APRIL 25, 2012

What Does the Primary Earthquake Mean?

I'm writing to you from Pittsburgh, which was, in a certain sense, ground zero of last night's primary earthquake.

Last night, I watched Tom Smith—who has made it a matter of public record that he is a strong supporter of the Commonwealth Foundation—overwhelmingly beat the state GOP-endorsed candidate for the U.S. Senate.  Meanwhile, not far from where I was standing, a sitting state representative endorsed by the majority leaders of both chambers of the General Assembly and the state senator he meant to succeed lost badly.

As Pete DeCoursey is reporting this morning (subscription required), those two races were just the beginning.  In Blair County, one of the most senior committee chairmen lost his renomination fight.  In Cumberland County (where I live) and Schuylkill County, well-known and well-connected state senators had to fight hard in order to keep their seats.  Back where I grew up, in Delaware County, the Senate Majority Leader had more of a race on his hands than people expected.  Even the Speaker of the House had a squeaker.

So what happened is obvious:  There was an earthquake last night.  The question is, what does it mean?

It doesn't mean what the left will probably tell you, namely that voters hate Gov. Corbett's long-overdue fiscal belt tightening.  Quite the opposite:  Voters are saying that it isn't enough.

Just look at the context.  It's obvious that the "churn" (as Matt Brouillette says) that began after the 2005 pay raise continues apace.  Secondly, if you look nationally, the old saw that the Keystone State is far too blue for real reform is on its last legs.  In even bluer states, particularly New Jersey and Wisconsin, new leaders have faced down the government unions, have done much more than our new leaders here, and have been vindicated at the ballot box because they offered an overarching vision that inspired people.

Like it or not, the conservative base does not see that kind of inspiring vision here.  That was pretty clear at the recent Pennsylvania Leadership Conference, in whose straw poll 57 percent of respondents said they were dissatisfied with the direction of our state over a year after the departure of Gov. Ed Rendell.  After last night, it is now indisputable.

The base is restless, and the rest are unpersuaded.  The solution isn't to pivot and provide more patented Pennsylvania milquetoast mush, as we've seen time after time in the past, nor is it to argue that the base just doesn't appreciate what our new leaders have done so far.  It is to lead boldly and to inspire.  That's what we're hungry for.

Last night, the voters decided to send some new blood to do just that.  I'm hopeful last night's victors won't be the only ones who get the memo—because middling mediocrity and falling behind other states are what has gotten us in this pickle to begin with, and in many ways, my children's future depends on whether we do something different, now.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 11:13 AM | 3 comments

APRIL 5, 2012

I'm Bringing Some Gumbo to the State Capitol

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal refused to let government unions push him around.  His reward?  A sweet victory not just for himself, but for the taxpayers, parents, and students of Louisiana.  Here's the word from our friends at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice and CF's sister think tank, the Pelican Institute:

BATON ROUGE - Louisiana will be home to one of the nation's largest school voucher programs once Gov. Bobby Jindal signs legislation that recently passed his state's legislature. Today, by a vote of 60-42, the Louisiana House of Representatives approved Gov. Jindal's voucher expansion, which passed the Senate last night 24-15.

"This is a momentous day for the families of Louisiana," State Superintendent of Education John White said. "All students deserve a fair chance in life, and that begins with the opportunity to attend a high-quality school. These policy changes are aligned with that central belief, and Gov. Jindal and state lawmakers have demonstrated a clear commitment to prioritize the educational rights of Louisiana's next generation above all else."

The expansion of the Student Scholarships for Educational Excellence Program will allow low- and middle-income students in Louisiana public schools graded "C," "D," or "F" by the state accountability system to receive government-funded vouchers to attend private schools. Currently, that option is available only to children in New Orleans and students with special needs in eligible parishes.

Last month, a poll commissioned by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, an organization supportive of school vouchers, found that 60 percent of Louisiana voters surveyed were in favor of Gov. Jindal's plan to provide vouchers to more families statewide.

"In passing this measure, lawmakers listened to their constituents who are demanding high-quality education options for Louisiana families," Robert Enlow, president and CEO of the Friedman Foundation, said. Enlow's organization was founded by Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, who first developed the idea of school vouchers. "This measure puts control of kids' educations where it belongs-in the hands of their parents. We applaud Gov. Jindal, Superintendent White, and the legislative leaders who are making Louisiana a lead state in putting students first."

