“Freindly Fire Zone”

(Poll Questions and Results below)

There is an age-old adage: if you’re going to do something, do it right --- or don’t do it at all.

Based on poll results exclusively obtained first by Freindly Fire, nowhere is that more applicable than in the fight for school vouchers in Pennsylvania. According to the Pulse Opinion Research poll conducted on behalf of UNITE PA, which surveyed 500 likely voters across the state, the majority of Pennsylvanians prefer that any school choice program be open to all students (or at least most of the middle class), as opposed to just low income, predominantly inner city students. This result is not surprising on any level, and, undeniably, leads to five rock solid conclusions:

1) The middle class realizes that ALL schools need improvement, and competition through choice is the best way to achieve that objective;

2) Pennsylvanians, by a whopping 78 to 9 margin, favor a broad-based choice program;

3) If a comprehensive choice program isn’t offered, citizens would prefer an expansion of the EITC educational tax credit --- by a 3 to 1 ratio;

4) The reason voucher legislation failed in the Spring, and in all likelihood won’t pass now, isn’t due to opposition to school choice, but because the senate refuses to consider a broader, more inclusive bill, and therefore:

5) If a suburban or rural legislator supports vouchers only for low income families, while their constituents would be left out in the cold without receiving a penny, they do so at their own peril.  A full 40 percent of likely voters stated that they will be “less likely” to support that lawmaker in his or her next election based on that vote.

The message of this poll is clear: do vouchers the right way, or don’t do them at all.  And since the senate has already passed a low income version by the slimmest of margins, with its leaders stating that’s all they will do, expect the voucher bill to die what may be its final political death, and look for the EITC expansion to pass as a stand-alone bill (which it did in the Spring by a virtually unanimous 190-7 bipartisan vote on Rep. Tom Quigley’s House Bill 1330).

Failure to act responsibly will leave the GOP politically vulnerable, and, infinitely more important, abandon yet another generation of Pennsylvania’s future.

*****

Since last January, Republican Senator Jeff Piccola has been trying to pass legislation offering school vouchers only to students in underperforming schools who meet low income requirements. Despite crafting Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) during the Rendell Administration (when there was a Democratic State House and an anti-choice governor), Piccola never bothered to broaden the bill to reflect the new ten-seat Republican majority in the House, and pro-school choice Governor Tom Corbett.

Piccola, along with Democratic co-sponsor Senator Tony Williams, ran the bus over anyone who dared question why SB 1 was being treated as hallowed legislation, scoffing at --- but not answering --- queries as to why no attempt was made to broaden the bill, given the favorable legislative climate.  In the process, many SB 1 proponents demonized long-time political allies for their “brazen” attempt to improve a badly flawed education reform bill that would neither educate nor reform.

That intransigence directly led to vouchers dying on the vine in June.  Despite repeated assurances that it would pass the Senate, it was never brought to the floor for a vote. Piccola’s excuse for not running the bill was that the House wasn’t embracing SB 1 with the same fervor, yet the truth is that he didn’t even have the votes in his own chamber.

Last month, a watered-down version of SB 1 finally passed the senate after much arm-twisting, but as the poll shows, it’s back to Square One, meaning that SB 1 faces a tough road ahead. Many folks in Pennsylvania view vouchers favorably, but when they learn that the only voucher bill being considered is one that will never impact them, their support plummets.

Many traditional supporters of school choice have had SB 1 sold to them as the be-all-and-end-all.  But the huge irony is that these people in turn become the biggest detractors of SB 1 upon learning what the legislation does, and, more importantly, doesn’t do. From Catholic school advocates to Tea Partiers to everyday parents, the majority of those who favor school choice become irritated, if not downright angry, after discovering that in SB 1, a full seven years after enactment, middle income students would still be excluded. Because of this, many look at SB 1 as nothing more than yet another targeted entitlement program for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

The results of the Pulse Opinion Poll are so clear cut that it’s a good bet many House members on the fence will now be moved to oppose the voucher aspect, instead calling for other educational reform measures to be considered individually rather than part of an SB 1 package.  Charter school reforms, teacher evaluations, and the EITC should be debated on their merits and not held hostage by certain senators hell-bent on ramming an ineffectual voucher bill down the House’s throat --- or all-else be damned.

And if the House decides to eliminate the voucher and significantly expand the EITC, what then? Will Piccola once again call that legislation “dead on arrival” and kill it upon its return to the senate?

And if so, will the House leaders do the right thing and relegate Piccola to the dustbin of irrelevancy by simply mandating that the EITC expansion be part of the 2012 budget? 

