DEFINING THE BIG ISSUES

 

Some of us that graduated from liberal arts institutions have recently found ourselves returning to our dusty textbooks on American political theory, philosophy, and economics. This refresher course has become more common (and necessary) since President Trump and his MAGA followers took over the country. Fundamental concepts like the meaning of the Constitution, the role of Congress, democracy, republic, freedom, liberty, justice, and the rule of law have suddenly become disrupted and even threatened.  

This commentary will discuss each of the above “big issues” that are so valuable in explaining our form of government. To debate our tribal disputes, we need to agree on the terminology that describes our political system. Once the definitions are settled, whatever position we take, we should remain consistent. It is not acceptable to ignore an adopted basic principle just because Trump changes his position to “get a win.”

The United States of America is not a democracy; it is a democratic constitutional republic. Policy decisions are not made directly by voters. They are made by elected representatives. These representatives, including the president, are bound by the rights and restrictions contained in the Constitution. The only “directly democratic” policy decisions recognized across America are citizen referendums placed on local and state ballots.

The Constitution is 237 years old. While it is known as “a living document” because it can be amended, this has only happened 27 times. The Constitution built our nation out of a weak confederation of states. It organized government so that its powers could not be captured by factions, or the general public, or by the president. It guaranteed property rights. It preserved the autonomy of the states. Most importantly, it granted people essential rights against potential government abuses.

The Constitution assigned to Congress the responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

In recent years, Congress has not exercised many of its important responsibilities. It has permitted the executive branch to consolidate additional power, outside the parameters of the Constitution. In addition, the Supreme Court has ratified this trend to strengthen the powers of the presidency. Trump supporters who claim to support the Constitution should take notice.

What is the distinction between liberty and freedom? While often used interchangeably, they are different. Liberty emphasizes the importance of individual rights, bestowed by the government. It can be defined as “living without oppressive restrictions imposed by the state on one’s way of life, behavior, or political/religious beliefs.” The idea of liberty is enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Freedom is more focused on the ability of individuals to pursue their own interests, free from economic or social hardship. It refers to the ability to achieve a good life without being hindered by outside forces. It is often associated with the idea of the pursuit of happiness.

Under our form of government, favoring either liberty or freedom can lead to very different political ideologies and policies.  For example, libertarians and many conservatives, prioritize individual liberty and limited government intervention. Conversely, progressive Democrats tend to place greater emphasis on government-provided social and economic freedoms like healthcare, education, and a living wage that allow individuals to achieve their potential. In my view, it is inconsistent for those opposed to government intervention, to also oppose family planning and the rights of the LGBTQ + community.

Since the New Deal, the raging domestic debate has been whether the overriding goal in national policy should be more liberty with less government intervention or more government intervention that guarantees cradle to grave freedoms for all Americans. Achieving an acceptable balance between liberty and social freedom is a complex and ongoing challenge. The polices that may help attain balance include progressive taxation, access to quality education, social welfare programs that reduce poverty, and policies that ensure freedom from discrimination.

The great political philosopher John Rawls tried to unite both liberty and freedom through his concept of justice. His theory of justice describes “a society of free citizens with equal basic rights who work together cooperatively in an egalitarian economic system.” Rawls believed that his theory was the best framework for the legitimate use of political power.

The last “big issue,” the rule of law, is the principle under which all individuals and institutions must be accountable to laws that are publicly known, equally enforced and independently adjudicated. Unfortunately, since Trump’s reelection, well established laws have become obstacles to be ignored not directives to be followed.

His repeated actions in disregarding court orders that follow the Constitution, that attack the justice system and judges, that target political opponents and the press, and that initially challenged the results of the 2020 presidential election with no basis to do so, have been unprecedented.

For Trump supporters who hope their next traffic ticket, their daughter’s divorce or their son’s drug arrest will be handled according to the rule of law, please be consistent. Once we permit the President to carve out exceptions at his whim, the legal system will begin to crumble.

 

 

 

  

AN IMMIGRANT’S TALE

 

Most people would agree that the more you get to know someone, the more human they become. As you learn about someone’s background, struggles, and motivations, the less bias is placed on their ethnic background, political views, or quirky personalities. In our divided tribal nation, simply having a pleasant conversation with others in the community who hold opposite political views can reveal shared connections and a new perspective.

