"Thoughts from My 1st Masonic Degree"

Nervous, quiet, it seemed so long did I sit
The Tyler and I spent it waiting
Looking at, in front of me, a cabinet
Showcasing the American Masons
The list, it seemed, was so long
It belonged in a Billy Joel song:

Buzz Aldrin
Gene Autry
Mel Blanc
William Jennings Bryan
Henry Clay
Sought out life’s Right way

Samuel Colt
Davy Crocket
Bob Dole
W.E.B. DuBois
Duke Ellington
Henry Ford
On their free will & accord

Ben Franklin
John Glenn
Barry Goldwater
John Hancock
Patrick Henry
Pursued their Degrees

Sam Houston
Edgar Hoover
Jesse Jackson
John Paul Jones
John LeJeune
Marquis de Lafayette
Followed the Grand Architect

Douglass MacArthur
John Marshall
Charles Mayo
Frederick Maytag
Andrew Mellon
John Molson
Were not off, but from

Brad Paisley
Arnold Palmer
John J. Pershing
Paul Revere
All of Masonic austere

Sugar Ray Robinson
Will Rogers
Dave Thomas
Mark Twain
Used the trowel to spread our name

Booker T. Washington
John Wayne
Earl Warren
Brigham Young
Cy Young
Look to the East for the Sun

And 38 Justices of our Supreme Court
Looked to square and compass for support
Including seven of those who did possess
The position of Chief Justice

And brothers, let us not forget
Fourteen presidents were Masons made met
Andrew Jackson, James K. Polk, James Monroe
Helped our fertile nation to grow
While both Roosevelts and Truman followed the Plumb
Of our Founder, George Washington

But to me, the Mason I consider most great
Will never appear in a showcase
In fact, when the Tyler lets me into where the Masons confer
After the Light, I’ll see the smiling grin
Of my Father as the ceremonies begin.

Note: December, 2007 marks my 1st Masonic birthday.

Gun Control Should be a Local Issue

December 7th, 2007, KeystonePolitics.com

Growing up in middle-state PA, I have a different interpretation of gun rights than some one from Philadelphia.

Like many others in central PA, I remember the first time I ever shot a gun. I was 15 years old, barely able to pull the trigger without wincing my face in fear of the violent kickback. Still, I eyed the target and fired sixteen times to pierce as many holes in the paper target dangling from its hanger.

Contrast this with a friend of mine from Philadelphia, a young man who grew up in a street gang. He remembers the first time he pulled a trigger: It was not to hunt game, and it wasn’t to fire at a piece of paper. His target was real. His target was a person on a drive-by homicide attempt.

We began talking about gun use, and – surprise! – both my friend and I had very different views on the topic. My friend believed that guns were evil – maybe even demonic – components of plastic and metal intended to do harm. I, on the other hand, noted gun sportsmanship and the self-defense that it provides.

This is the line that divided us; it has become the one that divides our legislature.

On the same day that the PA General Assembly Black Caucus vacated the House deliberation on gun control, a shooting spree erupted in Omaha killing 8 and injuring five. The two events, though autonomous, represent the problems and concerns associated with gun violence.

Any person – gun owner or not – should note that the government needs to take steps to ensure public safety everywhere in our Commonwealth. It is imperative that our elected officials protect our people from dangerous threats wielding a gun.

On the other hand, a huge portion of gun owning Americans – me included – have had no problems owning, maintaining, and bearing their firearms. They have obeyed the law and acted sensibly with the most powerful weapon the average American can own. This, in tandem with the basic rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, should continue to allow them the right to possess their fire arm, one that “should not be infringed.”

As the General Assembly debates state-wide gun control reform, ask your lawmaker to omit their vote. If and when a bill passes, it will be a diluted, powerless law that provides minimal protection to the public and becomes a hindrance to the common gun owner.

Gun control has not been a national issue, and it should not be a state-wide one. Gun control should be handled by the county and municipality one lives in. It shold be local, and local alone.

Only our local areas of residence, Philadelphia in my friend’s case and Carbon County for mine, understand how to best solve the problems associated with gun violence, if any. Giving the task to Harrisburg will not solve any problems. It will create more.

Clean Up Fundraising in State Judicial Campaigns

Morning Call, November 16, 2007
with help from Barry Kauffman

This is Fair Elections Action Week. This year also is the 100th anniversary of the Tillman Act, promoted by President Theodore Roosevelt, as an effort to protect common Americans' free speech rights from being drowned out by wealthy special interests.

Since then, states and municipalities moved to further protect their elections and governments from the corrupting influences of campaign dollars. In recent decades many have begun to implement systems of ''citizen-owned elections.''

Pennsylvania, however, remains one of only a dozen states mired in the backwaters of 19th century politics, failing to even restrict the amount of money that individuals and political committees can give to candidates. Five-figure political contributions are illegal in most places, but in Pennsylvania five- and even six-figure contributions are increasingly common. Special interests with business before our government are paying the campaign tabs of elected officials. Why? Because it works. At minimum, they provide preferred access to power.

On Nov. 6, we saw another dangerous manifestation of this problem. According to media and other reports, Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Tom Saylor raised over $290,000 for his retention race. Today the bulk of judicial campaign funds come from lawyers, legal industry PACs, and people from large corporations that have issues before the courts. When Pennsylvanians appear in court they shouldn't have to worry whether the other party's attorney gave a larger contribution than their own attorney. Pennsylvania needs to eliminate this factor from its judicial system.

North Carolina recently confronted this problem and reined it in. Through the Judicial Campaign Reform Act, it created a voluntary system of public financing for judicial candidates. A poll by the North Carolina Center for Voter Education revealed that 78 percent believed campaign contributions influence judges' decisions ''a great deal'' or ''some.''

