TRUMP’S HARM AGAINST AMERICA

 

“Disruption is not good for people.” Steve Ballmer, former president of Microsoft

In my lifetime, three individuals have been responsible for bringing the stock market and the world economy to its knees. The first individual had bad intentions. On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden unleashed terrorists who crashed two planes into the World Trade Center, killing 2996 people. The stock market fell more than 14% causing a 1.4 trillion loss in market value.

The second individual, an innocent, unknown person from China, was the first human to contract the Covid-19 virus in 2019. The ensuing pandemic had a dramatic impact on world-wide financial markets, causing investors to suffer significant losses.  Between Feb. 12 and March 23, of 2020, the Dow lost 37% of its value.

The third individual is President Donald Trump. He will forever remain infamous for the recent stock market crash and global disruptions. Trump personally triggered the sell-off by invoking a head-scratching tariff policy that caused indefensible damage to our economy. In an instant, he made our trading partners into trade adversaries, erasing decades of good will and American success.

Trump’s actions have triggered a trade war with China, essentially halting most China trade, and may spark a global recession. In the period of one week, he was able to far exceed the severity of my previous two examples. At one point, $11 trillion in stock market value was lost. This represented the largest two-day-drop in history.

Even after Trump’s backtracking on April 9, when he postponed reciprocal tariffs for 90 days, he had already caused profound harm to the American economy. The market has recovered a portion of its large loses. However, the day-to-day uncertainty in the economy and unprecedented volatility in the stock market remains. There is still no prudent tariff policy in place. 

This entire debacle was driven by Trump’s uninformed notion of how tariffs work. His mindset was emboldened by White House ideological sycophants including Peter Novarro. The truth is that Trump made up his tariff policy with no input from the business, financial or international communities. He made up the debilitating numbers for reciprocal tariffs. He made up the plan for application of the tariffs with no advanced notice to those it impacted.

The financial markets entered a dangerous cascading deep dive on April 9, causing chaotic economic dysfunction. Trump then made up the rationale for suspending the higher tariffs. Of course, he tried to claim a shallow victory. But the damage was done, and confusion remains. The president continues to subject the country to agonizing pain, fear, and chronic economic dislocations. This was all done in order to cure an economic situation that did not require his intervention.

Before the President’s actions, knowledgeable observers believed that the American economy was the most successful and admired in the world. Only months earlier, Trump had campaigned on lower prices, lower taxes, removal of impediments to business growth and his support for cryptocurrency. Republicans were looking forward to an extended period of prosperity, built on the previous administration’s low unemployment and booming stock market.

Instead, Trump’s voters were rewarded with a President determined to break the economic system and to slow growth. According to the Economist, “On April 2^nd, Trump, spurred on by his delusions, announced the biggest break in America’s trade policy in over a century – and committed the most profound, harmful, and unnecessary economic error in the modern era.” The conservative editorial board of the Wall Street Journal expressed similar concerns. “If Mr. Trump’s tariffs end up raising prices, slowing growth and increasing unemployment, Republicans who have gone along will likely break ranks, with expressions of resentment at having been pressured into supporting policies they don’t believe in…President Trump should fear the blowback from a governing strategy largely built on fear.”

While tariffs are the story driving the headlines, Trump has caused indefensible harm against America in other areas as well. First, Trump and his DOGE layoffs of Federal employees have jeopardized essential services on which Americans rely. These indiscriminate terminations threaten critical agency objectives in everything from medical research to providing memorable experiences in our National Parks. Trump’s actions have made it more difficult to keep Americans safe and healthy in our airports, in the products we purchase, and in combating contagious disease. We are learning quickly that there is nothing efficient connected with “chainsaw” mass firings. However, there are extensive losses to basic protections.

Second, universities in America are under attack. The Trump administration is pretending to punish our most revered educational institutions for their alleged compliance with or support for “antisemitism” and diversity initiatives. The real targets are academic freedom and freedom of speech which threaten Trump’s plans for autocratic rule. Universities that support – or even tolerate – protests, research, or speech that goes against the preferences of the Trump administration are investigated, and their federal funding is frozen or cut. If Trump succeeds, a cornerstone of the American educational system will be lost.

