This week on the Editors Mark Singel Pennsylvania lieutenant governor for the past eight years is the Democratic candidate for governor in the November 8th elections.

What mighty do about jobs, crime, education, taxes and other matters?

Singel will be the subject of an extended interview tonight, and the first o several programs on the editor involving interviews with the leading candidate.

Across Pennsylvania, voters are being asked to decide who they would favor for governor, the Democrat Mark Singel or the Republican Tom Ridge.

Tonight on the editors.

Lieutenant governor Mark Singel is the guest of Post-Gazette editor John Craig and local news editor James O'Toole for the second of what is a four part series of candidate meetings leading up to the election in November.

The governor's race is going to be split in two parts, and we're going to begin the first part tonight with Mark Singel.

Next week will be Tom Ridge Flying Legal to be both candidates for the U.S.

Senate.

And Jim set the stage for this particular race.

And this candidate will mark Singel as 41.

He's in his eighth year lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania.

He was, chosen to run for that job by Governor Case when he was in his second term as a state senator with in a Johnstown based district.

He's had pretty muc a string of electoral successes with the notable exception of the 1992 Senate primary, when he was beaten by Linacre, one of the candidates that he beat in the Democratic primary this year for governor.

So that is without exception.

It's all been pretty easy breezy.

It's been pretty, I would be the lieutenant governor can tell us for perhaps the last two weeks have not been as easy as, some of his other, experiences in elections.

One of the things just about this is whether it's easy or not, it's there's some question as to whether there' really any sort of race at all that is it the general perception is and I mean, we will hold off on advertising for a minute, at least a minute.

Is it there really isn't any significant difference between you and Tom Ridge on issues where you would have won.

What would it be?

Well, I don't agree with that.

And I never have agreed with that.

And it goes back to your commen about, service, in government.

And as an elected official, it really hasn't been easy.

Over the course of the last four years, I've had a a number of different experiences, including being the acting governor, which was a circumstance that none of us could have foreseen, and it really required a good deal of judgmen and a good deal of leadership.

And we were able to move the state forward.

But as we were doing that and in shouldering the various, campaigns, it' been a it's been an interesting you say, don't answer my question.

It's not if you can't, you'll duck the thing, at least from here on what the issue is, at least you what you're going to make is a credentials argument.

That's all right.

Well I've had a goes to experience.

It goes to your question what is the major difference?

There is a world of difference between legislative experience and executive experience.

You know, if you're sitting on the backbench in Congress for 12 years in the Washingto gridlock, that's a lot different than actually running the state.

That's difference number one of the thing.

Let me let me just finish that.

Difference number two is where we both come from, what our orientation is.

This campaign has been about working families.

It's been about, taking advantage of m particular background and roots and turning it into a mission for all of the people of Pennsylvania.

Mark Singel is on the side of working families, and my opponent has consistently voted for the very wealthy in Congress.

And that's a big difference.

Give me a give me just one last chance on my question.

One major policy issue concerned that if he could do something about as governor where you two disagree.

I would say education.

Okay.

And what is the difference?

I think education.

I have, put forth a much more comprehensive program for reform of education that includes some innovative thinking.

And as far as I can see, there's no record, there's no direction, there's no, thought at all given to policy from the other side.

In fact, I'll go a step further and tell you that, he is in the cookie cutter mold of many of these Republican candidates who are trotted out there in an election year and told to intimidate people and scare people and, and talk about a single issue.

And he is so obsessed with that, the issue of crime and public safety that this doesn't isn' the reason he's able to do that, and that this crim has so dominated the discourse in the last couple of weeks, because there is a kind of, an issue vacuum in th public perception, at any rate.

I mean, you can say I have a, position paper on this, and it's better than Tom Ridge is, but do you believe that the public has a perception of a cutting edge, cutting issue difference between the two?

Well, my impression is that they by this time, they should, it's probably less pronounced than it should be.

But let me take a stab at that.

Throughout the entir political campaign, in both the, the campaign and the general we really have been methodical about putting forth specific visionary policies in every area of endeavor with regard to jobs.

We have put forth a and, multi-faceted plan that creates jobs, provides incentives for business to invest in job creation.

