In Which I Disagree with Gov. Corbett on a Variety of Issues

Gov. Corbett released his 2012 budget today. As expected, it shows cuts, with particularly large ones in education. His speech is available here, and it contains some excellent quotes, particularly in the light of sustainable economics.

We need to do the hard cutting so the tree can once again bear fruit. And that fruit is jobs.

Ah! So by that logic, government creates jobs, and we need to... cut back government so we can grow it? I'm missing your logic. Or your metaphor is wrong.

Fiscal discipline means no new spending. It is our road to limited government. It means a return to free enterprise, where business and industry and labor are no longer hobbled by needless restrictions and strangled by reflexive taxation. If we are to create jobs we have to stop looking for reasons not to allow something.

Nope, it means spending at a rate that matches revenues over some averaged time period.  Also, less spending doesn't necessary get you less restrictions, needless or otherwise - it just gets you a lack of regulators. And looking for reasons not to allow something is the first step in sensible public health, much as companies and haters of bureaucracy (myself included) might disagree.

 The second problem is that tax increases choke growth. Every credible study on the subject has taught us this: the states that have grown the fastest, attracted the most jobs, have stayed out of the way. If you tax less, people will see the point in earning more. 

I’d believe the second sentence - but that’s competitive advantage, not necessarily a lack of tax increases. It doesn’t say much about the former statement. As to the last sentence: Well, no, they're going to try to earn more regardless (that's one of the basic pieces of capitalism, right?), it's just that with less taxes, more of it tends to go to those that already have money - and tax cuts don’t pay for themselves.

I am here to say that education cannot be the only industry exempt from recession

This quote is the reason I wrote this article. If you want to have a brighter future, if you want a better world, if you want to be internationally competitive and reduce poverty and obesity, education HAS to be exempt from recessions. Period. End of story. Particularly when, every chance they get, politicians seem to go after it (is it the only decent chunk of the budget that is cuttable? I suspect it might be). Our children’s education should not be a for-profit business, or something to be marginalized - and regardless of what else happens, educating the people who will be the workers that bring us out of a recession should be the last thing to be considered for reductions, particularly when the quality is tied so directly to funding.
I don’t know how I feel about the proposed salary freeze he’d like districts to institute (I disagree with the philosophy much more strongly) - though I suspect he’d be ok with eliminating teacher jobs, which I fervently disagree with. I’m glad he’s not going after bargaining rights. Still. Not a good thing.

This fiscal crisis is a time to re-think state spending on higher education. Despite state subsidies over the past decades, tuition has continued to increase. If the intent was to keep tuition rates down, it failed.

No, either tuition increased faster than your subsidies (a likely possibility with inflation), or your subsidies decreased. In this case, both. And the subsidies *have* kept tuition rates down - in-state tuition even at Pitt is far cheaper than out-of-state.

I believe any new property tax increases beyond inflation should be put on the ballot. If school boards can't say no, maybe the taxpayers will. Let's listen to the taxpayers on this one.

 I believe the majority of voters in a lot of districts (including my own at home) have no interest in a better educational system and paying more for it, as they’re past the age where they would benefit. I think letting them decide whether schools should be funded amounts to a vote on what is best for them, not what is best for society (also, my generation should vote more).

Families are trapped in failing schools, or schools that are a bad fit. We need to develop a system of portable education funding; something a student can take with him or her to the school that best fits their needs. One size does not fit all. But as it now stands, not all get to choose. Let's give them school choice.

Really? Also: are you willing to fund that at the levels it would require? Supporting the great institutions we have in a way that students can attend them for less without needing to deal with paperwork to get the money seems like a pretty good way to do this (aka what we have now).

Here are some very serious numbers. Since June 2004 state government salaries have risen from a median average of $39,037 to $45,105. By comparison the median average earnings for a Pennsylvanian working in a for-profit business as a wage or salary employee stood at $32,239.

Those *are* very serious - the increase is about 1% less than inflation, so they’re actually earning less real money. In terms of the comparison, comparing salaried workers with salaries and wages is a bit silly, though probably politically nice.

Commonwealth employees contribute, on average, 3 percent of their salary toward health care benefits. The taxpayer covers the balance. In the private sector, employees with health care contribute twice as much toward the cost of health coverage.

