Why Not Support Wertz?

During political campaigning, it is important to gain the backing of one's political party. Without this support, it becomes difficult to raise money in order to organize a competitive and successful campaign.

Matt Wertz, the Republican challenger of Democrat Tim Holden in the District Seventeen race, found this out the hard way. In Wertz's recently failed campaign, he was unable to raise money and gain the support that is so important from his political party. In a recent interview, Wertz offered his thoughts on why he was unable to gain support from the Republican Party.

When asked, "Did you feel as if you had the backing of the Republican Party," Wertz responded, "The short answer is, no." He then went on to provide a deeper analysis. Wertz said that the Republican Party was less than willing to put funds into his campaign chest partly because of the "stunning defeat of Rep. George Gekas in 2002, and a poor showing trying to get Scott Paterno elected in 2004." This statement basically implies that if George Gekas and Scott Paterno, with name recognition, party support, and abundant campaign funds, can not unseat Tim Holden, then a marginal candidate, like Matt Wertz, stands no chance against Holden.

Also in response to the above question, Wertz said, "The information that I received from a well-placed source was that all the major players in the community (I'm talking Republicans here) like Tim, and see no reason to change congressmen. They appreciate and admire my military record, but they like Tim." This quote is meant to show the difficulties that Wertz encountered as a challenger attempting to unseat a popular incumbent. Wertz also blamed his lack of support on his inability to form a professional campaign team. He mentioned that he had "no lead time," and in order for candidates to run a successful campaign they need "at least eighteen months prep time to get supporters, volunteers, etc."

Therefore, Wertz blames his inability to gain the support of the Republican Party on three reasons in particular. The first reason is that history was against him. If well funded, popular Republican candidates were unable to defeat Holden, then Wertz's chances of winning as a marginal candidate were very slim. The second reason is simply that Tim Holden is popular. Democrat, as well as some Republican voters, saw no justifiable reason to remove Holden from office, thus dooming Wertz's campaign from the start. Finally, the third reason why Wertz could not gain the backing of the Republican Party was his failure at organizing a professional campaign team. It is these three reasons that Matt Wertz highlighted to explain his lack of support for the Republican Party.

Aaron Warchal

Gerlach vs. Murphy (Election Night)

Since the candidates were announced for the 2006 Congressional Election, everyone in the United States and in the Sixth Congressional district knew the Murphy and Gerlach race would be close. After Republican Jim Gerlach defeated Democratic candidate Lois Murphy in 2004 by a very slim margin, the 2006 election was thought to be even more competitive. Throughout the months of August, September, and October Murphy and Gerlach both flip-flopped in taking the lead. Approaching the November 7, 2006 election Gerlach had taken the lead in the polls with a 51% to 49% lead over Murphy. Though polls are not always accurate, they predicted this race correct.

The night of November 7, 2006 Lois Murphy had taken a commanding lead over Gerlach most of the evening. Half of the precincts within the sixth district hadn't reported their results, but the race was still not looking good for Gerlach. Around 11:45 p.m. all of the precincts had finally reported in their polling results. At 12:00 p.m. it became official that Jim Gerlach had once again defeated Lois Murphy with a 51% to 49% victory. This was a surprising but gratifying win for Gerlach and the Republican Party.

The Gerlach and Murphy race was the tenth most expensive race in the entire nation. Both the Republican and Democratic parties knew that this would once again be a tight race so they contributed a lot of money to both candidates. The Republican National Committee gave Gerlach a significant amount of funding the last three weeks of his campaign due to the overwhelming lead that the Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey Jr. had over Rick Santorum. The Republicans pulled funding from Santorum's campaign and gave the money to Gerlach so he could campaign to the people heavily before the election. On Monday November 6, 2006 Gerlach ran an ad in the Reading Eagle newspaper which listed all of his achievements while in office and why the people of the sixth district should vote him into office for a third term.

