CONSERVATIVE ATTACKS ON LIBERAL ARTS

I have never been comfortable with anyone who believes that all the answers to moral, spiritual, economic, or political questions, can be found in one book.  Whether the book is the Bible, the Koran, Das Kapital, Atlas Shrugged or Alcoholics Anonymous, one book fundamentalism has always struck me as narrow and dangerous to the social discourse.

 I am not saying that one book can’t change someone’s life for the better, or form the basis for a positive belief system.  My point is that a “one book fits all” view of the world, taken to the extreme, results in the Italian “bonfire of the vanities” or totalitarian book burnings.  At the less extreme, a “one book” outlook makes the world appear much less complex than it really is and encourages non yielding dogma rather than rational discussion.

With these dangers of narrow mindedness, my liberal antenna has been vibrating over recently published conservative attacks on the benefits of a liberal arts education.  John Stossel argues in an ob-ed piece:  “We don’t know if students learn anything during their college years.  Do kids learn anything at Harvard?”  These attacks use the economic recession as camouflage to suggest that a liberal arts education is too expensive, benefits only the liberal ivory towers and will not produce a job following graduation.  After all, Gates & Zuckerberg dropped out of college and made billions.  Why pay for expensive professors teaching obscure topics, when an internet degree can spew practical information at much lower cost?

 Dig deeper and you realize something more sinister is at work.  John Stossel graduated from Princeton with a BA in Physiology.   He knows that billionaire college dropouts are one in a billion.  Conservative commentators would much prefer a “one book fits all” technician or a Sarah Palin clone to a liberal arts graduate. The latter has developed strength of mind and an ordered intellect by being exposed to comparative classes in religion, economics, political systems and philosophy. Not a good candidate for Glenn Beck.

Among other benefits, a liberal arts education encourages students to think for themselves.  The diverse body of knowledge gained from a four year institution, together with the tools of examination and analysis, enables our youth to develop their own opinions, attitudes, values, and beliefs.  This system is based not upon ignorance, whim, or prejudice, but upon their own worthy apprehension, examination, and evaluation of argument and evidence.  Rather than the passive recipient of a hundred boring facts on the internet, a liberal arts education permits one to see the relationship between ideas and subject areas.

During this recession we may well end up with 80,000 bartenders with liberal arts degrees.  The recession will soon be over and these students will fan out over our enterprises to make us all proud.  They will be our best parents, physicians, poets, plumbers, lawyers, journalists, engineers, electricians and political philosophers, both liberal and conservative. We will be much better off than having 80,000 working technicians with internet degrees who believe the answer to the world’s problems can be found in one book.

           

REAL ESTATE REASSESSMENT

I must respectfully disagree with the O-R editorial of 7/3/11 which took the position that the recent legislative moratorium on property tax reassessment earned lawmakers applause for their action. I find their efforts not only unconstitutional, in applying only to Washington County (by violating the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution) but also patently unjust in that the law perpetuates the blatant unfairness of property taxes in our county and in our state.

Both Judge Wettick, in Allegheny County and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have held that application of the base year assessment system (as employed in Washington County) results in such disparate treatment of the county’s taxpayers as to again, violate the Uniformity Clause. Accordingly, we have a constitutionally unsound law put in place to avoid coming to terms with a constitutionally unsound practice that happens to be one of the greatest tax inequities of our time.

I would be the first to admit that the finer points of tax assessment reform require some thought and research on the part of the average citizen.  The Judge Wettick and Supreme Court opinions are lengthy and difficult enough for a seasoned lawyer to follow.  In a nutshell, local Judges, like our own President Judge are compelled to follow the Supreme Court directive.  When a taxpayer or taxing body brings an action, the Judge must direct county government to begin reassessment. The Commissioners of numerous counties, including Washington, are waiting for legislative reform or for our Supreme Court to revisit and expand its opinion and establish a test for fair reassessments that will apply equally to all counties. The Supreme Court has hinted it might do so, but believes it is preferable for the general assembly to address fundamental matters of taxation. Our valiant lawmakers prefer to get reelected rather than have their voters receive a reassessment notice that justly values their property.  Unconstitutional moratoriums they can deal with, fixing property taxes they cannot.

