steny hoyer

Left, or right, one thing that every politician- at least rhetorically- can agree upon is that we should improve our schools. America used to have the best primary school system in the world; unfortunately, this is no longer the case. While both sides of the aisle can agree that we should strive to re-capture our status as number one in the world, there is broad disagreement over how to accomplish this large and incredibly important, task.

Much of the debate has focused on issues such as charter schools, school vouchers, teacher performance pay, and standardized tests, but I feel that missing from the debate is the central issue that divides good schools from bad. There are schools in this state where students are not only expected to go to college, but are expected to graduate from high school with extra-curricular activities and numerous AP credits, and there are schools in this state where students aren’t even expected to graduate. Why do we have such disparities? Why do we have so many schools and school systems failing to live up to the promise of free, equitable schooling for the good of our nation? At the crux of it, the answer is money (and I’m not talking about in the schools, but, rather, in the homes).

This is not to suggest that I am against charter schools. In fact, I believe they can play pivotal roles in improving our public school system by serving as incubators for innovation in the classroom. However, they are not an answer in and of themselves. Simply turning public schools into private schools, may benefit certain entrepreneurs, but, unfortunately, will not solve our nation’s education woes. Similarly I think that improving testing standards (particularly to include survey data on things such as student happiness and motivation) can have positive impacts on education and that teacher performance pay is an idea, at least, worth exploring. However, one key variable (that every education study for the past 40 years has demonstrated to be highly correlated to student achievement) is missing from this equation: household income.

Should we continue to fiddle at the edges of reform? Absolutely, improving education is never finished. But, we, as a nation, need to recognize and address the role poverty has on student performance. If a student’s development is stunted by a lack of nutritional health because the parent(s) can’t afford healthy food, this has a negative impact in the classroom. If a parent has to decide between keeping the lights on and going to the doctors office, the stress of this decision will have a negative impact on school performance. If a lack of money causes a mom to leave a child with his alcoholic uncle instead of enrolling him in a pre-school with a positive learning environment, this will have a negative impact on student achievement. If a child has to traverse dangerous streets to go to the library in order to access the internet, instead of going to her bedroom- this will have a negative impact on education outcomes. I could go on, but I think the point is clear: poverty hurts educational development. If we want to see America regain its status as having the best classrooms in the world, we need to focus on reducing poverty.

Before I lay out my vision for addressing poverty, let me add why it is important that our education system improves. This may seem obvious, but beyond education being an end in and of itself, an investment in education is an investment in our nation’s future. This is particularly true as our nation has moved away from a natural resource dependent (i.e., manufacturing) economy and toward a human capital (i.e., service industry) economy. If we have a more educated workforce, we will have a stronger economy.

So, what is the best way to address poverty (thus, ensuring a more educated populace and stronger economy)? In my estimation, there are two main ways. One is to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. This makes each paycheck more valuable by adding additional value through an annual tax refund. To expand it, we can increase the means test and raise the credit limit. Second, we can invest in holistic community development programs that aim to increase the health of entire communities. President Obama deserves plaudits for beginning down this road with his Promise Neighborhoods initiative; however, a few million dollars is not nearly enough to uplift every impoverished community in America. If we are to truly address poverty, we need to be willing to take bold steps. Thirdly, I would like to add that there are myriad other ways to address poverty and I would encourage input on the subject from experts and interested parties from all sides of the political spectrum, but that first we- as a society- have to agree that, to address our faltering education system, we need to invest in poverty alleviation.

I feel obligated to point out that following my recommendations (particularly regarding increasing and expanding the EITC) would likely result in significant positive effects for our economy. Getting more money into the hands of our most needy citizens has a multiplying effect. Because poor people spend higher percentages of their incomes, such a policy initiative would have a stimulatory effect on economic growth.

