Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Tom Corbett

Corbett’s Budget, the Day of Reckoning . . . Who should be worried?

March 8, 2011
4 Comments

March 8, 2011 – the ‘Day of Reckoning’.

In a few short hours, Gov. Corbett will take center-stage with his much-anticipated 2011-12 budget. Government agencies across the state have every reason to be on edge, waiting for Corbett’s budget ax to swing this morning. Since Corbett promised not to raise taxes, this budget is expected to slash spending dramatically.

In the days leading up to today’s budget address, there has been much speculation met with few details from the Corbett administration. Facing a $4 billion state deficit, who should be most worried?

With federal stimulus money funding running out this year for education and health care assistance, those two areas are expected targets for major cuts.

Rumors are swirling that the governor’s budget contains $1 billion in education cuts. With many of school districts trying to manage looming deficits in next-years budgets, the severity of the anticipated state education cuts could send them over the edge. The loss of major educational spending from the state could have a direct impact on the taxpayers. If there is less education-directed funding coming from Harrisburg, will taxpayers be expected to pay higher property taxes to make up the difference? In some school districts in the state, we know the answer is ‘absolutely’.

Another probable target in today’s budget address is state workers. Of the 19 state employee unions in the state, contracts are expiring in June for 17 unions. Timing could not be worse for these union members . . . how many will lose their jobs due to budget cuts? One possible offset for state job loss, may be an increase in employee health care contributions. Will Corbett choose to push for substantial healthcare and pension contribution concessions from the union members?

A couple of other areas that may see major funding cuts are the state university system and the state parks. Colleges and universities are experiencing a decrease in aid as federal stimulus money diminishes. Combine the loss of federal aid with expected state budget cuts and college students in Pennsylvania may be facing higher tuition bills. Speculation has also swirled that the budget may contain significant funding cuts to the State Park system. Beyond diminished programming funding, it is possible that some of the parks will be forced to close.

March 8th, 2011, the ‘Day of Reckoning’ . . . as many feel the pain of Corbett’s budget. Tighten your seatbelt and brace for major cuts; the road is going to be rocky.

Red-Hot State Voucher Program Clears Initial Hurdle

March 2, 2011
31 Comments

Teacher unions and school board members must be lining up across the state this morning in opposition to the latest Senate Education Committee vote.

Calling the proposed school voucher bill, an ‘opportunity scholarship’, the committee voted 8-2 yesterday in favor of the proposed legislation. The bill intended to help the state’s poorest children from the lowest-performing schools by providing options of attending other public, private or parochial schools, did not pass the committee without debate. The troubling issues that many of us have discussed, including constitutionality, religious freedom and the cost to public schools were sticking points for two members of the committee.

The Senate Education Committee is composed of six Republicans and four Democrats. Co-sponsoring the proposed legislation is Democratic Sen. Anthony Williams and Senate Education Committee Chair Jeffrey Piccola (R-Dauphin). All six Republicans supported the bill, as did two Democrats, Williams and Sen. Andy Dinniman. If you recall Dinniman had some suggested amendments to the bill, including testing and accountability from the non-public schools. The opposing school voucher bill members of the committee were Democrats Jim Ferlo and Daylin Leach.

Leach debated the proposed legislation on the grounds that the bill is not constitutional. Ferlo and Leach are concerned that the voucher system could erode public schools whereas the others feel that the legislation actually offers a lifeline to those children trapped in the low-performing schools. The opposing sides present two distinctly different ways of looking at the same situation. Piccola suggests that Leach’s argument that the school voucher legislation is unconstitutional is an erroneous interpretation of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The chair of the Senate Education Committee also dismissed the argument that the bill is in conflict with the state constitution in regards to support of religious schools with public money.

With all the questions swirling around this legislation, why did the Senate Education Committee seemingly just push it along through the system? Usually, I would be complaining about the slowness of government process, but it is amazing the way this school voucher bill is bulldozing its way through Harrisburg.

