emphasis is the overall pattern of discrepancy in the state polls—again with the vote counts turning in Bush’s favor, though less dramatically in the nonbattleground states, as will be discussed below. The national popular vote is not addressed in that paper, but the same statistical principles are applicable, and will be
employed in this analysis.”

The authors emphasize the large size of the national exit poll,  even more accurate than other exit polls:

“While the individual state samples totaled 73,678 reported respondents,[note] a national sub-sampling was undertaken by Edison/Mitofsky, which comprised 13,047 reported respondents, chosen as a representative random sample of the nation as a whole. This sample was drawn from 250 targeted polling places and from 500 individual telephone interviews with absentee and early voters.”

Baiman and Simon concluded with 95% certainty “that Kerry’s popular vote percentage would fall in the range 49.7% to 51.9%; that is, it would fall outside that range only once in 20 times.”

As they summarize, dryly, “Kerry’s reported vote count of 48.1% falls dramatically outside this range.”

That is, the vote reported for Kerry fell well outside the realm of probability.

The reaction to this solid analysis? In the immortal words of Sinclair Lewis, it made as much noise as a bladder hurled into the ocean. It had as much effect as a tract left in a speakeasy (paraphrase from Ann Vickers, 1933).

Despite the disregard in the national political press, other researchers have pursued the issues raised by the 2004 election. In a lengthy footnote, Baiman and Simon cite the work of MIT grad student William Kaminsky:

“Kaminsky finds that in 22 of the 23 states which break down their voter registrations by party ID the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats in the final, adjusted exit poll was larger than the ratio of registered Republicans to registered Democrats on the official registration rolls. In other words, the adjustments performed on the exit polls in order to get them to agree with the official tallies would, if valid, require Republicans to have won the get-out-the-vote battle in essentially every state. We find this requirement implausible, and indeed observational evidence pointed to just the opposite: massive new voter turnout, which virtually always cuts in favor of the challenger; huge lines in Democratic precincts; unadjusted exit poll data showing apparently greater Democratic turnout; etc. Exit polls appropriately stratified to official party ID percentages, which would effectively neutralize any suspected “reluctant Bush responder” phenomenon by including the expected proportions of Republican and Democratic voters, would on the basis of Kaminsky’s analysis have yielded results at least as favorable to Kerry as those upon which we have relied in our calculations.”

Again the Amen Corner.

The public out in front, again

As written previously, it wasn’t only eggheads who perceived the issue of lost votes. Taking a leaf from Ronald Reagan’s book, here it seems only fitting to quote an email from one of my gracious readers:

“Margie,

Thank you for your recent piece on the above that I read today at buzzflash.com.  Bush is the worst president of my fifty-three year lifetime and I lived through Johnson and Nixon back-to-back.

Bush has managed to combine the guns and butter policies of the Johnson administration with the excessive secrecy and lies of Nixon.  This is almost as big an accomplishment as his uniting of Sunni and Shiite factions against us in Iraq.

I was a precinct captain for the Kerry campaign for the three months prior to the 2004 Iowa caucuses.  I would often ask the Democrats I called upon what they were hearing about Bush from their Republican acquaintances.  They usually replied in the following way, “You know, it is funny that you should ask that question.  I cannot believe the number of Republicans that I know who have VOLUNTEERED the information to me that they will never, ever vote for Bush again.”  And this was well before things in Iraq turned really, really bad.

What is your sense about the mood among Republicans these days?  Thanks, again, for your efforts on behalf of truth, justice and peace.  The best, [name]”

The 2004 election revisited, part 1

Posted on by
Reply

Revisiting election 2004. Part 1

Ohio results as published 2004

As the U.S.A. heads into a new election year, a string of GOP presidential candidates has demonstrated conclusively that each will need all the help s/he can get, to get into the White House. Thus it is timely, in this holiday season, to review the 2004 election.

Short story: Election Day 2004 involved more signs of election fraud, in more states, than any other election including that of 2000, when our not counting votes in Florida gave George W. Bush the White House without compelling him to win it.

