News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
Sam Rohrer, the Tea Party candidate who made a surprisingly strong showing in last year’s Republican gubernatorial primary, is being touted for U.S. Senate.
A Facebook page has even been set up to push him into a candidacy.
Run, Sam run. It is time to retire Little Bobby Casey.
This email attributed to a Los Angelese English teacher being circulated around the internet was submitted courtesy of Mickey Rair.
900 teachers just got laid off from the Los Angeles Unified School District . They are $650,000 over their annual budget.
The following English teacher helps to explain one area that looms large over California ‘s educational crisis.
“As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of:
I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels.
Most of the schools you are hearing about, South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park , etc.. where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.
Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I’m not talking a glass of milk and roll — but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten.
I estimate that well over 50 percent of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75 percent or more have cell phones . The school also provides day care centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13) so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids.
I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America ..
I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less than 3 months who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them “Putas” ( whores ) and throwing things , that the teachers were in tears.
Free medical, free education, free food, day care, etc, etc, etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled not only to be in this country but to demand rights, privileges and entitlements?
To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they like their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes: spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the true costs.
Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases etc., etc, etc. For me, I’ll pay more for tomatoes.
Americans, we need to wake up. The guest worker program will be a disaster because we won’t have the guts to enforce it . Does anyone in their right mind really think they will voluntarily leave and return?
It does, however, have everything to do with culture: A third-world culture that does not value education, that accepts children getting pregnant and dropping out of school by 15 and that refuses to assimilate, and an American culture that has become so weak and worried about ” political correctness ” that we don’t have the will to do anything about it.
If this makes your blood boil , as it did mine, forward this to everyone you know including your Congressmen and Senators.
CHEAP LABOR? Isn’t that what the whole immigration issue is about?
Business doesn’t want to pay a decent wage.
Consumers don’t want expensive produce.
Government will tell you Americans don’t want the jobs.
But the bottom line is cheap labor. The phrase “cheap labor” is a myth , a farce, and a lie. There is no such thing as “cheap labor.”
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, he gets an ” earned income credit” of up to $3,200 free.
He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent .
He qualifies for food stamps..
He qualifies for free health care.
His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies for relief from high energy bills…
If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled , they qualify for SSI.
Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare .
He doesn’t worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his family receive the equivalent of $30/hour in benefits.
Working Americans are lucky to have $5 or $6/hour left after paying their bills AND his.
The extremes on the left and right may never agree but for the vast middle the debate is almost entirely about means with everyone agreeing on the ends.
Who for instance does not believe that we as a society should try to get quality health care for all?
There actually are some. Some on the right think “I’ve got mine, and you are not my problem.” More damnably, some on the left think that as long as there are those who need health care there will always be someone to manipulate to do their political bidding to keep them in wealth and power.
ObamaCare perfectly illustrates this. Remember that debate was never about health care but about the “uninsured”. ObamaCare’s political supporters stuck to the matter of cost and never broached actual health care namely how to increase the quality, quantity and efficiency of those who provide it i.e. doctors, nurses, pharmaceutical manufacturers etc.
They never attempted to understand what makes someone go through the expense and effort to become one of these professionals nor did they consider what makes one of these professionals stick with their taxing jobs and put forth the extra effort that can’t be itemized on a spreadsheet.
They did however listen to the trial lawyers and political bureaucrats and so what we end up with are cuts in Medicare, increases in middle class health insurance and doctors quitting their practices. For many Obama voters this would be an unintended end because they truly wanted better health care for all. What they might still not understand, though, is that many opponents of ObamaCare wanted the same thing.
The rising dispute over compensation for public workers is another example. Decent people don’t begrudge public workers good pay. Decent people, however, also understand that it is wrong for a widow barely getting by to be forced to pay another thousand dollars per year in property taxes to give these public workers their nice pay.
Or consider the minimum wage. Most don’t want to see others made to do soul-sapping work for a pittance. On the other hand, most also would like to see a business owner pay an otherwise unemployable drunk a little self-respect to sweep out the store room without having to answer to government. And anybody sane would understand the benefits of this business owner being allowed to take a chance and give a teenager his first job which the red tape now put on his plate might otherwise dissuade him from doing.
The more the ends are discussed rather than the means the more likely common ground will be found among the typical American and the more likely the plans will be foiled by those who seek to divide and rule us.
The Delaware County Daily Times, today, devoted almost four pages — including the front page — of its ever shrinking paper to the recent allegations of sex crimes by clergy of the Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia.