There will be those that say such a task is too big and too impractical. Other may say that only a naive idealist would suggest such an outlandish step to improve our school system. They may suggest that if we just abolished teachers unions, or we just ended standardized testing, or we just made this small tweak here, or that one there, that everything would come together, our school systems would improve, and all would be right in the world of education. Personally, I think short-sighted approaches to education reform show true naivety. I care too much about this country’s economic health, and too much about equal opportunity, to watch another generation of kids raised without the opportunity to gain a quality education. My personal philosophy of governance is that every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. To turn this vision into reality, let’s end poverty.

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

Michael Swartz, a writer for the Baltimore Examiner, recently wrote up a response to my offer to drop out the race if Hoyer pushes H.R. 1826 (Fair Elections Now) through the House of Representatives, in which he argued that money in politics isn’t a problem and that I’m not a principled voter. I strongly disagree with Mr. Swartz first assertion and take exception to his second one.

MONEY & POLITICS: In his article, Mr. Swartz stated that “Money in politics is not the problem.” Well Mr. Swartz, I reckon we have stumbled upon a fundamental philosophical divide. You see, there’s an old saying around these parts that goes something like this: follow the money. The reasoning behind this is rather elementary. I think we can both agree that politicians want to be re-elected. The rarity of politically courage and the incredibly high rates of re-election speak to this truth. So how do politicians get re-elected? Through political campaigns of course. And how are political campaigns won and lost? Well political campaigns can be lost many ways- from a speaking gaff (à la George Allen) to a poorly designed strategy (e.g., Rudy Giuliani’s presidential campaign), but they are generally won by creating a good organization, effective advertising, and voter outreach- all of which take money. Consequently, politicians do as much as they can to boost their campaign treasuries. Because we have a system of privately financed elections, this means politicians must appeal to deep-pocketed political donors. Who are big political donors? Well, generally they fall into two categories: rich people and vested interests. The result of this is that rich people have more sway in our democracy than poor people. This goes against the fundamental purpose of democracy- where every person is entitled to an equal say in governance. This skewing of power is also replicated in the second category of vested interests. Because large corporations and industrial alliances have more money than small businesses and emerging industries, the balance of political power is tilted toward the former. This bias is then translated into a skewing of the free market system towards large entrenched interests and away from small businesses and start-up companies. In other words, our economy gets tilted toward propping up existing (and in some cases dying) industries and away from nurturing new businesses that drive economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Swartz is a self-professed right-winger, and right-wingers generally pay homage to the rhetoric of free-markets. If he truly believes in a free market economy, where we don’t have special tax loopholes and giveaways from politicians to their corporate interest donors, then he would support Fair Elections Now. However, perhaps Mr. Swartz, like many Republicans, is more concerned with propping up and serving the rich than he is with actual economic growth and truly free markets.

PRINCPLED VOTER: Mr. Swartz, I take no offence at your analogy of going all in with a “trey- deuce” (in fact I found in rather amusing). After all, I am told I can’t win on a daily basis. But I’m not running because I think the odds are in my favor. I’m running because my principles and values tell me that it important to stand up and try my best to hold Hoyer accountable for him immoral vote to invade Iraq, to stand up and hold Hoyer accountable for his writing into law that telecommunications companies can skip going to trial for breaking the law (a decision which goes against the fundamental American principle of equal justice), and to try and push forward the idea of free and fair elections so that our politics aren’t dominated by a small wealthy elite, but rather are governed by we the people.

It is my principles and my values that guide everything I do professionally, so I do take umbrage with this statement:

Blind ideology will come before principle, so I'm betting Andrew will get with the program and do as he's told like a good liberal Democrat by voting the party line.

Mr. Swartz, if I do vote for Hoyer this fall, it will because I believe our country will be better off with him in the House than with his opponents’ in there. Mr. Swartz, it is my principles that guide my decisions- not blind ideology. If you looked at what I have done and thought about what I am doing, I am confident you would see that.