Exit polling in Venezuela

The 2004 anomalies were revealed when polling consultants Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International released final exit polls conducted in all states. A troubling pattern emerged, which has not to this day been explained away. Although the data were analyzed in an excellent paper by Prof. Steven F. Freeman, “The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy,” there was no significant follow-up by the national political press. Undoubtedly this cavalier disregard for the fundamental right to vote contributed to fuel the big changes of 2008, including the rise of Barack Obama and the further decline of the news media in public esteem.

Media rep 2004

Quick run-down, 2004:

  • In 2004, contrary to results in every other election for the previous twenty years, there was a variance between exit polls and the published vote tally of more than two points in 33 of 51 jurisdictions.
  • This variance amounted to a swing in each state of 4% or 5% or more to Bush.
  • That is, regardless of which candidate won in those states, a significant variance allegedly occurred in every exit poll in all of them, and always in the same direction.
  • This crucial swing occurred in all the close states: Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Iowa all had the same alleged ‘red shift.’
  • Most of the close states seemingly shifted more than two points, a swing of 4% or 5% favorable to Bush, regardless of the size or region of the state, and regardless of whether the state ultimately went for Bush or Kerry.
  • Exit polls from nine other states, less close, were also contradicted by a smaller swing toward Bush in the published vote tally. The same seeming swings to Bush occurred in the District of Columbia and Maryland.
  • Thus four out of five states are alleged to have swung to Bush, in an election where previous polling had consistently indicated new voters, independent voters, and younger voters trending toward Kerry and/or away from Bush.
  • This four-out-of-five swing is alleged for an election in which turnout increased, although increased voter turnout is generally held to favor the challenger against the incumbent.
  • In four states, the swing from exit poll to published vote tally was enough to swing the state from Kerry to Bush–Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, and Iowa.
  • These four states added up to 59 electoral votes, more than enough to change the outcome of the national election.
  • Numerous election problems were reported on the ground from counties and precincts in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and Iowa.

According to Professor Freeman, whose PhD in organizational studies came from MIT and who holds professorships at the University of Pennsylvania and at an international MBA program founded by Harvard, the swing between exit poll and vote tally is an anomaly even in just three battleground states. Take Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida alone, and as Freeman calculated, “The likelihood of any two of these statistical anomalies occurring together is on the order of one-in-a-million. The odds against all three occurring together are 250 million to one.”

“As much as we can say in social science that something is impossible, it is impossible that the discrepancies between predicted and actual vote counts in the three critical battleground states of the 2004 election could have been due to chance or random error.”

Even for a non-scientist, the statistical problem above seems fairly obvious: If the exit polls were simple mistakes, then they should have diverged from the vote tallies randomly. Honest mistakes should vary at different locations. Honest mistakes should vary in favor of different candidates, benefiting different parties. You don’t have a nationwide set of honest mistakes all magically benefiting one candidate. This is not random, it is a pattern.

Freeman

It would also be near miraculous for a nationwide set of honest mistakes all to fall within a fairly short percentage range, just significant enough to affect the outcome of the election but not dramatic enough to trigger federal and state investigation under the law.

Disclaimer:  It is only reasonable to read opinion polls and other polling with skepticism.  Incessant polling can weaken the individual’s reliance on his/her own judgment, can plant suggestions, can intimidate reporters, and can manipulate public acceptance of the unacceptable. Following the 2004 election, an opinion poll was quickly published suggesting that most people were relieved—ironically–that the outcome was clear.

All well and good, if it was clear. But the integrity of vote counting is essential to our nation’s survival as a democracy. The horse-race obsession about who is ahead before the election often makes news media look silly. The question of who won the election, after the election, is fundamental.

Exit polls hit closer to the mark than do opinion polls. Exit polls are taken on the ground with people who show up to vote, are taken just after the voting, and are weighted to take into account a preponderance of one group. As Dr. Freeman points out, exit polls have been used globally to check and verify the validity of elections in countries including Germany and Mexico. When exit polls contradicted Eduard Shevardnadze’s claim that he had won election in the former Soviet country of Georgia, Shevardnadze was forced to resign under pressure from the U.S. among other nations.