Nearly a decade ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court conducted a similar survey with even more resounding results: 85 percent of Pennsylvanians favored restricting campaign contributions to judges to $1,000; 80 percent favored limiting the amount that judicial candidates could spend; and 77 percent favored providing public financing to judicial candidates that refuse campaign contributions. But the Legislature refused to respond.

The influence of cash on judicial campaigns has garnered national attention. According to Robert Barnes of The Washington Post, the money raised by Pennsylvania Supreme Court candidates (now in excess of $5 million) has easily eclipsed Pennsylvania' previous judicial fundraising records. Federal Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer declared that ''the rising demands on judges to raise money for their expensive campaigns … could lead to the impression that the courthouse door ''is open to some rather than the door is open to all.'' It's time to knock down that door completely and support publicly funded, Citizen-Owned Elections.

In 1985, the state House of Representatives passed House Bill 1379, which would have done this, but the Senate let it die. Since then, other states moved forward. Meanwhile, the integrity of Pennsylvania's elections spirals downward. Many reform organizations, including Common Cause/PA, support a merit-based judicial appointment system. But we must now recognize the critical need to have clean elections as long as we elect judges.

Pennsylvanians should follow North Carolina and pass a practical solution. Pennsylvania should enact a system wherein judges' loyalty is to the public -- not to the lawyers, politicians and corporate fat cats that fund their campaigns. Pennsylvanians should encourage their legislators to support Citizen-Owned Elections for our judges. To achieve clean citizen-owned judicial elections, Common Cause/PA proposes that candidates run under a system that limits campaign contributions, restricts candidate expenditures, and provides partial public financing of campaigns. Pennsylvanians who want courts unbiased by campaign contributions should back this effort. Pennsylvanians also should support the more general, but broader, HB-1720 introduced by Rep. David Levdansky, D-Allegheny, which would limit campaign contributions to all candidates in Pennsylvania.

Who will own our elections? Who will own our government? The choice is ours and the time for action is now.

Jake Miller of Nesquehoning is a teacher at Panther Valley High School and chair of the Common Cause/Pennsylvania Citizen-Owned Elections Project Team. Barry Kauffman is the Executive Director of CC/PA

Local Voting: Teach Your Kids the Importance

The Times News

October 31, 2007

This past month, students in my American government classes investigated which political party they and their parents belonged to. For some, it was model boredom; for others it was interesting, and still others were filled with hope and excitement, especially for the upcoming presidential race.

As the days progressed and as they grow increasingly aware of the imminent '08 election, one of my students asked, "Is that what the signs are for?"

I gave an unfettered, automatic response: "No."

"Well then," she retorted, "what exactly are they for?"

My mind jogged for a moment. How do you explain just how important the office of County Commissioner is to a 15-year-old? So I gave it a shot.

"The two gentlemen are Democrats," I said, "running for office against two Republicans for a total of three seats. The three commissioners combine to act like a three-headed president of Carbon County."

Her face looked back at me, confused, bedazzled, and her gaze a bit more jowled than normal.
"We'll talk about this later on as the class progresses," I said, and quickly dismissed the issue and moved on with class.

But isn't this what we always do with local elections? In our hearts we continually emphasize how important these local elections are but our words and our votes never follow.

It should be treated differently this year. Here's why:

Carbon County's Commissioners are going to play a pivotal role in the county's future. Long gone are the days of coal miners and factory workers, and as the county's vocation morphs into a service economy and an epicenter for lower-priced housing for commuters of the Lehigh Valley, it will be up to our Commissioners' leadership to plot a course that elevates our county onto the same scale as our neighbors to the south (Lehigh and Northampton) and Northeast (Monroe) rather than taking a step back into regression.

November 6th will be more than just a commissioners' vote. Every school district will see a dramatic shift in their respective school boards, and some have more importance than the "big race" next November.

For example, Palmerton's new school board will have some difficult concerns to face, such as hiring a new Superintendent as well as dealing with an expired teacher's contract. Panther Valley's school board will welcome a new school, but not many will envy their task of budgeting effectively to offset these new costs. And all school boards across the county will be responsible for the discussions over the planned, multi-million dollar renovation of the Carbon County Technical Institute.

In addition, there are always other races. Jim Thorpe's borough council will be a heated race, where some incumbents may be ousted in favor of new faces, seeking change for some of the tourist town's concerns. And of course there are always the unglamorous-yet-crucial positions such as controller (the County's chief financial officer), recorder of deeds (the person-in-charge of documents central), coroner, sheriff, and treasurer, not to mention the additions to our State Supreme and Superior Courts.

Which leads me back to asking, "How do you clarify this to a 15-year-old???"

You vote. You take them with you as you vote. And you explain to them how millions of Americans laid their souls down for this simple and undemanding task that many of us shrug off until it's time to elect our next president.

Dollars Over Democratic Justice

www.commoncause.org/PA
September 30, 2007

While most of America remembers Teddy Roosevelt for reining in the corrupt corporations, most are unaware that in 1907 the Republican worked across party lines to pass the Tillman Act. The Tillman Act was the first time where free speech – the type the common American owns – was promoted over the words of the wealthy.

Yet as America watched the Model-T Ford evolve into today’s modern automobile and the Wright Brothers’ plane transform into the jetliner, the American political system has changed from a democracy fed by 20th century dollars into a democracy fed by 21st century dollars.

Pennsylvania’s court system also sports an old fashioned fundraising system. The connection between fundraising and bad politicians has been obvious, but not much light has been shed on how money affects our “independent” Judiciary. Until now.

According to The Pennsylvania Legal Intelligencer, the Philadelphia Trial Lawyers Association raised $632,000 for three State Supreme Court candidates, nearly half the money these Juatices needed to win office. While this is legal, the venerable G. Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College said this “is a poster child case for why there ought to be limits.”