This same principle holds true regarding the complex issue of how immigration should be viewed. Getting to know a recent immigrant’s individual journey in coming to America and efforts to build a life for their family is an important component in calming the angry rhetoric and divisive tensions that have developed. 

The nation’s broad policy discussions on immigration normally focus on history, the law, economics, and the prejudices of white America. There is minimal consideration of individual immigrants and their incredible stories of hard work, sacrifice, and willingness to assimilate to become part of a shared future.

It is not surprising that urban areas often label themselves “sanctuary cities” while rural communities are more on board with the Trump administration’s efforts to indiscriminately round up millions of immigrants and to deport them. Many recent immigrants have set down roots in our cities and are an important part of urban life. They have become “human” as they participate in workplaces, schools, and houses of worship. They have developed close community ties. 

On the other hand, immigrants in rural areas are far fewer and often appear only seasonally to pick crops or to work at temporary construction sites. These immigrants rarely become an integral part of the community. Accordingly, rural residents often rely on Fox News, spewing out MAGA rhetoric, as their only frame of reference on immigration. 

In this commentary, I will share an immigrant’s tale of the woman who married my brother. Her story has done more to shape my views on immigration than any Congressional policy paper or cable news discussion. If all of us could experience a similar situation, immigration policy could be resolved in a more humane and responsible fashion.

Bhavani (affectionately called B) was born in the tropical city of Madras in southern India. She was an outstanding student who found her passion in the field of science, graduating with a top national scholarship award for her academic achievements. She followed in the footsteps of her scientist father and worked as a young businesswoman in the medical field.

My brother and B met through family and were married in India in the early 90s. B obtained her “green card” and left behind her family, business, and friends for a new life in America.

Despite her extensive training and experience, B worked in a day care center for several years. During this time, she applied for accreditation equivalence and took specialized courses at local universities on the newest techniques in her field.

Recognized for her talent, she was offered positions in biological research at three different companies. In 1998, she began working as a research scientist at a large biopharmaceutical company in NJ that focused on the research, development, and commercialization of therapies for hematological cancers and immune-inflammatory diseases. B applied for and became a U.S. citizen in 2000.

One of the most prestigious annual competitions for scientific excellence in New Jersey is the Edison Awards where winners are chosen as the “best of the best” within their respective categories. The awards honor excellence in new products, service development, and innovation.  After 15 years of research, at a black-tie dinner, B’s team was presented with an Edison Award for their discovery of a novel cell therapy to treat leukemia patients.

B currently continues her research where there are unmet medical needs. Her projects are confidential and require long hours and dedication. Her work never missed a beat during the pandemic and was considered an essential occupation. 

This immigrant’s tale has made a difference that should not be taken for granted. Most of her team members over the years were born and/or educated abroad. She has worked with research scientists from Japan, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Korea, Egypt, Ireland, Israel, Estonia, France, and Germany. B gave an enthusiastic shout-out to the skills and dedication of all these researchers who emigrated to America. 

Since Trump came to office, he has drastically cut science research budgets at major universities and has restricted immigration of bright foreign scientists like B. Two additional MAGA agendas are to punish research universities for their liberalism and to curtail research at federal health agencies for their views on pandemics and vaccines. This brain drain will quickly degrade our nation’s innovative engine that has produced cutting edge discoveries that save lives. 

According to the New York Times, “In the American defense industry and in fields like engineering and life sciences, at least half the workers with doctorates are foreign-born.” Europe and China have started massive recruitment campaigns to relocate our nation’s best foreign scientists, who are no longer able to complete their research here.

B is concerned about the loss of university research funds and of its talent pool. For decades, collaboration between private companies and universities has strengthened both entities. 

Before reaching conclusions on immigration, take a recent immigrant to lunch and hear your own tale of sacrifice, success, and of love for our country. You will gain a new perspective.

 

 

 

 

 

YUGO IKACH: WASHINGTON’S MUSIC MAN

 

In the 1957 Broadway musical, The Music Man, a grifter masquerades as a boys’ band organizer to sell musical instruments and uniforms to naïve Midwestern townsfolk. Before “Harold” can skip town with the money, he falls in love with “Marian” and risks getting caught to stay and train the local boys. At the end of the production, they are able to play a barely recognizable “Minuet in G.” As the curtain comes down, the music-hungry locals cheer the performance and the romance prevails.

