Pennsylvania's source for liberal political news and commentary
“I love being home, in this place where Ann and I were raised, where but the both of us were born,” Romney said after introducing his wife, fellow Michigan native Ann. “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place where we were born and raised.”
Obviously a joke, but since birthers make up a majority of the Republican Party’s voter base, Romney can’t afford to alienate them. Should be read as “I am one of you”.
Bram R: Yes, to put a fine point on it, you can’t “bail out” something that is your responsibility. When my refrigerator is empty, I don’t “bail out” my family by going shopping.
This is just cold.
The Corbett administration has cut funding for a Philadelphia program nationally lauded as the “gold standard” for helping disabled homeless people get federal benefits.
On May 31, the state’s Department of Public Welfare gave Philadelphia’s Homeless Advocacy Project one month’s notice that it was eliminating $722,000 used to help obtain Supplemental Security Income (SSI) money for homeless or near-homeless people who had exceeded their five-year limit for welfare benefits.
Many of the people don’t have the mental capacity to work. SSI provides disability income and benefits.
(Thanks: Albred Lubrano)
John Micek says George Yasso is in the mix now:
At least three area Democrats — Fountain Hill Mayor Jose Rosado, Bethlehem attorney Anthony Rybak and George Yasso, a financial consultant from Bethlehem — said they are interested in replacing Brennan on the ballot.
Rosado and Rybak both ran and lost to Brennan in a four-way Democratic primary in 2006. Yasso, an assistant football coach at Liberty High School, unsuccessfully sought an appointment to Bethlehem’s vacant controller seat earlier this year.
Another local Democrat, Coplay Councilman Bill Leiner Jr., has also been mentioned as a potential candidate.
I still think Jose Rosado is the strongest candidate.
Greg Sargent asks whether Romney can shake the Etch-a-Sketch and make himself seem warm and likeable to the American people.
I have an idea:
My favorability rating for Mitt just went up at least 5 points. This looks great.
The only thing exciting about this race is waiting to see whether Casey’s vote share will be even bigger than when he destroyed Rick Santorum in 2006.
Colby Itkowitz reads the new Muhlenberg poll:
Smith, who has the mixed blessing of having the most common of names, remains anonymous to 40 percent of voters, according to this week’s Morning Call/Muhlenberg College poll. Just 18 percent have a favorable view of Smith and 13 percent an unfavorable one.
With just over three months of campaigning left until the November election, Smith trails Democrat incumbent U.S. Sen. Bob Casey by 19 points. Nearly half of the electorate, 49 percent, say they support or are leaning toward Casey, 30 percent for Smith and 18 percent remain undecided.
Bernie O’Neill tells Chris Brennan that his voting story does not show what Daryl Metcalfe wants it to show:
“I ended up being able to vote,” O’Neill said, explaining that election workers called Bucks County officials to clear up the confusion. “Somehow, they figured out it was human error.”
O’Neill said that Metcalfe, who represents a district north of Pittsburgh, “shouldn’t be hanging his hat on me” to defend voter ID.
In fact, O’Neill said, he voted with some apprehension for the voter-ID bill on the day he spoke from the floor. He wanted it to grow into more-comprehensive legislation that also looked at voter registration and absentee ballots. O’Neill said the legislation should start in 2013 to avoid the perception that it was designed to influence the 2012 presidential election. And he thought it should be less restrictive on what types of identification could be used.
O’Neill said that he had been reluctant to speak about the issue on the floor, but that GOP colleagues “kept hammering on me” after he told them about his trouble voting in one election. He plans to correct the record when the House reconvenes.
I thought this was a really obvious point, but apparently PGH Mayor Luke Ravenstahl disagrees, so we have to go over it.
If the Doomsday transit cuts at the Allegheny Port Authority were to go through, that would deal a pretty serious blow to the Pittsburgh metro economy. People would have a harder time getting around, there’d be more traffic congestion, and the traffic congestion would put a check on how much more downtown office and housing development could realistically get built. If you take all the people who now ride mass transit to work and turn them into solo-drivers, you get a lot more street traffic. It becomes harder for the transportation network to serve the downtown offices, restaurants and bars, sports games and cultural institutions. All the lost time and foregone development represents a real loss of money for the regional economy.
If you’re the government, and you have a choice between allocating $3 million toward making it easier to get around vs. $3 million toward subsidizing arts, culture and sports institutions, I think it’s really a no-brainer to focus on making it easy to get around. Cultural institutions can always try to make up the money from charitable donations, ticket sales, etc. Transit, however, is a public service.* Only the government is providing the funding for that. It’s more important for the government to fund all its core responsibilities before spending money on the nice-to-haves.