The Democrats did the same for Lois Murphy. Funding for un-opposed candidate Tim Holden was pulled from his campaign and given to Lois Murphy. The success of Republican Jim Gerlach came quite unexpectedly. His defeat of Murphy came during an election where the Democratic Party was supposed to defeat the Republican party and take over the House and quite possibly the Senate, it is quite remarkable that such a close race did not favor the Democratic candidate. Gerlach won by 3,001 votes. He won Berks, Lehigh, and Chester counties by a significant, yet close count. In Berks county Gerlach won by 54% to 46% and in Lehigh with his largest victory of 60% to 40%. In Chester county Gerlach won 55% of the votes while Murphy settled for 45% of the ballot. Montgomery County leaned heavily Democratic in all races this election, as it usually does. Murphy received 59% of the vote in Montgomery County while Gerlach only picked up 41%. There have been a few speculations as to why a Republican won over a Democratic candidate in an election where the House of Representatives and Senate were in jeopardy of changing political control.

Some believe that Murphy lost because she was a woman. Though we live in the twenty first century a lot of people are still hesitant about a woman replacing a man in political offices. Others believe that Gerlach's aggressive campaigning within the last three weeks of the election helped him get supporters out to the polls. Perhaps Gerlach's creative pamphlets and other campaign material set him farther ahead of Murphy. Since Gerlach defeated Murphy by 51% to 49% again, it is safe to presume that both Gerlach and Murphy had the same supporters as the 2004 election. The Gerlach and Murphy race was one of the most watched throughout the entire nation. This race was watched very closely because the incumbent Jim Gerlach was in danger of losing his seat in Congress. Once a politician becomes an incumbent it is very hard to replace them. However, after the sixth district was redrawn in 2002 by the Republican Party, the district was thought to be an easy Republican win, but instead became one of the few swing districts. With Murphy's strong backing from the Democratic Party all eyes were on the sixth district. Yet, despite the Democratic Party's efforts, Murphy came up short once again in this election.

Cathy Faust

Holden vs. Wertz (cont)

Despite Matt Wertz's initial enthusiasm to run for Congress, he experienced some difficulties while campaigning. His decision to stop actively campaigning for the 17th Congressional District seat was made public on Wednesday, September 20th. The Lebanon Daily News reported that Wertz's decision to withdraw was due to health and family reasons. Chris Tarsa, the Lebanon County Democratic Committee Chairman, made some allegations that Wertz was treated poorly by the Republican Party. But in response to this, Wertz said, "I got as much support as any other candidate, although I was told that I was running against the Timothy Holden." This statement implies that although Wertz received support from the Republican Party, the Party did not hide the fact that it would be difficult to unseat Tim Holden.

The Morning Call newspaper of Allentown reported that Wertz would not elaborate on his decision to withdraw from the race. Earlier information indicated that Wertz's campaign was going to be difficult from the start. Charles Gerow, a Harrisburg political consultant who briefly served as an advisor to Wertz, said, "I told him, you're starting several months late and you have no name recognition; other than that, you're doing fine." The Reading Eagle reported that Berks County Republican Party Chairman, Ronald C. Stanko said, "All indications were that Wertz should have made his decision (to withdraw) right after he won the primary because he didn't seem to enlist the support of anyone in the party to marshal an effort that would have made him a credible candidate." Also, the Reading Eagle reported on July 30th that Wertz was "hobbled by fundraising woes" comparing his campaign cash to that raised by Tim Holden.

When Tim Holden was asked by the Reading Eagle what he thought of the situation in late July, Holden said, "I'm taking the race seriously, but obviously it's different looking at a candidate with $1,200 in the bank than looking at a candidate with $1 million in the bank and a famous last name." Also according to the Reading Eagle, upon hearing the news of Wertz's withdrawal in September, Holden said, "I'm sorry to hear about his health problems and wish him the best. I know there wasn't much of an active campaign going on, but the reality is that Mr. Wertz's name will be on the ballot, and I intend to campaign as I have always campaigned."

But the simple fact remains that it would have been difficult for any Republican to unseat Holden in the 17th District. Most Democrats and Republicans agree that Holden has a lock on the 17th Congressional District. The Reading Eagle reported that when John C. Davies, a former Republican state representative from western Berks County, asked former lawmakers and lobbyists to donate to Wertz's campaign, the response was that "most believed that Holden had a secure grip on the district, declined to donate, and admitted they were even backing Holden."

