Daniel A. Bosh – 5/9/12

This page was last updated on May 9, 2012.

Rich benefit from smaller Legislature; Daniel Bosh; Beaver County Times; May 9, 2012.

I’m working on the assumption letters from “Dan,” “Daniel,” and “Daniel A.” Bosh of Baden were written by the same author.

If you’ve read Mr. Bosh’s minimum of 22 letters since 2004, you recognize him as a died-in-the-wool leftist. In the 2004 presidential campaign, Mr. Bosh was a Democrat national delegate committed to Dennis Kucinich. Mr. Bosh is a representative of the Steelworkers Pension Trust. There’s nothing wrong with Mr. Bosh representing the USW but it means Mr. Bosh isn’t an impartial observer when it comes to labor union issues. The primary business of today’s labor unions is advocacy for leftist politicians and lobbying for leftist policies/programs. According to their Department of Labor LM-2 forms, USW management spent over $6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying” and AFL-CIO management spent over $29.6 million in 2010 on “Political Activities and Lobbying.” Representing employees is simply a fund-raising chore labor union management must endure to provide funds for its lobbying and political activities. Heck, AFL-CIO CEO Richard Trumka conceded as much when he said, “I got into the labor movement not because I wanted to negotiate wages. I got into the labor movement because I saw it as a vehicle to do massive social change to improve the lots of people.”

Mr. Bosh’s last letter was “Healthcare plan offers many benefits.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In response to ‘Legislature size should be reduced’ from state Sen. Elder Vogel Jr. in the April 19 Times, I have to say that the only people who would benefit from a smaller Legislature would be rich people.”

[RWC] Gee, how original. One of the standard lefty responses to any non-left proposal is “the only people who would benefit from a ___________ (fill in the blank) would be rich people.” I’m going to go out on a limb and guess Mr. Bosh would have made his claim regardless of Mr. Vogel’s position.

We have the extraordinary event in which a piece of government in a truly bipartisan action (see below) votes to cut its size by 25%. We should be patting these gals/guys on their backs, not bashing them.

“Cutting the number of legislative districts would require making the districts bigger, which would mean that legislators would have more constituents, and ordinary citizens would have less access to their legislators. Naturally, this would not apply to large donors.”

[RWC] H.B. 153 passed by the House would reduce the General Assembly from 253 to 191. That is still 71 more than California’s 120 for a population nearly three times as large as Pennsylvania. New York’s legislature is 212 for a population over 50% larger than Pennsylvania’s. Are we to believe the citizens of California and New York are inadequately represented by their legislators?

“Candidates would find campaigning by meeting voters face to face to be impossible. Reaching voters would require even more money than it does now, and money is the most corrupting influence in politics. We should be looking for ways to eliminate the power of money in politics, not increase it.”

[RWC] By “[w]e should be looking for ways to eliminate the power of money in politics,” Mr. Bosh means non-leftist money.

“But that is what Vogel wants. The Republican party is the party of the wealthy, and decreasing the size of the Legislature would give even greater influence to affluent people eager to influence government in ways that would make them ever more prosperous.

“Anything the senator can do to make life better for the already well-off is advancing the Republican agenda.”

[RWC] The makeup of the House is 90 Democrats and 112 Republicans. The vote for H.B. 153 was 140-49. Now let’s do a little math. A minimum of 28 (31%) Democrats had to vote in favor to get to 140, and that’s only if 100% of Republicans voted in favor. As I noted above, this was a bipartisan effort.