My last example of Trump’s unwarranted harm (there are many others) is to the rule of law.  Our laws, as interpreted by our courts, are sacrosanct.  Democracy works because no one is above the law. Trump’s course of revenge and retribution against former employees, lawyers, law firms and judges must be stopped if our form of government is to survive.

 

 

 

 

 

THE COUNTY CONTROLLER IS UNDER PRESSURE

 

 

In our political system, checks and balances are the mechanisms which equitably distribute power. Checks and balances prevent any one institution or individual from exercising too much independent control.

For example, at the national level, unprecedented actions taken by the Trump administration have forced the Federal courts to issue judicial rulings to “check” unconstitutional executive orders. The Republican-controlled Congress has declined to exercise its constitutional mandate as a “balance” to the executive branch. Among other shortcomings, Congress has refused to challenge unqualified individuals who have now been appointed to critical cabinet posts or to take swift action to review Trump’s tariff policy.

The checks and balances articulated in the Pennsylvania Constitution and by statute are unique to our state and local governments. However, in Washington County similar to our ongoing national crisis, these important controls are now coming under pressure.

This commentary will focus on the Washington controller’s office that provides valuable checks and balances on our local financial system. We are in danger of losing protections that help provide Washington’s citizens with a transparent, accountable government.

As mandated by state statute, a county controller's office is “responsible for overseeing the county's financial affairs, ensuring taxpayer accountability, promoting fiscal efficiency and transparency, including maintaining financial records, auditing county operations, and reporting on the county's finances.” 

In Washington, the controller’s office has always been a proactive check on other county offices and elected officials, even when all of the elected officials are from the same political party. For example, in July of 2019, the controller was Michael Namie, a Democrat. Following an audit of the Clerk of Courts Office, Namie notified the Board of Commissioners that Democrat Frank Scandale had stolen almost $100 thousand in funds from the taxpayers. Moreover, while in office, Namie never hesitated to disclose negative audit findings and to propose solutions in the Row Offices, then controlled by Democrats.

Republican Heather Sheatler is now the acting controller. She was appointed to fill the position when criminal charges were brought against the elected controller, fellow Republican April Sloane who was forced to resign.  

Shealter has brought stability to the controller’s office. She has been employed in the office for 22 years. Shealter learned the nuances of running the controller’s operations from her former boss, Michael Namie.  Her decisions demonstrate that she understands the importance in placing taxpayers and office integrity before partisan politics.

Unfortunately, red flags have appeared that endanger the controller’s office from acting independently on financial matters. The Republican primary election to determine the next controller will take place on May 20. Shealter is running in the primary against other candidates supported by the local Republican party or by the Republican commissioners.

The current trouble began in late February when commissioners Sherman and Janis directed their chief of staff and the Human Relations Department to improperly take actions to regulate and supervise personnel matters within the controller’s office. These actions included the creation of a new position of deputy controller and a demand that Shealter undergo “a Performance Improvement Plan.” Both Shealter and her solicitor saw these actions as “an election year tactic aimed at delegitimizing her and her office while the county commissioners support another candidate.” Shealter’s solicitor sent a “cease and desist” letter threatening legal action if her independence continued to be threatened.

The second red flag is more troubling. Funding improprieties by the two Republican commissioners and their staff, in connection with the March 12 Real Estate Expo, have been exposed by the controller and the facts reported in detail by this newspaper. First, the keynote speaker’s fees ($30,000) and her accommodation expenses for the Expo (first class air, Pittsburgh hotel, chauffer services) were exposed as exorbitant. Second, money was taken from the Federal funds earmarked for blight mitigation to pay for the Expo. Third, the controller discovered that “an unauthorized bank account was opened for the Expo, taken outside the proper financial protocols designed to maintain accountability over public resources.” Shealter told the Observer Reporter that “to circumvent these rules is to avoid accountability, something I simply cannot allow.” Last week, the controller approved a plan to place the account in the Treasurer’s office, subject to her review.      

