Most Recent at the Top
Archives
Ambler Gazette, June 27, 2010
Local stimulus funds put to good use
To the Editor:
When we hear discussions about President Obama’s stimulus program and its effects, it may sometimes seem like the money expended is not affecting us directly in this area, but if you drive down Penllyn Pike you will see a striking example of that money in action. A handsome, sturdy, newly rebuilt stone railroad bridge, paid for by those stimulus funds (also called the Economic Recovery Program), has now replaced the dangerous, crumbling former structure in Penllyn. A similar reconstruction can also be seen in North Hills which tells me that our area has been very well-served by this government program.
I’m grateful that the safety of our local rail corridor has been addressed by this federal program and can only surmise that all across the country there are hundreds if not thousands of equally necessary projects being completed.
I find this most encouraging and think it shows in a very dramatic way the scope and competence of this initiative. When it seems like some people can only find fault with our federal government, I would urge them to look to our most local example of a wise public works project which benefits them directly — the Penllyn railroad bridge.
Judy Hughes
Blue Bell
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 26, 2010.
Prison reform has eluded Greenleaf
State Sen. Stewart Greenleaf (R., Montgomery) has been praised for reforming Pennsylvania's prison system. However, it must be noted that the problems with the state prisons have only grown worse during his 31-year tenure in the Senate.
Greenleaf is chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, yet he has been able to get only three of his seven prison-reform bills out of committee. Pennsylvania needs state senators who will be effective in bringing about prison reform. That is why I will be voting for Ruth Damsker in the 12th Senate District in November.
Jill Zipin
Horsham
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, July 26, 2010.
Toomey's tax ads stretch the truth
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Pat Toomey has been inundating the media with ads condemning Democrat Joe Sestak for voting for the "death tax." The ads state that the government will take up to half of your assets when you die. Inaccurate and partial information is the same as not telling the truth.
This tax is really an inheritance tax, which applies only to estates of more than $1 million, and there are further exclusions that can be used to reduce this tax. To act as if all Americans are subject to this tax is just a cheap scare tactic. Why should we vote for someone who so blatantly misleads?
Gus Cileone
Conshohocken
Marcel Groen, replies to remarks by re-elected head of Montgomery County Republican Committee
Unnecessary, Unfortunate Remarks
By Marcel Groen, Chair, Montgomery County Democratic Committee
I would like to congratulate my counterpart, Bob Kerns, on being unanimously re-elected chairman of the Montgomery County Republican Committee. It has been a long time since there has been a unanimous opinion about anything among county Republicans. Mr. Kerns should be proud.
What Mr. Kerns should be less proud of are the comments he made upon being re-elected. According to published reports,* Mr. Kerns, in exhorting the party faithful to work hard, said, "We need you in this fight. We're fighting those Democrats - those infidels - all the time, and we need your help."
Infidels? Mr. Kerns fancies himself a student of history, so he should certainly understand the connotations of such a charged term. In dictionary terms, it means "one who doubts or rejects central tenets of a religion, or one who has no religious beliefs". In practical terminology, it is a term that has been used to justify the killing of millions of innocents under the guise of religious purity.
Politics may be Mr. Kerns' religion, but in today's political atmosphere in the United States, I think we need a little less "zealotry" and little more understanding and bi-partisanship. I do not think it is productive to dehumanize our political opponents, or use terminology that conjures up the need for murder.
I will fight hard to convince people that our positions on issues are better, but I respect my opponents, their beliefs and their patriotism. Mr. Kerns does everyone a disservice by using a fanatical religious expression to describe his political opponents.
Politics is not a crusade. At its best, it is a debate between competing visions and beliefs, and in our country that means a debate between our two main political parties. I may disagree with my opponents and their views, but I respect them and realize that the country we all love is better off for that legitimate and spirited debate.
The so-called infidels that Mr. Kerns referred to in his speech are his neighbors. Like his righteous Republicans, those infidels coach Little League, volunteer in the community, attend the same churches, synagogues and mosques that Republicans attend and they are defending our country in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Democrats are not infidels, Mr. Kerns. They are working men and women, patriotic Americans, and people who simply have a different view than you do of the role of government in our society.
We have all seen and heard the excessively personal and destructive language used by all sides in the political discourse across this country in recent years. People and ideas are routinely branded with historical and evil epithets. Our Congress and legislatures have been frozen into inaction and gridlock by the same type of rigid ideology and lack of civility.
When this type of behavior occurs we are all demonstrating an "infidelity" to our Constitution and the vision and dream that our Founding Fathers had for our political discourse and our society as a whole. I urge Mr. Kerns to raise the tenor of the debate. Our ideas are fair game, as are his, but I will not allow him to denigrate and dehumanize his fellow Americans, in particular, Montgomery County Democrats, without challenging his brand of political speech.
*Read Kerns' comments in this article published in the
Times Herald on June 7, 2010.
Ambler Gazette, May 13, 2010
Remember the qualities of Joe Hoffel
on May 18
To the Editor:
To the Democrats – as we approach the May 18 primary next week, I hope we
will remember the reasons that we chose to be Democrats – respect for the
environment, gender equality, even-handed justice and equality for all,
freedom of speech and press, the positive role that the government can play in
our lives, support for public education, workplace safety, economic
opportunity and social values consistent with peace and the well-being of our
children.
