text:
Q: red × when deploy the contract on the online remix

As the above log , it prompts the contract was deployed successfully ,but why is there still the red ×?
http://remix.ethereum.org/#optimize=true&version=soljson-v0.4.24+commit.e67f0147.js

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
import { Component, OnInit } from '@angular/core';
import { ActivatedRoute, Params }   from '@angular/router';
import 'rxjs/add/operator/switchMap';
import {MdSnackBar} from '@angular/material';

import { ProjectsService } from '../../services/projects/projects.service';
import  { Project, Comment } from '../../classTemplates/project/project';
import * as _ from "lodash";

@Component({
  selector: 'project-view',
  templateUrl: './projectview.component.html',
  moduleId: module.id,
  providers: [ProjectsService]
})
export class ProjectViewComponent implements OnInit {
  project: Project;
  comment: string;
  ngOnInit() : void {
    this.getProject()
  }

  constructor(
    private route: ActivatedRoute,
    private projectsService: ProjectsService,
    private snackBar: MdSnackBar
    ) {
      this.project= {};
    }

  openSnackBar(message: string, action: string) {
    this.snackBar.open(message, action, {
      duration: 2000,
    });
  }

  getProject(): void {
    this.route.params
        .switchMap((params: Params) => this.projectsService.getProjectById(params['id']))
        .subscribe(project => {
          console.log(project);
          this.project = project;
          if(this.project.comments) {
            _.reverse(this.project.comments)
          }
        });
  }

  insertComment(): void {
    this.projectsService.insertComment(this.comment, this.project.id)
      .then(comment => {
        if(comment.comment != 'error' && comment.username) {
          this.comment = "";
          this.project.comments.splice(0, 0, comment);
        }
        else {
          this.openSnackBar("Comment was not added", "Try Again!");
        }
      })
  }

  deleteComment(comment: Comment): void {
    this.projectsService.deleteComment(comment, this.project.id)
      .then(comment => {
        console.log(comment)
        if(comment.comment != 'error' && comment.username) {
          _.remove(this.project.comments, function(c){
            return (c.comment == comment.comment && c.username == comment.username && c.date == comment.date);
          });
        }
        else {
          this.openSnackBar("Comment couldn't be deleted", "Try Again!");
        }
      });
  }

  upvote(): void {
    this.projectsService.upvote(this.project.id, "pulkit")
        .then(res => {
                this.project.upvotes = res.upvotes
                this.project.downvotes = res.downvotes
            });
  }

