10 Best Points about the 2014 State of the Union Speech

1. The president gave Congress credit for much of the successes of his administration.

Much has been said on cable news and written about on social media about the president showing a lack of respect to the Congress in his state of the union speech. We will get to that. However, what is often overlooked is the president’s sixth paragraph:

“Here are the results of your efforts: The lowest unemployment rate in over five years. A rebounding housing market. A manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s. More oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world – the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years. Our deficits – cut by more than half. And for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is." (emphasis added)

By doing this, the president made it clear that he would give credit to whoever helps him improve the economy and our national security. This was an olive branch by the president to Congress.

2. An emphasis on “opportunity” for all, not equal results.

Conservatives consistently accuse the president of being a socialist or a communist. (As social media has pointed out, with the stock market setting new records, CEOs and the wealthy doing better than they ever did before, and the middle class and poor suffering, President Obama must be the worst socialist ever.) Conservatives state that they want everyone to have an opportunity and decry the president for supposedly wanting equal results. That cannot be squared with this statement in the state of the union:

“And what I believe unites the people of this nation, regardless of race or region or party, young or old, rich or poor, is the simple, profound belief in opportunity for all – the notion that if you work hard and take responsibility, you can get ahead.”

This is a description of the basic American Dream, although toned down from “you can get rich” to “you can get ahead.” I still believe in the president’s description and I believe most Americans do as well. We all want to have the opportunity to succeed, without success guaranteed. The disputes between ideologies seem to be what the government should be willing to do to provide that opportunity. The president provided us some of his vision:

“ But what I offer tonight is a set of concrete, practical proposals to speed up growth, strengthen the middle class, and build new ladders of opportunity into the middle class.”

3. The president’s emphasis that whether Congress agrees with him or not, he will use his executive authority to take steps to provide equal opportunity for all.

“Some require Congressional action, and I’m eager to work with all of you. But America does not stand still – and neither will I. So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do.”

This is the part that has the Republicans in Congress, and Fox News, so upset. For five years they have been able to block most efforts by the president to improve the lives of average Americans. The notable exception being the first two years of his presidency when he had a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. However, many opportunities of those first two years were frittered away by the president bending over backwards to get the Republicans to agree with him. One example is the individual mandate in the ACA. This was a conservative, Cato Institute, idea to keep health care in the private sector instead of making the preferable single payer solution. The president was opposed to the individual mandate during the Democratic primaries, but backed down when he thought that was the only way to get Republican support for health care coverage opportunity for all. He was wrong. As soon as President Obama said he was for the individual mandate, the Republicans turned against it, calling it unconstitutional (which the Supreme Court wisely said was incorrect), and every Republican in the House and the Senate voted against it.

Now the president is willing to act, well, presidentially. He is willing to lead. The president would like Congress to help him, and he offers specific proposals in his speech as to how they can. But for the first time he states his willingness to go-it-alone to create a society that has more opportunity, is safer, and is more fair. In my opinion, this is at least three, and arguably five, years later than it should have happened. The people of the United States voted for the policies the president want in two presidential elections. Seldom does a president win two presidential elections with over 50% of the vote, but President Obama did so, running against the policies the Republicans in Congress want to force the president to follow. The president has had enough and is standing up for his principles without violating the Constitution.

4. The president did not allow any room for debate over the scientifically settled fact that global change is occurring.

“Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth. But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods. That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air. The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way. But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did.”

For years, the climate-change-deniers in Congress have been trying to say that the 97% of scientists who say climate change is occurring are frauds. And so our government fiddles while the earth burns. The president is willing to take the lead, without Congress’ help if necessary, by working “with states, utilities, and others” to try to save human habitability on earth.

5. The president clearly pointed out that more immigration helps the United States financially. (as a history teacher and buff, I would like to point out it always has).

“Finally, if we are serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, and law enforcement – and fix our broken immigration system. Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted. I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: when people come here to fulfill their dreams – to study, invent, and contribute to our culture – they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everyone. So let’s get immigration reform done this year.”

