Posts for category ‘Pennsylvania’

Great roundup from Sestak’s people about why Toomey is a disaster.  As always, this is well-sourced.

The Pennsylvania Senate Race:
Us vs. Them
Sept. 4, 2010

This week, Pennsylvania Senate candidate Joe Sestak released his first ad of the general election, revealing the starkest difference to date of him and his opponent. In the ad, Wall Street’s Congressman Toomey revealed his outrageous proposal to eliminate all corporate taxes by raising them on working families.

Joe Sestak Hits Campaign Trail to Discuss Plan to Put Pennsylvania Families First

“Similarities superficial in Pa. Senate contest”
►    “Mr. Sestak pulled his hybrid car up to a church on a North Philadelphia street corner that was once known as “Crack Lane” and “Cocaine Alley.” It was the first stop on a “Jobs and Opportunities” tour … Mr. Sestak called community leaders there to discuss a report showing that only 28 percent of the city’s black males earn high school diplomas. He called for more accountability in city schools, including in early education, teacher training and vocational training programs.” [Washington Times, 8/30/10]

“Sestak touts small businesses in West Philly”
►    “Sestak says to help the country and small businesses grow and thrive, it’s important to encourage small business lending, and strengthen small business programs targeting women, veterans and minorities. ‘Philadelphia’s at its lowest employment in modern history and it’s because of small businesses,” he says.  “We have less small businesses today than we had 30 years ago.  They create 80% of all jobs.  If there is now a time when we could come together in Washington D.C. and say where should we focus?  It’s in small businesses!’” [WHYY, 8/31/10]

“Sestak campaigns at Grange Fair”
►    “Sestak literally ran from person to person shaking hands, trying to keep up with the rest of the parade while ringing off greetings like “Hello I’m Joe Sestak, a former Navy sailor running for U.S. Senate” or, when he shook the hands of children, “Hi, I’m just a boring congressman … After the parade, Sestak highlighted what he said was his commitment to higher education. Sestak said he voted to expand Pell Grants for college students by $63 billion, but said Toomey had voted against expansions in education spending.” [Daily Collegian, 9/3/10]

Congressman Toomey Wants Zero Corporate Taxes as Middle Class Struggles

“Us vs. Them in Sestak Ad” – “In fact, former U.S. Rep. Pat Toomey loves corporations so much he thinks they shouldn’t pay any taxes, the ad says, showing a clip of Toomey advocating elimination of the corporate tax during an interview with CNBC in 2007.” [Philadelphia Inquirer, 8/31/10, ]

“Sestak goes after Toomey’s anti-tax stance in new ad” – “Toomey’s suggestion about eliminating corporate taxes would have been popular with Club for Growth supporters, the anti-tax group he once led. But it gives Democrats more ammunition in their effort to tie him to Wall Street.”[The Hill, 8/31/10]

“A bit of context” – “Toomey clearly supports the elimination of corporate taxes, with no ambiguity.” [Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 8/31/10,

"WGAL: True" - WGAL put U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak's new ad against Congressman Toomey "through the 'News 8 Ad Watch Truth Meter' [and] found it’s true.” [WGAL, 8/31/10]

“Pat Toomey thinks corporations shouldn’t pay any taxes” – “We gave the Toomey camp the opportunity to say the candidate opposes zero corporate taxation, but the campaign did not do so.” [PolitiFact, 9/1/10]

This is not a satirical joke.  Pat Toomey, the Republican running for Senate against Joe Sestak, wants ZERO corporate taxes.  It’s on video.  On the record.  Established.  There is no escape.  This man loves business.  In fact, I caught him French-kissing business behind the bleachers yesterday.

Here is a release from Sestak full of juicy links that expose this raunchy love-affair:

MEDIA, Pa – After two days spent trying to hide his position on eliminating taxes for Wall Street banks and Big Oil, Congressman Toomey will not deny his support for zero corporate taxes, even at the expense of Pennsylvania’s working families. After approaching the Toomey campaign directly about the issue yesterday, PolitiFact reported, “We gave the Toomey camp the opportunity to say the candidate opposes zero corporate taxation, but the campaign did not do so.” The Toomey campaign is willing to go to such lengths to disguise his record that it calls Congressman Toomey’s own plan — which he has argued for on national television and in his own book — “impractical” and “an intellectual exercise.” They must realize how much harm his proposal would do to the middle class to benefit his special-interest friends. 