I know of one legislator who has always been a champion of these values as he
represented us in Montgomery County, in Harrisburg and then in Washington,
D.C. His name is Joe Hoeffel. He has been true to those Democratic values and
has never wavered in fighting for women’s rights and sensible gun laws even
when it wasn’t convenient to do so. He has taken a prudent approach to the
drilling for natural gas in upstate Pennsylvania, thinking about safety and
the possible pollution of drinking water before being enticed by the profits
to be made from mining. He has stayed available and helpful to his
constituents and Montgomery County neighbors, always finding time to attend a
hometown event to support a good cause or to work for another good Democrat
who was running for office.
From the time we first moved here in the 1970s up to the present, Joe has been
a person who truly believed in public service rather than politics and I have
always been proud to say he lives in my county. Now he needs our help as he
runs for governor and I am glad to be among his supporters. Calling to other
Democrats across the commonwealth I found it very easy to say with complete
honesty that he is the kind of person I would trust implicitly to be a voice
for the progressives in Pennsylvania.
We in Montgomery County owe Joe Hoeffel our support on May 18. He has always
been there for us.
Judy Hughes,
Blue Bell
Controller Diane Morgan in fight to enforce County laws.
Contract storage violates state law
By KEITH PHUCAS
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Montgomery County Controller Diane Morgan may finally have some leverage in her quest to centralize storage of county contracts: Pennsylvania law.
According to state law for second-class counties, the controller is tohave custody of "all contracts entered into by or on behalf of the county."
But Morgan says weeks of researching county contracts revealed many departments keep those records in their own offices.
This week, she took reporters on a tour of county offices housed in the Human Service Center, at DeKalb and Fornance streets, in Norristown, which included Aging and Adult Services, Office of Children and Youth, Office of Child Care Services, Department of Health and Behavioral Health/Developmental Disabilities Department.
Officials there keep contracts stored in steel file cabinets.
"We have our (current) contracts right here in case we have to update them," said Eric Goldstein, Behavioral Health's administrator.
Stacked boxes in other rooms held outdated contracts. By law, the county must keep paperwork seven years beyond a contract's expiration. After the "destruction date," documents are shredded.
Morgan had wanted to show reporters lots more boxes of old records stacked on the building's warehouse-like fourth floor.
However, Human Services Director Joseph Roynan forbid this, saying the area posed a safety risk and "because there is confidential and personal material."
Though Roynan repeatedly pointed out documents filed in various offices were confidential, but file drawers were not locked. The state ruled locked doors provided sufficient security.
"It's all illegal storage," Morgan said after the tour. "By statute, all original contracts are supposed to be in my office."
This is the latest revelation of officials violating the county's own laws.
In February, officials admitted not following a 1998 ordinance governing professional services solicitations.
And in March, the county's Web site still had not posted financial statements as mandated a year earlier by the ethics policy.
In October 2008, Morgan asked for $325,000 to centralize records in a searchable computer database to improve record-keeping efficiency, but the county refused to fund a system.
At that time, she was told to apply to the County Records Improvement Fund (CRIF). Though willing to accept $150,000 reportedly budgeted for information technology (IT), she learned the funding was gone.
Though the proposal fared no better in 2009, Morgan's department was given a scanner to begin digitizing contracts stored in her office. But there was no way to index or search the scanned documents.
"If you've trying to build a foundation, all we got was a facade," said Kevin Hoke, the First Deputy Controller.
Following admission of the solicitation violation in February, Commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. and Morgan requested a list of all the county's professional contracts from the solicitor, and the controllers' staff worked to locate contracts on their own.
Morgan's staff had scanned 266 contract documents.
Morgan missed the commissioners April 1 meeting and was irked to learn the IT and purchasing departments were credited for putting contract information on the county's Internet site.
On Tuesday, she sent a letter to commissioners Chairman James R. Matthews, complaining the other departments were taking credit for work her office performed.
"However, I was never consulted, the indexed material was removed without notice, and the presenters on April 1 would have you believe that the IT and purchasing departments did all of this work themselves within a four-week time span," Morgan wrote in the letter.
She said the information was taken from a shared scan drive.
"This is my department's work, and they took it," Morgan said Thursday.
She claimed the CRIF program had $1.6 million, which is more than enough to fund the computer automation and is asking officials to reconsider funding the project.
Original article.
From Senator Daylin Leach:
This is the letter that I, along with many of my Democratic colleagues, have written to send to PA Attorney General Tom Corbett in response to his intention to initiate a suit against The United States of America challenging the constitutionality of the historic Health Care Reform legislation. As you will read below this will cost PA millions of dollars, jeopardize constituent resources and services and inevitably lead to higher taxes. What's conservative about that? I hope you will join me in speaking out against such partisan political posturing at our expense. Please call your Representatives in Harrisburg and urge them to stand with me. We will be holding a press conference tomorrow morning at 10 in the Capitol.
March 23, 2010
Tom Corbett
Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General
16th Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Dear General Corbett:
In the past few days there have been news reports indicating that you plan to join the Republican Attorneys General of a number of other states in filing a lawsuit to have the recently passed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act struck down. The effect of your lawsuit, if successful, would be to obviate and render null all of the provisions of said bill.
Certainly, there is some room to disagree about the wisdom of providing health insurance to approximately 800,000 Pennsylvanians who are not currently covered, prohibiting insurance companies from denying people coverage for pre-existing conditions, or reducing the federal deficit by 1.4 trillion dollars over the next two decades. However, what is undeniably true is this: If the lawsuit you are contemplating is successful, it will cost Pennsylvania approximately 102 Million Dollars in the 2010-2011 fiscal year and billions more in the short term.