I agree with this, in theory - though I have also heard that the lower contributions are a reward for doing a job with the same level of education for less money. And the statement that the taxpayer covers the balance, while true, is biased - governmental services need to hire people to work, and those people are as deserving of good benefits as anyone else, though the funding source is different.

Collective bargaining doesn't mean some ill-defined middle ground. It means finding the spot where things work. In this case it is going to have to work to the good of the taxpayer or it's not going to work at all.   

Better statement: It has to work to the good of the population that the government serves, whether they’re currently paying taxes or voting or not. Sentiments of who votes and who is educated from above are echoed here.

But government is not meant to be the answer for jobs. The private sector is. 

Yup, your metaphor is wrong (but this makes more sense).

The Marcellus is a resource, a source of potential wealth, the foundation of a new economy. Not just something new to tax. Pennsylvania can become a center not just of resources but a center of the industry that backs up those resources. 

PA is already a center of that industry - the gas isn’t moving, we’ve got some of the thickest parts of it, and NY has a moratorium. And every other state around us does have a tax - it’s perfectly possible for us to get one, get revenue out of it and use that to maintain education and environmental protection.

These resources, by the way, belong to the people who own the mineral rights. Those people are getting their fair share by working out their own leases with the companies doing the drilling. That's how it should be. That's the American way.  

And a severance tax would not change that.

You see underneath the Marcellus Shale is another bonanza. It's called the Utica Shale. And where Marcellus promises 50 years of energy the Utica promises riches going into the next century. 

And there goes any hope of using natural gas as a transition fuel. Also, have you considered what full production of these shales would look like? I’m not sure we want that.

 In the past eight years the number of unemployed here has increased by 47 percent. In the last seven years alone the state lost 25 percent of its jobs in manufacturing. There's no escaping the obvious. We tax too much and for our troubles we get fewer and fewer jobs. 

I’m not sure that’s obvious - or that these facts are related. It’s capitalism in action - other countries have lower labor rates and less environmental regulations - which is not necessarily the best choice for everyone, but over time everyone’s quality of life theoretically increases. Manufacturing has left PA, and is leaving the US. Unless we come up with some very interesting tech - which might not have a whole lot of jobs attached to it - that doesn’t seem likely to change.

Government can't create jobs. And when it tries it usually makes a mess of it. Industries are built on a singular vision, not by committee. My administration is committed to a study that looks at how best to get us out of a business we should never have entered. I'm talking about the liquor business. This isn't about the money. It's about the principle. Government should no more run the liquor stores than it should run the pharmacies and gas stations. Business and its opportunities belong to the people. 

Government is quite capable of creating jobs. And it seems like the liquor stores are doing a pretty efficient job of things - they have strong buying power, and I’ve never heard of them being in financial difficulties.  So... poor example? Arguably, the state liquor stores are in a good industry - people always need booze - and are not stuck with systematic problems like the postal service.

We need police. We need firemen. We need corrections officers and probation officers. We need that protection, plain and simple. 

But apparently we don’t need teachers? I’ve never felt like there was a lack of police, but I frequently feel like there’s a lack of teachers. It’s unfortunate that education doesn’t get the same level of praise, but I suppose the benefits are far more intangential as well (though substantial).

We need to think smarter about how and when and how long to jail people. We need to be tough on crime but we also need to consider the fiscal implications of our prison system.

I agree with this section, but I think ’tough on crime’ should also mean finding ways to address income inequality and poverty and a lack of education which leads to crime in the first place, not just arresting the results. And government has a role to play there too.

I think I’d hate to work for the state - always being told by someone external that I was inefficient and that I should make less, without regards for the differences in jobs and that many governmental agencies do a very good and efficient job - but we don’t celebrate those (we have no good metrics, for one), we lump them all together.
I disagree with your basic philosophies, Mr. Corbett. And though I make 30k a year, I *do* have enough money that I would support higher taxes to make sure the educational system that taught me doesn’t get smacked in the face continuously. And tax the Marcellus Shale gas. And overall, I expect the people I elect (or that others elect) to be smarter than the average voter - that’s why they’re there. So pushing decisions back to people who are likely not as educated and not as capable of making a decision in the best interest of all generations seems counter-intuitive.