Talk about a political football. At a time when most municipalities are running in the red, another line item must now be factored into budgets: new history textbooks.
That’s right. It turns out that the real reason for fighting the Civil War was the North’s desire to steal the incredible wealth of the slaves. Apparently, despite subjugation by their owners, the majority of slaves were millionaires, and those who weren’t still received a guaranteed minimum of $310,000 per year.
Shocking as this recent historical find seems, it was certified by Minnesota running back Adrian Petersen, and as we all know, anything a National Football League (NFL) player says must be true. Petersen’s plethora of antebellum knowledge was revealed as he enlightened the nation by comparing the NFL labor dispute to "modern-day slavery."
At issue is how to divvy up $9 billion in revenue between owners and players. Talks have broken off and management has locked out the players.
Summing up how the players were being treated during the negotiations, Peterson said, "It's modern-day slavery, you know?”
He added, “People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too.”
That brilliant Petersen Principle, though, remains a bit unclear. Were those “regular” people --- those not involved in the NFL negotiations --- average Americans who will work the first four months of this year just to pay their local, state and federal tax burden? As in, a “slave” to the government? A government, by the way, that “regular” Americans send more money to than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined.
Or was Petersen’s defense of regular people referring to the poor and disadvantaged NFL saps who only make seven figures a year, compared to Petersen’s $10.5 million, and whose six-year contract is worth almost $41 million? And for those making the League minimum of $310,000, well, they should probably pick cotton in the off-season just to make ends meet.
It must be tough being an NFL slave.
*****
The Petersen case underscores just how hypocritical some “leaders” have become regarding race relations. As a result, we aren’t the color-blind country we should be, but instead see the gulf between black and white only widen.
Take the pathetic defense of Petersen’s remarks from his agent Ben Dogra (who obviously has a financial interest in seeing this flap go away). Rather than condemn the statement for what it was, he defends it with meaningless rhetoric. "I think anybody that knows Adrian knows that (he) is a very strong-willed and passionate individual," Dogra said. “The game means an awful lot to him.”
Gee, thanks for clearing that up, Ben. In other words, because he makes eight figures a year and is “passionate,” it’s okay to equate his situation to slavery, which, by the way, is still rampant in parts of the world.
But it gets better: “People should not just take his statements per se word by word. It's a difficult time. He would love to play. I'm sure that everybody would love to see football continue in the NFL... nobody should really look at those words and take them out of context."
Nice try, Ben. But how exactly are they “out of context?” He compared his situation to slavery. That’s a fact. It wasn’t a slip of the tongue, and there’s no gray area here. His “passion” and “love of the game,” while admirable, have absolutely nothing to do with his racist remarks.
He shouldn’t get a free pass for outrageously disrespecting the misery that slaves in America endured. A life, by the way, that they couldn’t walk away from, unlike Petersen, who at 25, could quit his work today and live comfortably for five lifetimes.
But he has been given a free pass. And that is the real --- and wholly unreported --- story.
Adrian Petersen will come and go. He’ll probably make some half-hearted apology written by PR specialists and appear at events to make him seem more racially-sensitive (although he has yet to do so). And he’ll dazzle on the gridiron for seasons to come (especially if he learns to stop fumbling). But in the big picture, Petersen is irrelevant.
No, the biggest frauds of all need to be exposed. Through the whole flap, nary a peep was heard from the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of the world. And where was that bastion of cowardice, the NAACP?
Conspicuously silent, but what else is new?
And this is precisely why they have no credibility left. Condemning racism of all kinds and promoting equality should be their goals, but instead, it’s the polar opposite. To them, separate and unequal trumps unity, and the condemnation of racism is done on an extremely selective basis. Translation: jump on the bandwagon in cases involving a “racist” white person, but go on vacation when the person is black.
The list of being on the wrong side is long: the Duke lacrosse team falsely accused (who were innocent), the Tawana Brawley case which Sharpton enflamed with racial rhetoric (where rape allegations by white men of a black girl were proven false), the ridiculous firing of Don Imus, and the Jena Six case in Louisiana, when Jackson reportedly ripped then- presidential candidate Barack Obama for "acting like he's white."
But when a situation like that of Adrian Petersen comes along, providing a perfect opportunity to explain why slavery comparisons are so hurtful and destructive, their silence is deafening. And their credibility, whatever is left of it, crumbles.
The conversation at kitchen tables and watercoolers around the nation is that Jackson and Sharpton are worthless, and the NAACP promotes racism far more than it fights it. But fear of being labelled racist and bigoted keeps most people --- and most media commentators --- from taking on these hypocrites, and speaking the truth.