It’s time to stop playing games.  Pennsylvania students are 42nd in SAT scores, ranking low in literacy, graduation rates and those attending college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11th graders are not proficient in math and reading.  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Advocating school choice for only low-income students results in the default perception that education is adequate everywhere else, which is not remotely accurate. We cannot afford to waste another decade, forsaking our children --- our future --- because some choose to ignore the widespread failure occurring on a daily basis.

The poll clearly shows what common sense already dictates: only competition can begin to reverse decades of educational failure. Comprehensive school choice provides that free-market solution, and, if passed, would be a model for the nation.  But since stubbornness, personal agendas and lack of political will are still prevalent in the Senate, let’s hope the House of Representatives acts responsibly and does the right thing for our children.

As Voltaire said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

And jettisoning a bad voucher program while passing other meaningful reforms is a very good start.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 Poll Results

Pennsylvania Survey of 500 Likely Voters
Conducted November 5, 2011
By Pulse Opinion Research

1* A proposal is currently before the Pennsylvania General Assembly that would give tax-payer funded vouchers to students of low income households.  These vouchers would allow students to attend a private school.  Do you favor or oppose this proposal?

41% Favor
45% Oppose
13% Not sure
 
2* Under current Pennsylvania law a business can donate money to a non profit organization that grants scholarships to children so they can attend the private school of their choice.  The business receives a 100% tax credit for this donation.  Do you favor or oppose this tax credit system?

53% Favor
31% Oppose
16% Not sure
 
3* Okay….given a choice which system is a better way to offer school choice to students…the voucher system or the tax credit system?

32% The voucher system
31% The tax credit system
37% Not sure
 
4* The voucher system is available only to low income families in a limited number of schools, while the scholarships funded through the tax credit program are available to middle and low income students statewide.   Knowing this which system would you prefer….the voucher system or the tax credit system?

20% The voucher system
59% The tax credit system
21% Not sure
 
5* If your representative voted for the voucher plan, would you be more or less likely to vote for him or her in the next election?

27% More likely
40% Less likely
25% It would have no impact
  7% Not sure
 
6* If the state is going to support a school choice program should it be available only to low income, mostly inner city students or should the program be available to all students?

  9% A school choice program should only be available to low income, mostly inner city students
78% A school choice program should be available to all students
13% Not sure

NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

Note: This column first appeared in Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  Read all of Freindly Fire's Philly Post columns here:

http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/author/cfreind/

As millions of Pennsylvanians head to the polls for today’s primary election, experts have noted that the electorate is restless, volatile, and even angry. They attribute this to unpopular spending policies and a backlash over ever-increasing taxes.

With so many people losing jobs, houses and retirement accounts, the level of interest in how the people’s business is conducted has reached record highs.

At the same time, the level of cynicism and mistrust is also off the charts.

Many activists have learned that challenging the establishment is a daunting task, leading some to become frustrated by the entrenched business-as-usual order that prevails.

As a result, there is a growing perception that most candidates are just more of the same, cleverly disguising themselves as reformers and agents of change to appeal to the electorate’s current mood.

And that’s not an unfounded perception.

All the candidates for U.S. Senate and governor have snappy television ads and slick mail pieces, and all promise virtually the same thing: more jobs, lower taxes and a reformed, more accountable government.

But since all of the candidates detailed below are current office holders, they are, by definition, part of the very establishment against which they campaign. So how do people know which ones to trust, and for whom to vote? 

Trite as it sounds, people need to do their homework. Being busy at home, work and with children’s activities may be a way of life for many, but it’s simply no excuse to be ignorant.

And corrupt and lazy public officials exist on such voter ignorance.

Too many citizens either don’t vote, especially in primaries, or pull the lever merely because of a TV ad or yard sign.

Given the enormous problems that confront us, it’s time for voters to make better informed decisions.

Granted, there is no such thing as a perfect candidate, but if more than a precious few exercised the three “C’s” --- common sense, core values and consistency --- our government would be infinitely more efficient, and we might actually have a chance of turning the ship around before it plows into the iceberg.

As an Election Day primer, Freindly Fire cuts through the political spin to look at the not-so-well-known political baggage each candidate brings with him, with the hope that such knowledge will allow readers to make the best, most educated choice for Pennsylvania’s future as they head to the polls.

U.S. Senate

-Thirty-year incumbent U.S. Senator Arlen Specter, who has been defying the odds for much of his career, has to contend with the fallout stemming from his highly-publicized Party switch. The question is whether Democrats will follow the lead of President Obama and Governor Rendell in welcoming Specter into the Party, thankful for his decisive votes over the last year, or whether he will be booted from office because he is viewed as the ultimate political opportunist interested only in prolonging his own career.
Interestingly, Specter’s deciding vote on the stimulus plan --- made as a Republican ---was done so against the advice of trusted political advisors. 