One state in the nation already solved this problem. North Carolina adopted The Judicial Campaign Reform Act, creating a voluntary system of public financing for judicial candidates. Why? The driving factor behind the change was the people. A poll conducted by the N.C. Center for Voter Education revealed that:

- 78% believed campaign contributions influence judges’ decisions “a great deal” or “some.”
- 58% believed there is a system of justice for the rich/powerful and everyone else.
- 81% support electing judges while only 15% support appointment of judges.[i]

After the pay-raise scandal, budget delay, and an array of other issues the voters of this state have presented similar concerns in regards the Commonwealth’s direction. What PA voters need is a viable solution to all the corruption. They need a system where the judges’ loyalty is to the public, not special interests, before they are running, while they are running, and when they are elected. They need Voter-Owned Elections.

Those who believe it is impossible to introduce this measure should note Sen. Jeff Piccola (Chair, State Government Committee) and Rep. Bill DeWeese (Majority Leader) already co-sponsored a similar Voter-Owned Elections bill in 1985 (HB-1379). It is our hope they introduce an updated version of this bill.

While much has changed in Pennsylvania since 1985, the ownership of elections (by special interests) has not. Changing this is not only intelligent, it is imperative; otherwise a vital part of our government will be further wedged into the same 100 year-old regressive political state it had been.

While at the stump in 1907, Roosevelt decried that “No people is wholly civilized where a distinction is drawn between stealing an office and stealing a purse.” The time has come to remove that distinction from our courts, and Pennsylvanians must seize the opportunity to take the money out of elections and place qualified judges back in.


Jake Miller is the Chair of the CC/PA Voter-Owned Elections Project Team and John Latini Jr. is a Staff Member of The Pennsylvania Delegation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Bouncing Back From a Mistake

www.BloomUToday.com

September 20, 2007

“I do not measure a man’s success by how high he climbs, but how high he bounces when he hits bottom.” These words, spoken by General George Patton of the WWII Allied Command, have certainly taken new meaning for defining successful leadership.

First example: my high school alma mater. As a former-student-turned-new-teacher, I rejoined a group of old faces under a new role. It was an elating experience to work with all these men and women who I had grown to admire over the years, most especially my former high school principal who was now superintendent. He was a tall, commanding, well spoken fellow who could sell you salt water at the beach or find endlessly great qualities in students I believed were products of Satan.

And then he was pulled over for a DUI.

It was news; big news. And as the stories and allegations built like bricks on a wall, I watched this man I had revered crumble. His clout, his prestige, his optimism – they all waned as the days grew long. He had climbed mighty high at our district, but when it came to bouncing, the direness of the situation provided our school district’s leader the springiness of Play-Doh. So he resigned.

Second example: as you may know, a similar story now exists on the hills of Bloomsburg University. In 2006, students elected a well qualified, compassionate leader to represent the best interests of the 7,000+ students that call the school home. Thinking that they made a mistake is as ridiculous as asking our school district’s board if they wish they had gone with a different superintendent. In both cases, the electors selected who they found to be the best man for the job.

But to find no fault in these two cases is naïve. The mistake certainly lays in their actions. Sure, a sizable portion of Americans might drive under the influence, but that never makes it right. It is a danger to drive drunk to one’s own safety, and, more so, the safety of innocent others. This article is not intended to right that wrong nor apologize for any one’s actions.

The point to this article is to prove that wrongs, whatever they may be, can be righted. Our former superintendent is doing everything in his power to reclaim that sizable spot in the sun his presence once occupied. Don’t expect anything less than your Student President to do the same.

Remember, the only way to measure your leader’s success is how high he bounces once he hits bottom. I wish your leader the recoil of a bed spring, but in the case that he can’t bounce back, I wish him the resolve of Gen. George Patton in his future endeavors.


Jake Miller ‘05
Teacher, Panther Valley High School

Today's partisans forget Constitution's lessons

Allentown Morning Call

September 19, 2007

Two-hundred and twenty years ago, a motley collection of 55 newly anointed Americans dedicated themselves not to fixing our national government, but creating a new (and revolutionary) one. Seeking to replace the failing Articles of Confederation, our Founding Fathers longed to provide for a more perfect union. Surely one has heard the Constitution Convention's truthful fables -- a sweltering Philadelphia summer coupled with the windows and doors shut tight, debates lasting six hours at a time, delegates laboring for 14 hours a day, six days a week. Yet even though there were flaws in the new document (slavery of course the most prominent), its adoption through compromise is something that deserves adoration, especially when compared to our current world.

Today, compromise is no longer a means of survival; it is blasphemy. The political divide that separates us has become something we cannot bridge because the ''R'' or ''D'' on our voting ticket is more important than being an American.

Examine any issue -- abortion, illegal immigration, Social Security -- and one will find a political partition where there's no middle ground and no solution. Today's government has become more of an exclamation (''I'm more right than you are!'') than collaboration (''How can we work together on this?'').

Asking a Democrat to compromise with a Republican is almost an open invitation to a liberal lynching. For example, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., cooperated with President Bush to extend our terrorist wiretapping system, war-protester Cindy Sheehan announced she would run for Rep. Pelosi's seat because Pelosi obliged President Bush rather than impeached him.

Asking a Republican to compromise with a Democrat is the equivalent to heresy. When Sen. Arlen Specter prodded former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales about his elusiveness in the dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys, Republicans held Specter in contempt. Despite his attempts to uncover the truth for Americans, he was harangued by his own party. Ironically enough, Gonzales stepped down Monday on the anniversary of the U.S. Constitution.

Will Sept. 17 remain a day where we celebrate one of the world's greatest governmental compromises, or will it be a day where we one day mourn its death?

I often wonder what it would be like if George Washington's hand were able to comfort President Bush's shoulder during tough times, with the first president saying, ''It is okay to work in the middle, because it is in the middle that often benefits most Americans.''