Racism still exists in America, albeit to an infinitely smaller degree than it once was. Perhaps the greatest example of that progress was illustrated when a black President --- itself a remarkable feat --- gave the eulogy of Senator Robert Byrd, a former member of the KKK.
Unfortunately, that progress has come in spite of, not because of, people like Sharpton and Jackson. But there is a silver lining. Their blowhard political grandstanding and blatant hypocrisy have become such trademarks that they not only lack credibility, but more important, relevance. No one cares what they have to say anymore because their platforms have been built on a house of cards.
The biggest tragedy of all is that, had these men --- dynamic orators of great charisma --- truly fought the good fight, America’s racial divide would be measurably smaller.
What a shame. Leaders who preach color-blindness but really only see black-and-white...are a terrible thing to waste.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Friday, March 25, 2011
Philly School District Caves ---Teachers’ Union Wins
What’s wrong with this picture?
Teacher doesn’t like a possible school district decision. Teacher gives students SEPTA tokens, ostensibly allowing them to attend a protest rally at District headquarters --- during the school day. Teacher doesn’t notify principal or parents that students were leaving school. Teacher was allegedly insubordinate by disclosing a document the District wanted kept confidential. Union boss fights efforts to fire teacher on First Amendment grounds.
Teacher wins.
That’s right. Despite an initial effort by the Philadelphia School District to terminate Hope Moffett, a teacher at Audenried High School, she is back at work, smug as ever. And why not?
The District completely caved. Instead of pursuing the right course of action, it settled for Moffett to read a non-descript one sentence letter to her class --- a statement the District claims is an admission of wrongdoing, but which Moffett bluntly denies. “There’s no apology,” she said. "I think it's very clear that they wanted an apology, but what they wanted an apology for was something that wasn't true."
The statement: “I acknowledge that I didn't notify the principal on 2/14/2011 that students planned to leave the school building during the school day on 2/15/2011, even though no parental permission had been submitted to the school."
Seems Moffett is right --- no apology there.
The District’s take? They were pleased she was admitting wrongdoing.
"I think her acknowledging that she did something wrong was part of what we were looking for all along," a District spokeswoman was quoted as saying. "Just that she had some sense of remorse that she put the students in harm's way."
Remorse? Where is the remorse when Moffett refused to apologize for placing students in possible danger without any parental or school notification? "It's ridiculous, but it gets me back into the classroom,” she said, according to the Inquirer. "It is a statement that I'm fine with making because to them it will always be an apology, thereby justifying that I can return to the school."
“Ridiculous” and “no apology.” Wow. What incredible remorse.
Most interesting was that even Moffett herself “didn’t anticipate being returned to the classroom.” So let’s get this straight. Moffett’s actions led the District to start the firing process, and despite Moffett believing she did nothing wrong, she thought she would lose.
So what happened?
The unions got involved. And since everyone in Philadelphia kowtows to the unions, the ballgame ended. Incomprehensible? Yes. Expected? Absolutely.
Moffett’s union, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers (PFT), sued the District on free speech grounds, since Moffett opposed plans to convert Audenried to a charter school. That argument is so hollow that it would be laughed out of court anywhere but Philadelphia.
So a U.S. magistrate judge got involved, and helped broker a deal. (Moffett was also given a five-day suspension, but don’t count on that standing up, since the union is appealing that, too).
The biggest joke in this whole debacle is the notion that both sides can claim a semblance of victory.
Moffett won, and District made fools out of themselves. If that’s “victory” for the District, I’d hate to see what losing is.
The First Amendment has no role whatsoever in this case. Moffett is certainly free to disagree with the District’s charter school plans, and it’s well within her rights to advocate for her cause.
What is unacceptable is to knowingly allow students to leave the safe confines of school and venture unsupervised into the city (facilitated, the District claimed, by giving out the SEPTA tokens), with parents having absolutely no knowledge of their children’s whereabouts. What if a student was involved in an accident while on this unsanctioned field trip? Or mugged? Or raped?
(And let’s be honest --- how many students, completely of their own volition, were really motivated to take up this cause as their own? It’s a fact that some teachers use students as pawns in political fights. Was this one of those cases? It certainly raises questions.)
To say the District --- and in fact, taxpayers --- would be liable for a massive lawsuit is a gross understatement.
And, if as the District contends, Moffett was insubordinate for disclosing a document that it had ordered kept private, they had even more grounds for firing.
Given the facts, Moffett should have been terminated. It’s a case the District should have pursued, because it would have sent the right message. Instead, the clear message is that the District can be bullied into submission, settling for nothing despite holding all the cards.