  downvote(): void {
    this.projectsService.downvote(this.project.id, "pulkit")
        .then(res => {
                this.project.upvotes = res.upvotes
                this.project.downvotes = res.downvotes
            });
  }
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
The Irish Economy
Commentary, information, and intelligent discourse about the Irish economy
Post author By Richard Tol
The HEA has published its plans for reforming higher education in Ireland. A high level summary is here. There are two more substantive documents (here and here) that partly overlap. There are two core ideas. First, "technological universities" are introduced. Presumably, these will replace the "institutes of technology". This is to large degree a matter of relabelling. If this satisfies the demands to have a university in every county then so be it. Ireland would follow the international trend to call each and any 3rd level education entity a "university". Besides, some (many?) of the ITs already grant PhDs and are thus universities in all but name.
The second idea is more controversial. The HEA wants consolidation, through associations, clusters and mergers. Indeed, technological universities will come from a "consolidation of two or more institutions". On the one hand, it is high time to rationalize the bewildering number of institutions in higher education. I have argued that there too many, small economic departments. Similarly, Irish business schools are too small to credibly support a broad curriculum. There is a fixed cost to running a department, and small department spent a disproportionate amount of time on administration.
On the other hand, scale for scale's sake is silly. The HEA is not particularly clear about what research and teaching should (not) be consolidated and why.
I would argue that, for research, 2-3 centres per subdiscipline is plenty. For teaching, 3-4 locations for a bachelor's, and 2-3 for master's and PhD is enough — per discipline. For those activities, quality beats location. I'd rather talk to / be taught by a good researcher / professor than the one next door. Silicon Valley is not because it is close to any old university, but because it is close to Stanford. For evening and weekend classes, and more vocational training, you do want close ties to local businesses and therefore a denser network of locations.
UPDATE: The Independent reports on the race to become the first Technological University.
The Examiner reports that the president of Cork IT thinks that TU are too university-like. Cork IT is, I presume, free to remain an Institute of Technology. As it would be one of few ITs, it would be free to re-define the IT concept in Dr Murphy's image.
The Examiner also notes that "distance from home is a major factor in third level participation". I would argue that people should be prepared to travel for a quality education.
Categories In Higher education
Tags university reform
27 Comments on Higher education reform
← Action plan for jobs → Grexit
27 replies on "Higher education reform"
Ninth Level Ireland » Blog Archive » Higher education reformsays:
[…] "The HEA has published its plans for reforming higher education in Ireland. A high level summary is here. There are two more substantive documents (here and here) that partly overlap …" (more) […]
David O'Donnellsays:
and while we are at it …..
why not abolish departmental disciplinary silos …. in business, economics, industrial/production engineering, ict, and other related social sciences ….
Life is inter-disciplinary …. hence, a few heavyweight inter-disciplinary colleges would not go astray …. and it would be a great idea to actually provide a broad education, in Oul Newman's sense, to all those lost zombie freshers in severe psychological withdrawal from the 'murder machine' that corresponds to the so-called 'points race' ….
kevin dennysays:
David, although economics is more inter-disciplinary now than before. it is still a minority taste & there is no one obvious discipline to merge with. And who would want to merge with us anyway? So shot-gun weddings like this would not be successful. I think you achieve a broader education within the existing structures.
On Richard's point about being taught by a good professor over a near one: while I agree, I suspect many don't. Many students probably don't know or care what a good professor is [if that means academically good]; why should it matter to them that Professor Bloggs has 10 papers in the AER?
Richard Tolsays:
With "good professor" I meant someone who teaches well.
Higher education is adult education. Students don't need to be near mummy.
Philosophy of science, psychology, political science (power – use and abuse especially), organisation science, (others) imho would enhance 'mainstream' economics especially in terms of 'realist' policy ….. and perhaps compensate for some of its ontological aporia …
course you could write off gaining tenure in US depts, and publications in their 5* neo-positivist journals … but if it assisted in building a 'real' society here – who cares?
Rory Mc Monaglesays:
Having studied various subjects at university, I would say that a good research professor is not necessarily a good teaching professor. I've had the impression with some lecturers, that they wanted to get in and out as quickly as possible and back to the research and were not interested in the students. But seeing as there's many professors here I'm open to correction.
Perhaps having some sort of system where the reseachers can mainly concentrate on teaching and those who enjoy teaching can focus more on teaching would be an idea.
I agree with with Richard about there been too many ITs etc in the country, unfortunately the likes of Jackie Healey Rae won't have it.
David: the trouble is that merging ALL of those folks together would be a disaster. You need some sub-structure academically and disciplines, even if they are very 19th/20th century, are probably the best way. As for: who cares about 5* journals? Eh, those who don't have tenure for a start. There is a lot of guff about encouraging inter-disciplinary work but (as one who has done a bit) really no one wants to pay for it: grants, appointments & promotions are decided on a disciplinary basis [in some countries more than others].
Richard: Agree with that. Though there may be a veil of ignorance: if I don't know how good the professors are, why not shop local ? Its cheaper.
Kevin: I'm not talking about 'merging' – but cooperative critical dialogue …. and different perspectives on a 'problem' …[ some Danes are quite good at this]. and you point to the crux – noone wants to pay for it … yet most real-world problems ARE Inter-Disciplinary … ergo, in terms of academic research and thinking relevant to real problem solving and effective local policy design and implementation – [all this guff about evidence based policy] the 'overly individualized' Irish Uni sector is unfit for purpose in this broader societal remit … we get good bits but they are not joined up or synthesised with respect to a broader real perspective [examples too numerous to mention] & ESRI has come in for a bit of stick in this area recently as well ….
The Alchemistsays:
I'll believe in Third Level reform when Third Level institutions begin publishing figures on the number and cost of cases of wine consumed in a year, dinners for the great and the good, taxis, honorariums, first class travel, fancy gadgets, iPhones for the staff, etc. If reform is needed, follow the money.
Michael Hennigan - Finfactssays:
What is striking at this time of crisis is how little evidence of vision has come from the universities themselves.
As a large consumer of public funds, given the underlying Irish culture, I wouldn't trust them with prudently using additional funds whether it came directly from the public purse or via student fees.
There is reason to worry about the obsession with being 'world class' which is a dubious route to being among Europe's best run economies with low unemployment.
"The abolition of student fees was one of the worst decisions made in Ireland. It is threatening our world wide competitiveness. The fabric of third level (education) is being eroded," Ciarán Ó' hÓgartaigh, the new dean of the Smurfit Business School told the FT last December.
Finland spends about the same as Ireland on higher education, its paybill is lower, there are no fees and it's hardly a basket case; "threatening our world wide competitiveness," — what baloney!
Tom Begley the outgoing dean in a newspaper interview in July, ridiculed the quality of Irish students, blaming the school exam system – the so-called Leaving Cert – that, he said, "should be taken out into a field and blown up".
"We need to figure it out in a way that doesn't victimise other business schools. But if you begin to invest more resources in your top school, it will develop top-20 world-class capabilities," he added.
Top-20 world-class capabilities?: a good passport for a job on Wall Street?
The one known known is that significant education reform will not happen in Irish education. The Croke Park dance of the seven veils will be on a respirator and some incremental changes will certtainly require a new 'process' taht will go on and on….
On innovation research, in March 2009 TCD and UCD announced an 'innovation corridor' which would create 30,000 jobs:
You can bet that the following wasn't written by someone who had the experience of hustling for sales on a wet Monday morning:
The Alliance envisages building a world-class enterprise corridor between UCD and TCD that will be home for up to 300 new enterprises with advanced technology centres to support indigenous industry. It will be a prototype for a national ecosystem to establish Ireland as an international hub for innovation. It will be similar in concept to the IFSC but focused on the creation and scaling-up of indigenous knowledge and technology-intensive enterprises and the attraction of multinational employers that will become the cornerstone for the knowledge economy.
There they go again: 'world-class' – – only if we could achieve even bog-standard in some endeavours?
The small detail in all this is the most important – – the market.
But why risk being confused with reality?
If you would move all the good scholars in Ireland to TCD (which has global brand recognition), then you would create a research university that would sit comfortably in the global top 50. This would attract bright people and bring prestige.
The other institutes of higher education could then focus on education and applied research.
The great companies of the 21st centuries were built by people who dropped out of great universities. These companies are staffed with people who did not drop out, but they were groomed by the local companies while undergraduates.
Ernie Ballsays:
And of course we all know that the sole purpose of education is to assist in the creation and staffing of companies.
@The Alchemist
I can't speak about what goes on in administration ranks, but I can tell you that in my school we abolished any kind of coffee or snacks during 4-hour meetings, we never go out to dinner unless we pay for it, we no longer have Christmas parties, and we have no fancy gadgets of any kind unless we pay for them ourselves. As a matter of fact, when my 5-year-old computer started showing signs of its age, I basically had to beg for a replacement. Many of my colleagues prefer to subsidise their employer by buying their own computers, rather than go through the hassle.
I don't imagine things are quite like this in Hugh Brady's or Des Fitzgerald's offices, mind….
Kevin O'Briensays:
The last few months have seen some interesting developments in third level teaching. The Stanford free classes (now called the Coursera program, I believe) presented a series of modules using webcasts and online coursework submission.
More than 100,000 people took part in the three modules. Another series of modules are about to commence, and soon similar programmes (Udacity and MITx) will be joining them.
It is early days on this stuff, but I reckon that it will revolutionise how many things are done, as does Sebastian Thrun.
Surely if we are formulating a strategy for reforming the third level education in Ireland, this is one of the first things on the agenda.
Here is an idea : Rather than go directly to a *university* straight out of school, students attend a two year degree program in an IT, and then apply to go to university for a senior cycle degree programe.
@kevin o'brien
When Hibernia setup to deliver primary school teachers, I gather the traditional teacher training colleges didn't fall over themselves welcoming the initiative.
Expect plenty of opposition to any change to the status of vested interests.
With technology the way it is and such a small population it is peculiar that the government does not concentrate on creating a university of the air for appropriate courses.
It bothers me that you hear so much blather about the great ICT culture in Ireland and yet when it comes to demonstrating this genius in a big public project all we get is the emperor's new clothes.
The downside of the virtual university would be redundancies among the established institutions and that would provoke the ire of every local TD, pestered by everyone from catering suppliers to estate agencies.
And who can expect real reform when Croke Park still flies the flag for snail progress.
"The Examiner also notes that distance from home is a major factor in third level participation. "
I have linked a very interesting talk given by Sebastian Thrun (click on my "name" to see it). About 8 and a half minutes in, Thrun reads out a interesting email from an Afghan student of the course.
dearg doomsays:
Baloney indeed. In 2008 the OECD show the public expenditure per student on third level was 12% higher in Finland than Ireland on a PPP basis. Since then Finnish expenditure has probably remained broadly constant whereas the Irish expenditure per student has declined markedly. Finland has slightly less people going to third level from an age cohort than is less, so if they spend "the same" they get more bang per student.
Third level is the one publicly funded service in Ireland where international standards are achieved at lower cost than the European average.
As for world class capabilities some scepticism is needed, but if Ireland is to have living standards towards the top internationally then its third level must be reach international standards. I would be less critical of someone aspiring to reach international standards than of the bulk of publicly funded activity in Ireland which does not seem to think that it should be held to an international standard, but only to the same way it always has been. Universities have at least some awareness of the world at large and their place in it.
@Michael Hennigan, it is regrettable that you are more concerned with getting at "professors" on this forum than any informed critique of the issues arising with third level education. There are many things to be improved, but so many critics lack the discernment to identify these things from things that are not in as much need of improvement.
@dearg doom
As for world class capabilities some scepticism is needed, but if Ireland is to have living standards towards the top internationally then its third level must be reach international standards.
Tenuous at best.
Might it not be the other way around? Higher living standards, meaning more purchasing power, bringing along higher education standards?
Despite decades of heavy spend in higher education, living standards haven't withstood the recession in many homes judging?
dearg doom didn't get the memo.
Repeat after me: every aspect of the Irish public service must, by definition, be deficient in every possible way. So say Michael Hennigan and the monkey chorus. If you find an aspect of the Irish public service for which you are unable to find any way in which it is woefully deficient, then you should claim that it is wildly overpriced (that one always works). If that doesn't work, return to your superiors for reprogramming.
from New York Review of Books …. [a must read for educationalists ..
Finland's highly developed teacher preparation program is the centerpiece of its school reform strategy. Only eight universities are permitted to prepare teachers, and admission to these elite teacher education programs is highly competitive: only one of every ten applicants is accepted. There are no alternative ways to earn a teaching license. Those who are accepted have already taken required high school courses in physics, chemistry, philosophy, music, and at least two foreign languages. Future teachers have a strong academic education for three years, then enter a two-year master's degree program. Subject-matter teachers earn their master's degree from the university's academic departments, not—in contrast to the US—the department of teacher education, or in special schools for teacher education. Every candidate prepares to teach all kinds of students, including students with disabilities and other special needs. Every teacher must complete an undergraduate degree and a master's degree in education.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/schools-we-can-envy/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=February+14+2012&utm_content=February+14+2012+CID_df0a036fbf79555ea6739ad90deab4b9&utm_source=Email+marketing+software&utm_term=Schools+We+Can+Envy
Must say I really like that high-school inter-disciplinary focus on ….
… physics, chemistry, philosophy, music, and at least two foreign languages.
… and no 'murder machine' 'points race' ….
it is regrettable that you are more concerned with getting at "professors" on this forum than any informed critique of the issues arising with third level education.
Mr/MS dearg doom,
First to deal with the facts, OECD's 'Education at a Glance 2011' Annual expenditure per student by educational institutions for all services (2008) – – In equivalent USD converted using PPPs for GDP, by level of education, based on full-time equivalents: All tertiary education:
Ireland: $16,284
Finland: $15,402
Average OECD: $13,717
You are afraid to reveal your identity but you appear to be an insider. I quoted previously published comments from two professors and I'm 'getting at' them!!
Another 'braveheart', 'Ernie Ball' who is apparently a UCD lecturer when he isn't using the web to peddle abuse, refers to critics as the 'monkey chorus' – – so much for tolerance of dissenting opinions.
What George Orwell described as "euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness" can be found in the common use of the term 'world-class' in Ireland, which was vividly illustrated by an Irish Times report on 10 Oct, 2010 titled: "Fás board to agree plan for new 'world-class' skills body."
Educational institutions should of course aim for high standards but under the tag 'world class' would it be shocking in Ireland that people could spend money that's not theirs on projects and aspirations that a small bankrupt country cannot afford?
I see merit in John Harpur's arguments in 'Innovation, Profit and the Common Good in Higher Education – – The New Alchemy' in criticising higher education's assumed role in guaranteeing economic prosperity.
My particular interest is enterprise policy and the delusional visions of the last and current government in seeing university research as the genesis of a new jobs engine.
The situation at third level is similar to why people kept their heads down during the excesses of the bubble and took the loot. At a time of scarcity, funding of science research is being maintained.
What insider would risk the anger of colleagues by questioning the strategy and none have.
How dare I say that any spinout from third level research with potential is invariably acquired by an overseas firm before value added is available locally – – a handy system for academics who wish to be entrepreneurs without risk, exits for venture capital funders and the promoters.
Enterprise Ireland bragged last December on the high level of acquisitions of Irish firms. However, it's rare for such firms post-acquisition to be scaled up to a significant size in Ireland.
@ David O'Donnell
We need an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
The OECD said in 2010: "Finland is one of the world's leaders in the academic performance of its secondary school students, a position it has held for the past decade.
This top performance is also remarkably consistent across schools.
Finnish schools seem to serve all students well, regardless of family background, socio-economic status or ability."
There are no fee-paying schools in Finland and no third level tuition fees.
Teachers' pay in Finland is on a par with that of medical doctors and lawyers.
In 2009, the rate for a primary teacher after 15 years was €50k in Finland and €68k in Ireland according to the OECD. It was €61k at upper secondary level and €68k in Ireland.
In Finland in 2009, a Finnish GP's pay was 1.8 times the average wage and 3.5 times in Ireland; a salaried specialist earned 2.6 times the average wage in Finland and 4.5 times in Ireland.
@ MH
I heard it best before Xmas when a friend said that she thought her son probably didnt believe in Santa but kept the facade in place in the belief that he would get more presents if he kept believing!!
@Michael Hennigan That would be Dr Dearg Doom 🙂
re Finland your original point was that Finland had a good third level sector and did not charge fees. I pointed out that public expenditure in Ireland was less than in Finland and you pointed out that total expenditure (i.e. including those fees) was a bit higher in Ireland. If your point is that Irish universities had sufficient money in 2008 to be getting on with, I agree, although I could argue about the distribution of those resources. The problem is that they no longer have those resources.
Otherwise you conflate a number of issues. The term "world-class" may well have been abused in Ireland, although the quote from Ciarán Ó' hÓgartaigh used the term world wide competitiveness. But a university should be judged on the creditability of its own statements, Fás has nothing to do with it. I doubt if many people in universities have a higher opinion of Fás than you do. SFI funding is another issue, one worthy of debate and your observations on the employment spinoff is very relevant. However, it isn't all that relevant as a criticism of a Dean of a Business School wanting to be competitive, as this and many other parts of universities receive little or no SFI funding. The country may be bankrupt, which makes it all the more odd that then you criticise proposals by universities to raise more funds by charging fees rather than continuing to be burden on the hard pressed taxpayer.
I gather from comments previously that about 75 percent of what goes into third level goes to pay salaries. At a guess salaries between all the various institutions for permanent academics when employer PRSI and pension contribution is included must average around 100k? Maybe that's an underestimate.
Before jawing over reform, which will never happen due to TD's tendency to respond to 'constituency issues', it would be helpful if a more detailed breakdown of how the other 25 percent is spent.
Many of the great unwashed including myself remember the Dail committee exchanges about UCD's over expenditure. The culture of unquestioned entitlement reared its head. Unforgettable theatre.
Our own gentry, etc.
@Alchemist it would be helpful in third level and other public spending if there was more breakdown on what everything else was spent on and how this has evolved over the years. I'd be extremely interested in examining the evolution of administration expenditure on people who never meet students versus expenditure on those who do.
The UCD over expenditure represented a class of "managers" who paid themselves excessive sums, diverting funds from people who actually teach or research to do this. This was not material in the overall expenditure, but set the wrong tone entirely. This was facilitated by inadequate university governance structures, but instead of reforming these to "world class" standards, the civil service have grabbed more power instead, a case of falling from the kettle into the fire.
@Michael Hennigan
'We need an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
Crux is – thinking is dis-couraged in 2nd level … and in much of 3rd level …
And without 'thinking' it can be a mite difficult to recognise problems – let alone come up with viable solutions to solve them.
Finland takes Dewey seriously ….
The effects of the 1ST COVID 19 lockdown and re-opening on sales in Irish customer-facing businesses.
Some recent and historical developments in Corporation Tax
Changes in earnings during COVID-19
On the decline in inequality: a question of emphasis
Fiscal Council Webinar Wednesday 2nd December
Paul Hunt on Some recent and historical developments in Corporation Tax
Joseph Ryan on Changes in earnings during COVID-19
Paul Hunt on On the decline in inequality: a question of emphasis
Paul Hunt on Why has income inequality fallen in Ireland?
hugh sheehy on Patrick Honohan on Macro-financial crises
Categories Select Category Admin Agriculture and food Art Bailout Banking Crisis Blogs Books Brexit Climate change Competition policy COVID-19 Credit Crisis Conference Economic growth Economic history Economic Performance Economics Economics of Education EMU Environment European economy European politics events Financial stability Firms Fiscal Policy Health Economics Higher education Housing Income Inequality Infrastructure Innovation Insurance International relations Interviews Jobs Knowledge economy Lisbon Treaty Liveblogs Macroeconomics Media Migration Monetary policy Mortgage arrears Political economy Prices Productivity Regulation Research Secular stagnation Social conditions Taxation Teaching Trade Uncategorized Unemployment Wealth Wealth World Economy
© 2021	The Irish Economy

