The Outpost Observer

Please, Mr. Santorum, no Luddite educational reform, please!

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Saturday, March 10, 2012 

By John A. Ostenburg

High school educators often find themselves arguing over how much of the curriculum should be devoted to college preparation and how much should focus on career training.

Parents usually jump into the conflict also, with some pressuring schools to do more to assure that the student is job-ready upon graduation from secondary school, while others want their sons and daughters to be admitted to a top-notch college, even – perhaps – to be so well prepared as to gain some scholarship assistance that will offset the high costs of today’s university education.

And now the discussion has reached the highest level of public policy: it’s become a debating point for presidential candidates.

The stage for the debate was set by President Barack Obama in this year’s State of the Union address when he proposed making it easier for young Americans to gain better job preparation and to go to college. He has said subsequent to that address that the 21^st century workplace often requires that workers have training beyond what they may have received in high school. Among his administration’s policies is funding to enhance the opportunity for America’s students to gain job skills by making education and training available to them after they’ve earned the high school diploma.

GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum doesn’t agree. The President’s “a snob” because of that plan, Mr. Santorum recently told a Michigan Tea Party rally as he commented on the President’s call for all students to be prepared to engage in some form of post-secondary education. “President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college,” the former senator from Pennsylvania told the Tea Party activists. “What a snob,” he said to cheers from the TP-folk.

Of course, Mr. Santorum had it wrong on several fronts.

First of all, the President hasn’t said that every American should go to college. He’s said that every American should have the opportunity to go to college, or to receive some form of post-secondary training, if he or she so desires. The Obama policy proposal is for the government to make sure anyone who has the desire for post-secondary education can afford to see that desire fulfilled.

Secondly, Mr. Santorum truly is mentally captured in a previous century if he thinks it’s snobbish to be well enough trained to get a job. The last folks to advocate that approach, to my knowledge, were the Luddites of two centuries ago. Really, is that what the Tea Party-goers want? To go back to a time when ignorance so prevailed that angry mobs destroyed mechanized equipment as it was introduced into the workplace of a new industrialized world?

Unfortunately, comments such as that made by Rick Santorum do great harm to the education movement in America. Perhaps it was true decades ago that entering the manufacturing workforce required little formal educational training – not even a high school diploma – but that’s not the case today. The kind of equipment found in most of today’s manufacturing workplaces is highly sophisticated and requires a trained workforce for its operation. One of the reasons manufacturing plants are coming back to the U.S. after the hiatus of operating abroad is because the new equipment needed for their operations demands a better prepared workforce than what is found in many of the countries where the companies moved their plants over the last quarter of a century. American workers offer the best potential for those plants to operate at highest levels of capacity, but those workers need to have skill levels that stay consistent with the demands of the new equipment.

Is it snobbish to think we owe our students the opportunity to acquire those skill levels?

A former boss of mine liked the adage that “Even a stopped clock is right twice a day,” and it’s an observation truly applicable to Mr. Santorum. Indeed, he was right when he told the same Tea Party group that “Not all folks are gifted in the same way.” That’s an observation that President Obama certainly would agree with. That’s why he has stressed that all avenues of post-secondary education and training should be made available to interested students. For some it’s going to be a college degree; for some it may be an associate’s degree from a community college; and for some it will be merely one or two training courses. It’s up to the student to decide, and to decide at his or her own pace.

But after sharing that one iota of good sense, Mr. Santorum went back to his old campaign pathology, telling the TP-folk that President Obama wants everyone to go to college because that way the liberal professors can “indoctrinate them.” He explained, “Oh, I understand why he (President Obama) wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.” Bet that scared the pants off a whole lot of those white folks in his audience!

If the American public can step beyond the idiocy of sound-bite statements such as that made by Mr. Santorum, perhaps we can get to the development of educational policy that deals with the true issues involving both college-preparation and job-training. It’s not – as Mr. Santorum would like us to believe – an “either/or” situation. Rather, it’s “a both/and” situation. America’s students can have both preparation for college and training for a job.

Of course, achieving that end requires that education be entrusted to the educators without the intrusion of the Rick Santorums of the world. Teachers and school administrators have it within their ability to develop curricula that simultaneously go in both directions, especially as relate to preparation for the new manufacturing workplace.

Will students need computer skills for the new workplace? Most definitely. The assembly line of yesterday has been replaced by a new assembly line that’s controlled by a touch-screen monitor and a keyboard.

Will students need good math skills for the new workplace? Most definitely. Math is the basis for most of the programming that is used in modernized manufacturing.

Will students need good communication skills for the new workplace? Most definitely. The ability to communicate efficiently and effectively is a basic requirement for almost every job that becomes available today.

Will students need the ability to think clearly and make decisions on the spot? Most definitely. Jobs of the future increasingly will require clear thinking that reaches far beyond rote memorization of mechanical procedures.

So where’s the conflict? Well, there isn’t one.

Academic coursework at the secondary level as we prepare to satisfy job requirements for the balance of the 21^st century needs to be integrated in such a fashion that the student has the necessary basic educational preparation so as to move with ease into whichever career path he or she may choose. Without question, a college education will be needed for some career choices, e.g., medicine, law, teaching, etc., and high schools need to make sure students desiring to go in those directions are adequately prepared.

When in comes to preparation for jobs in the manufacturing sector, however, a basic set of educational skills are required regardless of what avenue the student eventually might choose to pursue. If those basic skills are fostered, a student looking toward a manufacturing career can leave high school and go immediately to a good paying job; or can be prepared to enhance his or her skills through post-secondary training courses or by acquiring an associate’s degree at a community college; or can pursue college work in areas of engineering, management, or any one of several specialized areas.

What public policymakers should be doing is providing the proper atmosphere for educational professionals to develop curricula that lead to those ends. What they should not be doing is denigrating the importance of education at any level, be it pre-school, primary, secondary, post-secondary, or graduate-level.

Hear that, Mr. Santorum?

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

 

Pundits may be wrong about Obama re-election chances

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Monday, November 21, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

Every time I pick up a newspaper, turn on a television news station, or read a commentary on the internet, I hear the same thing: Barack Obama is in trouble and his re-election chances are iffy at best. 

And, truthfully, there are only two basic reasons the pundits put forth as the basis for his election trouble: (1) the bad economy that President Obama inherited hasn’t magically improved overnight, and (2) he can’t get anything through the 112^th Congress of the United States.

Now the pundits’ argument seems to me to defy logic for several reasons.

First of all, the bad economic conditions that Mr. Obama has been unable to completely turn around were created during a Republican administration and that administration played a key role in allowing them to happen. Given that fact, why on earth would voters want to elect another Republican president at this time? Because Mr. Obama can’t walk on water?

Secondly, the current congress matches the famed “do-nothing” congress of 1947-1949, when Republicans at that time blocked virtually every proposal put forth by President Harry S Truman. And know what? In the election of 1948 not only did Mr. Truman prove all the pundits of his day wrong by winning re-election, voters also threw out the Republican majorities in both the House and Senate after their brief two-year tenure of being in charge.

I think the same thing may happen in November 2012.

I happen to believe that Barack Obama has been a very effective president during his first three years in office, especially considering the huge number of roadblocks that have been thrown in his way – some naturally, and some not so. My belief isn’t based on the fact that I’m a lifelong Democrat, nor on the fact that the President hails from my home state (he may have been born in Hawaii, but he was an Illinois resident when elected to the White House and his voting residence remains in Chicago). Rather, my opinion of Mr. Obama’s performance is based on the facts.