This is one of those rare cases when the union should have backed away. Loyalty above all, except honor. And there is no honor in what Moffett did.
But why should the union back away when it knows it won’t be challenged? These victories only add to the union’s mystique.
Of course, it’s a good bet this wouldn’t have played out the same way about ten miles east, across the Delaware River. Odds are that Governor Chris Christie would have come swooping in with his trademark thunder, pointing out how cowardly the District was being, aggressively taking on the union, and fighting for justice to be done.
And he would have won.
Too bad we don’t have the same kind of barnstorming leaders in Pennsylvania. If we did, this would have been the perfect opportunity to show that quality.
And little Miss “Moffett” would be eating her curds and whey somewhere other than Audenried High.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Libya Is All About Oil --- Time To Drill
Recently on Good Morning America, Congresswoman and presidential contender Michele Bachmann was asked, “What is America’s number one vital interest in the Middle East.”
She answered, “…our safety and security of people in the United States is always number one.”
Not only was Bachmann’s response a non-descript talking-point, but it didn’t even answer the question. Unfortunately, Bachmann missed a softball that she could have, and should have, knocked out of the park, one that would have separated herself from her colleagues.
Here’s the correct answer:
America’s vital interest in the Middle East can be summed up in three words: oil, oil and oil. That’s it. If that region wasn’t sitting on such huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.
As a Republican and Tea Party leader, Bachmann should have instinctively talked of America’s unholy reliance on foreign oil, much of it from hostile nations in the Middle East, and aggressively pushed for energy-independence.
She could have talked about how the largest natural gas deposits in the world remain virtually untapped (the Marcellus and Utica Shale); the vast oil reserves in Alaska that are closed to drilling; the Bakken Formation in North Dakota that holds over 4 billion barrels; the petroleum reserves under the Rockies that could well be the largest on the planet; the fact that we’re not drilling offshore , and that production has not yet resumed in the Gulf.
She could have then explained that, if we focused on these domestic sources, we wouldn’t be paying $4/gallon and watching inflation rise, nor would we be fretting about the Middle Eastern uprisings, and who we should be supporting.
But she didn’t. And that’s too bad, because otherwise, Bachmann’s voice on the national stage is an important one.
The fact is that if a leader doesn’t understand, or can’t articulate, solutions to the single-biggest problem facing America --- being bent over a barrel because of our energy dependence --- then their effectiveness is extremely limited.
And because neither Party, nor current and past Administrations, has done anything to achieve energy independence, America is now involved in yet another Middle Eastern conflict with no clear objectives. The only things being accomplished are creating more uncertainty in world markets and placing American military personnel in danger. And for what?
Several points to consider:
1) There is no question why the U.S. is involved. It’s not about stopping a brutal dictator, nor is it about civilian deaths. And it’s not about democracy and freedom for the Libyans. It’s simply because Libya produces a lot of oil. If it was really about any of the aforementioned reasons, we’d be forcefully engaged in most countries around the globe, since democracies are the exception. Just look at the Rwandan conflict: 20 percent of the population was slaughtered, but it had no oil. Result: no intervention. A little truth for why we are in Libya would go a long way.
2) So much for Obama’s campaign pledges of “no more wars of choice,” and “no blood for oil.”
3) Gaddafi, while certainly no angel, has not been the thorn in America’s side he once was. He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his nuclear weapons program and, understanding the new world order after the 9/11 attacks, stopped harboring terrorists. As a result, Libya was taken off the U.S. government’s State Sponsor of Terrorism list by the Bush Administration, with then- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was being rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the United States" in the war on terror. And the flow of Libyan oil has been unimpeded. So much for the brutal dictator theory.
4) Who exactly are the rebels we are supporting by bombing the country and establishing the No Fly Zone? Are they all James Madison-types looking to establish a democratic Republic? Or are they the Muslim Brotherhood--- or worse? Given many Middle Easterners’ track record of viewing the United States as the Great Satan, the odds probably aren’t favorable that we’ll be singing Kumbaya with them a few months from now. And reports now state that eastern Libya (home of the rebels) sent more fighters to engage the U.S. in Iraq than anywhere else.
5) A No-Fly Zone does not make a democracy. Okay, we are preventing Gaddafi from using his aircraft. But what happens when he starts whipping the rebels anyway? Do we bomb his troops and tanks? Do we send in Special Forces? What happens when a pilot is shot down--- as just happened? More important, what happens when a similar situation arises in Saudi Arabia, and civilians get mowed down --- as they will, since the King isn’t going quietly. Do we establish a No Fly Zone over The Kingdom? Do we bomb them, too? Not a chance in the world.