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


February Goal of the Month: Vote now!
West Ham United scored some great goals in February but which one is your favourite?
Watch our six best goals from the first team, Academy and Ladies above, and vote for your winner in the poll below!


Avengers: Infinity Wars inspired scarf you can rescue humanity from the forces of evil or rescue a dull outfit. As gradient yarn transitions from color to color, the stitch pattern slowly transitions from flat stitches to textural clusters. It's the perfect easy, one-skein project for that trip to the other end of the galaxy.
called the Soul Stone Scarf because crochet is what we love the most.


I love to cook, I really do. However, I also love to eat and sometimes I just don't want to cook, so I'll either go out and/or get delivery. Unfortunately, this isn't good for my waistline or my wallet. After all these vows to change my unhealthy habits this year (like getting organized and detoxing my life) with support from 7 For All Mankind, I decided it was time to start cooking at home more often. And I must say… so far, so good!
I'm always in the kitchen, albeit it's typically more for snacking purposes rather than creative spirit. I scoured the internet for recipes on healthy alternatives to my favorite dishes. Five nights a week, I've made it an unbreakable vow to cook dinner at home (and use the leftovers for lunch the next day). So far, I've seen the savings and an improvement in my health: my skin is smoother, hardly a muffintop to be found, etc.
Over the next few weeks, I want to encourage you to follow along as I share my favorite new recipes and discover that – yes! – guys can cook in the kitchen… regardless of what my grandmother says.
On a special note, 7 For All Mankind is looking for YOUR special moments, too! Whether you're spending time with friends, chowing down at your favorite food truck or sitting by the campfire, share your special moments with 7 For All Mankind and WIN pieces from their Spring Collection. Check out their #BeautifulOdyssey Instagram Contest on their Facebook Page for more information on how to enter!