Specifically (assuming there are no major surprises in the reconciliation bill’s path to passage), this year we will lose funds by losing the authorization contained in the bill for eligibility by Managed Care Organizations to claim rebates for pharmaceuticals. In future years, our losses will fall into three categories
1. Medicare Drug Payment reimbursements from PA to the Federal Government, that the bill phases out currently cost our citizens $474 Million annually and will have to be paid each year if your lawsuit prevails.
2. The bill federalizes the AdultBasic insurance program, saving the taxpayers of PA at least $200 Million per year. That is money that will have to be paid each year if the Health Care Bill is struck down.
3. Similarly, covering the “doughnut hole”, as the bill does, will save PA taxpayers approximately 60 Million Dollars per year and is growing annually.
Further, expanding Medicaid eligibility will provide additional savings to Commonwealth taxpayers as well as provide more services to PA residents. As you can see, striking this bill down will cost PA taxpayers billions of dollars over the next several years.
As I’m sure you know the legislature and the governor have assumed that this money would be available for deposit into the general fund. Fully funding our various Medical Assistance Programs is completely contingent upon the full receipt of those funds. This means that if you are successful and we lose this money, it will create a huge budgetary problem, and will ultimately result in Pennsylvanians either losing vital services or being required to pay a large tax increase to make up the difference.
We, the undersigned, are hoping that as an elected official and a resident of Pennsylvania, you will lend your skills, talents and efforts to fighting for Pennsylvania, rather than joining a partisan effort which has the potential to cause so much harm to our state.
This lawsuit seeks to overturn the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives. It is being pursued exclusively by one party, whose national leaders speak openly about how they hope efforts like this lawsuit will help them in the midterm elections. It is highly inappropriate for you, an official elected to serve all Pennsylvanians regardless of party, and a candidate for higher office yourself, to use the tax dollars paid by Pennsylvania citizens to ask a court to stop the federal government from returning this crucial federal support to the Treasury of Pennsylvania.
We would further note that you are not needed in this lawsuit. The Republican Governors of other states will continue the lawsuit with or without you. The results will be the same whether you join or do not join the litigation. So it is again unclear why we would be spending Pennsylvania’s tax dollars on this partisan endeavor.
We are asking that you remove your name from the lawsuit and desist from using the resources of our citizens to reduce the services they receive or increase their taxes. Thank you for taking the time to review this letter.
Very Truly Yours,
Senator Daylin Leach
Published in the Ambler Gazette, Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Letter: Corbett’s move is a waste of money
To the Editor:
The ink is not even dry on the Health Care Reform Act and we see that Pennsylvania Attorney General Corbett is joining the attorney generals of Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Texas, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah and Washington in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the bill. Great to be in the august company of Alabama and Nebraska!
Is it merely coincidence that all of these just happen to be Republicans? Could they be using our tax money to continue the obstructionism that the Republicans have been waging for over a year to block even the consideration of the bill that finally became law just today?
Perhaps Corbett has it in his mind that he’s running for the governorship of Pennsylvania and he thinks this will play well to his base?
When — and if — he is on the ballot in November, I hope we all remember how Corbett has misused his office and our tax money for such blatantly political purposes.
Ron Stoloff
,Blue Bell
© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
From the Ambler Gazette, Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Bill opponents will be harshly judged
To the Editor:
Shame on all those who voted against the health care reform package this past weekend. Come November, I hope voters will remember who was for the people, and who was for the insurance lobbyists.
This is what every Republican member voted for and against: They voted to continue letting insurance companies deny coverage due to pre-existing conditions. They voted against giving health care coverage to 32 million Americans who can’t afford skyrocketing insurance rates. They voted against letting individuals stay on their parents’ health insurance until they reach age 26. They voted against the creation of health exchanges that individuals and small businesses can (but do not have to) join in order to pool their bargaining power and dramatically reduce their insurance costs. They voted against giving tax credits to small businesses to help them do the right thing (i.e., insure their employees). They voted to continue letting insurance companies place a lifetime cap on health benefits. They voted against deficit-reducing measures like eliminating wasteful Medicare practices. They voted to keep in place the Bush/Republican Medicare “doughnut hole” scheme of 2003, which left a giant gap in coverage for seniors.
To defend their outrageous votes they offer a litany of deceitful excuses, such as: The legislation would set up “death panels” to “kill grandma” — it doesn’t. They said it would use tax dollars to fund abortions and care for illegal immigrants — it doesn’t. They said it would mean that big government would make important health decisions for you — it doesn’t. They said it would balloon the deficit — it actually reduces it in the long run. They said it would raise taxes on Americans; this part is true — if you make more than $200,000 per year ($250K for married couples); and many Americans will see reduced taxes in the form of health insurance tax credits. To verify these claims consult the nonpartisan Web sites politifact.com and factcheck.org.
The opponents of health care reform conveniently say they “don’t oppose providing health care to those without it.” Yet, somehow they never do anything about it; even when they had control of Congress for 12 years they did absolutely nothing. They say the president and Democratic leaders refuse to listen to their ideas. Yet, there are several provisions of the bill that come directly from Republican sources, including the clauses that let children stay on their parents’ coverage up to age 26; let families buy insurance coverage across state lines; offer tax breaks for small businesses. These were all GOP suggestions. What’s more, Democratic leaders stripped the bill of one key provision that Republicans objected to — and most Democratic voters strongly supported: The “public option.” This would have made the bill even better by offering an alternative to the greedy insurance companies. But in the name of bipartisanship, the GOP got its way on this too.
