Corbett’s Credibility Tanks Over Role In Penn State Scandal

Pop Quiz: What’s the relationship between the following two statements which have appeared in recent news articles:

1) “Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s national profile rises in the wake of Penn State scandal.”

2) “Tom Corbett has been mentioned as a possible Vice Presidential candidate.”

Strangely, they are inversely proportional.  When one’s profile rises, that’s typically a good thing. But as the nation learns about some very disturbing actions of Corbett related to the Penn State scandal, his Veep chances are plummeting.  As a direct result, his chances of ever being a heartbeat away are between zero and forgetaboutit.

At this rate, he may be lucky just to survive his first term.

*****

Why the cover-up, and how far up the ladder did it go?  Why the lack of swift action, from not just the University, but from law enforcement?  And how could football --- no matter how storied a program --- have risen above the protection of innocent children?

These questions were supposed to be answered by a thorough and unbiased investigation by the state Attorney General’s Office.  But as more information emerges on that front, the less faith people have that justice has been --- or will be --- served.

Enter Tom Corbett.

For better or worse, Corbett has been a quiet, behind-the-scenes governor during his first year in office.  Yet he felt compelled to address the state and national media on the scandal.  In doing so, he said more in one press conference than he had in his entire governorship, despite the fact that he declined to answer most questions.

Interestingly, Corbett is wearing three hats.  He is the Governor of a state that contributes millions to Penn State. He is a Penn State Board Trustee who participated in Board decisions, including the firings of Joe Paterno and University President Graham Spanier. And most significantly, he is the former Attorney General who launched the child molestation investigation of former football coach Jerry Sandusky in 2009.

Corbett has attempted to have the best of both worlds: national publicity where he touts the virtues of morality, and a free pass on accountability because of alleged confidentiality issues.  But that tactic has backfired, as the media spotlight turned on Corbett himself. The more that is learned about Corbett’s actions --- and inactions --- regarding the investigation, the more his credibility tanks.

Consider:

1) It took substantially longer for the Attorney General’s office to bring charges against Sandusky than it did for numerous politicians to be indicted in the Bonusgate corruption probe. Bonusgate was a very complex investigation involving crafty politicians with the best lawyers money could buy. Since much of what was being investigated in Bonusgate was not run-of-the mill illegalities, the investigators had to overcome a hefty, time-consuming learning curve to understand the subject matter.

So how can such a complicated investigation come to fruition more quickly than a black-and-white child rape case?  And where is the rule against making an initial arrest to get the molester off the street --- and warn the public --- while continuing to build the case?

Given the appalling nature of the alleged crimes, and the real possibility that more young children were molested during the three year investigation, why did the Attorney General wait so long to make the staffing level as robust as it should have been from the start?

If the answer is that resources were limited --- sorry, try again.  As bad as other crimes may have been, such as those committed in Bonusgate, no one was physically hurt and the welfare of children was never an issue.  Giving priority to children who are at risk of rape and molestation is a no-brainer. But inexplicably, that wasn’t done.

The Governor continues to defend his actions --- scolding those who dare question him --- by stating that it takes time to build such a case and that he can’t comment further, but three years? That’s an insult to everyone, especially the victims.  Again, you can’t have it both ways, grandstanding for political points but clamming up when the questions get tough.

And fair or not, many are now asking if the investigation was delayed so that Corbett could avoid being the gubernatorial candidate who took down Joe Paterno and Penn State --- both wildly popular among the hundreds of thousands of alumni living in the state.

2) This one is simply incomprehensible.

In yet another instance of Corbett finishing what former Democratic Governor Ed Rendell started (others being $20 million of taxpayer money to renovate the Yankees’ AAA  stadium, and $42  million to bail out the Philadelphia Shipyard to build ships with no buyers), the Governor personally approved a $3 million taxpayer-funded grant to Sandusky’s Second Mile charity --- just four months ago!

That bears repeating.  Tom Corbett, with full knowledge that Sandusky was under investigation for multiple child rapes, still approved the money to his charity. 

How is that possible?  And why on earth is the national media not yet running with this?

In a response that was offensive to any rational person, here’s what his spokesman said, as reported in the Pittsburgh Tribune Review:

“He (Corbett) couldn't block that (grant) from going forward because of what he knew as attorney general…He couldn't let on to anyone (including the governor's office) what he knew….”

That is so wrong that it begs the question as to the real motivation behind approving the grant.

First, the fact that so many people had been interviewed by the grand jury made the investigation anything but a secret.  Second, the Harrisburg Patriot News reported on the grand jury investigation ---- in March.  Corbett approved the funds --- in July!  So not wanting to “let on” was clearly bogus.  The investigation was already well-established in the public domain.

Secondly, there was an incredibly easy way to deal with the grant without tipping off anyone: simply strike it.  After all, the budget Corbett signed cut everything else, so a grant to a charity would have been seen as just another casualty of financial cutbacks. 

Veto the grant (why taxpayers are funding that in the first place is obscene, but that’s another story) and be done with it.  It should have been that easy.  But it didn’t happen.

Why?