Makes a single flexibl pool of funds at the state level for immediate response to create jobs.

How is that different from the the approac that the administration you're part of has fallen for the last year?

Well, it's very different because while we have made some successe and while we have created jobs, there's a refinement that's necessary in order to make the programs work more collectively and cohesively.

Instead of 24 separate streams of funding for economic development instead of spending $300 million and perhaps wasting some of that money and overage and administrative cost, you put that all together in a single investment pool that's ready right now to do the kinds of investment that, businesses are looking at.

But it's not just a question of programing.

It's also a question of continuing the directio in the area of business climate.

And Mark Singel is the first one who pronounced the, the reduction in the corporate net income tax, the reduction in the capital stock and franchise tax, replacement of the net operatin loss carry forward provisions.

And again, it goes bac to the question of differences.

You know, my opponent can talk a big game and he comes out in an election year with guns blazing between you in this area.

It absolutely is.

Because there's the difference is one of talk and one of action, one of rhetoric and one of results.

And Mark Singel has been there.

I've already, produced for the people of this state.

They know it.

And what we're going to do is take that experience and go forwar into a number of policy areas.

If they know, it's if they know this, why is it that you're in such a close race, head to head by every poll that I'm familiar with, with a guy who's, congressman from, district of the corne of the state, had very little, statewide name recognition, you know, a year ago.

I think the answer to that is that Pennsylvania is always a marginal state.

It's a very competitive state, even though there's a substantial Democratic, voter registration edge.

People are very selective and people are very careful, and they guard their vote very jealously until the last week of the election or so.

I think you're going to see a substantial change in those numbers as we get closer to the election.

There's no question that we have, begun to rebuild a momentum.

And there seems to be a growing sense that, there's a major difference in terms of qualifications and vision and leadership.

And I think that's going to allow that, I try to still get this issue.

Let's just we at least identified one education.

You got your white paper.

There were people understand this.

They're not going to read the white paper.

Right.

Okay.

So one of the key issues is, is that you're in favor of the state assuming more responsibility for education.

No.

And you're not or you are.

That's that's a gross simplification.

But one of the problems is you gotta get for people understand what the differences are.

You gotta know what you really want.

Yes.

And one of the issues is, is whether or not the state of Pennsylvani ought to see more responsibility for financing the public schools.

Now, that's a different issue.

Okay.

You are in favor that are yo know, I, I am in favor of that.

All right.

Let me run with it.

Let me just define the question first before you run with it.

And so if so far as that occurs, the you would shift from local property taxes to the state.

More financial responsibility for education in simplistic forms is that is that accurate?

No, that's not okay.

What would you do to get to the the more financial to be at the state level, there's a two part responsibility for financing education.

The state has to come to the table with more resources of its own.

I'm willing to do that.

We've already identified $254 million of an investment in the first year, designed specifically to enhance computer enhancement in the classroom and designed to reduce class sizes in kindergarten through second grade.

That's an investment that must be made immediately, because we're falling behind the curve.

Then over the long term, we have to as some very tough questions like, the organizatio of our funding structure per se.

Should we be funding some antiquated formula, or should we be revising that in funding function rather than formula?

And that's the direction that we're going in.

We need to take a look at 501 school districts to see if there aren't some, economies of scale that you can achieve by shared services and that kind of, responsibility, will, will allow us to streamline the cost and make every dollar count.

On the other side is the local effort.

And I have been leading the fight in Pennsylvania to reduce property taxes, while at the same time broaden the tax base s that it's more fair for people, the locals can secure their own resources and meet their portion of financing education if we give them more.

So let's take this fight that's not in Johnstown, but at the bottom.

Let me say the bottom line here is not about dollars.

It's about our kids.

It's about whether or not they're educated.

The whole difference and the whole point of bringing that up is that I have a a firm commitment to making education the hallmark of the Single Foley administration.

That's the point.

All right.

Well let me just press you, though, that if you were to go out to the North Hills and you look at somebody's taxable, the bulk of the tax bill is a property tax to support the school district was whether it's North Hills School is it North Allegheny or what.