For the past several decades, Washington County has celebrated the work of its own over-the-moon music man, Yugo Ikach. Like the original, he has brought the joy of music to thousands of local residents. Unlike Broadway’s music men (originally, Robert Preston and recently, Hugh Jackman) Ikach has performed his magic across several different local venues.

At California University of Pennsylvania (now PennWest), Ikach began his career in 2003 as Adjunct Professor of Music. He is now Associate Dean of Education, Arts, and Humanities. At PennWest he has served as an Assistant Music Professor, Director of University Choirs, and on multiple department, and university-wide committees.

Ikach was the Music Director at Immaculate Conception Church in Washington from 1992 to 2021. He has served on the WQED Multimedia Advisory Board. Early in his career, he worked in numerous roles with the McKeesport Symphony Orchestra, at Wheeling Jesuit University, Community College of Allegheny County, and West Virginia University.

Many local residents first became aware of Ikach’s vast talents when he assumed the position of Music Director and Principal Conductor of the Washington Symphony Orchestra (WSO) in 2005.  A small but loyal group of patrons were then attending the four yearly performances. Now, the WSO plays to sold-out audiences at its latest home in Olin Fine Arts Center at Washington and Jefferson College.

We have been supporters since Ikach assumed his responsibilities. It has been fascinating to watch the WSO capture the heart of Washington County. Ikach knows his patrons well and seeks to deliver entertainment with fireworks. There is never simply two hours of classical music that may not be familiar to many in the audience.

Ikach has developed a formula that begins with a theme for the overall concert. He then introduces those in attendance to several classical pieces that follow the theme, interspersed with lighter fare. Every concert contains at least one composition that brings the audience to their feet because it is both unique, and unexpected. It might be forty-five ukulele players marching down the aisles, or a fiddler who played with Charlie Daniels giving us an electrified version of the Daniels’ theme song, or Ikach’s two daughters belting out the most recognizable hits from the female rock group, Heart.

With classical music, Ikach always explains the history of the piece and why he chose the composition. In the beginning, this felt a bit condescending. But times have changed when it comes to classical music. Now, when we attend the Pittsburgh Symphony, conductor Manfred Honeck often does exactly the same thing (with his heavy Austrian accent) to help his younger audience gain an appreciation for each work.

Ikach’s interests and knowledge encompass multiple musical genres, from Broadway, to jazz, to rock, and of course classical. More importantly, he knows accomplished musicians across all musical platforms who are always eager to show up at one of the concerts and lend a hand. Ikach has learned that the more local performers he enlists, the better the box-office. After all, a parent will purchase a ticket every night to see their child perform in a choir or as part of the orchestra.

The orchestra’s holiday performance, “HO-HO-HO with the WSO,” has become a tradition as important to Washington County as the Nutcracker in Pittsburgh. An extra presentation has been added and many additional tickets could be sold. Each year, Ikach comes up with new holiday music to accompany the traditional favorites.

My favorite Ikach/WSO story occurred on a night in November 2012 when they performed, on short notice, for a national television audience on Monday Night Football (MNF). The Pittsburgh Symphony was unavailable so the WSO rose to the occasion, to play the opening theme song for MNF before the Steelers took the field. For hours, the orchestra sat under hot lights, in gowns and tuxedos, until dozens of takes were completed. The footage is still available on www.youtube.com.

Over the years, I have had the opportunity to discuss music with our conductor. His knowledge and love for all things musical is astonishing. On one occasion, I asked for his opinion of the Leonard Bernstein movie Maestro, starring Bradley Cooper. Ikach proceeded to give me a mini dissertation on Bernstein and how important his work was to American music. I had to go back and watch the movie again.

When I asked Ikach how difficult it was to keep a volunteer orchestra together, he noted that, “the strings are often on a different political footing than the brass section.” He explained that it works for the orchestra and for the audience because, “music is a safe space. We are all united for a common cause. It crosses all boundaries and celebrates our shared humanity.”

We should all be grateful for Washington’s own music man and look forward to the unique performances that are sure to inspire us for years to come.

 

 

WASHINGTON’S “NO KINGS” RESISTANCE

 

I have never considered Washington County to be a hotbed of political protest. Until recently, it was a moderate to conservative community that prided itself on its many houses of worship, taking care of its underprivileged citizens, and sharing its community values.

