APRIL 20, 2012

Veterans: Let's Do It For Them - VOTE!

Why should you vote in the upcoming elections? Hear from three generations of combat veterans, all from the same Pennsylvania hometown, who speak of the selfless sacrifice of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines and how there is one sure way to honor their service -- VOTE!

Please help answer their charge by sharing this video.

posted by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION | 09:50 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

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

NOVEMBER 18, 2011

The Lesson of Ohio Might Not Be What You Think

The Wall Street Journal recently featured a very short, very striking piece on the defeat of much-needed limits on the power of government unions in Ohio.  The conventional wisdom on the Ohio situation—exemplified yesterday in a chest-thumping op-ed by the president of the PSEA—is that these unions have so much money that they're unbeatable, and so politicians should simply knuckle under to their disastrous, government-growing agenda.  And given Pennsylvania's political culture and history, any argument to do less (or nothing) is going to have an audience here.  But the WSJ writer, Allysia Finley, says otherwise:

Most Republicans are attributing the defeat of Ohio's collective bargaining reforms this week to a gusher of union spending, but the law might have withstood labor's barrage had Republicans maintained a united front.

From the outset, when a GOP state senator first proposed the reforms last winter, Republicans in Ohio were divided over the law. Gov. John Kasich stayed on the sidelines and didn't meddle in the legislature's business. The reforms barely passed the state senate, 17-16, with six Republicans opposed. Five state house Republicans also voted against the bill. "This is a fundamentally rigged process," said state Sen. Bill Seitz, who demanded that the law be repealed.

By contrast, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker had taken ownership of his collective bargaining reforms, which received nearly universal support from Republican lawmakers. Mr. Walker had also proposed less sweeping reforms, which exempted public safety employees, in part to ensure party unity.

Soon after the law passed, Ohio unions initiated a referendum campaign. Gov. Kasich tried to head off the referendum in August by telling the unions that he was willing to strike a compromise on the reforms, ostensibly in return for their dropping the referendum. The unions balked and used the governor's retreat to bolster their case. "We're glad that Gov. John Kasich and the other politicians who passed SB 5 are finally admitting this is a flawed bill," said the referendum's spokesperson Melissa Fazekas. Meanwhile, many Ohio state lawmakers continued to grumble that the governor had gone too far. The state's popular conservative talk-radio host, Bill Cunningham, also scored the governor for not negotiating with the unions prior to signing the law and urged listeners to overturn the law.

One lesson from the Ohio rout is that Republican governors should take ownership of reforms rather than allow state lawmakers to take charge. Another is to prepare and rally the troops before waging a major offensive. Ohio Republican lawmakers were ill-equipped to counter labor's attacks. Making matters worse, they were betrayed by some in their own ranks. The governor took on a war he wasn't prepared to fight and paid the price. Unfortunately, the biggest casualty may be taxpayers who would have benefited from the reforms.

Or to give you the shorter version, the lesson of Ohio is that Pennsylvania politicians need to show more courage, not less.

Why?  Because government union bosses seize upon backbiting and buck-passing.  That's how they won in Ohio, and the lack of it is how taxpayers—including teachers whose jobs were saved—won in Wisconsin.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 10:22 AM | 0 comment

OCTOBER 24, 2011

Want a 70% Approval Rating?

Let's be real.  One of the things that often gets CF into trouble is that from the outside, it seems like we never need to worry about whether the free-market public policies we put forth are popular, whereas those we want to influence (policymakers in Harrisburg) have to win reelection in a purple state.  Therefore, many people tell us, while whatever we're recommending might be the right thing, it needs to be balanced with the popular thing.

First of all, it isn't as easy as it looks.  Money doesn't grow on trees, and our people wouldn't get paid if we were not actively convincing folks across Pennsylvania that our ideas are the right ones.  And secondly, there is abundant evidence that when leaders turn their states around by boldly pursuing the right thing, it turns out to be the popular thing, too.

The most recent example is Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, who resoundingly won reelection over the weekend.  As Washington Post bloggers Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake point out, Gov. Jindal is exerting "political dominance" in the Pelican State, having received the highest vote percentage (a whopping 66) for any gubernatorial candidate since Louisiana changed its election laws in 1978.  And as Jim Geraghty recently noted in National Review, Gov. Jindal has an approval rating of 70 percent—in a state in which governors who hail from his party have been about as rare as unicorns and spending has been out of control for decades.  And he's achieved this level of dominance while aggressively cutting the state budget, privatizing services, and giving parents educational choices:

During his term, Louisiana’s state budget has become $9 billion smaller than when he started, a reduction of 26 percent....

