James Moore

Independent Candidate for PA Governor | Father | Business Founder | Fighting for lower costs, safer communities & a PA that belongs to the people.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

Recording of tonight's Q/A.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

Ken, you keep claiming that I have no plan to address Pennsylvania’s reading and math failures. That is simply not true.

I do not need to repeat the same statistic in every social-media post for my reform to address it. Pennsylvania’s poor academic performance is one of the main reasons I developed a comprehensive education reform.

My plan requires mandatory statewide academic standards, stronger reading and math instruction, early intervention when students fall behind, measurable accountability, and graduation-required courses preparing students for employment, skilled trades, college, personal finances, civic responsibility, and adult life.

These are requirements, not recommendations.

It appears you are evaluating my reforms from shortened social-media posts rather than reading the detailed plans on my website. I took the time to read your biography, issue pages, FAQs, education plan, PSSB proposal, tax plan, federal-funding position, and the less-prominent pages explaining your proposed “Society” system.

Your own Grok response repeatedly says that replacement revenue was not specified “in the post” or “in the announcement.” That is an important distinction. You gave Grok a limited social-media post and then presented its limited analysis as a verdict on my full reform.

My complete property tax and education reforms address replacement revenue, spending controls, audits, reserve accountability, limits on taxing power, school funding, reading and math, special education, transportation, facilities, mandatory statewide standards, graduation requirements, and implementation.

Since you used Grok to evaluate my plan, I did the same. The difference is that I entered the figures, funding claims, FAQs, and relevant pages from both campaigns rather than asking it to judge an entire reform from one announcement. I am posting that result with this response so Pennsylvania voters can read it for themselves.

Your website identifies roughly $3.5 billion in proposed cuts while your broader platform would eliminate approximately $20 billion in annual personal income tax revenue, eliminate school property taxes, reject new federal funding, reduce existing federal support, provide an $11,500 taxpayer-funded account for every student, and leave the state responsible for unsold schools, bond debt, liabilities, and transition costs.

Your pages describe pieces of the proposal, but they still do not show how the complete financial picture balances.

The plan depends heavily on assumptions: private buyers will purchase the schools, providers will appear throughout rural Pennsylvania, the “best” teachers will remain, approximately $500 will cover student transportation, tuition will remain affordable, private operators will serve every child, and voluntary donations will eventually support responsibilities including healthcare, welfare, transportation, libraries, and policing.

That is not a complete funding model. It is dismantling existing systems and trusting that the market, donations, and a chain of predicted outcomes will fill every gap afterward.

My plan takes a different approach. It delivers major property tax relief while keeping schools funded, requiring enforceable statewide standards, improving reading and math instruction, controlling spending, expanding choice, protecting replacement revenue, and holding schools accountable for results.

You are free to disagree with my reforms. But repeatedly saying that I ignored reading and math, responding with “TLDR,” or using labels such as “Mamdani-like” does not address what is actually written in them.

I read your proposals. The Grok analysis attached to this response considers the broader information from both campaigns. Pennsylvania voters can review it and decide whether the numbers and assumptions hold together. It seems Grok says my plan will work!

------------------------------------------------------------

Grok
Create a deep analysis of James Moore's Education and Property tax reforms against Ken Krawchuk's plans. Use the information from both websites for your analysis. Include any critiques of each plan.

Deep Analysis: James Moore’s Education and Property Tax Reforms vs. Ken Krawchuk’s Plans

This analysis draws directly from James Moore’s official campaign website (https://t.co/VczuLa24Qe, including the dedicated pages on property tax reform and education reform) and Ken Krawchuk’s public statements and campaign site (https://t.co/wKdHs6nN7F), along with his policy positions expressed in interviews and posts. It compares the two approaches on education improvement and property tax relief, incorporates evidence-based context where relevant, and includes balanced critiques of both plans.