Or if John Adams and Thomas Jefferson -- fierce political opponents and yet the closest of friends on their deathbeds -- could address current-day Congress, how would they stress the importance of compromise?

It is hard to imagine it doing anything but help.

Support Lansford Skatepark

The Times News

August 23, 2007

Valley students who "skate" – rollerbladers or skateboarders – have long been publicly chastised by local officials. Back in the early 1990s, a group of my teenage friends and I organized to end the repugnance directed towards us, yet failed.

We appeared at a Nesquehoning town council meeting to express concerns over the punishments we endured while skating. My peers were arrested, fined, and treated as second-class athletes because of the way skating in perceived by the public and the police (note, many will scoff even at my use of the a-word). When we proposed creating a skatepark, officials assured us such a haven; but when those promises broke like a wooden skate-deck, we grew very abhorrent and negligent to the law.

Today, while skating has grown in popularity, much of the public disregard remains unchanged. Children remain free to toss a football from street corner to street corner and adults ride bicycles along the heavily traveled and narrow roads of Rt. 209, but skating at schools, parking lots, and along curbs remains a crime. Recently two young teens were arrested for skating in the unrestricted areas – that being every parcel of land – in Lansford.

This is why I urge the citizens to support a skatepark in Lansford. When people want to play football – rather than engage in drug use or street crime – we build them a field. Why should the same parallel not hold fast for skating?

As a teacher at Panther Valley, I promise to "put my money where my mouth is" by helping advise the students and citizens who wish to provide leadership to this project, and help them find success and a safe haven that my friends and I could never locate.

Voter-Owned Elections Give Ownership Where Due

Jake Miller
August 20, 2007


On August 14, 2007, the Commonwealth Foundation released a statement declaring the impracticality of campaign finance reform or “clean elections.” If you’re unaware of the topic, much of the local media will soon inform you of its demeanor. Clean elections (or voter-owned elections) is an optional system where a political candidate can rely upon public monies to provide for the funds for his or her campaign, rather than traditional “dialing for dollars,” bundling, or online fundraising.

Several states have successfully passed and implemented Clean Elections – those being Arizona, Maine, Connecticut, New Jersey, North Carolina, New Mexico, Vermont, and Massachusetts. Maryland and California are the most recent to consider them.

This debate is important to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania as it is listed on the docket for the General Assembly this upcoming session, and you should strongly urge your legislators to support publicly funded gubernatorial races (HB 1497).

In addition, contact your candidate to support caps on campaign contributions (HB 1721).


Money in Pennsylvania Politics is Becoming Absurd

* The 2008 presidential election will undoubtedly eclipse the $1 billion mark.
* Spending on the 2006 gubernatorial race cost more than $70 million dollars.
* The last two US Senate races in Pennsylvania cost more than $40 million dollars.
* The average amount of money one must raise to run for the United States House of Reps is now $1,000,000.
* Even General Assembly elections are quickly approaching the $100,000 plateau.
* Yet The Commonwealth Foundation wants to assure you this is no problem, because “in 2003 General Motors spent $3.43 billion and Proctor & Gamble spent $3.1 billion in advertising.”

How Is Money a Problem, and Where Does It Originate?

* Most of the money raised is spent on repetitively senseless and negative campaign advertisements that leave most voters with a sour taste of democracy.
* Candidates rely upon corporations, special interests, and their political parties for their campaign fuel, not average Americans.
* Special interests who donate often expect kickbacks – such as government contracts or unfair insight on government policy – which can open the candidates up to corruption.
* Incumbents must dedicate their time to fundraising to secure re-election, often at the expense of their elected duty.
* The costs of elections have caused Former House Rep. Bob Edgar (D-Philadelphia) to support voter-owned elections (and is also current Chair of Common Cause) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to sponsor the Fair Elections Act bill this past legislative session.
* Many elected officials have lost touch with their constituents, resulting in items such as the PA Pay Raise debacle.

Won’t Voter-Owned Elections Cost Too Much?

* The average cost to fund elections in Pennsylvania would be $3 per voter, the current going rate, which is a reasonable cost (Public Campaign).
* But it is a cost well worth it, as it makes candidates responsible to their constituents, not special interests.
* Candidates would only be entitled to benefits if they meet an array of criteria, such as obtaining a certain amount of signatures by speaking with voters in their constituency.
* Government spending would be much more reasonable to reign in, as politicians would be less apt to resort to “pork barreling” and “earmarking” that would have otherwise been spent to satisfying campaign donors.
* And if candidates still prefer to raise money the traditional way, they can.

But Isn’t Money Free Speech?

* According to Buckley v. Valeo (1976), money is free speech.
* An odd list of bedfellows opposes Voter-owned elections, because it inhibits their political clout (liberal interests such as the ACLU and AFL-CIO arm-in-arm with conservative interests such as the NRA and Christian Coalition).
* A mere 1% of the population provides 90% of the funds for candidates (Democracy Matters)
* If the act of speaking is free, it is insanity that hearing candidates speak on issues that matter most has a cost.
* Under voter-owned elections, candidates all have equal access because they have the same funds, and, in turn the candidate with the best platform – not the biggest bank account – will win (Mitch Albom).

People Have Become Frustrated in Their Representation

* More than 70% of people are frustrated with the "American duopoly party system." (The Week Magazine)
* Trust in Congress members and the President has reached all-time lows.
* Yet the amount of uncompetitive and uncontested elections has increased steadily.
* In turn, voting has reached all-time lows.
* Voter-owned election provides an easier pathway for common citizens to take the reigns of their government.