If corporate tax rates were to be eliminated altogether, it would add more than $225 billion to the debt every year, over $9 billion annually from Pennsylvania alone. Corporations already dodge their full tax liability through loopholes, credits and tax havens.

Exxon Mobil, GE and Bank of America made $52 billion combined in pre-tax income last year but did not pay a single penny in corporate income tax to the U.S. government.

In fact, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office reported that 61 percent of U.S. corporations reported tax liabilities of less than 5 percent of their total income in 2000 though the official corporate income tax rate is 35 percent.

There has been a steep decline in the amount of tax that is actually paid by corporations. The rate fell from a high of 39.8 percent in 1943 to a low of 7.4 percent in 2003.

Though Chevron and Ford made a combined $21.5 billion, they paid their taxes at a rate of only 1 percent.

“We need to ensure that our American businesses stay competitive, but we cannot allow large multinational corporations that reap billions in profits to shortchange the middle class and small businesses trying to stay competitive,” said Joe. “Congressman Toomey’s conclusion that America has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world is based on the faulty premise that they pay anything near that. If he claims to be on the side of working families, he should think about their interests over corporate interests.”


“Last week, Congressman Toomey was trying to disguise his position on privatizing Social Security even though he was on record 36 times supporting it,” said Sestak campaign spokesman Jonathon Dworkin. “Now, he is trying to hide his position on eliminating taxes for big banks and oil companies at the expense of the middle class. Somehow, Congressman Toomey believes he can run a campaign of deception and does not think Pennsylvanians will hold him accountable for what he has said and done.”

And here is another Sestak release with some more Toomey Fun Facts!

Taxes: The Toomey Record & Priorities

In his appearance on CNBC, Congressman Toomey made it clear that he wants to “eliminate corporate taxes altogether.” He leaves out that he would increase revenue by raising taxes on working families. Congressman Toomey has supported two tax proposals with one thing in common; they cut taxes for oil companies and Wall Street by raising them for the rest of us.

Under a Flat Tax like Toomey proposes, CEOs at big banks would pay nothing on their Wall Street earnings, while 95% of workers would see a tax hike of almost $3,000. [Citizens for Tax Justice, 2/19/10]
Under Toomey’s national sales tax proposal, taxes on BP and Bank of America would be completely eliminated, but middle class Americans would have to pay a tax of at least 30% on everything they do, including buying groceries and clothing, visiting the doctor and getting medicine.  [Annenberg Public Policy Center, 5/31/07]
Congressman Toomey voted for every Bush tax proposal in Congress to benefit the wealthiest few

Toomey voted for President Bush’s tax cuts, more than 50 percent of which went to the richest 1 percent of Americans. [HR 1836, Vote 149, 5/26/01; HR 2, Vote 225, 5/23/03]
An exhaustive study based on analysis of tax records and census data by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) showed that tax rates for middle-income earners edged up in 2004, while rates for people at the very top continued to decline. The study reinforced the fact that the Bush tax cuts offered the biggest benefits by far to people at the very top. [New York Times, 1/8/07]
These tax breaks for the wealthy are the number one contributor to the deficits we face today

The Congressman Toomey-George W. Bush tax cuts remain the single largest cause of America’s structural deficit today. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession?  According to the CBO, the Bush tax cuts are by far the largest cause and have added up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years.  [Washington Post, 8/02/10]
Congressman Toomey is fighting to protect another $700 billion in tax cuts for the ultra rich

Today Congressman Toomey is fighting to make permanent President Bush’s 2003 high-income tax cuts  – which will add another $700 billion  to the deficit – despite the fact that the CBO recently concluded that doing so would be the least effective of 11 options to stimulate growth and job creation. [AP, 8/2/2010; CBO, 7/26/10]

Keystone Progress, an activist political blog recently known for getting threatened by gas drilling employees for trying to take photos of a spill, is having some fun at Pat Toomey’s expense.

If you didn’t know, Pat Toomey, the family values candidate, got a lot of money from a porn industry magnate.  Then, when asked about the money, refused to return it and, in fact, welcomed it.  Now, I could care less when this one gives money to that one, except when there’s some inherent hypocrisy.  Pat Toomey is Mr. Family.  Now, he’s Mr. Porn, too.  He’s fair game.

So, in the spirit of being fair game, Keystone Progress has released a new website, www.pornfortoomey.com, which I find pretty hilarious.  I urge you to check it out.

