News

Articles in this section:

 

Why the distractions?

 

To the Editor:

Lower Merion Township faces a monumental budget decision in the coming weeks. Board Chairman Bruce Reed (Ward 13), Finance Committee Chair Mark Taylor (Ward 1) and Finance Committee Vice Chair Paul McElhaney (Ward 3) have helped advance a proposed budget that drastically raises real-estate taxes and hikes spending. This plan demands greater sacrifice from residents during a weak economy and piles upon years of prior tax increases.

If the Democrats want public support for this tax-and-spend budget, they'll have to explain themselves. So Commissioner Brian Gordon (Ward 12) recently penned two pieces for the Main Line Times... about Social Security and arms control.

Makes sense, doesn't it? He and other Democrats want to burden constituents with an unpopular tax hike, so why not distract them with national issues? Mr. Gordon can actually impact property taxes; no wonder he wants to move the focus elsewhere.

I'm not saying the commissioner shouldn't care about federal policy or even that he shouldn't discuss it publicly when there's plenty of time for it. But there isn't: Lower Merion will decide on its 2011 budget this month and residents want their commissioners discussing the fiscal issues they oversee.

Mr. Gordon has run for Congress before and it appears from his latest writings that his mind is still on federal governance. Before he tries to hurry up the political ladder again, however, he should try proving himself by defending Lower Merion taxpayers at this critical moment.

JEFF PENDERGAST, Ardmore

Published in the Main Line Times |December 13, 2010

Back to Top

The real problem in LM Township

 

To the Editor:

On Nov. 17, 2010, the Lower Merion Board of Commissioners held the first of two budget hearings and we learned that manager Doug Cleland has been employed by the township for 27 years. He was appointed township manager in 2002 and continues to serve in that capacity.

Since Mr. Cleland took the leadership reins, township debt has doubled, spending has increased at twice the rate of inflation and real-estate taxes have increased at more than twice the national growth rate in wages. (Please visit www.lmcrb.org to view the above chart in color.) This year, the township collected a total of $9 million more in real-estate taxes from you than it did in 2002. And now, if Mr. Cleland has his way, the township will take $3.5 million more out of your pockets each year via the 12.7-percent tax increase he has proposed for 2011.

At the first budget hearing, Commissioners Phil Rosenzweig, Jenny Brown, Scott Zelov and Lew Gould attempted to restrain spending and reduce the proposed tax increase. The Main Line Times' Cheryl Allison reported that they made 10 motions intended "to rein in or reduce spending" ("LM budget hearing: Lots of talk, no action," Nov. 18). By Allison's count, the majority defeated nine motions that would have reduced the proposed spending and the proposed tax increase. While some of the motions enjoyed bipartisan support, Commissioners Bruce Reed, Mark Taylor, Liz Rogan, George Manos and Paul McElhaney did not support a single attempt to require the township to spend less, signaling that you will most certainly be paying more.

Notwithstanding reality, the township manager continues to tell you that the township has a "revenue problem." If this budget is adopted, the township will be collecting $12.5 million more in real-estate taxes than it did in 2002 - in addition to having borrowed tens of millions more.

Revenue is not a problem; when they want more, they just borrow and raise taxes. No problem. Excessive and unsustainable spending is driving the tax increases and that is the problem.

DAVE O'CONNELL, www.lmcrb.org

Published in the Main Line Times |December 4, 2010

Back to Top

Unfair to seniors

 

To the Editor:

For the second consecutive year, senior citizens are being denied a Social Security cost-of-living increase. Telling senior citizens there isn't any inflation is a cruel hoax. Every time I see a price increase it diminishes the creditability of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiles the Consumer Price Index, and our disingenuous Democratic legislators and our president who accept this conclusion. You can be sure that the bureaucrats at Labor Statistics got their 2-percent cost-of-living adjustment, longevity raises where applicable, a matching contribution to their Thrift Saving Plans and bonuses.

As one might suppose and others may suspect, the bureaucrats who compile the Consumer Price Index calculate in order to tell Congress what they expect to hear, if for no other reason than to please their bosses and insure federal funding. There is always a way to design a survey so it will conclude one way or the other. Consider this flawed approach. The decline in housing prices is used to offset the increases in all consumer goods and services. It may give a result the administration wants to hear; however, it does not give an adequate indication of a livable and sustainable remuneration to Social Security recipients.