In the middle of this game of political musical chairs the poor and elderly citizens of Washington County continue to pay property taxes that are too high.  Base Year Assessments always discriminate against owners of property in lower value neighborhoods. 

There are two well worn arguments against taking the just action of reforming property tax law.  Both inflame the public, attempt to throw cost in front of basic equality and are misunderstood.  The first is that taxes will go up and municipalities and school districts will receive a windfall.  It is true that many assessments will be higher.  It is also true, for many less fortunate citizens, assessments will be lower.  But before an actual tax increase, the higher assessment will have to be higher than the average county wide increase.  If the average County increase is 10% and a property owner’s assessment is only 8% higher, no tax increase.  Regarding revenue windfalls, there are already state laws in place to limit municipalities and school districts from unfairly raising taxes after a reassessment.  In some jurisdictions, like Allegheny County, the results of reassessment must be revenue neutral.  This means that the total amount of money school districts and municipalities collect at current tax rates cannot increase when new assessed values are assigned.

The second misunderstood issue is the cost of reassessment projects to the Counties.  We should first ask ourselves whether this expense should be assumed by state government.  This would assure uniformity and save money overall by not duplicating services.  If the state falls down and punts this responsibility to the counties, there will be significant upfront expenses to put a system in place. Assessment appeals will initially be high.  However, once the system is up and running, both costs and legal challenges will decrease.

Other states have bit the bullet and developed equitable taxing plans.  Pennsylvania can save time and expenses by studying these systems.  What Pennsylvania cannot afford to do is perpetuate an archaic, unjust taxing scheme that violates its own constitution.

IN DEFENSE OF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS

I have wanted to convey my thoughts on small town newspapers in general and the Observer Reporter (O-R) in particular for some time.  The topic didn’t percolate to the top of my list until the Facebook posts of a local politician and his cronies caught my eye.  The posts painted the O-R as biased, inaccurate and to coin a phrase: “not worth the paper it is printed on.”  This attitude struck me as immature and shortsighted at best.  At worst and by all appearances an accurate conclusion, this position smacks of another example of the misplaced conservative cultural revolution.  The self serving individual voice is more important and accurate than the journalistic voice, representing the community as a whole.

No one would argue that the O-R prints typos and occasional inaccuracies.  When I first came to Washington my wallet was stolen at the Cameron Wellness Center.  By the time the police report was documented in the paper, my twenty dollar loss had grown to a two thousand dollar theft.  Some of my new friends in Washington thought I was wealthy.  The others thought I must be a drug dealer.  In either case I had a new found notoriety.

Humor aside, what is amazing to me about the O-R is not the number of misprints, but rather the high quality of local journalism that is published, day in and day out, seven days a week, both in print and on the internet.  Fact checking and proof reading are expensive and time consuming endeavors which involve a cost benefit analysis.  Do we want all of the local news, published timely, or a mistake free publication that is shadow of the present newspaper. 

I do not believe the readers of the O-R are primarily seeking investigative reporting, in depth analysis of national and world events, or Pulitzer Prize winning journalism.  Although some of this material is available to O-R readers through the wire services, there are hundreds of news sources for this type of reporting.  O-R readers want to know what they can find nowhere else. They are interested in who died, who graduated, who got engaged and who was arrested, along with the other vicissitudes of life that reflect the character and personality of Washington and Greene Counties.  They want Editorials that impact them directly.  Leave it to other sources to scope the newest Lindsay Lohan crisis. O-R readers want to know the latest crisis facing Washington parking meters.