These disagreements between Sherman, Janis and their staff on the one hand and the independent controller on the other should not be taken lightly. The Republican commissioners clearly have an agenda to elect a Republican controller in the May primary who will support their interests rather than the taxpayers. After all, a knowledgeable independent financial watchdog stands in the way of a Republican administration that has a history of promoting secret deals and favoring politics over good governance.

Before the primary, Republican voters will have the opportunity to study the qualifications of the controller candidates and then, to vote for financial accountability on May 20.

On the issue of checks and balances, a special shout out goes to the hard-working reporters at the Observer Reporter. Over the past year Mike Jones has reported on numerous occurrences without fear or favor, including the one above. These stories have informed the public about questionable practices initiated by the Republican commissioners. My commentaries would not be possible without reading his timely reporting.

If Washington County were to become a local news desert, without a newspaper, much would be lost, including a valuable check on elected officials.

EMPATHY: THE NEW POLITICAL LIGHTING ROD

 

 

Those trained in the humanities and social sciences (not to mention the rest of us) now have a new political topic to study and to argue about. Musk recently took a break from downsizing the government to appear on the popular Joe Rogan blog. He poured more gasoline on our political divide by stating, “The fundamental weakness of Western Civilization is empathy.” The meaning and application of empathy instantly became a new political lighting rod.

The humanities (including religion, philosophy, and history) focus on the interpretation and understanding of human expression and thought. The social sciences (including psychology, sociology, and economics) use scientific methods to study human behavior and institutions. 

These disciplines have always played a role in understanding politics; by studying the world views and personalities of political actors. Statements and actions of our government officials are frequently analyzed in an attempt to nail down the broader context of what they are thinking and how they will act.

Utterances by President Trump, Elon Musk, Republican members of the Cabinet and of Congress are continuously parsed for meaning. Previously, the words of Democrats, including Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, underwent similar treatment.

Empathy can only be studied and discussed when its definition and meaning is understood relative to similar concepts like sympathy and compassion.

 

Sympathy “focuses on feeling sorry for someone else’s situation, while remaining detached.” Here the common expression is “I am so sorry for your loss” without a clue on how the grieving person actually feels.

 Empathy “involves an intellectual identification or understanding of someone else’s feelings and experiences.” It invokes the common expression of “putting yourself in another person’s shoes.”

Compassion “combines empathy with a desire to alleviate suffering.” A compassionate person is motivated to take affirmative action to help someone who is suffering.

A simple illustration that highlights the differences would be: Seeing the homeless man shivering in the cold, I felt sympathy. Then I thought about how I would feel and empathized with his situation. Finally, with compassion, I offered my coat to keep him warm. 

Following Musk’s comments on empathy, its application came under intense scrutiny. The Co-Director of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center at Fordham University, Dr. George Demacopoulos, immediately shot back, “Has the Trump administration effectively declared war on the most significant contribution of Christianity to Western culture? Does it not realize that empathy is one of Western Civilization’s greatest strengths? Will any Christian supporter of the administration publicly criticize such an outlandish claim?”

Daryl Cameron, Associate Professor of Psychology and Senior Associate at Rock Ethics Institute wrote about the importance of empathy in Scientific American. “Many of us are asking about the role of empathy in American politics…Empathy is a strength, not a weakness. If we let ourselves become callous to other’s needs, we risk losing sight of democracy and the importance of treating each other with dignity.”

Joe Rigney is a theologian living in Russia who agrees with Musk. He has written a book, The Sin of Empathy that has gained popularity among some conservative Christians.  His thesis is that “empathy is the greatest rhetorical tool of manipulation in the 21^st century.” Rigney believes that empathy is sinful because it “compels an individual to surrender his/her mind to the emotional responses of others”. 