Republican officials admit that if Wertz would have announced his withdrawal in August, then they could have scrambled to find a replacement candidate. Yet, the chairman of the Lebanon County Republican Committee, Joe McDonald, said, "We just won't have a candidate in November." More on Holden's campaign tactics will be presented in the next web log.

Aaron Warchal

Rendell vs. Swann on Education

Educational reform is an important issue in any race, no matter if it is at the local, state, or federal level. Reforming and funding education is an important issue that many Pennsylvania voters are concerned about. The majority of candidates who run for public office have some sort of plan or plans concerning reforming education. Lynn Swann (R) who ran for Governor of Pennsylvania had outlined a plan to improve education in the state. For Swann the state needs to do more then just give schools money. He wants each school to be accountable for every cent that they spent; he wants the state to track what programs the schools invest in. For Swann the money should go into programs that will have a lasting effect on our students.

One program that Swann wants to expand on is the EITC (Educational Improvement Tax Credits) program, which provides tax credits for companies who invest in Pennsylvania schools. Over the last four years EITC program has invested over 200 million in educational support. Many of these companies' provide/donate supplies like computers and technological equipment to the schools at a small cost or at no cost. For example many publishing companies donate or cut the prize on textbooks, software, and workbooks, and teaching supplies.

Other companies just sponsor programs, which raise money for local schools in their area. Other companies/business help schools raise money through magazine sales, candy sales etc. The purpose of the program is to encourage more companies to invest in Pennsylvania schools, and in-turn they will receive a tax cut. According Swann, many companies have been turn away from contributing to the educational programs, because of the Rendell's administration's refusal to expand the program. He wants to double the available Educational Improvement Tax Credits from 49 million to 98 million beginning July 1st, 2007.

Swann has other educational programs, which he wants to expand on, and introduce. One of the ideas that he wants to focus on is providing low-income students access to better performing schools. Within the last year, 600 schools were deemed inadequate in Pennsylvania, and 80 school districts have not met state standards for more then six- year in a row. Many of these schools are failing because of the lack funding or the lack of tax dollars that the community can raise. The poorer the community the worst the school district will be. Many struggling schools are located in the poorer areas, like in Reading and Philadelphia. Again many small towns in the suburbs and in small rural areas all across the state are also struggle do to lack of funding.

When the local community fails to raise enough money to help continue or jump-start programs, sometimes the state will step in. Swann's program called EOZ or Education Opportunity Zones was designed to provide low-income and minority students with greater access to better performing school. Basically schools located in the zone will be given additional aid and resources from the state. But if the school still is not meeting state standards and are failing, the parents with have the option to move their child to a better performing school. Those families who decide to send their child to better school will receive tax credits against personal income tax for educational costs. Parents can send their child to another public school or a private schools. His program is different to school voucher program which allows parents to send their children to better performing schools. In the school voucher program the state or the district plays for that child to attend a better performing schools.

Besides providing better schools, Swann also wants to improve the reading and math skills of our students. If Swann if elected, all children will be required to demonstrate grade-level skills in math and reading before they can be promoted to the 4th grade. If they fail to past the test they can not past on to next grade till they do. For Swann he was to invest into tutoring programs which will help students to meet the standards and past the test. What comes into question is how are the expectations for IEP students going to be graded. Do they have to meet the same standards as the average student, or will there be exceptions made? There will also be students who do lag behind, will help be provided for them. Certain grades are tested each year to see if the school is meeting the state standards. Schools districts are under a lot of pressure to meet the standards that are set by the state, and NCLB (No Child Left Behind). They need to need too meet the standards that are set under NCLB. Many teachers spent more time teaching their students how to take the state test rather then on instruction. For Swann he was to invest into tutoring programs which will help students past this test.

Last but not least, Swann wants to change how teachers are paid. He not only wants to pay teachers based on their years of service, and educational credentials. Swann also wants to reward effective teachers, whose students are surpassing the state standards. Awards will be granted annual to teachers who have demonstrated the greatest gains in student achievement. What comes into question is how are these teachers going to be graded or evaluated? Will it be based on their students test scores or their overall performance throughout the entire school year or both? What about those teachers who are really doing their best, but their students are still lagging behind.