Well, consider if the following may have had anything to do with it. According to the sports website Deadspin.com, past and present board members of the Second Mile, along with their businesses and families, have donated more than $640,000 to Corbett since 2003.

That interesting --- and massively significant --- point seemed to have slipped the Governor’s mind during his press conferences.  Go figure.

*****

Something is rotten to the core about how this whole affair has been investigated.  It’s time for the Feds to take the lead role in uncovering the whole truth, and that includes possibly looking into the Attorney General’s investigation. 

It’s clear the Board of Trustees cannot be counted upon to conduct an unbiased investigation, nor can the local police, and, sadly, even the Attorney General’s office.  And nothing emanating from the Governor’s office on this issue can be taken at face value.

In discussing why Paterno and Spanier were fired, the Governor said, “…the Board lost confidence in their ability to lead Penn State through this time and into the future.”

With all the opportunities Tom Corbett has had to play it straight with the people of Pennsylvania --- especially the victims --- on his dealings with the Penn State issue, he hasn’t done so.

And that has caused an ever-increasing number of people to lose confidence in his ability to lead.

There is a great scene in the movie The American President where Richard Dreyfuss suggests that being president “was, to a certain extent, about character.” And in classic Michael Douglas style, he replies, “I can tell you, without hesitation, that being President is entirely about character.”

Well, character isn’t limited to the Oval Office. It resides in every one of us --- and that includes Governors, Trustees, coaches, police and investigators.

Moving forward, let’s demand that a basic legal and moral principle be followed to the very end:

Fiat justitia ruat caelum  ---"Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

The victims deserve no less.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

PA Poll: Dump Low Income Vouchers, Increase Tax Credit

There is an age-old adage: if you’re going to do something, do it right --- or don’t do it at all.

Based on poll results exclusively obtained first by Freindly Fire, nowhere is that more applicable than in the fight for school vouchers in Pennsylvania. According to the Pulse Opinion Research poll conducted on behalf of UNITE PA, which surveyed 500 likely voters across the state, the majority of Pennsylvanians prefer that any school choice program be open to all students (or at least most of the middle class), as opposed to just low income, predominantly inner city students. This result is not surprising on any level, and, undeniably, leads to five rock solid conclusions:

1) The middle class realizes that ALL schools need improvement, and competition through choice is the best way to achieve that objective;

2) Pennsylvanians, by a whopping 78 to 9 margin, favor a broad-based choice program;

3) If a comprehensive choice program isn’t offered, citizens would prefer an expansion of the EITC educational tax credit --- by a 3 to 1 ratio;

4) The reason voucher legislation failed in the Spring, and in all likelihood won’t pass now, isn’t due to opposition to school choice, but because the senate refuses to consider a broader, more inclusive bill, and therefore:

5) If a suburban or rural legislator supports vouchers only for low income families, while their constituents would be left out in the cold without receiving a penny, they do so at their own peril.  A full 40 percent of likely voters stated that they will be “less likely” to support that lawmaker in his or her next election based on that vote.

The message of this poll is clear: do vouchers the right way, or don’t do them at all.  And since the senate has already passed a low income version by the slimmest of margins, with its leaders stating that’s all they will do, expect the voucher bill to die what may be its final political death, and look for the EITC expansion to pass as a stand-alone bill (which it did in the Spring by a virtually unanimous 190-7 bipartisan vote on Rep. Tom Quigley’s House Bill 1330).

Failure to act responsibly will leave the GOP politically vulnerable, and, infinitely more important, abandon yet another generation of Pennsylvania’s future.

*****

Since last January, Republican Senator Jeff Piccola has been trying to pass legislation offering school vouchers only to students in underperforming schools who meet low income requirements. Despite crafting Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) during the Rendell Administration (when there was a Democratic State House and an anti-choice governor), Piccola never bothered to broaden the bill to reflect the new ten-seat Republican majority in the House, and pro-school choice Governor Tom Corbett.

Piccola, along with Democratic co-sponsor Senator Tony Williams, ran the bus over anyone who dared question why SB 1 was being treated as hallowed legislation, scoffing at --- but not answering --- queries as to why no attempt was made to broaden the bill, given the favorable legislative climate.  In the process, many SB 1 proponents demonized long-time political allies for their “brazen” attempt to improve a badly flawed education reform bill that would neither educate nor reform.

That intransigence directly led to vouchers dying on the vine in June.  Despite repeated assurances that it would pass the Senate, it was never brought to the floor for a vote. Piccola’s excuse for not running the bill was that the House wasn’t embracing SB 1 with the same fervor, yet the truth is that he didn’t even have the votes in his own chamber.

Last month, a watered-down version of SB 1 finally passed the senate after much arm-twisting, but as the poll shows, it’s back to Square One, meaning that SB 1 faces a tough road ahead. Many folks in Pennsylvania view vouchers favorably, but when they learn that the only voucher bill being considered is one that will never impact them, their support plummets.