Now in what you just described if the state is going to assume more responsibility for various parts of that education bill in those districts, is the property taxes going to go down?

The answer is yes.

Okay.

So that you are saying you're going to shift responsibility from local property taxes to the stat for the financing of education.

Is that correct?

No.

And not too long ago.

Yes.

How are you?

Where's the money shifting it from property tax to something that's more fair, like an income tax base as opposed to a property.

So the ability to pay still going to keep paying.

Well, they may just have to come from the same place.

Yes.

It's a it's a fairer system as opposed to a, you know, shifting of response because there are people, you know, yes, who disagree with you and are in favor of the state actually picking up a bigger chunk of the bill.

You're not in favor.

We're doing both, is what I'm trying to tell you, that the state is going to assume a larger percentage of the burden o funding schools, but the local, local schoo districts are going to be given more flexibility to raise their own funds.

The two money things we're talking about here, one is tax shifting, to a fairer tax and your characterization.

But some of the other things you want to do would cost more money.

That's right.

How would you pay for it?

Would you do you think the needs o education are going to require a tax increase over the next four years?

How how can you meet the mandates that are likely to come to the state in response to the rural school suit, which is a, suit in which some of the smaller districts with more money, I don't see the need for a tax increase in the immediate future because, the the economy is, is rebounding nicely.

Our our revenues are ahead o estimates at the present time.

And, we have identified $150 million worth of specific line item reductions in state government that we intend to deploy in the first year.

In addition to that is about another 140 to $150 million that you can save by a 1% administrative reduction across the board.

Our hope is to apply that $300 million in the first year, not only as a hedge against any tax increases, but to fund the expanded programs that we're talking about in education and job creation and technology development and transfer and so on.

And then, beyond that, what we hope to establish right away as a first order of business is a total government performance review in state government, whereby we will revie every dime of taxpayers dollars, spending every function of every agency in state government.

It's never been done in Pennsylvania before but the dozen or so other states who have gone through this process have identified hundreds of millions and sometime billions of dollars of savings.

Our hope is that in the second and third year of this administration, we will be able to appl some of those savings thereby, really doing what what we what we should do in government, and that is to function as efficiently as possible without placing the burden on taxpayers.

Is that a tacit indictment of the administration that your past not there' hundreds of millions of dollars, absolutely no can be spent, you know, and, let me just make it very, very clear we have done more in this administration in terms of total quality management, in terms of, efficiencies, in terms of really making the good management changes to reduce our overhead than at any administration in history.

We are dead last.

I don't know if people know this in terms of the number of state employees per capita.

Pennsylvania is last on that list.

And, you know, the presen administration prides itself on the steps that have been taken.

Some of you picked up on some of the Thornburgh did, I mean actually discontinue something which has been a process for, what, 12 years?

Well, if you want to give credit to Dick that's just not true.

That's not that's not the way I view it.

But what I will say I mean, you don't view it that way.

It's true, isn't it?

Bob Casey has been the governor for eight years, but says Thornburgh was pilloried by your party for doing just what you said about reducing the number of state employees by a much larger percentage and in the last eight years, isn't that correct?

The actual number of employees has gone down right in this administration, right up, but not nearly as much as it did in the previous eight.

Right?

I don't believe that to be the case.

Well, I don't want to debate it with, you know, that.

So let me finish this question first.

The point is this every major corporation needs this kind of self-analysis on occasion.

And we've done more than talk about it.

When I was the acting governor, we actually put into place the mechanism to begin this audit.

The, the State Plannin Commission has been transformed into a futures council by my direction, with a specific, directive to begin the process of establishing the methodology, methodolog so that we can do this review.

I'm the only candidate that's talking about that.

But it's a multi million dollar change in the direction of of government.

It's our opportunit not only to reinvent government but to reimagine government.

And that' what I want to do from day one when I get little specific on education, because he mentione the number of school districts, assuming you could get a law pass, would you would you favor something that forced consolidation of districts in Pennsylvania to reduce the 501 to 250?

No, not at this time, because it's politically infeasible.

The votes aren't there for it.

I understand that.

So what we need to do is to encourage that movement through incentives.