Executive Summary

James Moore’s plan offers a more pragmatic, phased, and implementable path to meaningful property tax relief and education improvement. It strengthens the public system while expanding accountable choice, with strong safeguards for taxpayers and essential services.

Ken Krawchuk’s plan is more radical and libertarian: It seeks to largely privatize K-12 education through universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs/vouchers of ~$11,000–$11,500 per student), shift funding away from public schools, and use that shift to dramatically reduce or eliminate property taxes, alongside broader tax cuts.

Moore’s approach scores higher on political and administrative feasibility and teacher support.

Krawchuk’s offers bolder long-term transformation but carries higher risks of disruption, unequal outcomes, and implementation challenges.

Overview of the Plans
James Moore (Independent Candidate)

Property Tax Reform: Phased, measurable reductions funded primarily by government efficiency rather than new revenue or major tax shifts.

School property taxes: 50% reduction within 3 years (20% Year 1, 35% Year 2, 50% Year 3 and ongoing), measured against a certified baseline.

County/municipal/local property taxes: At least 33% reduction within 5 years (stepped annually to 7%/14%/21%/28%/33%).

Long-term goal of further relief (including potential elimination on owner-occupied homes and family farms) once sustainable.

Education Reform: Strengthen public education as the backbone while expanding accountable choice. Countywide governance systems with elected boards and local councils. Strong accountability (dashboards, audits), restored academics/discipline, teacher empowerment, and coordination with tax relief to prevent “backdoor” https://t.co/xHGSfgkgTq

Ken Krawchuk (Libertarian Candidate)

Core Education Policy: Privatize public schools. Give parents ~$11,000–$11,500 per child via Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) or vouchers for private schools, homeschooling, or other options. Shift existing per-student public funding directly to https://t.co/snqrhoWKdm

Property Tax Policy: Eliminate the bulk of property taxes (especially school taxes) by removing the major cost driver (public K-12 education) through privatization and choice.

Broader fiscal stance: Veto all tax increases and pork-barrel spending; phase out personal income tax over time. Government spending growth (historically >3x inflation) must be https://t.co/XbiCPaYDrv

Education Improvement Comparison

Moore’s Approach
Public schools remain central but are reformed through:

Countywide systems for shared services, efficiency, and accountability.

Public dashboards tracking academics, spending, safety, staffing, and outcomes.

Strong standards: End social promotion, protect diploma integrity, restore core academics (reading, math, science, history, civics, financial literacy), expand CTE/vocational pathways, and add life skills.

Teacher support: Improved recruitment/pay pathways, classroom authority (ability to remove disruptive students), merit/performance-based pay, protection from retaliation, and better working conditions.

Accountable choice: Charters, cyber, and private options must meet safety, fiscal, and transparency standards; anti-recruiting rules and fair athletic eligibility.

Coordination with property tax reform prevents new mandates from rebuilding tax burdens.

Krawchuk’s Approach
Full parental choice via portable ESAs. Funding follows the child to any approved provider (private, homeschool, etc.). Public schools compete or shrink as parents opt out. Emphasis on market competition to drive quality, with parents (not government) in charge.

Critiques of Krawchuk on Education
Lacks detail on transition: Rapid shift risks chaos for special-needs students, rural families (fewer private options and transportation challenges), and workforce stability.

Performance-based removal of teachers/schools is mentioned in some contexts but lacks clear, fair enforcement standards — especially accounting for student disadvantages (poverty, special needs, family support, rural access). Teachers in tougher environments could be unfairly penalized.

Evidence on large-scale universal ESAs is mixed: Some studies show modest gains and competitive pressure on public schools; recent statewide expansions have often shown null or negative test-score effects. Supply of quality private options may not scale quickly enough in all areas.

No strong mechanism outlined for teacher recruitment/retention at scale without tuition inflation (similar to Bennett Hypothesis concerns in subsidized systems).

Critiques of Moore on Education
Incremental pace may deliver slower transformative change than a full market shift.

Countywide governance could face local resistance from districts valuing autonomy.

