Killing Pirates On The Spot Is Long Overdue!

Water is wet.  The sky is blue.  Europe is cowardly.

While all three are indisputable, only the last can change.  But it will take sheer will and an enormous amount of courage to turn around a continent falling apart, not from outside invasion, but from within.  Their death spiral is a direct result of leaders who prostrate themselves before the altar of political correctness --- and a people too reluctant or scared to challenge them.

A perfect example of is playing out right now.  Despite brutal acts of piracy occurring off Eastern Africa on a daily basis --- affecting European ships, and by extension, Europeans themselves --- political and media elites have been demonizing 79-year old Norwegian shipping magnate Jacob Stolt-Nielsen. Why?  Because in an op-ed, he had the guts to advocate the only realistic way to deal with these terrorists on the high seas: sink their ships with the pirates in them, or execute them on the spot.

So what’s the problem with that? 

*****

“You wanna know how to get Capone?”, Sean Connery’s character asks Elliot Ness in The Untouchables.  “They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone.”

And you know what? They got Capone. 

It’s expected that Europe doesn’t have the courage to do things The Chicago Way.  That’s why they need America to bail them out time and again.

Unfortunately, that immutable lesson has now also been lost on America’s leaders, replaced by softness, complacency and the desire not to offend.

And our enemies have exploited that weakness, as al-Queda can proudly attest.

It’s also why we are routinely losing to pirates operating from the rogue nation of Somalia.  Not content with the hundreds of millions they’ve already extorted, they violently hijack about one ship per day, and are currently holding 700 hostages and 30 ships for ransom.

And we’re not talking about just pleasure craft or fishing vessels, but huge ships supplying the world with cargo, food, oil --- and weapons.  Two years ago, a supertanker larger than an aircraft carrier was hijacked as it was transporting more than $100 million worth of crude oil.  When that happens, we all pay for it at the pump.

And given the pirates’ cozy relationship with Islamic fundamentalists, some of that ransom money is making its way right into the hands of terrorists hell bent on destroying the West.

These barbarians turned it up a notch this week, killing four Americans after hijacking their private vessel. But here’s the most disturbing part: despite being closely monitored by four U.S. Navy warships, they executed the hostages anyway. That level of arrogance tells all we need to know: they don’t fear us.

And no wonder.  Our “tough” response will be to haul the captured pirates into U.S. courts on the other side of the world, where they will receive first-class taxpayer-funded defense lawyers and free health care.  How nice.

And that’s supposed to deter more attacks? 

Manhattan prosecutors don’t make Somali-based pirates tremble, a fact not lost on Stolt-Nielsen.   As one of the few who lives in the real world, he stated how to end the unchecked piracy:

“When (piracy) implies a great risk of being caught and hanged, and the cost of losing ships and weapons becomes too big, it will decrease and eventually disappear.”

To that point, he ridicules the American and European “solution” to dealing with problem.  (We should)  “…not arrest them and say, 'naughty, naughty, shame on you,' and release them again, but sink their boats with all hands…the pirates won't be frightened by being placed before a civilian court."

It is indisputable that the pirates aren’t frightened, evidenced by the fact that, despite one of their own being sentenced to 33 years in prison just last week, the pirates executed the Americans anyway.

Yet the response from those who bury their head in the sand?  Killing pirates would be “barbaric,” with opponents arguing that, despite documented torture, abuse and murder of their captives, these rogues must be treated with basic human rights.

Kind of like the human rights given to the murdered Americans and tortured sailors?  Of course not, since the real victims are always forsaken by bleeding hearts.

Pirates have those rights before they hijack ships.  Once they cross the line, however, all bets are off.  Ships should carry armed guards, who, upon attack, should exercise no restraint in vaporizing the marauders.  The goal should not be to deter, but to destroy, for three reasons.  First, it is now just as likely pirates will execute the crew once aboard; second, letting them go will only make another ship’s crew their victim; third, it will send a clear, unmistakable message that there is a new Law Of The Sea.  It’s called The Chicago Way.

Let’s be very clear about what will happen.  When 10 pirates go out, only to return as corpses floating up on the beach resorts of Somalia, there will be a paradigm shift in how the remaining pirates will conduct their business.  Translation: they’ll find a different profession.  Immediately.