What comes down to is that every candidate has his own stance on how to improve education. Swann has outlined a plan on how he would like to improve education in the state. For some of his plans to either continue or go into effect, he will need to raise money. Some of that money will have to come from state taxes. Which may lead to a tax hike and many people right now can not afford that. If the funds come from the school district itself, that my led to a tax hike from the township or borough. For all plans and reforms to work money will be needed, and candidates need to convince the voting public that their programs are necessary.

Sarah Keppen

Gerlach vs. Murphy (updated)

Lois Murphy, the Democratic candidate for the 6th congressional district, is running for a spot in the House of Representatives. Her opponent is the Republican incumbent, Jim Gerlach. The race is considered one of the closest races in the nation. As of September 28, Gerlach is ahead in the polls 44% to Murphy's 41%, with a margin of error of 5. Taking into account the margin of error, the two candidates are tied. Polls for this month show the candidates trading the lead from one day to the next. The numbers have not changed much since then. As Election Day gets closer, the candidates are trying to get an edge over the other. Aside from the propaganda that each of the candidates have used, they have also engaged in two debates.


The first debate took place on October 21, 2006 at the Desmond Hotel at Malvern in front of 180 people. The hot topics in the debate included taxes, health care and, not surprisingly, the war in Iraq. One of their biggest disagreements was over the war in Iraq. Gerlach accused Murphy of not being clear on what her plan was for Iraq. He also stated that she was unsure as to what to do about troops in Iraq. He said "She apparently doesn't want to withdraw them and she's not sure she wants to fund them, either." Murphy shot back that she had never said she would not fund the troops; she simply was against the war and called for a change in the policy on Iraq. Murphy is sure that following the 9/ll Commission recommendations would help solve the problem of Iraq. Some of the Commission's recommendations include working towards a long-term safe and secure Afghanistan and Pakistan. Unfortunately, the Commission's 2004 report, which compiles data from in-depth investigations about 9/ll and the CIA and FBI's roles before and after 9/11, has been criticized, among other things, for being biased and using the report for partisan purposes. If these criticisms are true, this would make the Commission's report unreliable. A second issue which the candidates debated on was the tax cuts. Gerlach said that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts have helped turn the economy around. Murphy, however, disagreed with this analysis. She argued that the tax cuts did not help the middle class. Instead, she argued, more than 50% of the money went to the top 10% of the income-earners. Health care was another issue which the candidates disagreed on. Gerlach expressed his support for medical-liability reform which would help cut medical costs. He also called for "giving small-business owners more opportunity to purchase health coverage through a national cooperative". Murphy, on the other hand, prefers to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. Gerlach states that this would not save money.


October 27 marked the day of Gerlach and Murphy's second debate. This debate was taped in the 6 ABC television studio. Again, the candidate's biggest disagreement was over the war in Iraq. One of the things Gerlach emphasized about the war is that he agrees with the Bush administration policies but he assures voters that he wants Iraqis to know they don't have a '"blank check" in American tax dollars'. Murphy responded by saying that the current administrations policies have proved to be a failure. Policies such as "the special interests for CAFTA and unfair labor laws, with the drug companies to stop Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices, and for big tax breaks for big oil" should be changed, according to Murphy. Murphy, however, has yet to outline a clear-cut plan on how to go about doing this. The candidates also disagreed on what to do with the open land in the 6th district and on the issue of illegal immigrants. Gerlach favors building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico but Murphy does not favor this approach. These two debates proved to be good ground for both candidates to finally clarify their stands on various issues. However, it can be argued that neither candidate won these debates. Neither candidate outlined plans for any issues. This gives the impression that the candidates are unprepared and do not have a clear idea of what they wish to accomplish once in office. Since the poll numbers are so close, it is difficult to predict which candidate will win the election.

Silvia Gutierrez

Gerlach vs. Murphy Campaign Styles

Republican Jim Gerlach and Democrat Lois Murphy indisputably have one of the closest races for the House of Representatives in America. Though Gerlach and Murphy are not strangers to this, since they ran against each other in the 2004 election, the competition between Gerlach and Murphy has intensified. The main goal of each candidate is to appeal to the sixth Congressional district with their outstanding moral values. However, Gerlach's support of Halliburton and Murphy's past employment at NARAL pro-choice have set each candidate back from looking like the faultless citizen. Both Halliburton and NARAL have created the most controversy for each candidate. Here is a closer and more skeptical look at Gerlach's support of Halliburton and Murphy's work at NARAL which are both very large issues that have started a lot of criticisms about each candidate.