Health Care – It may not be as complete a bill as some would have desired, but Mr. Obama’s health care initiative is the most far-reaching since Medicare was created during the administration of President Lyndon Johnson. Mr. Johnson managed to pass Medicare because he had a solid majority in Congress, which had massively gone Democratic in the elections of 1964 as an aftermath to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Medicare first was proposed by Franklin D. Roosevelt as a component of the Social Security Act but failed to pass the Congress at that time. President Truman also tried to get national health insurance for the elderly enacted but failed to do so. It was on the agenda of President Kennedy before his administration came to a sudden halt on November 22, 1963. The post-Johnson extension of health insurance to a larger population than just the elderly had been a major item for President Bill Clinton, but his efforts also failed. What President Obama was able to accomplish, with a slight Democratic majority in Congress during his first two years in office (especially given that many of those Democrats were almost as conservative as some Republicans), truly was a wonder.

The Economy – The Obama administration was overly optimistic about the extent to which the National Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 would positively change our national economy, and it shared that optimism with the American public. As a result, because the Recovery Act didn’t accomplish as much as had been anticipated, too many people view it as a failure. It wasn’t. In fact, it made major steps in stopping the extremely rapid down-hill slide that was occurring when Mr. Obama took office in January of 2009. The U.S. auto industry was saved, and that meant thousands of jobs protected. Major public works projects were undertaken across the U.S., putting construction workers back on the job and allowing them to earn money to keep their families in their homes and to keep food on the table. And – perhaps one of the most crucial components of the Act – unemployment benefits were extended for those who were out of work and unable to find a job. The Recovery Act was an investment in America and its people and it worked.

Jobs – Even before Mr. Obama introduced the American Jobs Act – a monumental undertaking that has the potential of restoring the U.S. economy to its former position at the same time that it addresses major national needs, such as infrastructure repairs and improvements – private sector jobs were on the increase. The major component of increases in unemployment over the last several months has been the loss of public sector jobs. As governments are receiving fewer tax dollars because of the economic downturn, more and more state and local governmental workers have been laid off. Jobs, however, are increasing in the private sector, at a rate of about 100,000 per month, and much of that growth is directly attributable to federal policies initiated by the Obama administration.

Terrorism and America at War – Democrats always are described by Republicans as being soft on national security. What a myth! Who oversaw the removal of Osama bin Laden and other key figures within Al-Qaeda? Who gave U.S. support to those seeking to end lengthy dictatorships in Egypt and Libya? Who has brought closure to the U.S. engagement in Iraq, restoring that nation to self-reliance and withdrawing our troops from that country? Mr. Obama’s predecessor issued a dramatic proclamation of victory in Iraq when he made a tailhook landing onto the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln; that publicity stunt occurred in May 2003, but the real end of the conflict was eight years in the coming. It is President Obama who has ended the U.S. presence in Iraq and who is bringing U.S. troops back home.

The Deficit – Republicans like to say the deficit is growing because of policies of the Obama administration. Again, a myth! The two major causes of the current U.S. deficit are (1) the hugely costly two wars that have been going on for nearly 10 years, and (2) the reduction in revenue coming to the federal government because of the huge tax cuts that the Bush administration gave to the wealthiest Americans. The current tax rate on the wealthiest Americans (those who earn about $350,000 or more) is between 30 and 40 percent. That’s the lowest since the Great Depression, when taxes on the wealthy were at about 25 percent. During the time that Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower was president, the wealthiest Americans paid taxes at a rate of about 70 percent; during Republican Ronald Reagan, it was about 50 percent. At the same time that George W. Bush dramatically escalated U.S. costs by engaging in two wars (USA Today estimated in 2010 that the cost of the two wars was approximately $1 trillion per year), he cut the revenue that could pay for those wars by reducing taxes on the wealthy. By withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq, and by seeking an end to the conflict in Afghanistan, President Obama is advancing a key component for bringing the deficit under control; by urging Congress to return the tax rate for the wealthiest of U.S. citizens to the level it was at before the Bush cuts, he is advancing the next best key component to deficit reduction.

These are just a few high points of the Obama administration’s accomplishments. And, meanwhile, there are some areas – such as education, the environment, and immigration – where solid administration proposals have been put on the back-burner while some of the more crucial issues are given more comprehensive attention. We can only hope, in a second Obama administration, that more of those other issues will be given major attention.

Whatever accomplishments President Obama has had, however, have not come without battles with his opponents. Can anyone ever recall any other president whose place of birth has been contested? Even at the highest point of anti-Vietnam protest, were either President Johnson or President Richard M. Nixon subjected to the personal insults that have been hurled at Mr. Obama? The venom that being spewed by his opponents is unprecedented in the history of the U.S. presidency.

But I think my final reason for being convinced that Mr. Obama will be successful in his re-election bid is the cast of characters on the Republican side who are vying to be his November 2012 opponent.

Mitt Romney can’t make up his mind on what be believes. Rick Perry can’t remember what he believes. Michele Bachmann can’t get U.S. history straight. Herman Cain constantly refers to himself in the third person, perhaps as a way of not owning up to some of his past questionable behavior with women. Newt Gingrich does remember his past womanizing, but says he was unfaithful to two wives because of his patriotism. Ron Paul believes in tradition: he thinks that people who can’t afford health care should just die as they have in the past. No one knows what the other two candidates think because they never gain the media attention that the six front(?)runners do.

So, bottom line? I think the pundits are wrong. I think Barack Obama will win re-election. I also think the Democrats will regain control of the U.S. Congress. Now, let’s hope that Mr. Obama and his Democratic compatriots will spent the four years between 2013 and 2017 putting in place some of those back-burner items that so far have not been given the attention they deserve.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Leading "ugly" not the answer for organized labor

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Friday, November 18, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

Public employees’ unions got a shot in the arm on one day, and a sharp stick in the eye on the next. 

The resounding vote of support for the right of public employees to organize and bargain collectively that came in Ohio on November 8 had a little of its shine diminish when only days later a video of Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) President Karen Lewis – making less than even remotely professional comments before a large gathering of social justice educators – was splashed across the internet and television news channels. In the video, Ms. Lewis makes fun of the speaking manner of U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and also brags about her extended pot-smoking during her college years.

Viewing the video is like watching an elementary school child challenge a playmate: “Your mother wears combat boots!” Or perhaps an adolescent bragging to teenage companions about getting away with an illicit act. But Ms. Lewis shouldn’t be emulating a small child or an adolescent; she should be showing the kind of leadership that negates all the unfair criticism that these days is being directed at public employee unions and their members.

My intention is not to poke fun at Ms. Lewis for her gaffe, for doing that would be little more than what she did in speaking sarcastically of Secretary Duncan’s slight lisp. Nor is it to chastise her for her confession of youthful drug use, for such a confession – in the proper setting and circumstances – could have positive benefit. Instead, I want to address the issue of how a once powerful union is slipping every day in its influence, and of how this slippage is bad for organized labor in general.

First, my own confession. I was a staff member for the Chicago Teachers Union for 15 years. I began as a communications consultant and then held positions as editor of the union newspaper, legislative director and lobbyist, head of the Communications Department, and ultimately chief of staff. I served three presidents but chose to resign when Ms. Lewis was elected, in large part because I didn’t like the tone that she had set in her campaign for the CTU presidency, but also because I felt it was time for me to move on.