It’s tempting to believe that the pre-Jindal Louisiana state government was so astoundingly wasteful and corrupt that you could cut spending 26 percent without anyone’s noticing, but a big chunk of Louisiana’s savings actually have come from privatization....Jindal’s administration privatized the state’s Office of Risk Management. The Department of Health and Hospitals privatized six in-patient residential-treatment programs around the state, saving $2.5 million. Separately, patients were moved from state-operated institutions that cost $600 or more per patient per day to community-based services and private group homes that average $191 per day, saving another $23.8 million.

But some of Jindal’s cuts are the old-fashioned kind. The state’s Department of Revenue shrank from eight offices statewide to three. There are 9,900 fewer state-government employees than there were four years ago, and the state sold 1,300 vehicles from its fleet of automobiles.

Louisiana’s transportation department shut down a ferry that was used by only 7,200 drivers per year, saving the state roughly three-quarters of a million dollars.

In May 2011, Standard & Poor’s raised Louisiana’s credit rating from AA-minus to AA, citing reduced spending. The upgrade gave the state its first AA rating from S&P since 1984, and its sixth credit-rating upgrade among all three major credit-rating agencies since 2008....

“For too many years,” says Jindal, “we measured educational success by how many dollars we were spending. The reality is, if you’re not measuring effectiveness, you have no idea if you’re spending it well.” This fall, parents will receive report cards on which every school gets a letter grade of A through F. Jindal explains: “The teachers’ unions went to the [board of elementary and secondary education] and they said, ‘We think you should give letter grades based on if a school is trying to improve.’ Let’s say one of the worst schools in the state gets a little better, they should get an A grade. I said, ‘Where in life does that ever happen? My kids play competitive sports. I’ve never seen the score based upon whether they tried harder than last week.’ There are going to be a lot of surprised parents. Though things have gotten better, there will be more low grades than people are expecting. This will empower parents. They need to have choice, information, and an easy way to evaluate ‘How is my child’s school doing?’”

In the Harrisburg bubble, the chatter is always that a bold agenda will cost you in the next election.  You heard it when Gov. Corbett vowed not to raise taxes—even leaders in his own party said it was impossible—and promised to pursue school choice during last year's campaign.  This week, you're hearing it about getting government out of the booze business.  Next week, it will be something else.

But if you step out of the bubble and look at leaders like Gov. Jindal, the story is simple:  Milquetoast doesn't sell, because it doesn't turn a state around.  Bold, free-market reforms are not only the right thing; they are the only real path to the kind of approval rating that comes with actually making people's lives better.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 00:33 PM | 0 comment

AUGUST 8, 2011

Who's Nutty Now?

There's a ton of chatter out there right now about how nutty the Tea Party is, most recently with 29 percent of voters saying Tea Party members are "economic terrorists."  Having returned to Pennsylvania just last year from Washington, D.C., I hear the chatter (and the confusion) more than most:  Most of my friends in D.C., whatever their political views, have never met a real, live Tea Party member or gone to a Tea Party meeting.  Working at the Commonwealth Foundation, I have done both many times, and so I'm often in the position of explaining "those people" and why I find them not weird, but wonderful—not perfectly atrocious, but profoundly American.

That's why I was delighted to see CF supporter Nick Pandelidis' op-ed in yesterday's Harrisburg Patriot-News.  As Nick points out, the facts show that the truly nutty position in today's America is to think the status quo is sustainable, not to challenge it as the Tea Party is doing:

Could reasonable people accept the status quo? The national debt of $14 trillion equals our national GDP. Forty percent of this year's spending is with borrowed dollars stolen from our children.

The 2011 budget deficit alone is 11 percent of GDP. That number pales compared to the estimated $200 trillion of unfunded liabilities that include Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and state and local deficit and retirement liabilities. Add to this the unknown massive liability of the new entitlement: Obamacare.

After an ill-conceived and wasteful stimulus, unemployment is more than 9 percent. Underemployment, those unemployed and those working below skill level and/or part time looking for full time, exceeds 20 percent. And that does not include another estimated 2 million-plus people who have given up looking for work.

The number of individuals who depend on the federal government for basic needs continues to grow. Forty-four million Americans are on food stamps, and 43 million, nearly one in seven, Americans live below the poverty level. More than 10 million people are on Social Security disability. Out of those individuals who filed 2009 federal income tax returns, nearly half paid no income tax.

The size of government continues to increase. Federal employees, excluding the military, now number an all-time high of 1.4 million. All told, there are 17.4 million federal, state and local government (including public school teachers) employees, most of whom have taxpayer-guaranteed salaries, benefits and defined retirement benefits, including health care.

Current levels of deficits, unfunded liabilities and government dependency are unsustainable. The radiant promise of America that brought our ancestors to our shores for the opportunity to work hard and earn a better life for self and family is but a dim glimmer for our children and grandchildren.

The tea party movement was the spontaneous uprising and protest of ordinary tax-paying citizens to this specter of our children being left with a less prosperous and less free America.