If we can show a cluster of school districts that they would be better off through regionalization of their bus contracts, for example, they ought to do that, and the state ought to come to the table and help them do that.

What I'm talking about is a several step process that gets us to the the ultimate reduction in the number of school districts.

But you don't force those counties.

You don't force that.

Right?

Would you would you favor a state law which forced, fair assessmen statewide property assessments?

So you had statewide, property assessments wit the same from, say, Bucks County to Beaver County.

Once again, it is not my philosoph to force mandates on localities, but I do think that there are certain, powers that the state has there are certain incentives that we can offer so that we can move in that direction, like, qualified assessments across the state is a good thing.

And that's exactly the direction we should be moving it.

We can provide financial incentives, for example, to those counties that have the fourth, the foresight to do that kind of reassess.

Why not just sue them and make them say that they've got to be fair.

So it's it's so the same is the $100,000 house in Buck County is the same as 100,000.

There's a simple reason for that.

And that is that we're not big brother.

The state government is there to be a supportive partner.

We are looking for those regions and those counties and those localities who are willing to throw in with us for progressive leadership.

We're not there to be telling local elected officials what to do.

How about telling people to get their car inspected for emissions?

Well, I mean, you can ask, is that a big brother deal?

Well, it may be and it may have, in fact, be an inconvenience to consumers, but it is a big brother deal that's been foisted on us by the bigger brother, the federal government to the governor's veto.

I am not going to take a position on the governor's veto, except to say this when I was acting governor and throughout the last several months, I have been looking for any possible flexibility from the EPA.

On at least three occasions when I was acting governor on several occasions since that, we have appealed to them an said, is there any other option other than centralized emissions testing that is, feasible that you will accept?

And the answer is no.

The truth is that this is a mandate given to us by the EPA, and these are some public record of that.

Well, of course there was there a direct letters that went back and forth and there were specific conversations not only between the acting governor and EPA and Carol Browner, but between EPA and PennDOT and so on.

We explored every possible option.

And as late as a month ago, I personally appeal to, Peter Cosmo, the US district director for EPA.

And, was told rather directly that nothing but centralized emissions testing reaches the performance standards.

And if you don't reach the performance standards, you're going to be in danger not only of the loss of billions of dollars of highway aid, but the punitive measures beyond that.

So we're stuck.

We're stuck with a mandate that was foisted upon us by the federal government, the Clean Air Act of 1990.

It is the Congress that created this problem.

So we're stuck with it.

But yet you don't see the logic of the the governor vetoing the bill.

And when not something you can just say right here in this program, I think he's correct.

I would have done it to, why not?

Because it's a moot point.

It wasn't my decision to make, and it's because I'm just right politically.

It's a loser because, you know, out there, everybody look at this where they think, My God, everybody in this area has got to have his car inspected and he doesn't like it.

So it is a highly charged emotional issue.

And I'll tell you the reason why, the reason why there's some, some delicacy to it is that, my opponent has intentionally made it a political issue.

He brought it up in this campaign, even though he voted for it.

He is the guy who foisted this program on Pennsylvania, and then he runs away from i when he's running for governor.

That's fair enough.

But you know the history of this stuff with these seven Thornburg administrations, when the first auto program came in and you had to take a position on it then, and you voted to accept the program timeline because of the federal, federal sanction that were the same thing we had.

So this is a this is an issue that is likely to come to the governor' desk in the next administration.

Isn't it fair for the voters to know whether you'd sign, a bil accepting such a program or not?

I really prefer not to deal with the hypothetical.

If it comes to my desk, I'll deal with it.

Let me ask you about now, let's just talk about a real unpleasant subject, which is, is this advertising things and the and and the sort of, from your perspective, the unfortunate coincidence about someone who had gotten a pardon being arrested for several severe charges.

This has been a it's just been a disaster for you.

No, no, as a matter of fact, it really has, injected a great deal of, vitality into the race.

If there was any complacency in my campaign, it's gone.

I'll tell you that if there's any sense that we were running away with this race, there is a realizatio that this is going to be a horse race and it's going to be very close.

And in that sense, it's always good to get that kind of a wake up call, toward the end of a campaign.

