President George W. Bush is about to become ex-President George W. Bush, and in my book not a moment too soon.  This  “conservative” leaves office with an economy in shambles, unprecented government bailouts, a national debt that increased by more than $4 trillion (according to Scripps Howard News Service), and unresolved military conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don’t give me that bunk about how Bush “kept us safe from terrorism. ” In case your calendar uses a fiscal year, Sept. 11, 2001 fell nine months after Bush took office. Everyone who’s tried to blame former President Bill Clinton for 9/11 is basically ignoring reality. If something bad happens nine months into Barack Obama’s presidency, do you think those same folks will be blaming Bush? No way.

And if  “keeping us safe” is the standard, former President Jimmy Carter did a pretty swell job, with zero terrorist attacks in four years. That’s one fewer than Bush, so let’s give Jimmy some much-deserved credit.

The Bush years clearly bear the mark of a man who was in way over his head. I’d take disgraced President Richard M. Nixon over Bush any day. At least Nixon was smart and sounded like he knew what he was doing.

Bush is leaving — and not a moment too soon.

First it was a $700 billion federal bailout for the financial industry, justified by supporters —Democrat and Republican — who said that sector is too critical to fall by the wayside. Without a big fat check from the government, they said, economic Armageddon would be upon us in no time. (Never mind that there was an appalling lack of ability to track how that money would be spent.)

On the heels of that hat-in-hand lobbying came the Big Three automakers, looking for about $15 billion in aid for themselves. Theirs is a vital industry, too, they argued, and without some quick federal cash, GM and Chrysler might go down the drain, taking all kinds of related jobs with them. The U.S. Senate, led by Republican senators from Southern states that are home to plants operated by foreign automakers, refused that request. Instead, GM got $13.4 billion and Chrysler $4 billion in federal loans from the aforementioned $700 billion.

Now comes the social service industry, arguing that it needs some “bailout money,” too. A group of foundations from Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Columbus and Toledo say the two states need $3.3 billion in federal bailout cash because of increased need for their services. They’ve prepared a 28-page report to substantiate that need, and plan to lobby federal officials for help.

Do you see where this is going? In a bad economy, everyone who normally chases the federal dollar as a funding lifeline is double-pumped to do it now, along with some businesses that traditionally haven’t. The truth is, nearly anyone can make a case that their job or business or industry, faced with tough times, could use a little (or a lot) of government help to say afloat.

But what’s fair about that? Isn’t capitalism, at its core, supposed to be about winners and losers? If you run your brokerage house or big-name bank onto the rocks by making bad decisions, and the federal government comes writing checks to cover your tracks, what is the reward for the brokerage house or bank that didn’t make those mistakes? Most of my money, at least the cash reserves part of it, is tucked away in a bank in Uniontown.

From what I’ve read, that bank is in pretty good financial shape. I’ve never heard it mentioned as one of those in need of bailout funds, or as an institution in need of takeover to remain solvent.

It’s not a McMansion by any stretch, but I purchased my house by putting 20 percent down and getting a fixed-rate, 15-year mortgage. I paid it off in less than half that time, by making regular extra payments on the principle and saving up a lump sum to free me of the debt. If somebody else buys more house than they can afford and is gullible enough to fall for something as tricky as an adjustable rate mortgage, I don’t know why I should feel sorry for them, let alone see tax dollars sent their way to cover for their mistake.

Space constraints prohibit me from any in-depth assessment of the Big Three’s problems or the social service financial request, but suffice it to say that you need to have competitive products and some people can spend their entire lifetime justifying a need for more tax money while never really solving a problem.

I work in the newspaper industry, which I think performs a pretty vital function in our society, one at least as critical as big banks, car makers and social service providers. It’s an industry that started seeing hard times way before the others got socked in 2008. But where is there any talk of federal bailout money for my industry? (Or yours, for that matter.)

Not that we’d want it if there were strings attached, because that could give government a level of control over content that any journalist worth his salt would never accept. Even so, you won’t find any politicians from either party lining up to offer us any help. I suppose that’s a good sign, because it shows we are an equal opportunity watchdog.

