Published in the Allentown Morning Call and the Lehighton Times News, June 2008
One of the most peculiar things about teaching is when students ask, “What is something good I can do with my life?”
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Economics 101 - For the High School Graduate
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Dollars & Democracy: The 2008 Election Highlights American Excess
Like a credit card bill from hell, first quarter fundraising reports showed an excessive amount of dollars collected for the 2008 presidential candidates. Senator Hillary Clinton leads the soon-to-be spending spree, having raised $36 million through the first three months of her campaign, quadrupling the record amount collected by Al Gore in 1999. Even John Edwards – the third place finisher in the Democratic primary – has eclipsed Gore’s numbers, raising a cool $13 million for his campaign;
Neither does more money mean more debate; it eliminates it. Today we hardly elect the candidate with the best ideas. We elect the candidate who gets our attention, and that usually comes at a price and with many purse strings. According to OpenSecrets.org, we elect the candidate with the biggest checkbook 97% of the time. This causes many deserving candidates to drop out of the race early simply because they cannot keep up with the fundraising. More money means less candidates and less debate.
Money has not enhanced our democracy, it has squandered it. The only way to solve this is to slowly take it back from campaign donors and pork-barrel spending projects and for every voter to look at their politician like they would their teenager with our national credit card. Call it "American Excess," because that is what money has done to our political system. If we neglect to watch it, recover it, and reinvent it, the great democratic system that was fine-tuned in this country and replicated around the world will not be every where we want it to be.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Rendell Brings Shovel to a Snowball Fight
KeystonePolitics.com, February 12, 2008
As Pennsylvania was blanketed by snow on Tuesday, the thickest “white stuff” was recorded by Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
“You’ve got conservative whites [in Pennsylvania],” said Governor Ed Rendell, “who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.” Rendell continues his charade, saying, while “looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann been the identical candidate that he was – well-spoken, charismatic, good-looking – but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so.”
Wow. Did Pennsylvania really elect a man so insensitive, so egotistical, and so naïve?
I have three questions for you, Mr. Rendell:
Don’t you believe you won in the 2006 general election because you were the stronger candidate?
The 2006 Swann campaign was infantile: Swann had political party (our state is slightly Democrat) and fundraising disadvantages (Rendell out-raised Swann 2:1). He was also a non-native Pennsylvanian that had no political experience running against the incumbent governor, who walloped him in every debate because Swann had the policy-handling skills of Humpty Dumpty. Why he lost the election had nothing to do with his skin color. It had to do with Rendell’s ability to work a shovel and Swann’s lack of it.
Second, since you relied upon black and suburbanite voters, never conservative whites, what gives you the right to speak on their behalf?
When gun control and abortion became major wedge issues in the 2002 primary race, Rendell lost every middle county to current Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. In 2006 he lost these counties again, sans a handful. Rendell’s comments not only unearthed James Carville’s description of Pennsylvania (“Pittsburgh to the west, Philadelphia to the east, and Alabama in between”), it attempted to recast the areas (he never carried) as culturally backward, as if the Little Rock Nine, Brown v. Board, and Martin Luther King, Jr. did little to change the mindset of its residents. And as a resident of these areas, it’s offensive.
Lastly, since conservative whites are opposed to label candidates such as the “black” one, why would they support the “woman candidate” – especially one with the last name of Clinton? Or why should they support any candidate you endorse?
Based on profiling, most voters who will disregard Obama will also not vote for Clinton, just as they disregarded Rendell. By pitting the two candidates against each other – and reinforcing the “conservative whites’” distaste for him – our governor is reducing the slight Democratic lead for either winner, whether it’s Obama or Clinton. Instead, the scales tilt toward the moderate and toward the Republican. Advantage: McCain.
At this time next month, the presidential primary will move to Pennsylvania. And, just like cinders spoil a fresh, uncontaminated snowfall, insensitive comments issued by our own governor may have tarnished one of the greatest moments in our state’s electoral history. But then again, the next comment could be even more outrageous, too.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Teaching to the Test Extinguishes Fire of Learning
KeystonePolitics.com, January 22nd 2008
“Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.”
While a student at Bloomsburg University, I remember stumbling across this banner, and being floored by its message. These words, which I later learned was a quote by Irish poet William Bulter Yeats, have served as the flag to my classroom.
I am a firm believer that students learn by doing, but more importantly by wanting to do. Give them a torch and a sense of guidance, and they will find their way. But give them a pail, and you’ll find how much they hat being compared to other students on assessments such as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA).
After learning about the PA Board of Education’s decision to make PSSAs standard as a graduation requirement, I gave them the torch of my classroom to discuss the proposals. Here’s what I learned:
A mere mention of the acronym PSSA automatically conjured an array of emotions. Some students were filled with revile. They hate the PSSA. But they detest our school’s 4SIGHT remedial test, its evil step-brother, even more. Just yesterday one of my “problematic” 9th grade students was pulled from my class during a test review – which he was fully participative and thoroughly enjoying – to fulfill his 4sight requirement. He pleaded to stay, but I explained the state supercedes me as boss. His response? “Mr. Miller, I’m going to finish in 5 minutes.” He was back in four.