I’m Not Concerned with This Policy, I’m Concerned With…

* Voter-owned elections will curb energy lobbyists, and can help end our addiction to fossil fuels.
* Voter-owned elections can end the headlock education lenders have on the system.
* Voter-owned elections allow candidates to give equal consideration to business AND environmental interests.
* Voter-owned elections can provide a pathway to solve our country’s impending medical crises by removing the money contributed by medical lobbyists.
* Voter-owned elections can increase the spending on U.S. troops by removing the wasteful spending on corporations like Halliburton.
* Voter-owned elections can provide the medium needed to truly confront our crumbling infrastructure by removing pork-barrel projects like the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.”

If Voter-owned Elections Can Do This, What the Hell Are We Waiting For?

* Many citizens need to be informed of this alternative.
* They also must understand there is a cost to this program, albeit one that is worth it (even to some Libertarians).
* Most politicians are afraid to support voter-owned elections because they have already been successful in the traditional method of being elected.


Several media outlets in Pennsylvania have publicly supported Voter-owned elections, such as the Philadelphia Inquirer, Allentown Morning Call, and the Philadelphia Daily News, have proclaimed their support for Voter-owned elections. The same holds true for several of our national representatives, including Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the co-authors of the Fair Elections Now Act (S.1285).

But the biggest push must come from you, the Pennsylvania voter. Call your representatives and ask them to support HB 1497 and HB 1721.

Campaign Finance Limits and Public Funding

An Aug 14, 2007, Statement from the Commonwealth Foundation

Pennsylvania lawmakers have been considering legislation that would limit campaign contributions and would allow for taxpayer financing of gubernatorial campaigns. This legislation is based on the “Clean Election” model passed by Arizona in 1998, New Jersey in 2005, and the Federal laws passed in the mid 1970s. While appealing at first blush, these laws fail to lead to the benefits touted by proponents and, in the process, curtail citizen’s free speech.

Isn’t There Too Much Money In Politics?

* Voters need and want more information about candidates for all offices, not less.
* The amount spent on campaigns is relatively small in comparison with corporate advertising. The top spending presidential candidate may spend $400 million in 2008. By comparison, in 2003, General Motors spent $3.43 billion, and Proctor and Gamble spent $3.1 billion on advertising.
* In 1994, spending on all Congressional races averaged about $3.00 per eligible voter, about the cost of a single movie rental. In 1996, total spending was less than what was spent annually on Barbie dolls.
* Private fundraising gives some assurance that the candidate’s position makes an important contribution to the policy debate by forcing them to appeal to an array of supporters. Public subsidies do not provide this kind of market test, and can lead to money being given to ‘irrelevant’ candidates.

Citizens Don’t Support Taxpayer Financing of Campaigns

* Only 7.3 percent of taxpayers agreed to the $3 presidential public financing check-off in 2006—compared to 29 percent in 1980, according to the IRS.
* By 2008, about half as many Americans will participate in the presidential public financing system as those who give private donations to candidates or parties.* According to a study of “typical check-off programs” in states, participation went from 20 percent to 11 percent from 1980 to 1994.

Campaign Finance Limitations Increase Incumbents’ Advantages

* According to Arizona House and Senate data, the incumbent reelection rate in 2004 was substantially higher than those before the Clean Elections law was put in place.
* Turnover due to electoral defeats has declined in the U.S. House of Representatives since federal campaign finance limits were enacted.
* The spending limits put in place by campaign finance laws help to reinforce incumbent’s advantages in the form of name recognition, staffing, media exposure, and state office budgets.

Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns Lead to Fewer Choices in Candidates

* Since the passing of the Clean Elections law in Arizona, the number of statewide candidates in primary elections dropped from 39 to 7, and legislative candidates dropped from 208 to 188.
* The seven nationwide elections prior to taxpayer funding of candidates averaged 10.7 candidates with at least 1% of votes per primary elections, versus an average of 7.8 candidates since.
* New Jersey’s public financing of gubernatorial campaigns is pointed to as the model for campaign finance reform for Pennsylvania. Yet neither Gov. Corzine nor his opponent participated in the publicly financed system in 2005, each bankrolling their own campaigns with tens of millions. This system advantages multimillionaires, who can use their own money, against candidates whose spending is limited by law.

Taxpayer-Funded Campaigns and Contribution Limits will not Increase Accountability

* Individuals have no choice about whom their money will support—their taxes will be used to finance the campaigns chosen by law and by a government agency.
* Candidates will no longer have to appeal to a broad range of supporters to find donors for their campaigns. They will only have to appeal to one funding source, the government.
* Current disclosure laws provide greater public information that can prevent or reveal corruption and special interest influence than would spending limits.
* In Arizona, privately funded candidates must file 37 financial reports, while government-funded candidates file only three. The candidate who refuses government subsidies is more accountable to the public than those who take them.
* Despite decades of federal campaign finance limits, Congress is plagued by scandals, earmarks, and corruption. There is little evidence that “special interests” have less influence, rather than more.

While the intent of cleaning up state government is commendable, expanding the power of elected and appointed officials is not the way to achieve it. Encouraging, not restricting, free speech is vital, and campaign finance laws such as those proposed only perpetuate the problems of decreased competition and public participation in elections.

The Commonwealth Foundation is an independent, non-profit public policy research and educational institute based in Harrisburg, PA. www.CommonwealthFoundation.org

The Public School “Edifice Complex”

New report assesses spending on buildings vs. instruction

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/

HARRISBURG, PA — Today, the Commonwealth Foundation released a policy report, Edifice Complex: Where Has All the Money Gone?, which examines the spending in public education in Pennsylvania and the role of cyber schooling in saving taxpayers money on school construction costs.

Authors Robert Maranto, Ph.D., an associate professor at Villanova University and a scholar at the Commonwealth Foundation, Nathan Benefield, director of policy research at the Commonwealth Foundation, and Jason O’Brien, a graduate student at Villanova University, examined the level of public education spending on construction and administration relative to spending on student instruction in Pennsylvania’s public schools.