It was my principled belief of serving the poor- to make life a little bit better for those that need the most help- that led me to serve our country in AmeriCorps VISTA. This principle can also be seen in my guiding philosophy of governance: every child, no matter the circumstances they are born into, should have as close to an equal opportunity in life to succeed as possible. It was my principled belief that Barack Obama would make the best president that caused me to give up a year of my life to work for his campaign. While I’m confident you would disagree with this assessment, you should be able to see that it was not blind ideology, but a principled and deliberative decision. After all, if I was a blind ideology guy, I would have signed up with the Democratic front runner, Hillary Clinton. Most clearly of all, it is principles and values that lead me to my current state as underdog challenger to Majority Leader Hoyer. My principles and values say not to support someone that will vote to send our military off to die without just cause, that will turn his back to the fundamental American principle of equal justice, and that won’t work to reign in the power of special interests in our government. It is my principles and values that push me not wait for someone to fill the void, but to rather take action myself and stand up for that which I believe.

So Mr. Swartz, am I “young and idealistic”? Yes, you are correct about that. Am I ever going to put “blind ideology” before principle? No, you are absolutely wrong about that. Mr. Swartz, challenge my experience, challenge my intelligence, but don’t challenge my principles because I am as principled a candidate for office as you will ever see.

I am throwing down the gauntlet: if Majority Leader Hoyer passes the Fair Elections Now Act (H.R. 1826) out of Congress, I will drop out of the race. This bill, which focuses on removing the influence of special interests from our elections, has 156 co-sponsors including Maryland’s own Elijah Cummings, Donna Edwards, Dutch Ruppersberger, John Sarbanes, and Chris Van Hollen.

I am not a single issue voter or candidate: I want to hold Hoyer accountable for his cowardly vote to invade Iraq, I believe that young people should have a hand in shaping our futures, I want to pass climate change legislation, I want to pass a law mandating net neutrality, I want to place increased focus on improving our schools, I want to pass comprehensive legislation that focuses on building healthy and economically diverse communities, I want to pass an infrastructure bill that will bring our nation forward for the next century and create jobs now, I want to curb excessive deficit spending, and I want to change our tax system to encourage entrepreneurship and close unfair loopholes. Nonetheless, I am running first, and foremost, because I want to create as much positive change as possible, and I believe the greatest change we can make is to change how our elections are financed; this is the reform that will pave the way for all other reforms to happen.

The Fair Elections Now Act sets forth a path for public financing of elections to address the quid pro quo politics of privately funded elections. Currently our system skews our free market system toward wealthy entrenched interests, limits the opportunities for regular working people to hold elected office, and costs American taxpayers billions of dollars through paybacks to corporate donors via subsidies, no-bid contracts, pork, regulatory loopholes, and tax breaks. To get politicians to serve the public interest instead of focusing on pleasing their corporate donors, we need public financing of elections.

Noticeably absent from the long list of Maryland congressmen that support Fair Elections Now is Majority Leader Hoyer. If Hoyer had- like the majority of Democrats- voted against invading Iraq, or not lied about his intentions to cut a deal with companies that spied on American citizens, or been a strong supporter of Fair Elections Now, I wouldn’t be challenging him in the Democratic Primary. Unfortunately he did vote for the unnecessary war in Iraq, and he did hypocritically cut a deal to prevent telecommunications companies from going to trial, and he continually fails to stand up to the undue influence of special interests in our political process. Hoyer’s rise to Majority Leader was primarily predicated upon his ability to raise tremendous sums of money which he, in turn, lavished upon other legislators to build allegiances. As such, he is perhaps the greatest symbol of status quo politics- a status quo politics where politicians such as Hoyer get money from corporations like Goldman Sachs in order to push legislative agendas that are in line with said corporation’s interests. This play-to-pay politics works great for wealthy, entrenched companies such as AIG, but does little to cure the ills of the common man or move our country forward in a coherent fashion.

As a clear benefactor of the current system of quid pro quo politics he has no incentive to change how our politics currently work. He has no reason to challenge a political system dominated by moneyed interest. He has no interest in wresting away political control from these interests and restoring our democracy to one of the people by the people for the people. As an outsider and a regular American citizen that cares about the future of my county, I, on the other hand, do. Consequently, I am challenging Hoyer to shift the balance of power away from corporate interests toward the public good.