Many traditional supporters of school choice have had SB 1 sold to them as the be-all-and-end-all.  But the huge irony is that these people in turn become the biggest detractors of SB 1 upon learning what the legislation does, and, more importantly, doesn’t do. From Catholic school advocates to Tea Partiers to everyday parents, the majority of those who favor school choice become irritated, if not downright angry, after discovering that in SB 1, a full seven years after enactment, middle income students would still be excluded. Because of this, many look at SB 1 as nothing more than yet another targeted entitlement program for Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

The results of the Pulse Opinion Poll are so clear cut that it’s a good bet many House members on the fence will now be moved to oppose the voucher aspect, instead calling for other educational reform measures to be considered individually rather than part of an SB 1 package.  Charter school reforms, teacher evaluations, and the EITC should be debated on their merits and not held hostage by certain senators hell-bent on ramming an ineffectual voucher bill down the House’s throat --- or all-else be damned.

And if the House decides to eliminate the voucher and significantly expand the EITC, what then? Will Piccola once again call that legislation “dead on arrival” and kill it upon its return to the senate?

And if so, will the House leaders do the right thing and relegate Piccola to the dustbin of irrelevancy by simply mandating that the EITC expansion be part of the 2012 budget? 

It’s time to stop playing games.  Pennsylvania students are 42^nd in SAT scores, ranking low in literacy, graduation rates and those attending college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11^th graders are not proficient in math and reading.  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Advocating school choice for only low-income students results in the default perception that education is adequate everywhere else, which is not remotely accurate. We cannot afford to waste another decade, forsaking our children --- our future --- because some choose to ignore the widespread failure occurring on a daily basis.

The poll clearly shows what common sense already dictates: only competition can begin to reverse decades of educational failure. Comprehensive school choice provides that free-market solution, and, if passed, would be a model for the nation.  But since stubbornness, personal agendas and lack of political will are still prevalent in the Senate, let’s hope the House of Representatives acts responsibly and does the right thing for our children.

As Voltaire said, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

And jettisoning a bad voucher program while passing other meaningful reforms is a very good start.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Euro Debt Crisis? Not Greek To Me!

Greece.  What a country!

From its storied history as the cradle of democracy to leadership in modern security techniques (allowing stray dogs to sleep atop airport x-ray machines ---no joke), from novel solutions to reduce speeding (traffic lights and stop signs are routinely ignored, resulting in a seven, yes, seven, miles-per-hour average speed in Athens) to having a good old-fashioned rivalry (hating the Turks), there’s something for everyone in Greece.

And to top it all, the legendary Greek work ethic (clock in, coffee, siesta, set up construction cones, break, coffee, siesta, lunch, siesta, ouzo, siesta, afternoon break, double shot ouzo, siesta, remove construction cones, baklava (with ouzo), siesta, clock out) has resulted in Greece being the catalyst for the coming Dark Age in the West. Far be it for anyone to expect Greek workers to put in an honest day’s work, and to suggest increasing retirement age to something beyond what seems like 37.  

Pay no attention to the fact that those asking for commonsense reforms are the ones footing the bill for the Greeks’ lavish, and ultimately unproductive, lifestyle.  That list of benefactors includes countries (such as the United States), financial institutions, investors, and, ultimately, hard-working citizens around the world.

Oh, to be Greek!

*****

Because of the immense entitlements bestowed upon Greek civil service workers, such as lavish holiday pay and early retirement (achieved through Social Security-type compensation packages that blow away those in the States), the Greek government has a problem. The Piper finally came calling, but the government couldn’t pay.  It ran out of money several years ago.

Not wanting to leave a fellow European Union (EU) member twisting in the wind, the EU’s braintrust decided to send a bailout package Greece’s way.  It was a combination of increasing the Euro money supply (contributing to inflation) and using OPM (Other People’s Money). 

And in return for the sacrifice others made for the “greater good” of Greece (such as being asked to forgive 50 percent of Greece’s debt), what was asked of that nation?  Reforms that would, in theory, get Greece back on solid financial footing, if that is even possible for a nation whose debt exceeds an unfathomable 180 percent of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

But the bailout was made, with self-congratulatory, albeit clueless, Euro-technocrats preaching that all would be well again.

And things were great, at least in Greece, as the message of austerity was received loud and clear --- with a wink, of course. Translation: “we’ll just continue with Business As Usual.”

And as any fifth grader could have deduced, the Greeks ran out of money -- again and again and again. Not willing to cut their losses, the EU did exactly what Greece knew it would  --- open up its coffers … again and again and again.

We are on the sixth installment of the bailout, still predicated on austerity measures that simply aren’t happening.

And how are the Greek politicians doing in their quest to enact reforms that, while not popular, are necessary if Greece is to avoid default?

Uhhh…put it this way.  Predicting that Kim Kardashian would be divorced after just two months was an infinitely better bet than thinking the Greeks would do the right thing.

The latest development, which has been mistakenly called a “bombshell” but was an obvious next step to all but the Euro-geniuses, was the Greek government deciding to pass the buck (again), calling for a voter referendum to see if the Greek people favored  austerity measures.

So let’s see.  The Greek people, who have been violently rioting for years because they don’t want the party to end, are now being asked if they will voluntarily turn off the free-money spigot. Sure they will.

To be fair, the vote won’t be unanimous.  There are probably 30 Turkish expats who will vote Yes just for spite.

Oh to be Greek!