Shame on those who voted with the insurance companies and against the American people! History will harshly judge your disgraceful act.
Matt Cooley,
Ambler
© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
From the Ambler Gazette, Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Letter: Don’t forget: there’s a primary in May
To the Editor:
In attempting to urge citizens to register and vote, last week’s editorial may have given the impression that there is only one election this year – the one in the fall - and that residents need not bother registering until later this year. I hope everyone knows that there are two elections this year and every year – the primary in the spring and the general in the fall. The primary is when candidates vie against others within their own party to secure the spot on the fall ballot. The general election is when the winners of each party’s nomination square off against each other.
This year’s primary election offers many significant choices: For Democrats, will you choose Joe Sestak or Arlen Specter to run for the Senate against the Republican candidate in the fall? In the Governor’s race, will you choose our own Joe Hoeffel or one of the other Democratic candidates from other parts of the state?
Committee people are also selected this year. They are out right now collecting signatures on their petitions in order to represent you in your neighborhood. They are the most local and most visible representatives of your party as they work at the polling places on Election Day and do voter registration throughout the year. If you have any interest in running for this position, it’s not too late to offer your services. Call your party’s county headquarters right away and they will advise you.
Neglect the primary election at your peril because this is your chance to have the greatest impact on candidate selection. Register as soon as you can because this election happens on May 19 and your registration needs to be submitted no later than 30 days before the election. Outstanding candidates may lose out if you do not make your voice heard this spring.
Note: Residents who have registered as Independent or Non Partisan may not vote in the spring primary. I personally think this is most unfortunate and hope that if enough of us express our opinion about this, this rule can be changed. Just another reason to get involved.
Judy Hughes
Blue Bell
© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
From The Times Herald, Friday, February 19, 2010
Controller plans investigation
By KEITH PHUCAS
,Times Herald Staff
COURTHOUSE —Montgomery County Controller Diane Morgan threatened to withhold payment on any professional services contracts that run afoul of the county’s law, according to a letter the controller sent to commissioner Bruce L. Castor Jr. Wednesday night.
Morgan, who plans to investigate accusations that county officials violated Ordinance 98-2, has requested copies of any and all county professional services contracts awarded since January of 2008.
“Based on my duty as the County Controller and under the terms of the County Code, I will not authorize or approve the expenditure of any funds under contracts which may have been awarded in violation of Ordinance 98-2, and any such payments pursuant to those contracts shall be immediately suspended pending completion of my investigation,” according to Morgan’s correspondence.
The controller letter was a response to Castor’s correspondence Tuesday charging that Morgan was not fulfilling her fiscal watchdog role by staying silent after county officials admitted at a Feb. 4 meeting they had not sent out solicitations for legal services for a $35-million bond deal as required by the 1998 ordinance.
Morgan admitted being unaware the 12-year-old ordinance existed. The law, which was put in place to safeguard against political patronage, requires that at least five request for proposals, or RFPs, be sent out to qualified vendors interested in providing services to the county.
Castor, who is not consulted when officials decide on which professional services vendors to award contracts, has alleged deals are being arranged behind closed doors.
Morgan drew the ire of commissioners’ chairman James R. Matthews when she talked about withholding payments to vendors.
“I will enforce this law as it’s written,” she said. “If you want to change it, that’s up to you.”
Matthews, who glared at Morgan sitting two seats away on the dais, would not accept the possibility that she might not pay current contractors who were not solicited for work.
“I’m saying you’re going to honor our contracts,” he said.
Solicitor Barry Miller warned against breaking or voiding any existing contracts.
“There’s no (legal) basis to do that,” Miller said. “I suggest the controller revisit that position.”
The controller repeated her intent to follow the ordinance. In her letter, Morgan cited a state law (Title 16 PA Statutes, Section 1702) that defines a county controller’s function.
“The Controller may only refuse to authorize any fiscal transaction which is, by law, subject to her supervision or control where it appears that transaction is not authorized by law or has not been undertaken according to law, or has not received approval according to law, or as to which he desires upon reasonable grounds to investigate for or has already discovered any. neglect of any officer or other person of the county relating to their public accounts and transactions,” her letter reads.
Commissioner Joseph M. Hoeffel, who championed the ordinance when he was commissioner in 1998 to improve competition for county work, repeated his call for officials to review the law.
“It has not been fully honored over the last 12 years,” he said. “We absolutely want a competitive process ... and full transparency.”
To promote more “openness and transparency” in government, Morgan wants digitize all county documents, including contracts and RFPs, and make them publicly accessible on a Web site. She made the request 18 months ago.
“If we had that system, then the public could see where its money is being spent,” she said following the meeting.
The controller couldn’t predict how long it would take her to investigate the professional services contracts she’s requested.
© 2010 timesherald.com, a Journal Register Property
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, February 8, 2010
Letter: Don't paint all with the same brush
Since an angry letter Tuesday ("What do Pa. lawmakers know about public trust?") did not name the state legislators being criticized, by implication all state lawmakers were painted with the same harsh stroke. Certainly some deserve it, but others don't.
Although one wouldn't know it from some of the sensational headlines, there are honest legislators who truly believe in public service and work very hard at it on a daily basis. Some have left jobs that paid tens of thousands more. Some regularly work 12-, 14-, or 16-hour days. All sacrifice time with their families.
Tarnishing the good apples as if they were the bad ones discourages qualified, well-meaning people from entering the profession and has a deleterious effect on our view of government. If we want improvement, it is up to us to get involved beyond voting once or twice yearly.