During my tenure at the CTU, I didn’t always agree with the leadership on all issues. For one thing, I felt that each of the three presidents under whom I served was much too inclined toward patronage in the selection of persons who held staff positions within the union. This is a very common occurrence in organized labor, just as it is in many areas of government. Persons who work in the campaigns of the successful candidates are rewarded with staff positions, many times without any regard whatsoever for whatever skills, experience, or knowledge they might bring to the job. That’s not always the case; but it certainly is true too often.

I also was disappointed with all three administrations because such rudimentary actions of good management as employee evaluations never occurred. Nor did comprehensive long-range planning. Too much attention was directed toward grievances and matters of that sort, which actually only concerned a small portion of the total union membership. The CTU is the largest local union in the state of Illinois and has tens of thousands of members; by contrast, grievances during any year might benefit a handful of a few hundred. What about the needs of all the rest? Professional development for members, for example, garnered only a slight percentage of the union’s overall budget, even though all the members of the union regularly faced criticism – unjustly, I might add – that they were not up to par in the delivery of instruction to the students and could  benefit from more union-sponsored professional development.

But even with these areas that caused me concern, I always believed I was working for an important cause in doing the work of the union. One of the tasks I undertook throughout my years at the CTU was to spend lots of my own time reading, studying, and writing about the history of the union. The CTU will be 75 years old in October 2012; it was born in a period of labor unrest that was the aftermath of the creation of the Chicago Teachers Federation (CTF) in 1897, which was the first teachers’ union in the United States. The CTF was one of the initial creators of the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) in 1916, and both CTF and CTU members served in key roles in the AFT in the initial years of the national organization.

At the time the CTU was chartered by the amalgamation of several small unions and in its early years, educators in the Chicago Public Schools faced lots of problems. There was a period when teachers were paid in scrip because the Board of Education didn’t have sufficient funds to meet regular payroll obligations. Teachers often were hired because they were patrons of powerful politicians, and many who were serving with distinction arbitrarily were fired in order to make room for the patronage hires. The union wasn’t immediately successful in changing things – it took 30 years before the union gained collective bargaining rights and entered into its first contract with the Board of Education – but dignified and steady leadership eventually won the day and the CTU was recognized statewide and nationally as a powerful force.

During all those years, even though some folks were hired for positions within the union as a result of supporting the caucus that controlled things, the organization itself was stable and individuals moved up the ranks of leadership based on the experience they gained in posts at lower rungs on the ladder.

In 2001, the dominant caucus – the United Progressive Caucus – was defeated in the union elections and a new group came into power. While many of the persons hired by the new caucus were inexperienced, the new president herself had been an employee of both the CTU and the AFT and had a sense of what union leadership was all about. The three years Deborah Lynch served in office weren’t the best for the union – the contract she negotiated, for example, had lots of holes in it – but she managed to keep the organization afloat. The biggest problem facing the Lynch administration was that the president was somewhat alone in the area of experience; virtually everyone around her was totally new to the union leadership role.

When Marilyn Stewart was elected as president in 2004, she had the wisdom to call back into the staff ranks a number of individuals who had worked or held office in previous administrations and were greatly experienced in union matters. As a result, in 2007, the Stewart administration negotiated one of the best contracts in the union’s history. President Stewart also oversaw the greatest financial reform the union ever embraced, taking the organization from a deficit of more than $600,000 to a surplus of more than $2 million over a two-year period. Unfortunately, though, some internal problems among the officers resulted in a deep split within the union ranks and after six years in office Ms. Stewart lost her post to Karen Lewis.

Virtually no one who is part of the Lewis administration is an experienced union leader or administrator, and the problems that the CTU has faced during the past year clearly are a result of that. When Rahm Emanuel was elected mayor of Chicago in early 2011 – less than a year into the Lewis presidency – he quickly took on the CTU and the union’s leaders seemed clueless in how to deal with him. Aside from a number of antagonistic public statements, CTU leadership seemed unable to enter into effective talks with the new mayoral team. The biggest loss the union experienced was the defecting of members at several schools from the union’s position on a longer school day; as union members in one school after another chose not follow the CTU directive on the length of the school day, and instead to accept what Mayor Emanuel was requesting and offering, the union looked more and more like a paper tiger. Finally the CTU itself caved in on the longer-day issue.

Whether or not a longer school day is needed wasn’t really the true issue in the battle Mayor Emanuel was waging with the CTU. He wanted to show that he was stronger than the union and he won. A more experienced leadership at the CTU would have handled the situation in a manner that saved face even if losing on some fronts. That, in fact, is the essence of good negotiations: each side gets something in the end. As regards the longer-day issue, in the end CTU members got only what Mayor Emanuel had offered from the very start. The union appeared almost as an uninvolved bystander in negotiations between the mayor and the teachers.

Mayor Emanuel effectively defeated collective bargaining by successfully wooing teachers in some schools to follow his lead rather than maintain solidarity with their colleagues at other schools. The whole basis for collective bargaining is that the membership is represented by one voice and what is negotiated is applicable to everyone and not just segments of the membership. That concept flew right out the window in the longer-day settlement.

Now, the comments made by Ms. Lewis at the social justice gathering do even more to diminish her effectiveness as a leader, and thus to erode the power of the CTU. Leaders don’t make fun of the physical defects of their opponents; leaders don’t childishly boast about how they violated laws and customs; leaders sit down across the table from one another and work out effective solutions to problems.

If the Chicago Teachers Union fails in its purpose of representing the best interests of its members, the spin-off effect on other unions will be devastating. Soon Chicago and Illinois will be seeing the same kind of anti-union actions by legislators and statewide elected officials as have been seen in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ohio.

The CTU has been quick to offer the explanation that President Lewis comments were taken out of context and are being exploited by right-wing anti-labor organizations.

On the first of these arguments, the video itself seems to prove the contrary. There was no legitimate context for saying that Arne Duncan would have lost his lisp if he had attended public, rather than private, schools; Ms. Lewis herself acknowledged that was an “ugly” comment. Likewise, there was no legitimate context for implying to an audience that included school-children that smoking pot is a good way to “self-medicate” at times of personal crisis.

As regards the charge that the comments are being exploited by right-wing anti-labor forces, the CTU is correct. However, while it’s true that the anti-labor groups are taking shots at the CTU, it’s also true that the gun the anti-labor folks are using was loaded by Karen Lewis.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Wake up, Congress: create jobs, fix our crumbling infrastructure

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Saturday, November 12, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

It wasn’t that many years ago that “infrastructure” wasn’t a part of our everyday vocabulary.

As the nation grew, government put more and more money into roads, bridges, water and sewer lines, school buildings, parks, and other public facilities. The need was there, and so funds were appropriated to meet that need. Citizens just took it for granted that government would continue this course long into the future.

Perhaps a highpoint in modern improvements of this type was the interstate highway system created during the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower. By the late 1950s, nearly every family in America had at least one automobile, post-World War II families were prosperous enough to take regular vacations, many individuals had re-located from their original place of residence to elsewhere in the U.S. because of a job or to advance their educations, and so the President proposed a highway system to accommodate that kind of travel and he got bipartisan support in Congress to fund it.

In the years since the creation of the interstate highway system, however, not a whole lot of attention has been focused on what we now refer to as infrastructure.

During the administration of President John F. Kennedy, attention went in the direction of creating an advanced space system. During the Lyndon Johnson years, the Great Society program focused on funding social needs, and at the same time a large portion of American tax dollars went to fund fighting in Vietnam. Richard Nixon’s administration continued the war funding, and then got so caught up in Watergate problems that little else gained much attention. The administration of Gerald Ford was too brief to accomplish much; Jimmy Carter’s term in office was consumed with the developing oil crisis; Ronald Reagan thought the best use for federal dollars was his “Star Wars” missile program; George H.W. Bush got caught up in the war thing too with Desert Storm.

