The Destruction of Public Education and the Conservative Agenda

For some time now, I have suspected that the Conservative agenda involved the systematic dismantling and undermining of public education. Conservatives have repeatedly belittled public school teachers, fought the increase property taxes (which are the primary source of funding for most public school budgets), sought to pass bills calling for vouchers, and promoted the proliferation of charter schools, as their agenda for “reforming public education.” I have seen this is my children’s own suburban school district, in the Philadelphia public schools and in communities around the country. Taken together these actions sound the death knell of many public schools, especially in economically depressed communities. However, I doubt it will stop there; conservatives want to destroy publicly funded education in all its forms.

Recent actions by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett have done nothing to dissuade me from this perspective; in fact he all but publicly proposed that for two communities in Pennsylvania. In my last blog posting, I decried the action of the governor denying funding for the Chester-Upland school district that had run out of money mid-year. The governor refused to provide relief claiming the school had “mismanaged” its funds. Chester-Upland has been under the oversight of the state government for several years, so if there was mismanagement it was in his own government as before he was governor he was the Attorney General.

Fortunately, a federal judge ordered Gov. Corbett to provide the $3.2 million necessary for the Chester-Upland district to complete its school year; this isn’t sufficient but it gives the district some more time However, the governor has already submitted a bill to the PA legislature that will effectively dissolve the school district, disband the teacher’s contracts and turn the remaining schools over to charters. He has proposed a similar plan for the community of Duquesne City in Western PA. Moreover, he proposes lower payments to schools that Chester student would apply to, thus making a lesser incentive for schools to attract or admit Chester students. The bill is so bad that even some of the Governor’s Republican allies are rejecting the bill. Fortunately, others are proposing their own bills, but it is clear that while the Governor continues to protect his corporate friends from any more taxes, he openly and disdainfully ignores the needs of the poorest citizens and their children in place like Chester. Because of the governor’s budget slashing other districts like Philadelphia also face further cutbacks even after slashing $600 million for their budget last summer, which led to larger class sizes, fewer teachers and the elimination of many academic support programs.

In 1962 Michael Harrington published his classic book on American poverty, The Other America, in which he exposed to the world the travesty of desperate poverty in a land of such wealth and opportunity. Harrington’s book so moved President Lyndon Johnson that is was believed to be a major influence in his efforts to create The Great Society programs that addressed poverty at levels never before seen. It is these same Great Society and War on Poverty programs that conservatives have consistently criticized and systematically dismantled over the last 50+ years. That is probably why Harrington’s book continues to be published and re-issued, and why now 50 years later because of hard-hearted conservatives like Corbett, it is still very relevant. This is not to say all conservatives are hard-hearted (there have been so-called compassionate conservatives like George W. Bush who disagreed with liberal policies but did not totally turn their back on the needs of the poor and offered their own solutions), but the brand of conservatism currently being practiced by leaders like Gov. Corbett, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker shows no compassion nor concern for those who still suffer in the Other America.

While many of us don’t need to worry about our kids and their schools because they haven’t gotten to the point of Chester, we should take note what is happening. We need to see the trends, and recognize that while states are required to provide all students a quality public education, conservatives blatantly disregard that mandate in communities in most need and with the least resources. At the same time schools are being de-funded prisons are being built at a record pace in states like Pennsylvania. Research shows that there is a clear correlation between youth violence and low quality education. When it comes to building a school to prison pipeline, conservatives like Tom Corbett are showing us the way it is done with impunity.