Aside from the many questions, concerns and debates swirling around this voucher bill, why don’t we hear much about the cost of this ‘opportunity scholarship’? Gov. Corbett swept into the Governor’s office under the umbrella of austerity and budget constraints, so can someone please explain to me how the estimated $860 million in taxpayer costs by the end of the third-year phase of the voucher program, meets that mission? And the $860 million does not take in to consideration the dollars the bill will siphon from the public schools.

Help me understand . . . what am I missing?

Public Revolt in Wisconsin . . . Can Pennsylvania be far behind?

February 17, 2011
36 Comments

Governor Tom Corbett is faced with some tough decisions when he presents his first budget on March 8. For the fiscal year starting July 1, Pennsylvania budget deficit is estimated at $4 – $5 billion! How will he reduce the budget shortfalls? Will public employees be safe from the chopping block?

Are their lessons for Harrisburg from Wisconsin? Cash-strapped states across the country watched the fireworks today in Madison, Wisconsin over Republican Governor Scott Walker’s proposed legislation to cut back on public employee costs and curb union power. The bill passed Wisconsin’s Joint Finance Committee and was set for a vote today. However, 16 state senators (which included 14 Democrat senators) didn’t show up for the vote. The vote on the legislation remains in limbo. At least 15 school districts closed school for a second day in a row as thousands gathered in the state capital to protest the proposed limiting of union bargaining rights. Claiming that the governor is balancing the budget on the taxpayers back, the workers are refusing to return to work if the bill passes.

Specifically, Wisconsin’s proposed legislation would:

  1. Eliminate collective bargaining rights for most public workers. The unions could still represent the workers but they would not be able to see pay increases above the Consumer Price Index, unless approved by a public referendum.
  2. Unions also could not force employees to pay dues and would have to hold annual votes to stay organized.
  3. The bill would permit local police, firefighters and state troopers to retain their union rights.
  4. Public workers would have to pay half the costs of their pensions and at least 12.6 percent of their health care coverage. That represents an average of 8 percent increase in state employees’ share of pension and health care costs. In exchange, public employees were promised no furloughs or layoffs.

Walker has threatened to lay off up to 10,000 state workers if the measure does not pass. The proposed legislation is expected to provide a savings of $30M by July 1 and $300M over the next 2 years.

Wisconsin’s budgetary pain is playing out across the country. Health care, pension contributions, collective bargaining rights . . . are all under the microscope in the Corbett’s cost-cutting budget that is coming in a couple of weeks. Will we see the events in Madison played out in Harrisburg? The Commonwealth is looking at a $4 – $5 billion deficit. Yes, billions!

With less than 60 days on the job, do you think that Corbett is prepared to take on Pennsylvania’s public workers?

Teachers’ Unions Set ‘Blocking School Vouchers’ as Priority

February 11, 2011
27 Comments

Two sides to every coin . . . supporters call school vouchers a right; a matter of choice. Opponents believe that the proposed voucher program is unconstitutional and will further erode the state’s lowest-performing schools.

The teacher union opposition to school vouchers became clearer this week when representatives from the two major unions brought their case to the state’s House Education Committee. Representatives from Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) and American Federation of Teachers of Pennsylvania (AFT-PA) told the Education Committee that the teacher unions were focusing on two major priorities for 2011 – budgetary assistance and blocking the proposed school voucher legislation.

Pennsylvania is loosing federal stimulus money, which will create a shortfall of $1 billion in education funding. According to Gov. Corbett, the state is facing a $4 billion deficit in next year’s budget so education-spending cuts are expected. If you recall, Corbett and Democratic state senator Anthony Williams of Philadelphia (one of school voucher bill SB1 originators) supported school vouchers in their individual campaigns last year. At this point, we do not know how steep the cuts in education spending will be and no one may know for sure until Corbett unveils his preliminary budget, which is expected to be delivered sometime in March.