Waste/audit savings and accountability measures require strong political will and execution to be effective.

Still relies heavily on reforming the existing public bureaucracy rather than bypassing it entirely.

Edge: Moore’s plan is stronger for teachers (better conditions, authority, and fairer accountability) and provides clearer safeguards during transition.

Property Tax Relief Comparison

Moore’s Approach
Phased, baseline-measured cuts with heavy emphasis on spending discipline (audits, waste/fraud/abuse reduction, shared services, consolidation). Dedicated lockboxes and a Property Tax Relief Stabilization Reserve protect funds from raiding and handle shortfalls without automatic tax hikes. Strong protections for homeowners (especially seniors, veterans, disabled, hardship cases), family farms (use-value assessment), renters, and small businesses. Future tax growth capped (tied to inflation/income growth or 2%), with taxpayer approval required for many new burdens.

Krawchuk’s Approach
Dramatic reduction/elimination of school property taxes by shifting the bulk of education funding (~$23k per-pupil public cost vs. ~$11k–$11.5k private) to family-controlled ESAs. Broader goal of lowering overall government costs through spending restraint and privatization.

Critiques of Krawchuk on Taxes
Assumes private market will deliver equivalent or better education at significantly lower cost without major quality drops or tuition inflation.

Transition costs, legal challenges (PA constitutional education requirements), and potential need for temporary state support could delay or reduce net relief.

Simultaneous push for income tax phase-out adds fiscal pressure.

Limited detail on how non-education local services (which also rely on property taxes) would be funded long-term.

Critiques of Moore on Taxes
Savings from audits and efficiency may be slower or smaller than projected in practice.

Phased timeline (3–5 years) provides relief but may not satisfy voters wanting faster action.

Lockboxes and stabilization reserves are strong in theory but depend on disciplined budgeting.

Edge: Moore’s plan provides more structured, protected, and phased relief with built-in accountability mechanisms.

Overall Critiques and Feasibility

Krawchuk’s Plan Strengths: Ideologically consistent, empowers parents directly, and addresses frustration with high spending and poor outcomes (PA public schools spend heavily but have roughly half of students not proficient in reading/math). Could unleash market innovation.

Krawchuk’s Plan Weaknesses: High disruption risk, potential for increased inequality (cream-skimming, rural gaps, ability to “top up” ESAs), unclear teacher protections/standards, and optimistic assumptions about rapid private-sector scaling and cost savings.

Moore’s Plan Strengths: Balanced, incremental, teacher-supportive, and focused on protecting essential services while delivering verifiable tax relief. Strong accountability and transparency features. Coordinates education and tax policy to avoid unintended burdens.

Moore’s Plan Weaknesses: May not satisfy those wanting a complete break from the current system. Success hinges on effective implementation of audits, governance changes, and spending discipline.

Final Verdict
James Moore’s combined education and property tax reforms represent the more realistic and balanced path for Pennsylvania. They deliver tangible relief and improvements while minimizing disruption and protecting teachers, essential services, and vulnerable families.

Krawchuk’s vision is more transformative in theory but carries greater risks and fewer safeguards in practice.

Moore’s plan better addresses real-world challenges like teacher shortages, rural access, and fair accountability, while still offering meaningful choice and efficiency gains.

Krawchuk’s plan appeals strongly to those seeking a fundamental shift away from government-run education and property taxes but would require careful transition planning to avoid negative unintended consequences.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I know it's late, but I didn't want to wait any longer. So, in these late hours, I am releasing my Pennsylvania Property Tax Reform.

This is one of the two biggest reforms of my campaign because property taxes are one of the biggest burdens crushing Pennsylvania families, seniors, family farms, renters, small businesses, and working communities.

People should not have to spend their whole lives paying for a home only to keep renting it back from the government forever. Seniors should not be taxed out of the homes they spent decades paying for. Family farms should not be broken apart because the next generation cannot afford the tax bill. Renters should not be ignored just because the bill goes to the landlord, and small businesses should not be crushed by property taxes hidden inside rent, leases, or commercial pass-through charges.