*****

The European Financial Stability Facility (an oxymoron if ever there was one) and the European Central Bank continue their insane polices of bailouts and bond-buying initiatives (where they buy bonds of financially weak countries). In addition to the black hole called Greece, Portugal and Ireland have both received bailouts, and, not surprisingly, neither worked.  So more Other People’s Money will be heading their way.

Not to be left out, Italy and Spain are next.  And since they are some of Europe’s big boys, their bailout needs are exponentially greater than those of Greece, Ireland and Portugal combined.

Where does it end?

The most significant, yet least discussed, issue in this entire debacle is that no one is offering solutions to fix the problem. Instead, they are merely buying time so that the can is kicked down the road again, praying the implosion occurs on someone else’s watch. Throw more imaginary money at the problem, say the right things to keep sheep-like investors duped, and don’t get caught holding the bag.

While that plan has worked for decades, too many fundamental economic principles have been violated for far too long to keep the Piper at bay much longer. The Ponzi scheme of socialist-leaning Western economies is quickly approaching implosion status, and when it blows, the 1929 Great Depression will look like a walk in the park.

The crisis certainly cannot be attributed only to Greece; they just happen to be the poster boy for what happens when socialism and laziness trump free markets and personal initiative. 

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou’s push for a referendum is being labeled a high-stakes gamble, described as a bet that the Europeans’ prior bailouts have them in so deep that even if the Greek voters reject austerity, the bailouts will continue. The alternative, we are told, is far worse: no more bailouts will result in default.

But the truth, which no one seems willing to admit, is what transpires in Greece doesn’t matter.  Given the complete lack of will of America and Europe (and the absence of an even basic understanding of economic principles), an unprecedented crash and massive social unrest is inevitable.

This is no longer conjecture, but reality grounded in cold, hard facts. 

Ultimately, even Bernie Madoff was forced to confess to a Ponzi scheme.  When will reality force our leaders to do the same? 

The writing is on the wall, and it is anything but Greek.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

With Gaddafi’s Death, Is Libya The Next Iraq?

Long oppressed by their strongman leader, the rebels finally had their day. With immense military and political help from the West, they first toppled the regime, and later, the dictator himself.  At long last, “freedom” was theirs, although as we have come to know, one person’s freedom is another’s hell.

And how did the rebels show their appreciation to their liberators? By showering them not with roses, but roadside bombs, bullets and vitriol. Their message? “Thanks --- now get out.”

So it was in Iraq, and so it will be in Libya.

Amazingly, Western leaders either don’t read history, or, more likely, do so and arrogantly think they can avoid the same mistakes.

They can’t.

The objective of the US and NATO was to remove Gaddafi. Well, mission accomplished. But once again, the age-old adage applies: Be careful what you wish for…you might just get it. And get it they did, but now what? How much more blood and treasure will be expended to maintain a presence in a country that was a) stable, b) a Muslim “ally” of the West, and therefore c) didn’t need an occupying Western presence?

Sadly, too much.

*****

There was no question why the U.S. became involved in Libya.  It wasn’t about stopping a dictator or civilian deaths.  And it’s wasn’t about democracy and freedom.  It was because Libya produces a lot of oil. Period.

Need proof?  Among numerous examples, just look at Syria.  They continue to massacre their citizens and foment terrorism, but their petroleum production is but a fraction of what Libya pumps out annually. Case closed.

So America once again did much of the heavy lifting, giving its imprimatur for the airstrikes which led to the rebels taking down Gaddafi.   

But it seems that we have forgotten one small thing.  Those rebels --- who brutally and gleefully executed Gaddafi in full view of cameras, and are now “running” the country --- are the same folks who comprised the largest fighting force outside of Iraq to engage the United States military in that country.

That bears repeating.

We just backed the very same people who have been shooting at us for the past eight years.  A naïve question, to be sure, but did anyone in charge actually bother to think about this before participating in the regime change of a sovereign nation?

                          

The rebels, who are no longer rebels but now governmental “leaders,” have tasted power. They are getting used to carrying out the law ---their law --- on the spot, administering justice as they see fit. To think that they are just going to lay down their weapons (which we provided) and obey orders from a civilian politician is a fairy tale. Just look at the recent revelation that upwards of 20,000 portable surface-to-air missiles, each capable of downing a jetliner, are missing and feared to be in unfriendly hands. What a shock.

The result will be chaos and armed factions roaming the country.  And when they are pressed further, look for car bombs and oil pipelines to start exploding.

Kind of like…Iraq. 

But the West can’t have that, so by its own admission, it will be sending in ground troops.  And as history shows, that is never a short-term proposition. 

Of course, since European countries are broke and wholly incapable of sustaining any military operation, the United States will inevitably be drawn further into the Libyan quagmire.

In the hope of not repeating past mistakes, there are two lessons that should be heeded by what will hopefully be a new Administration next year:

1) Credibility is everything.  Nowhere is a nation’s word more important than on the world stage. If a country that prides itself on being of high moral character lies and betrays, it’s credibility is shot.  Period. It’s a lesson the United States still hasn’t learned.