They used the men’s names and extensively quoted a fellow with a blatant ax to grind who baldly convicted the accused.
The allegations stem from a Philadelphia grand jury report last month which resulted in charges being levied against three priests and a teacher, and said that 37 others remained in the ministry “even when there is very convincing evidence that the accusations are true.” These 37 included the 21 whose names became public two days ago when the Archdiocese put them on administrative leave.
Still, in all this righteous rage and huffing, there was no solid explanation as to why the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office wasn’t prosecuting these men being as how “there is very convincing evidence” and such.
The next-to-last paragraph of the main story mentioned that charges were never filed against some mentioned in a 2005 grand jury report concerning sex abuse in the Archdiocese due to the statute of limitations having lapsed but then said the statute was expanded in 2006 to age 50 for the victims, and never explained why those mentioned as having “very convincing evidence” against them in the 2011 report were not being prosecuted.
You think there might be a large religious institution being set up for some money-grab lawsuits?
Anyway, back to the Daily Times. Contrast the way it handled the story involving these unarrested, uncharged and unconvicted Catholic men with the wire story it ran on page 21: TV exec gets 25 to life for beheading wife.
Granted, it wasn’t a local story but one would have at least thought they would have mentioned the name of the network at which killer Muzzammil Hassan had been an executive, actually CEO. It was Bridges TV which he founded in 2004 to counter stereotypes that Muslims were violent people.
You think if it was a Catholic network it might have been noted?
This article by Chris Freind is being republished with his permission.
Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s “day of reckoning” budget, containing substantial cuts and rolling back spending to 2008 levels, may well pass the GOP-dominated legislature without major changes.
But just because the state constitution requires a balanced budget doesn’t mean it always happens that way.
Take the budgets of the last two years, which former Governor Ed Rendell championed and were passed by a Democratic House and Republican Senate.
In 2009, $400 million in revenue was budgeted from the tolling of Interstate 80. Except that the tolling never happened. Put that in the debit column.
And last year, the budget was passed on federal Medicaid dollars that hadn’t yet been appropriated (and ended up being $255 million less than budgeted) and a Rendell-promised Marcellus Shale gas tax that would generate hundreds of millions — but which never materialized.
And the forecast general tax revenue was over a billion dollars short.
But that’s not all. The legislature and Rendell raided MCARE in 2009 — the fund to offset Pennsylvania doctors’ skyrocketing medical malpractice insurance rates — to the tune of $800 million. A Commonwealth Court ordered the money repaid, but the Rendell Administration appealed. Odds are the state Supreme Court will uphold that decision. The hole deepens.
So despite some cuts last fall, we’re still looking at a $3 billion revenue gap which, by the way, is not factored into the acknowledged $4 billion deficit. The fact that no one wants to talk about this is not surprising, since it’s not in the interest of the politicians, and most of the media doesn’t do its homework.
Let’s put this type of maneuvering into perspective. What would happen if a publicly traded pharmaceutical company, in an attempt to placate Wall Street, added billions to its books to reflect a medicine it hadn’t yet produced? People would go to jail.
But in Harrisburg, it’s called Business As Usual. Instead of solving the real problem, the state’s leaders have resorted to what they do best: bury their heads in the sand.
Just because you pretend a problem doesn’t exist, though, doesn’t mean it’s not there. The can is being kicked, yet again, down the road. But the road is quickly coming to an end.
Overall, the budget rates a B-, assuming that you believe the numbers — and that’s a big assumption. There is nothing particularly special about this budget, since spending cuts were imminent after the federal stimulus money dried up. It gets the job done at a basic level, and Pennsylvania will continue to limp along.
While there were clearly some elements in the Governor’s address that could help Pennsylvania re-invent itself into an economic and industrial powerhouse, the speech lacked the breakout vision that is essential in selling those ideas to the public. No one expects Corbett to have the jazz of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, but Pennsylvanians need to be inspired if their state is to forge ahead.
A prime example would have been explaining why the Marcellus Shale holds such so much promise for Pennsylvania’s future, from the thousands of sustainable jobs it creates (and the accompanying houses bought and income spent in-state), to untold millions in tax revenue, to the manufacturing boom it can foster by providing extremely cheap energy.
Corbett could have showcased manufacturing companies that drill wells on-site and, as a result, now realize incredible cost savings for what is always the largest line item: energy. This directly translates into business expansion, more hiring, and a way to finally compete with China.