Stolt-Nielsen said it best when he referenced why piracy declined over the last several hundred years. "Pirates captured in international waters have always been punished by death, often on the spot."

There’s a direct correlation to the huge spike in piracy, now commonplace in vast swaths of the oceans, with the “basic human rights” that clueless leaders mandate must be afforded them.

Here’s standing with Stolt-Nielsen in dropping the empty threats, picking up the guns, sinking ships and killing the barbarians.  They can have their day in court --- in Davy Jones’ locker.

It’s the only language these people understand, so let’s speak it loud and clear, and relegate pirates to those in the Jack Sparrow movies.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

GOP: The Party Of No?

The nation’s largest, most influential gathering of conservatives --- the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) --- was recently held in Washington.  Based on the sheer number of attendees (over 11,000, up from just over 100 when CPAC started in 1973) and the level of palpable energy exuding from the ranks, the conference was a huge success.

Speakers ranged from media pundits to elected officials, including most of the Republicans mentioned as Presidential candidates.

The attendees had every right to feel proud: their side had just re-taken control of the U.S. House, made significant gains in the Senate, and added numerous governorships and state legislatures to the “R” column.

Several themes were common throughout the conference: repeal Obamacare, reign in spending, and reduce the size and scope of government.  But sometimes, the most noteworthy thing is not what is said, but what isn’t.

Not heard nearly as often was what the Party was for.

If that perception becomes commonplace among the electorate, and the GOP becomes the “Party of No,” their recent gains will shrink, jeopardizing the nation’s recovery in the process.

They can certainly be against the liberal agenda, but that will only get them so far.  Ultimately, they have to articulate their vision for America by advocating real solutions to float the sinking economy. 

By far, the two areas where effective communication is needed most, but is noticeably absent, are health care and energy.

Health Care

It’s no secret that the majority of Americans oppose the health care plan passed by Obama and the Democratic Congress last year. But an even greater number agree on something else --- the system before Obamacare didn’t come close to cutting it.  The message is simple: reform is absolutely essential, but national health care isn’t the answer. Pushing to repeal Obamacare, but not articulating a solution to replace it, is a recipe for disaster. 

And like everything else, it’s not what you say, but how you say it.

For example, if Republicans argue for “tort” reform, it will result in a mad dash to find out what’s wrong with our nation’s desserts.  Instead, a spokesman needs to explain, in everyday language, that health care costs are skyrocketing because doctors routinely order five or six tests when one or two would suffice. That practice of “defensive medicine” stems from the fear of frivolous lawsuits initiated by trial lawyers, who, not coincidentally, are one of the Democratic Party’s largest donors. Illustrating such unchecked greed would make winning the legal reform battle infinitely easier, but it’s rarely done.

Likewise, the GOP needs to question why one can buy auto insurance from any company in any state, but it remains illegal to purchase health insurance across state lines.  Communicating why that system must be dismantled --- one which allows the big boys to push out their smaller competitors, thus dominating the market and holding citizens and businesses hostage --- is a winning issue.

Advocating these common sense solutions in a populist manner takes the stigma out of discussing the complexities of health care.  If positioned properly, a few of these reforms would solve the bulk of the nation’s health care problems.

Yet that did not occur when George W. Bush occupied the White House with substantial Republican majorities in Congress.  And despite the GOP’s recent electoral gains, the lesson has not yet been learned.

Cutting Cannot Be The Sole Answer

There are two aspects of cutting which play a vital role in any economic recovery, but by themselves will never be the answer.

Cutting corporate income taxes and excessive regulations are crucial first steps. The United States has the second-highest corporate tax in the world --- 40 percent.  After states tack on their taxes, it becomes clear why companies close their doors, often shipping their operations overseas.

Articulating the results of that policy--- padlocked gates, lost jobs, rising unemployment and welfare rolls, and declining revenue --- cuts down the class warfare tactics of the Left who think taxing companies and their “rich” executives will solve the nation’s problems.  Instead, the average worker, union and non-union alike, would begin to understand why lowering taxes benefits everyone. Closed factories equal lost jobs.  It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

But hearing that explained is rare, because it’s much easier to blame the Chinese for our economic situation. 

Perhaps the point Republicans miss most is that cutting budgets and bureaucracy, while important, will not provide the spark necessary for growth. Just as you cannot tax your way out of a recession, you can’t slash your way into prosperity.