Beverly Hahn
,Blue Bell
From the Ambler Gazette
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Letter: Tell Supervisors your feelings on taxes
To the Editor:
It is with a sense of outrage and dismay that I look at the 39 percent tax increase proposed by the Whitpain Board of Supervisors. Whatever could have prompted such an outrageous increase in the township budget, especially in strained economic times as these? Indeed, costs are rising for us all, township government and residents. However, is it necessary to give bonuses and raises when we are so cash-strapped and cannot meet our ordinary obligations? Granted, the township government and their employees are doing a great job and also need to exist, but in a year when even the Social Security COLA is zero can we not forgo these extra payments?
When one considers that everywhere, people are getting less and paying more for their healthcare is it necessary and even fair to pay $18,221 per employee for six employees under the Fire Marshall Group Health Benefits? Is there no other plan which will give decent benefits and cost less? What are the health care costs for the other Township employees? Is the cost for their healthcare benefits also this high? Do our part-time supervisors get full health coverage too?
Our supervisors should have better tried to hold the line on township costs such as construction. Why is Whitpain considering building expenditures of over $400,00--well beyond the budgeted $59,000 (only $245,426 of which will be reimbursed with Solar Project Grant money)?
Sewer fund land and building costs are projected to rise 350 percent over 2009 projected totals. What are these costs and why are we facing these costs this year? Could not costs have been held down and even cut in other areas without endangering public safety and services, as for example, not automatically buying new vehicles for the police department every two to three years, but rather replacing them on an as-needed basis?
Lower Gwynedd has held the line on its expenditures and did not raise taxes. Why didn’t the Whitpain Supervisors do the same? In fact, Whitpain has a rainy day fund, and I wonder why our supervisors did not tap this for at least part of any necessary additional costs incurred. For many of us, this is a rainstorm of major proportion. We need to have supervisors who live in the same world as do we and are aware of the problems which we face in this time of economic downturn.
I hope that many of you will make your feelings known by contacting our supervisors at: Board of Supervisors, Whitpain Township, P.O. Box 800, 960 Wentz Road, Blue bell, PA 19422 and ask them to reconsider by giving us a budget that is realistic, yet accommodates the needs of the citizens of the township and is affordable.
Carol Kreitchet
Blue Bell
© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
From the Ambler Gazette
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Letter: Increased taxes taint incumbents’ record
To The Editor:
As a resident and taxpayer in Whitpain Township and the Wissahickon School District, I am certainly happy that no Democrats serve on the township board and only one out of nine are on the school board.
Why am I so happy? Because if there were more Democrats on those boards, our taxes would actually be going up. Thank goodness we are protected from outlandish increases.
Oh, wait. Our township taxes are going to go up nearly 40 percent and while the Wissahickon School taxes are “only” going up 1.9 percent. That’s only because of some amazing coincidences: the WSB is eating into its fund surplus by taking out $4 million – incidentally created the last time the board was lead by a Democrat – and receiving $1.3 million from the federal government, a 55 percent increase from last year because of that Democratic President Obama’s Recovery Fund program.
Even with this federal help our taxes are going up. Don’t these township and school board members listen to their Republican leadership? The way to increase revenue is to actually cut taxes. So why are they trying to sabotage our local economy and send our property values down the porcelain drain?
Perhaps it would be a good idea for residents and taxpayers of Whitpain Township and the WSD to remember this in the next election when the incumbent Republicans are sure to begin touting their financial acumen.
Ron Stoloff
Blue Bell
Letter: Bad decision by the Supreme Court
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
To the Editor:
Want to know the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Just look at last week’s 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned a century-long ban on large corporations and unions from directly injecting themselves in electoral politics. The court split down the middle, with five GOP-appointed justices voting in favor, and three of the four votes against the ruling by the Democratic appointed justices. Republican congressional leaders called it a “victory for freedom of speech.” What it means is that corporations and unions can now spend as much money as they please to elect or defeat any candidate they want. This is perhaps the worst decision ever rendered by the Supreme Court! It will alter our democracy in so many bad ways.
Most people hate political TV ads and you think there is way too much money involved in politics already. Well, this decision has just exploded both those problems. From now on, in the months leading up to every election — whether state, local and national — we are going to be totally swamped with truth-distorting political attack ads day and night.
And moneyed interests will now have a huge impact on electoral outcomes. Imagine the congressman or congresswoman who actually wants to do the right thing. Maybe there is a dispute between what many of his/her constituents need and what some big company wants. All some lobbyist has to do is come to their office and say, “My client has $5 million; they can help to defeat you or help to back you next fall. Your choice, Congressman.” Is that democracy?
Think about this: Contrary to what Republicans have been saying for years, allowing huge corporations to voice their opinions in such an unfettered way actually reduces our freedom of speech. In today’s marketplace of ideas, money is like a giant megaphone. You and I, as individuals, have a normal size megaphone. We can scream out and yet never be heard over the loud and gigantic megaphones that large banks and corporations have always had. Thanks to the Republican-controlled Supreme Court, big corporations’ megaphones just became many times larger; and our tiny megaphones just became miniscule in comparison. Is that democracy?
Republicans see this decision as a good thing because, in their minds, big corporations somehow didn’t have enough of a voice. Are they serious? Do they really think our democracy will be improved by giving more power to the very same big banks and companies that gave us the economic calamity that we are now mired in? The GOP counters that unions will benefit too. Well, if you think that unions can come close to matching the resources that corporations have, I have a certain bridge I’d like to sell you. Make no mistake, the Republican Party is not for common people. They are on the side of the rich and powerful. This ruling makes that very clear. That is not democracy.