Although the school voucher bill will have several hearings in the state House during the next couple of months, Corbett’s budget address in March may see the proposed legislation moving forward. As the proposed SB1 now stands, it would direct over $50 million to the neediest families in the lowest-performing schools in the state. The estimated cost of the program is less than 1% of the current education subsidy.

Besides the school voucher program, the other major education issue that must be addressed by the state is the funding of the Public School Employee Retirement System (PSERS). PSERS as currently designed is not sustainable and threatens to break the budget of school districts across the state. Although the State Legislature recognized the significance of the PSERS funding problem last year, a long-term solution is needed.

Anticipating a major battle ahead over the proposed school voucher legislation, the PSEA union, which represents 190,000+ teachers in Pennsylvania, has announced an 11% increase in dues for its members.

Continuing Tuition Voucher Discussion . . . What’s the next step for SB1?

February 6, 2011
10 Comments

Continuing the discussion of the tuition voucher program, a Community Matters asked for a list of the 144 low-performing schools cited in the proposed SB1 legislation. The plan would allow the parents of a needy child to take the state subsidy that would have been directed to their home school district and apply it to the public, private or parochial school of their choice. For the Harrisburg School District, for example, that amount would equal approx. $9,000/yr. Here is a link to the schools; listed in the order of performance, #1 is the lowest performing school.

The five lowest-performing schools in Pennsylvania are:

#1: Learning Academy North, Philadelphia City School District (0.00)
#2: University City High School, Philadelphia City School District (5.12)
#3: Washington Education Center, Ephrata Area School District ((7.69)
#4: West Philadelphia High School, Philadelphia City High School (9.64)
#5: Simon Gratz High School, Philadelphia City High School (10.54)

The number in parenthesis following the school represents the combined reading and math proficiency level in percentages. There is no other explanation but I read this to mean that Simon Gratz HS averages 10.54% of students performing at the required reading/math level. Assuming that the ‘0.00’ attributed to Learning Academy North is not a misprint, and if I understand the statistic correctly, it would seem as though no students at this school are effectively performing at the required reading/math level. Could this be possible? It would seem unbelievable . . . where is the accountability?

I decided to see if I could find any information about Learning Academy North, the lowest-performing school in Pennsylvania. It is a new school, only opened its doors 4 years ago. The district-run high school is small with only approximately 100 students and is a “nurturing alternative for expelled students” according to one article I read. Learning Academy North is located on N. Front St., in Philadelphia and is listed as one of the eight ‘Philadelphia Accelerated Schools’ (thought that an interesting category, given it’s english/math proficiency level). These specific schools offer full-time academic programs, for students, ages 16-21, who have earned fewer than 8 high school credits and who wish to return to school.

The school accommodates students who have been expelled from the District or are waiting for their expulsion hearing. Students at Learning Academy North can earn an official Student District diploma. In theory, this type of school looks like a good alternative for the older, returning students. However, based on the performance level, that does not appear to the case.

The Pennsylvania School Board Association (PSBA) is mounting a major anti-voucher campaign to oppose any tuition voucher plan and is asking public school officials to join the effort by contact their legislators. No doubt caving to public requests, the PSBA has now added the survey charts from Opinion Research to their website. The summary presents the findings of a survey of 805 Pennsylvania adults conducted Aug. 25 – Sept. 24, 2010. Ten questions were asked in the survey (click here for survey questions and responses).

The Berks-Mont newspaper (www.berksmontnews.com) reviewed the survey and offered the following observations on January 31:

  • About two out of three Pennsylvanians (67%) oppose giving public money to parents so they can send their children to a private school. Only a small minority (13.7%) of Pennsylvanians strongly favor taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. Most older Pennsylvanians, aged 55 or older, oppose taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers and, in fact, 51% strongly oppose them. Over 70% of individuals surveyed under the age of 34, strongly or somewhat oppose tuition vouchers, more so than any other respondent age group.
  • For respondents declaring a political affiliation, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans indicate opposition to taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. Democrats more so than Republicans, however, oppose taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers 69% to 58%, respectively. Independents also do not embrace tuition vouchers with 68% of them indicating that they either somewhat or strongly oppose them.
  • Regardless of zip code, opposition to tuition vouchers is universally held across all Pennsylvania regions. More than two-thirds of Pennsylvanians oppose tuition vouchers in all areas of the state except in the northeast (61% oppose tuition vouchers) and the southwest (64% oppose tuition vouchers).
  • Strong opposition to tuition vouchers is almost equally shared by whites and non-whites alike. More than two-thirds (69%) of non-white individuals indicated that they somewhat or strongly oppose taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. This is slightly more than whites where 66% said the same. Only 10% of non-white respondents said they strongly favor taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers.
  • Two-thirds of Pennsylvanians (66%) oppose state law that requires school districts to pay the tuition of students attending privately operated charter and cyber charter schools. Like the issue of vouchers, Pennsylvanians hold very strong opinions on charter school tuition. Respondents holding opinions of strong opposition against charter tuition payment by school districts (44%) is almost four times greater than those strongly favoring tuition payments to charters by districts (11%).

The PSBA conducted a call-in program on Feb. 3 about taxpayer-funded tuition vouchers. Click here for the link to the 47 PowerPoint slides that were used during the call to PSBA members.

What is the next step for the tuition voucher plan . . . proposed SB1 legislation will be subject of a public hearing in the Senate Education Committee on Feb. 16. PSBA will present testimony at that meeting. Gov. Corbett’s budget proposal on March 8 will probably include the voucher plan. Following the budget address, the General Assembly will recess for a few weeks in order for the Appropriations Committees in the Senate and House to hold hearings and discuss various components of Corbett’s budget. The voucher bill will not move until mid to late spring.

Is Pennsylvania Ready for a School Voucher Plan? Would you use school vouchers for your kids if you could?

January 30, 2011
44 Comments

Is Pennsylvania Ready for a School Voucher Plan? Would you use school vouchers for your kids if you could?

I wonder if the school voucher discussion is going to threaten the position of teacher unions, especially during contract negotiations. Gov. Tom Corbett is planning to make good on his campaign promise to move forward toward school vouchers for Pennsylvania parents. Contained in his inaugural address were the words, “Our education system must contend with other nations and so we must embrace innovation, competition, and choice in our education system.” Corbett issued a commitment to a voucher program, stating “Today’s Pennsylvania’s tradition of character and courage carries on in the single mother who works an extra job so she can send her children to a better school.”

However, pushing a school voucher program is not strictly a Republican initiative. Senators Anthony Williams, a Philadelphia Democrat and Republican Jeffrey Piccola from Daphin County have co-sponsored legislation that would give state money to poor students who want to transfer to a private school or another public school. In its current design, the Senate Bill 1 initially will only affect the 144 poorest-performing Pennsylvania schools. (101 of the schools are located in either Philadelphia or Delaware counties.) After two years, the program would expand to include all low-income students in the state. In the current budget year, the state is spending more than $9 billion on education, with more than $5.1 billion on basic education alone. This year the state is spending more than $14,000 per student in the public school system, though the amount per student fluctuates from district to district.

Sen. Williams believes that school choice is a civil rights issue. In a statement accompanying the introduction of the voucher bill, he states “Standing in the way of school choice for needy kids is like Gov. George Wallace standing in the doorway of a classroom to continue to the segregation of the ’60s. Why would we block access to great schools for children in need? … Let’s open the doors to freedom and opportunity.”

Not surprising, the powerful state teacher unions and their supporters are not fans of a school voucher plan, claiming that this type of legislation amounts to abandonment of public school education. Can one argue that this type of school voucher plan actually removes financial support from the public school that need more support rather than less? Teacher unions worry about accountability for private and religious schools, which are not held to the same governance standard as public schools. What happens if school choice passes and a student leaves a failing school and does not improve at a charter or private school? Whose fault is it then?