That being said, it is pathetic that our pretentious president ignores the devastating consequences that a Social Security freeze will have on our senior citizens. This is especially true for elders with Social Security as their only source of income. Claiming zero inflation is a deception that is reflective of President Obama's political style. His sensitivity and empathy are only insincere talking points used to gain favorable public opinion. He thinks the general public is mindless and believes everything he tells them. Retirees cannot believe inflation is zero when they see prices rising daily and the replacement costs of large assets unaffordable. Above all else and much to our detriment, there are exorbitant property-tax increases and a pending value-added tax. Much worse, we are continuing to provide welfare and other benefits to illegal aliens.

Senior citizens are not getting fair treatment from this administration. First they eliminate our justly deserved cost-of-living increase. Next they cut Medicare payments to doctors, which will reduce the number of practitioners available to seniors. Now they want to apply a means test to reduce our already insufficient Social Security payments. In the near future they intend to increase taxation.

This year President Obama is advocating a 1.25-percent salary increase for federal employees. He is aware senior citizens are not receiving any increase. Were he a decent person he would not ignore the needy and pander to the greedy. Practically thinking, our government owes seniors a 2-percent increase in Social Security retroactive to January 2010. To be fair, future Social Security cost-of-living-adjustments should match a weighted average of salary and benefits increases given to public-school teachers, federal and state employees and all other organized-labor employees who belong to unions that give large political contributions to election campaigns.

Senior citizens must play hardball to get fair compensation. Apparently the Nov. 2 election results didn't send a strong enough message to the Democrats. We must reinforce this message. If you are registered to vote as Democrat, change your registration. Let your congressman know you will not support him unless this onerous disparity between salary increases and Social Security benefits is corrected. Do not underestimate the power of public outrage. Act today; your economic future is in jeopardy.

PAUL VICI, Merion Station

Published in the Main Line Times |December 1, 2010

Back to Top

What is going on in our courts?

DeLay may get life in prison, yet Rangel gets censure and the Gitmo detainee and bomber accused of murdering 284 people may only get 20 years.

What is going on in our courts, and what is happening to America?

We need change alright. This is madness.

CONNIE WATERMAN, Narberth, Pa.

Published in the New York Post |November 30, 2010

Back to Top

Heedless borrowing and spending

 

To the Editor:

The ongoing budget debate has been useful to identify which of our elected representatives want to keep increasing spending and borrowing and which ones want to reverse Lower Merion's eight-year spending and borrowing binge. Based on the first budget hearing on Nov. 17, it looks like we can expect the board majority to drive us further into debt and call upon taxpayers to bail out local government again with a fifth property-tax increase in as many years.

Over 30 people spoke at the first public hearing on the 2011 proposed budget. Speakers overwhelmingly opposed the plan to increase spending 5.5 percent and real-estate taxes 12.7 percent. People spoke with a sense of urgency to a government that seemed deaf to their concerns and blind to their plight. The response of the Democratic board members and the township manager was enlightening but not surprising. Throughout the hearing, the township manager's gaze was transfixed to the top of his desk. His body language seemed to be telling us how indefensible this budget is. Since 2002 Lower Merion's debt has doubled and property taxes have been raised 44 percent. Still not enough, Cleland has asked commissioners to raise taxes again next year, a move that will drain $3.5 million more per year from local taxpayers. Where is all the money going? No satisfactory answer, response or explanation was forthcoming; just condescension and bureaucratic assurances that the township has a revenue problem!

Common-sense suggestions to restrain spending made by Commissioners Brown, Gould, Rosenzweig and Zelov were all defeated by a majority intent on borrowing and spending regardless of consequence. Majority Commissioners Reed, Taylor, Manos, Rogan and McElhaney failed to support a single reasonable motion to reduce proposed spending and the proposed tax hike. Can they not see any problem at all with their wasteful spending?