There are many students like this young man who have learned to be apathetic about tests. After years of taking tests with no review of their answers, they do not know how to improve themselves and achieve the coveted “Advanced” or “Proficient” rankings. So they’ve learned to be unconcerned.
Others are entirely consumed by them. One student told me that when he was in 3rd grade he “used to get nauseous the day before the PSSA because he had been brainwashed to succeed.” Instead of finding success, some unearth stress. Approximately 49% of students suffer from test anxiety; giving them more tests shows how little their apprehension matters.
Special education students are also a concern. One of my students explained to the class, “if we have these standardized tests, a student like me might be forced to drop out.” Her face turned sour as explained, “I need teachers’ help on tests, and I feel lost when I take the PSSA.”
What about vocational-technical students? “I’m not going to college,” professed one of my very blatant students. “I just want to learn a trade. But with this proposal, I’ll be forced out of something I love to do into college prep courses. That is crap.”
“Imagine that your son or daughter has problems the year they are to take one of the two English PSSAs (language arts and reading/writing, which must both be passed),” said another student. “It doesn’t matter the problem – whether a bad teacher, a teacher on maternity leave, or the student has personal issues. They’ll be forced to take a test they need to pass but are doomed to fail.”
I love feeling floored by statements like that.
But if teachers are forced to teach to tests, conversations – like this one where students discuss and solve problems – will be replaced by the memorization of answers. In effect, we will force a continual extinguishing of the fire by examining the filling the pail that is standardized testing. It’s a light we cannot afford to lose.
While a student at Bloomsburg University, I remember stumbling across this banner, and being floored by its message. These words, which I later learned was a quote by Irish poet William Bulter Yeats, have served as the flag to my classroom.
I am a firm believer that students learn by doing, but more importantly by wanting to do. Give them a torch and a sense of guidance, and they will find their way. But give them a pail, and you’ll find how much they hat being compared to other students on assessments such as the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA).
After learning about the PA Board of Education’s decision to make PSSAs standard as a graduation requirement, I gave them the torch of my classroom to discuss the proposals. Here’s what I learned:
A mere mention of the acronym PSSA automatically conjured an array of emotions. Some students were filled with revile. They hate the PSSA. But they detest our school’s 4SIGHT remedial test, its evil step-brother, even more. Just yesterday one of my “problematic” 9th grade students was pulled from my class during a test review – which he was fully participative and thoroughly enjoying – to fulfill his 4sight requirement. He pleaded to stay, but I explained the state supercedes me as boss. His response? “Mr. Miller, I’m going to finish in 5 minutes.” He was back in four.
There are many students like this young man who have learned to be apathetic about tests. After years of taking tests with no review of their answers, they do not know how to improve themselves and achieve the coveted “Advanced” or “Proficient” rankings. So they’ve learned to be unconcerned.
Others are entirely consumed by them. One student told me that when he was in 3rd grade he “used to get nauseous the day before the PSSA because he had been brainwashed to succeed.” Instead of finding success, some unearth stress. Approximately 49% of students suffer from test anxiety; giving them more tests shows how little their apprehension matters.
Special education students are also a concern. One of my students explained to the class, “if we have these standardized tests, a student like me might be forced to drop out.” Her face turned sour as explained, “I need teachers’ help on tests, and I feel lost when I take the PSSA.”
What about vocational-technical students? “I’m not going to college,” professed one of my very blatant students. “I just want to learn a trade. But with this proposal, I’ll be forced out of something I love to do into college prep courses. That is crap.”
“Imagine that your son or daughter has problems the year they are to take one of the two English PSSAs (language arts and reading/writing, which must both be passed),” said another student. “It doesn’t matter the problem – whether a bad teacher, a teacher on maternity leave, or the student has personal issues. They’ll be forced to take a test they need to pass but are doomed to fail.”
I love feeling floored by statements like that.
But if teachers are forced to teach to tests, conversations – like this one where students discuss and solve problems – will be replaced by the memorization of answers. In effect, we will force a continual extinguishing of the fire by examining the filling the pail that is standardized testing. It’s a light we cannot afford to lose.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
"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.
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.
Friday, December 07, 2007
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
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
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Local Voting: Teach Your Kids the Importance
The Times News
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.
"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.
Monday, October 08, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Bouncing Back From a Mistake
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
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Today's partisans forget Constitution's lessons
Allentown Morning Call
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.
Friday, August 24, 2007
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.
Monday, August 20, 2007
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.
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
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
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.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Our Ambiguity with Barry Bonds
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)