It would’ve been funnier if Facebook hadn’t gotten involved.  KP started a Facebook group, Porn for Toomey, but Facebook, ever against political satire and activism geared at the right wing (they left up tons of Obama is a Muslim groups forever), shut it all down.

Regardless of how this plays out, it’s important that we pay attention to the hypocrisy of Toomey.  Here, it’s that whole family values thing.  Recently, he flip-flopped on Social Security.  First, he wanted to privatize it, then somebody smarter than he is said that would be a bad position in a state with a lot of elderly folks.  Now he says he never said it.  But he did, since we have it sourced all over the place.

Keep up the pressure on Toomey – Pennsylvania deserves better.

Admittedly, the polls rarely look good for Democrats Joe Sestak, running against Pat Toomey for Senate, and Dan Onorato, running against Tom Corbett for Governor.

Today, Toomey is up 9 points in a poll from Franklin and Marshall.  The spread is 40% Toomey to 31% for Sestak.  That’s a likely voter sample.  Among registered voters, Toomey only has a 3 point edge, 31% to 28%.

Dan Onorato is trailing Tom Corbett 11 points, according to the same poll.  Among likely voters, it’s 38% to 27%.  Among registered voters, Corbett only leads by 1%, 29 to 28.

What’s important to note is that neither Corbett nor Toomey have made it about the safe zone of 50%.  In fact, they are far from it.  Being in the neighborhood of 10% behind at this point in the game is not insurmountable for Sestak or Onorato.  The registered voter samples in both polls show a very tight race.  This is important because Pennsylvania has a humungous Democratic voter registration advantage at about 1.2 million.  If Onorato and Sestak can get Democrats to show up, then they can win.

While everybody crows about massive Republican victories, it’s important to note that the Republican Party’s favorability is near an all-time low, which is very different than 1994, when they had their pathetically named “Republican Revolution” and took back Congress.  As Joe Biden said, Republicans need to offer an alternative.  They haven’t.  My guess is they can’t.

Onorato and Sestak in 2010!

The other day, I wrote that Joe Sestak would be getting a huge endorsement by way of former Senator and practicing Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska.  I’ll let the release speak for itself here, needless to say this was a great boost for Sestak.

GOP Sen. Chuck Hagel: Joe Sestak is the Kind of Leader the Senate Needs

Endorses Candidacy at Event in Pittsburgh

PITTSBURGH, Pa. – Calling him a principled and independent leader who will always do what’s right regardless of partisan politics, former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel endorsed Joe Sestak in his bid for the U.S. Senate today.

Speaking in front of the Point of View Statue in downtown Pittsburgh, the two-term Republican senator and Vietnam combat veteran said Admiral Sestak will always stand on the side of working families and fight for practical solutions that put them first. 

”[Joe's] approach is all about solving problems. America wants responsible leaders, who speak responsibly,” said Hagel. “It’s tough to lead, especially with all the complications we have. Joe Sestak has done that.”

“I am honored to have the endorsement of Senator Hagel,” said Joe. “Chuck’s tenure in the Senate is a laudable example of what it means not to be a puppet for your party or special interests but to be a sovereign and tireless advocate for those you serve. He showed that public servants, regardless of diverging opinion, can be problem solvers together, and I hope to follow his shining example in the U.S. Senate.”

Hagel said that as a former businessman, he understands the challenges the country faces amidst the recession and the need for ideas like Joe’s that benefit working families, including a 15 percent tax credit for small businesses, a move that could create as many as 5 million jobs in just two years and help build Pennsylvania’s economy. 

”We are in the middle of dramatic times that come about once every 50 years,” said Hagel.

“I don’t know if America has been in this much trouble since probably the Great Depression, and certainly we have never seen the world be reshaped, reformed, and redefined and reoriented like this since right after World War II. This is a traumatic, unprecedented, historic time and we want steady people at the helm, experienced, wise, careful leaders with courage. This Admiral knows how to do it and has done it.”

While he and Joe may not agree on every issue, Hagel said he admires Joe for his record of reaching across the aisle and working with Republicans, Democrats and others on important issues like supporting our veterans. Hagel noted their work together to pass the Senator’s Post-9/11 GI Bill and that Joe wrote and passed the legislation to reverse a Bush Administration policy excluding more than a million veterans from the VA health system. 