After Lois Murphy graduated from Harvard Law School in 1987, she served as president and board member for NARAL Pro-Choice America. She also served as an associate legal counsel to NARAL to protect a woman's right to choose and to promote more effective and efficient family planning. NARAL Pro-Choice has been the nation's leading advocate for over 30 years in protecting the reproductive rights of women. They handle abortions, sex education, birth control, women of color, and decisions in the courtroom. NARAL educates women on abortion, offers them support, and counsels women on how to prevent and participate in safe sex. Their main avocation is to keep a woman's right to choose available.

Lois Murphy believes that a woman should always have the right to choose how she handles and what she does with her body. Abortions to Lois Murphy should only be used when a woman is raped or when she is financially unstable or when her health is preventing her from carrying a child. Jim Gerlach sees Murphy's stance on abortion as a poor moral insight of her values. Gerlach is against abortion and targets Murphy's link to such a monstrous act as abolishing life as a poor moral value that the American public should not stand for. Gerlach has used Murphy's link to NARAL to try and sabotage her as a moral citizen to represent the American people. Jim Gerlach has associated Murphy with an issue like abortion to appeal to the American people. Abortion is a highly sensitive subject and highly debated issue not only among the people of the United States, but in the courtrooms.

Lois Murphy does not let her affiliation with NARAL get her down, instead she just highlights Jim Gerlach as a corrupt individual who has skeletons in his closet. One of these is the no bid contract that Gerlach supports with Halliburton. Halliburton is an issue that a lot of Americans are not quite sure of, but Murphy was smart in highlighting it as one of Gerlach's corrupt decisions.

The United States is supposed to take bids from companies when they need something done. When the United States sought a company to rebuild Iraq, they were supposed to get bids from companies and then by law choose the lowest bidder and hire them to do the job. Instead, the United States just gave the contract to Halliburton without allowing bids from other companies. It may not seem so bad to hear that Halliburton was given the contract, but the real problem is that Vice President Dick Cheney used to work for Halliburton.

Murphy says that Cheney raised money to support Gerlach's campaign and then Gerlach turned around and voted to allow Cheney's company to make billions by rebuilding Iraq. Gerlach is accused of making no bid contracts part of his priorities in office which will in the end rob the American people blind by not hiring the lowest bidder and wasting tax dollars. Of course when America hears that their tax dollars are being wasted and that Gerlach supports no bid contracts that will continue to waste money, Gerlach looks as if he has poor morals. When Dick Cheney is tied to Halliburton and then the Gerlach campaign, it looks even worse for Gerlach.

Unfortunately a lot of Americans will take what a candidate has to say as the truth with little or no skepticism and that is why I believe that Gerlach and Murphy chose to highlight these issues in their campaign over others. Gerlach makes the claim that Murphy is not the right candidate for Washington because she supports abortions, which gives her poor moral values. What he does not say is that her real goal was to lower the amount of abortions by promoting better family planning and the availability of birth control to everyone. Murphy will attack Gerlach because he voted for a no bid contract for Halliburton to rebuild Iraq and was supported by Dick Cheney. Sadly Murphy forgot to include the other 434 people in the House of Representatives that had a vote in the Halliburton decision. Murphy has former President Bill Clinton supporting her campaign, so why is it wrong for Dick Cheney to support Gerlach? Murphy supports a woman's right to choose and Gerlach supports Halliburton, does this really mean they are bad people with poor moral values which will disable them to represent the sixth district? That answer is for the people to decide. Be advised, when looking at political campaigns be more skeptical of each candidate's claims. There is most likely a deeper truth that needs to be told.

Cathy Faust

Is It Too Late?

The Pennsylvania's Governor race is an interesting one this year. Republican celebrities have begun to emerge in the Governorship. Not too long ago in California it was Schwarzenegger and now in Pennsylvania it is the Pittsburgh Steelers Hall of Famer Lynn Swann. However, what is interesting about this celebrity is that he is not really that well known.

