Did Gov. Wolf's unilateral actions save lives?

In my latest op-ed, I argue that Gov. Wolf's unilateral executive orders were short-sighted and harmful, in large part because Gov. Wolf didn't bother to consult with the legislature.

At least one reader responded by saying mean things about me, claiming I don't care about people, and Gov. Wolf's actions "saved lives." Here's the thing though: I argued Gov. Wolf's actions jeopardized both lives and livelihoods.

Here are some basic questions (you can answer them in the poll below).

• Did failing to implement a state plan to protect nursing homes “save lives”?
• Did vetoing legislation to expand telemedicine “save lives”?
• Did not answering open records requests from the public and media “save lives”?
• Did failing to answer tens of thousand of unemployment claims, or even answer the telephone at the unemployment office, for many months “save lives”?
• Did failure to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot regarding the statute of limitations on child abuse cases “save lives”?
• Did keeping big box stores like Walmart and Lowes open while closing smaller businesses “save lives”?
• Did shutting down housing construction and real estate when people need housing “save lives”?
• Did shutting down car sales when people needed transportation (and neighboring states kept them open) “save lives”?
• Did closing state-run liquor stores, when Pennsylvanians drove to Ohio, Maryland, West Virginia, Delaware, and New Jersey to buy alcohol, “save lives”?

If your answer to any of these is NO, then perhaps you should vote YES on the constitutional amendment on May 18, to force Gov. Wolf to work with the legislature.