Now that we’ve had about 24 hours to digest Gov. Ed Rendell’s budget proposal, I’d like to chime in by grading some components of his ——- (ambitious, visionary, foolhardy … I mean, pick a word of your choosing and insert it here) plan.

* Slicing all state funding from the Keystone Games: Hey, our good governor said no whining, and any York County lawmaker who whines about this cut (because we host the Games) should be sentenced to an immediate spanking. Given this economic climate, how can you possible justify spending a cent of tax money on something as non-essential as the Keystone State Games. Grade: A.

* Increase basic education subsidy for schools: Hey, if the schools don’t get more money, the governor’s claim of no broad based tax hikes in this year’s budget would ring mighty hollow, because he’d just be letting school boards do all the dirty work. On the other hand, I’m a little baffled by how the money is being distributed. How does Central York, a school district that just wasted millions on something as non-essential as a state-of-the-art pool, merit a 12 percent funding hike? Grade: C.

* Giving counties the option of increasing the sales tax from 6 to 7 cents: Whoa. Wasn’t any increase in the sales tax supposed to help reduce school property taxes? Where did that plan go? And do we really want a sales tax that varies by county? Grade: D.

* Consolidation of school districts: Wow! Sounds great. Having 16 school districts in York County makes about as much sense as having 72 individual municipal governments, which makes no sense at all. But it’s unlikely to be a money saver in the short term and I have to wonder if it isn’t a proposal meant to get people talking about something other than the 2,600 jobs that would be eliminated in this budget. Grade: B.

* 10-cent cigarette tax hike: It will pass, on the heels of a 62-cent per pack tax hike approved by the federal government this week. Just one simple question: When people stop smoking because cigarettes cost too much, how are we going to fund the programs that now rely on cigarette tax revenue? Grade: D.

* Popping video poker machines in bars and private clubs all over the state to help cover college tuition costs: Hey, since Pa. residents won’t be able to afford to smoke, maybe they’ll drop some coins in video poker machines. Just call us Las Vegas East, if Eddie has his way. Encouraging more and more people to blow their hard-earned money by gambling it away just seems ludicrous. Aren’t the countless lottery games and new casinos enough? Grade: F.

* Increasing funding for Pre-K Count by 10 percent: This is one of the gov’s pet programs and, hey, it’s a wonderful idea. But I’m not sure property taxpayers can afford to have every 4-year-old in public education, and it seems like this is the direction the program is taking. How about keeping funding status quo in a recession-year budget? And if we want public education to begin at age 4, find programs schools can cut to pay for it. Grade: D.

With the economy in the toilet, we’re told folks are cutting back on their discretionary spending. Except, it seems, if they’re spending money on $20 lottery tickets.Pennsylvania drew winners for its seventh Millionaire Raffle lottery game earlier this month.

Do you suffer from long, sleepless nights?

If so, Gov. Ed Rendell has a sure cure for insomnia.

It’s the new 224-page “Governor’s Report on State Performances” released last week to show how tax dollars are being used effectively address issues in education, economic development, public safety, consumer protection and other areas.

Truth be told, the report includes plenty of interesting tidbits. For instance, in defense of the administration’s push for graduation tests, you’ll learn that …

* In 2006, 44 percent of graduating high school students failed to show proficiency in math or reading on their 11th-grade PSSA; and …

* that 90 percent of Pennsylvania school districts have at least a 20 percent gap between the number of students graduated and the number of graduated students scoring at proficient (meaning grade level) or above on the PSSA.

But keep the source in mind as you read. This isn’t exactly an independent, third-party review of how efficiently state government is working.

For instance, search for the word “failed” and you’ll discover it appears just three times in 224 pages, and never in terms of state government saying, ‘Oops, we failed’ at anything.

And AP reports that this treasure trove of information cost $24,000 to print.

A piece of advice as Pa. officials look for ways to save money in these days of state budget calamity — next year an online only version will do just dandy.

Yesterday, I was telling my fellow editors how one of our reporters was attending a meeting with community leaders. They had gathered to discuss ways to help residents pay their heating bills this winter.