Rigney’s followers believe that empathy has been exploited by progressives to manipulate people into supporting causes they would otherwise reject. For example, if people respond to Trump’s foreign aid shutdown by talking about how children might suffer or die, they are exhibiting "toxic empathy.” 

In 2011, David Brooks wrote an important essay, The Limits of Empathy, for the New York Times.  After reviewing all the available literature, Brooks decided that, “People who are empathetic are more sensitive to the perspectives and sufferings of others. They are more likely to make compassionate moral judgments.”  

Greg Depow, a psychologist and fellow at the Rady School of Management, University of California responded to Musk, “I study empathy, Elon Musk gets it all wrong. From an evolutionary perspective, empathy was foundational to the formation of society. Empathy drives volunteer work and helping behaviors. It fosters connection, builds trust and reduces conflict. Broadening empathy is the driving force that has moved us from tribal bonds to religious ties, to nation states, and could eventually move us to global cooperation.”

No former president has been analyzed more than Abraham Lincoln. The political divide and violence he faced makes today’s controversies appear inconsequential. In Doris Kearns Goodwin’s epic biography of Lincoln, Team of Rivals, she makes it clear that Lincoln’s empathy for hostile members of his cabinet and for those fighting for the confederacy helped to end the Civil War and to build a lasting peace.

There are many measuring sticks with which to compare the presidencies of Barack Obama and Joe Biden with that of Donald Trump. No one would question that Obama and Biden were often empathetic in their words and deeds and that Trump is not.

The two Democrats tended to place themselves in the shoes of those suffering before speaking or rendering a decision. Trump and Musk are transactional individuals who focus on results. They view empathy as a sign of weakness.

As concerned Americans we should consider what experts in the humanities and social sciences have to say about empathy and leadership. Ultimately, we must decide whether empathy is important.

 

 

 

  

A NEW WAY FORWARD FOR DEMOCRATS

 

Republicans gleefully support the multi-pronged Trump attack on the valuable services provided by the Federal government and his disdain for the rule of law. The disarray in the Democratic party is another high point for Trump supporters. On March 10, our own Dave Ball, former local Republican party chairman, announced in his op-ed on these pages that “the Democratic Party is hurtling toward irrelevance.”

There certainly is evidence to support Ball’s assertion. The Democratic Party is disorganized and has failed to regain its bearings. Democratic strategist James Carville has lambasted fellow Democrats and suggested they “roll over and play dead.” Conversely, some progressives are calling for all-out resistance led by grass-roots activists. Moderate Democrats want the comeback to begin in communities, city halls, and statehouses.  Chuck Schumer, the minority Senate leader, faced intense backlash from his own party base after he recently sided with Republicans on the government funding vote.

At this low point for the Democratic party, it was reassuring to learn that Ezra Klein, a liberal political commentator and journalist, has written a policy-statement on a new way forward for Democrats. Klein, along with his co-author Derek Thompson, a journalist who writes for the Atlantic Magazine, have released what amounts to a political manifesto for reeling Democrats.

The book is simply titled Abundance and it presents a vision for the future of America. The thesis is that “an abundance of consumer goods distracted us from a scarcity of homes and energy and infrastructure and scientific breakthroughs.”  According to Klein, their roadmap provides “a liberal answer to the Trump-Musk Wrecking Ball.”

Thompson introduces Abundance in his blog Plain English by reminding us that “since the election, Donald Trump has presented a ‘scarcity’ state of affairs to the American people.” First, his administration claims that since we do not have a viable economy (despite high growth and low inflation), we must suffer through a period of economic hardship. Second is the idea that since America cannot afford its debt (much of it caused by Trump’s tax cuts and excessive spending during his first term), we cannot afford health care for the poor or disabled. Third, because America needs more manufacturing, (even though unemployment is at all-time lows), we must accept high tariffs and less trade. Fourth, because America does not have enough housing, we need fewer immigrants, including the industrious workers who construct most of the new housing. Lastly, because our nation has its own problems, we must place “America First” and stop offering aid to democracies around the world.