There were few major political disagreements. For example, unlike other Pennsylvania jurisdictions, the oil and gas industry and its fracking technology were supported by elected officials from both political parties.

In the past, elected officials served the public by keeping taxes low and remaining non-controversial. Residents could get agitated over national political events while remaining calm at home. Their local county government was predictable and did its job.

When the MAGA movement hijacked the Republican party, including the Washington County Republican leadership, slow and steady was replaced by unpredictable and outrageous. Republicans built a coalition of voters who felt ignored by established politicians, including many first-time voters, into a populist political machine. This MAGA party cares more for white nationalist ideological precepts and its political standing than about governing for all.

Many traditional county Republicans jumped on the Trump bandwagon, knowing that, for the first time in decades, they could seize local political power. Democrats and others could only shake their heads in amazement at the speed of the MAGA takeover. Competence and experience were no longer necessary requirements to run for office. The only essential trait was a total buy-in with the MAGA movement.

With our local Republican commissioners and other county leaders on the same page as the Trump administration, it was only a matter of time before Democrats, Independents, and other concerned citizens would become more politically involved. On a recent muggy, cloudy Saturday, those who disagree with Trump’s policies and with local Republican implementation of those policies had the opportunity to respond.

The “No Kings” movement was an organized event of approximately 2,000 protests across the country. The Washington County Courthouse steps hosted our local version of citizens showing up to challenge national and local Republicans and to show dissatisfaction with their abuses of power.

The protests were planned to be a day of defiance, demonstrating that the president is not a king and that democracy is not defined by the actions of one individual. The protests were initially scheduled to coincide with President Trump’s military parade in Washington, DC to commemorate his 79^th birthday and the 250^th anniversary of the United States Army. The military parade is estimated to have cost $45 million, and featured 6,000 Army soldiers, 49 aircraft, 128 vehicles and 25 horses.

As other Trump executive actions unfolded, the event also came to represent protest against “billionaire first” legislation (the Republican, Big, Beautiful Bill), the militarization of our democracy, and brutal ICE actions against non-criminal immigrants in schools, churches, and places of employment.

When I arrived at the protest, the crowd of an estimated 500 continued to grow. By the time I left an hour later, both sides of main street were covered with signs and boisterous participants of all ages. Some of the loudest were older citizens holding their signs with one hand and their walkers with the other. A grass-roots political protest movement in support of democracy and in opposition to totalitarian government was alive in Washington County.

After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, local MAGA Republicans spent four years challenging the county election results (even though Trump won here by a large margin). They disrupted commissioner meetings and made it difficult for Diana Irey Vaughan and her non MAGA Republican administration to govern county government. After Vaughan decided not to run for reelection in 2023, the path was clear for the MAGA faction to take over. Now commissioners Nick Sherman and Electra Janis seek to mold their decision-making in lock step with the Trump administration.

Ironically, on the same Saturday as the “No Kings” protest, the Observer- Reporter ran a front-page article announcing “Washington County Sheriff’s Office seeks to join ICE task force.” This action would bestow immigration authority on county sheriff’s deputies in efforts to arrest and deport illegal immigrants. In the article County Commissioner Chair Sherman is quoted as saying, “I think this is a good thing, we’re using local law enforcement to aid federal law enforcement.”

Our local majority commissioners and the Trump administration are now joined at the hip. The ACLU has vehemently objected to local law enforcement performing ICE functions. The organization’s website warns “immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government and localities need not involve themselves.” Not only is local law enforcement kept from their regular responsibilities that tax payers expect them to perform, they are open to lawsuits for racial profiling and other civil rights violations.

Trump and the Republican commissioners have kicked the bear and it is not going back into hibernation. Protesting residents must now up their game by letter writing, phone calls, and by becoming involved in voter registration drives. Well informed protestors need to show up at every county commissioner’s meeting to voice their concerns.

The alternative is ongoing authoritarianism at both the national and local levels. We are on the verge of waking up to observe local deputy sheriffs directed by ICE, pulling members of our immigrant community off of ladders, off of lawn mowers, out of classrooms, and even out of church pews.

I am convinced that many in Washington County will continue to protest such actions.

