Are WAMs Constitutional?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

WAMs: Guilty as Charged

We are indebted (if you'll excuse the expression) to Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery) for proving that WAMs are unconstitutional. Writing in " Daylin's Blog ," he not only defends WAMs but describes the process forbidden by a 1995 court decision, Common Cause of Pennsylvania v. Commonwealth 668 A.2d 190. Click here for a legal memo about this case and why WAMs violate the Constitution.

Leach, a lawyer, wrote, "The way DCED Grants work is that a certain amount is passed as part of the budget in open session. Each caucus then gets access to a percentage of the total, and legislative leaders then divide that amount up among their members. Organizations can apply to receive grants. Members can then decide which projects in their district get funded within the constraints of the total amount of money available and the legal parameters of allowable grants."

While Leach defends WAMs as beyond reproach, he fails to explain:

• Why neither lawmakers nor the governor document how much money is sequestered in which line items throughout the budget.
• Why there has never been an independent review and annual list of those who got grants, those who didn't, and why.
• Why senior citizens in his district deserve state support more than seniors in far poorer parts of PA.
• Why beautifying sidewalks is ever more important than, say, safe water, which was cut $11 million (100%).

P.S.
Rumor has it that some legislative leaders will use caucus surplus funds for WAMs. We'll keep watching.

Posted via email from progress pittsburgh’s posterous