’I have faith in the courage he has displayed all his life on every front, on every issue. I have confidence in his judgment. I have confidence that he will make the right decisions,”  said Hagel. “He will not buckle under any threats or coercions.”

In the annals of the 2010 campaign cycle, we have a nice new entry.  Pat Toomey, Republican candidate to represent PA in the Senate, has said that he never said he would privatize Social Security, and said that characterizations of his position are misleading.

Funny, because we have him on video.  We have him on the record on multiple occasions in reputable news outlets.  Joe Sestak’s campaign issued an excellent press release summing this up. Be sure to click the links.  I do love well-sourced releases.

Will Toomey Take Back Statement Denying His Push To Privatize Social Security?
Video shows him praising President Bush’s privatization plan and saying “we should all be thrilled if this is something that could be accomplished.”

Maybe there is a reason that Congressman Toomey “took no questions from reporters” at a rally yesterday and would not “address the issue [of Social Security].”

On Monday, he told the Pennsylvania Press Club, “I’ve never said I favor privatizing Social Security.” If the 36 instances released earlier this week of his supporting moving retirement savings to Wall Street were not enough to convince him to correct his record, maybe a reminder of a 2005 press conference will be.

Standing side-by-side with top representatives from prominent ultra-conservative groups (the American Conservative Union, the Heritage Foundation and the Family Research Council), Congressman Toomey praised President Bush’s effort to take money from Social Security and let Wall Street risk investing it. (During his 2004 campaign, President Bush said, “I’m going to come out strong after my swearing-in with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security.”)

At the 2005 event, Congressman Toomey addresses President Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security, saying:

“The president deserves an enormous amount of credit for making this a front-burner issue helping Americans to understand the nature of the problem”; and

“I think it’s hopeful, but realistic and we should all be thrilled if this is something that could be accomplished. Profound reform of Social Security could be accomplished in a two or three year period.”

(You can watch the video at the following link and see the transcript below: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/189452-1 – Toomey speaks at the 28:50 mark.)

Congressman Toomey won’t talk about the details of his plan for ‘less government’ because he does not want to admit that this means he wants to effectively end Social Security. Rather than continue to try to ridiculously mislead voters about his privatization plan, Congressman Toomey should correct his own record and admit that he would advocate giving Wall Street control of seniors’ retirement savings and risk putting 20 million seniors into poverty. This fits right in with his proposal for zero corporate taxes, while having a 30 percent tax on the middle class on food, clothing, car purchases, doctors’ visits and other purchases.

American Conservative Union Press Conference on Efforts to Curb Federal Government Spending – October 20, 2005

Reporter (27:44): How would you assess the political will for a second round of Social Security reform? You think Bush is going to have a second chance at it and what does that look like in the overall budget picture?

David Keene (American Conservative Union Chairman): Well I’ll only say I think Pat may want to comment on that, but I will only say that one thing that we have to say is that as President Bush has attempted to address the entitlement problem in some areas and with social security in particular, he has not succeeded and this time, but I think the table has been set so that the problem will be addressed and others as well. So I think in that area, because we were talking about what the administration has and hasn’t done, at least the administration has made an effort. We might wish that it was a stronger effort, we might wish it had been more successful, certainly we wish it had been more successful, but I do think that raising the issue at the time that he did and attempting to get something done about the problem that Ed had mentioned in his opening remarks is something that for which this administration should be praised.

Pat Toomey (President of Club for Growth): I would, first I want to echo David’s comment. First of all, the president deserves enormous amount of credit for making this a front-burner issue helping Americans to understand the nature of the problem. But if we ever thought that a seventy year old program that’s the biggest government program in the history of the world that’s enormously popular was going to change quickly and easily, then we were being naive. The president has moved the ball down the field. I think the ‘06 election cycle is going to have a big impact on whether that ball can be picked up and run further down the field in the next cycle. But I think it’s hopeful, but realistic and we should all be thrilled if this is something that could be accomplished. Profound reform of Social Security could be accomplished in a two or three year period.

Joe Sestak is about to get the endorsement of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.  Bloomberg is an Independent and, philosophically, a New England Republican, which is pretty much a dead breed.

This endorsement is a boon, as Bloomberg straddles an interesting divide: conservatives love his stance on financial issues (he is a billionaire, after all) and liberals appreciate what he’s done for New York City on a social level.  Just look at his recent stand on the Islamic Community Center at the Burlington Coat Factory.