I urge all citizens who value true democracy to write to your lawmakers. Ask them to do everything possible to pass legislation to minimize the consequences of this horrible ruling.
Bob Waldman,
Blue Bell
© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
Letter: Necessary reform is being bogged down
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
To the Editor:
Recent polls suggest that support for health care reform has gone from very high to very low — just as it did in 1993-94 when President Clinton tried to reform our health care system. Yet, when polls ask voters about individual parts of the House and Senate bills they are very much in favor of them.
So what do they oppose? They oppose a caricature of health care reform. They oppose all of the outright lies that have been told about it. They oppose lies like so called “death panels,” which are not in either bill; they oppose the idea of paying higher taxes for it, even though it is clear that both plans are funded either by “Cadillac” health plans or by taxes on very wealthy individuals only. They oppose taxpayer money paying for coverage of illegal immigrants — another lie; both bills strictly prohibit this. They oppose this bill because they think it is “radical,” when in reality it doesn’t go far enough to fix the problems in our current system.
These are all lies, promoted by the insurance lobby and radical right-wing media whose stated agenda is to torpedo Barack Obama’s presidency and return Republicans to power. They don’t care about you and me or the good of our great country despite all their flag waving. They care about power. Do not forget how they abused their power when they had it. They brought our nation to its knees in a near financial meltdown. Now, they are using their power to obstruct everything Democrats propose, unfortunately, even much needed health care and health insurance reform.
So what do the two bills propose? House bill: Has a public office and a national exchange for the uninsured and small businesses to purchase health insurance for much less than they pay now; businesses that have payrolls of more than $500,000 will be fined if they refuse to offer health insurance to their employees; insurance companies are prohibited from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions; eliminates the Medicare “doughnut hole,” adopted under a Republican-controlled Congress that left a giant gap in coverage for seniors; reduces overpayments to doctors; and imposes a 5.4 percent tax on individuals who make more than $500,000 and couples who make more than $1 million per year.
The Senate bill has many of the same provisions as the House bill, with these exceptions: Requires individuals to purchase health insurance (for the same reasons that states mandate drivers be insured — so that the rest of us don’t have to pay for them); extends tax credits to individuals and families earning up to 400 percent of the poverty level; permits states to opt out of the “public option”; establishes health insurance exchanges — a marketplace where individuals, small businesses and others could purchase health care coverage for less money than they currently do; allows children to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26 (currently they are kicked off at age 18 or at college graduation).
So if you are one of the people who “opposes” the proposed health care reforms, which of the things listed above are you against? Perhaps is it just the caricature of lies that has filled the right-wing- dominated airwaves for the last several months that you oppose. Ask any senior citizen if they would give up Medicare. Bet you can’t find one person willing to give up this successful government-run health insurance program.
Don’t let huge health insurance money and the blind greed of Republicans for political power kill our best opportunity to heal a health care system that currently works only for the wealthy and leaves the rest of us in the cold. Rush Limbaugh, during his recent health scare pronounced that, “There’s nothing wrong with our health care system.” Right. When you make $37.5 million a year, everything is just great.
Olga Guerra,
Penllyn
© 2010 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
Letter: What I'm thankful for ...
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
To the Editor:
As Americans, we have many things to be thankful for. These are just some of the things I gave thanks for this past Thursday: I gave thanks for the fact that I live in a country that gets more things right than it gets wrong. I am thankful that we currently have an administration that is competent, and that for the first Thanksgiving in many years the President is a smart, thoughtful, and decent person. I am thankful that we are finally about to get health insurance reform to fix the most ridiculous “system” (if you want to call it a system) of healthcare delivery one can imagine (The U.S. ranks 37th in patient satisfaction). I am thankful that most Americans are smart enough to know that labels like “socialist” are nothing more than scare tactics, and that the very same label was given to Social Security and Medicare – both of which are now wildly popular, especially with older Americans, which I hope to someday be.
I am ever grateful that this administration has rejected go-it-alone, cowboy diplomacy that got us nowhere. By working with our neighbors we quietly get things done. As evidence I would cite last week’s IAEA 23-3 vote in favor of sanctioning Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Never before has either China or Russia voted in our favor, against Iran. This is a very significant development; without Russian and/or Chinese support, Iran can no longer afford to flout international will.
I am thankful that the Obama administration had the courage to go ahead with the stimulus package earlier this year because almost all economists agree that had we not done this, instead of climbing out of a major recession, we would be in the midst of a minor depression.
I am thankful that we now have a president who does not rush into huge decisions of whether to send brave American soldiers into war without appropriately weighing the pros and cons. The last administration’s rush to war in Iraq on false premises cost this nation dearly in lives and treasure.
The last things I am thankful for are three reputable web sites that challenge falsehoods and outright lies. The next time you receive an e-mail that slams the administration for this, that and the other thing, please search: snopes.com, factcheck.org and politifact.com; the last one has a tab called “Pants on Fire” fibs that expose some of the worst ones. Right now there are so many horrendously false stories being spread one has to wonder why we should believe anything the opposition ever says.
Matt Cooley,
Ambler
© 2009 MontgomeryNews.com, a Journal Register Property
Curtis brings great perspective
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
To the Editor:
My name is Ed Curtis and I am running for Ambler Borough Council in the 3rd Ward. Public office is new to me, but I am honored to be given the chance to represent the citizens of Ambler.