Bill Clinton managed to bring some level of fiscal responsibility back to the federal government but the Monica Lewinsky scandal of his administration was the catalyst for much of the partisan bickering that today has become commonplace in the nation’s capitol. George W. Bush was able to reverse some of that and gain bipartisan support when the country went into crisis mode after the September 11, 2001, attack by Al-Qaeda, but that cooperative spirit dissipated as he led America into two prolonged wars and then oversaw the collapse of the U.S. economic system.

So now we are three years into the administration of Barack Obama, suffering from the most devastating financial conditions the nation has faced since the Great Depression, and suddenly coming face-to-face with the reality that everything structurally holding up our country is coming apart and collapsing around us. It’s the worst of all worlds: we finally are recognizing that we need to spend money to fix things at the same time that money is tighter than it has been in decades.

Even complicating matters more is the fact that partisanship in Washington, D.C., has reach its zenith. At one of the most crucial times in our nation’s history, a large segment of our elected representatives is so consumed with the goal of defeating a President of the opposite party that it will not allow anything that he proposes to be successful.

The President’s jobs bill will put Americans to work improving our crumbling infrastructure. It’s a twofer: it attacks the current high unemployment rate at the same time that it makes the necessary improvements to return soundness to our infrastructure. But his opponents would rather see all those Americans remain unemployed, and see our infrastructure crumble, just so the voters will deny Barack Obama a second term in office come November 2012. It’s not a matter of public policy; it’s a matter of absurdity.

In Park Forest, our water and sewer lines are a disaster. It’s likely that we will see an all-time one-year high of almost 200 water-main breaks before the end of 2011. It costs the Village of Park Forest $1 million for every mile of water-mains that is replaced, and there are approximately 72 miles of water-mains in the town. Park Forest definitely could use some federal assistance to improve our infrastructure.

In Cook County, 675 bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. That’s 24 percent of all Cook County bridges. Cook County definitely could use some federal assistance to improve its infrastructure.

Will County has 144 bridges that are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. That’s 20 percent of all bridges in Will County. Will County definitely could use some federal assistance to improve its infrastructure.

Both Cook County and Will County have unemployment rates that exceed 9 percent. Cook and Will County residents definitely could use the jobs the President’s proposal would create.

So why is Congress dragging its feet on the jobs bill? When are the partisan lawmakers in Washington going to wake up to the realities and stop their childish games?

I just returned from the National League of Cities Congress of Cities in Phoenix where I heard speaker after speaker address lack of jobs and crumbling infrastructure as major needs of our nation's municipalities. Without adequate employment, more and more residents of our cities, towns, and villages are losing their homes. Local government is forced to spend increasing amounts of local tax dollars to deal with the problems associated with abandoned and foreclosed homes. Property values of other residents of those communities decrease as the abandoned and foreclosed homes fall into disrepair and cause blight in neighborhood after neighborhood. It's a major problem nationwide, and jobs are the solution.

In communities such as Park Forest, residents are forced to pay increasing amounts on water and sewer bills in order to replace the mains that are crumbling. Those are the very infrastructure problems that President Obama is seeking to correct through his jobs bill, with funding going directly to local communities to make the necessary improvements. These are jobs that cannot be outsourced. They will employ local residents in solving local problems.

The examples of how the jobs bill will provide relief for local communities are legion. Yet, partisan politics are preventing the solution from going into effect. It's time for citizens across the country to insist that politicians in Washington put aside their private agendas and instead focus on the needs of the people.

Unless something is done soon about the decline of America's infrastructure, more bridges are going to collapse, more school buildings are going to be declared unsafe for our children, more roads and highways are going to be virtually impossible to use, and more and more water and sewer lines are going to break. This is a situation that no longer can be put off. It's a crisis. Amazingly, Washington found adequate dollars to enter into a questionable war in Iraq. Why can't Washington find the dollars to help our cities?

For more information on what's happening to the U.S. infrastructure, and on the solutions that are needed, visit the Building America's Future website at http://www.bafuture.org/.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

More jobs: linchpin for the nation's economic well-being

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Tuesday, October 4, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

What’s behind the inability of the economy to get moving?

Economists point mostly to the fact that high unemployment results in less disposable income being available for purchases of goods and services. It would seem, therefore, that creating jobs is the best way increase the availability of disposable income and thus the best way to get the U.S. economy moving again.

Unfortunately, though, for some government officials the political agenda is more important than the economic agenda.

Many elected officials rale on and on, making noise in opposition to the stimulus dollars that went into private-sector job creation, while simultaneously adopting public policy that eliminates increasing numbers of public-sector jobs. That’s because the right-wing within American government wants to achieve two goals: it wants to throw as many roadblocks as possible in the way of White House efforts to improve the economy, and it also wants to fire as many government workers as it can because it fears that higher taxes on the wealthy are going to be needed to keep those government workers on the job.

On the first point, despite what some Republican opponents want to say about President Barack Obama’s efforts to stimulate the U.S. economy by an infusion of federal dollars into the private sector for job creation, the plan did in fact work. True, the overall effect of the stimulus hasn’t been to uplift the nation’s economy to the extent that everyone had hoped, but nonetheless private-sector employment has been on a steady increase and that has been in large part due to the stimulus plan. Mr. Obama’s opponents are livid at the thought that he will be given credit for accomplishing this result.

Meanwhile, though, public-sector jobs – in other words, people who work for government – have been on a steady decline. So government dollars are being used to increase jobs on one hand, at the same time that government itself is cutting back on its workforce and putting more people on the unemployment roles. Doesn’t it sound a bit schizophrenic?

In taking action against government workers, conservatives argue that too many government jobs are unionized and thus are too costly to maintain. Not only do they desire to cut back on the number of those jobs, they also seek to destroy public-sector unions in the process.

For those who doubt that more private-sector jobs are being created, take a look at the ADP National Employment Report for August 2011. Mind you, this isn’t a government report; it’s a report prepared by a respected private firm. It’s conclusion, “Private-sector employment increased by 91,000 from July to August on a seasonally adjusted basis.” The ADP website points out that for the previous month, private-sector jobs increased by 109,000. That’s 200,000 more jobs in the private sector over a two-month period.

Meanwhile, though, a U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report shows that government jobs decreased during the same period by 143,000.

Presently, President Obama has a new proposal for creation of jobs: “The American Jobs Act.” The bill also focuses on private-sector job creation, although many of those jobs will result in public-sector improvements. Rather than the government hiring workers to improve the nation’s infrastructure, the President is proposing that federal dollars be put into contracting with private firms for those improvements, encompassing with that the re-employment of large numbers of the American construction workforce to re-build and replace our nation’s highways, bridges, water and sewer lines, etc. Meanwhile, through employment-tax breaks, the bill also will encourage other private businesses to hire more workers.

“The American Jobs Act” is a great step forward in the effort to re-energize the U.S. economy by putting more people to work and thus creating a better stream of disposable income to be used for purchase of goods and services. A component of the bill does, in fact, also preserve a number of public-sector jobs along with those in the private sector by making funds available to hire back teachers, firefighters, and police officers who have been displaced through government employment cutbacks.

The President’s proposal, though, is not supported by all the members of Congress and thus may have a very hard time coming to fruition. For some in Washington, any expenditure of tax dollars – regardless of what effect it may cause – is something to be opposed. While it is puzzling why so many elected officials want government to create greater job-loss statistics by eliminating so many of its own employees, it’s even more puzzling that they would oppose putting dollars into creating new private-sector jobs. Do they think the economy is going to recover entirely on its own? Or are they simply hoping to stall any recovery until after the 2012 elections?

