As we learned in the national debate of 2009-10, health care will not become a right in the foreseeable future.  How much of a stretch is necessary to understand public education is headed down the same path?

Only four decades ago, Gov. Milton Shapp’s goal was “free higher education for all Pennsylvania citizens.”  The liberal Democrat wanted a new state income tax to help pay for scholarships for bona fide residents to any state school of higher learning.  Shapp never was able to make the income tax graduated (higher earners paying a higher percentage) and he finally ran out of time.

Fast forward 40 years from Shapp’s time: Forget free higher education for bona fide residents. In 2011, we as a commonwealth are struggling to provide a solid 12-year education.  Former Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell fought for funds to pay for pre-kindergarten education, wanting to directly compete with China, India and other rapidly developing nations.

Under new Republican Gov. Tom Corbett five-days-per-week Kindergarten has become an option.

Progress was also being made on equal distribution of financial responsibility for public education between the state and the local school districts.  Until the November election the goal in Pennsylvania had been to raise state funding for public education to 50 percent of the cost.  Republicans had been less enthusiastic, but episodes of outright resistance were seldom and muted.

During the eight years of reign by Democrat Ed Rendell, state funding of public education moved from 35 percent to almost 40.

What does percentage of funding underwritten by state taxes have to do with the quality of education?  Poorer districts rely more heavily on state funding in order to provide a quality education to their students.  The state uses its increased share to equalize the playing fields between wealthy and poor districts.

Decreased state funding, as proposed by Corbett, has the opposite effect.  Preliminary school budgets adopted this month already indicate expected results.  Wealthy districts are more likely to rely on attrition to meet reductions in personnel budgets.  School districts with leaner tax bases are looking at teacher furloughs, larger class sizes, elimination of social and sports activities, even going without new text books.

Such disparity is predictable because wealthier school districts depend less on state funding (as a percentage).  Less reliance on a source of funds means a reduction of that source will hurt less.

No surprise, Corbett denies reduction of access to a quality education by poor people is either one of his targets or will be collateral damage.   His answer to that criticism is “vouchers.”  Basically this is a program where parents who believe the public education in their home district stinks can get state grants to help pay for their kids to attend school outside their district of residence.

Voucher proponents claim the system will encourage competition among school districts to provide better educations than their neighbors.

Vouchers, however, leave the picture murkier because Republicans aren’t united in how to kickoff the system in PA.  Corbett, in his first budget message almost three months ago, said the state can only afford a modest program now.   He sees funds only stretching to cover the lower income families in the first year. A smaller start-up would have little impact on competition and quality.

Such a meager beginning does not satisfy some GOP legislators, however, who are more worried about the 2012 elections.  By extending eligibility to more moderate income families these lawmakers envision even Republican voters able to use vouchers.  In addition, a large scale voucher program aids denial that the entire funding scheme as detailed in Corbett’s budget will destroy public education.

Could state Republicans find a better way to destroy the teachers’ unions and rein in education costs?  Maybe, but, aside from vouchers, no one is looking.  The Democrats, as traditional with the “out” party in Harrisburg, naps on the sidelines.

Only four months into the job, Tom Corbett shines in performing for the wealthy Republicans who financed last year’s journey to the PA Governor’s mansion.

His fast start already overshadows his Republican predecessors.  Tom Ridge was pro choice and cozy with labor unions.  Dick Thornburgh spent his time being pompous, although he did let underlings vent against Democrats.  Ray Shafer and Bill Scranton Sr. each served one term in the 60s and were moderates compared to today’s right wing zealots.

Consider what Corbett has done to date.

No sooner did he drop his right arm after being sworn in on another cold, drafty day in January that he announced his revenue department was “re-interpreting” the tax code to allow businesses to pay $200 million less in taxes per year.   Corbett said the $4 billion shortfall could be dealt with by little people, not his business friends.

While the media and Democrats predicted Corbett would be forced to abandon his anti-tax pledge, he and his superrich contributors (many now known as acting cabinet members) began to identify where to cut expenses.   Some were downright insidious.

A billion dollar cut in public education might have been designed by Karl Rove.  The reduction is proposed across the board.  This means wealthy school districts may not miss a $100 per student whack.  A $600 or $700 shortfall per kid in poorer districts will be devastating.  Even if permitted by law, these districts are unable to tack on another ten or 15 mills to an already sky-high real estate assessment.

Poorer school districts tend to lean Democrat and local board members are cozier with the teachers’ union.

Corbett has created his own pressure to not fail.  He can destroy public education in Pennsylvania and maybe take down the PSEA, the teachers’ union that is one of the most powerful units of organized labor.  These are prizes coveted by a large segment of his contributors.

Both of Corbett’s other major proposed reductions in funds will be more likely to test his political skills.

In whacking half of the expected appropriations for higher education, Corbett is trying to send a message that this area of government funding is out of control.  Despite large increases in appropriations from Harrisburg in recent years, state-supported universities have also jacked tuition.

Corbett has two hurdles to overcome.  First is that the district of Republican State Sen. Jake Corman, chair of the powerful appropriations committee, includes Penn State.  Corman, like fellow GOP senator Jeff Piccola, would like to take on US Sen. Bob Casey next year, but could fight for his current seat if he doesn’t bring the bacon back to Penn State.

Corbett must also deal with pressure from all legislators to hold the line on reductions for higher education.  After all, they need those tickets to home Penn State and Pitt football games.

For these reasons, Corbett’s proposed cuts in higher education have a smaller chance of success.

The last of Corbett’s proposed trio of big cuts in funds is an attack on the welfare system.   “Eliminating welfare fraud and abuse” always makes a good speech highlight, but is seldom done.   Corbett believes he can be successful where others have failed.

The problem is that a productive attack on fraud and abuse in welfare may shift hundreds of millions of dollars of health care costs to the very employers who wrote large campaign checks to Corbett.   The Federal General Accounting Office published a study in 2005 that claims most Medicaid waste results from claims that should have been paid by the father’s employer’s insurance.

Single mothers tend to use the green card when taking kids to the doctor.  Neither the harried mother nor the health care provider can wait for the system to find the father who may have access to his company’s family health benefits.   Such reform would also increase uncompensated care costs to hospitals.

Currently, Corbett is ignorant of these effects to his donors at US Steel and UPMC.

There are other signs that Corbett is creating the best administration money can buy.

His DEP secretary has elevated green lighting citations for oil and gas drilling environmental violations to his desk.  His new secretary of state was on the wrong side of a voter suppression issue several years ago.   His economic development chieftain has been given power to approve environmental permits.

Corbett took three months to find a stand-in for secretary of labor and industry.  His search for a resume with even minor reference to labor-management relations who could also be relentless against organized labor was hard to fill.

If Corbett can maintain control over legislators of his own party (a big “if”), he will devastate the Democratic leadership, organized labor, teachers, profs, college students, single mothers and social workers.