I just love how the election results blew off the pollsters and pundits.
One of the most exciting events for me on Election Night was ... Pennsylvania turning red.
This transition from blue to red is no fluke, either. It's been happening since 2010, when Congressman Patrick Murphy lost his seat in 2006, only to win it back in 2010.
The TEA Party wave flushed out the abject liberalism of the Pennsylvania Democrats. The hollowing out of the working and middle classes in the Keystone State have woken up many average joes, and they are voting Republican. They want results, and they want the state to stop taking a larger bite out of their wallets.
But for decades, reforms crucial to growth and opportunity have been
stymied by the leaders of Pennsylvania's powerful government unions and the
politicians of both parties who accommodated their demands. That seems to be
coming to a close.
Wait! Both parties in Pennsylvania were part of the problem? That sounds like California, where Republicans are taking union money as well as Democrats, and special interests are calling the shots on both sides of the aisle.
Shifting Political Winds
Pennsylvania has been experiencing gradual regional political shifts
for two decades. The old coal and steel industrial region around Pittsburgh was
once a haven for Democratic politics. But most of Western Pennsylvania has been
trending increasingly Republican. The result has been legislative pickups for
the GOP, as more conservative Republicans have replaced moderate Democrats. In
contrast, the Philadelphia suburbs, long a Republican stronghold, are
increasingly blue, although moderate Republicans still hold a number of state
legislative and congressional seats in the region.
The big cities are not so big, and they do not leverage power has heftily as they used to.
I wrote in an other post who Michigan is turning red in part because Detroit went bankrupt, and thousands have left the city. The Democratic machine cannot round up votes so easily, and the Jill Stein recount has exposed at least 50% of the vote as bad, fraudulent, or at least suspect.
Republicans are stronger in suburbs and rural areas, which are getting more people.
Combined, these trends have given Republicans growing legislative
majorities in recent years. What's more, despite no term limits, turnover in
the general assembly has been high, particularly among Republicans. Eighty-five
percent of the senate Republican caucus and 88 percent of house Republicans
have come into office since 2002. And just as important, hidden in the party
numbers is a crucial shift in ideology. The legislature has become not only
more Republican but also more fiscally conservative.
Notice that term limits are a non-issue in Pennsylvania. They cannot ensure or prevent good government. It's up to the voters to pay attention to what is going on in their districts as well as in their states. The term-limit push is not as effective as people had hoped it would be to curb government excesses.
Taxpayers vs. Big Government
Ideology matters because this is not the first time Republicans have
controlled both chambers of the legislature. They did so for much of the recent
past—including from 2011-2015 under Republican governor Tom Corbett—without
delivering major policy change.
Why Corbett lost.
That was because Republican legislative leaders and a handful of
moderate-to-liberal Republican legislators worked with Democrats to pass tax
increases under Democratic governors and to thwart important policy advances
under Republican governors. Those members, regardless of party label, were
reliable allies of big government.
One element sustaining that bipartisan dynamic was the financial and
political power of government unions. Since 2007, public sector unions have
spent $91 million on policies, politicians, and candidates that would grow
government, pushing the state toward the same fiscal crises facing Illinois,
California, New Jersey, and other large states.
Get rid of the public sector unions! They are contrary to good governance.
Corbett's experience as governor illustrates this power. His top
initial priority was school choice scholarships for low-income students. This
resulted in an expansion of Pennsylvania's highly successful tax-credit
scholarship program, but the effort to create a more robust and wide-reaching
voucher program fell flat on its face, badly eroding his reputation. The
teachers' unions led opposition to the initiative, vehemently lobbied against it,
and even formed a fake antitax grassroots organization as part of their effort.
OUCH! Now wonder he was dead man walking in 2014.
 |
| Governor Tom Wolf (D-Pennsylvania) |
Two of Corbett's other major priorities—pension reform and
privatization of government-run liquor stores—never even reached his desk
despite popular support. Who fought fiercely against those reforms? Democrats,
government union leaders, and their moderate Republican allies. Corbett's
experience exposed the extent of government union control even in a
Republican-majority legislature.
They also propagated myths to advance their agenda, particularly
regarding education funding. Corbett's first budget coincided with the
expiration of the federal "stimulus"—which had supplemented state tax
dollars to the tune of more than $3 billion the prior year. The result: Despite
an increase in state taxpayer funding to public schools, school districts had
less to spend as stimulus funding expired.