Currently, 18 states, including Louisiana, and Washington, D.C., provide some type of private school choice either through vouchers or the tax code. With more than half of its student population now voucher-eligible, the magnitude of Louisiana's voucher program rivals only Indiana's, which enacted a similar statewide program last year.

"Louisiana just opened the doors of opportunity to thousands of children," Kevin Kane, president of Louisiana's Pelican Institute, said. "By expanding school choice, our K-12 education system will be more effective, innovative, and fiscally responsible. Students and parents will be the immediate beneficiaries, but, in the long run, Louisiana as a whole will prosper with a better educated population."

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 01:50 PM | 0 comment

MARCH 30, 2012

Not Why I'm Here

"Why am I here?"  That's an excellent question to ask yourself if you work in Harrisburg.  This week, as I read a piece by Karen Langley in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, I found that question ("Why am I here?") was much needed.

Ms. Langley's article summarized a debate this week in the Pennsylvania Senate over a constitutional amendment that would bar imposing health insurance mandates in our state.  As she pointed out, there was a lengthy dispute regarding whether it was appropriate to use the term "Obamacare" on the floor.  Here's a moment she captured:

As the debate wore on, Mr. Scarnati, R-Jefferson, observed that spectators were likely "shaking their heads."

"We are consuming time arguing if we call it Obamacare," he said. "For goodness sake, people."

You could argue that Sen. Scarnati was answering my big question.  He was saying he isn't here to debate semantics.  Fair enough.

Let me give my own answer, though.  Here's why I'm here.  My wife and I decided to uproot our family two years ago and move back to our home state because I honestly believed that if we don't act quickly, the country our kids inherit is no longer going to be great—and that the best place to change that is in the states, not Washington, D.C., where we were living before.  I still believe that today.

What does that have to do with this week's Senate debate?  Everything.  Because when it comes to actually stopping one of the biggest attacks on our freedom ever, namely Obamacare, the problem with what happened this week wasn't the spat over semantics.  It is that as that same Post-Gazette piece points out, "As a constitutional amendment, the legislation would not take effect until passed by both chambers in two consecutive legislative sessions and approved by voters at the polls" (emphasis added).  In the meantime, the things that will actually determine the fate of Obamacare (mainly the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling this summer, the November election, and the ensuing debate in Congress) will occur while Pennsylvanians wait.

What happened in the Senate yesterday was essentially symbolic, at a time when our state and our nation are dying for leadership, for courage, and for tough choices—from both parties, both chambers, and all branches of government.  To borrow Sen. Scarnati's phrase, that is why I'm shaking my head. 

Yes, Sen. Scarnati's constitutional amendment would further solidify the Keystone State's opposition to Obamacare, but it would have little impact on Pennsylvanians today.  HB 42, however, sponsored by Rep. Matt Baker, would bar the individual mandate in state law without requiring the multi-year amendment process.

Not only that, we need much more from lawmakers than than just fighting bad federal policies.  We need them to dedicate just as much effort undoing decades of attacks on freedom here in Pennsylvania, in the form of skyrocketing spending, deepening debt, and forced attendance at failing, violent schools.

The issue isn't what we call the destructive public policies inflicted on our state and nation.  The issue is whether we are doing everything we possibly can about them, as quickly as we can, before the ship of state hits the iceberg we all clearly see ahead.

That's why I'm here.  What about you?

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 05:00 PM | 0 comment

MARCH 21, 2012

Violent, Failing Schools Will Lead to Unsafe, Ailing America

That's the upshot of a story in this morning's Wall Street Journal.  It begins:

Flaws in U.S. schools are increasingly causing a national-security risk, producing adults without the math, science and language skills necessary to ensure American leadership in the 21st century, warns a report issued Tuesday by the Council on Foreign Relations.

Warning that "the education crisis is a national security crisis," the report says that too many schools are failing to adequately equip students for the work force, and that many have stopped teaching the sort of basic civics that prepare students for citizenship. Resources and expertise aren't distributed equitably, often hurting the most at-risk students. The situation, it says, puts the country's "future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk."

What do we do, you ask?  Exactly what CF and many parents whose kids are trapped in failing, violent schools have been requesting:

The report urges wider use of charter schools and other alternatives to neighborhood public schools that are underperforming....

The report acknowledges the persistence of the problems it highlights, noting that many of the same risks were identified in "Nation at Risk," a 1983 report commissioned by the Reagan administration that warned of "a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people." But it cites reasons for fresh hope, including growing public awareness of the issues and bipartisan support for measures to address them.

"This country has a real but time-limited opportunity to make changes that would maintain the United States' position in the world and its security at home," it concludes.