Balancing the Budget on the Backs of the Poor: Chester-Upland School District

While the fiscal conservatives say that we must “tighten our belts” and “everyone must sacrifice,” the recent news that the Chester-Upland(PA) school district has run out of money and can no longer operate their schools is yet another example that the ones who sacrifice are those with the least to give up. (For those not familiar with PA, Chester is one of the poorest cities in the state, and is located 10 miles south of Philadelphia. Its school district depends heavily on state funds because more than 50% of the residents of Chester live below the poverty line.)The state of Pennsylvania is mandated by law to provide quality public education to all children in the state. Yet since becoming governor a year ago, Tom Corbett, has slashed spending on services to the poor, decreased the amount of money the state provides to low income school districts, refused to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and companies, and advocated vouchers so that money would be taken away from public schools. When Chester officials asked the state to intervene, the governor said “no” blaming them for “mismanagement” - yet another example of “blaming the victim”; believe me, no one is getting rich in Chester except Harrah’s Casino and PPL Park the home of the Philadelphia Union soccer team.

When folks want to know what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about when it says the 1% are profiting off the 99%, Chester-Upland School district is exhibit A. While the governor and his Republican colleagues talk about  “balancing the budget”, yet protecting their wealthy and corporate supporters, the poor of Chester and elsewhere suffer.

John Rawls, political philosopher whose work set the framework for the Great Society programs of the 60’s and 70’s, said that a society is judged by how it treats its most vulnerable. The moral vision that moved leaders on both sides of the political spectrum to set up social safety net for the poor and disabled caused them to see that the wealthiest society in the world could not allow any of its citizens to go uncared for. The callous disregard for basic needs such as health care, housing and education that began in the 1980’s under President Reagan and has increased to the present shows not only a social callousness but a loss of moral vision. That a state governor can disregard his legal mandate to provide education to the children of Chester, while refusing to levy taxes on gas companies reaping millions in Pennsylvania, only shows how far we have fallen.

Conservatives often like to bemoan the moral decline in our country, and in certain instances I share their concerns, but as Jesus said they need to take the log out of their own eyes before they seek to remove the speck in another’s eye. The judgment falls hard on those leaders who would forsake and deny their moral and legal mandates to care for the needs of the poor, and then have the gall to defend their view by blaming the victims and calling for a “balanced budget.”

If you are a PA resident I urge you to write your state representatives and call upon them to provide funding so that the children of Chester Upland can receive the quality education they are guaranteed by law to receive.

Christmas and Gratitude

Every Thanksgiving, I take time to list all the people, events and other things in my life from the previous year, for which I am grateful. This allows me to enter into Advent with a sense of gratitude and hope for the year to come. As in past years I conducted my personal Thanksgiving ritual. However, with the polarization in Congress, the strong clear message of the Occupy Movement that our economic system is fundamentally flawed, the ongoing “head in the sand” attitude of both parties unwilling to address the needs of 12 million undocumented immigrants living in our country, the ongoing threat of gun violence, and the desperate needs for reform in urban public schools, not to mention my own ongoing health struggles, I have found it hard to be thankful.

Yet today, as I approach the celebration of the birth of Jesus, I am reminded that gratitude is a choice not a consequence. I am reminded that each day I can choose to be thankful for the blessings and the challenges in my life. Even though I do not always live up to the values I espouse, I am drawn to a vision of the world articulated in Mary’s Magnificat and rehearsed every Christmas:

               God has performed mighty deeds with his arm

               And has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts
               God has brought down rulers from their thrones
               But has lifted up the humble
               God has filled the hungry with good things
               But has sent the rich away empty. (Luke 1.51-53)

No, the vision of a “great reversal” of power and fortune that Mary puts forth is not fulfilled in our time, nor in any time. Yet it is the promise and hope that my faith in Christ gives me and makes me realize who and whose I am in the great scheme of time and history.

So despite my frustrations social, political and personal, I choose this day to be grateful for Life, for friends, for a sense of purpose, and for fellow strugglers like so many of you who read this blog, who like me live into the vision of the world Mary saw with the birth of her son. May we continue to work for a safer, more just, more humane world, even as we give thanks for the lives we have today.