Paul’s note: This week’s column was about the anti-nepotism movement (or lack thereof) in Fayette County, Pa., school districts. But I know some of you will find a way to twist that into commenting on your favorite topics, so to accommodate you, here’s a mention of them: Barack Obama, state Rep. Tim Mahoney, the mainstream media and Democrats.

 

All those school board opponents of anti-nepotism hiring policies at Laurel Highlands, Uniontown and Connellsville school districts – where such proposals have either failed or been met with tepid enthusiasm — should take notice of what John M. “Jack” Purcell had to say.

Purcell, a long-time solicitor who’s performed those duties for the Frazier School District for nearly 20 years, was the author of that district’s anti-nepotism hiring policy in the early 1990s. The document was crafted under the administration of former Superintendent Frederick Smeigh, who realized the rot that sets in when school boards are free to hire relatives.

Those board members and administrators in school districts that don’t have anti-nepotism hiring policies often trot out all kinds of justifications for the status quo. Chief among them is the yarn that such a policy would discriminate against highly qualified applicants who just happen to be related to the decision-makers.

That’s baloney of the most rancid order. You know it, I know it — and Purcell surely knows it. In a recent letter to the editor, the Uniontown attorney had the guts to put in print what few are even willing to say:

“Some have argued that an anti-nepotism policy should not be adopted because it will not stop hirings based on political favoritism. The logic of this argument escapes me. When a patient has two illnesses, a doctor does not fail to provide a cure to one just because the cure will not help with the other condition.”

What Purcell was addressing is the argument, put forth by some, that eliminating the hiring of relatives will not eliminate the hiring of friends or political allies. Of the latter, Purcell said, “Political hirings are wrong, but this evil needs to be addressed in other ways.”

What he was saying, and what I agree with, is that you’ve got to start somewhere, and prohibiting the hiring of relatives is a necessary step toward formulation of a mind set that bubbles over into a similar reluctance to hire friends or allies.

Frazier has the best public school test scores in Fayette County. That is an established fact, despite those who will argue that there’s a lack of empirical evidence to support that claim. Purcell, who drafted the Frazier anti-nepotism hiring policy, said, “The policy has played an important part in Frazier’s excellent academic success that has been well documented and is beyond dispute.”

If any other school district has test score numbers that have consistently beaten Frazier’s over the past few years, I’d like to see that empirical evidence.

It’s a well-known fact in Fayette County that relatives of school board members and administrators have the inside track when it comes to getting hired. However, few of those who are passed over are willing to make a big stink about it, because they are either led to believe that they are next in line to be hired, or are fearful that asking too many questions might sink their chances.

This silence is wrong — but it allows the current hiring system to perpetuate itself. As Purcell correctly noted in his letter, it took “courage and wisdom”for the Frazier board to adopt its policy way back when. Unfortunately, the other school boards in Fayette County are showing they lack both of those qualities.

What they are really saying is, “Iwant mine to get theirs, and the rest of you, well too bad.”

Here’s another related point:If someone justifies the hiring of a relative to a teaching position by saying, “He/she just loves kids,”then why would that person jump at the first chance to become a school administrator?Doesn’t such a move take them away from the kids that they reportedly love so much?

Back to Purcell. It took courage and wisdom for him to speak out, and that should not go without notice. The pro-nepotism faction in Fayette County is strong and doesn’t like being challenged.

When someone speaks out strongly against the practice, it’s worth noting.

Paul Sunyak is editorial page editor of the Herald-Standard. Reach him at 724-439-7577 or at psunyak@heraldstandard.com.

 

After a long and laborious recount, Democrat Al Franken has been certified as the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota, by 225 votes over Republican incumbent Norm Coleman. As part of that process, the Minnesota Supreme Court denied Coleman’s last-ditch effort to add hundreds more disqualified absenteee ballots from Republican-leaning areas to the count.

Back in 2000, when the presidential election was in dispute because of the close race in Florida, some said Democrat Al Gore should give up his challenge for the good of the nation. If that’s the standard, shouldn’t Coleman do the same? Instead, his lawyer promises a legal challenge that could keep things up in the air for months.

