- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
The Pennsylvania Budget: Sanity versus Insanity
Submitted by Dan U-A on Tue, 07/14/2009 - 2:18pm.
Here is Ed Rendell, with a plea for sanity:
Here is the GOP, with a juvenile, disingenuous response:
The GOP's whole line of attack is that the Governor is saying he is making all kinds of budget cuts (which he is), yet the overall amount of money allocated by the state is going to increase. Therefore, Ed Rendell is a liar. Of course, there was this thing called the stimulus package. And the package had a lot of pass-through money that the Feds gave PA for specific purposes. In Rendell's budget, the State is not really raising funding levels for any programs, except for public schools.
At least we know: The Pennsylvania GOP is the party that wants to cut education funding, cut funding for seniors, cut funding for the arts, close our state parks, end legal services for the poor, cut Pre-K programs across the state, cut nursing home spots for Veterans, and cut anything else you can think of. What is the GOP for? Nothing. They are the party of a do nothing, hands off government- no help for anyone (except if you donate enough), with every man for themselves (unless you are rich). Oh, but if you have some lobbyists to write you some good bills, then, they will make some exceptions. In addition, their 'hands off' policy does not extend to the bedroom, where they would pass anti-sodomy laws if they had the chance.
Democrats HAVE to stand for sanity, no matter how long it takes. I don't know how you can really negotiate with crazy people, so, in all honesty, this might take a while. But if it does, it does. The nutjobs of the PA GOP cannot be allowed to take our state back into the stone age.
The perfect acronym for the GOP attitude
YOYO: You're On Your Own. Perfect, no?
For Obama + the Democrats, it could be WITT: We're In This Together.
-Z
Don't forget
In less than a year and a half, all this Harrisburg mishigoss could be going down with a Republican Governor Tom Corbett playing referee between a Crazy Republican Senate and a (barely) Democratic House.
Advantage: Crazies.
What happens to Philly school funding and child health care if the Republican Senate budget is the governor's preference?
Can you say "apocalypse?"
This is the reality we're looking down the barrel of; if the election were held today, Corbett likely would won. Until somebody on our side catches the public's (and the media's) imagination, that's where things are.
I'm more worried about finding the Dem most likely to defeat Corbett than I am about whether I personally prefer Joe Hoeffel or The Other Jack Wagner.
Its not just horrible cuts to services, its bad fiscal decisions
Cuts to preventative screening for newborns, for example, will end up costing taxpayer's more over time when the same infants come in for treatment later. Cuts to early education have been shown to lead to higher educational costs down the road in numerous studies. SB850 cuts funds for a program to keep folks from going into foreclosure on their house that had a success rate in the high 90's. Hows that for smart policy in recession being driven by a tidal wave or home foreclosures?
Then there are the cuts to state cops and criminal justice. So if you cut state police ($16 million), slash probation and parole ($10 million), cut state funding for courts ($12 million), while you cut job training and GEDs for prisoners, what the end result on crime rates, do you think? But don't worry, even though our prisons may end up more overcrowded we are also cutting medical treatment for prisoners so maybe some will die off and make more room.
And the cuts to services to kids especially are staggering - like 4,200 kids pushed out of SCHIP according to the Penn Budget and Policy Center, 50% from Head Start, 55% from pre-K, $10 million from county services for abused kids. How does that not cost us more expensive problems down the road?
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
One other idiotic thing about the GOP "analysis"
It completely ignores the budget reality of the current situation - which is (duh!) the still bottoming out economy has caused a massive drop in state revenue. You aren't getting any stimulus to PA's economy if you eat all the Federal Stimulus money on operating expenses and even after that you are still slashing things (which SB850 does) that save money over the long haul in terms of preventing yet bigger and more expensive social problems down the road.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
And still Harrisburg pushes for more gambling
I'm not a fan of praising the Dems unconditionally and condemning the Republicans unconditionally. It takes two to tango.