              

Yes, Freedom Can Be Expensive

Now that the Occupy Philly protesters have been removed from Dilworth Plaza surrounding City Hall, the city has estimated that the 8 week occupation cost the city $1,052,000, mostly in police overtime. While this number is accurate, its prominence in the media (such as the Philadelphia Inquirer and the major news channels) has shown how skewed the reporting has been. While the media seemed quick to report any isolated incidents of violence or criminal behavior, and focus on arrests such as the sit down at the Comcast Building or the demonstration outside the police station, they have given precious little space to investigating and analyzing the claims that the occupiers have been highlighting, such as the huge tax breaks that major corporations like Comcast have been given by the city. How much money has this corporate giveback cost the residents of the city? Not a word from the media on that.

As city officials have been quick to note the struggles to balance the city budget is part of the struggle of the 99% the occupiers claim to represent. Overall, I think the city officials, especially Police Commissioner Ramsay and Mayor Nutter, did their best to remain open to the concerns and demands of the occupiers. The reason they were removed was so that a multimillion renovation providing hundreds of jobs for local residents could go forward. That fact itself caused a split in the occupiers, between some who wanted to remain, and others who felt that the promise of jobs (a major concern of the Occupy movement) required them to move off the Dilworth Plaza sight.

The Occupy Philly activists have pledged to continue to bring forth their message. I hope they do. However, unless the media chooses to report on the real substance of the movement, we may not get to hear their message

A Priest, an Economist and An Occupier Went into a Bar….

What do a 15^th century priest, a deceased British economist, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement have in common? This question came to me as I reflected on a sermon by Chris Hershberger Esh this past Sunday at West Philadelphia Mennonite Fellowship (WPMF). Using passages from Ezekiel 34 and Matthew 25 as his texts, Chris spoke about the significance of Occupy Wall Street, and its local affiliate, Occupy Philly, for Christians concerned about social justice. The two Biblical passages mentioned above both reflect a concern about the rich and the poor, and the powerful and the powerless in society, and unequivocally show that God is on the side of the poor, the powerless and the oppressed. Chris contended, rightly I think, that the Occupy Wall Street movement had accomplished two things in its short-lived two month existence. First, the movement has changed the national conversation about the economy from talking about bringing down the debt to talking about the vast and gross inequities of wealth in this country, and indeed around the world. With its now familiar refrain “we are the 99%,” the movement has caused political leaders, as well as ordinary citizens, to consider why it is so many people are experiencing not only a loss of jobs, but a loss of real income, while an extremely small minority, the 1%, have experienced the greatest rise in wealth in recent history. The Occupy Movement has forced us to ask what is it about an economic system that lavishly rewards the few at the expense of the many.

However, it was the second point Chris made that has prompted this reflection. Responding to the ongoing question in the media, “What do the Occupiers want?” Chris said that there is no simple solution that will cause the occupiers to pack up their tents and go home. Referring to the Occupy encampment on Dilworth plaza surrounding Philadelphia’s City Hall, Chris shared how the occupiers have welcomed homeless people to join their encampment and have provided them with support, food and solidarity in a way that they can’t find in a shelter. Chris himself works as an outreach worker for a local homeless shelter, and has said that the numbers in their shelter are down because so many of their normal clients have chosen to join the occupiers rather than come in the shelter. He pointed out that in their encampments the occupiers are seeking to model the kind of society they envision, a society where the haves and have-nots can reside together in community. Furthermore, the Occupy movement has given the homeless a platform and a voice to demonstrate that the society must also listen to them in their struggle for survival. Such an arrangement is not easy to maintain, given the fact that many homeless people suffer other psychic wounds such as addiction, mental illness and personal trauma. Further, as a recent John Stewart report on the occupiers at New York’s Zucotti Park showed, even among the occupiers normal resentments and even class distinctions have developed.  However, instead of ignoring or rationalizing these issues, the occupiers have sought to welcome all as fellow human beings worthy of dignity as well provision for their basic human needs.