Or he could have decreed that from this moment, all future state vehicles will run on natural gas, currently about one-eighth the cost of gasoline, with zero emissions. This would be a win-win by increasing demand for natural gas — and if that doesn’t happen soon, the industry will start packing up by next year — and saving taxpayer money. And what a boom to the entire economy if we had an alternative to $4/gallon gasoline.
But that didn’t happen. So all the public knows is what they see in the headlines: “We’re Getting Drilled,” “How Corbett Fracked Pennsylvania’s Middle Class,” and “Big Budget Cuts? We Smell Gas,” along with editorials about how much the industry contributed to the Governor’s campaign.
Reality is now setting in; what a Republican candidate said on the campaign trail in October 2010 — a landslide election year for the GOP — was easy. Now the rubber meets road.
The question isn’t if Tom Corbett can get this budget passed, but whether can he sell it to the people, and at what cost to his agenda and party, particularly since 2012 will prove a better year for the Democrats. His deliberate strategy to remain silent for four months has resulted in lost opportunities to earn much-needed political capital needed to sell his budget cuts to the public.
To reverse that, he must now barnstorm across the state, a la Christie, attending everything from natural gas forums, explaining why an extraction tax will hurt the state, to school board meetings, where he can push his idea of teacher salary concessions. Time will tell whether he will effectively be that messenger.
There were a number of common sense proposals that, based on the legislature’s make-up, should come to fruition: the reduced spending and no new taxes; legal reform targeting frivolous lawsuits (the Fair Share Act); school choice in which competition and accountability would be injected into the educational system; the phase out of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax, the elimination of pork-barrel walking around money (WAMs); and calls for pay freezes and give-backs by public workers.
Likewise, there are a number of problem areas:
-Eliminating 1,500 jobs is a good start, but since reports state that 1,000 of them aren’t filled, the real number is only 500 jobs, which isn’t a huge budgetary factor. So why the gimmick?
-The assumption that revenue will grow by 4.7 percent, while not impossible, is hugely optimistic. Inflated revenue has been a hallmark of past budgets to make the numbers work on paper. In reality, they came up short, adding to rolling deficits. Without substantial growth in Pennsylvania, that rosy figure will prove unattainable.
-Calling for cuts to higher education by 50 percent, while increasing welfare spending substantially, will also be an extremely hard sell, for two reasons. First, many will frame the issue simply as education versus welfare, and which provides the better return on investment. Second, state-related schools, such as Temple, Penn State, Pitt and Lincoln, have immensely powerful lobbying operations, including parents and students, who will deluge their elected officials in opposition. Look for that figure to drop substantially, to be made up somewhere else.
-One item that is noticeably absent from the budget is the privatization of liquor stores, which is curious since it was the one issue on which the majority of Pennsylvanians agree. Instead, a blue-ribbon commission was formed to study privatization. Here’s a newsflash. Voters elect politicians to solve the problems, not authorize more meaningless commissions. A major chip in the fight has been shelved, shifting the momentum to the unions which support the status quo.
-Other areas left out but still mandatory for a healthy business climate were the reduction of the corporate net income tax (second-highest in nation) and the looming pension issues, which may be addressed as public sector union contracts are negotiated this
spring. The Governor has taken the elimination of collective bargaining off the table though, a concession that simply didn’t have to be made this early. They received nothing in return for that move. Another head-scratcher.
-There are also several inconsistencies that the Governor must address. While he advocated salary freezes and reductions, he raised the salaries of all his executive staff, and the budget of the Lieutenant Governor’s office increased 30 percent. And despite de-funding the adultBasic program, which provided healthcare to working poor on the premise that there was no more money, he found a way to bail out the Philadelphia Shipyard to build ships with no buyers.
Saying all the right things about fiscal discipline, free enterprise and removing government from where it doesn’t belong rings a bit hollow in light of some recent Corbett Administration decisions.
* * *
The Governor used the analogy of reviving an apple tree to explain why the cuts are necessary, stating that if the tree isn’t tended, it will grow into a tangle of limbs and bear no fruit. The pruning (hard cutting) was needed so the tree could once again bear fruit.
In keeping with the theme, here’s a piece of advice: if you’re afraid of getting a rotten apple, don’t go to the barrel. Get it off the tree.
The Governor is right: we need to revive the tree. But as of now, too much of this budget is coming from the same old barrel.
I’d Almost Be Willing To Get A Job To Strike — The popularly elected majority in the Wisconsin Senate finally got sick of the game-playing by Democrats and their public union masters, and approved 18-1, March 9, a bill stripping away collective bargaining rights for most public workers.
Needless to say the left has become quite upset and for us that means we get the image of the week.