For example, America urged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein at the conclusion of Gulf War I, pledging support to help them overthrow the dictator. But the U.S. reneged on that promise, leading to the needless slaughter of many. Because of our credibility gap, we were forced to expend enormous effort to convince the Kurds to join the coalition in the Gulf War II. 

Fast forward to the present, and it is apparent that lesson has gone unheeded, as the Libyan debacle clearly illustrates.

Moammar Gaddafi was never an angel, not in the beginning of his forty-year reign, nor at the end.  But he showed himself to be a leader with whom the West could effectively work, even if his transformation was rooted in self-preservation.

In no uncertain terms, Gaddafi was told to shape up or face the consequences.  To his credit, he did, and then some.  He admitted complicity in the Pan Am 103 bombing and paid reparations, dismantled his WMD/nuclear program, and stopped harboring terrorists.  As a result of his positive actions, Gaddafi’s nation was removed the Terrorism List by the George W. Bush Administration, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stating Libya was rewarded for its "renunciation of terrorism and the excellent cooperation Libya has provided to the U.S." in the war on terror.

And yet, despite U.S. assurances to Libya that the two nations would be conditional allies, that “excellent cooperation” wasn’t good enough.  America broke its word by helping to eliminate a leader who had done everything the United States had asked of him.  With that kind of “credibility,” is it any wonder why many leaders have chosen a path at odds with America? Venezuelan General Hugo Chavez comes to mind.

This results in needless roadblocks in diplomatic, political and economic negotiations around the world. The damage from one thoughtless decision can take years to repair, with Libya the latest example.

2) It is time for energy independence.  Despite the inherent common sense of energy independence, both from economic and security perspectives, it remains a policy neither Party chooses to advance.  Sure, the rhetoric is there, but that is where it ends.

Rather than tap into the largest natural gas deposits in the world (the Marcellus and Utica Shales), the vast oil reserves in Alaska, the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, the reserves under the Rockies that may be the largest on the planet, and drill offshore, the politicians continue the disastrous policy of relying on petroleum from hostile nations.

Put another way, if Libya, and the entire Middle East for that matter, wasn’t sitting on huge reserves, America wouldn’t give it a second thought, with the exception of its security guarantee to Israel.

But because neither Party will pursue energy independence in a meaningful manner, job creation suffers, inflation rises, and America’s fighting forces remain in the crosshairs.

So once again, America is involved in yet another conflict with no clear objectives, which will only create more uncertainty in world markets that are already on the verge of collapse.

Common sense is such that America should stop playing policeman to the world, become energy independent, put the interests of its citizens before the people of other nations, and, above all, keep its word.

Don’t hold your breath. As Voltaire said, “Common sense is not so common.”

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Hell Freezes Over --- Arlene Ackerman Is For School Choice!

As we all know, weather forecasters are wrong much of the time. But you can’t hold them responsible for that wholly unpredictable icy blast felt this week.

After all, it was Hell freezing over.

That’s right.  Seems Dante’s inferno took a dip in the cold, not coincidentally, at the exact same time that former Philadelphia School Superintendent Arlene Ackerman --- a 43-year fixture in the public education establishment --- called for comprehensive school choice as the primary means to improve education.

Calling access to a quality education “the civil rights battle of our generation,” Ackerman penned a column in the Inquirer in which she lamented that it took her entire career to realize that true reforms would never originate from inside the system. 

Her words describe the problem perfectly:

“Real reform will never come from within the system because too many powers that be (the teachers' union, politicians, consultants, vendors, etc.) have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo that is failing our children.”

Dr. Ackerman then offered the solution that, while obvious to anyone with common sense, has been thus far impossible to achieve.

“Meaningful education reform must be forced upon the system from outside by giving parents of all income levels real choices about where their children go to school. That requires giving parents comprehensive school choice…”

Ackerman also advocates the expansion of charter schools, which, while a good idea, is but a small part of the overall solution, since the waiting list for these successful institutions is 30,000 strong. 

The major reason charters are light years ahead of regular public schools, as Dr. Ackerman correctly points out, is two-fold. They are not required to follow many of the burdensome and counter-productive regulations imposed upon public schools, and, more important, teachers are hired --- and fired --- based on merit.

Hmmm.  Holding people accountable for their job performance. What a novel idea. If only we did that in other jobs. Oh wait.  We do.  It’s called the private sector. 

That’s right.  Despite the comedy routine of certain folks who have nothing to “Occupy” their time except railing against the evils of competition  and free enterprise, the private sector is in fact what built America into the greatest, most benevolent power the world has ever known.

Without question, though, the United States is slipping backwards, being dragged into malaise and misery. And that decline, more than anything, can be traced to one thing: the demise of education.

For decades, all efforts to improve public education have been squashed by teachers’ union bosses, whose loyalty was to their fiefdoms and the almighty paycheck ---both funded entirely by taxpayers who were duped into believing their children were receiving the best education possible.

Whenever questions were raised about the lack of accountability and stagnant or declining standardized test scores, the blame game began.  “Parents don’t put in the time with their kids’ homework… It’s society’s fault…There are too many students in each class.” And of course, the most common one of all: “We need more money.”