 

 

 

FREE SPEECH HAS BECOME A POLITICAL WEAPON

  

In our divided nation, no topic is more important and more misunderstood than free speech. This basic liberty is frequently abused when political actors of every persuasion only support free speech that aligns with their ideological views. These same actors reject acceptable speech that supports their political opponents.

In my experience, only the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been consistent in bringing legal action to ensure that Nazi hate groups and adult pornography receive the same free speech protection as theologians and members of Congress. The ACLU believes the First Amendment means what it says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

Prior to Donald Trump’s ascendancy, the most vocal adherents of free speech were civil rights advocates. Today, groups underwriting everything from self-serving identity politics on college campuses to those supporting right-wing, white nationalism have weaponized free speech for their own purposes.  Quarrels over free speech have become nothing more than ideological fights “for control of the argument.”

This commentary will tackle two aspects of the complex, and misapplied basic right of free speech. First, I will borrow from a recently published treatise by the historian Fara Dabhoiwala, What is Free Speech? The History of a Dangerous Idea, to explain how our nation developed its version of free speech. Second, I will examine whether there is a path forward to reconcile the contradictory goals of (1) “absolute” free speech with (2) some degree of censorship for the common good.

Dabhoiwala begins his work by telling us, “The real history of free speech has the potential to illuminate our current predicaments in surprisingly direct ways.” He believes that the American version of free speech cannot be understood without studying early Congressional legislative debates and Supreme Court interpretations of both the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Alexander Hamilton and his followers rejected the definition of free speech “with guardrails” adopted during the French Revolution and later, most of Europe. These fledgling democracies decided that this new toleration of free speech should not extend to “opinions contrary to human society or to those moral rules which are necessary to the preservation of civil society.” In Europe and Great Britain this meant that laws were passed “against spreading false news” and which prohibited “infamy and absurdity.”

In America, however, Hamilton won the Congressional debate calling for an absolutist, uncensored definition of free speech. In this context, the Bill of Rights was designed to protect against overreach by the federal government, not the explicit guarantee of individual rights it has become.

While Ambassador to France, during the Bill of Rights debate, Thomas Jefferson, an admirer of the French Revolution, had sent to James Madison an alternative draft that carved out important exceptions to free speech. He suggested language that censored “false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property, or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations” from free speech. However, by the time Jefferson’s version arrived in America, the Bill of Rights was a done deal with no further debate.

The next unexpected turn was that as each of the new states crafted their own constitutions, most adopted the more limited European model and rejected the absolute wording in the Bill of Rights. In Pennsylvania, a much older Benjamin Franklin would write, “For my part, I shall cheerfully consent to exchange my liberty for abusing others for the privilege of not being abused myself.” American free speech followed two paths, one federal and one state mandated.

In 1925, the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion, Gitlow v. New York, that applied the Fourteenth Amendment of 1868, to free speech. Individual states could no longer “make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” The First Amendment now applied just as rigorously to the states, based on the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment that arguably had nothing to do with free speech.

Today, neither our federal nor state governments actively censor viewpoints, however inflammatory. By contrast, the UK and European countries have not hesitated to criminalize hate speech, or to extend protections against speech that “hurts peoples’ feelings” or is judged to be “false” by some appointed official.

The ongoing question for Bill of Rights experts is whether absolute free speech should be tempered with reasonable censorship designed to protect the public good.

One stated aim of hate-speech laws is to promote social harmony. Research conducted by The Economist shows that in Great Britain they have done the opposite. Moreover, laws that give discretion to elected officials in limiting speech are an invitation for abuse. Illiberal governments use such tactics to expand their authoritarian regimes. In addition, laws that prohibit “giving offense” are difficult to enforce and stifle open democratic debate.

The Economist concludes that, “When nations have too much power over speech, sooner or later they will use it for the wrong reasons. Noisy disagreements are better than enforced silence. People must learn to tolerate each other’s views.”

This brings us back to the American absolute model of free speech, which appears to be more democratic.  Unfortunately, American free speech cannot stand when political actors weaponize it for their own purposes to win ideological arguments. It can only achieve its original purpose when we all defend speech we don’t like, a difficult ask in tribal America.

 

 

 

 

 

THE GRAYING OF AMERICA: WHAT COMES NEXT?