text:
Enemies of the state: Pennsylvania's pay raise villains
Technically speaking, Pennsylvania is a commonwealth, but who ever heard of the phrase "enemy of the commonwealth?" If you want to know what's wrong with Pennsylvania, you need to look no further than its leadership. Below is a capsule look at the politicians behind the pay grab of 2005 and the people who run the worst state government this side of Louisiana. If you want to know what's wrong with Pennsylvania, you need to look no further than its leadership. Here's a look at the politicians behind the pay grab of 2005:
JOHN PERZEL — The most powerful politician in Pennsylvania is also the most arrogant and ignorant man ever to hold such high state office. Perzel, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, is the pied piper who led unsuspecting rank-and-file lawmakers to support the pay raise, then took off for a junket to China so the foot soldiers could take the heat. When he finally got back to his home base of Philadelphia from China (followed by vacations in Bermuda and Italy for more rest and relaxation), Perzel first claimed he didn't know anything about the pay hike furor that has dominated the news for two months. Then he came up with some nutty story about migrant farm workers in Lancaster County making $50,000 a year, so he deserves to get paid three times that much. Perzel is a loon and an embarrassment to the Republican Party. He needs to go.
JUDGE RALPH CAPPY — The chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court all but admitted he orchestrated the pay raise debacle in a back-room deal with Perzel and Gov. Ed Rendell. It will be up to the state judicial ethics committee to determine the propriety of the state's top judge working out a secret deal with the legislative and executive branches to hike his salary. His involvement in the pay raise travesty is unseemly at best. Revelations that Cappy and his fellow justices have billed taxpayers $164,000 in food, travel and lodging expenses (on top of their $170,000 a year salaries) is more proof that Cappy couldn't care less for Pennsylvania taxpayers as long as he's living in the lap of luxury. Cappy is not on the ballot any time soon, but there will be two Supreme Court judges seeking retention votes in November and two more judges on the November 2006 ballot. Vote "no" on all four judges to send a message to Cappy that no one is above the law.
ED RENDELL — Just months after a Washington, D.C.-based think tank gave Rendell an "F" for his economic policies, just weeks after the majority of Pennsylvania school boards rejected his Act 72 tax reform farce, Rendell gets himself embroiled in the pay raise fiasco. Is he trying to be a one-term governor? He's already a part-time governor. Rendell spends more time from September to January concentrating on his other job as an Eagles football commentator than he does on state business. Maybe voters should do Rendell a favor and relieve him of his time-consuming duties as governor when he faces reelection. Former Lt. Gov. William Scranton, who will challenge Rendell in 2006, has already called for a repeal of the legislative pay hikes and a reduction in the number of legislators. That's enough to earn my vote. This is what you need to know about Fast Eddie Rendell. On June 8, he told The Philadelphia Inquirer that he would never sign off on a pay raise for the legislature unless it approved an increase in the state's minimum wage. On July 8, Rendell signed the pay raise bill for the legislature and himself even though there was no increase in the minimum wage. Around Aug. 8, Rendell was booed at a county fair as he waited in line to grab some food. He came out against the pay raise that he signed and defended a few weeks earlier. Fast forward to Labor Day and Rendell says the legislature must increase the state's minimum wage. Where does Rendell stand on an issue? The answer my friend is blowing in the wind. The political wind. Rendell will say anything to anyone to get a vote. Gov. Scranton sure has a ring to it, doesn't it?
ROBERT JUBILIRER — This is the Republican leader of the state Senate. A career politician from Altoona (with 30 years on the public payroll), Jubilirer is a junior version of Perzel, not quite as arrogant or ignorant, but trying to get there. Jubilirer's wife is a state judge who also gets a hefty pay raise under the July 7 pay grab. The good news is that Jubilirer is up for reelection in 2006. Voters will get a chance to retire him permanently.
SECOND-TIER 'BOSSES' — The top bosses, those pocketing pay raises of 34 percent to 54 percent, won't give the money back. They're willing to sacrifice as many rank-and-file legislators as needed to calm the voters. The bosses are secure in districts carved out specifically for them. If you see any of these names on a ballot — Senate Majority Leader David J. Brightbill, Senate Minority Leader Robert J. Mellow, Senate Minority Whip Michael A. O'Pake, House Majority Leader Samuel H. Smith, House Minority Leader William DeWeese, House Majority Whip David G. Argall, House Minority Whip Mike Veon — write in "Mickey Mouse" instead. Mickey can't do any worse than these rats.
Legislators return to the scene of the crime
If you've ever watched a crime show on TV or read a mystery novel, you know that the criminal eventually returns to the scene of the crime. And so it is with the Pennsylvania legislature. After a refreshing 10-week vacation where the 253 co-conspirators had ample opportunity to figure out how to spend the $11,000 to $32,000 in pay raises they gave themselves, it's back to the grind of three-day work weeks.
On Monday, both chambers of the Pennsylvania House of Lords will be in session for the first time since the middle-of-the-night pay grab on July 7. The Senate, where some members will get 54 percent pay raises while others collect up to $100,000 in additional income over the next four years, despite a Constitutional prohibition against collecting pay raises during their current terms, returned to Harrisburg on Sept. 19.
The House, where 14 yes-men were rewarded with committee chairmanships and $5,000 in additional pay by Democratic Party boss Bill DeWeese for stabbing their fellow Democrats in the back, will sneak into town Monday morning.
I say sneak because it's going to be hard to avoid thousands of angry taxpayers who will descend on the state Capitol Monday. But I'm sure the House and Senate have private entrances to state garages where they can park their taxpayer-supplied luxury cars for free. Maybe they even have aides who will whisk them away in golf carts to their offices.
When you have 3,000 people on the payroll at the state Capitol, I'm sure there's some job descriptions that include opening doors, fetching drinks and bowing before the members of the House of Lords during the 77 days of they year they're in session in Harrisburg.
The July 7 slap in the face of taxpayers was supposed to keep us down. But something wonderful has been happening in Pennsylvania over the past two months. People are standing up to the overpaid, underachieving career politicians who populate the halls of the state Capitol. So far, 26 legislators who voted for the pay raise have backed down under pressure from constituents, who have flooded politicians with letters, phone calls and e-mails. But 132 others are taking the money. They need to be voted out.
The first order of business for the House of Lords should be to repeal the pay raise. Pennsylvania residents are suffering while career politicians are lining their own pockets. House Bill 1945 would repeal the pay raises. It has 40 sponsors so far. Is your state representative one of them?
The second item on the agenda should be to eliminate the unscrupulous practice of "unvouchered expenses" that allowed so many lawmakers to circumvent the state Constitution and accept the pay raises before the law allows.
Third on the list should be a written apology to every Pennsylvania resident, not only for the pay grab, but the complete failure of the legislature to address any of the state's most pressing needs.
Gov. Ed Rendell, Pennsylvania Chief Justice Ralph Cappy and House Speaker John Perzel — the three-headed monster responsible for hatching up the pay raise plot — are living on another planet if they believe legislators deserve a pay raise. Pennsylvania already has the most expense state legislature in the country, but where are the results?
A study by the National Conference of State Legislatures found that only 19 percent of the bills introduced in the Pennsylvania legislature are ever signed into law. Twenty-eight states did better. California legislators, the only ones being paid more than our own Pennsylvania slackers, have a 60 percent success rate. The question one needs to ask about the pitiful success rate of people who are elected to enact legislation is this: Why are Pennsylvania lawmakers wasting their time introducing eight out of 10 bills that will never see the light of day?
Is the legislation bad to begin with or is the Pennsylvania legislature so large — so unwieldy — that nothing can ever get done? Why does Pennsylvania have the largest legislature in the country when states like California, New York and Texas can get more done with fewer people? Why are Pennsylvania taxpayers supporting this aristocracy that is not accountable to the people who elected them?
Once the pay raise issue is behind us, the legislature must enact property tax relief for the state's homeowners. Rendell tried a public relations stunt by calling for a special session of the legislature to deal with property taxes, but it's just another of Fast Eddie's parlor tricks. I say the citizens of Pennsylvania should surround the state Capitol and not allow the 253 Lords out until they approve a tax reform plan that works. It may mean they have to put in more than 77 days at work this year.
What's wrong with 'One nation under God?'
You can't keep a good atheist down. Michael Newdow, the Cindy Sheehan of the heretic crowd, is back. He persuaded a liberal judge in California to rule last week that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, forcing several Sacramento-area schools to ban the Pledge.
Newdow, you'll recall, is the lawyer/medical doctor/intellectual moron who wants the words "One nation under God" stricken from the Pledge. He also wants "In God We Trust" rubbed off U.S. currency and he's still steamed that President Bush recited the words "so help me God" when he took the oath to uphold the Constitution during his inauguration in January.
Newdow took his unholy crusade against the Pledge all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year, but the case was tossed out on a technicality. The justices never took up the merits of the case, leaving the matter for a future court to decide. It appears this case will be one of the first major decisions forced on the high court after John Roberts is sworn in as chief justice.
In a Sept. 14 ruling, activist Judge Lawrence Karlton agreed with Newdow that the Pledge's reference to God violates the rights of children in three school districts to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." That same decision was reached earlier by another crew of Left Coast judges who make up the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 agreed with Newdow that the Pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
The battle over church-state issues is at the heart of the cultural war that has divided this nation, pitting a motley crew of atheists, liberal extremists and card-carrying members of the American Civil Liberties Union against the rest of America.
Polls show that 90 percent of Americans believe in God. Two-thirds of Americans say they are Christians. The current wording of the Pledge of Allegiance has been recited by American school children since 1954 and there has never been a single case of a child irreparably harmed by pledging allegiance to "One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
But militant atheists like Newdow will stop at nothing short of removing all semblance of faith from public life in America. With the ACLU by his side, Newdow wants to turn the U.S. into a godless, totalitarian state where people's lives are controlled by a socialist politburo — not guided by a higher authority. It was tried in the Soviet Union for 60 years and we all know how well that worked out.
The Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer. It is not a religious oath. It is a statement of loyalty to the United States of America by its youngest citizens. It is a daily declaration of gratitude for the privilege of living in the greatest nation the world has ever known.
Newdow and his secular rabble use the "faith card" much like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson use the "race card" to enflame their followers and obscure real issues. The Pledge is not about religion. And what if it was? Look what's happened to our education system since the Supreme Court banned school prayer in 1962.
The Founding Fathers guaranteed us freedom of religion not freedom from religion.
The liberal mantra of "separation of church and state" was not the intent of the framers of the Constitution or the leaders of the states that ratified the Bill of Rights. The church-state divide is part of a campaign of deception perpetrated by left-wing radicals who hide behind groups like the ACLU and People for the American Way.
There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution to suggest that a wall should exist between church and state. The First Amendment, adopted as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, prohibits Congress from passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion" and forbidding laws "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In other words, the First Amendment says that Congress shall not recognize or favor a particular religion. It does not say the United States should be a godless nation.
The left-wing stormtroopers of the ACLU are forcing the removal of faith-based symbols from the public square every day. Try finding the cross, the Star of David, a nativity scene or a menorah — anything that symbolizes the Judeo-Christian heritage of this nation — on public display.
Meanwhile, the radical left pushes its secular agenda down our throats, forcing us to accept witchcraft, pornography and all sorts of perversion involving children as "constitutionally protected freedom of expression."
Students face discipline in our public schools for wearing crosses or uttering the word "God" in front of a classmate or a teacher. At the same time, children are forced to celebrate pagan holidays and study "Wican folklore" as part of their social studies' curriculum.
Where in the Constitution does it say that the minority has a right to impose its wishes on the majority? When did the majority of Americans allow a fringe group of atheists, activist judges, media elite and radical college professors to hijack the moral compass of this nation?
Labels: Church-State divide
California Dreaming: Pay raise doesn't add up for Pennsylvania legislators
Almost everyone in Pennsylvania is aware by now that our state legislature is the second highest paid in the nation — behind only California — since Pennsylvania lawmakers gave themselves pay raises of 16 percent to 54 percent. Yes, 54 percent!
While it's been widely reported that the pay raises range from 16 percent ($11,000 a year) to 34 percent ($32,000 a year), it turns out that some Pennsylvania lawmakers will make out like bandits, seeing their annual salaries go from $69,648 to $106,986 overnight under the July 7 pay raise they approved without debate at 2 a.m.