So in a political sense we're right where we want to be, and we're going to win this race, and we're moving forwar with a great deal of enthusiasm.

And I'll tell you parenthetically, that across the state, my supporters have been calling in saying, we're with you.

You know that.

Don't let them get sidetracked.

You with a, an issue that was, you know, coincidental.

And it hasn't he hasn't haven't you let him sidetrack you?

I mean, my perception is you have ads on TV responding to his ads on this.

He doesn't have ads responding to you to a certain extent.

He's dictating the terms of this debate, don't you?

Badly need to change the subject?

And how do you how are you going to do?

Well, stand by.

I mean, we have several weeks left in this campaign and I'm not going to be delving into the strategy of the campaign.

I will say this, however, that this race is not a race for sheriff.

This race is not a race for attorney general.

It's who can best govern the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

And that's why the people of Pennsylvania, are taking a closer look at this race that they may have been rocked a little bit by the revelations of the pas week, but we're beyond it now.

I said very clearly that I regret that decision, that in hindsight, we, we don't ge fooled very often on that board.

But we got fooled, and there were several of us who made that decision based on the best information we have.

But you know what?

I'm not going to apologize for it anymore.

The fact of the matter is that that is a very conservative board, that allows the extraordinary remedy of commutation and recommends it on very rare occasions.

I think that it is irresponsible for people to seize the incident and turn it into a major campaign weapon.

I will not allow my opponent to Willie Horton ize this campaign, no will the people of Pennsylvania.

I think we're smarter than that.

I think people are listenin to say to to, to the candidates, about where they stand on jobs and where they stand on education, where they stan on the future of their children, and not being intimidated and frightened by people who want to play the politics o fear rather than the politics.

And so there's no difference, really, between you and Tom Ridg on the issue of crime realism.

I'm tough on crime.

They are both is tough.

You're tougher than anybody's ever been.

Well, now, wait a minute since you brought it up, let me tell you what the records are.

As acting governo of this state, I signed into law the toughest anti stalking legislation in the country.

We doubled the number of jail cells in Pennsylvania.

I'm the only candidate who' actually signed a death warrant.

Let all the rest of them talk all they want.

I'm the only one that's done that, we have the toughest anti-drug program in the Penn free program in Pennsylvania.

These are things that I've been doing throughout my career as acting governor.

As lieutenant governor, he has no record on crime.

He's introduced 47 pieces of legislation.

As a congressman.

You know, how many of them even mention the word crime?

Zero.

We've got an election year crime fighter who has been told by his handlers, all you have to do is go out and scare people and they're going to surprise you about two minutes stuff real quickly is, would you have the president here to help you get elected?

He has helped me.

He was in, Philadelphia, early on and did some fun with it.

Remains to be seen.

I think it was in late July.

August?

You got to have him back in the next weeks.

We haven't decided.

But do you find, in the sense that he's the talk invoked, the the present administration is a negative for you?

I don't think so.

I really haven't given that much thought.

You haven't thought about it?

No, I listen, we're running campaign for governor, and I am, reaching out to as many people across the Commonwealth as possible with my message about supporting working families, about being on their side and not on the side of people who pull the strings in the corridors of power in Washington.

That's the difference.

That's the real essential message in this campaign, and that's what we're concerned about.

All right.

Well I think actually on that side.

So you got to do anything you can do in, 30s.

I'm curious to, hear your view on when wha kind of synergy there is between this race in the Senate race between Wofford and Santorum.

Are these races completely separate?

Do you complement one another with what's going on?

I need about one wor to hear that answer on the side.

Harris and I have worked together, and, to the extent that we can share our campaign efforts, we're doing it.

But generally speaking, people separate the two races in their own mind.

That's pretty traditional in Pennsylvania.

Okay, well, you've bee very candid and very, suffering.

Suffer these questions Okay.

Well, thanks a lot, Mark.

Thank you.

Jim, thank you very much.

Thank you very much for being with us.

As I tell you, next week we're going to have Tom Ridge the week afterwards Santorum and Wofford.

Goodnight.

Thank you very much.

Send your comments to the editors.

In care of WQED, 4802 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213.