This was taken from DemocratUnderground.Com on March 9 shortly before midnight and ProudDad perfectly illustrates the mindset of the liberal/progressive/giveme giveme voter.
Gov. Tom Corbett, March 8, unveiled a $27.3 billion budget that would be $900 million less than what the state spent last year.
Fine and dandy. The budget means no tax hike. Of course it also means 1,500 state workers would lose their jobs, some of which are probably waste but some of which are not.
The thing that is going to be overlooked as this drama moves to the legislature is that this general fund budget which will be the cause of much screeching is less than half of what the state is actually going to spend next year.
Pennsylvania spent $28.2 billion in general fund money last year; $23 billion in federal money, which doesn’t include the stimulus money; and $14.4 billion in special fund money, which is money is directed from sources specified by law.
The special funds included the $2.58 billion for the State Employees Retirement Fund and $5.36 billion for the School Employees Retirement Fund.
You know, if public pensions were maxed at $45,000 probably just about all those jobs could have been saved. Now, someone is going to say that that money is allocated by law. Well, laws can be changed. And someone will say but the legislators are among those getting those nice pensions. Well, legislators can be changed. And someone will say but the judges — who are also beneficiaries of those fat pensions — will overturn the new laws saying the pensions were a holy bargain that may never be abridged. Well, judges can not only be voted from office but they can be impeached as well.
Finally, someone will say it’s just not moral. Well, if someone thinks it’s OK to fund fat pensions to unproductive people by making a widow living on a $20,000 fixed income pay a few thousand more in property taxes, that person has no grounds to voice the word “moral”.
Citizen’s Alliance for Pennsylvania has written a response to the objections of some Tea Party groups to SB 1, which is the pending school choice legislation in Pennsylvania. After Sunday’s debate hosted by The Independence Hall Tea Party Association, however, it seems many of the concerns are moot matters as there is very little Tea Party opposition in principle to school choice and that the objections to SB 1 involve simply scope and mechanics which are likely to be addressed when the bill gets to the House.
For instance, Chris Freind, one of the most vocal and articulate critics of SB1, said Sunday that he didn’t think the bill — even as is — would be found to be unconstitutional and would likely save the taxpayers money.
So let’s get the bill out of the Senate and into the House, and shine it into a gem and save all the children from the burning building to use Pastor Joe Watkins analogy.
Anyway hat tip Bob Guzzardi for the CAP response which follows:
Several TEA Party groups in Pennsylvania have banded together
to declare opposition to SB 1, listing their grievances with the
legislation. While their heart is in the right place, their reasons for
opposing SB 1 have flaws. Herewith, a point-by-point refutation:
1. TEA Party Objection: Is SB 1 constitutional?
PROBABLY NOT but the state will find a way to subvert the constitution
by funneling money through the General Fund and using case law to defend
its premise. Article III, Sec 15.
Rebuttal: To which constitutional attorneys should we turn to
answer this question: PSEA labor union attorneys or the premier
conservative/libertarian public interest law firm, the Institute for
Justice, and their Pennsylvania partners? The latter have directly
testified to the constitutionality of Senate Bill 1.
In short, the Pennsylvania State Constitution states, “No money
raised for the support of the public schools of the Commonwealth shall
be appropriated to or used for the support of any sectarian school.”
State General Fund revenue does not meet this definition as it is not
raised for the purposes of funding public education. School district
property taxes are raised for this purpose and that is why Senate Bill 1
involves only state funding for private schools, and not local tax
property revenue.
Pennsylvania case law
permits the transfer of funds to parents for the purposes of exercising
school choice. In other words, because scholarships are given to
parents who then makes school choices, this money is not being given
directly to private schools. Furthermore, Pennsylvania’s General Fund
already includes line items directly funding private school students.
Finally, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will have jurisdiction
over any legal issues or concerns of constitutionality, though voucher
programs have been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. TEA Party Objection: Does SB1 increase the size
and scope of government? YES, there will be a new department acting
independently, hand picked by the Governor and accountable to
themselves.
Rebuttal: There is no new “department” being created, nor is it
unaccountable. It will be an unpaid “Educational Choice Board” within
the Department of Education tasked with the responsibility of
implementing, administrating, and overseeing the $75 million EITC
program and the $25 million voucher program. This neither increases the
size nor expands the scope of government but provides the vehicle
through which more choices will be given to more children trying to
escape the public school system.
3. TEA Party Objection: Does SB1 take property ($) from one person and give it to another without their consent? YES, ‘Vouchers’ will be provided to only low income families, of whom generally do not pay school tax.