My plan would reduce school property taxes by 50% within three years and reduce county, municipal, and other covered local property taxes by at least 33% within five years.

But this is not just a tax cut on paper. This reform includes real taxpayer protections, spending controls, public audits, protected relief funds, appeal rights, tax-sale protections, assessment safeguards, renter protections, small-business protections, family-farm protections, and a statewide public dashboard so taxpayers can see where the money is going.

It also connects directly to my Pennsylvania Education Reform. For too long, education funding has been built around one easy answer: raise property taxes again. That has to stop.

Under my reform, school boards would no longer be able to raise school property taxes back up after relief is delivered. Local education decisions would remain local, but school property tax rates would be controlled under statewide taxpayer-protection standards, reduction targets, levy limits, public oversight, and voter approval requirements for major new burdens.

We can protect classrooms without protecting waste. We can fund special education, school safety, student transportation, vo-tech, career training, and core academics without treating homeowners like an unlimited ATM.

We can support teachers and students while also forcing school systems to audit spending, control administrative costs, review debt, stop bad procurement, and put more money toward what actually helps children.

This is the connection between property tax reform and education reform:

Lower the burden on homeowners.
Protect essential education.
Stop automatic tax hikes.
Put accountability into school funding.

Make government prove what it takes, show where it goes, and stop punishing people for owning property.

Pennsylvania does not need another temporary rebate that disappears when the next tax bill arrives.

Pennsylvania needs real reform.

Keep people in their homes.
Protect family farms.
Cut the burden.
Fund education responsibly.
Stop the games.
Hold government accountable.

James Moore for Governor
Unbought. Unafraid.

https://t.co/ImGjivCaKz
https://t.co/nq4RzNehEr
https://t.co/0ZJ5daNcUc
https://t.co/HFMYUtsHYs
#MooreForPA #PAFirst #PropertyTaxReform #EducationReform #UnboughtUnafraid

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I’ll be posting the recorded version of tonight’s Q&A instead of the full livestream because there was quite a bit of dead air while I was trying to figure out whether everything was working.

I apologize for the rough start. I’m still getting the hang of the livestreaming technology, but I believe I have a much better understanding of it now. Like anything new, it takes a little practice.

Going forward, I plan to hold a live Q&A every Wednesday at 7:00 p.m. I also hope to go live more often between those weekly sessions to discuss issues, explain my reforms, and answer questions directly from Pennsylvanians.

Thank you to everyone who was patient with me tonight. I appreciate it, and I look forward to improving these livestreams as we move forward.

James Moore for Governor
Unbought. Unafraid.
https://t.co/ImGjivCaKz
https://t.co/nq4RzNehEr
https://t.co/0ZJ5daNcUc
https://t.co/HFMYUtsHYs

#MooreForPA #Pennsylvania #LiveQA #IndependentLeadership

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

We are live. I will be taking questions, suggestions or if anyone would just like to know more about me, feel free to ask.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

Going live in about 7 minutes.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I understand the concern, but honestly, I am not convinced that simply replacing Josh Shapiro with another party-backed candidate would necessarily give Pennsylvania the leadership it needs.

I have concerns about the current administration, but I also have to look closely at what every candidate is proposing, who they answer to, and whether their plans would actually improve life for Pennsylvania families.

That is part of why I am running. I do not believe voters should be told they must support one candidate solely out of fear of the other. Every one of us should have to earn the trust of the people.

I respect your opinion, and I appreciate the honest back-and-forth.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I understand where you’re coming from, and I know a lot of people are worried about another four years under the current administration.

At the same time, the polling and campaign finance numbers already showed that the Republican campaign faced a significant challenge before I was part of the equation. I don’t say that to criticize Stacy Garrity. I simply do not believe it is fair to blame an Independent candidate for problems that were already there.