I’ll give Councilman Bill Peduto the last word on this since I thought he had a solid statement:
“Public transportation is the single most important issue facing our region. Our new economy relies on a transportable workforce. The ed-med economy of Oakland, located in my council district, is Pennsylvania’s third largest daily economic generator (behind downtown Philadelphia and downtown Pittsburgh) and requires thousands of workers to take public transportation 24hours per day.”
“County Executive Rich Fitzgerald has crafted a creative plan that has garnered support from ATU 85, the corporate community, the Port Authority and state leaders. The transit union deserves tremendous credit for stepping forward with $60 million in concessions, to protect not only their fellow employees, but this entire region. Additionally, the state has committed an additional $35 million and the County pledged $1.5 million. The goal to use $3 million in RAD funds, just 3% of the plan’s funding, will protect the region’s most significant asset. At the same time, County Executive Fitzgerald has pledged that no cultural organization will see a reduction in funding as a result.”
“I am disappointed in Mayor Ravenstahl for undermining the hard work that has been done to create this plan. We have known about looming cuts that would devastate the region for the past several years. Rather than working cooperatively with the state, county, and transit union to develop a sustainable plan to save this critical economic and social asset, Mayor Ravenstahl simply attacks the plan. County Executive Fitzgerald’s plan is built on teamwork – everyone giving a little, so our region can gain a lot. I am hopeful that Mayor Ravenstahl will move from the sidelines and join the team. “
*Yes, you can do transit with private bus companies and such. Whatever you think of the merits of that idea, in the near-term it’s not within the range of political possibilities.
I’m not surprised to see the usual conservative elements misrepresenting the situation with the Port Authority of Allegheny as a “bailout”, but I am disappointed to see ordinary reporters like Tim McNulty using the term. In addition to being politically-charged, it’s simply inaccurate.
The starting point for any conversation about the Port Authority’s finances should be this:
It also has unconventional language that is intended to motivate state and county officials to enact a long-term solution to the authority’s chronic funding problems. Fares have been increased four times and service cut three times in the past decade, not including the scheduled Sept. 2 reductions that would be the largest in the agency’s 48-year history and leave riders with about half of the service that existed at the start of last year.
The authority relies on the state for more than half of its operating funds, but those contributions have been flat or decreasing for several years, including a $34 million cut in the 2010-11 fiscal year. Transit advocates for years have urged the Legislature to enact a funding method that produces a reliable and growing stream of revenue so the agency can keep pace with inflation.
The state is responsible for half of the Port Authority’s operating funds. The state has been cutting funding for the Port Authority, by $34 million just last year, and therefore there is a deficit.
The state is cutting funding because Tom Corbett refuses to lead, and won’t endorse his own transportation commission’s funding recommendations – recommendations that have been endorsed by everyone from Republican Party leadership in the legislature, to leading state and regional business organizations, to the opposition party, who even introduced them as a bill.
Everyone is waiting for Tom Corbett to get behind his own plan, and he won’t do it. The state gas tax needs to be uncapped, and it needs to be indexed to inflation. Corbett doesn’t want to do that, so nothing’s happening, and all the state’s transportation infrastructure is going to pot. That means roads and bridges and it also means mass transit. The same funding crunch is happening to SEPTA on the other side of the state.
What just happened in Allegheny County is that workers made $60 million in concessions, the state gave back $30 million of the $34 million it cut last year, and the County is now going to contribute some funding too.
It’s just stupid to call this a bailout. “Bailout” to most people suggests irresponsible behavior on the part of the entity who’s being bailed out. It seems to me that is not the case here. The funding woes are mainly the result of state cuts and increasing pension obligations. Even if you think the Port Authority overpromised on pensions, it’s not clear what they can do to fix that without pension reform at the state level. I don’t know how you can look at this mess and not come away with the impression that the state is primarily responsible.
To put this in the context of state economic politics, I’ll just note once again that the Pittsburgh metro region is PA’s second largest economy, and their employment numbers are surging right now. $30 million is a paltry paltry sum for the state to pay to avoid having the economic rebound there grind to a halt. It is completely insane that the same people who want to give away unlimited money for fewer than 20,000 Shell cracker jobs think that $30 million is too much to help support one of the few economic bright spots in the state.
Think about that: unlimited money…likely more than $2 billion…for at most 20,000 jobs… in the middle of nowhere. Versus $30 million to prevent the state’s second largest economy from taking a serious body blow.