In letters published by the Main Line Times recently, Commissioners Reed, Taylor and Dellheim longed for the days when citizens and their government interacted in a very polite and proper tone. At the budget hearing last week we witnessed an example of their "civility." When Commissioner Jenny Brown described the divide on the board as those who, on the one hand, wanted to spend less and those who, on the other hand, wanted to spend more, majority Commissioner Brian Gordon not so eloquently declared Brown's opinion was "crap." This was a low even for Gordon; yet Board President Reed and Vice President Taylor sat silently during Gordon's rant, offering no objection to his inappropriate behavior. While Gordon's response will not be used as a teaching tool with our high-school debate team, Brown's description seemed accurate to me. Gordon's behavior will, however, cement in the minds of Lower Merion citizens the hypocrisy of the majority that currently controls our local government.

Taxpayers will remember the unseemly and fiscally irresponsible behavior of those who continue to impose more spending, borrowing and taxing. Their refusal to compromise will result in a massive and harmful tax hike. Many of us long for the days when Lower Merion was governed by responsible officials who deserved the respect of the governed.

RICHARD KAUFMAN, Bala Cynwyd

Published in the Main Line Times |November 23, 2010

Back to Top

Market better than Social Security

 

To the Editor:

I write in response to Jim Remsen’s letter in the most recent Main Line Times, entitled, “Keep Social Security from Wall Street.” I have heard no one suggest that the accounts of people currently approaching retirement age be privatized. So far as I have been able to determine, no Republican candidates for federal office have Social Security on their platforms. The only formal proposal I have seen was the George W. Bush proposal, which was to start allowing people entering the work force to invest a portion of their Social Security contributions in something other than the black hole of the Federal Government General Budget, because that is where they currently go. While the Social Security “trust fund,” which has been loaned to the government to support the general federal budget, is currently solvent, it will not remain so unless something is done. President Bush did not suggest “privatizing” anyone’s Social Security accounts, nor did he suggest investing any part of the Social Security Trust Fund in the stock market. The number of people retiring has now passed the number of people entering the work force, and the “trust fund” is being depleted. The trust fund has no cash – it is loaned to the government to support the general budget and it contains only government IOUs. Even if the government pays all the IOUs, the fund will run out of money in about 15 to 20 years, according to all economic analyses. Either a way must be found to invest the trust fund in something that will allow it to grow, or Social Security taxes must be raised. It is time to begin a serious discussion of altering Social Security to allow it to continue. Not reforming Social Security will guarantee that in at most 20 years there will be no more Social Security Trust Fund.

In order to try to get an idea of how the system might have worked if the funds were invested instead of loaned to the government, I ran a detailed exercise. I calculated what would have happened if all of my Social Security taxes had been invested in an index fund. I found that I would be able to retire now with a monthly annuity check almost twice what Social Security will pay me, and that would continue well past age 95.

Wall Street is not the enemy. Wall Street is the engine that allows the American economy (and the economy of the world) to function. It is what finances industry, growth and commerce. No socialist economy could have survived as long as it did without the existence of Wall Street capitalism. Even if all one wants to do is to invest in government bonds, Wall Street is how you would do it. It is the sale of government bonds through Wall Street that finances the U.S. government. Without Wall Street, the U.S. government – and the Social Security Trust Fund – would be bankrupt. Without Wall Street we would all be living in abject poverty. If people coming into the work force now were permitted to invest a portion of their Social Security taxes in something like index funds, their “trust fund” would actually be worth more at the end of their careers than the amount of money invested in it. Presently that is not the case. This would not threaten anyone’s retirement and could go a long way toward solving the crisis that will hit the Social Security system in about 15 years.

Mr. Remsen mentions the market dip earlier this year. Yes, dips happen. If one were to have invested his or her retirement savings in January of this year in an index fund, it would have taken a hit in May. However, that hit has now been wiped out by the rise of the market. If one were to invest and leave his or her money invested for any 10-year period in market history, he or she would be ahead at the end of that 10-year period. Do I want to trust the politicians with my retirement funds? No; definitively no. Can I trust myself to invest those funds wisely? Maybe. I’ll take the “maybe” over the “no” any day. I cannot trust my retirement future to the empty promises of politicians. I’d much rather trust the bankers and investors of Wall Street who actually create value and wealth rather than spending it down. The government cannot create value and wealth. Only Wall Street, or something like it, can create value and wealth.