Pundits’ disdain for the issue of what happened to the 2004 election not shared by the public

Writing about these issues soon after the 2004 election, this author focused initially on the small tilts that added up to a big tilt in the U.S. Electoral College. However, even then I pointed out that questions had also arisen affecting the popular vote count in ‘safe’ states. The responses below, from readers who vote, include this interesting anecdotal account:

“Margie,

A friend pointed me to your article “Did Bush lose the election?” which I found very interesting. I was also interested in your final comment about irregularities “even in safe states.”

I live in the “safe state” of North Carolina where something I observed may be worth passing along.

During the early voting period, the state Board of Elections was releasing daily turnout reports. The early voters were identified by their party registration. It occurred to me that comparing this year’s turnout with early voting in the 2000 election might reveal a trend.

At the close of early voting on Oct. 31, SBOE recorded 705,462 early voters. In 2000, 393,152 early voters were recorded. Four years ago, early voters were 46% Democrat and 38% Republican. This year, early voters were 50.4% Democrat and 36% Republican.

Given a 6-point net gain in Democratic turnout, it seemed reasonable to expect that John Kerry would gain at least several percentage points over Al Gore’s showing four years ago. But when the votes were tallied, Kerry registered virtually no improvement on Gore’s vote in North Carolina (Kerry 43.6%, Gore 43.2%).

Knowing who is voting doesn’t reveal how they are voting, and crossover voting has long been a feature of North Carolina elections. But there’s nothing to suggest that crossover voting was any different this year from four years ago. [emphasis added]

When a similar pattern was observed in parts of Florida, the response was that “Southern Democrats may have been more willing to vote for a moderate Southerner (Gore) than a Massachusetts liberal.” But that doesn’t explain why Democratic turnout increased while Republican turnout seemed to decrease.

This year’s early vote in North Carolina was 20% of the total vote. Four years ago it was 13.5% of the total. So, there’s a statistically significant sample to use as a basis for comparison. If a correlation exists between early voting patterns this year and four years ago, it seems pretty improbable that a significant jump in Democratic turnout would not have translated to some improvement for Kerry over Gore.

If Kerry were getting, say, 47% in North Carolina, that would have put another 130,000 votes in his column. It’s not enough to win the state’s 15 electoral votes, but a 4-point upward shift across the country is in line with the exit poll projection of a 51-48% popular vote lead for Kerry. And it would have moved Ohio and a couple other close states into his column.

It would be interesting to do these comparisons in states where the relevant data is available to see if Democratic turnout increased from 2000 to 2004, and if so, whether it translated to gains for Kerry over Gore.

I’m not ready to conclude there was vote manipulation. But there are a lot of questions about the results that need to be examined and answers provided.

Thank you for your efforts.”

“Dear Ms. Burns,
Thank you for your interesting, informative, and truthful article, “Did Bush
Lose the Election?”
The evidence of what you say has existed for quite some time now

  • patent evidence of election fraud presaged by Avi Rubin at Johns Hopkins University
    and echoed in the recent UC Berkeley study, by Zogby International as reported in IPS News, and
  • as Bill Simpich observes in the SF Bay View
  • by former MIT mathematics professor David Anick, among others. Notwithstanding, the mainstream media continue to exclude from its purvue this most heinous and glaringly evident act of deception
  • the defrauding of the American people of its vote and therefore of its sovereignty. By failing to lend their attention to this issue, the mainstream media act as aiders and abettors of a blatant attack against the security of the United States of America.

It is therefore extremely refreshing to hear someone valiantly speak out for the American people in our time of crisis. I thank you most profoundly for being one of the seminal figures to tell the truth about the Third Millenium scandal that is now gaining a reputation worldwide as “Votergate” or, as I also like to call it: “the NeoCons” [Election] Piracy 2004.”