I mentioned how Gov. Rendell planned to address the group — and six others like it meeting across the state — via conference call and joked that he planned to ride in like the white knight and save the day.

As it turned out, that’s just what happened.

The governor announced dramatic increases in LIHEAP, the state program that helps folks cover heating costs. Eligibility limits will be raised. The amount of grants to those who qualify will more than double. The bottom line: About 110,000 more Pennsylvania families should qualify for assistance this winter.

Now, I’ve been a frequent critic of the governor’s penchant for spending money, especially this year when you just knew the state’s revenue projections were unrealistically rosy.

But this is a case of spending money where it’s badly needed. Yes, oil prices have dropped pretty dramatically in the last couple weeks. By Friday, the marketing director for one local oil company told us it had dropped the winter lock-in rate by more than $1 per gallon, to $3.69.

The lock-in price last year: $2.59 per gallon.

Folks, that’s a 42 percent increase.

So the extra funding is sorely needed. Will it be enough? Who knows? Predicting what will happen with oil prices seems more difficult than predicting the wild gyrations in the stock market of late.

As for the governor’s theatrics — having community leaders sit around gnashing their teeth about a problem for two hours and then delivering the good news about addition funding — well, we could have done without that.

So, let me get this straight.

I can travel to Washington, D.C., and tour the 19 museums that make up the Smithsonian Institute for free. But if I journey to Gettysburg to tour the new museum at the nation’s most important Civil War battlefield, I’ll be forced to pay a $7.50 admission fee.

Within the National Park Service, I can visit all the Richmond National Battlefield sites or Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia for free. Heck, I can even tour Fort Sumter in South Carolina for free, if I can hitch a boat ride across the Charleston Harbor.

But, in Gettysburg, where the tide of the Civil War turned and where Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the greatest speeches in U.S. history, a museum tour will cost me $7.50.

Yep, the atrocity is complete. Earlier this week, the Gettysburg National Military Park approved the museum admission fees the Gettysburg Foundation had requested.

That would be the same Gettysburg National Military Park that foisted this public-private partnership on the American public. At the time of its unveiling, the partnership was supposed to be a role model for parks everywhere to follow. The promise: a grand new battlefield museum at no taxpayer expense that would be free to the public.

Well, I guess in the minds of the folks who run the Gettysburg National Military Park, keeping one promise out of three ain’t bad.

Look, the idea of fees at national parks isn’t new. Civil War buffs are confronted with fees at Manassas, at Antietam, at the Appomattox Court House.

But those fees are substantially lower than the new ones in Gettysburg. And a museum fee was never part of the debate in Gettysburg.

Had it been, as the price tag climbed from $52 million to more than $100 million, as the price tag for the cyclorama restoration climbed from $1 million to $15 million, there might have been more discussion about whether this museum really needed to be quite so grand.

What have we learned from the experience?

That Congressman George Radanovich (R-California) and former Congressman James Hansen had every right to be concerned about the escalating cost of the battlefield museum project when they held a Congressional hearing on the topic back in 2002.

That whoever wins this year’s 19th District Congressional election should push for another Congressional hearing in 2009 to sort out just what went wrong in Gettysburg.

And that it would be pure folly for any other national park to follow the Gettysburg example.

For political junkies — heck, for anyone who has seen a snippet of the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin — Thursday’s vice-presidential debate is must-see TV.

But voters who arrive at the polls Nov. 4 are going to be confronted by lots of names besides McCain and Obama. And, folks, you’d better be prepared to cast an intelligent vote, because those other candidates will have a big impact on you, too.

Take, for instance, the electricity bill you pay each month. Pretty substantial, right? Well, those bills are scheduled to increase dramatically in 2010. And if your pain is going to be alleviated or postponed in any way, the decision will be up to members of the Pennsylvania House and Senate, not to anyone sitting in an office on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, D.C.

This election will determine who holds House seats representing every community in York County. Voters in places like York Haven and Dillsburg, Wrightsville and Dover will help elect state senators.