According to the Keystone Poll done by Franklin and Marshall College in September, 35% of those polled did not hear enough about Swann to have an opinion of him. Another 20% are undecided. From the polls in March, those that did not hear enough to have an opinion have gone down from 63% and the undecided has gone up from 12%. This indicates that people are starting to know who Lynn Swann is and are able to form an opinion of him. On the flip side of this Ed Rendell, the incumbent, is very well known. Rendell came into the political world of Pennsylvania in 1978 as District Attorney of Philadelphia. From 1992 to 1999 he was the Mayor of Philadelphia. Rendell has been serving as Pennsylvania's Governor since his inauguration in 2003. Only 3% did not hear enough information to formulate an opinion of Rendell and only 16% are undecided. Both Rendell's favorable and non-favorable opinion votes are higher than Swann's. Fifty- two percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of Rendell compared to Swann's 29%. Twenty-nine percent have a non-favorable opinion of Rendell compared to the 16% for Swann.

These figures I believe are due largely to the fact that Swann has not been campaigning as much as he should against a well-known incumbent. Even though Swann has been touring the state he has not done much yet as far as TV advertising. He has just started airing ads but they still do not say much about him as a candidate but rather focus on the broken promises of Rendell. Rendell on the other hand has been airing ads since April off and on. This is due largely to the fact that Rendell has a lot more campaign money than Swann. Rendell reports $13.7 million in his campaign treasury compared to Swann's 3.7 million dollar campaign balance. With ten million less, Swann is at a huge disadvantage, especially against an incumbent. He must make very strategic decisions as to how to use his campaign dollars to maximize his influence.

In Pennsylvania history, an incumbent governor has never been voted out of office, but Swann might still have a chance, although not a good one.

Amanda Eshenour

Ed Rendell and Education Reform

Ed Rendell and Educational Reform

For Governor Ed Rendell reforming/ funding education is one of his key issues. He has an educational reform plan, in which he wants to raise the amount of funding for the public schools, and educational programs. What comes into question is how will his plans be paid for, and will taxes have to go up, for his plans go into effect or to be continued.

During his current term he has increased funding for public schools by over
1.8 million dollars. According to Rendell the 1.8 billion that was provided by the state, has taken pressure off local school districts. In-turn many towns and cities do not need to raise taxes. His plan may have helped some school districts, but not all. Some school districts are still struggling, and towns and cities are still raising taxes. The funding that the states give to school districts comes from state taxes, so the more money that the schools get, the more taxes that Pennsylvanians have to pay. Which will lead to an increase in local or state taxes or both?

For Rendell, education must start early, and investments in early childhood education are key components in helping children succeed. Forty million dollars has already been invested in the Head Start Program, which provides early childhood education for under-privileged children. Two hundred million dollars in block grants has also been provided. For school districts that have established programs that help improve early childhood education. Pennsylvania is now surpassed other states in funding early childhood education. The earlier that we start investing in our children's education the more they will learn and the higher chance that they will succeed. Introducing programs that prepare children for school need to be in place like head Start.

Other programs that Rendell wants to invest in are the idea of class size reduction. More then 20,000 elementary school children are in smaller classes. The average size classes should be around 20-24 students, some class have less some have more. If we reduce the number of students, teachers can be more hands on with more students, and can help more students. Shrinking the number of students in each classroom will also lead to more teaching openings. The only conflict that this plan has is that many schools have limited classroom space, and many classrooms will still remain over crowded. But many schools are solving this issue by either remodeling the present school building or building new schools. Which in-turn will lead to a raise in tax, either at the local or state level?

Rendell not only wants to reduce class size and increase funds for early child education, but also wants to provide more funds for tutoring programs. During his first term in office, over sixty-six million dollars has already been invested in providing tutoring programs. Basically the program will help children improve on their skills and help them to succeed rather then fail. This program should be implemented at all levels of the public school system. The number one reason why high school students drop out is because they can not do the work. If we get these students who are really struggling, some help them may to decide to stay in school...