Indeed, in the case of predatory gambling, the Dems are much worse than the Republicans. Sure there are exceptions -- but for the most part it is the Democratic caucus that is pushing to put 5 video poker machines (which are indistinguishable from slots!) into every bar, tavern or restaurant with a liquor license. That's right, 5 slot machines in every tavern in every neighborhood in the state. The highest concentration of liquor licenses in the state? Old City, of course. Is there a bar, tavern or restaurant with a liquor license in your neighborhood?
These machines are the crack cocaine of gambling products. And they are being pushed, by and large, by the democrats.
Oh, and by the way, we have the power to try and do something about it.
Everyone in Harrisburg is afraid to raise taxes
but only the Democrats refuse to cut essentials like school funding and child health care.
Republicans are ok with causing social misery. See the Senate budget.
But I guess you can argue the Dems are too, at least among gambling addicts.
With a history of PA legislators and governors getting punished for tax hikes, there isn't an easy fix.
An obvious easy fix
Surely, there is an obvious easy fix: all lawmakers should cooperate with each other and compromise by raising some taxes and trimming more of the programs. Keep doing both until you reach a balanced budget.
To continue to talk about D's and R's is to give lawmakers a political way out. Don't demonize the Republicans and don't overly praise the Democrats. In fact, instead of focusing on the politics, or the parties, let's focus on the ideas.
Let's demonize the partisanship. That's the problem.
Let's demonize the
That's the problem? Really? The problem isn't that every single member of one party decided to cut the following (and then some):
What ideas should we talk about? Whether we think newborn children should get checkups? That poor people should have access to legal services? That Pennsylvania shouldn't close all of its parks? I am not sure how you expect to have a discussion like that.
I understand that for casinos, Democrats are often just as bad, or worse, than Republicans. But, in a summer when the Pennsylvania GOP is proposing to send us back to the 1800's, on a straight party line vote, it is a pretty weird thing to say that we shouldn't talk about parties.
You sound like someone who has focused on one issue so much
Paul, that they are losing track of the bigger picture. As horrible as slots and video poker are, if you really think they are going to do more lasting damage to the social stability of Philadelphia than cutting Head Start in half, slashing courts and services to abused kids, parole and probation, GED's for short timers in prison - I suggest you live in a far more sheltered version of Philadelphia than I do.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Where is Paul so off base? The Fumo irony
I'm reading these comments as I listen to the prosecutors on the Fumo case.
One of the things that the prosecutors spoke of was the degree to which witnesses were reluctant to cooperate because of their partisan orientation; they thought that the prosecutors were going after Fumo at the behest of Republicans and Bush.
On this site, there were more than a few posts where people said that Fumo's criminality should be viewed in the context of someone who did positive things from within the Democratic Party structure.
Where did Paul say that video poker is worse than cutting Head Start?
There's no doubt that Dems are better, on the whole, than Repubs - but I'm not sure that prioritizing the bad aspects of the Republican agenda over the bad aspects of the Dem agenda is a helpful response to Paul's point: partisan loyalty has its down side.
I think it's a valid to ask whether or not partisan loyalty only wins skirmishes while losing the war - and whether the way to win the war is to focus on issues rather than party and politics.
Obviously, there are relatively few (if any) blanket apologists for Dems at YPP - but aren't the larger implications of his point valid?
He's off base
because he's so cavalier about how easy it is to merely "cut services" when - even if you you go lets say exactly half way between SB850 and last year's level of funding for key social services you still end up at tens of thousands Pennsylvanians lives severely impacted. And the state GOP is sticking in response to "no new taxes, temporary or not, period". Paul is no more guilty than the majority of Philadlephians at not really comprehending how insane it is for state GOP leaders in this current environment to say "no new taxes".
He's also off base to not recognize that for the most part the state's GOP is very content to roll us back to 19th Century levels of social inequity while still shoving gambling as a "voluntary tax replacement" down our throats. In that context, calling the state GOP budget as insane as it really is on this is not giving state Dems a pass on other issues. Its just calling the SB850 on what it really is. In other words calling state Republicans for their party-line policy choices is not giving Dems a pass #1 and #2 I actually think I have been pretty pointed about some of the unthought out consequences of video poker with no connected beefing up of LCB enforcement capacity. At least on a word count basis, I probably have Paul beat. ;)
And as an aside I really have to take a moment to really savor the fleeting irony at you, Josh, basically calling me a "tax and spend" liberal / party apologist. There. It passed.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Obviously, there are
In my opinion, no, they are not valid right now. There are certainly times when I don't think you should simply draw party lines, with the casinos being one of them. And, I certainly spend much more time on YPP criticizing Democrats than Republicans. But when one party votes unanimously to destroy civil society and the social safety net in Pennsylvania, I think it is off-base to ask to talk about 'ideas,' as if the proposed destruction isn't coming 100 percent from one political party.
And frankly, I think it is harmful to the anti-casino movement in terms of coalition building in the city at a time when all progressives, and frankly, all sane human beings, have to uniformly stand up against a party that is hell-bent on destroying very basic standards of life in Pennsylvania, or who at the very least thinks that medical care for infants should be a fun bargaining chip from which to launch their regressive attacks.
And, finally, considering that the GOP has drawn a specific line in the sand, in a position that is totally and incredibly dangerous and insane, what he is suggesting is basically impossible. The middle ground here is not some bland compromise. In fact, the middle ground is totally nuts, too. If I sued you for trespassing onto my lawn for 3 seconds last week, and in negotiations, I offered to settle for 6 million dollars, and on the condition that I get to sell your children into indentured servitude, would you say, "hey, let's find a middle ground here"?
On the other hand
I doubt that any more unity is needed among progressives with respect to the Republican budget priorities.
I guess that some progressives might be turned off to the anti-casino movement if they feel that the movement is throwing other budget priorities under the bus to prevent gambling in Philly. But I think it is incumbent on progressives to not make such connections where they don't exist - as I think happened in this thread. I didn't read where Paul, for example, said that preventing gambling was more important than preventing all the harmful cuts you listed in your post.
On the other hand, I think that attacking Republicans rather than focusing on the "idea" that it is counterproductive, economically, to cut programs like Head Start - will not do anything to garner the support that is needed, from people who identify as Republican, to defeat the tax-cut-no-matter-the-costs approach to the budget.
On the other hand, I think
DE, I disagree. This is not about one program, or even a bunch of programs. This is a philosophy that government should do nothing, and I really don't think you want to go down this road.
Is it economically beneficial that poor people have civil representation? In some cases, sure. But in many cases, the reason we have it is because of moral decision.
Head Start is a "darling program" for that economic reason. But, what about having state parks? Maybe in some cases they raise property values. Always, in a way that is economically positive for the state given the money spent? Probably not, but, we think it is important to have state parks, right?
Is it economically beneficial to fund public education? Maybe to me it is. But, if I can afford a private school, is it? Maybe not.
And, again, Paul is suggesting something that is impossible. What is the compromise? Will we eliminate state parks, cut education funding, and end legal services for the poor, or will we end neonatal care and kick veterans out of nursing homes? And what happens when one party insists on doing all of those things, regardless?
There is a phrase for this philosophy
its called "starving the beast". Basically government is something you systematically try to kill off by denying it nourishment whenever you can. "Starving the beast" is not the same thing as training your dog to stop peeing on the rug come hell or come high-water even if the process frustrating as hell, which is ultimately where political progressives who believe efficiency and transparency in government really, really matters end up in this awkward analogy.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Good points
but how do you effectively divide the ideologues within the Republican base from, assuming that they do exist, constituents who legitimately question the role/effectiveness of government spending and who legitimately object to waste and corruption?
I question whether focusing on party affiliation does that particularly well - and I think the case can be made that categorically denouncing Republicans plays into the hands of the ideologues that want to blur those distinctions. When you have Fumos in the Democratic Party, prioritizing Democratic Party affiliation only undermines the battle over budget priorities. Arguing for the morality of government funding for parks - as much as I think that the government should fund parks - isn't going to get the job done either.
Maybe the "compromise" is, essentially, a steadfast focus on issues, with an attempt to strategically prioritize those issues that are the most winnable. I'm thinking back to Sam's post recently with links to studies that show the greater economic return on investing in pre-K educational programs. Of course, sacrificing teacher/student ratios in high schools in a limited budget trade off for increasing pre-K educational programs feels wrong, and, admittedly, I'd have a hard time sifting through the budget items you posted above to create any kind of a moral or economic hierarchy.
I'm not suggesting that I have an answer here - but I am sympathetic to Paul's point (if I've interpreted it correctly).
I disagree. The most
I disagree. The most winnable issues are things that effect those that aren't the most vulnerable. So, parks might stay open, since middle class people use parks. What about programs that directly help the poor? Adios!
What is the solution? If I were Ed Rendell, and I didn't want my legacy to end this way... I would pledge to raise ten million dollars, which he could do, and then to distribute it as needed to candidates taking on suburban Republican Senators, if they hold to this crazy line. A 2 million dollar transfer from Rendell would certainly give candidacies a boost.
And then I would pledge to campaign against each of them, and promise to go call in every single chit you have, and to bring in national figures to campaign against them, too. (Considering this destroys the point of the stimulus package, and PA is an important state, there might be some calls that he could make.)
What I wouldn't do is to start picking programs. They drew an insane line. I don't think finding any kind of middle ground is workable. I don't think compromising that we should lay off 20 lawyers at CLS, or only end in home care for half of needy seniors is acceptable. If we negotiate on these terms, we still lose.
I'm not sure I accept this premise
Do you really think it would be harder to win on funding for pre-K programs, with well-researched evidence like what Sam posted, than to win on funding for parks? I'm not so sure.
I like your solution, and it is more palatable than picking between issues, but I think that the campaigns waged against the suburban Republican Senators should be clearly oriented around specific budget-priority issues. I'm not sure how/if that could be done without an accompanying focus on Party affiliation...
Do you really think it would
Do I really think so? Yes. How long have we anything like the level of Pre-K in the state that we do? I may be mistaken, but I think it is about 6 years, or roughly the time that a certain portly ex-Mayor has been Governor.
Anyway, this is entering the land of pointless internet chatter, because this is not about debating a few programs. This is a vote to eliminate virtually every piece of the social safety net possible. Look at the comparison Jennifer posted, and then explain how you plan to evaluate all of those programs and their economic success... And even if you can, is that the standard we go by now? If so, it is going to really suck to be poor, period. And, what evidence have you seen that any of that matters in this debate? This is ideology, pure and simple, and about destroying any sense of shared community and responsibility to each other in our state.
Where is the disagreement then? Yes, a campaign against an individual would have to be about issues. And one of those issues would be walking in lock step with a crazy national and state party that wants to send PA into pre-depression era times.
One small thing
Its easy to get Philly-centric. In other counties pre-K programs are percieved as all about middle class values. Outside of Philly, most Pennsylvanians, even conservative ones, expect their local public schools to be competitive, safe places for their kids to learn, as radical as that might sound.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
You do it by underlining the real costs
the real implications of SB850 on real people and you separate voters who don't lke kids kicked out of SCHIP Head Start and state cops and probation officers laid off from the politicians who are towing the idealogue's line. Wasn't that what this thread has been about since the first post?
You do things like go to Education Voters Wed. night phonebanking to call PA voters in swing districts and spell out to them exactly what the policy their State Senator is supporting means in real terms to kids in PA.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Also SB850 is a partisan line in the sand
It was passed in the State Senate as basically a straight party vote. The reality of the policy is at its core partisan so any accurate description of policy has to acknowledge the partisan impetus that stands at its core.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
Republicans Will Not Vote For a Tax Increase
There are two broad issues, the lack of PA revenue due to the recession, and the need to not slash and burn programs.
While I am not defending, nor do I agree with their position, the Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats will not vote for any tax increases in any scenario I can envision. In most cases, they campaigned on this, it is core to their beliefs, and they are afraid they will be voted out if they vote for a tax increase. I do not see a scenario where they agree to any new taxes. They would not agree to a small capped surcharge on electricity a few years ago to help pay for alternative energy development, or for a tax on chewing tobacco, or for a tax on Marcellus Shale gas excavation. Why would they change their minds this point, or a month or two from now on any tax increases?
So, why not look at a solution that recognizes the political reality of no new taxes, while not giving in to their budget demands on the expense side; and not cutting public education, economic development, healthcare and other good investments. Do this by trying other ways to increase revenue and reduce non-critical expenses. Say, by closing the corporate tax loopholes, having a tax amnesty program, and looking at ways to reduce certain expenses and legally mandated programs (and expenses). For example, change the law (i.e. end the law) that requires local school districts to bus students to private schools within 10 miles of the district's borders (Several $100 million in savings). Change the mentality on prisons (start with lowering the number of older non violent offenders) to reduce the cost for prisons. Get the GOP to accept having the sales tax be applied to professional services and on clothing (and though it will take "some" discussion, get them to agree not to phrase it as a new tax).
The key point is that there has to be a new approach that recognizes certain issues, such as the Republicans' position on tax increases will almost certainly not change during this budget discussion cycle.
I hear you, and I agree with
I hear you, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But, much of that is longer term stuff. I don't see how you come anywhere close (like within a billion dollars), without a tax increase.
"changing the mentality on prisons"
Ha! Thats a good one. As if it were even remotely on the agenda.
And how exactly do you do that when you slash programs for GED's and vocational training for those already in prison, you slash money for parole and probation, you slash money for the courts so those more-expensive-to-operate-even-though-they-save-money-on-incarceration-costs drug courts and community courts are the first to lose funding?
And for that matter does anyone really think slashing funding for county services for abused kids is not going to have a direct effect on increasing crime? Really?
Ther reality of accepting "no new state taxes" in the face of the drop off of state revenue is that even though it claims to be fiscally conservative, the net result of how SB850 slashes and burns will be to increase not decrease state incarceration rates, which along with the balooning costs of health care, is the biggest buget buster in the state in terms of rapid, out of control growth in cost, year after year.
SB850 is not fiscally sane. But anyone who says there is a way out of this crisis without "new taxes" or new revenue to make up the gap is also not fiscally sane. The Federal government is rapidly expanding the deficit to kill this recesssion -which is OK as a Keynesian short term approach to a severe recession. State and municipal government can't do that. They have to collect new revenue to make up just to tread water on core social services under current conditions.
Is there shameful examples of waste in state government? Yes. Particularly in the state legislature and patronage projects they get their grubby little hands on but they aren't even remotely big enough to make up the size of the hole. So as much I personally love to scream and yell about PHEA and Paul Rubin at the Turnpike Commission and Bonus Gate and the rest of it (and trust me I really, really love to scream and yell about that stuff)- that stuff is not going to stop 4,300 kids getting pushed out of SCHIP, it (at best) is going to make only 4,250 kids get pushed out of SCHIP. I fear there are way too many progressives who just don't understand the severity and scale of the crisis and many, many Pensylvanians are going to pay a price for that misunderstanding.
-Sean
MrLuigi, my cat, actually only types half as badly as I do.
It is partisan and we need to focus on the weak links
The state budget crisis is all about the Republicans in Pennsylvania being captured by the extreme anti-tax, anti-government ideology that has dominated the Republican party in the South and West for years but is relatively new here.
These ain’t your grandfather’s Republicans.
And, frankly, when Republicans control the Senate by ten seats, I’m not sure there is all that much we can do about it in the short term.
But I do know this: if there is any hope in the short or long term, it runs through Southeast Pennsylvania.
We must take back or at the very least diminish Republican control of the State Senate. And five Republicans State Senators in our region—Erickson, Tomlinson, Greenleaf, Rafferty, and McIlhenny—are up for reelection in 2010. In addition, Senator Wonderling is about to leave his seat to become ED of the Chamber of Commerce.
If I am not mistaken, President Obama won the majority of the vote in every one of those Senate Districts which are in Bucks, Montgomery, and Delaware Counties. Governor Rendell won these districts when he ran for governor. These counties are, for Democrats, roughly where the South was in 1990 for Republicans. They reliably vote Democratic in statewide elections although in state legislative and local elections old party habits, and the power of entrenched party machines keep Republicans in control.
That will change with time. But we need it to change much sooner, like in 2010.
It is tough to beat fairly popular State Senate incumbents especially when they try to let it be known that they don’t always agree with the Republican state leadership as the Republican Gang of Six did on the health care issue. But it is not impossible. And the way to do it is to (1) recruit good candidates; (2) raise early money; and (3) beat them on ideological and partisan grounds not as individuals.
In other words, we need to run against them not as individuals but as a group, holding them responsible for the worst excesses of the Republican leadership of the Senate.
To do that, we need some key issues on which that Republican leadership is acting contrary to the views of the vast majority of people in Southeastern Pennsylvania.
And that is exactly what they are doing right now, by calling for massive reductions in the state budget and programs, especially in education, health and transportation, that are critical to SEPA.
So if we want to move the State Senate, this year and in the future, there is no point focusing on Senate President Joe Scarnatti. We need to get to work here in our region. We need to hold the Republican Gang of Six responsible for blocking a decent, responsible state budget. Local Party officials, local Democratic State Representatives and Senators, and local Democratic officials need to get busy and start making this case now. We need to start a PAC to raise money for a party oriented campaign against the Republican Gang of Five, one that ought to start radio and cable advertising now.
In the short term, that’s the only chance we have to force the Gang of Five to demand that the Republican leadership back away from disastrous budget policies. And, in the long term, it is the only way to remove the Republican stranglehold on progressive politics in Pennsylvania.
In June, PFC proposed this campaign to Senate Democrats
I'm glad you're calling for something similar. More people should. The more, the merrier.
We offered to target a field campaign in the most prized neighborhoods of SE PA Republicans on Appropriations, one that would highlight the horrific cuts to Education, Health Care, and programs that keep recession-strapped homeowners in their houses. Canvassers would encourage people to email, call, or write their senator.
We talked to staff of two local senators. Thus far, we haven't had any bites. But we're still listening. Your proposed media campaign would help too.
And of course, since 2006, PFC has been challenging (and pledging to help) the State Party to win the Senate by taking SE PA seats in districts where Democrats win all of the top of the ticket racs. It's ridiculous that a feeb like Ted Erickson keeps going back to Harrisburg while his district votes for Kerry and Obama. I've suggested that popular State Rep Greg Vitale look into running, but in reality a fresh face -- say some super-impressive Democratic businesswoman, the suburbs seem to be filled with them -- could hop into a race like that and win. I think there's potential for a movement of sending pragmatic impressive Democratic women to Harrisburg from the Philly suburbs. Many women candidates are able to speak with greater authority about family budget issues, Education, and the Environment. Other states have benefited from such movements.
In the five years that PFC has been around we've seen improvements in City government and Federal government -- and we played our role, endorsing Nutter and Obama in the primaries -- but not so much at the State level (although Democrats took the House in 06).
From an electoral standpoint, it's kind of been two down and one to go. We need to focus attention on Harrisburg, especially on the Senate, especially next year.
Right now, we need to focus on the State (but hopefully not the City) budget.
Let's keep on them
I've met with two State Senators to talk about what a real campaign would look like against the Gang of Six. They were interested but there has been only a little movement with one extremely important exception: the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee hired an executive director who is one of the best ops I know, Kristen Stoner. Usually they wait until a few months before a general election to hire a real pro.
And I think this has to happen now. Focuing on the 2010 election is the best way to focus on the state budget, as Dan points out above.
Someone needs to start doing this by going to Ted Erickson's office and doing a protest against budget cuts with details about the middle class cuts. And it has to be directly tied to Erickson's reeleciton campaign. "If SB 850 passes, Ted Erickson loses" might be a nice slogan for poster.
Erickson will freak out
HB 1416 comparison chart
Here's an itemized pdf chart the state Housing Alliance put together comparing HB 1416 with SB 850 and the governor's proposal.
Pennsylvania Budget (still, and again)
Lots of good arguments here.
For the record, Pennsylvania's Pre-K program is three years old and reaches fewer than 20 percent of eligible kids. Hell, not every kid in the state has access to full-day kindergarten yet, even though mountains of data show both can dramatically improve a child's odds and save the public tons of money. (For more on that go to: http://www.prektoday.org/tools_research_summary.shtml.) Children are eligible if their families earn up to 300 percent of poverty (about $63,000 a year for a family of four), have limited English proficiency or special needs. During Rendell's six years in office Pennsylvania has built an impressive early education system of which Pre-K is a part, but the push really began under Mark Schweiker and we still have a long way to go.
On the issue of partisan politics and ideology, let's not forget that the newly-christened House Blue Dog Democrats have rejected a tax increase as forcefully as the Republicans. Also keep in mind that three House Rs crossed party lines last night to vote for HB 1416, a Democratic budget. They each did so based on a committment to education and children's issues. While far from perfect (it cuts basic Education by $118 million, Pre-K by $15 million, and leaves higher ed hanging), HB 1416 is a whole lot better than the alternative (SB 850).
Two of Rs who crossed party lines - Nicholas McCozzie and Dennis O'Brien -- represent folks on the outskirts of Philadelphia (Northeast Philly) and the near suburbs (Upper Darby). Folks who are not living in extreme poverty but still struggling on incomes between 200 and 300 percent of poverty. This should be instructive in terms of building alliances with constituents and elected officials in these areas -- regardless of party affiliation; and the need to take seriously programs that support working poor and lower-middle class families.
While I agree with the comment that we should reward our friends and punish our enemies, that's a medium to long-term strategy. We've got a Senate vote on the budget coming up as early as Monday night. We need to reach suburban Rs and urge them not to reinstate any of the cuts in SB 850. (To balance SB 850 they would have to cut another $1.3 billion on top of $2 billion in cuts already proposed. Many know they'll have trouble answering for cuts so deep.)
Most YPP readers know folks in the suburbs. Senators in Delaware, Bucks and Eastern Montgomery (Greenleaf) counties are especially important. Time to call your old co-workers, third cousins and long-lost friends in these counties. Ask them to call their Senators in Harrisburg this weekend or Monday morning. (Phone numbers are below; email addresses at www.legis.state.pa.us.) Tell them not to reinstate any of the cuts of SB 850. Tell them you're willing to pay a modest tax increase to avoid these cuts, especially during a recession like the one we're in now.
The following list may make Dan's point for him, but calls to these Senators are really important right now:
• Pileggi - Chester (part) and Delaware (part) Counties. (717) 787-4712
• Erickson - Chester (part) and Delaware (part) Counties. (717) 787-1350
• Greenleaf - Bucks (part) and Montgomery (part) Counties. (717) 787-6599
• McIlhinney - Bucks (part) and Montgomery (part) Counties. (717) 787-7305
• Rafferty - Berks (part), Chester (part) and Montgomery (part) Counties. (717) 787-1398
• Tomlinson - Bucks (part) County. (717) 787-5072
• Wonderling - Bucks (part), Lehigh (part), Montgomery (part) and Northampton (part) Counties (717) 787-3110