US history is riddled with various groups being considered the “other” and demonized with attempts to keep them out of this country. Benjamin Franklin spoke ill of German immigrants, spreading stereotypical lies about them, such as all of the boys must beat their mothers to be considered a man. However, given this historical bigotry, the first hundred years of our existence had no illegal immigrants. Why? Because all immigration was legal. Then in 1892 Congress passed the first anti-immigration bill called, The Chinese Exclusion Act. Now xenophobes are objecting to “illegal” immigrants, ignoring that our immigration law is based on both race and class, allowing more upper class white people in than lower class darker people. The president wants a path to citizenship for people who have proven themselves to be good citizens and is urging Congress to take action.

6. The president emphasized training of workers for the jobs that are available.

“I’ve asked Vice President Biden to lead an across-the-board reform of America’s training programs to make sure they have one mission: train Americans with the skills employers need, and match them to good jobs that need to be filled right now. That means more on-the-job training, and more apprenticeships that set a young worker on an upward trajectory for life. It means connecting companies to community colleges that can help design training to fill their specific needs.”

If successful, this will increase workers’ opportunity to succeed. It makes no sense kicking people off welfare (and, yes, thanks to the Republicans, unemployment), if we are not also training them to work at jobs that are available.

He even welcomes Congress’ help with this:

“And if Congress wants to help, you can concentrate funding on proven programs that connect more ready-to-work Americans with ready-to-be-filled jobs.”

7. The president indicated he might be open to more effective measurements of students’ abilities than standardized tests.

“It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test.”

The president’s education policies, which he has named “Race to the Top”, I have called “Race to the Bottom” because of its emphasis on standardized testing. My firm opinion is that standardized testing is a great way to get a country full of people willing to take orders, but not citizens with critical thinking and creativity skills. This emphasis needs to change (more projects, fewer tests) for us to really succeed in education.

8. 'I gave you a chance to provide high quality pre-K education. Now I’m going to do it.'

“Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every four year-old. As a parent as well as a President, I repeat that request tonight. But in the meantime, thirty states have raised pre-k funding on their own. They know we can’t wait. So just as we worked with states to reform our schools, this year, we’ll invest in new partnerships with states and communities across the country in a race to the top for our youngest children. And as Congress decides what it’s going to do, I’m going to pull together a coalition of elected officials, business leaders, and philanthropists willing to help more kids access the high-quality pre-K they need.”

Another point to providing equal opportunity for all, is to provide quality early education for all. There is no reason to wait until the age of six when all research shows that so much can be learned easier at an earlier age. And wealthy families make sure that their children do learn in the first six years, prior to formal school. Should a child’s opportunity be limited because their parents are poor, or ignorant of how to best educate a child? That would be neither a fair nor a just society, but it is the one we live in today.

9. The president emphasized the importance of equality for women in the workforce.

“Today, women make up about half our workforce. But they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment. A woman deserves equal pay for equal work. She deserves to have a baby without sacrificing her job. A mother deserves a day off to care for a sick child or sick parent without running into hardship – and you know what, a father does, too. It’s time to do away with workplace policies that belong in a “Mad Men” episode. This year, let’s all come together – Congress, the White House, and businesses from Wall Street to Main Street – to give every woman the opportunity she deserves. Because I firmly believe when women succeed, America succeeds.”

The president hit this correctly - our policies involving women are an embarrassment. They do belong in a “Mad Men” episode more than in 21st century America. Let’s get with it. Fairness for all.

10. The president emphasized the importance of workers earning more money.

“Americans understand that some people will earn more than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full time should ever have to raise a family in poverty.”

It is fair for full-time workers to not live in poverty. It is fair for business owners, who have been reaping record profits, to pay their workers more. But in addition, this will help the economy.