Let me share some of the reasons I am qualified to run for Council. First, I am a lifelong resident of Ambler. This town is in my blood. Just as the newer residents of Ambler bring in fresh ideas, “old-timers” like me bring stability and a sense of history to the table. Both are important. The balance between lifelong residents and newer ones is one of the reasons Ambler has bloomed into such a nice place to live.
I am a retired police officer, having served over 23 years. Prior to that I served proudly for four years in the U.S. Air Force, then joined the Air National Guard and retired at the rank of Staff Sergeant. I have been commander of the Ambler American Legion for 20 years, and I’ve served as treasurer of its Home Association, which sponsors programs like “Toys for Tots” and veterans’ relief programs. Finally, I have been a proud member of the Ambler NAACP for 15 years. I believe deeply in civic service, so when I was asked to run for Council it didn’t take long to say yes.
If elected, I intend to focus on the following issues: Public Safety/Public Works – We need to support our police officers and borough employees so they can support us. Asbestos – I’m no expert on asbestos, but I know it’s bad stuff, and I intend to do my homework to help find safe, long-term solutions. Flood Control – This is an issue that requires both short- and long-term solutions. As we grow and pave over more and more land we sow the seeds of flooding. We must grow smarter. And as good neighbors, we must try to assist people who through no fault of their own have found their homes being flooded regularly. Public Parks – Ambler is a community-based, walk-able town, and public parks help to create that environment. I intend to be a strong advocate of parks for kids of all ages to play in. Fiscal Responsibility – One of the most significant parts of the job, as I see it, is keeping a trust with taxpayers. I promise to treat every dollar of spending the same way I treat my own household dollars – with common sense scrutiny.
I humbly ask you for your vote on Tuesday, Nov. 3.
Ed Curtis,
Ambler Borough Council
candidate, Ward 3
Good citizen award should be returned
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
To the Editor:
I was saddened to find that a scholarship award established to acknowledge and reward a student who exemplified good citizenship was used by the recipient as an opportunity to declare his own political stance. Who the recipient votes for or which party he endorses is irrelevant to the presentation of the award. It is an award for Good Citizenship.
In these economic times, raising funds for scholarships is especially difficult. I fear that this public lashing out at an awarding organization will only help give cause for other potential organizations to reconsider their participation in scholarships. I have to question the recipient’s gratitude. If he were truly grateful, he would have given the Democratic Committee an opportunity to address his concerns privately prior to writing an open letter to the newspaper. Out of respect, a grateful recipient would have attempted to resolve this issue in a dignified and mature manner.
Furthermore, recipients always have the right to reject an award if they have a philosophical conflict with the organization bestowing the award. He obviously has great distain for the Democratic Party and its candidates. These community members and candidates have voluntarily chosen to run for unpaid school board positions in an effort to help all Wissahickon School District students and families; Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. I believe that, under these circumstances, the award should be returned so that it can be given to students who truly appreciate and respect when an honor is bestowed upon them. That is what a good citizen would do!
Nilza Lozada,
Blue Bell
Young voters are needed Nov. 3
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
To the Editor:
The Wissahickon Democrats are pleased to offer a Good Citizen Scholarship to a graduating senior from Wissahickon High School. Scholarship recipients are selected by a committee of Wissahickon High School faculty without regard to political affiliation.
Mike Pierce was the recipient of the 2009 award. He published a letter in last week’s Ambler Gazette requesting that the Wissahickon Democrats remove his photo from its Web page. His photo was promptly removed. It is unfortunate that Mr. Pierce did not directly contact the Wissahickon Democrats, as his photo could have been removed more quickly. The Wissahickon Democrats did not intend to use Mr. Pierce’s photo without his consent as an endorsement for Democratic School Board candidates.
In fact, many young people, registered Democrats, would have been happy to endorse our candidates on the Web site.
This letter is an appeal to the many, many young voters who, in 2008, registered to vote in record numbers, and registered Democratic in record numbers. Young voters are an important part of the seismic change that has given Montgomery County a 30,000-voter Democratic majority registration for the first time in more than 100 years. Now voter turnout is critical. Registered Democrats should come out for the Nov. 3 election to cast their votes.
The Democratic candidates for Wissahickon school board, Ron Stoloff, Val Burton and Teresa Williams share our party’s core value of providing equal opportunity for all students, knowing that the history of this country proves that when opportunity is conferred, achievement follows.
Please join us in voting for Ron Stoloff, Val Burton and Teresa Williams on Tuesday Nov. 3, for the Wissahickon School Board.
Sibby Phiambolis,
Shelly Waldman,
Co-Leaders
Wissahickon Democrats
Dems, remember to vote Nov. 3
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
To the Editor:
Dear Ambler Democrats: I am encouraging you to exercise your right to vote in next week’s very important election. There are as many as 22 contested positions on the ballot, including the following: 14 seats spread across four state and county judicial courts; Jury Commissioner; School Board; Ambler Mayor; and, depending on which ward you live in, either one or two seats for Ambler Borough Council.
Two-thirds of the ballot is for judicial vacancies. Personally, I would prefer judges were appointed instead of elected. Electoral politics should not play a role in the judicial selection process. But PA judges are nonetheless elected, and we voters must therefore take the responsibility seriously.