Despite all the questions, there are no answers, and the coalition, if you can call it that, has already begun splitting apart.
6) We lose no matter how you slice it. The majority of Libyan oil is sold to Italy and France, yet America has been roped in to do their heavy lifting. Why? And as more Libyans die from allied airstrikes, America will get blamed on the Arab Street. Gaddafi’s claim of another “Crusade ” against a Muslim nation will hit home to millions of Muslims across the world, vastly undermining any goodwill that may have been generated over the last several years and bolstering terrorist recruitment. And the support of the worthless Arab League, whose officials are already back-tracking, means nothing. It’s not their planes doing the bombing, but ours. We get all the negatives and none of the positives while the Arab League gets the best of both worlds.
The United States’ involvement in Libya, a nation that in no manner attacked America or caused it harm, sets an extremely dangerous precedent. Ironically, this effort, executed with no foresight and one that has absolutely no endgame, further endangers our national security. Playing into the mentality of millions of Muslims that the U.S. seeks to dominate their countries will only enflame anti-American feelings.
George Washington could not have been more right when he advised against foreign entanglements and intervening in the internal affairs of sovereign nations. That wisdom is proof that modern advances will never be a substitute for old-fashioned common sense.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, http://www.freindlyfirezone.com/
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
America Needs More Nuclear Power
We are not Japan --- Our nuclear is safer and reduces foreign oil dependence
There is a story about a wealthy man who sought the world’s safest place in which to build his home, a place free from all dangers, natural and man-made. After expending a considerable sum researching such a location, he determined that a particular island in the South Atlantic fit the criteria.
The man spared no expense in constructing the most solid, fortified and beautiful home --- one that was virtually impregnable.
But after planning for all contingencies, something happened for which he had not accounted.
The man found himself directly in the line of fire --- of the Falkland Islands War.
The point? Life is full of risks, and despite some people’s naïve belief that risks are avoidable, they are not. Instead, our focus should be on mitigating those risks in common sense ways while still living in the real world.
But we don’t.
Already, we have heard the calls to reevaluate our nuclear power program (codespeak for phasing it out of existence) because of the situation in Japan. And God forbid that we should actually forge ahead with new nuclear plants, several of which have been recently approved. That would be dangerous and foolhardy, we are now told.
So let’s get that mentality straight. We should shelve nuclear expansion --- a virtually zero emission power source that significantly reduces reliance on foreign oil from hostile nations --- because of problems half a world away? Problems that directly resulted from Japan being front-and-center on the notorious Ring of Fire --- home to 90 percent of the world’s earthquakes and 75 percent of its volcanos. And problems that, for the most part, America doesn’t have, since almost none of the country sits on that Ring.
That’s not just naïve. That’s self-inflicted stupidity.
The United States has 104 nuclear plants in operation, accounting for 20 percent of our electricity consumption. It should be double that number, but for decades, leadership has been sorely lacking in both political Parties, and the American people are extremely short-sighted on all-things energy.
So now that we’re facing $4/gallon fuel --- with experts predicting $5 by next year , which significantly inflates the prices of almost everything due to increased transportation costs --- what are our options? We have none.
Our drills in the Gulf sit idle, Alaska is pumping but a fraction of its resources, there is no drilling off our continental coasts, and natural gas companies are shutting down operations because the demand is so low.
And now, the stigma of Japanese nuclear problems, combined with political cowardice, will all but halt the expansion of our nuclear program.
We can’t have it both ways. If paying less at the pump, bolstering national security and reducing greenhouse emissions are important, then nuclear power is the only real alternative.
So instead of punting away such a proven and safe energy source, America’s leaders need to show political courage by telling the people the truth, not what they may want to hear.
And here is the truth:
1) Unequivocally, China will not allow its nuclear program to be sidetracked or slowed by the problems in Japan. They have 27 new plants under construction, including the most advanced reactors in the world. While we bury our heads in the sand and bog down any new construction with litigation, our biggest economic and military competitor will continue to challenge our status as the world’s only superpower. And because of their determination and mettle, they will surpass us in a decade.
2) Nuclear power plants are safe. As is the case with anything, risks exist, but with proper oversight and increased fail-safe measures, many of which were implemented after the September 11 attacks, those risks are well within acceptable limits. And for those who may think this author is a NIMBY --- Not In My Back Yard ---there are four nuclear plants that literally surround my region.
Outside of the Three Mile Island (TMI) incident in 1979, there has never been a major accident in the United States. And not to minimize the seriousness of TMI, not only was no one hurt or killed, but numerous independent evaluations, including a 13-year study of 32,000 people, concluded that there were no adverse effects to the surrounding population.