Maranto, Benefield, and O’Brien conclude that “Pennsylvania schools are underperforming not because they spend too little, but perhaps because of how they spend their money.” They suggest that many school districts suffer an “Edifice Complex,” putting buildings ahead of teachers and kids. For example, from 1996-97 to 2005-06, overall public school spending increased 59% (32% after adjusting for inflation)—a 51% increase in instructional expenditures, a 62% increase in administration and support services, and a whopping 103% increase in spending on construction and debt.

“Most disturbingly, we found a surprisingly strong inverse correlation between the percentage of total education spending going to construction and that going to instruction,” said Dr. Maranto. “In other words, school districts that choose to spend more on construction end up spending less on instruction.”

In contrast to traditional public schools, the authors assessed the spending on student instruction in Pennsylvania’s public charter cyber schools. Nearly 16,000 students were enrolled in Pennsylvania public charter cyber schools in 2006-07. Public cyber schools offer students many on-line resources and provide frequent interaction with teachers via on-line lessons and assignments. This allows students to remain at home, which significantly reduces costs to taxpayers.

Despite popularity among parents, public cyber schools have come under increasing attack from school boards and some legislators. Legislation introduced by Rep. Karen Beyer and Rep. Greg Vitali would limit public cyber schools’ independence and reduce funding for cyber students. The authors suggest, however, that instead of attacking cyber schools, school reformers should attempt to apply the public cyber school model to school districts. Schools must become more focused on instruction, better equipped to handle individual students’ needs, and more reliant on parental involvement.

Our Ambiguity with Barry Bonds

Lehighton Times News, August 9th, 2007

Copyright, Jake Miller

Late Saturday night, Barry Bonds used his arm torque to drive a ball off his bat over the reach of an outfielder for the 755th time in his career, tying Hank Aaron for the most prolific and exciting record in sports the career home run title.

On Tuesday, Aug. 7 Bonds crushed another pitch out of the park, to a sellout crowd that was equally mixed with jeers and cheers to break the record. It is interesting to find our love for Barry Bonds is so ambiguous, given his history in the sport.

Barry Bonds was a very productive young player. With a .467 batting average, Bonds was easily selected to the All-American high school team. He then went to Arizona State University, where he proved himself as a demon on the base paths (in 1984 he batted .360 and stole 30 bases) and as a power hitter (.368 BA, 23 HRs, and 66 RBIs in 1985). Bonds was named to the All-American college team, and drafted 6th overall by the Pittsburgh Pirates.

But since Barry Bonds crushed his first homer off of Braves pitcher Greg McMutry on June 4th, 1986, America has had a love-hate relationship with arguably the greatest player in baseball history.

Some of the "loves" include many unbelievable single-season achievements, leading the NL in the following categories: batting average (twice), on base percentage (nine times), slugging percentage (seven times), extra base hits (three times), runs (once), RBIs (once), walks (eleven times), intentional walks (eleven times), and runs created (five times). Bonds also holds the single-season record for on-base percentage (.609), slugging (.863), and is one of only four members of the 40-40 (homeruns and stolen bases) Club.

While America grieved in 2001, they turned to the hard-swinging lefty in San Francisco for solace. Bonds responded by blasting 73 homeruns that season, a remarkable achievement. The mark is more incredible when one realizes Bonds walked a record 177 times that season (He later broke that mark with 232 in 2004).

Throughout his career Bonds has an unprecedented amount of MVP awards (7), including the most consecutive (4, from 2001-2004). He also holds the record for most walks (2,539), has been named to 14 All-Star games, earned 8 Gold Gloves, and 12 Silver Slugger Awards. Bonds is the only member of the 400-400 (Homeruns & Stolen bases) Club and may be the only member ever to reach the plateau of the 500-500 club. Bonds is also in the top 5 of many crucial lifetime categories, such as runs (3rd), RBIs (5th), extra-base hits (2nd), times on base (2nd), total bases (4th), and, of course, home runs (1st).

On stats alone, to say Bonds is Hall of Fame worthy is an understatement.

But there has always been a darker side to this slugger. According to "Love Me Hate Me" by Jeff Pearlman, Bonds was voted off his college team by his teammates by a margin of 22-2 (which was overruled by Coach Brock). Bonds is also one of the few players to have withdrawn from the MLB Players' Association, and most kids playing video games won't find a Barry Bonds player in the Giants outfield.

Bonds has also been subject to countless accusations of perjury in regards to the BALCO scandal of 2003 (where Bonds was accused of taking two prohibited steroids dubbed "the cream" and "the clear"). He was also chastised by former MLB player Jose Canseco for his role along with many others in steroid abuse during the 1990s.

Steroids even appeared during his 755th home run. Ironically, the shot was hit off Padres' pitcher Clay Hensley, a former teammate of Bonds who was suspended from MLB in 2005 for violating the league's substance abuse policy.

When Bonds hit his record breaking 756th on Tuesday, a majority of people were rooting against him (52 percent, according to an ESPN poll). Countless current Hall of Famers were rooting against him, and more than a handful of fans were holding asterisks in the air like pints of beer during a cheers.

And somewhere out there, there are plenty of Bonds fans most of all, Bonds himself.

Sick-o of Socialized Medicine

Lehighton Times News, July 14, 2007

Copyright, Jake Miller

In his July 12th article, Paul Willistein believes that Sicko is a movie “that every one should see… regardless of whether the movie is ‘right or wrong’” and the mere conversation it ignites – socialized American medicine – is something we need to consider.

While the health industry (and its ballooning costs) is something that needs to be very thoroughly discussed, state-controlled health care is more alarming than it is practical. For example, the film Sicko lauds Cuba – the poor country that houses countless people who wish to immigrate to the United States – as the country we should emulate. It also fails to mention the costs, the lines, and the red tape.