WILLIAM A. WHEATLEY, Wynnewood

Published in the Main Line Times |October 6, 2010

Back to Top

Wrongheaded use of our money

To the Editor:

Recently $165 billion of our taxpayer money has been proposed to shore up the insolvent union-pension plans. This idea sets a troubling precedent that would involve us in yet another bottomless financial pit. Taxpayers cannot and should not back every investment made by fund managers. Taxpayers should not have to prop up labor leaders who dole out generous payments to their members. Pensions must be set up on a valid actuarial basis to be self-funding through the contractually required contributions by employees and their employers. Unions have already beaten up industry, business owners, local, state and federal governments and now they are coming for us, the taxpayers.

Sen. Bob Casey has proposed a bill that would provide taxpayer money to orphaned pensions for whom employers no longer pay a premium to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. If the unions didn’t waste all of their money giving to liberal-progressive politicians, perhaps they wouldn’t need to beg the taxpayers for the money to bail out their unsustainable pension plans.

GREG STRICKLAND, Belmont Hills

Published in the Main Line Times |October 6, 2010

Back to Top

Some of you may have noticed the attack on Republicans, and specifically our Commissioner Jenny Brown, in last week’s Main Line Times by Democratic Commissioners Bruce Reed and Mark Taylor. We cannot let attacks like this go uncontested and should be mindful that aggressive behavior like this is a harbinger of things to come. I responded to Reed and Taylor’s attacks (as did our Republican Commissioners) and have included a copy of that response - which was in this week’s Main Line Times - below. I ask that, in the future, you join us in standing up against this unnecessary behavior. Together, we can and will change the environment here in Lower Merion Township.

The GOP Program: Square Spending with Revenue

By Lance Rogers

After a decade of excess spending, property owners need only review real-estate tax bills to see that the policies being set forth by Commissioners Bruce Reed and Mark Taylor have failed. Commissioner Jenny Brown and other commissioners (Republican and Democrat) have been warning Commissioners Reed and Taylor for years that the township’s systemic spending problem must be addressed. Common-sense advice to align spending with revenue has been systematically ignored and now we are seeing the result of unsustainable spending and borrowing - huge property-tax increases are forecasted for 2011 and beyond. Taxes have been increased in seven of the last eight years and Commissioners Reed and Taylor cannot escape responsibility for the looming tax increases that threaten our quality of life and the ability of some to continue living in Lower Merion Township. Yet last week they submitted an attack piece against Republicans in order to divert our attention from the consequences of their excessive spending.

Commissioners Reed and Taylor accuse Republicans of being stingy with residents' tax dollars. They failed to tell you that the opposition to the excessive taxing and spending was bipartisan in each of the last two budget cycles. Contrary to their claims, Republicans recognize that services play an integral role in creating the special community we all enjoy. Commissioners Reed and Taylor would have you believe that any reduction in township spending from that proposed by their budget would translate to a loss of township services. This is simply not true. Delaying or rethinking nonessential capital-improvement projects is just one example of how we can maintain our excellent service without making the cost of living here unbearable. Limiting or postponing expensive projects like these in times of financial distress makes sense. Commissioners Reed and Taylor believe this approach is stingy and claim that the residents in Lower Merion Township do not mind paying higher property taxes. Simply put, they are out of touch and fail to recognize the financial hardships many of us are under right now.

It is not surprising, but indeed unfortunate, that these two continue to use questionable tactics in misleading Lower Merion Township residents on an important issue like taxes. When I was a member of Lower Merion’s Board of Commissioners, I witnessed Commissioners Reed and Taylor routinely mischaracterize and misrepresent opposition to their fiscal policies. They are at it again. Their attack on Republicans and specifically, Commissioner Jenny Brown, must not take away focus from the real issue facing our township - excessive spending - especially when Lower Merion residents are facing the likelihood of a double-digit property-tax increase in 2011!

Unfortunately their tactic of singling out and attacking Commissioner Jenny Brown is not out of character for Commissioners Reed and Taylor. Consider how they treated others who have expressed positions that conflict with theirs. Earlier this year they removed Democratic Committeeperson Teri Simon from her position as co-chair of Lower Merion’s Planning Commission after she disagreed with them and voiced support for reform candidates to the Lower Merion School Board. They also stripped Democratic Commissioner Cheryl Gelber of her position as chair of the Board of Commissioners’ Finance Committee after she publicly disagreed with them on the 2009 and 2010 budgets (Commissioner Taylor was her replacement).