Of course, Sestak’s Republican opponent, Pat Toomey, is totally against the Constitution, because it’s convenient to ignore it when you can play on fears and stoke hatred instead.

I’m glad to see Sestak getting this boost.  He deserves it.  Toomey, on the other hand, deserves a nice big double-digit loss in November.  When Senators are sworn in, they have to swear to uphold the Constitution.  Toomey is blatantly ignoring it in favor of demagoguery.

Vote Sestak!

On CNN yesterday, Pat Toomey claimed that he led a filibuster.  Really?  He’s obviously proud of his status as a Stalwart Republican Naysayer!

Except that in the House of Representatives, where Pat Toomey served, there is no filibuster.  In his anxiousness to prove that, if elected, he would be a waste of space, he forgot the entire system of rules by which the House is run.  I’m sure rules don’t matter to him, anyway.  As long as he can either say no or obstruct progress, he’ll be a happy man.

His campaign defended him by saying that it’s often called an “unheard filibuster” except that the only person on the Internet who has ever done that is Toomey himself in a press release.  No independent or media outlet ever used such a term.  This, of course, means that Toomey is citing his own ignorance to justify his own ignorance, a brilliant tactic in its idiocy.

I actually had a chance to watch Bill Clinton speak, and, as always, it was a pleasure.  Thankfully, the speech was streaming on the Times Leader’s page.

The last time our country had a balanced budget, a budget surplus, and an economic boom, Bill Clinton was President.  Many voters remember that, which is why he’s probably the best person to campaign on behalf of Democratic candidates.  Joe Sestak served as the beneficiary yesterday at Scranton High.

Bill Clinton did something I’ve wanted Democrats to do for a long time: call Congressional Republicans out.  For what, you ask?  Well, they have provided no ideas and only obstruction.  Democrats have provided health care reform, a stimulus package, job creation (vs. epic job loss – and, yes, this ain’t over yet), fair pay for women (this wasn’t a law until Obama’s first month, believe it or not), and Wall Street Reform.  This was all done DESPITE the best efforts of Republican officials to derail each and every piece of legislation.

Clinton pointed out that we had 12 bad years, 8 good years, and 8 bad years.  Now we’ve had 18 months of Obama and we need a little bit more than that to fix all the problems created during the Bush years.  Remember, we had a budget surplus under Clinton.  Republicans are going on and on about balancing the budget.  Why not call up Bill Clinton and ask how it was done?

Joe Sestak got a lot of nice press out of this, and much deserved, too.  President Clinton made the case to elect Sestak: we need somebody who will work for PA, support the working people of the state, and help enact a positive agenda.

Toomey’s response?  “When President Obama teamed up with Nancy Pelosi and Joe Sestak, we got the largest deficits in American history.”

I love how he forgets reality.  We got those deficits under Bush, last I checked.

While I was away, I got a text message about a bizarre plan Governor Rendell proposed to get some money into the state’s coffers to deal with our badly deteriorating roads.  Thankfully, the proposal is nutty enough that I doubt it’ll pass, but the fact that it’s even being considered is disturbing: Governor Rendell wants to put cameras on our highways to track whether or not people are insured.  If they aren’t, then they’ll get fined.

Let’s look at why this is such a dumb proposal.

First, if somebody doesn’t have insurance, I’m not sure what incentive they’ll have to pay a fine, as they’ve already opted not to pay something they’re legally obligated to pay.  That’s if they’re even caught or found.

Next, I’m sure this is a springboard to send automatic tickets to speeders, which I don’t like.

And finally, I am not fond of any proposal that involves government watching its people on camera.  Sorry.  Yes, everybody brings up 1984 and Big Brother in these instances, and we all need to thank George Orwell for that, because it’s totally called for.  The Times, today, brought up that this also violates the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.  The logic that we need to search people to see if they commit crimes assumes that everybody is suspect.  Why not put cameras in our homes to make sure we aren’t operating meth labs?  I mean, where does it end?  The bottom line is that it just shouldn’t have a chance to begin.

New York State has gone and enacted a moratorium on drilling.  Why?  Because of the environmental and safety disasters that have occurred in Pennsylvania, specifically in Dimock Township in Susquehanna County, just a few minutes north of Scrantonite readers.

If New York State has the wisdom to see from Pennsylvania’s woes that it’s best to wait, rather than proceed with drilling, why can’t our Legislature?

I missed this, but last week, Pat Toomey told The American Legion that “there are some in Washington who don’t really believe in American exceptional-ism.” He later confirmed that he was referring to President Obama.