All of this brings me to the 15^th century priest and the British economist. Menno Simons, from whom the Mennonite church takes its name, was a Roman Catholic priest who came in contact with a splinter group of Christians known as the Anabaptists. Menno became convinced of the power of their claims and ended up being one of their most prolific spokesmen and writers. One of the many distinctive insights that the Anabaptists have offered the Christian church has been the notion that when Jesus talked about the Reign (or Kingdom) of God being among us, he wasn’t talking about some far off pie-in-the-sky promise to keep desperate people focused on heaven so they wouldn’t think about their despicable living conditions. Anabaptists, including Menno, believed that Jesus was talking about the power of God to change human reality now, and that as Christians we are called to live as much as possible according to the dictates of Jesus, particularly those dictates outlined in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). We are to live now as God desire all people to live in heaven. We are to live out the challenge embedded in the Lord ’s Prayer to follow God’s will “on earth as it is in heaven.” As I listened to Chris describe how the Occupy Wall Street movement was seeking to model the kind of society they envision, I could not help but think of this central Anabaptist conviction. While not in any way a religious or spiritual movement, the Occupy Wall Street movement is calling all of us, and especially people of faith, to consider that God may calling us to a new level of awareness and commitment to live out the values of God’s reign here and now.

In a different time and place, the British economist E.F. Schumacher wrote a simple but profound book in 1973 entitled Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered. Schumacher demonstrates how macroeconomic thinking with its focus on quantitative measures, such as GNP, GDP and corporate bottom lines, tells only a portion of the story of a community’s or a nation’s economic health. As he points out, just because a nation may be cumulatively wealthy on paper, that does not mean that said wealth is equitably distributed or enjoyed by all members of that community or nation. Schumacher argues that economists need  also to consider qualitative measures of economic health, such as environmental health, the quality of community relationships and the appropriate use of technology, thereby paying attention to indicators that measure quality of life rather than simply a cumulative number.

Schumacher also persuasively argued for a regional and local approach to economic development that takes into account skills, needs, and resources that are locally available. He argues not only for a more de-centralized distribution of economic power, but also a more environmentally friendly approach to economic activity. In a time (the 1970’s) when the raging economic debate was between capitalism vs. communism, Schumacher argued for a third way of economics, which today is still kept alive by the New Economics Institute, which regularly presents living models of Schumacher’s third way of economic thinking. Were he alive today Schumacher would point to  the Occupy Wall Street decentralized democratic decision-making as a model of equitable and compassionate living.

Bill Moyer (not be confused with Bill Moyers, the NPR journalist), a longtime community activist and author on the nature of social movements, noted that often the ideas that spark social movements lie in seed form for years before they emerge in a full-fledged social movement agenda. In many ways the Occupy Wall St. Movement is the culmination of struggle, emotions, and seminal ideas that have been around for a long time. While politicians and media types like to characterize the Occupy movement as a the result of angry radicals who are just a momentary phenomenon, in reality it is an expression of many ideas and concerns that have existed in various forms for a long time. Whether or not Occupy Wall Street survives the latest series of attempts to remove them from public spaces, the hopes, dreams and ideas it expresses continue to gain momentum and take shape because they give voice to thoughts, concerns and frustrations that have been around for decades if not centuries.

What if Zaccheus was a Wall Street Banker?

Readers of the New Testament are well acquainted with the story in Luke 19 of Zaccheus the tax collector who made a radical change in his life after an encounter with Jesus. For those not familiar with the story, let me give a brief summary. Zaccheus was short, irascible man in the employ of the Roman governing authorities as a tax-collector. Think Danny DeVito with a tunic. One day Jesus was passing with his entourage through Jericho where Zaccheus lived. Since he was short, Zaccheus had to climb a tree to get a look at the itinerant rabbi who was causing such a stir as he passed through town. When Jesus came by the tree, he noticed Zaccheus and invited himself to the man’s house. Zaccheus scampered down from his viewing stand and according the gospel writer, Luke, “he welcomed him gladly.” Now, there is no record of what transpired as Jesus and Zaccheus met for lunch, but when they emerged Zaccheus pledged to give away half of his wealth to the poor, and pay back four times over to anyone whom he had cheated. In response Jesus said “Today, salvation has come to this house.”