Our free market system is based on demand. If there is a demand for a good or service, someone will start a business to provide it and make a profit. If there is less demand, businesses will close or layoff workers. Demand is provided by people who need or want goods or services having the resources to buy those goods or services. This is why supply-side economics has failed for 30 years. If you give a rich business owner more money, supply-siders say, that money will trickle down to the workers in the form of more jobs or raises. But that shows a total ignorance of the way our economy works. If there is no demand for something, what business owner in their right mind would hire people to provide it just because they received money from the government? None. Economists have estimated that putting a dollar in the hands of a poor person helps the economy approximately $1.40, but giving a dollar to a wealthy person helps the economy less than a dollar’s worth. The reason is simple. Poor people need to spend everything they get for food, clothing, and shelter. The rich can just bank the money.


The president also talked about retirement savings, benefits to the military, and other issues. I would summarize this state of the union speech by saying:
Leadership, fairness, opportunity for all.

Governor Christie's Traffic Problem

Governor Christie has a problem.

Christie seems to have taken two lines of defense in the so-called "Bridgegate Scandal." 1) I didn't know about it. 2) This is not the way my administration works.

First, a description of the scandal. As you know, someone in the Christie Administration ordered traffic problems to occur in Fort Lee, New Jersey, as political retribution. The guessing on the reason for the retribution varies. One theory is that whoever ordered it was so upset at the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for refusing to endorse Republican Christie, that they ordered the retribution. Another is that whoever ordered it did it for retribution against the Democratic leader of the state senate, who represents Fort Lee. What did the Democratic leader do? She sits on the committee that considers Governor Christie's judicial appointments and has helped block the candidates he wants on the courts. On August 12th Governor Christie publicly referred to the Democrats who did this as "animals". On August 13th, the infamous email from the Deputy Chief of Staff went to a Christie appointee on the bridge authority stating, "it is time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee." Instead of questioning what she was talking about, the appointee replied, "got it."

For four days during the first week of school in September, two lanes from Fort Lee to the bridge were closed, causing severe traffic problems in New Jersey and possibly causing the death of one woman when EMTs were delayed reaching her.

Despite the uproar and the allegations of political vengeance, Governor Christie said that he did no investigation of the matter and first learned how serious it was on the morning the emails were published by the press, almost four months later. Although witty people have been commenting that Governor Christie not knowing what is going on qualifies him for a job in Washington, I don't think average voters will agree.

So the governor's first line of defense is that, like Sergeant Schultz, he knew nothing. (Sgt Schultz) Not really a good defense when you are seeking the nomination of the party who blames the president for not knowing that the website to sign people up for the Affordable Care Act would not work.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the governor did not know what his aides were up to, this brings up several other questions. After it happened, why didn't he find out why it happened? Why did it take a newspaper's investigative reporting to uncover what happened? Also, why would a Deputy Chief of Staff take it upon herself to violate state and federal laws to seek political retribution for something her boss may be upset about?

That latter question may be more of a problem for Governor Christie than the issue of whether he ordered the vengeance or not. I am assuming that whether he ordered it or not, there will not be any evidence uncovered that he did order it.

So if we are to believe this Deputy Chief of Staff took it upon herself to do this, why would she do such a thing? Governor Christie says that retribution is not "the tone" he has set with his administration. He says "I am not a bully."

Having observed Governor Christie for at least the last four years, does ANYONE within range of the media that covers New Jersey believe that? If you are not familiar with the governor's style, "tone", and ability to bully, watch the first two minutes of this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqQAB4p20lc.

Either the governor knew about this retribution in advance, or the tone he set made his staff comfortable enough with political bullying to violate state and federal laws. Either way, the legitimate question is, is this the kind of person we want as our next president? If you don't think this will hurt his campaign, take a look at these political cartoons and reconsider: Christie bridge cartoons

Observing Governor Christie in office, my only surprise is that something like this did not leak earlier.