There is something wrong when elected leaders discredit volunteers who publicly but civilly disagree with their policies. I have never seen Commissioner Jenny Brown or any of the Republican commissioners (Gould, Rosenzweig and Zelov) engage in this type of behavior. They stick to policy and the merits, and that is what Commissioners Reed and Taylor should do.

It’s time to stop the unnecessary and misleading attacks and time to start working together.

Lance Rogers lives in Penn Wynne.

Published in the Main Line Times |September 22, 2010

Back to Top

Card Check bill must die

To the Editor:

The notorious “Card Check” bill, called deceptively the “Employee Free Choice Act,” the bill that would eliminate the secret ballot in unionization elections, must die. If passed, union thugs could intimidate workers into checking a card to vote for unionization of their workplace instead of voting using the secret ballot.

Last December union thugs from Teamsters Local 929 blocked and slowed Red Cross blood deliveries to area hospitals, threatening the lives of patients in need of blood until the Philadelphia Sheriff’s Department issued the picketers an injunction requested by the Red Cross.

Before that, in November, the notorious SEIU union for government employees tried to intimidate an Eagle Scout in Allentown performing volunteer service, clearing paths in a park. SEIU tried to insist that only out-of-work SEIU members should be allowed to perform volunteer work on public land.

We do not need more union power. Unions kill jobs, make businesses noncompetitive in global markets, keep small business small and raise consumer prices. In addition, unions no longer benefit workers. In my industry (construction) non-union workers on the average make more money per year than union workers. We do not need more union gangsterism under the guise of “Employee Free Choice.” This is another bill that must be killed. Please go to www.petitiononline.com and sign the petition urging our congressional representatives and senators to kill this bill!

WILLIAM A. WHEATLEY, Wynnewood

Published in the Main Line Times |March 18, 2010

Back to Top

Health-care reasoning

To the Editor:

Nearly everyone I’ve spoken with agrees that there is much we can do to fix the health-care system. Unfortunately the Senate bill on the table only addresses half of the uninsured and includes hundreds of billions of dollars worth of pork and payoffs. Because of the payoffs several attorneys general are ready to sue upon its passage because of the unfair subsidies and exemptions for Nebraska, Louisiana and Florida. Sadly our need to reform health care has allowed opportunists to take advantage, forcing the adoption of what would be the worst bill in history.

We are owed an explanation as to why Congress must pass something with so many strings attached, resulting in the medicine being worse than the disease. I implore Congress to find ways to reduce “cost” instead of attempting to reduce “price.” They only shift cost and perpetuate the problem. The only measure I am aware of that addresses cost is tort reform and it is not being seriously considered — most likely because campaign contributions have taken a front seat to we, the people.

Moreover, asking foreign countries to pay for our entitlements is dangerous, presumptuous and embarrassing. Liberal-progressives need to understand, advancing our citizens’ standard of living at the expense of other countries (with lower standards of living) is wrong and eventually will lead to our own demise. We have heard several times that health care is a right. Our founders had identified our God-given rights and it is not. Understanding that a respectable, mature society would and should attempt to increase access to those in need, it is mankind that provides health care and insurance. No one can claim a right that would demand another to provide or finance that right.

Shifting the burden to others in our society will eventually show structural cracks under the strain.

Congress should slow down and take a serious look at health-care savings accounts (HSAs). We live in a very generous society. Sponsors and generous benefactors could contribute to people in need with these accounts. Parents and grandparents could give and pass down HSAs through their estate to their children and grandchildren. Some of us cannot afford to give someone else health-care funds but could certainly organize fund-raisers like we often do for the Red Cross for example.

An honest and good bill wouldn’t require so much pork and payoffs to pass and wouldn’t be such a challenge with a large majority of Democrat control in Congress. Our congressional leaders need to stop the insanity, restore our country’s dignity and start to listen to their citizens.

GREG STRICKLAND, Belmont Hills

Published in the Main Line Times |March 18, 2010

Back to Top

Toomey inspires LM, Narberth Republicans at Lincoln Day Dinner

After a historic presidential election that shifted power — and a large chunk of area voter registration — to the other party, Republicans might have been excused to feel a little glum.