Given the current chant of the Occupy Movement against the “1%” of wealthy Americans who control 40-60% of the nation’s wealth (depending on which economist you are reading), I couldn’t help but wonder: What if Zaccheus lived today and was a Wall Street Banker, a Corporate CEO, or a Congressperson receiving donations from lobbyists, special corporate interests and wealthy donors? How would this story play out today?

There are both significant similarities and differences between Zaccheus and today’s “1%.” Like some of the 1%, Zaccheus was disproportionately wealthy and gained his wealth legally, even if unethically. For instance 1st century Palestinian tax collectors were allowed by law to extort their clients and keep the difference, just like bankers could legally offer funky mortgages and high risk investment options without full disclosure to their clients, or like CEO’s could give themselves huge bonuses with government bailout money. Like his 1% counterparts, Zaccheus would have considered himself entitled and not needing to concern himself with the impact of his actions and policies on those desperately struggling to survive and make ends meet. The political and economic system supported him in his actions, and he could honestly say that it was his right (by the law of the land) to do what he did and have what he possessed.

However, there are also significant differences. Unlike his 1% counterparts, Zaccheus did not really control the policies and purse strings of the national economy. In his society Zaccheus served at the behest of the Roman government and with the willful ignorance of the Jewish elite. At any point he could be stripped of his privileges and thrown into poverty. Secondly, tax collectors were universally despised by the people of their society, rich and poor, and so there was no way that Zaccheus would ever get a Jewish Businessman Award at a national prayer breakfast. No one would extol his virtues as a deep man of faith who also happened to be lavishly wealthy.

These distinctions make the response of Zaccheus to Jesus all the more significant. When Zaccheus decided to give half of his wealth way to the poor and pay back any one he had extorted four times over, he was committing occupational and class suicide. He was not only divesting his wealth, he was closing the door on ever attaining that level of economic security again. He was inherently challenging and exposing the exploitative Roman-Jewish elite political and economic system for what it was as a whistleblower who would forever be vilified by those who had allowed him to get his wealth. Furthermore, he did so with no assurance  that the poor people whom he had cheated would welcome him with open arms or trust him. Let’s face it, he had screwed them over big time, and such actions are difficult to forget and even harder to forgive. So to do what Zaccheus did involved great sacrifice and tremendous personal risk.

So when I hear the Wall Street and corporate CEO types justify their big bonuses by saying that otherwise they “could not attract talent” I find that reasoning pretty self-serving. When I hear leaders in Congress go on and on as to why we can’t let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire, because it will somehow restrict creation of jobs, I find their excuses pretty flimsy. When I recall that a few years ago the Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to political contributions, corporations are just like individuals and therefore should not be limited in the amount financial influence they can have over the decisions of Congress, I think “who are you kidding?” When I go to OpenSecrets.org and see how much money both Democrats and Republicans receive from lobbyists and corporate PACs, I know that the interests of the common person are way down on their list of priorities despite their rhetoric. When I hear business leaders argue that we can’t place too many regulations on the actions of business and how it’s really unions not egregious corporate practices that are causing the recession in our country and world, I am not buying it.

What I am doing is waiting for a Zaccheus to blow the cover off the whole scam called the American capitalistic system and expose it for what it is. I appreciate the likes of Warren Buffet and others wealthy Americans who admit that they should pay higher taxes during these recessionary times. I also appreciate wealthy folks like George Soros who contribute their millions to progressive causes. However, I waiting for a wealthy insider like Zaccheus who not only gives his money away but also shows by his words and actions that the whole damned (I use this word quite deliberately) system is corrupt and needs to be radically restructured. Then salvation, liberation and justice will come to the house of America.