Here’s the formula espoused by the anti-Obama forces in Congress: (1) don’t appropriate any more money for unemployment benefits for those who have lost their jobs, (2) cut back on how much we spend on government jobs and eliminate as many as possible, (3) don’t let the President achieve any level of success by increasing private-sector employment. And what’s that the formula for? Ostensibly it’s to assure the defeat of Barack Obama when he stands for re-election in November 2012. In reality, it will assure the complete and total collapse of the already fragile U.S. economy. The anti-Obama forces are taking a huge gamble, using the economic well-being of American citizens as their stake.

Without more money becoming available to households across the U.S., so they can buy more goods and services, more and more retail and service businesses will close their doors. What we now call a recession soon will become a depression.

Republicans and a handful of conservative Democrats in Congress need to step beyond their narrow ideological focus and come to realize that creating more jobs and improving working opportunities for the nation’s workforce is the only viable way to get our economy rolling once again. Likewise, they need to recognize that paying better wages to workers, providing them with such benefits as adequate healthcare coverage that thus eliminates the way medical expenses eat away at income, means more dollars to be spent in purchases of goods and services and in paying taxes.

Economic well-being is a circular operation: more money in the pockets of workers means more money spent on purchases and in payment of taxes. More money spent on purchases means more money available for business to thrive, to make a profit, and hire even more workers. More money paid in taxes means government can properly perform its duties – without any profit involved – and also hire even more workers.

Organized labor takes lots of hits from many people because it supposedly is interested only in improving the lot of its members. However, improvement in the workplace for union members also means improvement in the general economy and thus improvement for business and non-union workers also. A major reason America enjoyed such an economic upswing in the aftermath of World War II was because workers were unionized, demanded and received better wages and working conditions, and then pumped more money into the general economy by purchasing increasingly more goods and services.

It can happen again. The first step is simply to create more jobs and then to make sure workers are properly compensated.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Government's role in assuring we maintain a 'green' world

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Saturday, September 24, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

“Going green” is a bit of a cliché these days. Nonetheless, what the phrase represents is as meaningful as ever. Indeed, it may be even more meaningful than ever before.

Our earth is abundant with natural resources and every one of them has been a major contributor to the wonderful quality of life enjoyed by so many. When natural resources dwindle or are altered, the results are famine, ill health, and overall deterioration of the human condition.

How ironic that man has taken many of the earth’s natural resources and restructured them into debilitating chemical combinations that have resulted in contamination of air, earth, and water. Those actions, in multiple cases, are the very causes for the land not to produce food, for the air to do harm to the lungs, and for water to spread disease.

Against this set of circumstances, how can it be anything short of a mandate for governmental leaders to fight pollution in all its forms and to promote sustainability within our natural environment.

Persons who are elected to positions of leadership within government have an obligation to look out for the common good. That’s true whether they be elected to federal, state, or local offices. Each individual has the responsibility for his or her own well-being, but the collective well-being is something entirely different. We pick leaders precisely with the intent of having them protect us from the harm that can be imposed on us by others. That’s why our military forces fight against tyrants who threaten our nation; that’s why our police officers guard us against murderers and thieves; and that’s why legislation is needed to outlaw environmental threats to our human condition.

Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1902 until 1932, once opined that “The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” That’s an admonition that all lawmakers always need to keep at the forefront of their minds. As a fiercely independent people, we Americans value the right of the individual to make decisions as regards his or her personal way of living. However, as members of a democratic community, we also recognize that each of us has an obligation to make sure his or her personal liberty doesn’t do harm to the fellow next door.

So, while “Going green” may well be a cliché, the obligation of governmental units to protect the natural resources that provide for the well-being of the citizenry cannot be viewed as a fad whose time has passed. Call it what you may, but government must develop ways to assure that our natural resources are sustained.

An effective governmental policy on sustainability must incorporate federal standards along with state and local dictums. Climate-change, for example, might best be addressed by federal legislation; guarding against air and water pollution from factories might best be handled by state officials; local leaders may be in the best position for fostering attitudinal changes among the populace through such efforts as curbside recycling, regulating lawn-chemical usage, promoting community gardening, etc. Bottom line: the gestalt of sustainability requires all governmental entities working in concert.

It’s somewhat troubling that the current attitude among so many lawmakers, whether in Washington, D.C., or in a number of state legislatures, is to insist that government should stay out of the business of environmental protection. A major reason they do so is the argument that government regulation interferes with the right of some persons to make a living. That’s the argument some lawmakers give in opposing U.S. adherence to international climate-control measures. It’s the argument some lawmakers give in opposing curtailment of off-shore oil-drilling. It’s the argument some lawmakers give in fighting regulation of air and water pollution by major corporations.

Yes, it’s true that regulations might affect the ability of the persons involved in these endeavors to earn a living by continuing them. But it’s also true that drug laws affect the ability of drug-dealers to make a living by practicing their trade. It’s also true that laws against bank-robbing affect the ability of those practicing that trade to earn more money. It’s also true that arresting “coyotes” who traffic in illegal immigration affects the ability of those individuals to earn through the work of their choice. All of those restrictions are in place, though, because the actions involved cause harm to the general welfare. That’s also the reason for governmental restrictions that protect our environment and natural resources.

In addition to enacting rules and regulations to protect the public from harm, however, government also must engage in programs that enhance good living conditions. Governmental actions to make it easier for individuals and businesses to maximize their uses of energy are in the best interest of everyone involved. Environmental research financed by tax dollars is akin to medical research financed in the same manner. Both are intended to improve the quality of life for citizens who might not be able to afford the improvements individually but certainly are better able to afford them when contributing collectively.

Lots of harmful things have been done to our environment over the years because of ignorance. Many of those who caused negative effects often did so with no harmful intent whatsoever. They thought their actions were contributing to improvements of society because they failed to see the harmful side-effects. Today’s research makes it obvious that those side-effects truly are present. No one in good conscience can claim ignorance to the harm that is being done to our environment by legions of pollutants.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States proclaims that one of the reasons behind the creation of that great document is to “promote the general Welfare,” and that’s exactly what is done by governmental regulation of pollutants and other elements harmful to our environment.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Let's eliminate the false formula for reforming our public schools

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

The reform movement within the American educational system today is based on the “SSD Formula”: symptoms, scapegoats, denial.

The non-educators who are advancing reform of our public schools are focusing on the symptoms of the problem because they obviously are not knowledgeable or experienced enough to recognize the root causes.

They look to scapegoat teachers and other educational professionals as being at fault for those very problems they themselves are unable to identify.

They are in denial as regards the numerous circumstances outside of the educational system that are major contributors to the difficulties so many schoolchildren face.

A symptom is by definition an indication of something else. A student’s difficulty in reading to grade level, for example, is an indication of something that is causing the child not to be able to read effectively. That “something” very well could be the failure of the teacher to instruct properly, but then again it also could be any one (or more) of a vast number of other things.

Education professionals recognize this reality and seek to identify the specifics behind a child’s poor performance as the best avenue to correcting a deficiency. If it’s poor eyesight that is causing the problem, they will seek vision help for the child. If it’s an inability to concentrate, they will work with the child to improve concentration, perhaps even by recommending some special programs that could help. If the child has not received proper preparation at a previous grade level, or in pre-school, or at home, they will seek remedial assistance to bring the child up to speed.