I have no idea what the business model of the Observer Reporter calls for in the long run.  I do know that small town and local newspapers are a dying breed because the cost structure of many publications is not sustainable.  Print advertising has plummeted.  Internet access is free of charge.  Young people do not purchase subscriptions.  I will go on record as saying that the O-R is important to my daily socialization, typos and all.  I would gladly pay an increased subscription rate or internet access fee to keep the paper viable.

Lastly, I will return to our friends on Facebook.  I pray to the Gods of Journalism that there never comes a time when the O-R building becomes a tattoo parlor and I must rely on social networking for my local news. Politicians and other hyper active types on social media, who push their individual self serving agendas, with a chorus of believers, are a frightening proposition.  This is particularly so when they attack the local newspaper.  They forward the neo con agenda of individual rights and opinions at the expense of society as a whole. “Listen to my version of events because the media is biased.”

Consider a public meeting in Washington. No one would have the time or patience to review the tweeter feeds of the Mayor, the members of counsel, the speakers, the solicitor and all the involved family members to understand what happened.  That is why we have journalists.   A good newspaper, and the O-R is a good newspaper, presents fair reporting with opinion representing all points of view.  It represents all of us, every day.

UNEMPLOYMENT & DEFICIT REDUCTION

The Republican leadership is counting on unsophisticated citizens and those who dislike the President on any account, to swallow the tea party/conservative economic fantasy that somehow unemployment and deficit reduction spring from the same set of problems and require the same solutions.  Of course this is nonsense.  The dilemma has always been that lowering unemployment requires more borrowing, lending and spending to jump start the economy.  Attacking the deficit requires the opposite.

Jobs are created through economic growth and demand for goods.  Balancing the federal budget, without raising taxes on wealthier Americans, requires the draconian cutting of federal entitlement programs and employment initiatives to the middle class and poorest of Americans. This makes less money available to grow the economy and impossible to increase the demand for goods. 

One recent example of this  point is that without the payroll tax cuts to the working poor and middle class and the extension of unemployment insurance negotiated by Congress last autumn, we would likely be facing a double dip recession.  Without these deficit increasing policies in place over the last 10 months (agreed to by republicans) there would have been inadequate individual cash flow to keep the economy moving.  To grow jobs you must grow demand by putting disposable income in the pockets of the unwashed majority.

Accordingly, it is irresponsible if not ludicrous to talk about cutting the unemployment rate and reducing the deficit through cutting entitlement programs in the same breath.  Any politician who claims to “have a plan” to do both “with the same policies” is either uninformed or untruthful, or both.  If Grandma cannot get her medicine under Medicare, she will not be shopping at Wal-Mart or buying graduation gifts for her grandchildren.

My view is that the Republican agenda is to lower the deficit on the backs of our less fortunate citizens by giving lip service to unemployment and to blame Obama for both spending too much and keeping unemployment too high.  Hopefully, the well informed independent voters who will ultimately be called upon to reelect our President will see through this voodoo economic fallacy.

.

TEA PARTY MEMBERS ARE SELECTIVE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS

I have a new definition for tea party members. One who uses this title: “is a selective social democrat who believes the individual and the family are paramount to society as a whole unless a certain public policy or program benefits them or their family.”  Under this definition, ethanol subsidies are wrong unless the tea party member is an Iowa farmer. Support for higher education is an affront unless there is a student who needs it.  Universal health care is an abomination unless the bread winner is out of work and without health care.  Medicaid is socialism for the poor unless a close relative suffers from a severe handicap.  We can do without the Post Office unless the family’s small business needs 6 days of postal service.  Extended benefits for veterans are a governmental handout, unless a son or daughter is returning from Afghanistan.

            Of course, it is laughable to believe that an individual can cherry pick their political and moral beliefs.  But it is also human nature.  Unless confronted with a threat to their security and well being, people chose the easier and softer way.  Nancy Regan was a strong opponent to stem cell research until her husband suffered from Alzheimer’s. Dick Cheney had no kind words for homosexuals until his daughter announced her sexual preference. Many an NRA member renounced their membership, only after a senseless act of gun violence close to home.