What is needed is a policy that makes growth the centerpiece of any Administration, and nowhere is that goal more obtainable than by instituting energy independence.

Not only will this create millions of sustainable jobs, but it will also significantly decrease the transportation costs of importing goods from across the world.  And common sense tells us reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, especially from the increasingly volatile Middle East, will yield positive results.  America has more than enough resources to achieve energy independence, including some of the largest natural gas deposits in the world, but virtually nothing has been done to take advantage of this.

Republicans efforts in this area have only been rhetoric, despite the numerous opportunities afforded them:

There was no action taken after the September 11 attacks, when the President Bush would have faced virtually no opposition in responsibly opening up the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.  Nor after gasoline spiked to $4.25/gallon and oil to $150/barrel in 2008.  And none after President Obama pushed for offshore drilling and nuclear power in his 2010 State of the Union address --- traditionally Republican concepts adamantly opposed by his biggest constituencies.

*****

Having the best ideas are meaningless if you don’t sell them.  The Republicans have time to heed that message, both in advancing their agenda and choosing a nominee to oppose Obama.  But if they don’t, there will be two losers: the Party and the nation.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative

reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com

Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries

and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including

The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick

Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears regularly in Philadelphia Magazine and nationally in

Newsmax, also serves as a frequent guest commentator on talk radio and state/national

television, most notably on FOX Philadelphia.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Sainthood for Pope John Paul II? Not A Prayer!

Who could forget that chilling seen in Jaws when Mrs. Kintner, whose young son had just been killed by the shark, approached Chief Brody and slapped him in the face.

Sobbing, she said, “I just found out that a girl got killed here last week, and you knew it! You knew there was a shark out there! You knew it was dangerous! But you let people go swimming anyway? You knew all those things! But still my boy is dead now. And there's nothing you can do about it. My boy is dead. I wanted you to know that. 

As she walked away, the Mayor turned to Brody and said, “She's wrong.”

And in a moment of complete candor, the Chief shot back, “No, she's not.”

Too bad the Catholic Church didn’t heed that powerful lesson.  It too has a “shark” problem on its hands, but rather than hunting down the terrorizing threat, it simply throws more bait at the predator.

Common sense dictates that if you enable a shark, it is emboldened to keep preying; therefore, efforts must be made to eradicate the threat. But as Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common,” and the Church was, and is, no exception.

*****

If the Church had heeded Mrs. Kintner’s message of accountability and responsibility, it wouldn’t be paying billions in settlements related to widespread priest pedophilia over decades.  It wouldn’t be seeing its own ---including a certain Boston Cardinal flaunting the “Law” --- fleeing the country to Vatican City’s safe havens to avoid possible extradition.  It wouldn’t have to watch high-ranking Church officials be criminally charged for knowingly transferring pedophile priests to other parishes where they were put in direct contact with children --- literally.

And they wouldn’t be witnessing their churches continue to empty and the faithful dwindle, with rank-and-file priests now constituting the world’s largest old-age club, since so few young people enter the Seminary.

It is incomprehensible, then, that in light of those crises, the Catholic Church would respond by fast-tracking the late Pope John Paul II for sainthood, since so many sins occurred under his watch.

If John Paul’s beatification --- part of the path to sainthood--- takes place as scheduled on May 1, it will have been the fastest in history, thanks to Pope Benedict XVI, who waived the requirement of a five-year waiting period after a person’s death for that process to begin.

I’m sorry, but what planet are these folks living on…Uranus?

One way or another, Pope John Paul is complicit in the scandal; he’s either responsible or irresponsible for what occurred on his watch.

Given his vast intelligence and the worldwide publicity surrounding the plague of pedophilia, if the former Pope had no idea what was transpiring, then he was irresponsibly asleep at the switch.

But no matter how insulated he may have been, and no matter how much his inner circle shielded him, it is simply not believable that he had no knowledge of the crimes being committed.  Which leads us to the more likely scenario.

Just as he rightly receives accolades for the good things that happened during the 26 years of his Papacy --- and there were many --- John Paul must also be held at least partly responsible for the illicit activity that occurred.  It seems obvious he looked the other way on the sex scandals, choosing to bury his head in the sand in the hope that the problem would take care of itself.  And that makes the sin mortal.