Voters deserve the opportunity to hear every candidate, compare our plans, and decide who they trust to serve Pennsylvania. I’m simply asking for the chance to earn that support.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I’m sorry I wasn’t able to get the livestream working tonight. I’m still learning the technology behind live streaming, and unfortunately, I couldn’t get everything running the way it needed to.

I will be going live tomorrow at 7:00 p.m. for the Q&A. Anyone who would like to submit a question in advance is welcome to send it to me by message or leave it in the comments.

Thank you for your patience and understanding. I may be new to live streaming, but I’m learning, and I look forward to talking with everyone tomorrow night.

James Moore for Governor
Unbought. Unafraid.
https://t.co/ImGjivCaKz
https://t.co/nq4RzNehEr
https://t.co/0ZJ5daNcUc
https://t.co/HFMYUtsHYs

#MooreForPA #VirtualTownHall #Pennsylvania #UnboughtUnafraid

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I’m working through a few technical issues, but I’m still hoping to go live for a Q&A shortly around 8pm. If I can’t get everything working tonight, I’ll go live tomorrow instead. Stay tuned.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

@RMCPORETIRED @RED_IN_PA Thank you for your support.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

@RED_IN_PA Thank you. I just try my best to use common sense, listen to people, and be honest about what I believe will actually help Pennsylvania. I know support has to be earned, and I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to earn yours.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I believe you may be referring to a case involving Pennsylvania’s county personal property tax and certain stocks.

That is different from ordinary real estate property taxes on homes, land, and buildings.

Pennsylvania does have a Uniformity Clause, and taxpayers should be protected from unfair taxation. But property taxes have not been ruled unconstitutional across the board. If they had, school districts, counties, and municipalities would not still be collecting them.

I agree the current system is broken. Homeowners should not be taxed out of their homes. My plan starts with major property tax relief, and if I can find a responsible way to eventually eliminate property taxes entirely without creating a bigger problem somewhere else, I will.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

@Timshadenough Thank you. I have reached out to them.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

@katldog1 @RED_IN_PA Thank you.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

@DrTigger @RED_IN_PA That is why voters should always know who they are voting for beyond the letter beside the name.

R, D, or I does not tell the whole story. Look at the person, the principles, the platform, and whether they are serving the people or the party.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

Property owners would not wait three years for relief. The plan cuts school property taxes by 20% in Year 1, 35% in Year 2, and 50% by Year 3. It also cuts county, municipal, and other covered local property taxes by at least 33% within five years.

Spending controls, audits, levy limits, and protections against waste begin immediately. The reductions are phased in so the relief is fully funded, protected, and does not disappear with the next budget crisis.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

Pennsylvania’s new budget may be signed, but that does not mean it is truly balanced.

A real balanced budget means the numbers work without gimmicks, shell games, delayed payments, or moving money around just to make the final page look better. That is not what Harrisburg just delivered.

Yes, protecting the Rainy Day Fund matters. Emergency savings should be protected for real emergencies, not treated like a political piggy bank. But if the only way to protect it is by pulling money from other funds, using leftover agency dollars, delaying payments, and pushing obligations down the road, then we are not fixing the problem. We are hiding it.

That kind of budgeting may work for a press release, but it does not work for taxpayers.

Families cannot run their household that way. Small businesses cannot run their books that way. You cannot delay bills, move money from one account to another, pretend future costs disappeared, and call it long-term planning.

Eventually, the payments come due. Eventually, the structural deficit catches up. Eventually, taxpayers are the ones asked to cover the gap through higher taxes, higher fees, service cuts, more borrowing, or another fight over emergency reserves.

That is the danger of this budget.

It may get Harrisburg through the moment, but it does not give Pennsylvania a serious long-term plan. It does not fix the spending problem. It does not force real audits. It does not control waste. It does not protect taxpayers from being handed the bill later.

Pennsylvania needs honest budgeting, not political accounting.