Rebuttal: Do you currently “consent” to the $26 billion we spend
on the public schools today? How about the $19,634 the taxpayers pay
for a public school kid in Pittsburgh? And how much do families in
these failing school districts pay in taxes today for this massive
education subsidy? Unless the TEA Party is advocating abolishment of
public education altogether, money is going to be taken from you for
that purpose; at least with SB 1, your tax money will bear portability
and flexibility, which will result in more efficient usage of it, which
in turn will result in savings to you.
The reality is that taxpayers are already footing incredibly
expensive bills for failing schools and subsidizing low-income
families. The question then is how do we stop funding failure and start
leaving that money with its rightful owners. SB1 does this.
Not only does SB1 allow kids to use a voucher to find a better
school, it costs on a fraction of what we are currently paying for
failure. In Harrisburg, where the taxpayers are paying $17,675 per kid
for failure, the voucher would be worth $8,498. So a kid uses only half
as much taxpayer money to attend a better school. This is good news
for the taxpayer. Of course, it is now incumbent on the Harrisburg
school board to return the remaining $11,136 to its rightful owners—the
taxpayers. And there is a much better chance of getting nine school
board members to return that money to its citizens than there is in
getting the 253 members of the General Assembly to do it.
SB1 is truly the antithesis of the concern inherent in this objection.
4. TEA Party Objection: Is SB1 transparent and provide oversite?
NO, the Education Opportunity Board reports directly to the Governor,
is appointed by the governor and accountable to themselves.
Rebuttal: Where is the lack of transparency and oversight? The
Educational Choice Board is simply the manager of the legislatively
created program. Where else and how would you do it differently?
5. TEA Party Objection: Will SB1
cause a reactionary increase in the cost of non-public
schools? YES. SB1 will necessarily cause “bloated and more expensive
private education”. How much does PA spend on higher education?
“State government spends nearly $2 billion annually on higher education. For the 2010-11 fiscal year, state spending is being maintained with the help of $249 million in federal stimulus money. But that spigot will be turned off in June 2011.” Funding for Grants to Students has increased $55.7 million or 16 percent since 2002-03. Higher
education provides a cautionary tale of how public subsidies can drive
up the cost of education. State legislatures and the federal government
have provided increasing subsidies to both public and private
universities for decades. The universities then use the subsidies to
spend more on salaries and programs, ultimately raising university
expenses and the call to raise tuition, generally answered with more
subsidies. Wringing their hands about a politically induced college
affordability crisis, politicians have continued to increase subsidies.
Lawmakers should be concerned that the same phenomenon could occur in
K-12 education. (In other words, the non-public schools would have NO
restraint in raising their tuition fees, making it more expensive for
EVERYONE – Why would they leave the money on the table – they won’t!).
Rebuttal: This is an “apples and oranges” analogy that ignores
what happens in a marketplace. Higher education does not operate on a
portable voucher system and colleges do not have publicly elected school
boards that can control costs.
Kids using vouchers in private
schools will make up only a fraction of the student body. This means
that many more parents will be paying some level of tuition. Any
“reactionary increase” would drive out paying customers—many of whom are
already subsidizing others who may be getting tuition assistance.
Indeed, if low-income students use vouchers—and are no longer in need of
receiving subsidized tuition by those paying the full tuition
rate—tuition could actually go down, rather than up.
6. TEA Party Objection: Does the
SB1 Voucher Program treat all citizens of the Commonwealth equally? NO,
only low-income families will benefit from the voucher program.
Rebuttal: The current system doesn’t treat all citizens equally,
but SB1 does make sure that those who need immediate assistance most
get it. A family of four, earning less than $29,000 would qualify.
Should the voucher be made available to everyone, regardless of income
or school district? Absolutely. But no bill has been introduced that
makes the voucher universal.
But SB1 also includes an important increase in the Educational
Improvement Tax Credit scholarship program, whereby a family of four
earning $84,000 would qualify to receive scholarships to attend their
school of choice. This income level is nearly the double the statewide
average, and clearly benefitting a majority of school-age children.
7. TEA Party Objection: Does SB1
invite government intrusion into the Private Sector? YES, Section 2502,
(2) the non-public school is in full compliance with all Federal and
State laws.
SB1 does not require any private school to participate and submit
to any new rules included with the law. It should be noted that the
Christian, Catholic, and evangelical schools have all been involved in
the crafting of SB1. There is nothing that prevents the government form
intruding on private schools today. Eternal vigilance is the price of
liberty, so we must always keep the wolves at bay.