But even worse was the direct enabling of predator priests and the subsequent cover-ups. Not only was appropriate action not taken most of the time, but in many cases, victims and their families were discouraged from taking next steps and going public, with some being threatened with ridicule and excommunication.  Even high-ranking Church officials were not immune; many were told in no uncertain terms that if they cooperated with investigative authorities, they would be subject to severe repercussions.

As a matter of fact, a letter from 1997 was uncovered last month from the Vatican to Irish bishops demanding that no pedophile cases be turned over to police --- which blew away prior Vatican claims to the contrary.  That letter was signed by the late Archbishop Luciano Storero, Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Nuncio to Ireland.

So unless the Pope never read the papers, watched TV, or communicated with Church administrators under his command, he absolutely knew.  And that should make sainthood out of the question. For the Church to pursue it just shows how out of touch it has become.

Many believe that the cover-ups took place because the Good Old Boy network was taking care of its own.  Maybe so. 

But just as possible is that Church leaders were deceitful because they feared the worst for their Institution if the facts came to light.  And if that’s the case, a question comes to mind. Where was the faith of those leaders?  Faith that the Church, which can be traced directly back to Jesus Christ and a fisherman named Peter, could weather the storm, faith that it could stand firm in the face of adversity, and faith that the solution is to always do the right thing and tell the truth.

In other words, to do what Jesus would have done.

It is a tragedy these leaders didn’t practice the faith that they continually preach.

*****

For far too long, the Church has been perceived as either being against things or involved in cover-ups.  Lost in the headlines is all the incredible work the Church performs as part of its core mission.

It is the biggest non-governmental provider of social services in the world, operates the largest network of non-public schools in the nation --- many of which are the only salvation for inner city, non-Catholic, non-white students ---,  and runs numerous hospitals which provide health care to many who would otherwise go without.  Most important, the Church offers a voice of reason and compassion to world leaders and the larger global community, a moral compass in an ever-increasing secular society.

But the Church is at a crossroads.  It can continue to defend the indefensible, drag its feet on huge problems of its own making, and watch its flock dwindle --- a situation sure to be accelerated if Pope John Paul II is sainted.

Or it can tackle the obstacles head-on, admitting mistakes and renewing its commitment to purge its ranks of criminals and predators.  It would also behoove the Church to keep an open mind when considering long-term solutions, such as allowing priests to marry --- as they did for over hundreds (some even say 1,200) years, a practice outlawed for that most non-holy issue:  property rights.

It will be a long road back to respectability, but if a serious effort isn’t undertaken soon to address these issues, what was once the most powerful institution in the world will be reduced to a sad ghost of past glories.

An easy first step: don’t ignore the most faithful.  Case in point:

A lifelong churchgoing Catholic, herself a product of 15 years of Catholic education and longtime staff-member at a Catholic hospital, wrote the Pope a letter last year (cc’ing other Vatican officials) about the abuse her son and his classmates endured at the hands of a priest --- a priest who had allegations of sexual misconduct leveled at him while still in the seminary.  And a priest who was repeatedly transferred to other schools where parents and students were never informed of his past actions.

The point of the letter was simple.  “I am only asking to stop allowing cover-ups to take place. I am asking to eliminate old age as a factor for tolerating these horrible predators. We are asked to forgive but we should not have to continue to care for these criminals.”  She also asked that the fast-tracking of John Paul be halted, despite all the “wonderful things” he did, since he presided over the Church “during these horrible times.”

She ends by recounting “how many of (her) friends had left the church because of the pedophile and cover-up issues,” and reminisced how “honored” she felt to have seen Pope John Paul II in person in the United States, and Pope Benedict in St. Peter's Square several years ago.  “I am saddened to say I do not feel the honor is quite the same for me anymore.”

The Church’s response?  It’s been nine months and counting.  Absolutely nothing.

As a human, a parent, and yes, a faithful Catholic, I implore the Church, for God’s sake, to end the preying, and start the praying.  After all, it’s the most Catholic thing to do.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Chris Christie Knocks Out Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn

Illinois Governor Pat Quinn had had enough. A festering sore had turned into a gaping wound, and the leader of the fifth-largest state took off the gloves. It was time to fight.

Given Illinois’ battered economy and huge deficits, it would be reasonable to think Quinn was about to wage war on the things that had created the mess.

But that would have required hard work and difficult decisions. 