For the next four years, Pennsylvania's two largest teachers'
unions—the Pennsylvania State Education Association and the Philadelphia
Federation of Teachers—undertook a multimillion-dollar propaganda effort,
including paid newspaper and television ads, accusing Corbett of "cutting
a billion dollars from education." They hammered this theme in the 2014
gubernatorial election, in which Corbett was pitted against Democrat Tom Wolf.
Four of Wolf's top 10 contributors were government unions.
All told, Wolf received more than $3.4 million from 12 government union
PACs that donated at least $5,000 to his campaign. Additionally, three
government unions funneled $1.6 million to a Democratic Governors' Association
super-PAC, which ran independent attack ads bludgeoning Corbett with the
education funding-cut myth. Republicans enjoyed a generally good year in 2014, but
Wolf won in Pennsylvania, maybe reinforcing for some national observers the
sense that the state was durably liberal.
Slight correction: Republicans expanded their majorities in the state legislature in 2014--and became more conservative.
America's Most Liberal Governor?
In fact, Wolf as governor has been left isolated by Pennsylvania's
political transformation. This is partly his own doing. He did not run as a
typical liberal Democrat. His campaign portrayed him as a "different kind
of governor." Ads featuring his Jeep showed his "regular guy"
qualities, touted his business experience, and played up management chops that
could foster "government that works." But since taking office,
Inside.gov has rated him the "most liberal governor in America," and
the Cato Institute's Fiscal Policy Report Card gave him an "F," its
lowest rating among governors.
But Wolf's isolation is mainly the result of the state's changing
political landscape. Wolf may have handily won the 2014 gubernatorial election,
but Republicans picked up state legislative seats, adding to their majorities
and dominating competitive races. Republican state house candidates earned
229,000 more votes than Democrats statewide, and 30 house Republicans won
districts Wolf carried. In the 25 senate seats on the ballot that year,
Republican candidates earned 202,000 more votes than Democrats, and nine Senate
Republicans won in districts that voted for Wolf.
Time for a new, better governor.
This split set up a showdown between Wolf and the legislature that
erupted when Wolf proposed a record $4.6 billion tax increase in his first
budget. Not only was this the largest tax proposal by any governor in 2015—it
was larger than the combined tax hikes proposed in all 49 other states. Wolf's
plan called for higher income taxes and expanding the sales tax to everything
from day care, diapers, and college meal plans to nursing home care and
funerals. In total, it represented a net tax increase of $1,400 per family of
four.
Because the Republican majority has grown noticeably more conservative,
lawmakers successfully rebuffed this agenda. When Wolf's tax plan came to the
house floor as an amendment, it received zero votes. Even a scaled-down version
with fewer tax increases was defeated on overwhelmingly bipartisan grounds.
This led to a nine-month budget impasse—the longest in 60 years. The final
compromise was a budget with zero tax increases, a complete defeat of Wolf's
plan.
BAM! Way to go!
This contrasts sharply with the experience of only a few years before.
Democratic governor Ed Rendell also faced a prolonged budget battle with a
Republican legislature in 2003, his first year. In that standoff, Republicans
blinked, joining Democrats to pass an income tax increase. That gave Rendell
the momentum to bulldoze his policy agenda through the Republican-controlled
house and senate for the next seven years.
Wolf faces a more conservative Republican party and so has had a vastly
different experience. In just two years in office, Wolf has issued more vetoes
(17) than his two predecessors issued in the preceding eight years. Most
significantly, Wolf vetoed major public pension reform, liquor store
privatization, and reform to teacher seniority laws, all at the behest of
public sector unions.
Wolf is becoming very unpopular. He rejects reforms which Pennsylvanians support! He will be dead man walking in 2018.
Wolf has paid a price for this intransigence. In his first year, his
job approval rating dropped from a high of 52 percent to a low of 35,
rebounding slighting to 40 percent (vs. 50 percent disapproval), in Quinnipiac
University polling.
The Spark of Brushfires
The state's free-market shift has been eroding the government union
stranglehold on policy, even with Wolf in office. Wolf has allowed two budgets
to become law without his signature—the first time in recent memory this has
occurred—both of which spent far less than he wanted.
Republicans are calling the shots. Wouldn't it be great if there was a Republican governor who enacted necessary policies? Pennsylvania needs its own Scott Walker.
Over the objections of the AFL-CIO, Wolf felt compelled to sign a law
barring unions from engaging in harassment and intimidation tactics.