8. TEA Party Objection: Does SB1
address the root cause of the problem or identify the anticipated result
of the solution? NO, there is no mention of what is prompting this
bill.
Rebuttal: The root cause of the problem is the union monopoly of
public schools, kids and teachers. The union runs our Communistic-type
system and it cannot be dismantled in one election cycle. It would be
great to do this overnight, but the power and wealth of the unions is
too great today. We must undermine them piece by piece until we the
people can reclaim our tax money, our kids, and our schools.
School choice, even in small bites, is the key to prying off the
unions’ grip on our kids and schools. They know it, and it’s why they
are spending millions to defeat SB1. It is troubling, to say the least,
that liberty-loving folks don’t see this and aiding and abetting the
enemy in this fight.
9. TEA Party Objection: Is the
General Assembly providing for the maintenance and support of a thorough
and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of this
Commonwealth? APPARENTLY NOT because they have introduced SB1 to put a
Band-Aid on a corpse This is a Big Government solution using tax payer
money reaching into the private sector, where zip code and economics are
being used to determine eligibility.
Rebuttal: So your solution is to keep funding the “corpse”? As
demonstrated above, SB1 actually begins to REDUCE spending in the
government school system. Instead of giving the failing system in
Harrisburg $17,675 per kid, the taxpayers would pay for a voucher of
only $8,498 to actually give the child an education. We then have to
demand that the school board returns the remaining $11,136 to its
rightful owners—us. How is this a “Big Government solution”?
10. TEA Party Objection: Is
SB1 Vulnerable to lobbyists and special interests: Any system in which
the government rather than the consumer pays the bills is susceptible to
capture by special interests. Just as teachers’ unions consistently
(and successfully) lobby for higher educational spending to raise
teachers’ salaries, so government-funded vouchers would lead
private school organizations to band together and lobby for larger
vouchers. Since the school organizations would be organized on this
issue, and since parents and other taxpayers are generally not
organized, it is likely that vouchers would increase over time. How
these increases would compare to the rapid growth we have already
witnessed in public school spending is impossible to say. It is
worthwhile to note that when consumers are responsible for paying
their own way, lobbying is no longer possible: the only way you can
lobby your own customers is to offer better services. This is why
competitive market prices are generally lower than public (government)
costs for similar services–existing private versus public schools are a
case in point.
Rebuttal: Government is always vulnerable to lobbyists and
special interests. That’s why we need limited government and less
wealth redistribution. SB1 moves us in that direction, not away from
it. This is also why the lobbyists and special interests are OPPOSED to
SB1, not for it.
11. TEA Party Objection: Is this a bailout for the
NON-public Schools? YOU DECIDE. The Catholic School System has been
suffering from enrollment decline for over 10 years. The Archdiocese of
Philadelphia has lost 34,462 students or about 34 percent of its total
school enrollment since 2001, according to figures provided by the Catholic Church. Private school enrollment down: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/09/private_school_enrollment_stat.html
Catholic School Enrollment down: http://www.ncea.org/news/annualdatareport.asp
Rebuttal: A bailout? Hardly. The overwhelming majority of
private schools are guided by a mission to serve, not make a profit.
It’s the unions who are profiting from the current system that pays high
salaries, unaffordable pension benefits, and premium health care
programs—all at the taxpayers’ expense. By not enacting SB 1 and thus
allowing the current public school monopoly to continue, it is the
public schools and their unions we are propping up and bailout out.
12. Is there a Constitutional financial benefit right now in
SB1 for low to middle income Pennsylvania citizens for
homeschooling/cyber schooling/non-public schooling. Homeschool/Cyber
Schools are not included in the bill. However, non public schools are.
If a family qualifies under the generous EITC program (Education Improvement Tax Credit) it
is possible to receive financial aid. However, aid varies based on
the number of children in your household, your income and the non-public
school financial aid requirements that you are applying for.
Rebuttal: SB1 expands educational options for many, many
families. It may not include everyone. But it certainly isn’t
contracting anyone’s educational options but is an incremental
improvement that will begin busting up the labor unions’ monopoly of
school tax money, kids and teachers.
13. TEA Party objection: Is it the role of government to create competition in the private sector or public sector? NO
Rebuttal: The problem is that competition is lacking in the
government education system. SB1 brings more competition into the
current monopoly situation. Again, this is why the PSEA/PSBA hegemony
is so vehemently opposed to SB1. Government hates competition and this
is we the people imposing competition on it.