Instead, Quinn chose to defend the status quo (which, being Illinois, means skyrocketing taxes and reckless spending) by leveling a broadside at New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who had the audacity to run a marketing campaign in Illinois aimed at winning over that state’s overtaxed companies.

But Christie had just gotten started. Exuding confidence that his state is on the right track, he then traveled to Illinois, meeting with corporate leaders receptive to his vision of bettering a business climate through spending reductions, pro-growth initiatives, and a pledge not to raise taxes.

Predictably, Quinn took issue with Christie’s aggressive approach. “I don’t believe …governors should be kicking each other in the shins,” he said.

Of course not.  That just wouldn’t be politically correct. And making the sin mortal is that Christie’s actions invoked competition among states.

It’s truly a sad note when competition --- the bedrock of America which created the most prosperous nation in history --- is reduced to “kicking someone in the shins.”

Instead of fixing his state the right way, though, Quinn would rather criticize a governor who dared to put the interests of his people over government; a leader who understands that freeing business from the shackles of government leads to lower costs, increased productivity, and the only thing that can jumpstart an economy --- jobs.

*****

Under Quinn’s reign as Governor and Lt. Governor, Illinois’ situation has become dire.  Its deficit this year alone is $15 billion --- so bad that it can’t pay its vendors.  And that doesn’t take into account the incomprehensible $80 billion in unfunded pension liabilities, earning Illinois first place in that category.

So of course, the answer for Quinn and the Democrats in power (who control both legislative chambers by significant margins) is twofold:

1)      Borrow $15 billion to pay the $15 billion owed.  The only problem is that the deficit will still stand at… $15 billion. Maybe that’s Illinois’ “new math,” but the fact remains that even if the deficit is financed at a lower rate, the amount owed hasn’t changed.

2)      Raise taxes at a staggering rate.

To state that Quinn accomplished Point Number Two is a masterpiece of an understatement. He has just signed into law a whopping 67 percent increase in the state income tax, along with similar jumps in business taxes.  When combined with national taxes, Illinois now has the fourth-highest overall corporate income tax in the industrialized world.

The key difference between the two Governors is that Christie can attract businesses to his state, despite New Jersey also having one of the worst business climates in the nation.  Why? Because Christie is turning things around by running his state like a business, mandating that it operates within the same constraints as the private-sector: control labor costs, increase efficiencies, and don’t spend money that isn’t there.

Even though he is vastly outnumbered by the tax-and-spend Democrats who control the Jersey legislature, Christie’s bully pulpit, take-no-prisoners attitude has already paid dividends: the Garden State is moving in the right direction on the business climate list.

And that has business taking note.

*****

Here’s what leaders like Quinn don’t understand. 

If they were confident in their ideas and vision, they wouldn’t have to whine about other elected officials “poaching” business in their state. It’s why governors in South Carolina, Arizona, Texas and yes, even New Jersey, don’t worry about such things. Their message is simple: we’re in the game all the way, and we’ll do whatever it takes to get --- and keep --- you here. 

The Founding Fathers inherently knew that competition among states was necessary for the Republic to thrive, and designed the country accordingly.  That vision worked then, and, if we don’t bow to political correctness, it can work now.

Governors can and should be competing with their counterparts, and not just for a meaningless Super bowl bet.  But most don’t, either because their business climate is too hostile, or they are worried about bruising egos.

In either case, that amounts to unacceptable failure. And with the volatile electorate demanding solutions, not excuses, that’s not a good position in which to be.

*****

"I don't know why anybody would listen to him," Quinn said of Christie. “I don't need that kind of advice from that guy."

But since his state is losing another congressional seat because Americans are finding greener pastures elsewhere --- a trend that will now accelerate because of Quinn’s mammoth new taxes --- here’s a piece of advice to the Governor:

Maybe you should. 

Common sense dictates that people gravitate to places they sense are on the right track. And for the first time in a generation, Americans are viewing New Jersey as a land of opportunity, not just the butt of late-night jokes.

Which has Chris Christie smiling, because he knows what Pat Quinn doesn’t: the real joke is on Illinois, and New Jersey will be laughing all the way to the bank.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Some School Choice-ers Have Defeatist Attitude

“Since 1995 the average mathematics score for fourth-graders jumped 11 points. At this rate we catch up with Singapore in a little over 80 years . . . assuming they don't improve."