3) Numerous ships in the United States Navy are nuclear-powered (including all aircraft carriers and submarines), allowing them to travel non-stop at high-speed without needing to refuel for twenty five years. Not only do these vessels represent a huge cost savings and are environmentally-friendly, since they forego two decades’ worth of oil, but they are an incalculable asset to America’s national security. And in more than 5,400 “reactor years” of operation with 500 reactors, and well over 130 million miles steamed, there has never been a nuclear accident.
4) Much of the damage to Japan’s plants was due to the tsunami after the earthquake. A common sense policy might be to build American plants several miles inland from the sea and not on fault lines, especially on the more-earthquake prone West Coast. While the rest of the country is not immune to earthquakes and tidal waves, the likelihood of those events occurring on even a fraction of the scale in Japan is remote. And America’s nuclear facilities are designed to withstand the power of the largest earthquakes.
America’s nuclear energy policy cannot and must not be formulated by what happens in other parts of the world where natural disasters (Japan) or human incompetence (Chernobyl) exist.
Common sense tells us that we can increase our nuclear-power knowledge from Japan’s unfortunate series of events. Those “lessons learned,” combined with the huge technology advances that have been realized from the days of TMI, would make America’s nuclear program the envy of the world.
Incredibly, it has taken a Democratic President to push this initiative, despite the vehement objections of his Party’s biggest constituencies.
With Republicans in control of the House and poised to take over the Senate, there is absolutely no excuse for not pushing ahead on the next generation of American nuclear power plants, which would be the first constructed in three decades.
With no end to soaring fuel prices and the Asian Tiger’s appetite growing every day, Americans should embrace nuclear power for what it is: a gift of clean and limitless energy.
To ignore this reality would be too great a risk.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The REAL Pennsylvania Budget: Can Corbett Sell It?
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s “day of reckoning” budget, containing substantial cuts and rolling back spending to 2008 levels, may well pass the GOP-dominated legislature without major changes.
But just because the state constitution requires a balanced budget doesn’t mean it always happens that way.
Take the budgets of the last two years, which former Governor Ed Rendell championed, and were passed by a Democratic House and Republican Senate.
In 2009, $400 million in revenue was budgeted from the tolling of Interstate 80. Except that the tolling never happened. Put that in the debit column.
And last year, the budget was passed on federal Medicaid dollars that hadn’t yet been appropriated (and ended up being $255 million less than budgeted) and a Rendell-promised Marcellus Shale gas tax that would generate hundreds of millions --- but which never materialized.
And the forecasted general tax revenue was over a billion dollars short.
But that’s not all. The legislature and Rendell raided MCARE in 2009 --- the fund to offset Pennsylvania doctors’ skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates --- to the tune of $800 million. A Commonwealth Court ordered the money repaid, but the Rendell Administration appealed. Odds are the state Supreme Court will uphold that decision. The hole deepens.
So despite some cuts last fall, we’re still looking at a $3 billion revenue gap which, by the way, is not factored into the acknowledged $4 billion deficit. The fact that no one wants to talk about this is not surprising, since it’s not in the interest of the politicians, and most of the media doesn’t do its homework.
Let’s put this type of maneuvering into perspective. What would happen if a publicly-traded pharmaceutical company, in an attempt to placate Wall Street, added billions to its books to reflect a medicine it hadn’t yet produced?
People would go to jail.
But in Harrisburg, it’s called Business As Usual. Instead of solving the real problem, the state’s leaders have resorted to what they do best: bury their heads in the sand.
Just because you pretend a problem doesn’t exist, though, doesn’t mean it’s not there. The can is being kicked, yet again, down the road. But the road is quickly coming to an end.
*****
Overall, the budget rates a B-, assuming that you believe the numbers --- and that’s a big assumption.
There is nothing particularly special about this budget, since spending cuts were imminent after the federal stimulus money dried up. It gets the job done at a basic level, and Pennsylvania will continue to limp along.
While there were clearly some elements in the Governor’s address that could help Pennsylvania re-invent itself into an economic and industrial powerhouse, the speech lacked the break-out vision that is essential in selling those ideas to the public. No one expects Corbett to have the jazz of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, but Pennsylvanians need to be inspired if their state is to forge ahead.
A prime example would have been explaining why the Marcellus Shale holds such so much promise for Pennsylvania’s future, from the thousands of sustainable jobs it creates (and the accompanying houses bought and income spent in-state), to untold millions in tax revenue, to the manufacturing boom it can foster by providing extremely cheap energy.