Government-controlled medicine is flawed.

Why you might ask? Our state government took very little time discussing the budget that Rep. McCall put together in early June. It wasn’t until the end of the month that Senate even put it on the agenda. The Senate and Governor then sparred over the budget, and the inability to work out a compromise on time violated the Constitution of the Commonwealth for its fifth year by not adopting a budget by its July 1st deadline, not to mention the one-day layoffs for almost 24,000 state workers.

Congress and President? Even worse.

No doubt these are the people I trust with fixing health care! Sure, please take 10% more of my salary and squander that, too!

An Arabian Proverb states that “Fire, water, and government know nothing of mercy.” To think that we would be extinguishing the health care problem or damming it off by relinquishing it to the government is a terrible misconception.

Suggestions: Let’s start having health care, not sick care; Get pharmaceutical lobbyists out of Congress; Bring down prescription costs; Find real ways to make sure every one is (privately) insured; Ensure that the poor and the elderly have better access to affordable health care.

Let’s fix health care, not the Michael Moore way, but the American way, and elect the proper officials to do it.

Proactive in our Preparation: Prosperity, Politics, & Pupils

June 15, 2007

Copyright, Jake Miller

At Panther Valley’s commencement, Jen Yurick, the class president, spoke about how high school prepared her and her classmates for what the future may bring; a knoll bell before each of them independently enter the world. I could not help but to examine exactly what teachers, parents, and family members prepare these neophytes for, and upon inspection, I realized we prepare them to be proactive.

In 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey identifies the first trait of a success is being proactive. He believes people should “act before a situation becomes a source of confrontation or crisis.” We try to instill this quality in our children – whether teaching about underage drinking or preparing them for a career – and continuously monitor the progress.

Yet it is hard to establish this connection to the subject I teach (American Government), where being proactive is impossible if not cataclysmic. And to be proactive about government is like being Tony Soprano at a Bath & Body Works. It just doesn’t seem to fit.

Yet there are a few things our nation should seriously be proactive about:

• The first is our health (ahem, sick) care system. With rates climbing annually, many employers and employees have hit the panic button on health care. Some politicians have responded by lauding social medicine, some by saying benefits should be slashed. What if we proactively got to the root of the problem, rewarding people for living a healthy lifestyle, full of activity and free of the junk we ingest?
• And what if we made it fun to digest the knowledge one obtains at school? We could stop punishing students for truancy and reprimanding them for doing poorly on standardized tests. America could make school entertaining and educational, while effectively preparing its students for what the global economy will bring.
• We could also teach our children to take care of this earth they will inhabit, lessening the impact they make on our globe. They can be taught that our world has limited resources, and unless we efficiently use them, they will soon disappear with no apparent alternative.
• Americans can also explore the roots of cultural conflict, whether terrorism abroad or immigration at home stems from the rights to these limited resources and their (mis)management and distribution. What if we proactively handled this situation by absolutely destroying the inequality that exists between the “haves” and “have-nots” in the Middle East and other terrorist zones, and reined in that same disparity that separates Mexico and its destitution and America and its Dream.

Yet we lack the leadership to do these things because we don’t necessarily elect the strongest citizens to office, we elect the one’s who can collect the most money. And when elected, these Jeffersons stuff money in their freezer and the Neys receive private boats for defense contracts. What if we proactively tackled the problem and not only prevented earmarks and kickbacks to campaign donors, but freed our leaders from corporate kowtowing and earned more accountability for the community?

But the closest elected official you would be able to ask of being proactive about some of the issues is some one who has learned it, like Class President Jen Yurick. Our politicians sure can learn a thing or two about the world they are leaving to our children. And unless we can learn to act – proactively – we’ll have nothing left but the rhetoric of the speeches given at the commencement of our prosperity.

Train Center Should Focus on Tickets Out of Here

Allentown Morning Call, January 9, 2007

Lehighton Times News, January 16, 2007

Copyright, Jake Miller

Though deplete of trains, one old railroad station has undoubtedly found more visitors in this young 2007 than it has in fifty previous years. Packerton Yards, once a crucial railroad hub, is now the site of fallow fields and a depreciated structure. Used during the “coal is king” era, the Yards provided warehousing and shelter to make vital repairs on the Lehigh Valley Railroad. It served as an essential link between the anthracite that was harvested in Carbon County and the bellowing furnaces of Bethlehem Steel. While Bethlehem Steel receives a major facelift for its new casino complex, the antiquated edifice’s future is in question.

Some, such as Al Zagofsky and others at SavePackertonYards.com, wish the area to be preserved as museum (to railway workers across America) and to erect a tourist locale. The old Yards would be an ideal location to shuttle tourists to and from the increasingly popular Jim Thorpe downtown, “reducing traffic” and “adding a fun train ride along the riverside for the visitors” while also becoming the epicenter for rail buffs across the nation.

But not every one is all aboard. Carbon County Commissioners Bill O'Gurek, Charlie Getz and Wayne Nothstein along with Congressman Paul Kanjorski have been securing funds, both federal and state, to sponsor an industrial park on the 59 acre parcel of land. A mere two miles from I-476, easy access to a railway and a tax-free Keystone Opportunity Zone, the site, if properly developed, will gain attention of several industries and should supply a fair amount of jobs to the county.

Both of these proposals, as auspicious as they are, fail to focus on bettering our community. Carbon County does not need more jobs; it needs better jobs. More day-laboring at a factory is not the future of our economy, nor does it fit in with our degree-wielding college graduates’ ambitions.

Similarly, Carbon County does not need more visitors; it needs more residents. The biggest problem in this area, and in Pennsylvania as a whole, is that our educated youth readily leave the Mahoning Valley and Lehigh Valley for better paying jobs in bigger cities. It was the trend for my generation, and will continue in the future – for a solid 7 out of 10 Panther Valley students believe they will leave the area and have no qualms about their endeavors.