- Norman R. Augustine, retired CEO of Lockheed Martin

Let’s keep that quote from a recent George Will column in mind as the school choice debate unfolds.

*****

Even in a bad housing market, if someone were to initially offer his home at the lowest acceptable price, he would be called an idiot.  And rightly so.

Likewise, negotiators never come to the table with their bottom line proposal. Doing so would be pointless --- obviously --- since they would be leaving themselves no negotiating room.

It’s Business 101: you set the bar high, and work downward, if need be. It doesn’t get any simpler.

Which makes the current school choice bill in the State Senate, SB 1, all the more puzzling.  Since true choice would be made available only to low-income students, and that’s after a three-year phase-in, the bill would be almost totally ineffectual, affecting an extremely small number of primarily urban students.

Given that Pennsylvania students rank near the bottom in several important categories, such as SAT scores, the only way to right the ship is to enact a statewide, comprehensive school choice program.  Since choice only works if the vast majority of students and schools are able to participate, and there seem to be the votes for that type of program, why the bar is being set so artificially low remains a mystery.

But a good bet is that sponsors Jeff Piccola (R) and Anthony Williams (D) simply didn’t do their homework on the make-up of the new legislature, choosing to dust off an old bill rather than craft a better, more inclusive one.

Because of its limited scope, it’s a bill many view as destined to fail. To think suburban and rural legislators will put up a tough vote for SB 1 --- despite none of their constituents realizing school choice --- and, as a reward, face well-financed union-backed opponents in next year’s elections is just naïve.

So it is somewhat surprising that some school choice advocates on the Right have reacted so illogically to Freindly Fire’s criticism of that bill (as detailed in last week’s column).

If that defeatist attitude is pervasive within the ranks of the Republican base, one thing is certain: the entire agenda of new Governor Tom Corbett and the GOP-dominated House and Senate will be jeopardized. It’s like being pregnant --- you are or you aren’t.  You either push hard to truly solve the state’s unprecedented problems, or you willingly give up your political leverage, compromising your way to meaningless solutions via the Business as Usual approach.

And anyone who thinks the budget deficit, pension bomb and liquor privatization issues can be solved by bowing to insider tactics rooted in political minutia is just whistling Dixie.

While education should never be a partisan issue, school choice is more widely supported by Republicans.  So if you can’t pass meaningful legislation with solid GOP majorities in both chambers and a very friendly Governor, you might as well pack it up and turn off the lights.

So let’s take a look at the misguided talking points some proponents are advocating:

SB 1 helps a wide range of students.

The sponsors’ rhetoric simply doesn’t match the substance.  Senators Piccola and Williams talk a great game, saying all the right things:  "We are ready to challenge any…who oppose freedom,” “the civil rights movement of this century,”  “…all kids deserve access to a great education - regardless of race, income or zip code,” and “providing access to a quality education for every child is the most important issue facing our state.”

Last time I checked, the Civil Rights movement created equality for all people, not just some ---which is why the sponsors’ talk rings so hollow.  How can you state that “all kids” and “every child” need access to a great education when this program is so limited in scope?  Where is the “freedom” in that? Leaving the vast majority of students out in the cold is not exactly benefitting “all.”

This is the best school choice bill we can hope for at this time. 

Says who?  The sponsors?  Uhh…no. The legislature was sworn in on January 4, and the bill was introduced January 11.  So are we to believe that the bill was written and a preliminary vote count taken in less than seven days?  Of course not. 

Rather than wait to introduce a meaningful bill, Piccola and Williams jumped the gun with a worthless piece of legislation that, even if passed, will affect virtually no positive change and only bury Pennsylvania that much further.  We don’t have another decade to waste.

We don’t have the votes to pass it, since it didn’t pass in…the mid 90’s when it “failed miserably.” 

Honest to God, I couldn’t make up that level of irrationality. This point is so wrong, on so many levels, that it almost doesn’t deserve a response.  But here are the facts.

Comparing the climate for school choice from 1995 and 2011 is ridiculous, for three reasons.

First, the legislature itself is at least 70 to 80 percent different now versus then. Second, despite the Republican wave of 1994, the State House remained Democratic --- by one vote.  It took Rep. Tom Stish’s switch to give the GOP control and the ability to push school choice in that chamber. 