[name redacted]

Rick Perry doing in private what he does in public

Posted on by
Reply

That Rick Perry retirement pension

Rick Perry resignation

On top of more important questions, it really will be interesting to see whether Rick Perry can live this one down. The Texas Tribune reported Friday that Perry is drawing his state retirement pension as well as his governor’s salary. Filings with the Federal Election Commission show that the combined incomes mean Perry gets an annual $240,000 from Texas citizens, rather than just $150,000 as governor. Perry filed the FEC report yesterday.

Admittedly, Perry is an empty suit anyway. The Texas governorship is historically among the weakest in the nation. The state constitution has yet to be updated, partly because the process of a state constitutional convention and ratifying a new constitution has not been feasible. The city of Austin is a canyon of lobbyists, as befits a governor who is basically a walking set of pressure points. But Perry’s public career of mouthing fiscal pieties about budget and austerity, etc., makes his double-dipping noteworthy even among other GOP corporate shills running for the White House as fiscal puritans. What makes it worse if possible is that Perry has gone gunning for exactly this kind of double-dipping among Texas state employees who make far less, while working far more, than he.*

Perry in public

As widely reported, Perry has also repeatedly attacked government workers in general. Like the other GOP candidates selected by themselves for the White House, he has also worked steadfastly to undermine pensions, pension funds, pension guarantees, medical benefits, benefits for seniors, and retirement protection in general. Simultaneously, and again like most other GOPers, he has been stalwart in protecting large companies’ treatment of employees, however egregious, along with management’s ability to offshore jobs and taxable assets, to evade contracts through bankruptcy and other measures, and to avoid prosecution for fraud and civil lawsuits for incompetence, waste and lack of due diligence.

Donald Trump

Watching the GOP in the current election cycle was already a continuing indulgence in Schadenfreude. Anyone who cares about either mental health or human goodness has to be careful about witnessing too much of it. Pity the ‘political reporters’ who have to pretend that the bunk we’ve been hearing has any claim to credibility as public policy, any at all. But even in a field featuring Rick Santorum, Donald Trump, Newt Gringrich and Herman Cain, Perry’s performance takes the cake. No mean feat.

Predictably, the most recent disclosure means that Perry is being accused of hypocrisy. Once again, calling this kind of thing ‘hypocrisy’ is not political analysis. It is just an insult to hypocrites. Perry is drawing all he can from a long-suffering public while calling on more poorly paid public employees to draw less. He has stayed in office in Texas as long as possible while calling for many thousands of public employees to be fired. He is drawing a large pension for work he is no longer doing—if he ever was–while calling on most people, poorer than he, to tighten their belts. Above all, he himself is driving up the cost of government, directly, in first person, and by choice, while railing against government cost and government ‘spending’.

This is not hypocrisy. It is imposture. It is like railing against ‘regulation’ (mine safety) and ‘government spending’ (courts to prosecute child abusers). It is rapaciousness masquerading as fiscal prudence. It serves the same purpose this imposture always serves: It removes public assets and public resources from the public, and diverts them into the hands of a grasping few. Rick Perry is just the non plus ultra, an individual sterling example but by no means alone. Perry, in short, is not actually doing in private what he opposes in public. He is doing in private—grasping from the public—what he does in public.

Rich tax cuts

As written before, this was the fiscal and monetary policy of the Bush administration, the centerpiece of the Bush years, almost unreported in the political press. It went so far as to include war as fiscal and monetary policy, it was and is reverse-Robin-Hood, and its consequences remain the mess for everyone else to clean up.

Note:

Gov. Perry’s income from the Texas state pension alone is now $7,698 before taxes, or $6,588 net, in retirement benefits–$92,376 per year gross, or an annual net income of $79,056.

For perspective, average per capita money income in the U.S. (previous twelve months, 2005-2009) is $27,041. From the U.S. census, median household income in 2009 was $50,221.

This information is yet another reason why the cardboard robber barons are always hot to trot to abolish the census.

*Full disclosure: my mother, who suffers from advanced Alzheimer’s, draws retirement as a longtime Texas state employee. Hers is considerably less than Perry’s, for considerably more work, far more worthwhile. Admittedly the comparison might be considered inexact, since she did not work for decades to sell out Texas resources and the public for political advancement.