The vote approving the pay-jacking was 27-23 in the Senate and 119-79 in the House. Gov. Ed Rendell promptly signed the bill into law and praised the lawmakers for raiding the public treasury.
As the weeks went by and it became clear to Rendell that he might have made the biggest political mistake of his life, the governor flip-flopped quicker than John Kerry on the war in Iraq. Now Rendell is saying the pay raise was a mistake and probably against the law, and he is willing to sign a bill to repeal the measure, if the legislators would just up their ill-gotten gain.
Standing in Rendell's way is Big Bad John Perzel, the most powerful man in Pennsylvania. Perzel, whose salary rose to $145,000 as speaker of the House, doesn't want to give the money back. Not one penny.
In fact, Perzel thinks members of the Pennsylvania legislature are still underpaid, even though they now make at least twice as much as the average Pennsylvania worker and half of what a member of Congress earns. Perzel also thinks that the work of governing Pennsylvania is comparable to running California, so of course Pennsylvania legislators should be the second highest-paid in the nation.
The California comparison has been bugging me, so I decided to do a little research. Let's throw out some facts and you can draw your own conclusions.
California is the most populous state in the nation with about 36 million residents. Pennsylvania is sixth in population with around 12.4 million and dropping. California has the fifth-largest economy in the world — not just the United States — but the world. Naturally, you would assume that a state that has three times the number of people would need a lot more legislators to run the place. Not so.
California has 40 state senators elected to four-year terms. California pays its legislators $100,000 a year. An independent salary board determines the pay of legislators in California. The board recently approved an increase that will pay California legislators $111,000 next year.) Pennsylvania legislators set their own salaries. Anyone see an inherent conflict of interest there?
Pennsylvania has 50 state senators, elected to four-year terms. Perhaps Mr. Perzel can explain why a state like Pennsylvania, which is one-third the size of California, needs more senators in its state capitol?
The disparity is worse in the House. California has 80 members in its House of Representatives. Pennsylvania has 203. Yes, 203! Can anyone explain why we need 203 politicians making at least $81,000 a year when California makes due with 80? Do the math. Multiply 80 times $100,000 and compare it to 203 times $81,000. Guess which state saddles its residents with a bigger bill to pay a corpulent legislative body?
California state senators can serve up to two terms and then have to get a job in the real world. That concept is foreign to Pennsylvania lawmakers. How do you make a career of feeding at the public trough if you can only serve eight years? There are no term limits in Pennsylvania, so politicians can leech off the public for 40 years if they so desire. And many do.
Over in the House, California residents may serve up to three terms of two years each. That's it. Serve for six years and then you have to get a real job. In Pennsylvania, members of the House can serve as many two-year terms as they wish.
Did I mention that California legislators don't get pensions? In Pennsylvania, a legislator who serves 20 years receives a taxpayer-paid pension of $57,000 a year. It's the gift that keeps on giving.
California also has an alien concept called democracy. In addition to constitutionally imposed term limits on politicians, California residents enjoy the power of initiative and referendum. Voters can petition to get a measure on the ballot. That's how many propositions that have improved California (including term limits) have been passed. If Californians don't like a law that the legislators have passed (hint: pay raise for themselves), they can use the referendum to repeal the law.
So let's review. Because Pennsylvania has a bloated legislative aristocracy of 253 members, with 3,000 staff members to do their bidding, Pennsylvania taxpayers spend around $500 million a year to support their state legislature.
That gives Pennsylvania the distinction of having the most expensive legislature in the United States. Not only is Pennsylvania the No. 1 trash importer in the country, but we can also claim first place in the most tax dollars siphoned to pay career politicians.
Pay raise farce: The legislative aristocracy vs. those overpaid Pennsylvania farmers
State House Speaker John M. Perzel, the boss of bosses in the Pennsylvania Legislature, wants you to know that he works a lot harder than some lazybones farmer who get up at 4 a.m. to milk his cows.
Perzel, a Republican from Philadelphia, stood before a roomful of GOP faithful over the weekend and told them they can take their concerns about the July 7 legislative pay raise and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Nobody works harder than John Perzel when it comes home to bringing home the bacon.
"The people in Lancaster County who milk cows are making $50,000 to $55,000 (a year). … You are paying a guy who milks cows $55,000, and (they're) saying it's too much to pay a member of the General Assembly half of what a member of Congress makes?" Perzel said.
Philadelphia isn't exactly farm country, but I'm beginning to wonder what planet John Perzel is living on Guys who milk cows make $55,000 a year? The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau says the average salary for a person milking cows on a large farm is $20,500 a year. Perzel makes $145,000 under the pay raise he pushed through the legislature.
Perzel went on to say that the 16 percent to 34 percent pay raises lawmakers gave themselves were justified because politicians "work hard and make personal sacrifices to serve the people of Pennsylvania."
Never mind that legislators make at least two to three times more for their part-time jobs than the average Pennsylvania resident earns at his or her full-time job.
In another outlandish comment, Perzel called legislators "volunteers" who often have to work weekends and frequently miss "holidays" and "birthdays" in the name of public service. Pass me a tissue. I think I'm going to cry. Which are they, John? Full-time legislators who deserve to be paid a minimum of $81,000 a year or volunteers? Now, I'm really confused.
A "volunteer" is someone from the Red Cross who went to New Orleans to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina. A state legislator making $81,000 to $145,000 a year for a part-time job is not a "volunteer."
If there was any doubt in your mind that Perzel and his flunkies need to be booted out of Harrisburg, his performance Saturday should put that hesitancy to rest. Perzel, a career politician whose own salary rose to $145,000 a year under the July 7 pay raise, is the poster child of everything wrong with the people we send to Harrisburg.
Not only are they not serving the people of Pennsylvania, but clearly the only concern Perzel and the rest of the legislators have is to line their own pockets.
While Pennsylvanians are struggling to make enough money to feed and clothe their children and provide shelter for their families, Perzel and the country club set in Harrisburg has lost touch with the average Pennsylvania — not to mention reality.
They've established themselves as new class of professional politicians — an aristocracy that is not accountable to the people. Their only purpose is to suck the lifeblood out of working Pennsylvanians.
Not only did they give themselves pay raises of $11,000 to $32,000 a year — just months after their last pay raise went into effect — but legislators also receive free health care, life insurance, a generous pension, $129 in lunch money, long-term disability insurance, an automobile allowance of $650 per month and all the free gasoline the gas tanks in their luxury vehicles can hold.
While the rest of us are scraping pennies to pay for $3 gas to get to work or take our kids to school, Perzel and the rest of the Harrisburg Hogs are riding around in SUVs and Cadillacs, with a full tank of gas courtesy of you and me.
It's obvious Perzel has never worked on a farm. I'm not sure he's ever worked a day in his life. Farming is a seven-day-a-week, 24-hour-a-day job. Most farmers will never see $145,000 in income in a year. The "job" of a Pennsylvania legislator consists of pushing paper around and looting the state treasury.
Over the past five years, the Pennsylvania legislature has been in session an average of 77 days a year. That's all the time the job demands. The rest of the time, the Keystone State's nobility are attending Rotary and Kiwanis breakfasts telling us what a wonderful job they do. Some of them take on tougher tasks such as cutting ribbons at store openings, riding around in parades or delivering oversize cardboard checks for various slush funds the legislator has created.
And if Perzel and his minions work so hard, why are we paying 3,000 other people to keep the state Capitol running? Do you think those form letters you get back when you write one of these moochers was written by them? They have staff to do the work. They have legislative assistants to draft the bills. They have aides to answer the phones and do the leg work at their district offices.
If you rounded up all 253 members of the Pennsylvania House of Lords and shipped them down South to do some honest work helping the hurricane victims, nobody in Pennsylvania would miss them. What's there to miss? They don't do anything.
There are close to 9 million registered voters in Pennsylvania. If 9 million people don't show up at the polls next May to vote out every incumbent on the ballot, Pennsylvania is doomed. If we allow 253 leeches to continue to feed off the rest of us, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.
Pay raise revolt: Is there one honest person in Harrisburg?
"I am looking for an honest man."
— Diogenes (c. 400-325 B.C.)
Legend has it that the Greek philosopher Diogenes wandered the known world in the fourth century B.C. holding a lamp in his right hand as he searched for an honest man. Had Diogenes stumbled into Harrisburg circa 2005, he might still be searching for that one honest person today.
I've been using the term House of Lords to describe the royal lifestyle that members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly have established for themselves — at our expense. But it's becoming clear that Pennsylvania is governed more like a feudal system run by warlords rather than a monarchy. And guess who's serving the role of serfs? You and I — the beleaguered taxpayers of Pennsylvania.
Diogenes is best remembered for developing the notion of cynicism. Now that's more like it. You can't talk about the 253 "public servants" who inhabit the halls and offices of the state capitol without a healthy dose of cynicism.
Labor Day has come and gone and we're still talking about the Great Legislative Pay Grab of 2005, the middle-of-the-night raid on the state treasury by 253 desperadoes. OK, it wasn't that many. Some voted no, but I have yet to hear one of the legislators who voted against the pay raise come out and call their colleagues what they are — scoundrels who betrayed the public trust. As Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
Too many legislators looked the other way or used the excuse that they were only "following orders" from the party bosses when the middle-of-the-night pay heist occurred. That's not good enough. We don't send representatives to Harrisburg so they can bow down and tremble before self-serving career politicians from Altoona or Philadelphia when the bosses decide it's time to plunder the state treasury again.
No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24
Who are the people we send to Harrisburg serving? Their constituents or the pay-jackers? Can any state legislator look a constituent in the eye and tell you in all honesty that taking a 16 percent to 34 percent pay raise for themselves at a time when so many Pennsylvanians are struggling is good for the folks back home?
We can't give ourselves $11,000 to $34,000 pay raises. Most of us haven't seen cumulative 16 percent pay increases over 10 years, let alone in one year and just six months after a 5.2 percent cost-of-living hike kicked in.
We can't take 10-week vacations. We don't get $129 a day for lunch. We don't get taxpayer-paid luxury cars to drive around in. We have to shell out $3.50 for gas to get to our jobs. Legislators don't pay for their gas. They stick the folks back home with the bill. And how many of us can retire after 20 years on the job and receive a $50,000 annual pension?
The fact that the legislative pay grab is the dominant story involving Pennsylvania government two months later is a victory in itself. Despite the conspiracy of silence among the 253 members of the Pennsylvania House of Lords, the pay grab is all anyone wants to talk about.
I ran into an acquaintance at the supermarket last week. Hadn't seen the man in six months. After exchanging pleasantries, he starts up with, "How about those state legislators? Can you believe what they did? They're not going to get away with it." This was not a man who ever discussed politics with me before. But he's looking forward to 2006 so he can vote against the incumbents.
Just the other day, a car passed by me with two large signs taped to its side windows. The signs read "Impeach Legislators!" in big, red letters, followed by a list of transgressions committed by state lawmakers against the citizens of Pennsylvania.
Letters to the editor continue to appear in newspapers weeks after the issue should have gone away. The Mercury has collected nearly 7,000 signed letters from readers demanding the legislators give back the pay raise. Petition drives across the state have collected tens of thousands of letters. At least 15 candidates have publicly announced their intention to run against incumbents and the spring primary is still eight months away.
The Harrisburg Hogs underestimated the level of abuse Pennsylvania voters are willing to endure before they fight back. Pennsylvanians are tired of high property taxes, lousy roads, mediocre schools, underfunded libraries. The last humiliation voters are willing to take at the hands of the most bloated and ineffectual state legislature is to be forced to pay these politicians more money.
Pay raise shame: Legislators deny life insurance to National Guard as they line own pockets
Among the many pieces of important legislation not enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature in 2005 was a bill that would permit the state to pay life insurance premiums for Pennsylvania National Guard members serving their country in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo.
More than 3,300 Pennsylvania guardsmen are serving in active combat zones overseas, and sadly, 11 have been killed in Iraq so far.
In the frenzy to line their own pockets with 16 to 24 percent pay raises before taking a 10-week summer vacation, legislators never bothered to vote on the insurance bill, or any other legislation to assist National Guard servicemen and women and their families.
The total cost to cover life insurance premiums for Pennsylvania's National Guard soldiers and airmen for one year comes to about $1 million. The annual premium for a member of the National Guard or reserves is $312 a year, which provides $400,000 coverage for their families.