Shockingly, unions had long enjoyed a legal loophole that let them stalk,
harass, and even threaten to use weapons of mass destruction with impunity if
involved in a labor dispute. Wolf signed legislation requiring a public fiscal
analysis of state labor contracts—negotiated behind closed doors—before they
could be acted upon.
He had to -- he is going to face a really tough re-election bid in 2018. He senses the changes in the air. If he does not comply with the wishes of an increasingly conservative electorate, he will be out on his butt.
Wolf even signed a modified version of the liquor store privatization
bill that he had previously vetoed—allowing wine to be sold in some grocery
stores and restaurants for the first time since Prohibition. While a seemingly
minor change to benefit consumers, the union representing liquor store employees
vehemently opposed it, rightly seeing it as the start of an eventual move to
full privatization.
Unions take it on the chin--again! This development is really interesting, since it's a Democratic governor taking them down a peg.
Litigation has also stymied Wolf and his union allies. Early in his
first year, Wolf took advantage of a loophole in the Supreme Court's Harris v
Quinn ruling by signing an executive order unionizing home health care workers.
The move gave his campaign donors AFSCME and SEIU the opportunity to seek dues
from 20,000 home care workers—up to $8 million per year. In response, a lawsuit
was filed by the Fairness Center, a public interest law firm founded to defend
those harmed by government union leaders, and a state court declared Wolf's
executive order unconstitutional.
Oregon has tried to hustle home health care workers the same way, and they are losing their battle, too -- and the Democrats' campaign sugar daddies are also losing big money.
It's little wonder that challengers are already lining up to take on
Wolf in 2018. State senator Scott Wagner—like Wolf a businessman from York
County—has unofficially announced his candidacy. In 2014, Wagner became the
first state senate candidate to win via a write-in campaign. Largely
self-financing his campaign, he faced the Republican nominee in a special
election for a vacant seat and has established a reputation as a blunt,
Trump-like agent of change. Wagner is a vocal critic of government unions and a
champion of paycheck protection legislation that would end the collection of
union dues by government agencies.
 |
| State Senator Scott Wagner (R-York County) |
Representative Mike Kelly from Butler County, recently reelected to a
fourth term in Congress, has also expressed interest in the office. The
Chevrolet dealer rode the Tea Party wave in 2010 and has established a
reputation as a fiery defender of small business and of Pennsylvania's
overregulated coal sector. Others rumored to be considering a gubernatorial bid
include state senate majority leader Jake Corman, a prominent advocate of
pension reform, and state house speaker Mike Turzai, who has led the fight to
privatize the government liquor monopoly.
Whoever runs for Governor in 2018, they need to demonstate a strong capacity to coordinate with grassroots conservatives around the state and take on government unions without batting an eyelash. They need to announce their support for curbing collective bargaining entitlements and pushing right-to-work.
If they refuse to follow through on those reforms, they should withdraw their names from consideration.
The Unsurprising Surprise
Given the shifting political demographics, Trump's and Toomey's
victories in Pennsylvania should not be shocking. They demonstrate that
Republicans, even strong fiscal conservatives, can win across the state. There
is even more than one path to doing so. Despite nearly identical statewide
numbers, Trump and Toomey took very different paths to victory.
Toomey did not endorse Trump, but he did not reject him, either.
Trump racked up tremendous margins in Western Pennsylvania and rural
and blue-collar parts of the state, while winning the conservative midstate.
Meanwhile, Toomey matched Trump in the midstate but ran well behind him in
Western Pennsylvania—no doubt partly due to Toomey's openness to background
checks for gun purchases and his efforts to publicly distance himself from
Trump. In contrast, Toomey significantly outpolled Trump in the Philadelphia
suburbs, even winning the two important swing counties of Chester and Bucks.
Trump's election was not unpredictable. And Toomey's reelection shows there is
more than one way to win Pennsylvania and more than one type of Republican who
can pull that off.
Toomey targeted the urban regions by focusing on education and illegal immigration.
This article is focusing on economic issues, but illegal immigration is particularly unpopular in Pennsylvania. Both candidates are immigration hardliners, and their stances on the issue helped them win.
Toomey's three hard-fought senatorial campaigns also illustrate how
Pennsylvania's political winds have changed. In 2004 when he primaried
incumbent Republican Arlen Specter, then-congressman Toomey was the outsider
challenging the Republican establishment. Specter, running for his fifth term
in the Senate, was an established moderate-to-liberal Republican. The primary
race created a schism within the Republican party—igniting Pennsylvania
conservative reformers long before the Tea Party movement surfaced. Specter
eventually won the primary by less than two percentage points, aided by
endorsements from President George W. Bush and Senator Rick Santorum.