That’s awesome.  Head to a crowd of veterans to denounce the patriotism of the President.  Pretty soon he’s going to start using Sarah Palin’s “real Americans” speech, you know, the one that claimed people from cities aren’t real.

The Chamber of Commerce has gotten behind Pat Toomey.  I know, that’s a big surprise.  A big business shilling organization gets behind a Wall Street playboy?  Pigs have flown, yes.

The way they’ve gotten behind Toomey, though, is by running an attack ad against Joe Sestak.  Except that the ad is full of lies.  Now, who would’ve thought a political attack ad had lies?  Pigs have flown twice now.  The lies include the term “government take over of health care” and that Sestak voted 100% of the time with “Pelosi” (that ridiculous conservative meme that resonates with nobody) .  Well, the health care reform package wasn’t a government take over and Sestak hasn’t voted with the Democrats 100% of the time.

So.  Both claims are lies.  Two stations are actually taking the ads down, believe it or not!  See, most people think free speech means the freedom to buy and run ads full of lies.  Hey, I have the freedom to lie, they say.  Except that two stations at least have some integrity, thankfully.  John Kerry became the victim of Swiftboat lies that were allowed to air regardless of truth and accuracy.  They questioned his Purple Heart and the Republican Party at their 2004 convention disgraced themselves and dishonored veterans, injured in combat or not, by passing out Purple Heart band aids.

I’m beginning to think political campaigning should be legally subjected to fact checking.

There’s a buzzword that people in NEPA need to be aware of and that is “forced pooling.”  Okay, buzzwords.

Forced pooling is a term that refers to the process by which Natural Gas Drillers will drill under your land even if you refuse to sign a lease allowing them to drill on your land.

So, if I decide to be environmentally conscious and refuse to take a big payout for letting Marcellus drillers eviscerate my land, then the companies can just go pay my neighbor and then they’ll drill into my land from next door.

Basically, the government of Pennsylvania is poised to pass a law that allows the rape and pillage of your land regardless of your personal or moral choices and rights.  The law is called the “Conservation Pooling Act” which is totally Orwellian, much like the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind.  Make it sound nice, even though it’s not. See, the problem with government is that you can basically buy the law if the law doesn’t work for you.  I mention the Iron Heel by Jack London quite often, and recommend that everybody read it.  In it, when corporations can’t get what they want legally, they buy politicians who then change the law for them.  If these laws get challenged in courts, they buy the judges.  In the end, American citizens have no choice but to accept the will of a corporate oligarchy.

So it is in Pennsylvania.  Our land is not our own.  It belongs to gas companies.  Our water is not our own.  Gas companies have the right to inject chemicals in it that will make it undrinkable.

People should be up in arms over this.  We are all weighted down with our jobs and our lives and our worries – every distraction imaginable – but ever so slowly, our rights get stripped from us.  When will we start doing something about it?  I understand that helpless feeling.  So I blog to alleviate it.  Maybe it’s not enough.  The powers-that-be don’t seem to pay attention anyway.  I guess I need to incorporate.

This year’s state budget includes $10 million for a Specter Library and $10 million for a Public Policy Center named for deceased Congressman John Murtha.

I’m all for honoring servants of the country and commonwealth, but when libraries are seeing huge budget cuts, for $10 million to be set aside for a library honoring a man who hasn’t yet finished doing his job just doesn’t make sense to me.

Honor these people when there’s money in the budget.  Don’t cut libraries statewide so you can build one in Philadelphia.

Pat Toomey, the Republican PA Senate candidate who wants to privatize Social Security, thereby robbing everybody of their future, has release five separate ads in his quest to best Democratic opponent, Joe Sestak.

One ad blasts one-party rule.  It would be nice if that were relevant.  Democrats may control the Congress and Presidency, but there are two problems.  Republicans can stonewall anything in the Senate if Democrats can’t muster 60 votes (there are only 59 Dems) and the other problem is that Democrats are more likely to vote outside the party line – that is, just because Democratic leadership says “Vote This Way” doesn’t mean Democrats in Congress will.  This is a strength and weakness that the Republicans don’t have to worry about.  It’s a strength because liberal and conservative Democrats routinely vote against Democratic legislation when they feel left out (some Dems voted against Wall Street regulation because it didn’t do enough).  It’s a weakness because it’s harder to get ANY good done if everybody bickers.