The $1 million cost of the program is a pittance in the bloated $24 billion state budget that was adopted by the legislature and signed by Gov. Ed Rendell in July.
At least one lawmaker was quoted in news accounts as saying he was looking for ways to save money and didn't want to set a precedent by picking up the cost of the life insurance for guardsmen on federal duty because other government workers would expect the same benefit.
Ask any Pennsylvania resident where they would like to see the money go: in the pockets of the second-highest paid legislature in the country or to the families of National Guard members?
Our insensitive, greedy and unethical legislature never bothered to vote on the life insurance bill before heading for its summer vacation to spend the money its members gave themselves. In fact, lawmakers couldn't even find the time to hold a hearing on the insurance bill, which was sponsored by Democratic Rep. Tom Tangretti.
We keep hearing how hard our lawmakers work and how many hours they spend in Harrisburg. Apparently not enough hours to schedule a hearing on this important bill or bring it to a vote over the first six months of this year.
State lawmakers have an opportunity to correct this disgraceful error in judgment when they return to Harrisburg on Sept. 26. One of the first orders of business should be to pass the 12-bill package intended to assist National Guard members and reservists.
In addition to paying the life insurance premiums, the bills would establish a Military Family Relief Fund, provide college education assistance for service members, implement anti-discriminatory measures, provide extended paid leave for service members and ensure absentee voter privacy for service members.
The legislature's reluctance to support Pennsylvania men and women who are risking their lives for their country and their state is reprehensible. It's another condemnation of a legislative body that has miles to go to win back the public trust it betrayed with middle-of-the night pay hikes, revelations of slush funds and the blatant disregard of the state Constitution by taking early pay raises as "unvouchered expenses."
When giving yourself a pay raise takes priority over providing assistance for the families of Pennsylvania servicemen and women killed in the line of duty, it's time for sweeping changes in Harrisburg.
Taxpayer dollars will be used to defend Legislative pay raise
This editorial was published in The Mercury on Tuesday, September 6. Talk about rubbing salt in the wound.
Where else but in Pennsylvania would taxpayers have to cough up the money to pay the lawyers hired by state lawmakers to defend themselves against a lawsuit challenging the middle-of-the-night pay raise legislators gave themselves?
No wonder thousands of Pennsylvania taxpayers are fighting so hard to take back their state government from a group of self-serving politicians who consistently vote to line their own pockets without a word of debate -- without any justification -- and then used a loophole to circumvent the state Constitution in order to collect the money early.
Pennsylvania law says that the state attorney general is responsible for defending the constitutionality of state laws, but the party bosses who control Harrisburg have hired outside law firms to defend them in a lawsuit brought by Harrisburg-area activist Eugene Stilp, who is seeking to overturn the controversial July 7 pay raise. The legislature also employs a large in-house legal staff at taxpayer expense, but those lawyers must be busy working on another pay-raise bill to represent their bosses in the lawsuit.
As long as they're spending your money, the party bosses are willing to go hog wild with legal fees. The House has hired Philadelphia-based Stradley Ronon, while the Senate employed Kirkpatrick & Lockhard Nicholson Graham LLP, a law firm from Pittsburgh. Neither outfit comes cheap, but as the legislators would say, "It's only taxpayer money, so just write a blank check."
Stilp was incredulous when he heard the news that House and Senate leaders had hired private lawyers to help them defend the pay grab. "It's beyond belief that the defense of the illegal pay raise is being paid for by the people of Pennsylvania," Stilp said.
One of the problems with the pay raise -- in addition to the fact that lawmakers have done nothing to earn it and it's repugnant to give yourself a pay raise -- is the fact that the attorney general, every judge in Pennsylvania and many members of the Rendell administration, including the governor, are included in the pay raise legislation. There is no place taxpayers can turn to in Pennsylvania to get an impartial hearing.
Regardless of how many lawyers the legislators hire, the judges who will end up hearing the case would have to give up their own pay raises if they rule against the legislature.
The deck is stacked against taxpayers. So don't hold your breath waiting for justice in Pennsylvania. But don't forget who brought us to this juncture in the first place -- the largest, costliest state legislature in the country. A group of 253 men and women who earn two to three times more than the average Pennsylvania worker doing a part-time job that requires them to be in session about 77 days a year.
Stilp, who is not a lawyer, will be representing himself as a citizen of Pennsylvania and a taxpayer when this case goes to court. Stilp won't be alone. He has the moral backing of 12 million beleaguered Pennsylvanians who have been betrayed by their own lawmakers.
If the citizens of Pennsylvania lose this court case -- and the odds are long that justice will prevail -- they will have one more opportunity to restore rule of law to this state -- at the ballot box in 2006, when they can fire most of the legislators once and for all.
© Copyright The Mercury 2005
Pay raise tally: 2 big idiots; 25 who saw the light
Kudos to the 25 Pennsylvania legislators who have seen the error of their ways and decided not to accept the "unvouchered expenses" that enable lawmakers to collect pay raises 16 months early, despite a Constitutional ban on midterm salary hikes.
Rep. John W. Fichter, a Republican from Montgomery County, is the latest lawmaker to reject the extra money after initially accepting it in his paycheck that went out Aug. 1. The 25 legislators are in the minority, but at least they're willing to heed the pleas of their constituents.
A total of 133 of the state's 252 Senate and House members have accepted the expenses, which increased lawmakers' pay by at least 16 percent to a minimum $81,050 a year. Fichter would have made $85,100 a year with the unvouchered expenses, getting an extra boost because of his subcommittee chairmanship post. Instead, he will make $69,647 this year.
The salary increases for all House members will take effect after the November 2006 election — unless they're voted out of office before then. The Constitution bars midterm pay raises, but many lawmakers have used a loophole in the law to start collecting the money early.
Now let's turn to the Abbot and Costello of the Pennsylvania Assembly.
Daggers to Pennsylvania House Speaker John M. Perzel, believed to be the mastermind of the Great Pay Grab of 2005. Perzel, a Republican, made his first public appearance in Harrisburg since the raises were approved on July 7, but refused to answer questions about the fleecing of taxpayers.
Several reporters attempted to get Perzel to comment about the pay raise and the public backlash, but Perzel would only say, "There's nothing to talk about. It was passed on July 7." Wrong, answer, Big John. There's plenty to say about the middle-of-the night heist of taxpayer dollars without debate or public hearings. Not to mention the scandalous violation of the state Constitution by lawmakers who sneaked their pay raises early under the guise of unvouchered expenses.
Playing dumb, Perzel told reporters he knew nothing about plans by rank-and-file legislators to introduce bills to either rescind the raises entirely or repeal the unvouchered expenses scam.
"I haven't heard about it yet. If that's what you guys are saying, I guess somebody's going to introduce it. We'll see what happens," Perzel said.
This is the most powerful man in Pennsylvania? The problems in Harrisburg start with the leadership and Perzel is Exhibit A.
Daggers to Senate Pro Tempore Robert Jubilirer, another party boss who instigated the 2 a.m. pay raise, for attacking critics (voters) in radio commercials.
Jubilirer, a Republican, doesn't defend the middle-of-the-night pay grab in commercials airing in his home district near Altoona, but goes on the attack against a group call Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania, which is spearheading a campaign to expose the money-grubbing politicians who control Harrisburg.
"An outside special interest group is spending thousands of dollars on negative radio ads attacking our state senator, Robert Jubilirer. Don't believe them," the commercial trumpets. Attacking the messenger is a popular tactic when phonies are exposed. All the information presented by YCOP is a matter of public record.
Jubilirer voted for the pay raise and demanded loyalty from his rank-and-file members. Now that most Pennsylvanians are wise to career politicians like Jubilirer, the party bosses are going on the attack.
The primary election is still eight months away, but Jubilirer's desperate attempt to cover his tracks shows us how worried politicians are that the voters are on to them.
Exploiting human misery for political gain
It came as no surprise that Cindy Sheehan, the troubled woman who spent the summer camped near President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, would find a way to blame the president for Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath.
Judging from her previous rants ("The United States is the biggest mass murderer in the history of the world" and "This country is not worth dying for" and "George Bush is a killer"), Sheehan followed the script of her left-wing puppet masters by blaming the president for the death and destruction left behind by the hurricane.
If you haven't been following Sheehan's meteoric rise in the left-wing media as a 21st century version of "Hanoi Jane," Sheehan believes her son's death fighting in Iraq was caused by President Bush — not the Islamic terrorists who killed Army Spc. Casey Sheehan. Doesn't matter that her son volunteered for the Army and never objected to serving his country in a time of war.
"Baghdad Cindy" Sheehan wants the United States to surrender from Iraq and Afghanistan and abandon Israel. She also wants President Bush, whom she has called "the biggest terrorist in the world," a "filth-spewer and warmonger," an "evil maniac," and a "war criminal" impeached and put in jail.
The apologists for the radical left say Sheehan is exercising her right to free speech. Any reasonable observer would conclude she crossed the line into treason a long time ago.
Cindy Sheehan can stand in the Texas sun all day and scream obscenities at the president's motorcade, but do we need to see her face on television every night or read her tirades in newspapers every day? Sheehan offers no alternative to facing the Islamic fascists who want to kill every man, woman and child in the United States except to surrender.
The United States is not worth dying for? Tell that to the millions of Americans who gave their lives in World War I and World War II and Korea and Vietnam. Tell that to the brave men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan who took the fight to the enemy to protect their homeland from another attack.
Openly sympathizing with the fanatics who killed 3,000 innocent Americans on Sept. 11 — not to mention her own son — is the mark of a lunatic. When the puppetmasters behind Sheehan — Michael Moore and his Hollywood pals, Democratic Party strategists (including Howard Dean's former campaign manager) and The New York Times — are done using her for their purposes, they'll toss aside.
Speaking of The New York Times, the newspaper's editorial writers are complaining that President Bush gave "the worst speech of his life" when he announced how the federal government would respond to the hurricane relief effort. Didn't give a good speech? Give me a break. The people of New Orleans don't need inspiring speeches or political harangue. They need water, food, medicine and shelter. But the New York Times couldn't resist taking a pot-shot at President Bush in an editorial titled, "Waiting for a Leader."
No criticism of the Democratic governor of Louisiana, who looked like a deer caught in the headlights of oncoming traffic during the first 48 hours after the hurricane struck. No criticism of New Orleans' Democratic mayor, who got the first lifeboat out of town and abandoned the city's poorest people to fend for themselves.
Cindy Sheehan is a pawn of the radical left. But how do you explain a string of Democratic politicians — Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Al Sharpton, New York Sen. Charles Schumer, New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Illinois Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., New York Rep. Charles B. Rangel and Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco — jumping on the "It's all Bush's fault" bandwagon?
All of them came out with absurd statements that the President's environmental and economic policies somehow led to one of the greatest natural disasters in history. Last time I checked, New Orleans was settled 300 years ago. Bush wasn't the president back then. He wasn't the one who decided to build a city below sea level in one of the most active hurricane zones in the world.
And what kind of nitwit would hold a political leader responsible for floods, earthquakes, droughts or hurricanes? Criticizing the response to the natural disaster is one thing. But blaming the president for causing it?
Instead of working as one nation to rescue the people who are suffering and work to rebuild the devastated Gulf Coast, the Michael Moore/Cindy Sheehan crowd is trying to use the misery of the victims of Hurricane Katrina for political gain.
The left has already played the race card, calling the disaster a "Black Genocide," implying that a white president is intentionally killing black Americans.
Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. inexplicably compared the hurricane to the invasion of Iraq and questioned how a president who professes to be a Christian would allow the black residents of New Orleans to suffer? An NAACP spokesperson accused the administration of "disparate treatment" of the victims because most were black. An ACLU leader said the federal response would have been much different if white people were trapped in New Orleans. And the absurdity goes on.
"Baghdad Cindy" and the bottom feeders from the political left have done more harm to their cause than they realize. The floodwaters will recede. Homes, offices, churches and schools will be rebuilt. New Orleans, one of America's great cities, will rise again. The left has lost what little credibility it had by using Hurricane Katrina for political grandstanding.
Enemies of the state: Pennsylvania's pay raise vil...
California Dreaming: Pay raise doesn't add up for ...
Pay raise farce: The legislative aristocracy vs. t...
Pay raise revolt: Is there one honest person in Ha...
Pay raise shame: Legislators deny life insurance t...
Taxpayer dollars will be used to defend Legislativ...