The message in Abundance is that there is indeed a scarcity of what America requires to grow and thrive. However, the Trump reasons and solutions are wrong. Gutting the federal government so that important agencies are broken and ignoring our international allies, both done to appease radical ideological MAGA goals, is not the answer.

The authors of Abundance make it clear that Democrats have contributed to the lack of abundance. Regulations promoted by Democrats to solve problems from the 1970s have prevented affordable infrastructure, housing solutions for urban density, and nuclear power for our energy needs. In a nutshell, “outdated laws meant to ensure that government considers the consequences of its actions, have now made it too difficult for government to act consequentially.”

The author’s proposed solution is novel but not complicated. Liberal Democrats must recognize and be willing to take immediate action when the government is failing and unable to clear the way for important projects. Conservative Republicans must recognize and offer support when government is needed to reach abundance.

Examples from the book will help explain the abundance problem. Across America, important projects to build housing get vetoed by a host of entrenched local interests that invoke outdated regulations and zoning laws. Because of regulations, it costs twice as much to build a mile of subway in America as it does in Japan and six times what it costs in Portugal. In the past fifty years, the inflation adjusted cost to build a mile of interstate highway has tripled.

The authors tell a story of what can be done to circumvent the inevitable delays and logjams. On June 11, 2023, a gasoline truck overturned and exploded on I-95, collapsing a bridge that closed an important section of the northeast highway system. Our newly elected Pennsylvania Governor, Josh Shapiro, staked his political career on a quick solution. Regulations were set-aside to permit work at night in the rain, and the bidding process to choose contractors was waived. Against all odds, the bridge was rebuilt and traffic resumed in twelve days.

Both Klein and Thompson recognize the important tradeoffs that come when government is redesigned for dynamic action. It might be necessary to revise zoning, safety and other rules to achieve results. However, they believe that government stagnation resulting in failure to address the scarcities facing Americans is a national emergency.

Now is not the time to take a wrecking ball to government. It is the time to take some calculated risks that will accelerate progress on housing, energy, health care, and infrastructure. Democrats should now advocate for a government that is designed to locate and remove unnecessary bottlenecks.

 I cannot say whether the solutions outlined in this book are possible in today’s political climate. I do know they are worth considering as a new way forward for a wounded Democratic party and divided nation.

THE NEW GILDED AGE IN AMERICA

 

“Get rich, dishonestly if we can, honestly if we must,” The Gilded Age by Mark Twain

Many students of history were surprised when Donald Trump promised at his second inauguration to usher America into a new “Golden Age.” As he spoke, he was surrounded by a cadre of tech billionaires. Their combined net worth was one trillion dollars. Trump’s spectacle looked more like the beginning of a new “Gilded Age,” not a golden one.

What exactly was the original gilded age in American History, the period from the 1870s to the late 1890s? What can we learn from those years that may be useful in understanding Trump’s second term? What is different in America’s mood today, compared to the time following the Civil War through the beginning of industrialization?

According to Wikipedia, the term Gilded Age was first coined by writers who borrowed the concept from one of Mark Twain’s lesser-known novels, The Gilded Age: A Tale of Today (1873).  The book satirized a federally promised “golden age” after the Civil War, identical to the promise made in Trump’s speech. The pejorative term gilded age described what became an era of serious social problems (disorder, corruption, inequality). It was masked by a “gold gilding of economic expansion that only benefited the wealthy few.”  

The original gilded age is associated with the rise of powerful industrialists like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. It marked the transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial one. At that time, the federal government was confined and there was no system to regulate abuses.

Following the Civil War, America experienced industrial expansion in railroads, steel production, and oil industries. A small elite accumulated vast wealth. The labor class faced poor working conditions and low wages. Large numbers of immigrants arrived in the US, contributed to the workforce but also faced the challenges of nativist rejection. Powerful labor unions began to form in response to stifling working conditions and child labor.