My resignation speech

Many of you know that I have been wrestling with health issues for the past couple of years. A little over a year ago I was diagnosed with myasthenia gravis, an auto-immune illness. The severity of my symptoms goes up and down. Stress and lack of sleep make my symptoms worse. Early on, it became clear to me that I could not run for a 6th term next year. Towards the end of this summer, it became clear that I should not complete my term. However, I did want to feel a sense of completion. One project I had been working on for 19 years, the Ardsley drainage project, broke ground in September. Another project I worked on for several years, Upper Dublin’s first Comprehensive Plan, was approved this fall. Our budget for next year was completed tonight. This is a good time to start listening to my body.

I am announcing tonight that I will retire as a commissioner as of January 11, 2011, after 19 years.

It has been an honor and a privilege to serve in this office. First, it has been an honor to serve the residents of Upper Dublin, in general, and my constituents, in particular. I have been so honored to have consistently received the support of my constituents, always in an amount that exceeded my party’s registration. And you can never know how wonderful that made me feel.

In addition to being honored to represent my constituents, I want to say how honored I have been to serve with the people sitting up here and their predecessors. After working with them, and interacting with state representatives, our state senator, and members of Congress, I can honestly say that I leave office as more of an idealist and less of a cynic than I was when I was first elected.

I have found elected public officials try to do what they think is best for the public. The number of elected officials I have known who seem to have had a motive other than the public good I can count on one hand with several fingers left over. That is not to say that we always agree on what is best. We have had some pretty heated arguments on this Board. But one thing I could be sure of – commissioners were looking to do what was best for the township.

Let me take a moment to send a message to residents. When Commissioners do not do what you want, often we hear that you think there is some ulterior motive or, as was reported in last week’s Ambler Gazette, fraud. You have to realize, as I have as a commissioner, that when a majority does not agree with you, it means that you have not persuaded them that you are correct. The job of an elected official is to use their judgment to do what they think is best for the township. Their job is not to just follow your opinion if they do not agree that it is best for the township.

I also want to say how honored I have been to have the quality of staff we have had in the township. From the average employee, to the manager, Paul Leonard, and including all of our professional contractors and consultants, they have all served the public with the highest professionalism and integrity.

I would like to make a recommendation on my way out. For 19 years I have served as commissioner at a salary of $275 per month. I suggest that in January this Board consider and approve raising the salary of commissioners to what the state says commissioners of townships of this size should be paid beginning in January of 2014.

My wife tells me this speech is too long, but I would be remiss if I did not also thank Ruth for all of her support for, and, yes, sometimes criticism of, my work as commissioner. I have valued and always listened to her advice, even when I did not follow it.

From Yom Kippur services

Two readings I thought express exactly the sentiments our country needs now -

From Kol Haneshamah: Mahzor Leyamim Nora’im
The Reconstructionist Press, Elkins Park, PA © 1999

On page 579:

Prayer for the Country

Sovereign of the universe, mercifully receive our prayer for our land and its government. Let your blessing pour out on this land and on all officials of this country who are occupied, in good faith, with the public needs. Instruct them from your Torah’s laws, enable them to understand your principles of justice, so that peace and tranquility, happiness and freedom, might never turn away from our land. Please, Wise One, God of the lifebreath of all flesh, waken your spirit within all inhabitants of our land, and plant among the peoples of different nationalities and faiths who dwell here, love and brotherhood, peace and friendship. Uproot from their hearts all hatred and enmity, all jealousy and vying for supremacy. Fulfill the yearning of all the people of our country to speak proudly in its honor. Fulfill their desire to see it become a light to all nations.

Therefore, may it be your will, that our land should be a blessing to all inhabitants of the globe. Cause friendship and freedom to dwell among all peoples. And soon fulfill the vision of your prophet: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. Let them learn no longer ways of war.” And let us say: Amen.