Maybe this one will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court — which, by the way, has an overwhelming Republican majority — and they can declare Coleman the winner, handing him the election just like they did for George Bush. It’s funny how all those “state’s rights” folks don’t crow about the big, bad, overbearing federal government when  it works to their political advantage.

Ever wonder how things might have turned out had Gore prevailed in 2000? I don’t think things could have ended up much morse, that’s for sure.

Here’s some interesting reading for all those folks who were so terribly upset at the pardons issued by President Clinton when he was leaving office. I look forward to hearing about their outrage now.

 

List: 19 people granted a pardon or commutation

By The Associated Press

The 18 pardons and one commutation that President George W. Bush granted Tuesday before leaving the White House to spend the holidays at Camp David:

_William Alvis III of Flushing, Ohio. Possession of an unregistered firearm and cocaine distribution.

_John Allen Aregood of Riviera, Texas. Conspiracy to harbor and transport illegal immigrants.

_Eric Charles Blanke of Parker, Colo. Counterfeiting.

_Steve Doyle Cavender of The Villages, Fla. Conspiracy to import, possess, distribute and dispense marijuana.

_Marie Elena Eppens of Lynden, Wash. Conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana.

_Lydia Lee Ferguson of Sun City, Ariz. Aiding and abetting possession of stolen mail.

_Eduviges Duvi Gonzalez-Matsumura of Clovis, Calif. Aiding and abetting embezzlement of bank funds.

_George Clarence Greene Jr. of Gray, Ga. Mail fraud.

_James Won Hee Kang of South Barrington, Ill. Trafficking in counterfeit goods.

_Alan Stephen Maiss of Reno, Nev. Concealing knowledge of a crime.

_Richard Harold Miller of Tallahassee, Fla. Conspiracy to defraud the United States.

_Delano Abraham Nixon of Neosho Rapids, Kan. Forging the endorsement on a U.S. Treasury check.

_John H. Overholt of Black Hawk, S.D. Concealment of information affecting Social Security benefits.

_Charles Winters of Miami, posthumously. Conspiracy to export and the exportation of a military aircraft to a foreign country in violation of the Neutrality Act of 1939.

_Morris Keith Parker of Georgetown, S.C. Concealing knowledge of a crime.

_Robert Truman Reece of Redondo Beach, Calif. Unauthorized absence and missing the movement of a U.S. Navy ship.

_Donald Edward Roessler of Harrison, Ohio. Embezzlement of mail matter.

_David Lane Woolsey of St. George, Utah. Aiding and abetting violation of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act.

Bush commuted the prison sentence of Reed Raymond Prior of Des Moines, Iowa. Prior was convicted of possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced in 1996 in the Southern District of Iowa to life in prison with 10 years of supervised release. His prison sentence is now set to expire Feb. 23, 2009, but the terms of the commutation leave intact and in effect the 10 years of supervised release with all its conditions.

When the White House released the pardons list Tuesday, it included Issac Robert Toussie of Brooklyn, N.Y., convicted of false statements to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and mail fraud. On Wednesday, White House press secretary Dana Perino said Bush had revoked the pardon “based on information that has subsequently come to light,” including details on Toussie’s prior criminal offenses and that Toussie’s father had made a political contribution that “might create an appearance of impropriety.”

 

Here’s a little more about Toussie: A story in the New York Daily News said Toussie’s father, Robert, donated $28,500 to the national Republican Party in April — just months before Toussie’s pardon petition.

 

 

Coal company ‘fine’ reveals some truths

A federal chief administrative law judge had an interesting take on CEO compensation. Judge Robert J. Lesnick, in approving a $1.7 million civil penalty against coal producer Massey Energy in the deaths of two miners, had some reservations.

 

Lesnick noted that Massey President and CEO Don Blankenship got a 2007 compensation package that probably exceeded $23 million — an increase of 35 percent. Lesnick basically questioned whether a $1.7 million penalty would send a strong enough message to a company that could afford to pay its top executive 13.5 times that amount.