Analyzing the political and economic history of the original gilded age gives us some examples to compare with Trump’s recent initiatives. Following the Civil War, a Republican Congress enacted the Pacific Railroad Act, which granted railroad companies 6,400 acres of federal land. Today, Trump’s “gifts” to private companies include drilling rights on federal lands and favorable regulations for businesses including cryptocurrency.

In 1872, a scandal implicated 30 sitting members of Congress, as well as the sitting Vice President, Schuyler Colfax in an elaborate double-billing and securities fraud scheme. Three years later, the Whiskey Ring Affair exposed dozens of corrupt federal revenue collectors. City mayors, like the NYC political machine Tammany Hall, made an art form of corruption during the gilded age.

In the present gilded age, Trump has terminated Inspector Generals, regulatory agencies, and reorganized the Justice Department with loyal supporters. As a result, many abuses and illegal acts in government and business will easily escape detection.

During the first gilded age, the close relationship between the executive branch, Congress, and the new industrialists resulted in a massive concentration of wealth into the hands of a small number of companies. Today, the corporate “magnificent seven” (Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, Nvidia, and Tesla) is a group of major tech companies that are in a similar position.

Elon Musk, the primary owner of Tesla, X, and other tech companies has been tasked by Trump with shrinking the government and removing regulatory impediments to billionaire growth.  Altogether, Trump has appointed an unprecedented 13 billionaires into his administration.

What can be done to slow the advance of the Trump inspired second gilded age? To study the problem, the analysis and conclusions from a book released in 2017 was worth a second look. The Age of Acquiesce by Steve Fraser tackles the issue of “American resistance to wealth and power” from the founding of our country until recently.

Fraser finds that following the Civil War, many Americans were still part of the agrarian economy and distrusted modern capitalism. The new industrial movement threatened their views on work, family, community, and religion.

Americans were angry, and they often fought hard against the abuses of the gilded age. As late as 1912, nearly a million Americans, or six percent of the electorate, cast ballots for a socialist president, Eugene Debs. Mass labor movements were common and would not accept a world where a few wealthy men controlled the country.

Fraser documents how, over time, the political will to challenge great wealth disappeared. In the grand bargain of 1950, unions in the steel and auto industries traded in their control over shop-floor rules for job security and steady employment. An ethos of individual accumulation replaced what was left of labor solidarity. Fraser concludes that in today’s world, there is waning American dissent to a society governed by the wealthy.  We have somehow lost the ability to imagine an alternative.

What is needed for the present gilded age is a new coalition of resistance and solidarity. Ironically, both Steve Bannon, a populist leader in the Republican MAGA movement and Bernie Sanders, a socialist Senator from Vermont take similar positions. They both vehemently attack the influence of the new gilded age billionaires.

Is it possible that a bottom-up coalition will emerge from these sworn political enemies and others to challenge the entrenched “one percent?” If it does, the social energy and creativity of ordinary people could again prevail.

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

THE ASSAULT ON PA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

 

Last Feb. I was privileged to interview Washington School District Superintendent, George Lammay. He explained how this small city “Prexie Pride” district with a low tax base was doing, surrounded by large suburban school districts. On one subject Lammay pulled no punches. He said that cyber schools have been a disaster for school budgets. He was concerned that the $1.5 million that Washington must spend on cyber schools leaves the district with tough choices on providing education for its students.

A year later, three events have brought Pennsylvania cyber schools (and other private schools receiving public funding) back into focus. First, Donald Trump was elected President. His administration has begun dismantling the Department of Education and has promised to make public funds available to private as well as religious schools in every state. Republicans have assailed America’s public schools by supporting vouchers. School choice is now the law in thirty-three states.

In 2024, over one million students in the United States used school choice programs, as reported by Ed Choice, an organization supporting these alternatives to public education. This is a significant increase from 2019, when only 540,000 students participated. 