Former Gov. Tom Ridge failed with his school choice initiative in the 1990s. Is there significant change in the political climate in 2011 to support a voucher initiative? If Philadelphia is any indicator, there seems to be a movement among parents in big cities wanting better (and safer) schools for their children. Historically, there has been support for unions in the big cities, but parents are tired of waiting for the public schools to improve. To succeed, Corbett and his legislative supporters will need to balance the interests of urban parents who want better schools for their children with the suburban parents (like those in the T/E school district) who believe that public school may not need to change.

I support the right of all children to attend ‘safe’ schools but as we know from news reports, that is not always possible in Philadelphia. Is a school voucher plan the only option for parents to keep their children safe from violence, gangs, drugs in some of Philadelphia’s inner city schools? Unsafe public school must change, but how?

Does anyone share my uneasiness that a school voucher program may potentially violate Article III, the separation of church and state, contained in the state’s constitution? A voucher system cannot regulate where the money goes . . . I would think that using state tax money for religious schools would violate the constitution.

Would you use school vouchers for your kids if you could? I’m curious to hear what others think about a school voucher plan. Do you think that the school voucher discussion is going to affect the teacher contract negotiations, one way or the other?

Malvern Power Couple Heading to Harrisburg

January 12, 2011
Comments

Noun 1. power couple – def: a couple both of whom have high-powered careers or are politically influential

Just yesterday, it was announced that Gov-elect Corbett had selected Carol Aichele to serve in his cabinet as Secretary of the Commonwealth. Today we learn that Carol will be able to carpool to Harrisburg with another Aichele family member.

Corbett has selected Carol’s husband, Steve Aichele, to serve as the state’s Chief Counsel. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of major Philadelphia law firm, Saul Ewing, Corbett will oversee the Commonwealth’s legal department which employs 500 attorneys and represents the governor and 32 executive and independent agencies.

Epitomizing the phrase, ‘all in the family’, Carol and Steve Aichele are certainly Malvern’s newest power couple going to Harrisburg.

One of Tredyffrin’s Own Heading to Harrisburg . . . Gov-Elect Names Carol Aichele to Cabinet

January 10, 2011
Comments

Today it was announced that Gov-Elect Corbett has named Carol Aichele, Chester County Commissioner to his cabinet. Carol has been named the new Secretary of the Commonwealth. This position is responsible for overseeing the state’s election system and monitoring 800,000 licensed business and health professionals. In his praise of Aichele, Corbett spoke of her role in securing three Triple A bond ratings to Chester County for its financial management practices. Her appointment must be confirmed by the state Senate.

Great Valley resident, Aichele has served as one of the three-member Board of Commissioners of Chester County since her election in 2003. She was re-elected to that post in November 2007. Her current term runs through 2011 so presumably, there will need to be a County Commissioner appointed to fill the vacancy. Any suggestions?

State Rep Paul Drucker Exits Harrisburg . . . Thank you for your service!

December 29, 2010
6 Comments

What was the voter’s message in November? Does this signal an acceptance, or rejection, of either party? Does this message play similarly in Pennsylvania . . . and in the local 157th district?

With “the economy, the economy, the economy,” being chanted by people across the country, many were engaged in the political system during this voting season . . . some for the first time. We have now elected and re-elected many different types of people across our country. The impact of our choices is already being felt. Democracy needs the relentless participation of its citizens to be most effective. With the electorate’s intense anger reverberating across the country, the anti-Washington, anti-establishment sentiment rejected many incumbents in November, including State Representative Paul Drucker.

It does seem like our political problems should have clear solutions but often times do not. Consider how hard it must be for someone to get their name on a primary ballot, win that primary, and then win a general election. People holding any political offices are effective achievers who have support of family and friends but also have convinced a large group of strangers to believe in them. Paul Drucker was that person in 2008 and in November, voters of the 157th district chose differently. Were the election results reflective of Drucker’s job performance in Harrisburg? No, I think the vote spoke more to the intensity of the anti-Washington sentiment. A personal defeat for Drucker when the votes were counted, his loss was not a statement to his personal accomplishments in Harrisburg.