Chris Freind has generously provided permission to publish his column regarding yesterday’s school choice debate hosted by The Independence Hall Tea Party Association.
The Great School Choice Debate , hosted by The Independence Hall Tea
Party Association on March 6, was a passionate discussion of Senate Bill
1, the school choice bill currently in the state senate. At issue was
whether SB 1, a limited scope bill granting a voucher to low-income
families (in which the state subsidy would follow the child, not the
school) is the only legislation achievable at this time, or whether a
broader, more comprehensive bill can be passed.
Unfortunately, it wasn’t the healthy debate that it should have been
because Senator Anthony Williams, one of the bill’s prime sponsors and a
confirmed panelist, arrived well after the event had ended. It seems
he was misinformed of the time, despite everyone else getting it right.
Although mistakes happen, it is curious that this is the second time
in one month that the senator committed to a school choice discussion,
and failed to show. Some may chalk that up to bad staffing, but others
who have been around politics don’t believe in such coincidence.
Regardless, the discussion was lively, civil and productive, with all
the participants in agreement that school choice was crucial, the only
measure that would bring competition and accountability to our failed
school system. The panelists were:
-Reverend Joe Watkins, former Lt. Gov. candidate, MSNBC commentator and Executive Director of the Students First organization;
-Dom Giordano, talk-show host extraordinaire on 1210 WPHT, the
region’s largest talk-radio station. Giordano was slated to be the
moderator, but sat with Watkins so the discussion wouldn’t be lopsided.
-State Representative Curt Schroder, a proponent of statewide school
choice. Schroder was a House member in the mid-90’s when a comprehensive
school choice bill barely missed passage;
-Yours truly, author of numerous columns and participant in several
television segments advocating school choice, including why SB 1 is
flawed legislation that will most likely fail if it is not amended in
the House to expand choice. I was also Executive Director of the REACH
Alliance, the preeminent statewide school choice organization, during
the school choice battles in the 90’s.
Questions were offered by Teri Adams, President of the Independence
Hall Tea Party, Sharon Cherubin, Executive Director of UNITE PA, a
grassroots organization based in Lancaster County, and the audience.
***
Before the Pennsylvania dialogue began, New Jersey state senator
Michael Doherty discussed his state’s efforts to pass education reform.
Doherty explained that, while more expansive tax credit programs and
school choice would be ideal, they simply weren’t possible given the
sizable Democratic majorities in that state’s House and Senate. He said
that they had to settle for what was politically possible.
And that’s exactly why the defeatist attitude of some SB 1 proponents
is so incomprehensible. To say that a bill limited only to low-income
families is the best we can hope for is simply inaccurate.
Which is why something doesn’t pass the sniff test.
Rational political observers have stated that, if they didn’t know
better, it would seem, for some reason, there has been undue influence
to kill any effort to expand the bill.
Either that, or legislators don’t want to do the work necessary to come up with better legislation.
I had the opportunity to speak with Senator Williams after the
non-debate, and while I came away with some good news, I also left with a
lot more skepticism.
Williams claimed that the legislation for comprehensive, statewide
school choice failed in 1995 by a single vote, a point on which I
wholeheartedly agree.
I then asked him if he would support a more expanded version of
school choice than is currently offered in SB 1, and he stated that he
would (great news), but that “it would not pass,” (a perplexing
statement).
And therein lies the problem. There is absolutely nothing on which
that assumption can be made, and, in fact, the opposite is undisputedly
true.
Let’s forget our biases for or against school choice, and focus just on the political realities between 1995 and now.
Despite the Republican wave of 1994, the State House remained
Democratic by one vote. It took a party switch to give control to the
GOP — and the ability to push school choice in that chamber.
In the time span since, the legislature has experienced a turnover of at least 70 percent.
Fast forward to the wave of 2010, when thirteen seats flipped and the
GOP gained a ten seat majority. And not only are there more
conservative legislators, but the public is much more accepting of
school choice.
As an added benefit, Williams will most likely bring several more
Democratic legislators with him who were previously “No” votes.
So let’s follow this logic. Fact: the statewide school choice bill
fell one vote short in 1995, when the House had a one seat Republican
majority. Fact: the House now has a 10 vote GOP majority. Fact: the
electorate is much more understanding of the need for this legislation.
Fact: the Republican Governor has stated his support for statewide
school choice. Fact: Williams brings additional Democratic votes.
Given these facts, the passage of comprehensive school choice legislation should be a slam dunk.
Instead, with no actual vote count having been taken, the white towel has been thrown in before the fight has begun.