But the wave of 2010 was a different story.  Thirteen seats flipped, giving the GOP a ten seat majority --- and a mandate to reform the system.  And the Republican caucus is more conservative than it was fifteen years ago, with increased support for school choice.

Third, the acceptance of school choice is much more widespread than it was in the 90’s --- a span of time where, not coincidentally, more and more schools have declined academically or closed altogether; Pennsylvania students continue to lag behind their national and global competitors.

With so many elements between those two time periods being night and day, any attempt at comparison is simply insulting.

And for the record, statewide school choice missed passage by no more than five votes in 1995 --- a far cry from “failing miserably.”  That is indisputable, and stated from first-hand experience, as Yours Truly was the Executive Director of the REACH Alliance at the time, the statewide organization pushing school choice.  Oh, and Williams, a State Representative at the time, was a NO vote.

And the question proponents of SB 1 cannot answer: has anyone done an actual vote count?

Here’s the answer: no.  Not the leaders, and not the grassroots activists, for the simple reason that there hasn’t been enough time to do so.  So why advocates would criticize efforts to expand the bill without even undertaking the most basic step ---counting votes --- is mindboggling and counterproductive.

What is Senator Williams’ position on full school choice?  

He certainly says all the right things about expanding choice, but it seems that none of the critics has actually asked Williams his position on a comprehensive program.  If he doesn’t support it, why not? Why should choice be available to some but not all?  Any type of exclusivity dooms the bill before it’s out of the gate, as is evidenced by the growing number of pro-school choicers who are against this bill.

But if Williams does support a larger program, that’s gravy.  And since Williams would most likely bring additional Democrats with him, the likelihood of passing an expanded bill would be extremely high --- hence, the obtuseness of not attempting a more inclusive bill.

This bill helps the middle class through the expanded EITC.

The Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) is a nice program on the margins, and without a doubt has helped many families and kept some schools from closing, but it is NOT school choice; those labeling it as such do a great disservice to true choice.

The EITC allows businesses to give money to a non-profit scholarship organization or educational improvement program and receive a tax credit for that donation. Families with a household income under $60,000 would be eligible (plus $10,000 per child), and the program stops once $100 million worth of tax credits are doled out by the state. ($75 million is dedicated to the scholarship program).

The educational improvement aspect has nothing to do with school choice, so that’s irrelevant to the choice discussion.

Scholarship organizations must be granted approval from the state; upon meeting that requirement, they then solicit business donations to fund the scholarships.

For many businesses, participation in the EITC is based on the economy, so a struggling company may cut back or eliminate their contributions altogether.  Additionally, the EITC is also more subject to reduced funding by the legislature (as happened in 2009) than a statewide school choice program. 

And not to be critical of the EITC, but if it has been so successful, why have so many schools closed since its inception a decade ago?

One aspect of SB 1 is very appealing: rather than just a voucher, the state subsidy that would have been directed to a student’s home school district could be applied to the public, private or parochial school of their choice, not to exceed the cost of tuition.   In some districts, that number could be as high as $10,000.  Since the average total cost to educate a student per year is $14,000, a statewide choice program could provide a very significant cost savings. (As a comparison, the average EITC scholarship is just above $1000).

With school choice, parents receive some of their tax money back to choose their child’s school; with the EITC, they don't get any money back directly (the scholarship entity controls it), and are more limited in the schools from which to choose.

Arguing that the EITC is the savior to middle class families simply has no merit.

*****

The mentality that school choice must be obtained “one slice at a time” versus going for the “whole loaf” is a flawed one.  The votes should be there to pass statewide school choice now, but the political reality is such that most legislators will only give choice one vote.  There is nothing attractive about facing the wrath of the well-funded teachers’ unions year after year until full choice can be implemented, especially in light of all the other tough votes they will have to make.

With increasing public sentiment advocating school choice, favorable and diverse majorities in the House and Senate, and a committed Governor, the time for meaningful reform is upon us.

Thinking back to the quote that started this column, it’s now or never, so let’s do it right.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com
Readers of his column, “Freindly Fire,” hail from six continents, thirty countries and all fifty states. His work has been referenced in numerous publications including The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' recent bestseller "Catastrophe."

Freind, whose column appears nationally in Newsmax, also serves as a guest commentator on Philadelphia-area talk radio shows, and makes numerous other television and radio appearances, most notably on FOX.  He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com