All of these approaches, however, require time and careful attention to the child’s individual needs; the problem may not be remedied immediately, for several weeks, or even for a few years. Immediate gratification may not be possible, despite what many politicians and bureaucrats who make uninformed decisions about educational policy may think or desire. Furthermore, the solution to such a situation is not simply to subject the student to standardized tests. In fact, such an action can offset the proper attention the child is receiving, or should receive, by creating a loss of confidence and thus causing him or her to give up.

Education professionals have been trained to see beyond the symptoms to identify true problems. However, when teachers and other school professionals are not allowed to make important decisions relating to the needs of their students, and the most effective remedies, our educational system fails to operate to the maximum of its potential. Therefore, problems emerge. Policymakers then look for solutions but – being unaware of the true nature of the problems – come up with schemes that interfere with teaching rather than enhance it.

Enter here the scapegoating.

Because they don’t want to admit that they really don’t know the true nature of the problems within out public schools system, let alone the solutions to those problems, politicians and bureaucrats put the blame on the very folks who have the best potential for finding solutions if they only were free to do so: teachers.

In virtually every profession other than education, it’s the practitioners who decide on the course of action to be taken. That’s why they have been educated and trained to do the work before them. Doctors will examine a patient, perhaps consult with colleagues who have the proper background and experience, establish a diagnosis, and then prescribe treatment. Would you like for Congress or your state legislature to make a decision about how you should be treated for a heart ailment? Shucks, many Americans don’t even like the notion of Congress deciding that you deserve health care insurance coverage. How would they like it if Congress were deciding actual medical treatment techniques?

When laws are made as regards standards for medicine, engineering and construction, insurance and finance, etc., professionals from within the field are consulted and are key players leading to decision-making. Yet when it comes to public education, everyone except the classroom teacher is engaged in the process.

Here’s a good illustration of what I mean. The administration of President Barack Obama has shown extreme levels of pride over the fact that the current Secretary of Energy is a award-winning scientist. Dr. Steven Chu is holder of the Nobel Prize in physics. His entire career has been devoted to science, which gives him excellent background for the work he does as the Cabinet officer responsible for the nation’s energy policy.

By contrast, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has no educational background whatsoever. His claim to fame was as a professional basketball player before he was tagged by former Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley to be an assistant to former Chicago Public Schools CEO Paul Vallas (who also was not an educator by profession). When Mr. Vallas resigned under pressure, Mayor Daley named Mr. Duncan as new CPS CEO. After that political appointment, Mr. Duncan received an even more significant political appointment when he was selected by President Obama to become the nation’s education chief. (Ironically, Mr. Obama and Mr. Duncan were acquainted because they played basketball together in neighborhood games.)

So why is professional experience and background something to be proud of in a Secretary of Energy but something to be ignored in a Secretary of Education?

I cannot help but believe it’s all part of a concerted effort to put the blame for problems in our public schools solely at the feet of teachers and other professionals within the education field. The message from politicians and bureaucrats – although never spoken aloud – is clear: “We don’t know the first thing about what’s going on in our public schools, but we can’t admit that to our constituents, so let’s look for someone to blame.”

Enter here denial.

Stop and think. When was the last time you heard a politician or bureaucrat complaining about the quality of education in a well-to-do or middle-class suburban public school district? Can you say, “Never!”

The problems always pointed to by politicians and bureaucrats are those that are present in inter-city and poorer neighborhoods and suburbs. And what’s the common denominator among the schools with problems? Can you say, “Poverty!”

Our policymakers don’t want to admit it, but the ability of children to learn in school is just as greatly affected by social conditions outside of the school as by the instructional activity taking place within the classroom. When children suffer from malnutrition at early ages, their learning capacity is affected. When children are left home alone on school nights because the only parent in a single-family household can find work only in night jobs, their performance level on homework most likely will suffer. When children live in a neighborhood where their sleep is interrupted by gunshots in the middle of the night, their attention the next day in the classroom may be lacking.

The number of college-educated parents among children in high-poverty areas is far lower than what’s found in upper and middle-class suburbs. The availability of a computer in the home in high-poverty areas is less likely than what’s found in upper and middle-class suburbs.

I am not suggesting that college-educated parents, or parents with more money in their pockets, are any better parents than are those who are found in high-poverty areas. But the ability of the former to provide for their children certainly is far greater, and as a result children in upper and middle-class neighborhoods have greater advantage than do their counterparts in high-poverty areas.

It is, therefore, fundamentally unfair for politicians and policymakers to compare the performance of students in those more comfortable areas with the performance of students from poorer areas unless they also are willing to level the playing field so all students have an equal opportunity. One very basic way to accomplish this end is to allow teachers the freedom to provide the special attention some students need in order to bring their full potential to the fore.

So, rather than addressing the symptoms of poor student performance, let’s get to the cause. We must develop methods for compensating for the endemic problems that create greater potential for poor performance by some students.

Rather than blaming teachers for the problems in our public education system, let’s recognize that they – more than anyone else – know what their children need and they know how to structure programs to meet those needs.

Rather than hiding out heads in the sand and pretending that problems outside of the classroom don’t have an effect on the performance of students, let’s look for ways to make sure every student – no matter where he or she lives – has an equal chance to achieve.

Bottom line: let’s get rid of the erroneous “SSD Formula” for public school reform in America.

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various CTU posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and/or administrator at elementary, secondary, community college, and university levels. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

To whom were voters sending a message? Barack Obama or Anthony Wiener?

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Thursday, September 15, 2011 

By John A. Ostenburg

Political pundits have been pontificating for the last several days that the special election in New York's 9th Congressional District on September 13 -- in which newcomer Bob Turner took the seat formerly held by enscandaled (it's fun to make up new words!) former Congressman Anthony D. Weiner -- is a sign that President Barack Obama's re-election is in jeopardy.

Those pundits, along with some Republican officials who like to blame the President for everything, maintain that the special election was a referendum on the President's policies. They say the fact that a heavily Democratic district, one that had not elected a Republican since 1920, went to the GOP challenger is a clear indication that Mr. Obama's policies are unfavorable with the traditional liberal wing of the Democratic Party as well as the conservative tea-party folks who have taken over the Republican Party.

But is that really the case? Was it really a referendum on the President's policies. Maybe that was a part of it, but was it really the major reason behind the victory in a heavily Democratic, Jewish district by Mr. Turner, a 70-year-old conservative Roman Catholic whose only claim to fame previously had been a stint as a producer for the Jerry Springer Show?

Actually, political history offers a much different explanation.

Truth be told, one of the easiest things to predict in American electoral politics is that when a current officeholder gets in trouble, he (this simply never happens to women politicians!) is going to be replaced by someone of the other political party. Examples of this are legion.

Earlier in 2011, also in New York, Democrat Kathy Hochul defeated Republican Jane Corwin in a heavily GOP district where a special election was being held to replace Congressman Christopher Lee. Mr. Lee had resigned his seat after bring caught placing personal ads on Craigslist in which he was shown shirtless. It was a little less provocative than some of the photos of his genitals that the married Mr. Weiner had sent to women friends, but it was scandalous behavior by the also married Mr. Lee nonetheless.

That time, the media and Democratic opinion-makers insisted that Ms. Hochul's win was because of the budget Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives had put forth, which would have positioned both Medicare and Social Security on the endangered species list.

Really, though, I think the voters were just angry because their Congressman had made a fool of them and they voiced their outrage in the best way they knew. I think that's also what happened in the election to pick Mr. Weiner's replacement.