text:
Tag Archives: historic
Two Eds really are better than one
It has been one of those weeks in politics. As well as dull but incredibly important legislative procedure on issues like voting reform and the EMA, there have been the scandalous, newsworthy, headline-grabbing stories which get everyone interested and have the potential to set the tone of debate for the foreseeable future. On Friday the big story was supposed to be the once charismatic, fallen and tainted PM Tony Blair giving evidence for a second time at a historic war inquiry. Instead both of the major parties faced employment crises that sent morale on an undulating, yo-yoing rollercoaster ride.
At the end of that ride it seems Labour, against the odds, have emerged with their heads held high and full of hope. The resignation of David Cameron's long-term spin doctor Andy Coulson proves them right on a point they've been making in Opposition for months. With little policy of their own to use as ammunition against Coalition cuts, Labour have relished the niggling issue of Coulson's shady past at the News of the World. By finally quitting Coulson has reinforced Labour's attempts to expose the "new" politics of the coalition as the same old dishonest, elitist governance of old. Coulson may have tried to serve his employer well one last time with the timing of his announcement, shrouded as it was in theory by the gargantuan story of a Labour frontbench reshuffle so soon after the selection of the original line-up. But for the moment at least it's Labour that are buoyed by events and the Tories feeling somewhat dejected.
Back in October I aired my views on this blog about the announcement of Ed Miliband's first Shadow Cabinet. To me the appointment of Alan Johnson was a mistake, and far be it from me to blow my own trumpet, but events have proved my initial musings correct. Johnson went from gaffe to gaffe, showing a worrying lack of knowledge for his brief. Labour continually failed to land palpable hits on economic issues, despite a plethora of targets laid bare by Con-Dem cuts. Meanwhile Ed Balls, after a dynamic and impressive leadership campaign, languished largely unnoticed as Shadow Home Secretary. No one seemed to be pro-active enough to take the fight to the Conservatives on damaging policies in a noticeable way. Balls' wife, Yvette Cooper, also wasted away shadowing the foreign office brief, despite widespread backing in the party and the potential for public support. The only Labour frontbencher scoring economic points was Shadow Business Secretary John Denham, and even he has left glaring gaps in his arguments and been error prone.
Alan Johnson's sudden resignation due to personal issues so soon into his new, vital job may be a blessing in disguise for Labour and everyone wishing to see credible Opposition to Coalition cuts. Despite the mistakes, Johnson has once again proved in his short tenure his capacity to be likeable and approachable to ordinary voters. The revelation that it was in fact his wife having an affair, not him, ensures the prospect of return to the Labour frontbench in a smaller, popular role in the future. With Johnson's static, timid fiscal presence brushed aside though, Labour can at last forge a bold new and distinctive direction on all things economic.
I praised Ed Balls during his leadership campaign for going a long way to reshape his bullyboy image. More than any other candidate, Balls looked as if he'd give Labour a truly individual position on policy. Continually described as Labour's "attack dog" Balls will now have much greater freedom to bite at the heels of the Coalition. As Shadow Chancellor he'll have to respond to hot, topical issues like tuition fees and bankers' bonuses; fresh and emotive in the public consciousness. He'll also have to start winning the argument on growth and investment vs. spending cuts.
Already though he has shown signs of defending Labour's past record more effectively, explaining his decision to now back the plan he once opposed to halve the deficit within four years, by citing better figures driven by Labour's spending whilst in government. He's also been wise to already criticise the government, not for risking a double-dip recession, which looks unlikely, but for wasting an opportunity for greater growth and wider prosperity because of ideological decisions. And growth, Balls will emphasise, is the swiftest, most sustainable route to deficit reduction.
There are still those warning against the potential problems of two Eds at the top though. The primary fear is a return to the Blair-Brown standoff that came to define and overshadow New Labour. This concern adds the extra interest of a helping of recent political history to the mix of this story. Will Labour repeat past mistakes, despite Miliband's proclamation of a new generation? Even if the new team propels Labour back to government, the same old potentially lethal questions will hang ominously over the partnership between the leader and the treasury.
However I think the doubters are at the very least premature to suspect Balls of wanting to derail Miliband's revival of the party. Despite the fact he ran for leader, it's no secret that the job Balls has always wanted is Chancellor. Finally in a position to seize his goal, he is unlikely to turn his fire on his own party. Much more likely is that Balls will electrify the chamber, as one Labour source believes he will, and unleash an avalanche of devastating balls of criticism at the government. He'll add much needed guts and yes, "Balls", to Labour's Opposition. He's already proved his aptitude for Opposition politics during his leadership campaign.
Balls' wife will also have greater opportunity to play a key role, replacing her husband as Shadow Home Secretary. She'll no doubt start picking apart government policing plans. But once again Ed Miliband showed a disappointing lack of courage with his emergency reshuffle. Already he's failed to take climate change seriously or offer serious backing to voting reform or a graduate tax. And by handing Balls Johnson's old job, not his wife, he once again missed an opportunity to make his generation truly a new one.
Failing with his initial selection of a cabinet though meant he simply had to give the role to Balls. Who will, I believe, do a genuinely excellent job and accelerate Labour's journey back to power. The two Eds plan to have adjacent offices and the fears of a Blair-Brown fallout seem unfounded to me. Nevertheless they will not disappear and had Miliband boldly plumped for the equally qualified Cooper, he would have avoided the shadow of New Labour he is so desperate to escape.
Tagged accelerate, adjacent, Alan, Andy, AV, Balls, bankers, Blair, Blairite, boldly, bonuses, brief, Britain, Brown, Brownite, bully, Business, Cameron, Chancellor, Coalition, Comment, commentary, communications, Conservatives, contest, Cooper, Coulson, Cuts, David, deficit, Denham, director, Doctor, economic, economy, Ed, EMA, emergency, England, error, excellent, fees, frontbench, gaffe, generation, genuine, government, growth, Guardian, historic, image, Independent, inquiry, investment, Iraq, Job, John, Johnson, Labour, leader, leadership, legislation, Lib Dems, Miliband, mistake, new, Number 10, Observer, offices, opinion, Opposition, Osborne, Parliament, PM, policing, policy, Politics, power, recent, record, reduction, reform, regeneration, reshaping, reshuffle, rhetoric, scandal, sharing, Spin, tax, Telegraph, Times, Tony, Treasury, tribal, tuition, UK, views, voting, war, week, Yvette
Belated thoughts on tuition fees: The ball is in Labour's court
I feel a tremendous guilt for allowing my political articles to dry up over the last few months. It is not as if there have not been issues to debate, dissect and confront. In fact the coalition's spending cuts have energised the public's political opinions more than any other topic in recent years. Whether their policies are right or wrong, this government has shown a willingness to listen to its people and even a tendency to undo unpopular decisions when faced with a sufficient backlash, albeit over relatively minor issues like free milk, sport in schools and reading initiatives.
I have also not stopped writing about politics due to a loss of interest or lack of activity; in fact the opposite scenario is the case. I've welcomed the Lib Dem achievements gained in power. I have joined a number of campaigns against government policies I believe to be destructive and misguided, such as plans to sell off Britain's woodlands, and marched on several student protests. Hordes of people to seem feel that the gravity of what the coalition is doing demands opposition and not only this but that the very nature of coalition politics makes democratic protest unusually effective.
Why then the failure to articulate reasoned and persuasive arguments against the cuts? In particular why the lack of output in relation to tuition fees? An issue directly relevant to my immediate future and the strength of the party I voted for, now branded as the great betrayers. After all as I've already said, it is not as if I would think my actions completely hopeless. Even though the motion passed in the Commons, the foundations of the government's majority were shown to be extremely weak when great pressure is applied, with both Conservative and Lib Dem MPs refusing to back their leaders. If I added my voice to the online chorus it might not do much but it could do no harm in adding to the ever rising volume of argument.
I suppose I felt compromised. So swept up was I in passionate outrage, camaraderie and the excitement of genuinely doing something historic, that I could not write in a sufficiently detached, analytical manner. The issue was simply too close to home and tied up with too many emotions for me to rationally look closely at all sides of the debate. That is not to say I don't have opinions I believe to be well supported and accurate about the issue, just that whenever I tried to express them they would sound weak and as if they were merely scratching the surface of something so vitally important to economic recovery, the future of our country and my own education. Of course I managed to write up my experiences of protest but whatever I said sounded inadequate and I felt incapable of getting across how strongly my fellow marchers felt and how justified I believed them to be.
Now though I am finally going to attempt to air my views on the issue, if only for my own personal relief and satisfaction. By keeping them simple and focusing on where the debate goes from here, I hope they can cut through all the complexity to the heart of the matter.
Firstly a note on Nick Clegg and his ministers' eventual decision to back the plans. I completely understand why he chose to vote in favour of the proposals. He worked hard to inject fairness into the legislation and went above and beyond the safeguards suggested in the Browne report, despite the fact he was unavoidably still engineering a policy that upped the fees he'd promised his party would fight to keep down and if possible, abolish altogether. I think Clegg genuinely believes that despite the rise in fees, the modifications he secured ensure the new system will be fairer, especially for disadvantaged students, than the previous one. However it was still a grave mistake for Clegg not to utilise the clause in the coalition agreement allowing his party to abstain. He may have worried that had the motion not passed universities would have faced a funding crisis and the coalition would have splintered. Or behind the scenes he may have only gained his concessions in exchange for his supporting vote. Nevertheless if the option for him to abstain was truly there, he was foolish not to take it. Or, ironically given the savage demonization of him as a treacherous liar, he is simply too honest to not back a plan he was a partial architect of and believes in. Even after this crisis I am still of the opinion that Nick Clegg is a bold and truly progressive politician, bravely securing real change through compromise. I may disagree with his decision to back the change to tuition fees and stand aside for other Conservative policy, but this is the reality of coalition, and if he had had a majority government (in a dreamy alternate world) he would've squeezed the budget elsewhere.
At the height of the protests Clegg desperately tried to champion his hard won tweaks for fairness and criticised the marchers drumming up unfounded fears about the new system. Here he made another catastrophic political error, essentially labelling the protestors, vast swathes of which probably voted Lid Dem, as ignorant. If he'd listened to the prevailing, dominant chant at the protests he'd have understood that the marchers weren't ignorant and that whatever modifications he offered as sweeteners collapsed under one fact: "NO IFS, NO BUTS, NO EDUCATION CUTS". Just like everything else the coalition was facing opposition over, these protests were primarily about cuts. The NUS and others had made the mistake of focusing on the rise in fees in their criticisms; perhaps because the thought of paying more would inspire more students to turn up. But in reality it would be several years before the higher fees would come in and some real help had been hardwired in for poorer students. The arguments that a burden of debt would be a huge deterrent, that there would be no proper help for middle income families and that students would choose their university on price not quality, were all valid, but not as clear and convincing as the cuts.
The cuts to teaching and all aspects of university funding were big and would hit the standard and availability of university education immediately. Ideologically what really irked people was that fees were rising to plug the gap from a drop in government investment, thus sparking accusations of a shift to a privatised system predominantly paid for by students directly. Logically the coalition's insistent argument that the rise in fees was a necessary evil to secure Britain's world class higher education system long term, also fell apart because of the deficit driven cuts. All the reports say universities need more money to remain competitive. But the government was actually reducing investment and making up the shortfall with a huge hike in fees which might even jeopardise the current quality of education, let alone increase it. Perhaps most bafflingly of all, the government plans, with all Clegg and co's little alterations for fairness, would still require expenditure and make absolutely no impact on the size of deficit, the coalition's Holy Grail.
The leaders of campaign groups rant and rave that, as with Thatcher's Poll Tax, protests will continue despite coalition success in Parliament, until the act is undone. However it looks unlikely that anything other than a hardcore will continue to mobilise on this issue. Unless, of course, a real alternative can be found to march for. This was always the Achilles heel of these protests, and marchers discussed it, wishing someone would get their act together. The ball is now in Ed Miliband's court, with his new generation of Labour players. Labour must offer a practical but popular vision for higher education, sooner rather than later, if the fight is not to be lost. Of course Miliband's team needed time to get it right and may need more, but the clock is ticking.
It will be a difficult balance to strike for Miliband. Understandably as a new, fresh leader of the Opposition, he jumped on the bandwagon of protest, stopping short of joining one, but regularly singing the praises of a graduate tax. Ultimately this progressive leap forward may prove unworkable and in any case his chosen Shadow Chancellor opposes any such measure. But if Labour focus on the cuts to higher education they can still offer a fairer, point scoring alternative. Growth is the coalition's weak spot and Labour should highlight the decisions of other major economies to boost education investment and therefore jobs and tax revenues. A world class university system should drive a sustainable economic recovery. Restore investment and throw in a drop in fees, whilst retaining some Lib Dem additions, and Labour would not only be doing the right thing but keeping alive an issue that could break the coalition, with a credible, sensible alternative.
Posted in Personal, Uncategorized
Tagged blogging, Britain, Cameron, Coalition, Conservative, Cuts, David, debt, deficit, Dem, democratic, Ed, education, England, fair, fees, funding, growth, historic, ideological, journalist, Labour, Lib, London, Miliband, new, online, outrage, Parliament, pledge, Politics, Prime Minister, progressive, promise, Protest, quality, students, tuition, UK, university, writing