I personally feel a stronger Democratic majority would be better for the country.  But that aside, I feel like a three-toed sloth would be better than Pat Toomey.

o                                                    

Which do you prefer?

Charter schools are semi-controversial institutions that educate our young outside the normal public school system while maintaining their publicness.  Charter Schools can have longer or shorter calendars.  They may or may not have unionized teachers.  They are funded by public dollars, despite operating like a private school.  They do not have to accept every student.  They can refuse students with disabilities who are in need of special education.  Teachers and principals do not need to be certified or qualified to work at a charter school.  For-profit corporations may own and operate charter schools.

My perspective on this is informed by my being an educator.

The increasing popularity of charter schools is totally understandable – people view them as a viable alternative to failing public schools.  The reason for their existence, and the above-mentioned leeway, is the idea that public school policy and structure is inadequate and needs alternatives.  Freeing schools from policy constraints will allow them to experiment with new methods that may produce a better-educated child.

A pipe dream.

Aside from the Philadelphia Charter School that doubled up as a bar and night club, the lack of oversight and regulation of charter schools is a problem.  Allowing these schools to hire people who potentially have no background in education will not help a child.  Sure, people without education degrees, or any degrees for that matter, have a lot to offer.  In fact, as a teacher, I’ve brought in nationally recognized authors and experts on medieval music and performance.  These people were able to come in, some for over a week, and teach and talk with students.  While I understand that a piece of paper and years of university study don’t necessarily make somebody a good teacher, that doesn’t mean student are barred access to perspectives.  Oh, and having studied one’s subject matter does help.

But that’s not to say Charter Schools go and hire whomever they want.  They do have to meet goals.  But look at the Pocono Mountain Charter School, which doubles up as a church.  The church’s minister is the principal.  He appointed his wife the vice principal.  Church members have janitorial jobs that pay more than teachers get.  This happens because there is no regulation, no standard, no union.

Unions aren’t the be-all-and-end-all of anything, but they certainly help.  Why?  Well, unions tend to be proud of their profession.  They are not, contrary to anti-union propaganda, havens for job protection at all costs.  They fight for decent contracts, decent working conditions, and fair compensation.  The capitalistic argument that better pay attracts better workers is absolutely true.  But in charter schools, that is irrelevant when there aren’t unions to bargain for pay or working conditions.

I called a friend up in Carbondale to ask her opinion on Fell Charter School.  She said: “We can’t pay for what we have and there’s a public school here already!”  The burden on taxpayers is unfair.  Charter schools cost money to maintain and it’s the obligation of districts to pay for them.  So if enough people band together to form a charter, a district has to divert money from their regular budget to make all their dreams come true.  Beyond this, there is the whole Democratic process.  Underlying the desire for charter schools is the idea that public schools are failing, as I’ve pointed out.  If one is unhappy with the local school system, get involved.  Run for office.  Support candidates that will change things.  Call your local school director.  Sure, that may not be easy, but the process is in place for an addressing of grievances: it’s called democracy.

The idea that a corporation could own a school and educate a child sickens me.  Corporations have one goal, which is to make money.  Education is secondary.  Public schools do not have to worry about turning a profit.  They have to worry about breaking even, in terms of finance, and educating the child, in terms of goals.  Not so with the business world.  A friend in Arizona teaches in a corporate school.  It’s a disaster.  I’ve been teaching five years to his thirteen and I make more money and have better benefits.  And the standard of living outside Phoenix is higher.  This isn’t fair.

But let’s look at performance.  Research all over the place shows that charter schools are basically on par with public schools.  I’ve seen studies that say they are better, worse, and equal.  The overall consensus is that they perform differently depending on how they are run, which means that it depends on the operating philosophy of the charter school.  This defeats the entire purpose.  Without regulation, there is no standard.  As for schools that perform better, don’t forget, charter schools can reject special education students, who routinely drag test scores (it’s a shame that students with disabilities have to compete on the same level as those without).  So that pushes up the bottom line.  As a public school educator, I can tell you that by law we are required to educate every child that walks through our door regardless of their abilities or disabilities.  That’s American education.  Charter schools don’t need to bother.  This is offensive to me.

Oh, and in 2009, the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes published a study of charter schools in America that indicated that 17% performed better than public schools, 40% were on par, and 37% were worse.  That doesn’t sound all that reassuring.