Penn State retirement: When the golden parachute becomes a golden athletic supporter

Posted on by
Reply

When the golden parachute becomes a golden athletic supporter

Sandusky under arrest

 

Gerald A. (Jerry) Sandusky’s retirement from Penn State looks more opportune all the time.

 

Paterno with team

Information obtained under Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law confirms that Sandusky filed his retirement application May 28, 1999, shortly after learning that he would not be head coach at Penn State. According to the indictment alleging repeated acts of abuse against male children and minors, denied by Sandusky, it was in May 1999 that Sandusky was told by Joe Paterno that he would not become head coach. At that time, according to the grand jury report, an emotional Sandusky told one of the boys he allegedly imposed on about the disappointment from Paterno.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania records also show that Sandusky entered the State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) March 15, 1969. As explained by Deputy Open-Records Officer Pamela J. Hile,

“Act 41 of 1998 amended the Retirement Code (§5308.2) to provide a limited early retirement period (July 1, 1998 – June 30, 1999) in which qualifying members could receive a retirement benefit unreduced by the Early Retirement Reduction Factor. To qualify, a SERS member had to have at least 30 years of Credited Service and he/she had to terminate employment and file his/her application for annuity with SERS by July 1, 1999.”

 

Thus, as luck would have it, Joe Paterno had his heart-to-heart with Sandusky shortly after Sandusky had his thirty years at Penn State under his belt anyway. Or no-heart-to-no-heart talk, one might think.

Questions placed with DC law firm King & Spaulding, where Paterno is represented by J. Sedwick Sollers, get the following response from Director of Communications Les Zuke quoted previously:

“Other than the statement issued Friday evening (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/statement-from-scott-paterno-on-behalf-of-his-father-133713053.html) there has been no subsequent public comments from the Paternos or Joe Paterno’s attorney, Wick Sollers, nor do I expect any for the foreseeable future. Mr. Sollers will not be able to address your questions.”

 

Not that they didn’t treat Sandusky with all possible consideration. As of now, Sandusky has acknowledged on national television that he horsed around with young kids in the PSU showers. In a series of interviews, he has also used varying language heightening rather than putting to rest questions raised by the indictment. Last week he also told the New York Times, rather embarrassingly for PSU, that he and Paterno never discussed sexual abuse allegations. Thus it is somewhat ironic that back in 1999, Paterno and PSU clearly did everything they could to send Sandusky away happy. In fact, they did not actually send him away. Sandusky was allowed to keep his campus privileges including access to the athletic facilities. He still had the aura, the personal contacts, the free products and other benefits, tangible and intangible, of his long-term relationship with Penn State football.

He also had a hefty retirement. As the indictment says, Sandusky retired at a time when he could take advantage of an “enhanced retirement benefit” (p. 11). As a Class A member of the state retirement system, Sandusky could contribute 5 percent of his salary to retirement. Upon retiring, he would then receive retirement calculated by the formula Average of last three years’ salary X 2 percent X Years of service [30] X Class of Service Multiplier. So if you’re jotting down numbers with your Number 2 pencil on a yellow legal pad, you start with 2 percent times 30, i.e. 60 percent of annual salary averaged from three years at the apparent peak of his career, and go up from there.

In an era of pension funds jeopardized by the subprime-derivatives catastrophe, when retirement benefits often have to be wrung from intransigent management more interested in union-busting, who can at any time threaten to renege on the agreements anyway by declaring bankruptcy, this kind of pension for the old horser-around could be considered to look dubious.

 

Had Pennsylvania’s state legislature not passed Act 41 in 1998, would that May 1999 conversation have gone differently? Would it have taken place?