Indeed.  And you can imagine what comes after that inspiring call to action:  whining from those who are profiting from the status quo.  Here's union boss Randi Weingarten:

Six members of the task force offered "additional and dissenting views," including Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, a leading teachers union. While praising the task force's goals and endorsing the report, she criticized it for "placing inordinate responsibility for school improvement on individual teachers" and for "promoting policies like the current topdown, standardized test-driven accountability that has narrowed the curriculum and reinforced the teaching of lower-level skills."

Memo to Ms. Weingarten:  Violent, failing schools aren't good for teachers, either.  And the amount of money—including from sky-high property taxes due to the pensions for which unions have pushed—that teachers' friends, family members, and neighbors are forced to put into schools that are not giving our nation what it needs is an outrage.  It's time for a new approach.  That would be the same approach we use in virtually every other important decision in life, including higher education:  choice and competition.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 10:30 AM | 0 comment

MARCH 15, 2012

Principled, Punchy Pols Are Popular Pols

I've written previously in this space about Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who has garnered enormous popularity while governing courageously.  Today, with a new Quinnipiac poll about Gov. Tom Corbett's popularity engendering lots of chatter, I want to turn your attention to another relevant governor:  Mitch Daniels of Indiana.

These days, Gov. Daniels is a rock star.  Just yesterday, one of our CF supporters told me how much he wished Gov. Daniels would run for president, and believe me, he wasn't the first.  Observers nationwide have toasted Gov. Daniels' effectiveness in turning the Hoosier State around.  What we forget today, though, is that in the middle of his first term, this prophet had no honor in his hometown.  The Indianapolis Star ran a pretty unambiguous headline on November 25, 2007:  "50% disapprove of Daniels' work."  The story noted that the year before, Gov. Daniels' approval rating had been an even lower 37 percent.

You might think, based on that, that Gov. Daniels subsequently turned tail and/or became a private citizen.  You'd be wrong.  He hasn't let up on taking a scalpel to spending.  Less than a year after that poll came out, he won reelection resoundingly, garnering "more votes than any candidate for any public office in the state's history."  And since then he has signed a right-to-work law and a major expansion of school choice.

Too many here in Harrisburg think constant caution or even cowardice creates confidence.  Gov. Daniels' story says otherwise.  We elect leaders to lead.  Sometimes that entails making difficult decisions, and we expect those to be explained compellingly along the way.  That's exactly what Gov. Daniels has done in Indiana, and the results are obvious—not just in terms of his own political standing, but by the people of his state being better off.

Here's hoping that as this enormously consequential year continues, politicians here in Pennsylvania learn the lessons Gov. Daniels can teach us.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 01:27 PM | 0 comment

FEBRUARY 10, 2012

It's Not About Tuition, It's About Mo' Money

Over at PA Independent, Stacy Brown has an important story on the ongoing fight over Gov. Corbett's budget proposal.  There, Duquesne University professor Antony Davies, a member of CF's Council of Scholars, makes an important and almost-never-confessed (particularly by those on the "inside" of higher ed) acknowledged statement:  Colleges hike tuition no matter what governors do.  "Cuts like Corbett announced have no bearing on tuition," Prof. Davies says.

As my colleague Elizabeth blogged the other day, the data bear Prof. Davies' point out.  So does last year's experience:  After its now-departed president Graham Spanier hyperbolically proclaimed that President Lincoln was crying about Gov. Corbett's cuts from beyond the grave because they would produce skyrocketing tuition and irreparable harm, Penn State approved...its smallest tuition hike in years.

The more temperate, but similarly inaccurate, claims you're hearing from the higher ed establishment right now (including from at least one member of Gov. Corbett's new advisory panel) are not based in reality, and they're not about students or their families.  If that were truly the concern, these wealthy institutions would have found ways eons ago to keep tuition down—or even decrease it (which is, but should not be, a foreign concept in our innovation-heavy, iPhone world).  This is about preserving the status quo, because cutting college costs would require real change and real courage from those on campus—and because beating legislators up until they cough up more of other people's cash is easier than raising dollars the old-fashioned way, namely by asking people to give you their hard-earned money voluntarily.  (Take it from one who does the latter regularly!)  No, this is about one thing and one thing only.  To quote one of the high points of American culture in the 1990s, it's about "mo' money."  As the movie poster said, why settle for less?

(As a reminder, PA Independent began as a project of CF but has been a completely separate entity since January 1, 2011.)