That was hardly the mood Monday night when a beyond-standing-room-only crowd packed the Merion Tribute House for the Republican Committee of Lower Merion and Narberth’s 45th Annual Lincoln Day Dinner.

“Could there be a better time to be a Republican?” marveled one speaker.

The answer from keynote guest Pat Toomey, the likely Republican nominee to be Pennsylvania’s new senator, was emphatically upbeat.

“I think what is happening in Washington is an unmitigated disaster, but I am extremely optimistic about our future,” he told the crowd of more than 250. “There’s this great American awakening happening, and we’re all a part of it.”

That awakening, said Toomey, a former Allentown entrepreneur and three-term congressman from 1999 to 2004, is building in reaction to what he termed “the most liberal elected government in the history of the Republic” under President Barack Obama and current Democratic leadership, “a government that has attempted to take us on a lurch to the left that we haven’t seen in 80 years.”

“What’s happening is that we’ve got a government that never really believed in the traditional American model of limited government, personal freedom and responsibility, and free enterprise,” he charged, but rather “always wanted a European-style welfare state with a powerful federal government.”

“People all across the country are rising up and pushing back, and it’s clear to me,” Toomey said, “that we can prevent this from happening.”

Toomey, who lost narrowly to veteran Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in the 2004 primary, is the clear Republican front-runner to take an aim at the seat again in November. The prospect of a tough primary rematch was a factor in Specter’s decision last April to switch to the Democratic column for a run for a sixth term.

After a career in finance and as a business owner in the Lehigh Valley, Toomey since 2004 has been the president of the Club for Growth, an organization that advocates for limited government and free enterprise.

In his speech in Merion, Toomey called for a return to fundamental American principles and criticized the Obama administration and Democratic leadership, touching on the same themes as Republican lawmakers in Washington and elsewhere in recent weeks.

Those include opposition to what Toomey called “serial bailouts” of failing companies, attempts to “nationalize whole industries,” the attempt to “borrow and spend our way to prosperity,” interfering with employees’ traditional rights of secret balloting in companies undergoing unionization (the issue known as “card check”), and health-care reform.

On that last, especially volatile topic, he suggested a “series of modest reforms,” including allowing people to buy insurance “from anywhere in the country” to promote competition and enacting tort reform to lower costs, “instead of a 2,000-page, $2-trillion set of mandates.”

And finally “I think this administration is going in the wrong direction on the war on terror.” Toomey echoed some others in charging that it is adopting “a pre-9/11 mentality,” viewing attacks and attempted attacks by Islamic radicals as “a series of incremental criminal events.”

Recalling former Vice President Dick Cheney’s criticism of the handling of the “underwear bomber” incident, “I would want to find out everything we can learn about that person and then put him away for life” rather than “give him a lawyer and reading him his Miranda rights,” Toomey told the group.

There is ample evidence that many Americans are frustrated and dissatisfied with the country’s direction, Toomey said, from the rise of the Tea Party movement and the town-hall meetings, to the results of governors’ elections in New Jersey and Virginia, to the capstone event, in his view — new Republican Sen. Scott Brown’s election to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s seat in Democratic stronghold Massachusetts.

“We as Republicans have a great opportunity because of what they [the Democratic leadership] have done,” Toomey said. “There is an opportunity for us to restore the fundamental principles of our party and our country and have terrific success.

By Cheryl Allison. Published in the Main Line Times |March 11, 2010

Back to Top

What has happened to Lower Merion Township, School Board?

To the Editor:

What has happened to Lower Merion and how can we fix it?

Local government in Lower Merion, once a model for good government, is now defined by excess, secrecy and abuse of power. Residents, business owners and taxpayers are already feeling the disastrous consequences of a local government that is out of touch with the residents. Multiple pending lawsuits will make matters worse, costing Lower Merion dearly in dollars, reputation and property values.

The majority of the Board of Commissioners continues to ignore the spirit if not the letter of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act. Last week President Bruce Reed and Vice President Mark Taylor avoided public scrutiny by holding a secret meeting barricaded in Police Headquarters. Citizens who respectfully and peacefully attempted to gain access to the meeting were turned away. How contemptuous of the public they pretend to serve!