The “we can only get school choice incrementally” argument is based
on a number of false assumptions, such as the House and Governorship
remaining in Republican hands over the next several cycles, the
legislature actually agreeing to take up such a controversial issue year
after year while facing the wrath of well-funded teachers unions, and
that a limited program will produce noticeable improvements. And if a
limited program is judged to be only a marginal improvement, the entire
program could be jeopardized, nullifying the one-slice-at-a-time
argument.
Here’s the bottom line: the forces standing in the way of progress by
deliberately ignoring all the political signs need to stop being part
of the problem.
Pennsylvania cannot improve its economic position by graduating
functional illiterates, which is exactly what we are doing. Half of the
state’s 11th graders cannot read or write proficiently.
It’s time, once and for all, to take our heads out of the sand and do
the right thing for our children — all of them. Failure to do so will
simply waste another decade and forsake our future.
And what a terrible “choice” that would be.
Today’s debate at the Independence Visitors Center in Philadelphia, hosted by the Independence Hall Tea Party Association wasn’t so much between supporters and opponents of SB 1 , the pending school choice legislation in Pennsylvania, but between the play-it-safers and the go-for-the-fencers.
And when the rather collegial affair ended, there seemed to be a consensus that the bill did have room for improvement.
The only disappointing facet of the afternoon was the failure of State Sen. Anthony Williams (D-8) to show up to defend the bill he authored, despite being on the playbill to do so.
Williams did appear long after the debate ended and was seen having an intense, quasi-private discussion with SB 1 critic Chris Freind
It would have been nice to put your cards on the table for all of us to see, Tony.
With regard to the debate, defending it as per the status quo were Rev. Joe Watkins, who is executive director of Students First, and WPHT 1210 AM radio host Dom Giordano, who had been scheduled to moderate but jumped in at the last minute to fill in for Williams. Tea Party activist Don Adams was drafted to take Giordano’s place as moderator. Squaring off against them were Freind, who is a columnist and a former executive director of the school choice advocacy group REACH Alliance, and State Rep. Curt Schroder (R-155) of Downingtown.
All are strong supporters of school choice. Watkins best summed his side’s position by comparing public schools to a burning building and saying if one couldn’t rescue all the children one should at least rescue the ones they can.
Freind in his rebuttal compared the matter to a sale of a house and said one should never start negotiations with the lowest offer one would accept.
Freind wants a voucher program that would cover far more than just families whose incomes are at or below 130 percent of the
federal poverty level — $28,665 for a family of four — as per SB1 after three years.
He, true to his word, would not say what would be the “lowest offer” he would accept despite some needling from Giordano.
Freind and several others noted that middle class families often find their children trapped in inadequate schools.
He said SB 1, as is, would let the teacher unions maintain almost all their power.
One point of discussion involved whether there were enough votes to pass a broad school choice bill. Freind insisted yes because the last school choice attempt failed by just a handful of votes with the GOP having just a one-vote majority in the House and the Black Philadelphia Democrats being in opposition. He noted that many of the Black Democrats are now supporters and the Republicans have a 12-vote House majority.
Giordano and Watkins both insisted that the votes were not there.
Schroder, the insider on the stage, would not guess as to how the votes would fall and said nobody has counted them.
Schroder made the biggest news of the day when he said SB 1 would likely be amended in the House to something more palatable to Freind’s faction. Both Watkins and Giordano expressed approval.
So much for contention.
Freind noted that IBEW 98 President John Dougherty, whose union endorsed SB 1 , told him he would be quite happy if the number of students who would eligible for vouchers were increased.
Several interesting points were made during audience feedback time. A homeschool mom pointed out that homeschoolers saved the state’s taxpayers $286 million last year and asked if assistance to homeschoolers could be part any House amendments to SB 1.
Schroder said he was amenable to that.
Lisa Esler of the Delaware County Patriots passionately pointed out that it was not just about test scores but saving children from being indoctrinated into values their parents believe to be wrong.
A woman who described herself as a former Philadelphia School District principal said she began a charter school after retirement whose students now show a 70 percent competency compared to 30 percent in the competing public schools.
Freind noted that school choice is not necessarily a panacea for non-public schools. He said many of the Catholic schools closing are not doing so because of demographics but simply because they are bad schools.
Freind made it clear that critics of the bill must shun the racist opponents of it, who he recognized existed.
The questioners for the debaters were Sharon Cherubin, executive director of Unite PA and Teri Adams, president of the Independence Hall Tea Party Association.