Charter schools have little to no regulation and accountability.  They drain public school resources.  They offer little difference in educational outcome compared to public schools.  They are allowed to discriminate.  They are not required to have hiring standards.

How are charter schools good?

Public school policy needs to be re-examined.  Charter schools are not the answer.

Republican pollster Rasmussen has Pat Toomey up 6 points on Joe Sestak, 45 to 39 with 11% undecided.  A recent PPP poll had them tied.

Even with Rasmussen’s blatant Republican house effect (which just means all of their polls skew toward Republican advantage), there’s little cause for alarm.  Rasmussen routinely stops polling races weeks before elections, which is a sign that they are merely trying to set a narrative (OMG, Pat Toomey is up 6!) rather than provide an accurate reading of what’s going on.  In fact, their numbers have been off in more than one of the recent primaries (Specter was supposed to win, according to them).  But, as I keep reminding readers, with a 1.2/1.3 million voter registration advantage, more of the undecideds will break Democrat.

Oh, and Toomey is pretty radical.  I’m sure seniors won’t be voting for somebody who wants to dismantle Social Security.

The Legislature has proven its fear of and subservience to special interests in the latest budget compromise.

The DEP is going to see its funding cut by 9%.  That’s at a time when Marcellus Shale drilling is rapidly poisoning and destroying our environment.  I’m sure Drillers are loving this particular “cost-saving” measure.  See, “cost-saving” is another amorphous word (as per yesterday’s essay) as this will only incur epic costs in the long run.  Without DEP inspectors going to drill rigs, we may not find out about spills and environmental harm.  As a matter of fact, even at the funding levels we have now, we’re missing spills and environmental harm.  Now it’ll be easier for drillers to abuse Pennsylvania’s land in their unmitigated pursuit of profit.  Thanks, Legislature, for helping them on their way.

In addition, State Parks will see their funding cut.  Hell, if we’re going to let drillers destroy nature unabated, we don’t need State Parks.  Who wants to appreciate natural beauty?  Not the Legislature, that’s for sure.

Libraries will also see cuts… again.  Allowing the community to access information and participate in learning and cultural programs is definitely not worth funding.  Who wants people accessing information?  Not the Legislature.

The sad fact of the matter is that raising taxes in certain areas should’ve been viewed as necessary.  Lowering and broadening the sales tax would’ve made perfect sense.  Pay 4%, rather than 6%, on Chips, but instead of avoiding a tax on candy, we pay it!  That raises money, and is totally reasonable.  Why are candy and cigars exempt from taxes anyway?

There are many other ways to raise revenue that were ignored, like the Delaware Tax Loophole, which allows big corporations headquartered in Pennsylvania to pay ZERO in taxes.

This budget is an abysmal failure and yet another example of the control special interests have over the political process.  It’s also yet another reason why we need publicly financed elections, and a ban on lobbying.

According to a source at the Capitol (yes, I talk to people there), at 3 AM last night a deal was reached regarding a severance tax on Marcellus Shale drilling.  Whether or not this will make it through is unclear, as negotiations are ongoing.

This shines some light (provided by natural gas) on today’s Times article, which should frighten anybody with the fortitude to resist industry.  Marcellus Shale drillers say they’ll support a tax as long as a law is passed allowing them to drill on the land of property-owners who have not signed leases for drilling.  That’s the compromise secured by Sen. Scarnati, the head of the Republicans in the Senate and a recipient of mega-amounts of cash from gas drillers.

So, if I want to put the environment before lease-money, drillers want to be able to legally drill on my land anyway.  How is this legalized theft even under discussion?  When I read The Iron Heel by Jack London years ago, corporations therein, when they couldn’t get what they wanted fairly, changed the law to get what they wanted.  When they couldn’t get what they wanted in the courts, they installed the judges.  London’s vision of America is sadly a reality and the warning signs are all over the place.  Yet we remain pretty silent.  This industry want should not even be considered.

Oh, and if anybody out there forgot, the drillers are poisoning us.  Just a friendly reminder.

A friend of mine in Susquehanna County has barium in his water now.  But since he doesn’t have any documents proving it wasn’t there before drilling, he has no recourse.  As in, the drillers and the DEP said, “Too bad” and told him to deal with it on his own.  His property value is ruined.  He has to buy bottled water.  Barium is used in drilling and it’s cancer-causing.

Why are we so accommodating to drillers?  It’s like we’re begging them to make money at the expense of our health and environment.