Undoubtedly, some parents don’t put in as much time as they should, and we live in an ever more complex society, but these simply cannot be used as excuses to not adequately teach. In the private sector, when your job becomes tougher, you either meet the challenge, or hit the door. Adapt, improvise, overcome --- or go home.  Nowhere should that be more applicable than when teachers are entrusted with our children, indeed our future.

And the “not enough money, too many kids” excuse is a myth.  That’s not opinion, but cold, hard fact.  Pennsylvania spends $26 billion per year (that’s billion, with a “b”) on education --- more per student than 39 other states --- an amount which has doubled since 1996.  Despite a drop of 27,000 students over the last ten years, the public school system had added 33,000 employees in that time. Therefore, by definition, increased funding, more personnel and decreased class size have not improved student achievement.

And the results for all that money and smaller class size? Pennsylvania students are 42^nd in SAT scores, and rank low in literacy, graduation rates and those going to college.  Their performance on the National Assessment of Education Progress exam has not improved.  And most startling, nearly HALF of all 11^th graders are not proficient in math and reading (per PSSA standardized test scores).  This cannot be attributed to just the poor-performing urban schools pulling down scores, but is testament to an across-the-board educational failure. 

Bottom line: it’s not just that the status quo isn’t working.  It has completely failed. Based on that dismal picture, Ackerman’s advocacy of school choice --- the “change that must come from outside the school system” --- couldn’t have been offered at a better time.

*****

 There are two elements of Dr. Ackerman’s revelations that are worth noting.

1) The implementation of school choice, more than any other reform, is imperative if we are not to lose another generation.  The way we did things in the past hasn't worked, and what we continue to do isn't having an impact. Unless we treat education in the same way as every other successful institution in America --- business, sports, entertainment, the military --- then we might as well raise the white flag of defeat.

Most western nations have a form of school choice, and the results speak volumes. Compared to our 30 biggest global competitors, America’s students rank near the bottom of the pack in every category.

2) Isn’t it a shame that no one in the public education establishment has the courage to speak the truth while they are still on the inside? Don’t get me wrong.  It is wonderfully refreshing to hear Dr. Ackerman’s sentiments, and to see that she has finally seen the light on what must be done to improve public education.

But it is a sad note that revelations like hers must come after her departure.  Just imagine how different things could have been had the Philadelphia School Superintendent come out of the gate advocating school choice.  While certainly not a slam dunk, it would have infinitely increased the chances for the adoption of choice, particularly since a majority of the legislature and Governor Tom Corbett also favor it.

A school choice victory is still possible, as we are told it is a top legislative priority.  While it won’t be easy, especially given the teachers’ unions’ huge political war chests generated by forced union dues, maybe, just maybe, the conversion of Arlene Ackerman from the Dark Side of Public Education might be the spark needed to push across the finish line.

Only then will the dream of so many, including Dr. Ackerman, begin to come true: “all children having access to a quality public school education.”

Just what the Doctor ordered.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Romney MUST Address His Mormonism

He is Republican, pro-defense and hawkish on the War.  He is also an unabashed Christian, although his particular sect is viewed with suspicion and prejudice.  Oh, and he's running for President.

Based on the recent firestorm that erupted when a pastor called a presidential candidate’s religion a “cult,”   it seems clear that we're talking about Mitt Romney and his Mormon faith.  But we're not.  The above description referred to none other than Dwight D. Eisenhower --- a Jehovah's Witness for most of his life.

Eight years later, it was John F. Kennedy defending his Catholicism.

Now, it’s Romney’s turn.  But he is taking a “leap of faith” by deliberately avoiding discussion about how his Mormonism influences his values, and how he views the relationship between religion and government.

During the last presidential campaign, Romney made a strategic mistake on the religion issue.  It wasn’t that he didn’t address his Mormonism, because he did.  The problem was his timing. And he seems about to make the same mistake.

An Act of Desperation in 2007

In the run-up to the 2008 primaries, there was an intense battle inside Romney's camp over whether Mitt should address the Mormon issue head-on.  That the debate even took place demonstrated political naiveté on Romney’s part, as well as a lack of historical knowledge.

Romney and some of his advisers actually thought they could avoid discussing his Mormonism. Since he was the frontrunner, how could they have believed that the “Mormon issue” would disappear? 

Yes, Romney finally made his Mormon speech, but it was too late. Had it been delivered three months prior, he would have been ahead of the curve, proactively talking about Mormonism on his terms.  But that didn’t happen.

Instead, it looked like an act of desperation.

Romney, who had been leading in the early states (in both money and polls) suddenly found himself trailing the surging Mike Huckabee in Iowa, who was also breathing down his neck in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  It was only after losing momentum that Mitt decided to address the questions that had long been swirling about his faith.  The result was that he looked desperate and disorganized.

Apparently, Romney’s folks thought they could put the issue to rest by emulating Kennedy's famous Texas speech to Protestant ministers, where he adamantly stated that he would not be taking orders from the Pope.  That was a miscalculation on several counts. First, common perception is that Kennedy ended concerns about his Catholicism after that speech.  Wrong.  JFK felt obliged to address the issue on several other occasions. 