            Our country faces many tough decisions in the coming months.  The budget debate and the fate of our less fortunate citizens should not be a “show down at high noon”, but rather a rational discussion about priorities.  We must let our political leaders know that we reject the nihilistic individualism of the far right, which in the final analysis, very few citizens actually want or believe in.

I just finished "Ill Fares The Land" written by the historian and political philosopher Tony Judt, shortly before his death this year. A powerhouse polemic on social democracy. "Social democrats beleive that the state can play an enhanced role in our lives without threatening our liberties."  Highly recommended

SIXTY IS THE NEW EIGHTEEN

As I get ready to turn 60 in a few months, it is gratifying to read that this landmark is considered by some sociologists as the new adolescence. If 50 is the new 30, than 60 is the new 18.  We boomers have an added 30 years to our lives compared with our ancestors in 1900.  We don’t feel old and are ready for liberation and growth. Similar to our adolescence, we have cut the ties that bind us.  Free from children, jobs and the other socially constricting realities of middle age, we are ready to kick up our heels and make a difference. 

 Recently I have been reflecting on those events that were most transformative in my life.  The important ones seem to be centered on the time I was a young adult, moving away from my childhood toward career and family.  At 17 I graduated from high school.  That summer I attended Woodstock.  For better or worse, sex, drugs and rock and roll, shared by 500,000 kindred souls over 3 days was transformative. The power of youth to change the world was everywhere.  In college I would attend the DC marches, the Bobby Seale rally in New Haven, campaign for McGovern. The first time I was tear gassed by my government was transformative.  Seeing the father of my high school friends, David Dellinger, put on trial with the Chicago 7 was transformative.  Maybe I could live my life as a social activist.

 The parallels with the recent Arab Spring were overwhelming to me as the power of organized, idealistic youth took to the streets to begin the messy business of democracy.  Let us not forget that the Freedom Riders in Alabama and Mississippi, well before my time, and the students at Kent State, suffered more injuries and deaths than the young protestors on Tahrir Square.

Other adolescent transformations for me were more mundane.  My first day at that small liberal arts college, where every freshman seemed smarter and more self assured, taught me that the world was not only a big place, but a tough place to make your way.  There was much to learn.  The basics of science, history, theology, economics, sociology, political science, philosophy, art history at first seemed so abstract.  Later these disciplines would become clear, overlap and give me transformative ways to see the world.  Lastly, travel as a young student was a transforming experience.  To interact with other cultures, where families sometimes survived on a dollar a day gave me a new prospective.  The American way was not the only way.  The world economy was out of whack.

I know now, that my own transformation was more assured than the transformation of society as a whole.  Liberal boomers in the late 60s and 70s got a lot of things wrong.  Our views on sexual liberation fed the Aids epidemic and encouraged the trend toward single mothers.  Our views on drug experimentation fed the crack epidemic among the poor families we were trying to help.  Our views on communism did not differentiate between the menace of totalitarianism and the promise of social democracy.

            Of course we also got some things right.  I believe that by scrambling some eggs in our youth, the Obama presidency was made possible.  I further believe liberal boomers set the stage for racial, social, gender and sexual equality.

By 1980, the transformation of many liberal boomers, were youthful memories.  The liberal arts educations gave way to focused professional careers in medicine, law, engineering and accounting.  We thought we could argue liberal issues at cocktail parties and vote our conscious to keep the flame alive.  In truth, families and careers became our concern, social climbing rather than social reform our responsibility.  There were few David Dellinger’s among us.

If the pundits are right and 60 is the new 18, bring it on. As long as we are willing to step back, consider the options and take some risks, our remaining years may be as individually transformative as our young adulthoods.  Now we actually have some knowledge and money to go with our exuberance.  We have time to read, learn and rediscover the world. We can live out every liberal boomer’s dream: to change the world a second time.

 Next year, Obama will need help getting reelected and I’ll be 61.  Just give me time to take a nap.