According to a citation from MIT Press Direct, Education Finance and Policy, “Pennsylvania cyber charters enrolled over 175,000 students or 2.1 percent of the total public-school population, second only to California in terms of total cyber charter school enrollments. It is also second only to Oklahoma in terms of the percentage of public-school students enrolled in cyber charter schools.” In addition, Education Voters of Pennsylvania, an advocacy group for public schools, reports that “more than one billion property tax dollars are taken out of classrooms in our local public schools annually to pay for cyber charter tuition costs that are not tied to the actual expenses of online education.”

The second event centering attention on school choice occurred when Republican Pennsylvania Auditor General Timothy DeFoor, recently released the findings of his audit on the funding of five of the fourteen cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. These online charter schools receive taxpayer funding from the school districts where the students live. However, cyber schools are not accountable to the school districts that fund them. 

DeFoor concluded that the state funding formula for cyber schools, based on per-pupil budgets rather than actual educational expenses for cyber students, created “uncommon” savings rates and spending practices. The cyber schools he examined were awash in so much excess funding, they simply could not spend the money. He urged Pennsylvania to make major reforms to the state’s nearly 25-year-old funding formula.

The audit found that the five cyber schools have increased their savings accounts by 144%. DeFoor pointed out that “reserves are meant to assure there is no interruption in a child’s education – and not meant to sit in a bank account of a cyber charter school year after year.”

These large savings accounts were not accumulated because the cyber schools were frugal. On the contrary, all five schools spent tax payer dollars liberally if not irresponsibly on staff bonuses, gift cards, vehicle payments and fuel stipends. In one eye-opening discovery, Commonwealth Charter Academy spent $196 million to buy and renovate 21 buildings.  DeFoor’s comment on the buying spree, “this seems a bit out of the ordinary for a private school that is based on online instruction” was a pointed understatement.

In his Feb. 4 budget discussions Governor Shapiro noted that “the amount school districts send to cyber charters per student is inconsistent, ranging from $7,659 to $28,960.” His budget proposal is to set a flat rate of $8,000. That would save the state’s public-school districts and its tax payers $378 million a year.

As to the cyber schools’ questionable spending practices uncovered in the audit, only the Pennsylvania Department of Education can authorize and reform charter agreements. The Department must review the Charter School Law and its current regulations to further clarify the appropriate use of taxpayer monies.

The last item to focus on the issue of school choice was an excellent 2024 book on the subject, The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers by Josh Cowen. Cowen was a former evaluator of state and local school voucher programs.  He explains how these programs have expanded. He then presents a detailed evidence-based case against voucher programs.

Cowen points out that traditionally, most Americans were not in favor of the government underwriting the cost of private or religious schooling. The practice started in the South as a racist response to school integration in the late 1950s. Eventually conservative billionaires “invented a rationale for school privatization largely from nothing and out of nowhere.” They funded Republican candidates and spent millions spreading the message that “school choice would heal American education.”

In fact, Cowen points out in study after study, school choice has failed students and exacerbated income inequality. Voucher programs returned poorer academic outcomes, including lower test scores on state exams. Cowen concludes that the continued advancement of school choice is an unwarranted assault on public education.

Pennsylvania’s public schools are struggling to provide essential resources for its students. Property tax payers face increasing financial pressure. The diversion of public money to cyber and private schools has undermined the integrity of the public school system on which America was built.

It is time for concerned citizens and stressed taxpayers to take note and to speak up for public education.

 

AN UNCOMMON ORGANIZATION

 

Since the 2024 election of Donald Trump, it has been difficult to find an uplifting story that addresses the issues that divide us as a nation, a state, and as a community. One local concerned citizen and her “uncommon” organization have given me hope that there may be a way forward.

Several years ago, I worked with Emily Holmes and other local citizens on a project to reform Washington County’s form of government. I was impressed with Holmes’ ideas to improve local government and with her years of service as a North Strabane Supervisor.

