BCT Editorial – 1/12/05

This page was last updated on January 18, 2005.

Slippery slope; Editorial; Beaver County Times; January 12, 2005.

I can’t tell if the editorial writers care one whit about transportation welfare, or if they are more concerned that “the lights will come on” in the minds of voters and they will begin to reject “rob Peter to pay Paul” funding for government programs.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“One reason Pennsylvania is slowly fading away is that far too many elected officials and residents fail to grasp the fact that we’re all in this together.

“In fact, Pennsylvania’s unofficial motto is the reverse of the Three Musketeers’ ‘All for one, one for all.’ In Pennsylvania, it’s, ‘What’s in it for me?’”

[RWC] As odd as it may sound, I believe it was the Three Stooges who hit the nail on the head when they said, ‘All for one, one for all, and every man for himself.” Before you laugh, consider what it says. The quote acknowledges we’re all in this together, but it also acknowledges we must be responsible for ourselves. Of the three statements in the quote, I believe “every man for himself” is the most important when considered in context. If you can’t take care of yourself first, you can’t help anyone else.

On a side note, it appears I did learn something from all that time watching Paul Shannon and the Three Stooges. <g>

“Look at the current dispute over mass transit funding.”

[RWC] Let’s call a spade a spade. Mass transit funding is simply transportation welfare.

“Some Senate Republicans believe that commuters who use the Port Authority of Allegheny County and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, Philadelphia’s mass-transit system, should pay the most for keeping those systems up and operating.”

[RWC] Why didn’t the editorial mention the Beaver County Transit Authority? It too requires subsidies.

“After all, some of them argue, why should residents in the rural parts of the state help pay for a service that they most likely will never use?”

[RWC] Perhaps the Times can explain why the consumers of a service should not pay for it themselves. Where does it end? Should people who don’t own cars help pay for insurance for those who do? What about gasoline? What about home heating oil? What about cell phones?

Using its logic, the Times should advocate removing the tolls from the state toll roads, forcing those who don’t use the roads to “pay their fair share.”

“But that’s a slippery slope.”

[RWC] Self-reliance and paying your own way puts you on a slippery slope to ruin?

I suspect Karl Marx would be proud. This is a glimpse into the value system of liberalism/Marxism. The true slippery slope is welfare and that is what the editorial advocates.

My parents taught me self-reliance was a worthy goal – not something to be avoided – because true freedom requires self-reliance.

Most of our ancestors worked hard to pay for their passage to America. Many of them sold their homes and used their life savings to pay for their tickets. Where would we be if they had not been self-reliant and paid their own way?

We disrespect the memory of our ancestors when we claim it’s unfair to ask their descendants to pay their own way for a bus ticket to school, shopping, or their job.

“For instance, what if that pay-to-play approach were applied to public education?”

[RWC] We would have true freedom of education. Today, only the well-to-do can afford to send their children to schools they choose because only they can afford to pay both school taxes and private tuition. What if everyone had their school taxes in their pocket to pay for schools of their choice? The thought of true freedom scares the daylights out of liberals.

“Pennsylvania’s funding formula for education is flawed, leaving the state with one of the worst funding disparities in the nation. As flawed as it is, though, the formula does take into consideration school districts’ wealth (or lack thereof). Because of that, state funding generally makes up a higher percentage of poor school districts’ budgets.”

[RWC] The “funding formula for education is flawed” because our approach to education is flawed. While the current system to facilitate an educated population may have been acceptable in the early 1800s, it is woefully out of date and ignores everything we learned in the last 200 years. The United States of 2005 is not the United States of 1805.

When the editorial says “leaving the state with one of the worst funding disparities in the nation,” it will lead many to believe PA is “under funding” public schools. In truth, as of 2003 PA ranked third in the country in terms of per-student spending and its teachers were the highest paid.

“Let’s look at two districts in western Pennsylvania.

“The Albert Gallatin School District in Fayette County, 60 percent of whose students qualify as being low income, received $6,069 in state aid per pupil while it generated $1,765 in local revenue in 2002, according to Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services.

“On the other hand, the Mount Lebanon School District, of which only about 2 percent of its students qualified as low income, received $1,556 per pupil from the state. Local revenues accounted for a little under $8,000 per pupil in 2002.”

[RWC] You may wonder why the editorial didn’t pick a couple of local school districts – like Aliquippa and Center – to make its point. If the editorial had used these two districts, you would have seen that the “poorer” Aliquippa school district actually spent more per student than the “richer” Center Area district. For the 2000-2001 school year, Aliquippa received $9,705/student while Center received $8,414/student. This is something the Times can’t afford to make known while it complains “poor” districts get shortchanged.

“Where does the state get the money for its subsidies? Mostly from its sales and income taxes. Who spends or earns most of the money that produces revenue from these two taxes? The more well-to-do in and around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.”

[RWC] Keep this in mind the next time the Times claims the “poor” are unduly hit by the “regressive” income and sales taxes.

“What would happen if these residents decided that the income-tax and sales-tax revenues taken out of their hard-earned dollars should be returned to them to fund their public schools? Why should they pay to educate other people’s children?”

[RWC] This is a question everyone should ask. Why should those without children pay to educate another person’s children?

“If that happened, poor school districts, many of which are located in rural areas, would be left high and dry because they can’t make up the loss of state funding. They don’t have large property tax bases; they don’t have a lot of residents who are in the upper-income brackets.”

[RWC] Who said a quality K-12 education had to be expensive? A report issued by Standard & Poor’s School Evaluation Services clearly showed no correlation between money spent and results.

“Obviously, no one would apply the pay-to-play standard to public education, and mass transit should be no different. Whether we like it or not, we’re all in this together.”

[RWC] The only thing obvious is that the Times is dedicated to “robbing Peter to pay Paul” when it comes to government programs. Again, why shouldn’t the riders bear the financial responsibility for the service they consume? The same is true for education.

“The sooner we realize that, the better it will be for everyone in Pennsylvania.”

[RWC] The editorial has it backwards. The sooner we realize we are individually responsible for our lives, the better it will be for everyone in Pennsylvania.