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 10:14 AM | 0 comment

JANUARY 31, 2012

Not a Joke: Learn from Louisiana

Here in Pennsylvania, we like to think we're better than states like Louisiana.  Those folks used to have slaves, but our founder was a Quaker.  They're poor, but we're rich.  Their schools are infamously bad, but around here we've got districts like Garnet Valley (where I grew up), Cumberland Valley (which is much in the news here in the midstate), and North Allegheny (which I always hear about while traveling out west).

Here's the rub, though:  We're fat, happy, and languishing while and Louisiana is turning itself around.  Over the last twenty years, Pennsylvania ranks 41st in the nation in job growth, 46th in population growth, and 48th in personal income growth.  Those are the kind of numbers you'd normally associate with...well, Louisiana!  Meanwhile, as I've written before, the Pelican State has a governor, Bobby Jindal, who's mustered a 70-percent approval rating and two-thirds election majority while aggressively cutting the state budget, privatizing services, and giving parents educational choices.

Now, Gov. Jindal is doubling down on his past success.  He just proposed what the Wall Street Journal is calling "America's largest school voucher program, broadest parental choice system, and toughest teacher accountability regime—all in one legislative session."  And he understands that the way you respond to bogus charges is by speaking the truth loud and clear:  When union bosses in his state attacked poor families, saying they can't make good choices for their kids, he went on national television to defend them.

The lesson of Louisiana is clear:  Boldness begets boldness and turns states around, whereas milquetoast satisfies no one and perpetuates mediocrity.  The question is:  Are Pennsylvania pols paying attention?

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 00:45 PM | 0 comment

DECEMBER 30, 2011

Calvin Coolidge, Tom Corbett, and Why Politics Isn't Like Business

My wife is awesome.  As proof, I submit to you the fact that she willingly parted with 35 bucks in order to give me The Autobiography of Calvin Coolidge for Christmas.  I just finished it, and I recommend it.  In particular, as I reflect on the last year of Harrisburg politics, I'd like to recommend the following passage—from a man who was, by the way, a lawyer-turned-governor known for being particular with his words and for cutting budgets.  (Sound familiar?)  I'd submit to you that generally speaking, if you replace the words "President," "Congress," and "Washington" with "Governor," "General Assembly," and "Harrisburg," you'll end up with some darn good advice with applicability well beyond the 1920s:

In determining upon all his actions, however, the President has to remember that he is dealing with two different minds.  One is the mind of the country, largely intent upon its own personal affairs, and, while not greatly interested in the government, yet desirous of seeing it conducted in an orderly and dignified manner for the advancement of the public welfare.  Those who compose this mind wish to have the country prosperous and are opposed to unjust taxation and public extravagance.  At the same time they have a patriotic pride which moves them with so great a desire to see things well done that they are willing to pay for it.  They gladly contribute their money to place the United States in the lead.  In general, they represent the public opinion of the land.

But they are unorganized, formless, and inarticulate.  Against a compact and well drilled minority they do not appear to be very effective.  They are nevertheless the great power in our government.  I have constantly appealed to them and have seldom failed in enlisting their support.  They are the court of last resort and their decisions are final.

They are, however, the indirect rather than the direct power.  The immediate authority with which the President has to deal is vested in the political mind.  In order to get things done he has to work through that agency.  Some of our Presidents have appeared to lack comprehension of the political mind.  Although I have been associated with it for many years, I always found difficulty in understanding it.  It is a strange mixture of vanity and timidity, of an obsequious attitude at one time and a delusion of grandeur at another time, of the most selfish preferment combined with the most sacrificing patriotism.  The political mind is the product of men in public life who have been twice spoiled.  They have been spoiled with praise and they have been spoiled with abuse.  With them nothing is natural, everything is artificial.  A few rare souls escape these influences and maintain a vision and a judgment that are unimpaired.  They are a great comfort to every President and a great service to their country.  But they are not sufficient in number so that the public business can be transacted like a private business.

It is because in their hours of timidity the Congress becomes subservient to the importunities of organized minorities that the President comes more and more to stand as the champion of the rights of the whole country.

President Coolidge was often accused of being taciturn (indeed, he's known as "Silent Cal") but in fact, he was one of the early masters of the then-new technology of the radio.  Why?  He says it above:  He knew it fell to him, as the executive, to rally the "unorganized, formless, and inarticulate" public in defense of their rights, lest the "compact and well drilled minority" be the only voice the "political mind" hears.  And the results speak for themselves:  He cut taxes three times, vetoed a farm subsidy bill, kept spending down, and retired a quarter of the national debt.