So each week between now and the election, The York Dispatch will be asking candidates about a key issue in this year’s election. Coincidentally, the first question was about the pending increase in those electricity rates. The latest deals with how the state should pay for road improvements, now that the federal government has nixed the idea of tolling Interstate 80. Next week, candidates will be addressing school spending and property taxes, a key issue in this state for years.

So make sure to check out the answers to help determine who deserves your vote.

As for the presidential election, we’ve added lots of handy tools to our election guide, including …

* An interactive database that will allow you to see who from your community has donated money to the presidential campaigns.

* An informative graphic showing the positions McCain and Obama have taken on key issues.

* Heck, you can even check out campaign songs they and previous presidential candidates have used, and hear some lyrics that just didn’t fit.

And keep checking back. There will be more to come as Nov. 4 approaches.

Let’s switch capitals for a blog, and focus on a federal government issue. Not the bailout. Instead, the latest atrocity at the Gettysburg National Military Park.

About a decade ago, the park announced plans to create a public-private partnership to build a new visitors center and museum at the battlefield.

The goal was noble. Since the federal government was unlikely to fork over the money required for a new visitors center in short order, the National Park Service would enter into an agreement with private partners to build and operate a new visitors center. The government would save money; the park would get a visitors center and museum befitting the nation’s most important Civil War battlefield.

From what I’ve heard, the results have been glorious.

Of course, they should be.

When first proposed, the visitors center had an estimated price tag of about $40 million. By the time ground was broken, the price tag had jumped to $52 million. By the time it was complete, the price tag was $103 million.

The restoration of the cyclorama, which reopens this weekend, was part of the project. The cost of restoring the massive painting depicting the battle was originally estimated at $1 million. It cost $7 million — well, make that $15 million once you include the cost of hanging and displaying the painting at the new center.

And now the Gettysburg Foundation, which guided the project and runs the new visitors center, finds itself in a bit of a fiscal bind. There’s a clog in the group’s revenue stream. Seems the foundation counted on 30 percent of museum visitors coughing up $8 apiece to see a 22-minute interpretive film. Seems the actual percentage of visitors forking over $8 to watch a 22-minute film is — surprise, surprise — much lower.

Don’t know about you, but I’d suggest the king of all dunce caps for the Einsteins who dreamed up and approved that funding plan. And they should wear those dunce caps for a very long time.

Anyway, that leads to the atrocity: a proposal to charge adults a $7.50 admission fee for the new museum.

After years and years of being told by park and foundation officials that the museum would be free to the public. The only charge would be to see an interpretive film and the restored cyclorama.

None of this should come as a shock to anyone who’s paid attention to what goes on at the Gettysburg National Military Park for the last 20 years or so.

It’s a place where things sure get done, but where the process often leaves a sour taste in your mouth.

It’s a place where they seize a man’s tower through eminent domain, then point re-enactors’ cannons at the tower during what amounts to a demolition party, all the while initiating a six-year court battle over how much the government should pay for the property the park service took.

It’s a place where they pledge to do things without government funding, then happily accept state and federal grants for those very same projects, all the while pretending there’s no contradiction.

It’s a place where you could see battlefield relics for free at the old visitors center, before this public-private partnership was hatched.

Back in 2002, a couple Congressmen, concerned about the escalating cost of the visitors center project, held a hearing in Washington. They were concerned the government might get stuck with part of the bill.

No worry. If the foundation has its way, the bill will drop into the laps of the vistors to the Gettysburg National Military Park instead.

If that happens, if any admission fee is approved for the new museum, it will be time to declare this public-private partnership a dismal failure.

And, I’d suggest, time for Congress to get involved once again.

Those would be some ways to describe the reaction of most York County school officials when forced to decide whether to apply for the state’s new Common Cents program a year ago.

Common Sense is a new $1 million per year program through which the state Department of Education sends out consultants to look for ways for school districts to save money. And it’s free.

In York County, one school board member bemoaned the fact that the public would get to see the cost-savings recommendations before school officials could sift through them to decide what they did and didn’t like. In many districts, officials complained the program would take up too much time. In at least some cases, there was the ever-present disdain for state interference in local school matters.