 

 

The graying of America should be added to the litany of problems facing the nation. Since 1960, the median age of Americans has risen by nearly nine years. It now stands at 38.3 years from the earlier 29.6. More recently, from 2010 to 2020, the 65-and-over population increased by an astounding 34 percent.

Baby boomers are convinced we will be around for decades to come. If we are correct, the safety net of Social Security and Medicare that were designed for a population with much less longevity will be pushed to its limits.

In many respects it is a worse challenge for spouses, siblings, children, and for organizations that provide housing/long-term health care for the elderly.  According to the website shortlister, approximately 70 per cent of Americans aged 65 and older will require some form of long-term care during their lifetime.

As a card-carrying member of the baby boom generation, I am not only interested in the financial burden we will impose on the nation, but on the legacy our generation is leaving for those we love. To help me better frame the issues, I recently discovered a book, The Aftermath: The Last Days of the Baby Boom and the Future of Power in America, by Philip Bump.

Bump is a columnist for the Washington Post who is known for his nerdy immersion in charts and graphs to prove a point. His book keeps this tradition alive (128 charts in total) as he attempts to overcome pure speculation with some hard facts.  His thesis is that the downward shift of our population’s center of gravity, the national political climate, and the frustrations of younger Americans will continue to overlap and to explain many of the country’s fissures.  He believes that, “A large generation of boomers, used to accruing and defending its power through sheer scale is watching that power crumble…We’re now living through something exceptional, an historic disruption of an American empire.”

The Aftermath is a sweeping assessment of how the baby boom created modern America. Bump covers all of the important contributions and colossal failures. He believes there are three conduits for power: culture, economics, and politics.  He concludes that the cultural shift is all but over, heavily centered on the young.  He sees economic power dependent on how much it costs to maintain older baby boomers, along with the housing market, student debt, and the ability of the next generation to generate enough tax revenue to care for the elderly.

Regarding politics, when the book was written, Trump’s second term was not yet part of the equation. Bump concluded in 2023 that our generational shift lies at the heart of the current national malaise. Bump posits that the important factors are the direction of political leanings and racial diversity in the electorate.

It is interesting that Bump finds that in the near future, America will look more like Florida—older, less white, conservative.  In a few years, millennials will come into their own and begin demanding a bigger piece of the economic pie. Bump is not sure whether they will be battling their parents to cut senior benefits, or battling the robots seeking their jobs.

In order to escape Bump’s charts and graphs, I decided to seek input from two millennial men with young families. The first, “Noel,” is a father and spouse in suburban Minneapolis, Minnesota. Noel is a politically engaged white-collar progressive. The second is “Joshua” with a young family in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Joshua is a local banker who remains very close to the farming tradition of his father’s family. He is a conservative with strong libertarian leanings and an active participant in his community.

Noel has strong views on where his parent’s generation failed the country. “The boomer generation was raised with a mentality of individual advancement, rather than building the community up. This allowed cracks in the American foundation.” His theme of self-interest over community continues. “I see great wealth gained by a few Fortune 500 store fronts rather than space for local entrepreneurs.” He has a question for the boomer generation. “What and for whom were you fighting for?” He believes his generation must understand the answer to make peace with boomers and to move forward.

When it comes to his young children, Noel is concerned about the type of world they will inherit. He sees as a main parenting goal to “show them that each of their choices has an impact.” The goal for himself is to be part of his neighborhood and to understand how those with different views can live together.

Given his community and upbringing, Joshua has a more traditional, conservative orientation. There is one regret about his childhood, “I would change the pace of my early life and slow it down, enjoy the simple things.” His views on the future are positive with the caveat, “I put no faith in government to fix the problems of our country.” Joshua wants no part in cradle-to-grave benefits. He believes it is his responsibility to “work hard, maintain a positive attitude and to forge a path of success.” Joshua would place serving God and others ahead of self-serving motives.

Somehow, I feel I received a better sense of “what comes next” from Noel and Joshua than from Bump’s graphs and charts. One thing is for sure; it will be complicated.

 

 

 

THE REPUBLICAN COMMISSIONERS’ BIG SPENDING SECRET

 

Republican Commissioners Nick Sherman and Electra Janis like to boast about the projects they have initiated since taking over county government in January, 2024. What they fail to explain is that the funding for their spending binge came from Congressional legislation designed to save local governments from economic collapse following the pandemic, sponsored by the Democratic Party. These funds permitted our Republican Commissioners to spend like drunken sailors without raising taxes or plunging the county into debt.  