So while we focus a debate to preserve a splendid time in Carbon County’s history when coal was its chief export, what if we addressed our chief export today – the educated youth? Certainly, our past should be protected, but not at the expense the county’s future residents. There are many great things about this beautiful, idyllic area; they can certainly be preserved while attracting and retaining Pennsylvania’s young men and women. What if the Yards would become an entertainment center? A software engineering plant? An outlet shopping center? Or what if the land was used for an alternative energy center or clean coal plant?

Bethlehem has done an admirable job of preserving its history while also positioning itself for the future – the Lehigh Valley stands to gain a good amount of ground in the next decade because of it. Carbon County can, on a smaller scale, accomplish the same at Packerton Yards. If not, the Carbon County of tomorrow could be as dilapidated as the Packerton Yards’ station stands today, with just as many young Pennsylvanians looking for their ticket out of here unless we find them reason to stay.

And to the Republic, for Which It Stands...

November 2006
Copyright, Jake Miller

Every morning, school children across the nation pledge allegiance to the flag. Of the United States of America. And to the republic. For which it stands. One nation. Under God. With liberty and justice for all.

Most of our pledge is easily deciphered. Except one thing – that troublesome “republic, for which it stands.” So I ask you – what is it that our nation “stands” for?

Certainly it isn’t civic engagement. A lack of citizen participation is rampant across the United States. Every November it seems as though we are reminded all too well. Considering there are 10 million of age voters in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, we find fortune in a midterm election turnout of 4 million. 40%. Even with all the topics of concern this year (gubernatorial election, hot Senate Race, the signing of the General Assembly’s pay raise, etc.), 2006 will be ignored by the larger majority. Since when did ignorance become part of the Pledge?

We cannot rely on a voting increase in the presidential election. History predicts the turnout in 2008 will dance near fifty percent, meaning 150 million Americans will sit on their asses. According to Eric Effron of The Week, our nation ranks a dismal 139th of 194 nations in voter participation, even in our best of years. The greatest democracy in the world? I think not.

The problem is that citizenship is not taught to our youth. Students can put their hand over their heart every morning and say a few words, but democracy’s roots are in participation. Teachers have every general election to explain how the Founding Fathers meant for us to take pride in directing our nation. However, most of nation’s denizens are nothing more than a grumbling audience watching a game of politics that frustrates all and turns off most.

Seemingly, this petulance does not only occupy the sidelines of voting. Volunteers are needed for a variety of causes – from United Way to Habitat for Humanity and even in their child’s organizations – yet most Americans feel too encumbered to participate in the positive portion of America’s agenda. Most would rather stay home and watch prime time television.

The apathy and ignorance must be stopped. Americans need to band together and teach their children just how wonderful a country we have and how rich it is in history and in possibility. It is our duty to lead by example. Talk to your children about making our nation and world a better place. One Nation. With hope.

Every general election we should observe a nation-wide holiday: American Day. All schools and banks should be closed. All workers should have the optional day off. Participate. Gather. Discuss what it means to be an American. How important it is to vote. Protect liberty and justice for all. Defend our way of life before it vanishes before our apathetic eyes. Before the United States is nothing more than a republic that no longer “stands” but rather needs to sit down every few minutes for a breather.

The Iraqi Examination

Lehighton Times News, October 12, 2006

Copyright, Jake Miller

The current Iraq War is quite a test. No, it's not like any of the examinations that my ninth graders face, but it does test a lot of things in this country: unity, morality, rationality, politics - just to name a few. As each day passes, soldiers sacrifice, support for the war wanes and the conflagration grows more complex.

Especially at home. Here we find that there are no standardized means of assessing the direction and length of the war, but we all too well feel that we are experts - pundits who thoroughly express our opinions as if we were 14-year-olds who knew more than the teacher.

These opinions that Americans, both on the far left and right, adhere to became increasingly obvious when I invited my brother (the maniac in the above pic), a two-time Iraq War veteran, into my classroom. The young students in my class continually tried to make sense of the foreign war through what little information the media, their teachers and their parents have provided them. Any observer could sense they were troubled. One could notice it in their eyes. More so in their questions.

They would prod my brother for his opinion as to whether America should occupy Iraq, to which my brother replied, "Part of me says yes, but most of me says no."

And they would ponder the timetable for withdrawal, to which the steady, young soldier boldly countered, "If we pull out now, or even in the next five years, it's going to be hell. It's going to be religious persecution. While it would be great to leave, we can't."

Complexities like this are what cause many of us, like perplexed 14-year-olds, to get lost in the war. We know we have read about the subject, studied the subject, and heard the arguments, but the intricacies of the war destroy any of our hopes in comprehending it.

Yet far too many citizens fail to understand that the Iraq War is incapable of being fully understood a comfortable 4,000 miles away. Even with a college education, political experience and constant statistical analysis, I finally realized I am an ignorant student.

You probably are, too.

The same overwhelmingly holds true for our elected leaders - many of whom have no active duty military experience. Throughout the major wars the United States participated in, Congress and other officials had a sizable bloc of members who served in the armed forces. Not today. They are mostly lawyers and MBAs, many of who cannot fathom fighting a war or wielding a weapon.

So, is it as dire as if my 14-year-olds have overtaken my classroom? No - but it is a crucial time to make students out of our leaders and our public. The real experts behind the war - those who fought in it - have too long been silenced. Regardless of your political beliefs, all Americans want to find the best outcome for victory with losing as little lives as possible. But we will never unearth that approach if we prevent our teachers, the soldiers who have bravely braced the battle, from teaching; and we will never pass this, the greatest test so far of the 21st century, without silencing our own beliefs and taking notes on the lesson unfolding in front of us in each soldier's story.