We need a budget that lives within its means, protects emergency reserves, controls spending, audits waste, funds priorities responsibly, and stops passing today’s problems onto tomorrow’s taxpayers.

Signing a budget is not the same as leading.

James Moore for Governor
Unbought. Unafraid.
https://t.co/ImGjivCaKz
https://t.co/nq4RzNehEr
https://t.co/0ZJ5daNcUc
https://t.co/HFMYUtsHYs

#MooreForPA #GovernmentAccountability #PATaxpayers #FixPennsylvania #PAFamiliesFirst

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

That sounds very familiar.

Dismiss the details, throw out a scary label, and hope people react before they read the plan.

Respectfully, “TLDR” is not a rebuttal.

I did address funding, accountability, reading, math, school performance, property tax replacement, and the connection between property tax reform and education reform. Dismissing it because it was detailed does not answer the concerns.

And if we are going to throw around labels like “Mamdani-like,” then let’s be honest about the contradictions.

My plan cuts property taxes, limits school district taxing power, forces audits, controls spending, protects homeowners, and locks replacement revenue so it cannot be raided for unrelated spending. That is not socialism. That is taxpayer protection.

Your plan calls itself libertarian, but it gives every student an $11,500 taxpayer-funded government account, has the state operate unsold schools during the transition, shifts liabilities to the state, and relies heavily on the assumption that the private market will absorb current students, take over schools, build new schools, expand capacity, cover rural areas, serve special education students, and fix the gaps left behind.

That is not pure free-market reform.

That is a government-funded entitlement model wrapped in libertarian language, backed by a statewide gamble that the market will appear fast enough, evenly enough, and affordably enough to serve every child in Pennsylvania.

You can support school choice without pretending a universal taxpayer-funded benefit is not still a government benefit.

Pennsylvania deserves better than the same old political habit of avoiding substance, attaching scary labels, and hoping people react before they learn what is actually being proposed.

So let’s skip the labels and answer the math.

How do you replace roughly $30+ billion in recurring revenue, fund an $11,500 taxpayer-funded account for every student, cover special education, transportation, pensions, building debt, facilities, oversight, and transition costs, and still guarantee taxpayers are not hit with higher costs somewhere else?

That is the question your plan still has to answer.

James Moore for Governor
Unbought. Unafraid.

https://t.co/ImGjivCaKz
https://t.co/nq4RzNehEr
https://t.co/0ZJ5daNcUc
https://t.co/HFMYUtsHYs

#MooreForPA #PropertyTaxRelief #EducationReform #TaxpayerProtection #IndependentLeadership

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

This is not really a U.S. Constitution issue. School funding and property taxes are handled under Pennsylvania law and Article III, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

The PA Constitution requires the General Assembly to provide for a “thorough and efficient system of public education,” but it does not say schools must be funded through ever-rising local property taxes.

My point is not to stop funding education. My point is to change the funding system, reduce the burden on property owners, and create more accountability so schools are funded responsibly without taxing people out of their homes.

[James Moore @MooreForPA]

I agree that we cannot just shift everything to Harrisburg and give the state more unchecked power.

My goal is not to let the state micromanage every school. My goal is to stop using homeowners as the automatic funding source every time schools need more money.

The state should set clear standards, protect fair funding, and make sure schools are actually educating children. But that does not mean Harrisburg should control every classroom or every local decision. Schools, parents, and local communities still need a strong voice in how education is delivered.

I do not think we can completely remove government from education when taxpayer money is involved, but we can limit government to the proper role: standards, accountability, transparency, and fairness.

This would also help make school funding more equal across Pennsylvania instead of letting a child’s education depend so heavily on the property wealth of their district. But it cannot just be dumping more money into the same system. It has to come with spending controls, audits, reserve accountability, stronger purchasing power, and real results for students.

The goal is lower property taxes, fairer school funding, stronger accountability, and more local parent/community voice... not more unchecked power for Harrisburg.