The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was a $1.9 trillion economic stimulus Bill passed by Congress, and signed by then President Biden, without a single Republican vote. The funding included $7.9 billion for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of this amount, $4.95 billion was allocated for the largest cities and the 67 counties. The remainder was divided among Pennsylvania’s smaller municipalities.

Our Republican Commissioners following the lead of elected Republicans across America, shamelessly took credit for this windfall of assistance their party fought to defeat. Regrettably, there has been incomplete local accounting on how the money was spent.

Washington County was awarded the enormous sum of $98.9 million in ARPA funding. When interviewed by SPOTLIGHT PA, a Pennsylvania official commented, “We’ve never come into this amount of money in one large sum. The simple reporting requirements and flexibility to use the funding made the aid more meaningful.”

The objectives of the ARPA were to supplement lost revenue caused by COVID-19 shutdowns, to reimburse public entities for health and safety services, to assist local businesses, and to address infrastructure needs.

The most significant funding stream in the ARPA was for “revenue replacement.”  There were few restrictions on how funds earmarked for this category could be spent. Recipients had the option to classify $10 million of their allocation in this way or to use a more complicated formula to calculate lost revenue. Washington County chose the second option and with the help of a consultant was able to earmark $57 million under the category of revenue replacement. The majority Republican Commissioners had a great deal of discretion on how the revenue replacement funds were spent down. Unfortunately, there was no public input and minimal transparency on the allocation of these funds.

According to Washington County’s most recent federal ARPA report, filed in the first quarter of 2025, diverse projects were initiated using the allotted funds. These included the broadband project to bring fast/inexpensive internet service to rural county residents; local hospital assistance; courtroom renovations; public document scanning; and court case management software. It is impossible to determine from the report how many questionable hidden expenditures for items like expensive county rental cars and new management positions were funded using the “revenue replacement” funds.

The ARPA expenditure that has gained the most notoriety was the initial $9 million in ARPA funds dedicated to upgrade the county’s emergency communications system.  As reported by the Observer-Reporter, “The radio system has been a divisive topic for nearly two years. The previous county board of commissioners, led by then chairwoman Diana Irey Vaughan, awarded a $22.545 million contract to MRA Inc. in March of 2023.  Maggi sided with Irey Vaughan to approve that contract, while Sherman voted against it since he favored a [more expensive] proposal from Motorola.”

“Vaughan retired in January [2024] and was replaced on the board by Janis, who voted with Sherman to terminate the MRA contract. Sherman and Janis then voted to select Motorola’s proposals despite the county having already spent $8.5 million on equipment as it began working to install the MRA system last year.”

The new Motorola contract remains cloaked in secrecy and controversy. It is not known whether the original contract expenditures will be recouped, what the final cost of the project will be, or whether the federal treasury will claw back funds because of the Republican commissioner’s duplication of a valid contract.

In my research for this commentary, I came across an excellent report released by the Center for Coalfield Justice. It was titled The ARPA and Local Municipalities and called for “Washington community members to be involved in decision-making when deciding how these funds would be used.” This call for transparency and public involvement received little attention from the current administration.

Other municipalities, across America, provided their citizens with up-to-date ARPA information. For example, Kalamazoo County, Michigan maintained a “ARPA dashboard” accessible to the public. It itemized total appropriations, obligations, and expenditures. Six strategic priorities were identified with frequent award updates.

Greensboro, N.C. maintained a website that provided comprehensive public information about how it deployed its ARPA allocation. The municipality started with three strategic recovery priorities and a status tracker.

It is never too late for Sherman and Janis to live up to their campaign pledges of transparency when it comes to county deployment of almost $100 million in ARPA funds. While most of the proceeds have been spent or earmarked, Washington’s citizens have a right to know the details.  An acknowledgement of former President Biden and the Democratic Party’s role, in providing the federal funds for the local Republican spending spree would also be in order.

Lastly, the public deserves an update on how Sherman and Janis plan on financing their upcoming projects, like demolition of Court House Square and the building of a new public safety building. Now that the gravy train has left the station, where will the money come from?