On page 580:

What do I desire for my country? How do I vision the land I love?
Let it be a land where knowledge is free,
Where the mind is without fear, and men and women hold their heads high,
Where words come out from the depth of truth,
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls,
Where tireless striving stretches its arms toward perfection,
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way in the dreamy desert sand of dead habit,
Where the mind is led forward into ever-widening thought and action,
Into that heaven of freedom let my country awake.
Rabindranath Tagore (Adapted)

Alternative to new Firehouse

In July, the Board of Commissioners had a workshop in which we were told of the needs and wants in space and the approximate cost for fire services, library services, and parks and recreation services. It is clear that it would be extremely difficult for us to provide all of the services with a "reasonable" tax increase, even while using the former Bonsell property as a firehouse and possibly including some meeting space.

At the present time, the Fort Washington Fire Company is not always the first to arrive at the scene of a fire in the township because of their location. For instance, Horsham often responds first in Maple Glen and Wissahickon often responds first in the Ambler portion of Upper Dublin.

My thought was that we might want to divide the township into sectors and formally assign first responder status to fire companies that could respond quickest. This would go along with a state senate report of several years ago that suggested we work more regionally on issues such as this.

However, as one person with whom I discussed this idea put it, there is a difference between borrowing a neighbor's tools and deciding the tools are now mine. In other words, there is a difference between having other fire companies sometimes showing up first in UD (until we rectify the situation with a new firehouse) and instead asking them to always be first responders. To do the latter, we would most likely need to contract with them. That would lessen the work that FWFC has to do in Upper Dublin and increase the work of, say, Horsham and Wissahickon. Budgetarily, that would mean that UD would provide less funding to FWFC and more to other companies. It would also mean that we would not have to build a new firehouse and could use the property for other township needs (library? meeting spaces? parks and recreation programs?).

This is not a fully thought out idea but I am putting it out there for any of you to comment on. I would love to hear what you think. Email me at Jules.Mermelstein@gmail.com

Firehouse location petitions

On Friday, July 18^th, I received petitions signed by 182 people objecting to placing a fire station on the former Bonsell property in Fort Washington. With the facts we currently have a majority of the Board of Commissioners believes the Bonsell property is the best location for such a firehouse. However we will be gathering more information in the fall to make sure there are no red flags that indicate we should stop the process and look elsewhere. At Commissioner Damsker’s suggestion, we are holding off the design of the new station until the gathering of information is completed.

The petitions list five reasons for opposition to the Bonsell site. If I had been presented with this petition and had not been working on the fire station issue for years, and the Bonsell site specifically for the past ten months, I probably would have signed it as well. In fact, when first presented with the idea of the Bonsell site, my gut reaction was the same as those objecting to it – opposition based on perceived congestion and danger. After further research, I have come to the conclusion that instead of being an undesirable site, this is in fact a most desirable site for a new fire station. Residents interested in learning more of the facts should check out http://www.upperdublin.net/fire/firehouse.aspx. In addition to general information on that page, there is a link to frequently asked questions about the firehouse issue. In this article, I will respond to each of the five objections listed in the petitions.

1. “It is across the street from the UD High School, the area that has the highest concentration of inexperienced teen drivers in the Township.” -- That is a very true statement. That will continue to be true whether or not a fire station is placed on the Bonsell property. Firefighters are trained in how to drive in an emergency and must obey school zone speed limits when driving through such a zone (by the way, if the Bonsell site is designed as envisioned, the fire trucks will be leaving the site outside of, but close to, the school zone). To imply that it would be more dangerous to have a fire station near the high concentration of teen drivers rather than, say, a library or a convenience store, is to imply that our firefighters are not as safe at driving as are average drivers who might be coming to the site. The fire station would provide less traffic than other uses. Although there are many municipalities who have fire stations in school zones (with some near high schools), in the last ten years there have not been any accidents in the country involving a fire truck inside a school zone. We spoke with someone from a company that insures two-thirds of all fire trucks in the country and they have zero accidents in their database forever of a fire truck in a school zone. I believe this is because of the skill of firefighters. Having a large number of inexperienced drivers at one location may or may not be a danger. If it is a danger, it will not be any more or less of a danger with a firehouse located across the street.