PA General Assembly

The bill’s primary sponsor was Republican Rep. Bob Allen (Pennsylvania General Assembly 1989-2006). It was referred to the Education Committee in February 1997. Final passage March 31, 1998; vote: unanimous minus one. The final deadline for the governor’s approval was Apr. 11, 1998; the governor signed it into law Apr. 2. The bill had an enormous number of co-sponsors, more than sufficient to make sponsorship politically safe.*

This was while the law enforcement investigation regarding Victim 6 was heating up. (Indictment pp. 18-19) As they later testified, University Police Detective Ronald Shreffler and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston eavesdropped on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 had with Sandusky on May 13, 1998, and May 19, 1998. The investigation, as we know, went nowhere–in spite of the fact that on June 1, 1998, according to the indictment, Sandusky admitted to investigators that he had showered naked with Victim 6 and had hugged Victim 6 while in the shower.

Penn State is located in Centre County, Penn., in the 34th and 35th state Sen districts and the 76th, 77th and 171st state Rep districts. With a fine balance the two major parties in the local area shared split positions on the legislation, Reps Hanna (Dem), Herman (GOP), and Benninghoff (GOP) all co-sponsoring it, other local Reps of both parties not.

Ironically, the bill in all probability was directed against Joe Paterno. As every football fanatic knows, in 1995 Penn State went undefeated in the Big Ten and decisively won the 1995 Rose Bowl. In 1994 it had gone undefeated and untied. But for whatever reasons, the glory dissipated rapidly over the next few years. PSU was 6-2 in the Big Ten conference in 1997, 9-3 over-all. Similar to 1996, a big come-down since the apex. Whatever affected the program—and there does seem to have been a problem somewhere—it continued. In 1998, PSU went 5-3 conference, and for the fourth straight year, 9-3 over-all again. It did not play Big Ten schools Iowa and Indiana, and only two Nittany Lions were drafted for the NFL.

So Sandusky becomes eligible for enhanced retirement March 15, 1999. He files for retirement benefits shortly after the bad news from Joe Pa, May 1999. Paterno has his talk with Sandusky soon after Sandusky’s 30 years are up anyway. And all of this comes soon after the state legislature has sweetened benefits to make retirement—in exactly these circumstances—look better for all concerned.

 

Regardless of whether legislators co-sponsoring that earlier-retirement bill knew of the rumors swirling around Penn State football, their move undeniably made retirement** more palatable for certain ensconced state employees.

 

* ALLEN, STAIRS, COWELL, SCHULER, CORRIGAN, D. W. SNYDER, DeWEESE, HERMAN, LUCYK, ITKIN, McCALL, TULLI, DENT, BOYES, BAKER, BATTISTO, BELARDI, BOSCOLA, BUNT, BUTKOVITZ, BUXTON, CAPPABIANCA, CARN, CARONE, CIVERA, COLAIZZO, CORPORA, CURRY, DALLY, DEMPSEY, DERMODY, DONATUCCI, FICHTER, FLEAGLE, GEIST, GORDNER, GRUPPO, HALUSKA, HANNA, ARGALL, HESS, HORSEY, HUTCHINSON, JAMES, KENNEY, KIRKLAND, KREBS, LaGROTTA, A. H. WILLIAMS, B. SMITH, BEBKO-JONES, BELFANTI, BENNINGHOFF, BLAUM, C. WILLIAMS, CALTAGIRONE, CASORIO, COLAFELLA, CONTI, COY, E. Z. TAYLOR, EACHUS, EVANS, HASAY, J. TAYLOR, JAROLIN, L. I. COHEN, LAUGHLIN, LLOYD, M. COHEN, MANDERINO, MARKOSEK, MARSICO, MELIO, MICOZZIE, MIHALICH, MILLER, MUNDY, NAILOR, NICKOL, O’BRIEN, OLIVER, PETRONE, PLATTS, RAMOS, REBER, RIEGER, ROBERTS, ROEBUCK, ROONEY, S. H. SMITH, SAINATO, SANTONI, SATHER, SAYLOR, SERAFINI, SHANER, STABACK, STEELMAN, STETLER, STRITTMATTER, STURLA, SURRA, THOMAS, TIGUE, TRELLO, VAN HORNE, VANCE, VEON, WOGAN, WOJNAROSKI, M. N. WRIGHT, YEWCIC, YOUNGBLOOD, ZIMMERMAN, ZUG, TRICH, DRUCE, BISHOP, TRAVAGLIO, McNAUGHTON, HERSHEY, FARGO, SEYFERT, PETRARCA, STEVENSON, READSHAW, LESCOVITZ, WILT, CORNELL, WASHINGTON, McILHATTAN and ORIE.