The Questions Raised by the Occupy Movement

Like many of you I have been watching, reading and listening to the news about the Occupy Wall Street movement that is sweeping the country and indeed the world. Despite the attempts of critics to characterize the “occupiers” as leftist radicals, at least in the Philadelphia area there are grandmothers, housewives and regular folks lending their voice and support to those hardy souls camping out night after night around City Hall. Similar demonstrations have been cropping up in suburban and rural communities across Pennsylvania. Just as I saw when I visited Madison, WI this past spring, this movement is more mainstream than most leaders and commentators want to admit. People of all classes, colors and backgrounds are tired of the growing disparity between the few (the 1%) on the backs of the majority (the 99%).

One criticism of the Occupy Movement put forth by the pundits is that they have no clear agenda. The Tea Party folks have latched onto the notion of less government and lower taxes. However, the Occupy movement has set it sights on something broader and thus less clearly identifiable: the carnivorous corporate culture that allowed corporations, banks, lobbyists, and financial institutions like Goldman Sachs to make bundles of money legally but unethically with little more than a slap on the hand by the government. This corporate elite has spread the myth that more taxes will inhibit job growth, and yet after years of the so-called Bush Tax Cuts (which Obama signed into extension), we have had the worst recession since the Great Depression and jobs have been lost and not gained by this policy. People have finally seen through the fallacy of those myths, and are calling Corporate America and Wall Street to account. The problem is that it’s easier to march on City Hall or the White House than it is the disparate entity known as Corporate America. However, that doesn’t mean they don’t have an agenda.

Recently at a public forum, I asked Christian activist and author Shane Claiborne how he viewed the Occupy Movement, and he made what I felt was an astute observation. He said that for social movements to succeed they must have clear and concrete goals, and that the Occupy movement had not gotten there yet. However, he said he felt that the movement was raising important questions that we as a society need to consider. So I have been thinking about what some of those questions might be.

Chris Hedges in an article entitled “A Movement Too Big to Fail” beat me to it, and raised some questions I think are worth considering. Then I will add a few of my own. Hedges writes:

What kind of nation is it that spends far more to kill enemy combatants and Afghan and Iraqi civilians than it does to help its own citizens who live below the poverty line?

What kind of nation is it that permits corporations to hold sick children hostage while their parents frantically bankrupt themselves to save their sons and daughters?

What kind of nation is it that tosses its mentally ill onto urban heating grates?

What kind of nation is it that abandons its unemployed while it loots its treasury on behalf of speculators?

What kind of nation is it that ignores due process to torture and assassinate its own citizens?

What kind of nation is it that refuses to halt the destruction of the ecosystem by the fossil fuel industry, dooming our children and our children’s children?

Now for my questions:

What kind of nation routinely incarcerates its citizens of color and poverty with harsh snetences, while letting corporate raiders get off with paying a fine?

What kind of nation bankrupts and undermines its public school systems and then blames teachers and students for not "making the grade?"

How long will we allow our government leaders to be beholden to lobbyists and corporate interests simply because they can give bigger campaign contributions than we can?

How long will we allow our sense of well-being as a nation and as individuals to be defined by our bank accounts rather than a sense of equity, decency, and justice toward one another regardless of race, religious creed, or ethnicity?

Could it be that what is happening in the Occupy Movement is an expression true, grassroots democracy, and that what passes for democracy every 2 or 4 years is just a shadow of the real thing?

These are the kind of questions the Occupy Movement raises for me. These questions call for a radical change not only in our economic policies but our whole way of ordering and thinking about our society. The questions won’t go away just because some pundits think it’s not “realistic.” My sense is that this movement is for real and the questions it raises need to continue to be asked until we as a people start moving in a different direction. The reality is that the movement must come from the streets, because as 19^th century civil rights leader and abolitionist Frederick Douglass said the powerful never give up their power willingly, it must be taken from them.

Let’s just hope that power can be transferred without violence, that enough wealthy corporate leaders listen to folks like Warren Buffet, and say the jig is up. Those who are the top tier 1-2% must pay their dues, and  must give up some of their power and privilege if all of us are to have a just and equitable society.