Pennsylvania Governor to Veto His Own Campaign Promise

[ThatRobGuy]

Pennsylvania governor to veto his own campaign promise

Governor Josh Shapiro will abandon his controversial school choice plan in an effort to get members of his party to vote his overdue state budget through.

www.newsweek.com

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro will veto his own campaign promise of school choice and abandon his push for private school vouchers in an effort to get the state budget passed through the legislature.

On Wednesday, Shapiro acknowledged that "the two chambers will not reach consensus at this time to enact" his voucher proposal, also known as the Pennsylvania Award for Student Success (PASS) scholarship program.

Knowing that legislators are "unwilling to hold up our entire budget process over this issue," the governor will "line-item veto the full $100 million appropriation," including PASS, a spokesperson for Shapiro's office told Newsweek.

Shapiro's support for school choice was a rare policy position for a Democrat. Although many Republicans have been vocal proponents and campaigned on a platform backing education alternatives to public schools, opponents argue that expanding school choice hurts public schools because it takes away from public funding, and disincentivizes parents from keeping their children enrolled in public schools.



While I have a multitude of issues with "School Choice/School Voucher"-style programs (largely based on observations of how they've worked out in the past), I thought that story highlights just how much stroke the teachers unions have...where they can make a guy line item veto his own idea.

As I noted, school voucher programs have a ton of flaws, but I find the level of power and influence the teachers unions have equally concerning. Where they flex their "influence-muscle" to squash alternative ideas, while failing to acknowledge that they're complicit in the climate that has caused those alternatives ideas to gain popularity in the first place, I question how sincere their objections to this was.

Was it really because of the fact that it was a bad idea?
Or was it much more shallow and just a case where it could impact their own bottom line and water down their level of power and influence and that's why they didn't like it?

Now, I know one of the first questions will be "If the school choice/voucher program is bad, why do their motives for shooting it down matter if the outcome was net positive?"
Glad you asked

The motives matter because if it's the latter scenario, that means that they'll do the same in the future even if an alternative idea is good and not related to school vouchers. Someone "doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons" always give me some concerns.

 

[seekingHiswisdom]

Not at all unexpected from any politician in the Commonwealth of PA.

And not at all unexpected from any politician in PA where the people put John Fetterman as their choice for senator.

The politicians work the system to get elected and then do as they please and the people are too stupid to understand that.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Pennsylvania governor to veto his own campaign promise

Governor Josh Shapiro will abandon his controversial school choice plan in an effort to get members of his party to vote his overdue state budget through.

www.newsweek.com

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro will veto his own campaign promise of school choice and abandon his push for private school vouchers in an effort to get the state budget passed through the legislature.

On Wednesday, Shapiro acknowledged that "the two chambers will not reach consensus at this time to enact" his voucher proposal, also known as the Pennsylvania Award for Student Success (PASS) scholarship program.

Knowing that legislators are "unwilling to hold up our entire budget process over this issue," the governor will "line-item veto the full $100 million appropriation," including PASS, a spokesperson for Shapiro's office told Newsweek.

Shapiro's support for school choice was a rare policy position for a Democrat. Although many Republicans have been vocal proponents and campaigned on a platform backing education alternatives to public schools, opponents argue that expanding school choice hurts public schools because it takes away from public funding, and disincentivizes parents from keeping their children enrolled in public schools.



While I have a multitude of issues with "School Choice/School Voucher"-style programs (largely based on observations of how they've worked out in the past), I thought that story highlights just how much stroke the teachers unions have...where they can make a guy line item veto his own idea.

As I noted, school voucher programs have a ton of flaws, but I find the level of power and influence the teachers unions have equally concerning. Where they flex their "influence-muscle" to squash alternative ideas, while failing to acknowledge that they're complicit in the climate that has caused those alternatives ideas to gain popularity in the first place, I question how sincere their objections to this was.

Was it really because of the fact that it was a bad idea?
Or was it much more shallow and just a case where it could impact their own bottom line and water down their level of power and influence and that's why they didn't like it?

Now, I know one of the first questions will be "If the school choice/voucher program is bad, why do their motives for shooting it down matter if the outcome was net positive?"
Glad you asked

The motives matter because if it's the latter scenario, that means that they'll do the same in the future even if an alternative idea is good and not related to school vouchers. Someone "doing the right thing, but for the wrong reasons" always give me some concerns.

Pennsylvania is currently in a situation in which the Democrats control the House by a very slim majority and the Republicans control the Senate. Aside from Shapiro, only one or two other Democrats (who have coincidentally received large campaign contributions from proponents of school vouchers) actually support a voucher program. So it was more a case of Shapiro thinking that he had more clout in the House than he actually did - he tried to convince some Dems to back the plan, but none of them budged. In the end, with the budget overdue, he agreed to line-item the voucher program so that they would pass the budget.

I've also heard unsubstantiated, but credible, rumors that national party leadership warned him off as well - it's an open secret that Shapiro plans to run for president in the future, and voucher programs are not something that the Dems support at the national level.

 

[seekingHiswisdom]

As a Pennsylvanian I cringe at the thought of Shapiro running for president.

As to his school voucher back off..... All I can say he is a typical democrat.... and when the party speaks, he salutes.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

All I can say he is a typical democrat.... and when the party speaks, he salutes.

I think this can be said of the vast majority of mainstream politicians in the US, on both sides of the aisle. Those who don't, tend to not do particularly well at the national level, with the slight exception of Trump (who has become the voice that the Republican Party salutes these days). Look at Marjorie Taylor Green, Lauren Boebert, Josh Hawley - they're popular in their districts/states, but they're never going to get the Republican nomination for President. Same as AOC and the rest of the Squad for the Dems.