When the deciding was done, Spring Grove, Dallastown, York Suburban, York City and Northeastern had applied to participate in Common Cents. Central York, Dover, Eastern York, Hanover, Northern, Red Lion, South Eastern, South Western, Southern and West York did not.

News flash, school officials. While you’ve been building a state-of-the-art pool (that would be Central) and approving absolutely non-essential new extra-curricular programs (that would be everyone who thought their district just had to have lacrosse teams), the economy has gone to pot. Taxpayers forced to bear those expenses are being squeezed, and there’s no sign the squeezing will end anytime soon.

Meanwhile, the state is reporting five participating school districts could see $1 million in savings from the first round of Common Cents reviews. Now that might be an exaggeration. And it looks as though many of the recommendations for those districts are things already being done in York County.

But here’s a safe bet: If consultants came to York County, they’d likely discover some cost-saving possibilities. That would be their mission, after all.

So, unless all those districts that turned thumbs down to Common Cents don’t plan on raising taxes next year, they’d be well advised to sign up for round two of the program.

Again, it’s free.

There’s no obligation to follow any of the recommendations.

There’s no good excuse not to apply.

In fact, taxpayers should demand it.

Iron out the wrinkles in those Obama T-shirts. Polish those McCain buttons. You just might be able to wear them when you head out to vote on Nov. 4.

When the Pennsylvania Department of State first advised counties that they might want to loosen up on their stance on political attire in the polling place, the first reaction from Nikki Suchanic, York County’s director of elections, was something to the effect of, “Oh, no you don’t.”

T-shirts, buttons, pins and the similar items supporting a particular candidate had been prohibited in York County polling places, and that wasn’t about to change, she said.

A couple weeks later, after consultation with the county attorney, there’s been a change of heart.

And that’s for the best.

The county had banned such items because that state elections code prohibits “electioneering” in polling places. But it was a stretch to argue that someone showing up to vote wearing an Obama T-shirt or a McCain button was doing any real electioneering, and the state told the counties as much.

And let’s remember, that advice came after some citizen complaints, and after some nudging from the ACLU, which hinted that such a ban just might violate voters’ First Amendment rights.

Should the counties stick to their bans, could a court challenge be far behind? Would York County like to wind up spending lots of money to defend that policy? Just to keep voters from showing pride in their preferred presidential candidate and some good ol’ Election Day enthusiasm?

Probably not.

Next, voters need to do their part, which includes being courteous and respectful toward voters who show up wearing T-shirts, pins and buttons supporting the opposition candidate.

It sounds like science fiction.

A gadget in your car tracks not only how many miles you drive between stops at a gas station, but where you drive.

You arrive at a gas station – any Pennsylvania gas station — and the station has that information. So you are taxed, not on how much gas you purchased, but on how many miles you drove, perhaps paying a premium for driving congested roads during rush hour.

Well, that’s precisely the type of system Oregon is exploring right now. And, as reporter Carl Lindquist tells us in a story about the proposal, a representative from Oregon made a presentation on the concept to members of Pennsylvania’s House Transportation Committee last week.

You see, gas tax revenue is falling. And, when revenue falls, that tends to concern state officials who rely on the revenue to do things like fix roads and bridges, and to pay PennDOT employees.

The problem isn’t just that high gas prices are prompting people to cut back on their driving, but also that more motorists are turning to fuel efficent or hybrid vehicles. Darn them. They’re being environmentally conscious, and it’s costing the state money.

So what to do? Why not switch from the gas tax, based on how much gas drivers buy, to a mileage tax, based on how many miles they drive?

Sorry, the logic escapes me. At a time when politicians everywhere are touting the wisdom of developing alternative energy sources and decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, politicians somewhere are proposing a new tax that might make the motorists with fuel-efficient vehicles pay more.

Here’s the bottom line: When gas consumption declines, so does gas tax revenue. And the easy fix, an increase in the gas tax, is political poison.

So, in Oregon at least, they’re looking at a high-tech solution.

In Pennsylvania?

Don’t worry yet. A committee is just exploring alternatives. Even Oregon is years away from full implementation. They are, after all, lots of vehicles on the roads that aren’t equipped with the gadgets to make it work.

But it’s a concept worth watching.