 

**[fuller clarification of SERS, from the open records officer:]

“By way of background, SERS is a state agency created by Pennsylvania law to administer certain public employees’ retirement benefits as defined by the State Employees’ Retirement Code Title 71, Sections 5101-5956 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes. (The code is available on the Pennsylvania General Assembly website:  www.legis.state.pa.us.) SERS also ensures compliance with other pertinent law, including the Internal Revenue Code, for example.

SERS currently has more than 227,000 members, including more than 109,000 active employees who work for about 105 different employers.

As a “defined benefit” pension plan, retirement annuities are funded by a combination of member contributions, employer contributions and investment earnings. Over the past ten years, members have contributed 18%, employers have contributed 9%, and investment earnings have contributed 73% to the SERS fund.

Member contributions are set by statute, as a percent of the member’s gross salary. While there are 17 Classes of Service in the system, most members are either Class AA or Class A. Class AA members currently contribute 6.25% of their gross salary toward their retirement benefit, and Class A members contribute 5%. (You can read more about Classes of Service at http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=594386&mode=2.)

Employer contributions are paid in the aggregate as a percent of payroll, again, based on the number of employees they have, their Classes of Service, and their salaries. (By way of example–and this is confusing for many people–employers do not transfer their contributions to SERS broken out by individual employee, for instance “$123.45 per month/year for John Doe.”)  Employers pay SERS out of their own operating budgets. Employer contribution rates vary from year-to-year based on actuarial experience and investment performance. Such rates are certified by the SERS board and put into effect by the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The current employer contribution rate is 8.01% . . .

While the basic calculation is pretty straightforward, arriving at specific components used in the calculation is not.  In some cases, such components can’t be determined until after a member applies for his/her annuity. For instance, Final Average Salary is the highest average compensation received during any three non-overlapping periods of four consecutive calendar quarters–typically the average of the member’s last three years of compensation, but not always.  Moreover, when a member retires, he/she has a number of benefit payment options to choose from. (You can read more about these options in SERS’ Member Handbook on page 8, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/document/1057065/2011_sers_member_handbook_pdf.) Members who joined SERS prior to Jan. 1, 2011 also have the option to withdraw all or a portion of their own contributions plus 4% interest in a lump sum. If a member takes any lump sum withdrawal, his/her annuity is reduced accordingly, again impacting the amount of a member’s monthly payments.”

[minutes ago:] Police moving in on Occupy DC

Posted on by
Reply

This just in,

From OCCUPY DC:

 

Occupy DC, from wikipedia

Dear supporters,

As you are currently reading this email occupiers in McPherson Sq (K St./15th St) are being threatened by the Park Police, Riot Police, and regular DC police. At noon police ordered to take down our structure that got donated by a father-son architect team, and was constructed together last night in the park. The structure will act as a gathering place for our general assemblies during the winter, where the people can exercise pure-unfiltered free speech. The police has taped of the structure, while around two dozen people are occupying the building and refusing to get of the roof. Police are refusing protesters from giving basic necessities to the occupiers in the building like water, food, and clothes. Hundreds have gathered already in the square and are watching the police arresting people, silencing theirs and yours freedom of speech.

 

McPherson Square, empty

Please show your solidarity to the movement by coming down the McPherson Sq. and defend our and yours freedom of speech that is being threatened in this nation for so long. Reports and rumors are spreading that police might use aggressive force and tactics, but so far nothing has been reported.

 

Occupy DC is now 64 days old and is the now the oldest non-stop Occupy encampment in the nation. If you can not make it you can watch our Livestream and follow us on Twitter at @OccupyKst and @Occupy_DC.