When Holmes appeared on the front page of the Dec. 20, 2024 Observer Reporter at a townhall meeting in Charleroi in her role as Senior State Program Officer for Common Ground USA (CGUSA), I knew there was an important story to be told. Holmes recently sat down with me to explain the mission of CGUSA and its uncommon approach to foster community healing from political violence.

Holmes’ previous work as a consultant serendipitously made her aware of CGUSA and its domestic projects at a roundtable she attended. When an opening in Pennsylvania was posted by the organization, she eagerly applied and was accepted for the position.

CGUSA initiated a “Resilient States Project,” focusing on Pennsylvania and Texas. The aim in the Commonwealth was to “pull together diverse society leaders to prevent, defuse, and respond to political violence.” The broad definition of political violence was “threats, harassment, intimidation, and physical actions used to limit who participates in public life.” The goal was that “over the long term, this prevention work would allow us to strengthen social cohesion and build collective resilience throughout the Commonwealth.”

Why focus on Pennsylvania? CGUSA had determined that political violence tied to elections and elected officials was “especially acute” in our state. Moreover, recent events placed Southwestern Pennsylvania at the epicenter of political violence. First, on July 13, 2024, the assassination attempt on then former President Trump occurred at the Butler County Fairgrounds, while he was campaigning. Second, in Charleroi, Washington County during and after the election, scapegoating of the Haitian immigrant population became a national issue and caused major disruption to the community. CGUSA believed that it had the proven formulae and resources to tap down the political violence. It could “bring people together across dividing lines to transform conflict into collaboration.”

The parent organization of CGUSA, Search for Common Ground, has over four decades of international experience in conflict zones across the world. It has been successful in humanizing neighbors and in addressing misconceptions that tear communities apart. Its experience in applying tested evidence-based interventions was introduced in Pennsylvania. Working in the background, out of the limelight, CGUSA provides “resources, connection, and thought partnership for communities experiencing the effects of political violence but who were unsure on how to move forward.”

In connection with the assassination attempt at the Butler County Fairgrounds, CGUSA supported a public vigil of local faith leaders to “come together to cleanse and reclaim the farm show grounds for its intended purpose.” 

At the Charleroi townhall meeting on Dec. 18, 2024, CGUSA joined with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission to offer support for the under siege Haitian community. Holmes explained at the meeting that, “Local leaders should foster opportunities for community cohesion. It’s a lot harder for a person to say they hate someone or a group of people if they meet that person or someone in that group personally.”

Holmes pointed to the efforts of Washington’s Republican State Senator, Camera Bartolotta, in encouraging cooperation. The Senator pushed back against members of her own party to offer her support for the Haitian community. Bartolotta criticized those who would “disparage these hard-working people who have escaped atrocities and who are here legally to work, and pay taxes, and raise their children, and be part of the community.” Bartolotta’s words were important because research shows that individuals who distrust national leaders still respect local officials.

Following the election, CGUSA sponsored “Love Anyway Feasts,” a campaign to remind Americans of the power of community and “to offer an alternative to ‘us and them’ politics.” The vision was “to see people walk away from this political season and still love their families, friends, and neighbors: especially ones who voted differently than them.”

In January, such an event, supported by CGUSA, took place in Charleroi. As reported by the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, “On a recent Saturday evening, about 75 people crowded into a small room at an event center, where a local performer sang an original song he titled, ‘Better Together.’ After they piled their plates with pizza, Haitian and Liberian cuisine, the attendees sat down next to strangers they, on a surface level, had little in common with. And then they talked.”

Holmes attended the event and offered some sage advice on why such events are important. “Local leaders already have experience working across dividing lines to get things done – I mean, you don’t need to be associated with a certain party to agree to fix a pothole.” Clearly, her years of experience as a North Strabane Supervisor are serving Holmes well as an ambassador for CGUSA.

Those of us who closely follow politics are unfortunately drawn to social media and our favorite cable news station. Confirmation bias reinforces our distrust and polarization, even in our own communities. As an alternative, Holmes’ uncommon organization can lead us to some common ground.