The Democratic slate this year is first-rate, and I am proud to support each and every nominee. I can’t begin to list the merits and accomplishments of each of these candidates, so I will direct voters to their respective Web sites. Starting at the top of the ticket, we have Jack Panella running for PA Supreme Court: votejackpanella.com. Our six candidates for PA Superior Court and Commonwealth Court can all be found at: padems.com/Home.php. Please vote for all six. The seven candidates for the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas are exceptional; their biographies can be found at: judgeswecanbelievein.com. Please vote for all seven. The mighty Joanne Olszewski is our nominee for Jury Commissioner. Our great Wissahickon School Board candidates are Ron Stoloff, Teresa Williams and Val Burton: greatschoolteam.org. Please vote for all three. I am proud to support Mayor Bud Wahl’s re-election bid. And finally, it is my great pleasure to back two excellent Democratic candidates for Ambler Borough Council: Josh Kanaplue (Ward 1) and Ed Curtis (Ward 3). Both candidates bring a lot of outside experience to the table.
Josh Kanaplue is a landscape architect. He routinely works on the same sort of issues that council often grapples with. Personally, I have noticed that since Josh first decided to run for Council he has managed a disciplined campaign in a very smart and professional manner. He will bring those same qualities to council.
Ed Curtis is a retired police officer, so he brings a distinctive perspective on safety issues, which also occupy a significant amount of Council’s time. Ed has been Commander of the Ambler American Legion for 20 years, and treasurer of its Home Association, which helps local youth and disadvantaged veterans.
I sincerely urge all Ambler Democrats to come out to the polls on Tuesday, Nov. 3 and vote the straight Democratic ticket, button C7. Ambler polling stations are as follows. Ward 1: Wissahickon Fire Company, 245 Race St.; Ward 2: Borough Hall, 122 E Butler Ave.; Ward 3: Calvary Methodist Church, 16 E Park Ave.
Matt Cooley,
Democratic Chairman, Ambler
Look in the mirror before you criticize
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
To the Editor:
Where, oh where, am I living? When I look into the screaming, hate-filled faces of the crowds at town hall meetings and the streets of Washington, D.C., carrying signs that reek of ignorance and bigotry, proudly brandishing weapons which should have no place in any assembly of sane people, I can only think that I live in some backward, illiterate, Third World country or the “pod people” have descended on us from outer space.
America in the year 2009 should be a place of limitless possibilities and optimism. We are amazingly fortunate finally to have a president who is standing up for the people’s agenda — working tirelessly every day for true health care reform, sustainable energy, human rights, a stable economy, affordable college tuition, pay equity, consumer protection, environmental protection and the respect of the world community.
We elected President Obama to undo all the pernicious acts of the past eight years and forge a new path for all of us — one that values diplomacy, civility, intellect, science and the common good.
From his first act as president in approving the Lily Ledbetter Act that would assure pay equity for women in the workplace, to his efforts this past week to move toward a nuclear-free world and to get common sense banking regulations enacted to protect our economy, he has given this country his very best and most focused attention. He has fearlessly taken on all the forces of the status quo and worked to include the thoughts of his opponents, even when it was clear that they had no intention of working with him, but wanted to sabotage his efforts at every turn.
Thanks to President Obama we now have a Consumer Protection Agency that really cares about product safety, an EPA that wants the Clean Air and Clean Water acts to be enforced, a stimulus bill that is creating good jobs while repairing our infrastructure, a justice department that seeks true justice for all, and highly-talented and principled people at all levels of the government whose mandate is to serve the American people.
Why do the hate-mongers on the right want to bring all this to a stop? By shilling for corporations they undermine all the good things that could come to pass. Their own best interests are being compromised and yet they listen to the loudest, most obnoxious voices in their party telling them where and when to protest against the government and the president. As they rally against “government-run health care,” they cash their Medicare checks and see no irony. As they demand smaller government, they happily accept their monthly Social Security checks and the college tuition breaks for their children. When there is an epidemic such as swine flu, they look to the government to provide vaccine, yet all common sense is abandoned when they hear the siren call of the Limbaughs or the Becks of the world.
Let me know how to reconcile this paradox. I’m truly worried and saddened by our country right now.
Judy Hughes,
Blue Bell
http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2009/09/30/ambler_gazette/opinion/doc4ac2e70a463dd502906143.prt
Healthcare must be reformed
Published: Wednesday, July 29, 2009
To the Editor:
Where is Frances Perkins when we need her? She was FDR’s secretary of labor for all three of his terms and was the woman who worked behind the scenes to get the Social Security Act of 1935, the child labor laws, unemployment insurance, fair labor standards, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the minimum wage and overtime pay among other amazing accomplishments. Her ideas were conveyed to FDR and his trust in her was so great that he saw they became law.
Sadly, the only thing she failed to accomplish was universal health care, and now, 60 years later, we see what that lack has cost our country.
Right now, with our male legislators seemingly caught up in petty power struggles, sex scandals, racial and gender vilification and efforts to put loaded guns into the hands of every person in the United States, it’s up to the women of this country to demand a strong health care reform bill with a public option to counter the huge influence of the health insurance companies.
Frances Perkins was never concerned with getting credit for these remarkable programs — she just wanted this country to have forward-thinking legislation to protect its workers and citizens. It’s amazing that our country stands alone among the “developed” countries in not providing this most basic of all needs — universal, affordable health care.
When the Republicans trot out their excuses and say they don’t want to be rushed into anything, remind them that they have had 60 years to do this right and ask them who is paying for their gold-plated health care coverage.
May they be haunted by the ghost of Frances Perkins wagging her delicate finger at them for their obstinacy and personal greed.
Judy Hughes,
Blue Bell