Six years later, the battleground had shifted dramatically. Specter
voted for the 2009 stimulus bill and was a key vote to pass Obamacare. His
plummeting popularity led him to switch parties to avoid a primary rematch with
Toomey. Specter lost the Democratic primary, and Toomey was elected to the
Senate over Admiral Joe Sestak in another close election. Today, state
Republican establishment figures are celebrating the reelection of Toomey, who,
12 years ago, they argued was "too conservative" to win in
Pennsylvania.
Let's not forget that he switched to Democrat then voted for Obamacare. In town halls across the state, residents assailed Specter for his turncoat, spendthrift ways. He was well-known for hugging the center as much as possible, refusing to take hard stances on issues, and would not even declare Bill Clinton guilty or not guilt during his trial in 1999.
Specter made it easy for Toomey to strengthen his brand. The Sestak primary fight ensured Toomey's victory that year, even the election outcome as very close.
Transformational Change on the Horizon
Pennsylvania's gradual move away from its dark-blue, union-dominated
past was reinforced, not revealed, by this election. As the trend continues,
state lawmakers will become more likely to seize opportunities for
transformational change.
They need to, or they will be out of a job.
In 2015, the Pennsylvania senate passed a paycheck protection bill,
something Republican leaders scoffed at just a few years ago but which is now
supported by two-thirds of state voters spanning party lines. The state house
did not hold a vote on the reform, but it is primed to be a major issue in the
coming session.
It will get a vote, and it will pass, with or without Wolf's signature.
This October, lawmakers made another run at meaningful public sector
pension reform—devising a bill that the Pew Research Center called "a
major turn-around among states" and which would be the nation's largest
pension reform measure in terms of dollars moved to a defined contribution
plan. With no Democratic support, the measure fell just three votes short of
passage in the house. The senate would have passed it easily.
The PA state house Republicans can try again, since they will have more members, including those three votes.
Recent Republican election pickups alone should provide the support
needed to push it across the legislative finish line. With the right governor,
Pennsylvania could be the largest state ever to reform public pensions. Liquor
privatization advocates are sure to continue their reform push. And there is
more to come. There is a crying need for expanded school choice, as tens of
thousands of students sit on waiting lists for scholarships or charter schools.
Legislation to create education savings accounts—patterned after those in
Arizona and Florida—has been proposed and could be the next fight for parental
choice in education.
School choice? Educational Savings Accounts? Wow! What a deal!
Government unions once could be relied upon to block such reforms. But
their power in Pennsylvania is weakening. Their chosen candidates—including
Toomey's opponent, Katie McGinty, who benefited from $6 million in support from
union-funded PACs and super-PACs—face tough headwinds. Indeed, despite the
millions spent by labor leaders in 2016, they failed to oust any lawmakers who
supported pension reform, liquor store privatization, school choice, or
paycheck protection.
Unions are losing all over the country, and in right-to-work states, they have less money to raise to help beleaguered Democratic candidates in other states.
While Republican lawmakers in states like Wisconsin and Michigan took
on major labor reforms with success—both are now right-to-work states, for
example—Pennsylvania's transformation has been bubbling beneath the surface,
less visible to national observers if no less important. And election results
in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan prove that lawmakers can take on
powerful government unions, win at the ballot box, and secure victories for
taxpayers.
Pennsylvania's red showing on Election Day surprised many, but it
shouldn't have. The Keystone State is on the brink of reforms that could spread
like brushfire.
Right on.
Final Reflection
Public sector unions are universally unpopular now.
Public officials are walking into retirement with six-figure salaries, while working Americans in the private sector can barely get by. Why are the hard-working working classes paying big money to the public sector aristocracy?
It's not fair, and it has to stop.
The immorality of it is stark enough--but the several states can't afford it, either. When Democrats are voting for pension reform, you know that the state has a liability problem which must be faced head on!
Carl DeMaio wanted to float a pension reform initiative on the 2018 California ballot. Why not allowing for education savings accounts, paycheck protections?
Voter ID laws would be good, too.
California Republicans need to position themselves clearly as the Taxpayer Party--and cannot waffle to play nice with labor unions. Simple as that.