Corbett could have showcased manufacturing companies that drill wells on-site and, as a result, now realize incredible cost savings for what is always the largest line item: energy. This directly translates into business expansion, more hiring, and a way to finally compete with China.
Or he could have decreed that from this moment, all future state vehicles will run on natural gas, currently about one-seventh the cost of gasoline, with zero emissions. This would be a win-win by increasing demand for natural gas --- and if that doesn’t happen soon, the industry will start packing up by next year --- and saving taxpayer money. And what a boom to the entire economy if we had an alternative to $4/gallon gasoline.
But that didn’t happen. So all the public knows is what they see in the headlines: “We’re Getting Drilled,” “How Corbett Fracked Pennsylvania’s Middle Class,” and “Big Budget Cuts? We Smell Gas,” along with editorials about how much the industry contributed to the Governor’s campaign.
Reality is now setting in; what a Republican candidate said on the campaign trail in October 2010 --- a landslide election year for the GOP--- was easy. Now the rubber meets road.
The question isn’t if Tom Corbett can get this budget passed, but whether can he sell it to the people, and at what cost to his agenda and Party, particularly since 2012 will prove a better year for the Democrats. His deliberate strategy to remain silent for four months has resulted in lost opportunities to earn much-needed political capital needed to sell his budget cuts to the public.
To reverse that, he must now barnstorm across the state, a la Christie, attending everything from natural gas forums, explaining why an extraction tax will hurt the state, to school board meetings, where he can push his idea of teacher salary concessions. Time will tell whether he will effectively be that messenger.
There were a number of common sense proposals that, based on the legislature’s make-up, should come to fruition: the reduced spending and no new taxes; legal reform targeting frivolous lawsuits (the Fair Share Act); school choice in which competition and accountability would be injected into the educational system; the phase out of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax, the elimination of pork-barrel walking around money (WAMs); and calls for pay freezes and give-backs by public workers.
Likewise, there are a number of problem areas:
-Eliminating 1,500 jobs is a good start, but since reports state that 1,000 of them aren’t filled, the real number is only 500 jobs, which isn’t a huge budgetary factor. So why the gimmick?
-The assumption that revenue will grow by 4.7 percent, while not impossible, is hugely optimistic. Inflated revenue has been a hallmark of past budgets to make the numbers work on paper. In reality, they came up short, adding to rolling deficits. Without substantial growth in Pennsylvania, that rosy figure will prove unattainable.
-Calling for cuts to higher education by 50 percent, while increasing welfare spending substantially, will also be an extremely hard sell, for two reasons. First, many will frame the issue simply as education versus welfare, and which provides the better return on investment. Second, state-related schools, such as Temple, Penn State, Pitt and Lincoln, have immensely powerful lobbying operations, including parents and students, who will deluge their elected officials in opposition. Look for that figure to drop substantially, to be made up somewhere else.
-One item that is noticeably absent from the budget is the privatization of liquor stores, which is curious since it was the one issue on which the majority of Pennsylvanians agree. Instead, a blue-ribbon commission was formed to study privatization. Here’s a newsflash. Voters elect politicians to solve the problems, not authorize more meaningless commissions. A major chip in the fight has been shelved, shifting the momentum to the unions which support the status quo.
-Other areas left out but still mandatory for a healthy business climate were the reduction of the corporate net income tax (2nd highest in nation) and the looming pension issues, which may be addressed as public sector union contracts are negotiated this spring. The Governor has taken the elimination of collective bargaining off the table though, a concession that simply didn’t have to be made this early. They received nothing in return from that move. Another head-scratcher.
-There are also several inconsistencies that the Governor must address. While he advocated salary freezes and reductions, he raised the salaries of all his executive staff, and the budget of the Lieutenant Governor’s office increased 30 percent. And despite de-funding the adultBasic program, which provided healthcare to working poor on the premise that there was no more money, he found a way to bail out the Philadelphia Shipyard to build ships with no buyers.
Saying all the right things about fiscal discipline, free enterprise and removing government from where it doesn’t belong rings a bit hollow in light of some recent Corbett Administration decisions.
*****
The Governor used the analogy of reviving an apple tree to explain why the cuts are necessary, stating that if the tree isn't tended, it will grow into a tangle of limbs and bear no fruit. The pruning (hard cutting) was needed so the tree could once again bear fruit.
In keeping with the theme, here’s a piece of advice: if you're afraid of getting a rotten apple, don't go to the barrel. Get it off the tree.
