(The Center Square) – New polling from the Commonwealth Foundation, a think tank that promotes fiscal conservancy, shows bipartisan support for policies they say can usher in “a new era of prosperity for Pennsylvania.”
The proposed plan, entitled Better Pennsylvania, would “create more freedom and control over each Pennsylvanian’s life,” according to Vice President of Policy Elizabeth Stelle.
The group has compiled a list of 30 policy ideas – 26 state and four federal – to make that happen, prioritizing what they call “pocketbook” issues. Stelle said that she sees working with the Trump administration as a “tremendous opportunity” to do so.
Gov. Josh Shapiro has said that he’s open to working with Trump “where our priorities are aligned.” All the same, Stelle called for “strong and decisive leadership to set us on a new course” and noted that many of the group’s policy initiatives reflect “unfulfilled promises” from Shapiro’s gubernatorial campaign in 2022.
Noteworthy among those promises stands support for school choice, an initiative that has seen bipartisan support in light of the state’s struggling public school system. Shapiro ran a campaign supportive of school choice but ultimately vetoed it as a budget item in 2023.
The Better Pennsylvania plan lays out educational policies as its first five goals, though only 9% of respondents viewed it as the most important issue. The state’s recent $1.1 billion infusion into the education system and new funding formula haven’t yet made their mark on school performance, but given the opportunity to grade the commonwealth’s performance, 44% gave the state a C and 33% a B.
The plan provides additional tax credits for businesses that fund scholarships for K-12 students who are struggling in their home districts. It also proposes increasing lifeline scholarships and refundable tax credits for private school tuition, creating an independent agency to authorize charter schools in the state, and offering open enrollment to all public schools regardless of a student’s address.
Opponents of school choice initiatives say that the state’s education funding should go toward the public school system rather than into the pockets of private entities.
The number one concern amongst poll respondents was rising prices and inflation, though the majority of respondents, 73%, rated the state as average or better than average in terms of affordability.
Proposed solutions include tying the state’s spending to inflation and population growth to limit overextending its resources, a strategy the foundation says has been effective in Colorado.
The group also prioritizes deregulation and tax relief, though its proposal ties individual income tax rate reductions to lowering corporate taxes, issues that many view very differently when separated.
To that end, the group found that 85% agreed that the state should promote policies that encourage Pennsylvanians to be less dependent on the government. Their plans would increase restrictions and red tape around individuals receiving welfare and Medicaid. It does not mention limiting the government subsidies and tax incentives that many corporations lean on for a competitive edge.
With Pennsylvania being the largest exporter of energy within the U.S., the group laid out several priorities around affordability and reliability, though it largely avoided addressing the issue of climate change, which ranked above affordability at 9%. Rather, the group advocates against carbon taxes and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, citing a 10% decrease in carbon emissions from 2022-2023, which it attributes to natural gas.
The foundation also focused on workers’ rights and government, advocating for measures to reduce the political reach of unions and to enact a universal voter identification law, which draws scrutiny from critics who say the policy is disenfranchising.
Ultimately, when asked if the state was going in “the right direction” or “pretty seriously off on the wrong track,” respondents answered 48% and 52%, respectively. While the question does demonstrate some measure of discomfort across party lines, what informs their answer and whether they would independently choose to describe things in either fashion, remains less clear.