Had he gone the safe route and voted with the GOP against the bill, he would have virtually assured himself no primary opponent (as he had also announced his opposition to the union-backed “Card Check” bill). So not only might the opportunism charge not stick, but Specter may, in fact, be rewarded for what he calls his most important vote of conscience.

-Joe Sestak has saturated the airwaves with commercials stating that Specter’s time has come and gone, with fresh blood needed in Washington.  Running as an outsider, he has branded himself as an atypical politician.  Yet his steadfast refusal to release records concerning his controversial departure as Deputy Chief Of Naval Operations, his paltry pay for campaign workers ---while family members make thousands ---, and his large number of missed votes have led to questions about his character, judgment, and integrity. 

The problem Sestak faces is that, for the most part, people aren’t voting for him; instead, he must rely on “Specter fatigue” --- voters coming out against the incumbent. If Sestak is viewed as just another politician, voters will choose the “devil they know.”

Governor (GOP)

-State Representative Sam Rohrer touts himself as a constitutional conservative while campaigning for fiscal responsibility and limited government.  Yet on the most important issues to many in the GOP, Rohrer did the opposite of what he now preaches by voting for an unconstitutional payraise as well as hiking his own pension by 50%.  And that pension vote is the largest contributing factor to the state’s pension crisis, which is the ticking time bomb awaiting the next governor when state pension payments jump eightfold in the next three years.

-Attorney General Tom Corbett is certainly the most believable candidate who talks about “reforming Harrisburg,” since his legislative corruption probe has netted ten felony convictions, as well as indictments of two former House Speakers --- actions once thought unthinkable by many. But he is still dogged by charges from opponents that his investigations, as well as his lawsuit against Obamacare, are politically motivated.

Corbett’s most notable policy issue is his no-new-taxes pledge. While a sound policy, Corbett will be severely tested not to break it as the fiscal crisis grows to almost unmanageable proportions over the next Governor’s term.  Such pledges prove popular at election time, but the corollary is unmistakable: break it at your own peril.  One only has to look at how much free time President George H.W. Bush had after he uttered --- and then broke ---one of the most remembered pledges in political history: “Read my lips, no new taxes.”

Governor (Democrats)

-Allegheny County Dan Onorato’s $8 million war chest has staked him to a large lead, allowing him to run as the reformer who will clean up Harrisburg.  But as the candidate most closely linked to Ed Rendell --- the very Governor who has presided over the environment that needs to be “reformed” --- Onorato has learned to dance the Harrisburg Two-Step perfectly: reaping the Rendell Machine’s largesse while publicly calling for change. 

It remains to be seen in the general election if Onorato’s stategy will be seen as genuine or a business-as-usual extension of the Rendell Administration.

- State Senator Anthony Williams has run perhaps the most unusual campaign. Despite being late to the show, he has raised an astounding $5 million, mostly from a few individuals advocating school choice.  Of particular interest is that, despite receiving some of the largest campaign contributions in the history of Pennsylvania politics from these one-issue folks, Tony Williams has never introduced true school choice legislation.

 One must question how Williams can convince people that he is their education savior when he hasn’t actually gotten any education reform legislation passed. Meanwhile, the system continues to crank out functional illiterates from deathtrap schools.

The larger question is how a Harrisburg insider --- one who also voted for the payraise --- can effectively run as reformer. And the answer is that he can’t, which is why, despite his millions, he hasn’t moved up at all in the polls.

-Auditor General Jack Wagner is viewed by many as the most genial of the Democrats who, if he could have raised any money, would have been the D’s best shot in November.  Wagner has shown his independence by taking the Rendell Administration to task for waste and conflicts of interest in a number of audits, and has shown himself to be the only voice of reason and fiscal restraint on the Delaware River Port Authority Board of Commissioners. But with little campaign cash, Wagner’s chances are dismal at best. Some say good guys finish last in politics, and that may well be the case in this race.

-Montgomery County Commissioner Joe Hoeffel, while involved in a number of controversial issues in that job, has shown himself to be one of the most open and honest candidates in this race. A self-proclaimed proud liberal, Hoeffel chastises all of his competitors as being too conservative. Hoeffel admits that his philosophy would be a hard-sell in a general election, especially in this electorate’s anti-Democrat, anti-tax-and-spend mood, but has not backed off his platform. But with virtually no money in the bank, Hoeffel’s fight will be to stay out of last place.

*****

Given the fiscal armageddon Pennsylvania faces in the next four years ---the state is facing budget deficits upwards of $7 billion---, it is important to elect those most likely to take on the business-as-usual culture and put principle before politics. Cutting through the political spin and taking a hard look at the candidates now and in the fall --- both the good and bad --- and holding them accountable, is the best, and only, way to steer the ship back to calmer waters.

But given that voter turnout today is only expected to be average or slightly above, that message may sink in after it’s too late.