The Governor is right: we need to revive the tree. But as of now, too much of this budget is coming from the same old barrel.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
School Choice Non Debate: Sen. Tony Williams A No-Show --- Again
The Great School Choice Debate, hosted by The Independence Hall Tea Party Association on March 6, was a passionate discussion of Senate Bill 1, the school choice bill currently in the state senate. At issue was whether SB 1, a limited scope bill granting a voucher to low-income families (in which the state subsidy would follow the child, not the school) is the only legislation achievable at this time, or whether a broader, more comprehensive bill can be passed.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t the healthy debate that it should have been because Senator Anthony Williams, one of the bill’s prime sponsors and a confirmed panelist, arrived well after the event had ended. It seems he was misinformed of the time, despite everyone else getting it right.
Although mistakes happen, it is curious that this is the second time in one month that the senator committed to a school choice discussion, and failed to show. Some may chalk that up to bad staffing, but others who have been around politics don’t believe in such coincidence.
Regardless, the discussion was lively, civil and productive, with all the participants in agreement that school choice was crucial, the only measure that would bring competition and accountability to our failed school system. The panelists were:
-Reverend Joe Watkins, former Lt. Gov. candidate, MSNBC commentator and Executive Director of the Students First organization;
-Dom Giordano, talk-show host extraordinaire on 1210 WPHT, the region’s largest talk-radio station. Giordano was slated to be the moderator, but sat with Watkins so the discussion wouldn’t be lopsided.
-State Representative Curt Schroder, a proponent of statewide school choice. Schroder was a House member in the mid-90’s when a comprehensive school choice bill barely missed passage;
-Yours truly, author of numerous columns and participant in several television segments advocating school choice, including why SB 1 is flawed legislation that will most likely fail if it is not amended in the House to expand choice. I was also Executive Director of the REACH Alliance, the preeminent statewide school choice organization, during the school choice battles in the 90’s.
*****
Before the Pennsylvania dialogue began, New Jersey state senator Michael Doherty discussed his state’s efforts to pass education reform. Doherty explained that, while more expansive tax credit programs and school choice would be ideal, they simply weren’t possible given the sizable Democratic majorities in that state’s House and Senate. He said that they had to settle for what was politically possible.
And that’s exactly why the defeatist attitude of some SB 1 proponents is so incomprehensible. To say that a bill limited only to low-income families is the best we can hope for is simply inaccurate.
Which is why something doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Rational political observers have stated that, if they didn’t know better, it would seem, for some reason, there has been undue influence to kill any effort to expand the bill.
Either that, or legislators don’t want to do the work necessary to come up with better legislation.
I had the opportunity to speak with Senator Williams after the non-debate, and while I came away with some good news, I also left with a lot more skepticism.
Williams claimed that the legislation for comprehensive, statewide school choice failed in 1995 by a single vote, a point on which I wholeheartedly agree.
I then asked him if he would support a more expanded version of school choice than is currently offered in SB 1, and he stated that he would (great news), but that “it would not pass,” (a perplexing statement).
And therein lies the problem. There is absolutely nothing on which that assumption can be made, and, in fact, the opposite is undisputedly true.
Let’s forget our biases for or against school choice, and focus just on the political realities between 1995 and now.
Despite the Republican wave of 1994, the State House remained Democratic by one vote. It took a party switch to give control to the GOP --- and the ability to push school choice in that chamber.
In the time span since, the legislature has experienced a turnover of at least 70 percent.
Fast forward to the wave of 2010, when thirteen seats flipped and the GOP gained a ten seat majority. And not only are there more conservative legislators, but the public is much more accepting of school choice.
As an added benefit, Williams will most likely bring several more Democratic legislators with him who were previously “No” votes.
So let’s follow this logic. Fact: the statewide school choice bill fell one vote short in 1995, when the House had a one seat Republican majority. Fact: the House now has a 10 vote GOP majority. Fact: the electorate is much more understanding of the need for this legislation. Fact: the Republican Governor has stated his support for statewide school choice. Fact: Williams brings additional Democratic votes.
Given these facts, the passage of comprehensive school choice legislation should be a slam dunk.
Instead, with no actual vote count having been taken, the white towel has been thrown in before the fight has begun.
The “we can only get school choice incrementally” argument is based on a number of false assumptions, such as the House and Governorship remaining in Republican hands over the next several cycles, the legislature actually agreeing to take up such a controversial issue year after year while facing the wrath of well-funded teachers unions, and that a limited program will produce noticeable improvements. And if a limited program is judged to be only a marginal improvement, the entire program could be jeopardized, nullifying the one-slice-at-a-time argument.
Here’s the bottom line: the forces standing in the way of progress by deliberately ignoring all the political signs need to stop being part of the problem.