As the New Year dawns, I for one would like to raise a toast to President Coolidge's mode of governance.  May we see more of it in Harrisburg and beyond.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 09:30 AM | 0 comment

DECEMBER 8, 2011

A Word on Hellholes

As I got in the car yesterday to begin a very long drive home from Pike County, I learned of a letter Sen. Vincent Hughes had sent requesting that I apologize for using the term "hellholes" to describe Pennsylvania public schools in which there is a violent incident every 17 minutes, and for noting that students whose schools fail them are likely to end up in jail and/or on welfare. I'm told Sen. Hughes voiced similar sentiments on the Senate floor and on Twitter.

It was appropriate that this occurred on December 7th, because that happens to be the birthday of my late grandfather and namesake, Charles F. Mitchell, Sr., or as I called him, Pa. December 7th was an important date in that South Philadelphia boy's life for another reason: Because of what happened on December 7, 1941, he ended up defending our country as part of what was then called the Army Air Force. Pa taught me that when a situation is terrible—as our nation's was on Pearl Harbor Day—you call the situation what it is and respond accordingly. That's what he did during the geopolitical crisis of World War II, and that's what I did when I was apprised of the data on the educational crisis in Pennsylvania cities like the one in which Pa grew up.

Folks didn't always like Pa's way, and obviously Sen. Hughes didn't like mine yesterday. I hope he'll change his mind after reading my response, which shows that I actually borrowed the word "hellhole" from a student who was rescued from one of our violent, failing schools and that based on Sen. Hughes' website, we actually have rather similar views on what happens to kids who don't get a good education.

My colleague Pearre Dean and I hand delivered that response to the Senator's office today, along with a box of our colleague Amy Grimm's famous homemade chocolate candies for his staff. Here it is, with links to supporting documentation:

Dear Sen. Hughes:

Thank you for your letter of December 7. As a graduate of Pennsylvania's public schools, I sincerely appreciate your interest in improving them, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with you, and it seems to me we disagree a lot less than you think.

Specifically, your letter asks me to apologize to students, teachers, and employees for using the term "hellholes" to describe schools in which a violent incident occurs every 17 minutes. To be honest, Senator, I borrowed that term from a student named Anthony Herbert who escaped from one of those schools. Here is what Anthony told us:

Walking through the hallway for the first time, I really felt sorry for myself because, man, I got stuck in this hellhole.

I'm walking through the hallways, trash cans and barrels are on fire, people are fighting and yelling, and there was really no order around. And it was just crazy. Teachers are telling students, "Get in the class, get in the class!" and she was completely ignored. The respect level was below zero. Security guards are grabbing people, throwing them in classrooms. Classrooms behind bars, which was really extraordinary.

With all due respect, Senator, I find it hard to disagree with Anthony's choice of words. Moreover, I did not use his term to attack students or any other people who are trying to make the best of schools like the one he described. I used it to convince the adults who preside over the system in which those students are trapped, namely you and your colleagues, that it's time we tried something different. The solutions of the last decade—more time and much more money—have clearly failed when a violent incident occurs every 17 minutes and less than 40 percent of students are proficient in math and reading.

Your letter also indicates I had said the "only purpose" of the schools under discussion "was to prepare students 'for future jail stays and welfare.'" I did not say that, and what I did say is quite similar to text on your own website. A page I've enclosed from SenatorHughes.com says that students who don't succeed in school are likely to go on welfare and/or to jail. I agree with you: Our public schools are supposed to help students lead productive, independent lives, and when they don't succeed, it's terribly costly not just to them, but to taxpayers statewide.

Again, Senator, thank you for allowing me to explain further the Commonwealth Foundation's suggestions to bring about dramatic improvement in schools in which a violent incident occurs every 17 minutes. At this point, it would be premature for me to apologize to the students in these schools. So far, I have merely told the truth about the system to which our current laws condemn them. But I will owe them an apology if my colleagues and I are unsuccessful in convincing yours to throw them a long-overdue lifeline.

I would welcome the opportunity to continue this conversation with you in person or by phone.

Sincerely yours,

Charles F. Mitchell
Vice President & COO

It's unfortunate that Sen. Hughes found my language to be offensive. But as my late grandfather would have pointed out, what's really offensive is the reality students confront every day in Pennsylvania's violent, failing schools—an act of violence every 17 minutes. Please ask your legislator today to respond to those facts with sound policy that will save lives and save money.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 06:55 PM | 0 comment