 

Massey owns the Aracoma Coal Co., which acknowledged responsibility for 25 violations that contributed to the deaths of two miners in a fire in 2006. Don I. Bragg and Ellery E. Hatfield lost their lives working underground; most certainly, had they lived, they were not in line for a 35 percent pay increase.

 

What did their company do for them? Well, it failed to provide a primary escape way, failed to properly withdraw miners, failed to train the mine dispatcher on monitoring the air ventilation system and failed to conduct timely escape drills.

 

One thing it did do was provide a false record on when drills were conducted. There’s nothing like falsifying records when workers’ lives are at stake.

Thus, when a conveyor belt overheated on Jan. 16, 2006 at the Alma Mine No. 1, Bragg and Hatfield died. In addition to the $1.7 million civil penalty approved by Lesnick, the company agreed to pay a $2.5 million criminal penalty. According to U.S. Attorney Charles Miller, it was the largest fine ever levied in the industry, one that “should send some kind of message.”

 

But what else can we take away from this tragic episode? Miller says, “Sometimes, the pressure on production ignores the safety of the miners, and that’s something we hope to dissuade in the future.”

 

If you really want to dissuade lax safety enforcement that endangers the lives of workers, putting the responsible parties in jail would offer a great deterrent. Though that it still possible in this case, it’s probably unlikely that anyone will be charged with criminal conduct.

 

Another thing this tragedy underscores is the importance of regulations and a commitment to enforcement. The next time some federal politician rants and raves about “unnecessary regulation” and tells you the book is such-and-such thick, remember that there’s usually a reason it is so voluminous. You need to spell out in exact terms all the things that should be done, because companies often have a nifty way of getting around any rules that are ambiguous.

 

On the enforcement front, United Mine Workers officials will tell you that vigorousness in that area changes with presidential administrations. It is usually stronger under Democratic administrations than Republican ones. If you don’t believe  me, ask someone from the UMW.

 

The Massey fine and Lesnick’s comments also offer an insight into the concept of trickle-down economics. Coal has been in great demand in recent years, and profits are high. So high, in fact, that Massey CEOBlankenship got a 35 percent increase in compensation in one year. But do you think any of the people who actually mine the coal will ever see an increase close to that?

 

No way. Even if they are union workers, come contract time they’ll be in for another fight, even if their company is highly profitable. They’ll be told how they are already well paid, comparatively speaking, and are lucky to have jobs. At no time will anyone say, “We’re rolling in the green, and we believe in trickle-down economics, so here’s your share.”

 

In reality, trickle-down stops at the top.  Blankenship is more likely to get a $46 million compensation package than Bragg and Hatfield ever were to get a significant boost in wages. Or the federally required safety measures thaculd have saved their lives.

 

Paul Sunyak is editorial page editor of the Herald-Standard. Reach him at 724-439-7577 or  at psunyak@heraldstandard.com

 

The case involving Uniontown city’s finances just got more interesting, as Fayette County District Attorney Nancy D. Vernon has called upon Pennsylvania Auditor General Jack Wagner to launch an investigation. Vernon has written a guest commentary outlining her reasons for taking this action, which will appear in Sunday’s paper.

While Vernon isn’t accusing anyone of wrongdoing, she thinks someone needs to get to the bottom of all the thus-far unsubstantiated accusations of things like “ghost employees, misdirected funds, destruction of documents actions without council approval and theft.”

However, Vernon tells me that the scope of Wagner’s effort is limited to an examination of state funds that passed through city hands. Why wouldn’t the city, which just passed a whopping 50 percent tax increase, earmark enough money to perform a more comprehensive forensic audit, if officials really wanted to get to the bottom of things?

If Wagner heeds Vernon’s call for help, some people might get nervous. His is the office that documented all kinds of abuses by the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, so it has the expertise and manpower to piece the puzzle together.

Happy New Year! As I type this, Uniontown City Council is redoing the meeting where they passed a new budget that included a 50-percent real estate tax increase. They’re doing that largely because the first time around, they failed to call for public comment before any official action was taken, as called for by state law.