Pennsylvania cannot improve its economic position by graduating functional illiterates, which is exactly what we are doing. Half of the state’s 11th graders cannot read or write proficiently.
It’s time, once and for all, to take our heads out of the sand and do the right thing for our children --- all of them. Failure to do so will simply waste another decade and forsake our future.
And what a terrible “choice” that would be.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Friday, March 4, 2011
Court Was Right To Allow Westboro Funeral Protests
Frivolous lawsuits, such as those that make healthcare costs skyrocket, put manufacturers out of business, and dissolve personal responsibility, not only threaten our liberty, but often erode America’s unique foundation --- freedom of speech.
A case still garnering headlines is that of Albert Snyder, the father of a Marine killed in Iraq. Snyder brought suit against the Kansas-based Westboro Baptist Church in 2006 after some church members staged a demonstration at the funeral of his son, Matthew.
He sued because the demonstrators inflicted emotional distress on the family, invaded their privacy, attacked Matthew’s memory, and stripped him of his dignity. It was also claimed the protesters prevented family members from reaching closure.
The suit proceeded even though the protesters had followed the appropriate laws, checked in with police, and were 1,000 feet from the church. And Mr. Snyder admitted he couldn’t see the signs, only learning of the protesters’ message upon watching the news.
Yet in 2007, a federal jury awarded Snyder $11 million in damages. A Court of Appeals later overturned that decision, ordering Snyder to pay $16,510 in legal fees to the Church’s leader, Fred Phelps.
That caused an outpouring of support for Snyder, including FOX commentator Bill O’Reilly, who last year offered to pay the legal fees. (The case was further appealed to the Supreme Court).
While a nice gesture, O’Reilly missed the point.
By supporting Snyder’s lawsuit, he and many conservatives who often talk about “freedom” and “liberty” are, ironically, contributing to the loss of both.
Should attacking someone’s memory really be a crime?
Make no mistake. Phelps’ preaching during these protests is twisted and vulgar. Church members carry signs reading "Thank God for dead soldiers" and somehow think soldiers’ deaths are the result of God's punishment for “America's sins.”
But no matter how revolting these people are, and no matter how much salt is added to families’ wounds by hitting them at their lowest point --- since parents should never have to bury a child --- no court should entertain a lawsuit for hurt feelings.
Doing so is another step toward politically-correct “thought police.”
It also opens the door to free speech erosion, which, once ajar, never closes.
Obviously, there are exceptions. You can’t falsely yell “fire” or impersonate a police officer. But those are common-sense restrictions based on public safety.
Insulting someone doesn’t come close to meeting that threshold.
Repugnant beliefs, whether exhibited by the Westboro protesters or the KKK, isn’t, and shouldn’t, be a crime.
O’Reilly was way off on that point, too, saying that the protesters committed a crime by disturbing the peace.
When a well-respected media member makes that kind of irresponsible statement, it has negative consequences. Millions echoed O’Reilly’s belief, unaware that they too were incorrect.
First, if they had disturbed the peace, they should have been arrested. But they weren’t.
Second ---and here’s where Bill should have known better --- even if they had, that would have been a criminal case, not a civil one.
Minister Phelps’ speech was clearly political. Suing him is akin to suing a pro-lifer for showing a picture of a fetus to someone entering an abortion clinic. That person won’t be pleased, but suing the protester should never be an option.
The real issue is how such a frivolous case ever saw the light of day. And the jury award? Eleven million dollars because a few ignorant people made you feel bad? Even for frivolous lawsuits, that takes the cake. Jackpot juries must be reined in, or the lunacy will only increase.
What’s next?
That guy who calls you an unprintable name? Sue him! Your boss who belittles you? Hire an attorney! And if you’re an elected official or celebrity on the receiving end of a not-too-flattering commentary? File suit to shut down the critics!
Ironically, the freedoms that Matthew Snyder died protecting are the very ones we are nonchalantly giving away.
It’s time to wake up, America.
Europe has become a dying, cowardly continent, appeasing the very enemies that seek to destroy it by bowing to radical Muslims who want to shut down any viewpoints they deem offensive.
Is that where we are headed? Ban this, censor that, and eliminate more freedoms?
Thankfully, the Supreme Court just ruled, 8-1, that the military protesters’ speech is not unlawful
But many in the country still vehemently disagree, advocating more bans and increased restrictions.
Fine. That’s their right. But they should at least be honest and stop pretending they care about “liberty.”
Censor everything, and replace the Stars and Stripes with the white flag of surrender. Ironically, we’ll have become what these people claim to abhor: the United States of France.
Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative
reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries
and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including
The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick
Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."
Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in
Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national
television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