I want to be as clear as I can: I am not interested in self-aggrandizement, but rather in creating as much positive change as possible. My proof is in the pudding of my offer to drop out. I view Fair Elections Now as the most effective way to create positive change- whether I create this change by becoming the next Congressman for Maryland’s 5th District or by dropping out, is of no consequence to me. Representative Hoyer, I have now provided you with incentive to join the other 156 co-sponsors to pass H.R. 1826. If you do, I will gladly drop out of the race; if, on the other hand, you make no concerted effort to move forward with this bill, I will take it as further proof that you are more interested in personal political gain than creating the change our country needs.

Sincerely,

Andrew Gall
Democratic Candidate for Congress (MD-05)
www.andrewforcongress.org

In an episode of ABC’s news program This Week on Sunday morning, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Minority Leader John Boehner predictably struck tones of both cooperation and opposition when discussing the issues of the day. But what Democrats across the country were waiting and hoping to see in their party’s leader in Congress – a strident, outspoken voice for progressive values in regards to the issues and controversies of our time – did not materialize. Instead, Rep. Hoyer gave his audience of viewers the same lukewarm defense of the administration’s policies on issues from the economy to the oil spill to Israel’s recent attack on the Gaza flotilla. He failed to advocate the values that the people of Maryland’s 5th District sent him to Congress to fight for, and House Democrats chose him to lead their caucus to speak out for each and every day in the Capitol and on the floor of the House of Representatives.

At the end of the interview, Rep. Hoyer predicted that Democrats would “keep the House” this fall. My hope is that will be the case, and that the Democratic caucus will have the opportunity to keep working to solve the problems we face and make progress towards solving the problems that deeply affect America. But a majority of seats in Congress does us no good if our members are not fighting every day to improve the quality of life for all their constituents and equal opportunity for everyone. We cannot afford a majority of Democrats-in-name-only in these times that are so critical to our country’s and our generation’s future, and that is why I am running to bring a new voice to Congress for the people of Maryland’s 5th District, and a new generation of leadership to Washington, D.C.

Bumped. Ian Storrar, COO of Mobilize.org, invites you to apply for a grant summit in Chicago. - Karlo

On Friday I attended a reception with Majority Leader Hoyer’s staff at the Capitol, along with many of my friends and colleagues in the youth empowerment movement. In July, Majority Leaders Hoyer keynoted at the 80 Million Strong For Young American Jobs summit where over 100 Millennials engaged with him on some of the most pressing issues of our day. On Thursday, I attended a hearing of the House Education and Labor Committee (see Karlo Marcelo’s coverage on FM). My fellow Co-Chair of 80 Million Strong, Matthew Segal, testified about the huge disparity in unemployment across generations that leaves the Millennial Generation ill-equipped to tackle the economic and personal financial barriers of the near and long-term future.

Let’s turn to Chicago, not to dissect the 2016 Olympics but because this November 18th to 20th Mobilize.org will be holding another summit for young leaders in our generation to tackle economic problems. Democracy 2.0: Exploring the Millennial Generation’s Return on Investment (ROI) will bring together 150 people, many of whom were in DC this July, to discuss the barriers to our collective financial health and then compete for Democracy 2.0 Awards ($25,000 is available) to implement their ideas at the grassroots and netroots levels. The issues we will address range from healthcare and medicare/-aid to personal financial education and taxes.

The Peter G. Peterson Foundation sponsors Exploring Millennial ROI so, for selected summit participants who need it, travel expenses will be paid. We’re also excited to have an intergenerational partner in AARPs Lifetuner. The application form for the Summit is open until October 17th and anyone interested in competing for an Award should fill out a separate form with their proposal outline. I’m always happy to talk with anyone who’s interested and/or has questions (202 736 5703) or email ian@mobilize.org.

This is the year for dealing with these issues and pushing bold, innovative ideas. Demos is holding A Better Deal in Washington, DC I two weeks. You should go, I am. From there, let’s go to Chicago and cement our commitment to making change happen through collaborative approaches to our tough fiscal times.