More importantly, Catholicism was the largest single religion in the nation, and Catholics made up a substantial and powerful voting bloc in many key states.  Conversely, Mormons make up just a fraction of the electorate, and a significant number of voters, especially evangelical Christians, view Mormonism as a non-Christian “cult.”

Romney’s unexpected slip in the polls four years ago was his first major crisis, and how he reacted---some say over-reacted--- led to questions about the candidate.  Were people put off by a potential Commander-in-Chief who seemed to panic at the first sign of trouble?  Could America afford a President who was seen as indecisive? And just how much of Mitt Romney's “strong faith” was believable, since his former positions on abortion and gay rights stood in contradiction to the tenets of his religion?

And as we know, Romney failed to win the nomination that many experts said was his to lose.

Now he’s back in the same frontrunner position, yet is again choosing to remain silent on the Mormon issue.

He sidestepped Pastor Rev. Robert Jeffress’ cult remark made at the Values Voter Summit, and failed to directly address another evangelical leader who questioned whether Mormonism was even a Christian faith. A Romney spokesman said he would not address the Mormon issue because he did so four years ago.

Given that the memory span of the average voter is about three months, that’s ridiculous. Failure to act quickly on this matter will undoubtedly cause history to repeat itself.

Like all religions, Mormonism has some tenets that seem quirky to non-adherents. As the primaries draw close, expect those aspects to become front-and-center on the national stage, both directly and indirectly. With all of Romney’s crisis management experience in business, he ought to know that it’s always better taking the bull by the horns to define a difficult issue --- and being the first to do so.  If you allow the issue --- or your opponents --- to define you, you’re always playing catch-up.

By refusing to address an issue that clearly isn’t going away, Romney is playing with fire.  No one remembers his speech from four years ago, but even if they did, he should innately understand that addressing an issue --- any issue --- just once is meaningless.  In the same way that he hammers home his economic plan time and again, so too should he proudly discuss both Mormonism and his personal thoughts on how it affects his life. Not doing so only raises more questions and, by default, gives credence to unsubstantiated hearsay about “strange” Mormon beliefs.

Interestingly but not unpredictably, several of Romney’s GOP competitors had the opportunity to state that Mormonism was a Christian religion.  They took a pass. Why?  Because they believe they’ll lose part of their evangelical base, some of whom view Mormonism with animosity.

That’s proof positive that this issue isn’t going away. All the more reason for Romney to address it, and turn the tables on his competition.

Romney would be wise to study how Kennedy handled the religion issue. By consistently hammering away, JFK made it seem that voting against a Catholic was bigotry, plain and simple.  Kennedy smashed a religious barrier that many said would never be broken, not by remaining silent and taking the high road, but with a take-no-prisoners approach in his quest to become America’s leader.

As both Eisenhower and Kennedy proved, it's the man, not the religion, who will carry the day. But that distinction doesn’t come from rolling over.  It is earned.  Time will soon tell whether Romney understands that lesson.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind's column, "Freindly Fire," appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in

Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number

of the state's largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester

County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier

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

and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street

Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' bestseller

"Catastrophe."

Nutter, Chief Ramsey Playing Games With Philly Murder Rate

Murders are up, but Philly PD’s website states they are down --- because they’re comparing this year’s killings to those from 2007!

If the CEO of a Wall Street firm announced that revenues were up 22 percent, he would be lauded for his leadership and undoubtedly receive a hefty raise.

By contrast, if it was revealed that the CEO was playing games with the books and basing his figures not on a year-to-date comparison from the prior year, but from four years ago, he would probably be shown the door.

But that’s precisely the situation with Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the city’s highest-paid employee.  The argument can be made that Commissioner Ramsey is deliberately misleading the public on the city’s murder rate.

*****

A visit to the Philadelphia Police website Crime Stats page (http://phillypolice.com/about/crime-statistics) verifies what we already know: shootings, violence and murder are out of control throughout the city.  As of this writing, there have been 259 murders since January 1, as one can plainly see from the highlighted 2011 figure on the webpage.  Beside that is a number with a down arrow.  Currently, it’s 18 percent, but last week it stood at 22.  It purports to represent the percentage that murders have decreased.

And therein lies the problem. A big one.

Murders aren’t down 18 or 22 percent.  As a matter of fact, they’re up. Comparing year-to-date statistics, they’ve increased ten from last year, a whopping 24 from 2009 (a ten percent jump), and eight from 2008.   

But Chief Ramsey has decided to hide these numbers and instead compare today’s murder rate with that of 2007, the high-water mark for killings.  That’s like the Phillies claiming a playoff victory because they beat the Cardinals half a decade ago.

It’s interesting to note that Ramsey was hired at the end of 2007, which perhaps explains why he is using that blood-soaked year as his benchmark--- all the easier to pass the buck and make himself look better.

Maybe the Chief, and Mayor Nutter, who hired him and remains his boss, missed their callings. They seem better suited for Wall Street firms that rely on misleading investors (in this case, the citizens) for their own personal gain (re-election, job security and bloated pensions). 

So residents get the screws two ways: they walk away with a false sense of security, mistakenly believing that murders are down.  And when they realize the truth --- that their leaders are deliberately misleading them --- they feel betrayed.