Amen to that, Nick.  It's our privilege here at CF to help you and others who are challenging the unacceptable—indeed, nutty—status quo in Harrisburg and Washington and demanding a return to fiscal sanity.

posted by CHARLES MITCHELL | 04:33 PM | 0 comment

APRIL 19, 2011

Atlas Shrugged: Part I Movie Reviews

Friday night, three CF staffers braved sold-out theaters to watch the much anticipated Atlas Shrugged movie, a film that was big on buzz and short on funds. The movie, like the novel, uses the experiences of railroad executive Dagny Taggart and steel magnate Hank Rearden to demonstrate the superiority of individualism, freedom and entrepreneurship over regulation and forced charity.

Here are our reactions:

Nick: I wasn't too impressed. With choppy scenes, mediocre acting, and cheesy music playing over scenes that weren't well explained, I must say that I was a little let down. As a true fan of Ayn Rand, I went to see the movie wearing my Ragnar Danneskold t-shirt, I had hoped the film would live up to novel and that was certainly not the case. However, Rand's story is still powerfully refreshing, shunning the collectivist mentality that justifies coercion for the sake of equality. So despite the poor filmmaking, I'm ready for the sequel.

Elizabeth: The book is always better than the movie, and Atlas Shrugged is no different. Once you get past the opening minutes, which inform you that skyrocketing oil prices—thanks to unrest in the Middle East—have reinstated the dominance of railroad transportation, the story is free to progress uninhibited by modern day inconsistencies. I admit I was disappointed with the very brief appearance of Dr. Stadler, the character who compromises his principles for social approval (sound familiar?), but those who've made it through the 1,069 page novel will appreciate the film's devotion to the book.

All in all, the movie's amateurish undertones are eclipsed by the powerful ideas that turn much of today's popular wisdom on its head. Any thoughtful person unfamiliar with Rand will be challenged by the films unabashed defense of capitalism, the ultimate goal of both the novel and the film. For that reason alone, I think the film is well worth watching.

Katrina: Knowing Atlas Shrugged was a low-budget film, I wasn't expecting Oscar material. Then again, I haven't read the book so I really didn't know what to expect. This movie was clearly for those who have read the novel. While the larger themes of free markets and free people come through loud and clear, many of the nuances are lost to awkward transitions and confusing scenes. Atlas Shrugged is a great story that needs to be shared with the world; unfortunately this film does not have the mainstream appeal necessary to attract those unfamiliar with Rand and her works.

posted by ELIZABETH STELLE, KATRINA CURRIE, NICHOLAS FETT | 04:41 PM | 1 comment

JANUARY 10, 2011

Politics of Punditry Troubling in Tucson Tragedy

I knew it would be a challenging few days as I took off the tie and laced up my combat boots to proudly serve a training weekend with my National Guard unit.  Friday night was time to prepare - it's simply part of the process.

But nothing in my mental knapsack readied me for a great loss that will continue to reverberate through what I do as a citizen.

In Tucson, an apparently mentally disturbed, lone gunman attempted assassination of a Congresswoman, but tragically killed six, including a sitting federal judge and a 9-year-old girl whose father, John, I met and greatly respected.  

While my sincerest condolences and prayers go out to all families suffering through this needless violence, I was further saddened to see those in the media who would exploit this tragedy for political gain by blaming those with whom they disagree, then attempting to further erode our freedom of speech.

Tucson was my adopted home for more than four years while I attended the University of Arizona.  A diverse, politically active and intellectually motivated area, the city was a bastion of broad ideas and brash debates ranging from any number of fire-starter issues like 2^nd and 10^th Amendment rights.

What it never was was afraid.  

Not long into the night's reports, pundits poured from out of their holes kneejerking almost epileptically while wildly concluding the Tea Party and conservative talk shows were responsible for stoking the fires of this disturbed young man.   Tucson and America, they say, should be afraid - very afraid.

I've never found words to be very scary, but what really frightens me is the sad standard operating procedure for many in the media to substitute speculation for good journalism steeped in fact instead of fear.  The irony is they are endorsing perhaps the unintentional consequence of eroding the very freedom of speech they so enjoy to make their point.

Thankfully good journalism and common sense are not entirely lost as evidenced in Glenn Reynolds' "The Arizona Tragedy and the Politics of Blood Libel" in today's Wall Street Journal.  It concludes, in part, that, "those who purport to care about the health of our political community demonstrate precious little actual concern for America's political well-being when they seize on any pretext, however flimsy, to call their political opponents accomplices to murder."

As a citizen who once fought in war, I can tell you with great confidence that bullet points don't kill people, people kill people.  What needs to happen from the wake of this senseless act of violence is not the death of words, but the rebirth of the freedoms that make these senseless tragedies as uncommon in America as they are common in countries without them.

posted by JAY OSTRICH | 01:55 PM | 0 comment