2. “Firefighters driving to the fire station will be forced to obey 15 MPH speed limits on their way to the fire station. They will also have to go through one of the busiest and most congested areas of the Township, which will slow their response time to fires.” -- Firefighters must always drive safely. The 15 MPH restriction is only during the opening and closing of school each day, not all the time. Our estimate, based on experience, is that there will be two fire calls per week during the hours that the 15 MPH flashing lights are activated. Furthermore, those of us who drive in the township, including in that area, at various times of the day and not just before or after school is in session, know that this is NOT one of the busiest and most congested areas of the Township. Susquehanna Road, Limekiln Pike, Welsh Road, and Pennsylvania Avenue (just to name the most obvious) have much more congestion and tend to slow traffic more than the school areas on Fort Washington. Having said that, however, the township is currently in the process of trying to determine what effect, if any, this location will have on response time. The current station is located near the border of the township. So, for most fires inside Upper Dublin, the firefighters must travel on Fort Washington or a parallel road to get there. Many firefighters have to drive through the school zone to get to the station. At the Bonsell site, we believe that fewer firefighters will have to drive through the school zone to get to the station. Many of the firefighters live and work closer to Bonsell than to the Summit Station, so the time it takes them to get to the fire station will be reduced. We know that the fire trucks leaving the Bonsell site to fight a fire inside Upper Dublin will be much less likely to have to drive through the school zone than they are now. We also know that in the rare event they have to fight a fire inside Upper Dublin in the direction of the school zone, traveling throughout the school zone at 15 mph instead of 35 would add 47 seconds to their response time. However, keep in mind that a fire truck starting from a dead stop takes a while to get to 35 mph, so the delay is actually much less than 47 seconds. Overall, our research indicates that firefighters will be able to get apparatus into operation faster from the Bonsell site than from the Summit Avenue station.

3. “Other sites in the Township are currently available for a third station which could provide the coverage needed by UD Township.” -- That is true. There are also sites for a fourth, fifth or sixth station. One could argue that six stations would provide even better coverage. However, there are two problems with having three or more stations. First is that the station on Summit Avenue does not meet current standards for safety. In point 4 I will discuss why it is impracticable for us to make that station meet those standards. Consequently, to have three stations, we would have to build two new stations. The cost of that would be enormous and is not needed for our fire company to provide the standard of care we have adopted. The second reason that a third station is not practicable is that we do not have enough volunteer firefighters available to respond to three different stations. Even with only two stations we sometimes have to contact other area fire companies to ask them to respond because we have not had enough firefighters respond quickly enough to send a truck. This is definitely not a knock on our fire company. It is just the way things are.

4. “Repairs to the existing Summit Avenue station are estimated at $250,000. The cost of a new station will be over $5,000,000.” -- I have no quarrel with the second sentence as that is more than likely correct. However, $250,000 for repairs to the existing station is a drop in the bucket. This figure does not include the required structural improvements and expansion. We would have to condemn several neighbors’ properties in the area to expand the physical plant. That alone, without making any repairs, would greatly exceed the $250,000 cited in the petition. In addition, in our standard of coverage study, we found that the Summit Avenue location is not the optimum location for covering the township. If we are spending a great deal of taxpayer money to create a safe fire station, we should place it in the optimum location.

5. “Moving the Summit Avenue station to Fort Washington Avenue will mean moving the fire station FARTHER AWAY from the areas of highest risk.” – Actually, the Bonsell site is more centrally located in relation to the residential properties that this station must protect. The current location of the fire station is near the border of the township.

I thank all of the petition-signers for showing an interest in the actions of our municipal government. I hope this helps answer your concerns.

Anyone who has any further questions, feel free to email me at Jules.Mermelstein@gmail.com.