Although I am a proponent of looking forward, I believe that there is merit to reflecting on one’s past. Much can be learned from life’s experiences and this week, Alan Thomas for the Mainline Suburban Life interviewed Drucker. The article, ‘Drucker reflects on work done and work not finished in House term’ is an exit interview . . . an ‘introspective’ of sorts. (Click here for full article).

Much like his re-election campaign platform, Drucker points to his list of most important concerns in the 157th district as jobs, education and transportation and sees the issues as inter-connected. Drucker strongly supports fixing the state’s infrastructure and getting people to work. He views the Paoli Transportation Center plan as a project to spur economic growth and as a means to create new jobs in the community. With a new Republican Governor-elect Corbett at the helm in Harrisburg, Drucker voiced concern for the Paoli rail yard project. With sign-off on the project required by Corbett, the future of this transportation center remains in peril.

When Thomas asked Drucker what changed during his two years in the House, his reply was, “Well, it’s changed me, I made a lot of new friends, new contacts. I certainly have a good perspective on state government. I haven’t decided what I’m going to do. I’m going to stay active and involved in what’s important to me. I’m still recharging my batteries. It’s a 24-7 job. I have never worked so hard in my life.”

For the long hours and reduced pay that many candidates receive when elected, we need to stop and thank those that have served. I thank Paul Drucker for serving as State Representative of the 157th district. And I thank him for his commitment to important issues and for caring about the residents of our community.

Privatize Pennsylvania’s Liquor Stores? Why not . . . Could provide $2 Billion Revenue for 2011

November 12, 2010
10 Comments

Should Pennsylvania sell the state liquor control system to help balance the state’s budget?

For years, there has been discussion about the privatization of Pennsylvania’s state liquor stores. Having moved here from California, it was an adjustment for me to Pennsylvania’s liquor stores; it seemed a rather ineffective, antiquated way of doing business. The state’s monopoly on liquor stores removes the convenience, efficiency and competition that would be created in a private marketplace – I was mystified why the system remained ‘status quo’.

Apparently, there is now renewed interest in the privatizing concept of the state’s 621 liquor stores by Governor-elect Corbett. It is believed that by leasing the state liquor stores, there would be $2 billion up-front revenue gain in 2011. A projection of 850 businesses would be created by the privatizing the state-run stores and that number does not include the new jobs that would be created by the expansion of the wine and liquor industry in Pennsylvania.

House Bill 2350 was introduced last spring by State Rep. Mike Turzai (R – Allegheny) which calls for the auctioning of 750 retail licenses and 100 wholesale licenses “to the highest responsible bidder with a reserve based upon the fair market value” to replace the current state-run system of liquor stores. This bill is set to expire on Nov. 30 but it is possible a similar plan will be introduced next year.

At first thought, one could wonder what happens to the state employee jobs in the liquor stores but those jobs should not go away. The liquor stores will continue to exist and they will continue to need employees – the difference is that the state will not have the employees on the payroll but rather the jobs shift to the private sector. It is also possible that there could be an increase in private jobs with the change, depending on the demand.

I have long thought that the state’s monopoly on liquor sales needs to change. Look at UPS and FedEx vs the Federal post office. Private companies have a profit motive to deliver products at a price the consumer desires and with the convenience that the consumer demands. Look at the way the postal costs have continually risen over the last decade. Why should sales of liquor in Pennsylvania be any different?

The liquor store debate is a problem of two dimensions. First, let’s consider ridding the state of this government controlled monopoly, its associated abuses and watch prices reflect true free market conditions. Second, the state could cash in on the value of this government monopoly by selling it. Pennsylvania’s government always needs money and the proceeds of the sale could be thrown at the most needy — in the instant case, the state budget.

What do you think — should Pennsylvania sell the state liquor control system to help the state’s budget issues?

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme