- 'An End to the Southern Strategy, But No Post-Racial America' says David Love
- "A Question of Place": An essay on the power of community
- Just Equally Speaking….
- Eagles owe Philadelphia the 8 million it needs to keep libraries open
- who would like to see Verizon offer cable TV in Phila?
- Council Committee Passed the Freeze
- Carol Campbell Passes Away
- My first trip to the public library
- Fight digital exclusion
- What if half of Philadelphia didn't have roads?
Budget Impasse Ends As All Sides Agree
Submitted by RepMarkBCohen on Tue, 07/10/2007 - 12:20am.
At about 11:15 p.m. on Monday, July 9, 2007, at a press conference held in the Governor's reception room, all sides announced they had reached agreement on a 2007-2008 budget agreement. The agreement included major spending increases for mass transit and highways, early childhood education, and innovative new programs in energy conservation and medical cost containment. $300 million of surplus state funds--almost half the total-- will be saved for future use.
Furloughed workers return to work today. In all likelihood, they will be paid for their unwanted day off. Rendell's decision to make the furloughs, while of questionable legal necessity, was widely credited by the negotiators for bringing the impasse to an end.
The enabling legislation to implement the agreement still has to be finalized, checked, and doublechecked by members and staff. With all sides working together cooperatively, this task should be completed by the end of this week.
Rendell and House Appropriations Chair Dwight Evans deserve a lot of credit for insisting that Pennsylvania not pass a status quo budget, but instead pass one that addresses major statewide and national problems. While the Democrats did not get everything we would have liked to, that is the nature of budget negotiations with a Republican status-quo oriented Senate.
What we have won this year should not be the last word in governmental activism to solve urgent public problems. Rather it should be a steppingstone to greater future achievements.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
Good job on eventually
Good job on eventually coming to a budget that seems sound. It was a balanced approach that can be attributed to a legislature that is split between both parties. No one side gets to run away with the plan. Both sides deserve credit for the budget itself. Some important spending items resulted while the amount of spending was kept contained.
Rendell should lose a lot of points, though. First, obviously he was bullshitting about the furlough because he is having them come back to work with no budget in place. He basically laid government employees off as a brinksmanship tactic. Second, his own threats of holding up the budget on items not budget related - i.e. smoking ban. Things also might have gone smoother if he didn't try to make a tough budget linked to controversial policy that would be hard to pass in of itself.
Other than that, again, kudos to the House and the Senate. Tax and spend dems in the House mixed with status quo GOP in the Senate seems to have worked out. ;)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I'm glad that they were able
I'm glad that they were able to come to an agreement that was acceptable to all. I hope we can still figure out a statewide smoking ban that doesn't nullify Philly's and that alternative energy session in the fall produces a good plan. But I'm really excited about funding for SEPTA, woo hoo! I saw in the Inquirer today that there will be $900 million annually for highways and mass transit. Does anyone know how that breaks down for SEPTA?
Unless the number changed, I
Unless the number changed, I thought it was $101 million for SEPTA.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Mark, After this past week,
Mark,
After this past week, it is hard to take your stuff particularly seriously...
How about that motion to reconsider the bill?
I concur with Dan U-A
I'm trying to figure our if Rep. Cohen actually believes what he writes.
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
Of Course I Do
Of course I believe what I write. Character assassination is hardly an appropriate tactic of political discussion.
Character assasination?
Character assasination? Please explain.
All I know is, you said it yourself--we have a choice to make, we can either recieve a more transparent and open government or we can allieviate poverty.
How has that unreformed government done in terms of allieviating poverty?
I am working to elect Larry Farnese to the General Assembly. Unless otherwise expressly stated, this and every comment or blog I post on YPP and any action I take hereon is solely attributable to me and not Farnese or Friends of Farnese
The Bill Cannot Be Reconsidered; It is In the Senate
The bill that is so hotly contested here that passed the House 200 to 1 is now in the Senate. It cannot be reconsidered in the House under the rules of parliamentary procedure that govern, but it still has no legal significance; it has no legal force and is just a piece of paper.
Legislators should have reached out to the Board of Ethics, and the Board of Ethics should have reached out to the legislature. At their December, 2006 Board meeting, posted on the Internet, the Board of Ethics adopted the filing rule requiring significant amounts of extra data entry and posted a long list of organizations they would engage in outreach to. The Philadelphia delegation to the legislature was not one of them, although their regulation was so sweeping that it included any Philadelphia legislator who made a single small contribution to a Philadelphia municipal candidate.
Now that we know they are interested in this legislation, and they know of our interest, it is time to for discussions to take place as to both the state of the data entry requirements and the relevance of the data entry requirements to the broader purposes of the city charter amendment.
Ah, now we see. The
Ah, now we see.
The Philadelphia legislators were insulted. ;)
"They didn't talk to us, so we aren't going to talk to them."
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
Nobody Was Insulted
Nobody was insulted. But, had any legislator been consulted, it is quite possible that discussions would have held and agreements would have been reached.
You are saying City Council
You are saying City Council should have spoken with you first. Fine, I can see some validity in that. Discuss it with the people it will affect.
So if that is your belief, why then didn't you speak to Council and the Board of Ethics and others about your concerns with the reporting before you proposed legislation? Aren't you doing exactly what you are faulting them for?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
I Have Already Answered That
I have already answered that. I have said that each side should have talked to the other. Now that we know of our common interests and differing perspectives, it would be good for discussions to take place before the Senate does anything.
For what purpose? If they
So in other words you both made the same mistake?
And for what purpose? If they convince you, you'll go to the Senate and ask them to vote against?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"yes adam gave some informative comments but he also seems to sprinkle a little adam dust on it." - merkin
We Both Made Same Mistake
We both made the same mistake of not recognizing the interest the other had in this issue and not talking to each other.
It is highly unlikely that the Senate would consider the bill without the House members demanding consideration. If the Board of Ethics could constructively deal with the underlying problem of a procedure that many people either cannot meet or cannot meet without great difficulty, then there would be no need for Senate action.
COHEN - What mistake did City Council make?
COHEN - What mistake did City Council make?
Not following the COHEN quest for ethics reform?
Give up while you're still behind.
Our creation of an independent Board of Ethics and Campaign Finance Reform measures (and the nomination of Nutter as Mayor)- along with the grassroots efforts against the Harrisburg mess that it is - raised the bar for you and your colleagues.
Catch up - don't pull us back!
WWGjr
There Certainly Ought To Be Greater Dialogue Between Us
There certainly ought to be greater dialogue between legislators and council members.
This bill is just one small example of that.
It's really unnecessary to join the piling onto Rep. Cohen...
THOUGH certainly not unwarranted.
This exchange is just a tiny example of the near-nonsensical argumentative strategy that's been mounted in defense of the legislation:
Given that the legislation concerns a matter of city elections and institutions, and in an area where the city has already taken action, it is silly to make the claim that there is some equal failure of communication between the acting party (the state) and the affected one (the city).
While there may well be need for the city to increasingly reach out to the state to discuss matters of joint concern, where one body is unilaterally acting in the domain of the other, it's somewhat beyond obvious that that body bears the weight of initiating communication.
Jennifer
In the Middle of a Municipal Election Cycle ... Shame on you!
For Philadelphia state representatives to take action on municipal election issues in the middle of a municipal election cycle, that's just plain WRONG.
WWGjr
P.S. Where's our money for schools? The additional $54m?
The bill is not "dialogue"
It was a monologue with Harrisburg speaking to City Council. What you do after the fact is irrelevant.