It’s amazing to me that any public agency would fail to follow the proper meeting protocol. Especially in Fayette County, where so much attention has been paid in recent years to doing things the right when it comes to conducting the peoples’ business.

Kudos to Uniontown businessman and resident Gary Gearing, who filed a civil lawsuit against the city over the botched budget meeting. While his suit may be a moot point once today’s meeting is over, Gearing was well within his bounds to try to hold city officials accountable. We’ll be running an editorial offering more illumination on that point in Friday’s paper. Make sure to check it out, as we won’t be publishing a paper on New Year’s Day.

On Friday, I also have a column on CEO greed. Most of my writing energy has been expended for the print product this week; hence, not much has been written on the blog.

I’ll try to rectify that imbalance in coming days, though. If you’re headed out to celebrate tonight, be careful driving — and don’t drive at all if you’ve had too much to drink. We’d rather have other stories on page one than your fatal accident.

‘Twas five days before Christmas, and all through the house; not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse.” That’s because they were in City Hall waiting for the public comment period to start during a meeting of Uniontown City Council. If you attended the Dec. 20 meeting and just wanted to wish council “Merry Christmas,” you were out of luck. There was no call for public comment.

On that day, council just happend to vote to raise city property taxes 51.5 percent. Perhaps that was their way of saying, “Merry Christmas” to the public. We’ll never know, because no one got a chance to ask.

One brave soul who dared attempt to ask questions after the meeting was adjourned, Gary Gearing of Uniontown, was subjected to what I’ll call the “You’re not worthy!” treatment from the mayor’s brother, who pointed out that Gearing was “the guy who doesn’t pay taxes.” That’s not a true statement: Gearing does not pay taxes on the Fayette Building, which is in a tax-free zone, but that exemption most certainly does not apply to the house where he lives, which happens to be in the city. Gearing was also told, “You should shut up.”

Even if Gearing was a renter who theoretically paid zero real estate taxes his entire life, which isn’t the case, there’s no legal, moral or ethical reason to exclude him from asking questions about  what his government does. This behavior continues a disturbing trend with the current council, which the mayor previously confirmed held several private meetings to discuss city business. That’s not kosher, either.

Somebody should remind council that we live in the United States of America, in what’s called a democracy. We have no king and no queen, and we’re not supposed to have any dictators, either. I’d hate to see Iraq have to invade Fayette County to free us from tyrannical rule.

Unless I’ve been hearing it wrong all these years, I’m baffled. For decades now, I’ve heard how CEOs and other top management types deserve  lucrative compensation packages, including multi-million-dollar salaries and bonuses that  alone dwarf what regular employees earn, because they bear ultimately responsibility for their firms’ success. Why,  they’re the big-time decision-makers, you see, and their keen management skills keep their companies afloat in a highly competitive economy.

So when the Associated Press reported that the 116 banks getting $188 billion in taxpayer bailouts so far gave 600 top executives $1.6 billion in salaries, bonuses and other benefits last year, I was left scratching my head. How could they be rewarded for turning in a performance so sub-par that it puts their companies on the verge of going under without federal help? Rather than be rewarded, shouldn’t they all be fired?

Take Goldman Sachs, for example. Its CEO took home $54 million last year; its top five executives netted a whopping $242 million. The company took $10 billion in taxpayer money in October. Doesn’t this subsidy fly in the face of all we’ve been taught about economics, which is that in competiitve capitalism, the best system in the world, there are winners and losers?

Sounds like some of the fat cats will get paid well, win or lose. We all should have it so good.

Or could it be that management is simply over-rated?

Thankfully, one Washington, D.C., politician is as disgusted as I am. He says, “Most of us sign on to do jobs and we do them the best we can. We’re told that some of the most highly paid people in executive positions are different. They need extra money to be motivated!” He also says these executives need a bribe “to get them to do the jobs for which they are well paid in the first place.”

The aforementioned politician? U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts. You may know him as a liberal.