Unlike the Wall Street CEO, Nutter and Ramsey get away scott-free.  And like some robber baron execs, they each make a pile of money, courtesy of a duped public, with little accountability and oversight.

In fact, Chief Ramsey is rolling in it, to the tune of $255,000/year.

You may recall that earlier this year, the Commissioner was actively courted for the top police job in his hometown of Chicago.  Despite pleas that he stay, it was almost a done deal, but for one small sticking point: his $400,000 per year total compensation asking price, according to press reports.  You know it’s greedy when even a liberal Democrat like Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel balks at such an obscene amount, which, by the way, is the salary of the President of the United States.

Ramsey’s reason for ultimately staying in Philadelphia? “…the support I got here at home from the business community — and the media, even — and, of course, Mayor Nutter, made the difference.”

Well, that, and the $60,000 pay raise he was promised from the Mayor as a reward for not leaving the city, courtesy of the taxpayers.  That increase makes the Commissioner the highest --- repeat, highest --- paid city employee.  Even more than the Mayor himself.

Ramsey was right about one thing. He did get quite a bit of support, from city councilmen (“we won the big prize” by retaining Ramsey) to the gushing, sycophant media.  Notably, neither entity bothered asking the right questions before, or after, the lavish pay hike was doled out to the Chief.

Questions such as:

1) How can the city afford to shell out a $60,000/year salary increase to anyone when it can’t even pay its current bills, has an insolvent pension, and continues to see its tax base --- what’s left of it --- flee? In fact, it was just reported that there is yet another tax revenue shortfall, adding to the budget deficit.  What a surprise.

And for the record, there are plenty of qualified people who would have gladly accepted the Commissioner’s previous salary of $195,000 had he chosen to leave. 

2) When will Philadelphia realize that paying exorbitant salaries to government officials is not just financially foolhardy, but doesn’t guarantee results?  Just look at Arlene Ackerman, the now former School Superintendent who made $325,000/year (with incentives allowing for a half-million dollar payday) to preside over an ever-worsening school district.  For the privilege of leaving her post, she banked $905,000, all footed by the public. 

And don’t forget scandal-plagued former Housing Authority chief Carl Greene, who, with his bonus, was making $350,000.  In addition, residents are still paying sky-high legal bills related to the mess he left behind.

3) Was any quantitative, or better yet, common sense analysis done to see if Ramsey merited such a large salary bump?  Murders are increasing, out-of-control flash mobs have led to curfews, police corruption is rampant, and there is growing fear on the streets, leading many suburbanites to stay away. 

According to the Chief’s 2008 “Crime Fighting Strategy,” the big goal that year was to “reduce homicides by twenty-five percent,” yet the Department was way short, overseeing only a 15 percent drop from 2007 to 2008.  And what of the stated overall plan of reducing homicides by 30 to 50 percent, as outlined in a public letter from Ramsey to Nutter? Not even in the ballpark. As noted above, homicides have been rising, not falling.

While certainly not all these things can be attributable to the Chief, the buck stops with him.  He is responsible.  Just like a CEO often receives no bonus when numbers are down, the Chief of Police should have pay raises tied to performance.  But since the Mayor deals in Other People’s Money, that isn’t the case.

*****

Is the city is safer? You can play with statistics to bolster any desired conclusion.  Yet ask those in Philadelphia whether they truly feel secure, and most would simply laugh. And that’s the only statistic that matters.

Is the Chief doing a good job? In some respects, yes.  But so stellar that he commands a raise three times more than the city’s per capita income?  Not even close.  The fact that the city can’t afford the money is just salt in the wound.

OK, fine. Ramsey got his money.  It is what it is, and he isn’t relinquishing it.  But that bolsters the point all the more.

The leader of the Police Department should epitomize transparency and honesty.

Instead, in what can only be assumed to be a deliberate attempt to deceive Philadelphians, games are being played with the city’s increasing murder rate.  And there is no excuse for that. None.

The culture of any organization is established by the conduct of its top leaders. In the Philadelphia Police Department’s case, its culture of honor, values and integrity has taken a hit.  And when the rank and file --- the guys on the street chasing down the murderers --- see their top brass skirting the truth for political gain, perhaps they too cut a corner where they shouldn’t be.  They take on the persona of their leadership.

It’s time for the Mayor and Chief to do the right thing by telling the truth, no matter how difficult that may be. Let’s see more honesty in the most trusted institution in Philadelphia --- its police department.

Only when the city’s leaders regain the trust of the people will Philadelphia begin its journey back to respectability.

Chris Freind is an independent columnist, television/radio commentator, and investigative reporter who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania.

Freind's column, "Freindly Fire," appears nationally in Newsmax and regionally in

Philadelphia Magazine's Philly Post.  It is also published regularly in a number

of the state's largest newspapers, including The Delaware County Daily Times, Chester

County Daily Local, Norristown Times Herald, Pottstown Mercury and Bucks County Courier

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

and all fifty states.

His work has been referenced in numerous other publications including The Wall Street

Journal, National Review Online, foreign newspapers, and in Dick Morris' bestseller

"Catastrophe."