The two New York races this year follow a pattern that's been present in several other political races in the past.

In 1980, Democratic Congressman John Jenrette was defeated by Republican challenger John Light Napier after Mr. Jenrette was involved in two scandals, one being his conviction for bribery in the Abscam investigation and the other involving a late-night sexual encounter with his then wife -- Rita -- on the steps of the U.S. Capitol. The latter event was a God-send for late-night comedians looking for good copy.

The South Carolina 6th Congressional District was in Republican hands for only two-years and Mr. Napier was defeated in the next general election by Democrat Robert Fallon Jr. who subsequently served five terms. He was succeeded in 1993 by Congressman James Clyburn who is presently an assistant Democratic leader in the U.S. House. Clearly the district is a Democratic one, albeit voters elected a Republican in 1980 to show their outrage over Mr. Jenrette's behavior.

In 1983, Congressman Dan Crane from Illinois' downstate 19th District admitted to an affair with a 17-year-old female page and was censured by his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives. Although he had served in Congress for six years, he subsequently was defeated by Democrat Terry Bruce in 1984. A married man with strong conservative political leanings, Mr. Crane was judged by many as being guilty of hypocrisy by his behavior.

By contrast, the same congressional investigation that revealed Mr. Crane's affair also revealed that openly gay Congressman Gerry Studds of Massachusetts had an affair with a 17-year-old male page, albeit a consensual one. Although he was censured at the same time as Mr. Crane, Mr. Studds retained his congressional seat and served a total of 12 two-year terms representing the Massachusetts 10th Congressional District.

Similarly, Congressman Barney Frank who represents the Massachusetts 4th District and also is openly gay, became involved in 1985 with a male prostitute for whom he subsequently fixed 33 parking tickets. He also was reprimanded by a 408-18 vote of his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives but continues to be re-elected and now is serving his 16th two-year term in the House.

Obviously, Massachusetts' voters don't feel the same level of resentment against openly gay elected officials who engage in gay relationships as other voters do toward those they view as being hypocritical in their behaviors.

In 1994, voters in Chicago's heavily Democratic 5th Congressional District gave the boot to their longtime congressman, Dan Rostenkowski, after it was revealed that he had been involved in matters that resulted in mail fraud charges against him. Mr. Rostenkowski, chair of the powerful House Ways & Means Committee, was decisively defeated by Republican Michael Flanagan. After serving 18 terms in the House, he served his last term in the "Big House."

Mr. Flanagan only represented the district for one term, being defeated in his 1996 re-election bid by Democrat Rod Blagojevich, who held the congressional seat for six years before being elected as Illinois Governor. He was succeeded by another Democrat, current Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who also served six years before resigning to become chief of staff to President Obama. The seat remains in Democratic hands today and is represented by Congressman Mike Quigley.

Again, the voters selection of a Republican in 1994 was not an indication of dissatisfaction with Democratic policy; rather, it was a protest to the offensive behavior of Mr. Rostenkowski in whom voters had so long placed their trust.

Mr. Blagojevich became Illinois' 40th governor in a similar set of circumstances. The incumbent Republican governor -- George Ryan -- was subject of a long investigation into corrupt practices and ultimately was convicted and sentenced to prison. At the time of Mr. Blagojevich's election, the Governor's Mansion had been in Republican hands for more than a quarter of a century.

Ironically, Mr. Blagojevich himself became the object of scandal when -- among other misdeeds -- he tried to sell the vacant U.S. Senate seat that formerly was held by President Obama. He was impeached by Illinois lawmakers and subsequently was convicted on numerous counts. His successor, Pat Quinn, is a maverick Democrat who is a stark contrast to Mr. Blagojevich; nonetheless, Mr. Quinn had a hard time with his election and nearly was defeated, in large part because of the anger Illinois' voters felt toward his Democratic predecessor.

In 2006, Republican Congressman Mark Foley of Florida's 16th Congressional District admitted that he had sent sexually explicit e-mail messages to a male 16-year-old former congressional page. Though he stepped down from his post prior to the election, his name was on the ballot nonetheless. His Democratic opponent, Tim Mahoney, scored a decisive victory against him in that year's election.

Mr. Mahoney himself became the object of scandal shortly afterwards when it was alleged that he had paid hush money to his former mistress in an effort to keep his affair secret. He was defeated in 2008 by Republican Tom Rooney who has held the seat ever since.

Again, the only dissatisfaction being shown by voters was against their elected representatives who misbehaved. It wasn't dissatisfaction with political policies.

The preceding are but a handful of examples of how voters have reacted to scandal by seeking change that is temporary and more a reaction to the bad behavior of their elected representatives than to any significant policy disagreements. As such, while it would be naive not to recognize that some of the voters in the recent New York 9th Congressional District special election indeed may have been expressing dissatisfaction with President Obama's policies when they cast their votes, it also is naive to think that was the major reason why the district went Republican in that contest.

Make a note to follow up on this issue next November. Will the 2012 election prove the pundits correct? Or might I be a little more accurate in my belief that the message voters were sending on September 13 was intended more for Mr. Weiner than for President Obama?

John A. Ostenburg is in his fourth four-year term as mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He retired in July 2010 as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union after holding various posts over a 15-year period. A former newspaper reporter and editor, he also has been a teacher and school administrator. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

What if government really ran as a business

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 

By John A. Ostenburg

A few weeks ago, a resident in my community volunteered that -- although local property taxes are high -- she thinks residents get a good bang for their buck.

It was an unsolicited remark and therefore one that carried extra meaning for me. As a local elected official, I most often hear comments to the contrary. Residents are much more inclined to protest that taxes are too high and that they're not getting enough back for their investment. 

The complaining types often echo the philosophy of the current "Tea Baggers," in that they claim government runs very inefficiently and should be more modeled on how business operates. As a former small-business person myself, that concept gives me pause. I know first-hand how business operates, and it's not always as efficient as some on the outside might think.

During 14 years of running a small coffeehouse/bookstore, my wife and I often dealt with suppliers who couldn't get our orders straight, with companies that went out of business often within only a few weeks of when we received their promotional marketing materials, and with firms that could care less about the small merchant and instead catered only to those who purchased wholesale items in great quanities.

Imagine if the local police department couldn't get directions straight in responding to a criminal activity in process. Or if municipal parks, swimming pools, baseball fields, etc., all of a sudden were closed down. Or if the local fire department only responded to fires of a certain magnitude or larger.

U.S. government figures show that 25 percent of all new businesses don't survive beyond the first year, that 50 percent don't survive beyond four years, and that 60 percent fail within six years. Imagine if local governments had such a record.

It's not my intent here to bash business, but rather simply to point out that a business model is not necessarily the best one when it comes to the functions of local government. They are two distinctly different types of operation, and therefore cannot be judged based on a comparison of one with the other. Business has problems unique to it, and government likewise has its unique problems. The solution for both is not to try and imitate one another; rather it is for each to develop the very best method for dealing with its own uniqueness.

One very fundamental way in which government is different from business is that government must deal with ALL of the public, and not with selective segments. Government cannot say, "We're just going to focus on the senior segment (or youth segment, or middle-income segment, or high-market segment) of consumers, because that's where our greatest return is likely to be." Business, of course, can do that.

A very good example in this regard can be found within public education, which often is criticized as being less efficient and effective than is private education. But public schools are obligated to take all students, whereas private schools can be selective. Private schools are at liberty to locate themselves in whatever neighborhood they might choose, whereas many public schools must be located in neighborhoods with both high-poverty and high-crime rates. The two systems -- public and private -- are vastly different as regards their flexibility in curriculum, mandates, etc.