The Lower Merion School Board directors are in the midst of federal litigation for alleged racial discrimination. Just days ago news broke that the school district has enabled the laptop computers it provides to students with software that allows the district to take pictures of students in their homes. The “spying” scandal has resulted in another lawsuit.

School-district taxes have nearly doubled in the last 10 years and township taxes have risen 44 percent. In the same time period, township debt has doubled and combined district, township and county debt is now almost half a billion dollars. Lawsuits, added to excessive spending and borrowing, will continue to drive taxes higher.

There is hope for the future but it lies with us. It lies with “we, the people,” not with our government. If we want better results, we must demand accountability from those responsible for such poor judgment and poor results. To fix local government we need changes in the management of local government and in the leadership of those we elect to supervise them.

Sincerely,

RICHARD KAUFMAN, Bala Cynwyd

Published in the Main Line Times |February 26, 2010

Back to Top

Misplaced priorities and wasteful spending in LM

To the Editor:

During my time on Lower Merion’s Board of Commissioners I witnessed the negative consequences of misplaced priorities from a unique vantage point, i.e., from the inside looking out. Now that I have left the board, those consequences are just as evident from the outside looking in.

The failure of local government to perform effectively during the recent storm and its aftermath is an illustration of the harmful consequences of misplaced priorities and wasteful spending. Unfortunately it was most vivid in Ardmore. Managing the impact of a major snowstorm is no small task but is an essential function of local government. Plowing roads and parking lots should be a top priority. However, it seems that a majority of commissioners places a higher priority on discretionary projects than on the delivery of essential services.

While the board has allocated tremendous time and resources trying to “revitalize” Ardmore it has clearly lost sight of the basics, the essential services that neighborhoods and businesses depend upon. For example the board recently voted to allocate $175,000 of taxpayer money towards the construction of a fountain in Ardmore. Discretionary fountain projects are nice but effective snow removal is essential. The recent snow event was significant, but effectively managing its impact would have given our local businesses a leg up on the busy period during Presidents’ Day and Valentine’s Day. Instead customers were faced with impassable township sidewalks and treacherous township parking lots. Yet again Ardmore businesses and residents were left out in the cold.

Neighborhoods and businesses cannot thrive unless government prioritizes essential services over discretionary spending and borrowing. Ardmore too will thrive if the board majority gets back to the basics: prioritizing essential services over discretionary projects.

Republican Commissioners Jenny Brown, Lew Gould, Phil Rosenzweig and Scott Zelov have consistently demonstrated that they understand the proper role of government but if essential services are to be prioritized they will need bipartisan support from other commissioners.

If we value our quality of life, we must prioritize providing our neighborhoods and businesses with essential services before allocating our resources towards discretionary projects such as the Ardmore fountain.

LANCE ROGERS, Former Commissioner and Co-Chair, Republican Committee of Lower Merion and Narberth

Published in the Main Line Times |February 26, 2010

Back to Top

Message from Township Commissioner Scott Zelov

Dear Friends on the Republican Committee,

As many of you know, I was running for the open seat in the 6th Congressional District of PA. I have spoken with many of you, and I received lots of encouragement and support. Contributions were coming in, 2 fundraisers were scheduled, more were being planned, and a formal announcement was forthcoming. It was starting to get very exciting and promising as I geared up for the May primary.

However, between late Thursday and Friday afternoon, Jim Gerlach withdrew as a candidate for Governor, and he then became a candidate for the Congressional seat that he now holds. While this is a big disappointment for me, this is good news for all of us in the 6th Congressional District. Jim is the incumbent, he represents us extremely well, and he deserves to be re-elected. So, I have decided to no longer run for this Congressional seat, and I’m supporting Jim Gerlach for Congress.

I am going to actively support Jim in his campaign for re-election, and I hope you’ll join me in that effort. It’s important that we all support Jim even if the primary remains contested. Jim is the best candidate to win in the fall, and we want this to remain a Republican seat so we can keep the pressure on the Democrats and their big spending big government philosophy that has overtaken Washington.

Although brief, I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from this experience. I am extremely grateful for your support and enthusiasm for me as I embarked on this journey to become a member of Congress. I look forward to continuing my public service as a Lower Merion Township Commissioner.

Thank you very much,
Scott

January 9, 2010

Back to Top