LinkedIn is rolling out some new update the second half of 2017 that should be really appealing to both marketing and sales as the updates are driving engagement and opportunities.
It is obvious to me that LinkedIn is working to offer better solutions for users to meet their business objectives. For those of you who have stuck with LinkedIn and are active, you will win in terms of building relationships, engaging your network and prospecting leads.
Back in July I wrote about LinkedIn Rolling Out Native Video Via Mobile. I know many of you are still waiting to see the video icon in your share a post box, keep checking as one day it will just appear next to the camera icon.
LinkedIn just announced that video is now going to be available via desktop as well. That's good news for all you desktop users, so again watch for the video icon to appear.
Video will auto-play if you have settings turned on to YES. You will have to hover over the video for at least 3 seconds for the video to start playing.
I am really excited about this feature as I message people on a daily basis. If you use Facebook messenger, honestly, I find LinkedIn messenger easier and more accessible.
This feature is rolling out now!You can see the full green dot that means they are active on mobile or desktop, if there is a green ring that means they are on mobile with push notification but are not active.
When you see people are live – a great strategy to reach out and start a conversation, build on a relationship in a casual way. New opportunities can come through casual conversations if you take the time to be thoughtful and considerate.
When you get the ring instead of circle – you get a pop-up that says how long ago they were active, refresh the page to check the latest time for accuracy.
There's an option to pick how your status is displayed and who can see if you're available. Simply go to your settings to manage who can and can't see when you're available.
This is a fantastic feature – use it strategically!!
Now doing a search on mobile and desktop there is a new filter called Connections of.
This is not the same as searching connections from a profile. This allows you to further refine your existing search to the next level.
So, let's say you are searching for a sales manager at a specific company and you know someone who works there or who might be connected, you add their name to see the connections of that person. This is an ideal way to get a warm introduction!!
If you have put a Facebook pixel on your website then you know the value of the information you gain. LinkedIn now offers the same feature however you can gain insights from the data without having to pay for any advertising. I say this because you do need to open an ads account in your LinkedIn profile and you must have a company page to attach to the ad account.
Same thing, if you have a download people subscribe to on your websiteyou could target ads to those people because based on their interests.
Google tag manager can help you put the code on your site or better yet, have your web designer add this to all the pages on your site.
This is where you could add Facebook, Twitter or Google pixels at the same time if you are hiring a web developer to add code.
LinkedIn now has added the ability to share multiple images in a single post on iOS (Android and desktop coming soon). Facebook has had this feature so you may be used to the look. I think this would be great to share multiple images of employees in your company, share from a conference where there are often so many great speakers or from a relevant event. Get creative and let your connections know what's going on in your business again relevant to what you are known for.
Perhaps you want someone to edit your article before publishing, now you have the ability to share your draft. Click on "Share Draft" in the article edit menu to get the link – only those who you share the link with will be able to see the draft.
According to LinkedIn, guests and logged out members can now see your posts, videos and articles. Simply grab the URL of the post from the control menu and share with your friends on Facebook, Twitter or anywhere on the web.
This is a great tactic for repurposing your published articles and getting them seen from other social sites driving up your engagement levels on LinkedIn. Remember, LinkedIn rewards activity which means your posts, articles and shares will get shown to more people!
LinkedIn continues to dominate as a tool especially for B2B sales and prospecting. Nurturing and engaging your network is part of the social selling process and these advancements will help you share your content and become a known resource.
Let me know if you have any of these new features yet and how you are using them.