Besides providing funds for early childhood, Rendell wants to continue to invest in High Schools. He wants to upgrade equipment, like providing laptops in for every student in every English, math, science, and social studies classes. His goal is to start this program in the coming year. Having technology in the classroom is great and it allows students to be more hand-on. But for every classroom to have computers will cost a lot of money, and again we go back to the issue of raising taxes. Still many companies to donate computers and technological equipment to schools. If Rendell offers a tax break for companies, and business and the public in general more people will be inclined to donate either new or used equipment. For this plan to work in will depends on raising taxes, and donations from business, and the public in general.

Many colleges now are offering student's college credits while they are still in high school. In many cases it is the schools or the states that are paying for these courses. Basically what Rendell wants to do is rise the funding for this program and allows more students to take advantage of the program.

Not only has Rendell provided funding for public schools, he also wants to provide tax breaks and scholarships for all college bound students. Thirty-eight million has already been provided for college students over the past four years. The Governor has also made college savings programs tax free, giving families a twenty-five million- dollar tax cut. Rendell has also dramatically improved community college funding, by providing more then fifty-four million dollars educational programs. The programs that the state is investigating in are programs that train Pennsylvanians for well-paying jobs in high-demand fields. Hey I am a college student and the less money that I have to pay for school I am all for it. But this plan will also allow more and more people attend college, and help them to improve their lives

The majority of the reforms that Rendell wants are basically continuations of plans that he established during his current term in office. For Rendell's educational reforms to be continued, he needs money. The money will have to come from state taxes, and even federal aid. When it comes to taxes most people feel they are paying too much. The reason why their local taxes are so high in many cases is to help keep the schools running. Still Pennsylvania's educational system ranks 10th in the nation and the state must be doing something right. For the state to stay in top ten, proper educational programs need to be place, and funds to be put into the proper places.

Sarah Keppen

Holden (D) vs. Wertz (R)

PA District 17 Race

The Pa District 17 race began with Democratic incumbent, Tim Holden, campaigning against the Republican candidate, Matthew Arlington Wertz for a seat in Congress. District 17 was considered a safe Democratic district prior to the 2006 campaign and remains so today because of gerrymandering. It is comprised of Dauphin, Lebanon, Schuylkill, and parts of Berks and Perry Counties. The 17th District includes the city of Harrisburg as well as rural farmlands and coal rich mountains.

Representative Holden sought his eight consecutive term as a member of Congress this election having been the choice of voters since his first term in 1992. He ran unopposed in the primary and is considered a very conservative Democrat. Representative Holden's official website displayed his dedication to agriculture, rural development, and conservation. The website highlighted his memberships in the Committee on Agriculture, the Department Operations Oversight on Dairy Nutrition and Forestry Subcommittee, and the Conservation Credit and Rural Development Research Subcommittee. As of October 5, he raised $804,265 for his campaign. He spent only $349,799 and is currently reported to have $584,312 cash on hand. PACs were responsible for funding most of his campaign providing $515,486. Individuals gave $278,117 for campaign expenses. Holden used no money of his own for his campaign.

Contrary to Holden, Republican Matthew Wertz sought his first term as a member of Congress and faced an uphill battle from the start against his heavily favored opponent. Wertz, a war vet, also ran unopposed in the primary and was quoted saying that he was quite happy about coming home to run for office. Wertz campaigned on three main issues: keeping the middle-class tax cuts permanent, ending our dependency on foreign oil, and supporting the President on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He offered a statement saying, "…and this war on terrorism will be ended on our terms…" Yet, Wertz struggled with financial issues while campaigning. He only raised $12,400 for his campaign. Wertz spent $12,463 and was reported as having $1,231 cash on hand. He received no money from PACs, and only brought in $2,400 from individuals. Wertz used $10,000 of his own money to fund his campaign. This lack of funding may have been due to the fact that District 17 is a safe democratic district with Tim Holden as the favorite choice of voters.

On September 20, Wertz announced his decision to stop actively campaigning for a seat in Congress thus essentially giving the election once again to Tim Holden. Because Wertz did not withdraw before the specified time, his name will remain on the ballot come Election Day. More on Wertz's decision to stop actively campaigning will be presented in the next web log…

Aaron Warchal