Government health care likewise often is criticized as more expensive than is private health care. But again, some of the patients that MUST be treated by the public health care systems are those that the private systems choose not to treat because their conditions are too costly, because the potential rate of success in dealing with those patients and conditions is extremely low, or because the patients cannot pay the cost the treatments would require.

So, the question is, should government continue to provide services to those who have nowhere else to go? Or should government become more selective, just as is business. Doing so probably would increase the overall efficiency of government, and make services much more cost-effective. On the other hand, doing so also would mean that lots of people would not have their basic needs met.

But, to return to the gist of the comment I referenced in my opening, many things provided by local cities and towns are a good deal for the average citizen. Local governments often choose to provide their residents with benefits and opportunities that no one in business ever would offer, simply because there wouldn't be enough profit in it for them. Outdoor concerts are not necessarily money-makers, but they satisfy the internal needs of individuals. Libraries are not money-makers, but they provide enrichment for residents. Parades and festivals are not money-makers, but they create a sense of belonging. All are highly valuable assets, paid for by tax dollars, that no profited-oriented business ever would undertake.

And the costs associated with these services are relatively low when compared to what one would have to pay in a commercial setting. Compare the cost of going to a two-hour municipally sponsored outdoor concert with that of a two-hour movie at a commercial theatre. Or compare the cost of a library card with the purchase of just one book at a local retailer. Or compare the cost of 24-7 police, fire, and paramedic coverage with the costs of any privately operated security system. In every case, the value for the expended tax dollar far exceeds the value of the dollar spent for the commercially obtained products or services.

So why do Americans complain so much about paying taxes but don't scream as loudly about the costs of retail items that they purchase? I think it has to do with our intrinsic desire to be a free people. Simply stated, we don't like having someone tell us what to do. So, we don't like it when government tells us we have to pay taxes. It doesn't make any difference what we may be receiving for those tax dollars. What matters is that we're forced to pay taxes, but we can choose how we spend our money on other things.

Drinking beer? It's a choice. Smoking cigarettes? It's a choice. Going on extravagant vacations? It's a choice. Buying an expensive automobile? It's a choice. Paying taxes? It's a requirement and we don't like it.

Every once in a while, though, some folks stop to think about things the way that resident mentioned above did. When they do, they realize all that they get in exchange for what they pay in taxes. When that satori moment finally arrives, they say what that resident said: "We get a lot for the taxes we pay."

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He recently retired as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.

Viewing Theodore Roosevelt as our 'green' mentor

out·post, \ˈaut-ˌpōst\, noun: an outlying or frontier settlement

ob·serv·er, \əb-ˈzər-vər\, noun: a representative sent to observe but not participate in an activity

Saturday, September 11, 2010 

By John A. Ostenburg

President Theodore Roosevelt probably did more to create a culture of ecology in the United States than any other of our presidents. Yet, if he were alive today and undertaking some of his favorite pastimes, he'd be thought of as an environmental charlatan.

 

As Douglas Brinkley records in his wonderful biography, Wilderness Warrior: Theodore Roosevelt and the Crusade for America, TR -- incidentally, he hated being called "Teddy" -- is the reason why America today is blessed with so many wonderful national parks and forests.

 

Mr. Roosevelt was aggressive in working through the administrations of Benjamin Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, and especially his own, to set aside large segments of the American landscape so citizens of future generations might enjoy a little of that magnificent natural state that once was the American territory. Because of him, far fewer species of North American birds and animals have become extinct than otherwise would be the case. 

 

However, to the revisionist ecologist, TR must be viewed as little short of a great despoiler of wildlife. He was an ardent hunter and in his early days was fond of serving as his own taxidermist in preparing for exhibit birds and small animals that he killed. He hunted bison and bears and other animals that today are endangered; and he shot many exotic specimen of fowl that rarely are seen today.

 

Simultaneous with those actions, though, TR was highly critical of buffalo-hunters who slaughtered bison in order only to help the westward advancement of the railroad, leaving thousands of their bodies to rot on the prairie landscape; in fact, he wanted them imprisoned. Likewise, among his greatest enemies were the killers of beautiful birds whose feathers then would be used by milliners to create the latest salable fashion-ware.

 

So, was Theodore Roosevelt a great conservationist or not? Indeed, he was. Yet, he also was a man of his times, albeit a little ahead of most others when it came to elements of natural history. He hunted because that was what the men of his era did; yet he abhored what he viewed as the wasteful slaughter of animals. As much as for any other reason, he wanted to preserve some of America's wildlife so future hunters also could enjoy the thrill of tracking bison for the kill and the danger of pursuing both cougar and bear, but their meat would be used as food. Likewise, he wanted to provide carcasses of exotic birds and animals for naturalists to study and classify. But, in accomplishing all of that, he just happened to create a national system of reserves that has protected various forms of wildlife against arbitrary slaughter to this day.

 

It's not that Mr. Roosevelt was a contradiction. Rather, it's that man's view of things has evolved since his day and as such we see as evil now many things that were simply commonplace in times gone by. 

 

I use Theodore Roosevelt as an example because I think too many contemporary environmentalists are myopic in their criticism of citizens of the past for their failure to protect our environment from the damage that it has suffered over the last few hundred years. Truth is, the vast majority of our predecessors simply didn't recognize the danger incumbent with so many of their actions.

 

I was astonished, for example, when I recently read a passage from Henry Miller's Big Sur and the Oranges of Hieronymus Bosch, published in 1957, in which he stated "Even at the threshold of this new era, it has become evident to all that the resources of this planet are inexhaustible," adding that "I refer to physical resources." Now, I recognize that Mr. Miller was a master of satire and often spoke tongue-in-cheek, but this observation is one that is far from inaccurate as regards the attitudes even of many learned folks as recently as the late 1950s.

 

The lesson for us today, I believe, is to recognize that some of the attitudes about sustainability that we adhere to strenuously may be things that tomorrow's generations will see as misguided. But that's no reason why we shouldn't be trying to make things better nonetheless. We cannot abandon our commitment to improvement of our air, water, and good earth just because we might be traveling down paths that wiser persons of the future will recognize as too circuitous if not actually heading in the wrong direction. We must be TR-like in our determination to do all that solid scientific evidence and our good judgment may dictate to make our planet a better place on which to live.

 

One of the greatest annoyances for me personally is to hear someone say, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." It's been a too common position among many who oppose governmental action to preserve our natural resources. To me, such an attitude suggests that nothing ever is in need of fine-tuning and that corrective actions should be taken only after ruin has occurred.

 

When it comes to matters of ecology, we cannot wait until things are broken before we begin the fix. Should we wait until the streams are devoid of fish before cleaning them up? Should be wait until everyone must wear a gas-mask for a stroll outside before we clean up the air we breathe? Should we wait until our soil is so saturated with pesticides and other chemicals as to be incapable of producing food before we put in place laws to ban the use of such items?

 

So, just as did Theodore Roosevelt, we may in good conscience be doing some things today that will have to be altered or put to a halt in the future. However, if also like TR, we're on a course that takes at least two steps forward for every one we take back, I think future generations will be kinder to us than they would be otherwise.

 

After all, unless we make some efforts today for our planet's sustainability, there may not be future generations to pass judgment on us anyway.

 

John A. Ostenburg is mayor of Park Forest, Illinois, and formerly served in the Illinois House of Representatives. He recently retired as the chief of staff for the Chicago Teachers Union. E-mail him at JOstenburg@aol.com.