Education Voters Statement on Proposed Education Budget

HARRISBURG,PA (February 7, 2012) – Today, the Governor  outlined his funding priorities in his 2012-2013 budget speech.  In this proposal, the Governor continues to reduce funding to public education.  For basic education, Corbett carries forward last year’s drastic $900 million cut and then  proposes combining four separate lines items into a single line.  Unfortunately the total funding of what these four items would have added up to if they were not combined means basic education will receive an additional cut, a cut local school districts cannot handle.  In addition, PASSHE schools will receive a 20% cut, state-related schools will receive a 30% cut and Pre-K Counts and Head Start will each get a 5% cut.


“There was one right thing to do for public education in this year’s budget and that was to restore the funds that were cut from our students and our communities last year and it didn’t happen.  They said we were forced to make cuts last year because of tough times – if that were true, we would be getting back on track with both the funding formula and funding levels this year.  The cuts to early education are disturbing and the cuts to higher education are shocking. This is ideological. I really have to question a Governor’s priorities if he isn’t willing to take care of children and provide an opportunity for them to learn, as well as think long term and help prepare our workforce for tomorrow, “ said Susan Gobreski, Executive Director of Education Voters of Pennsylvania.


Last year, the Governor proposed and passed a historic cut to education funding of about $900 million dollars, which is carried forward in this year’s budget.  Class size went up in almost every community, and important programs that affect student achievement were cut, like Kindergarten, early education, arts, science, and technology.  Pennsylvania had been showing steady gains in academic achievement, and the districts that had been historically the most underfunded showed the greatest gains, demonstrating the impact of targeted increases and investments in programs that produce outcomes.  Gobreski said, “That is the funny thing about education, it’s really as simple as giving our students a quality opportunity – when we provide it, they learn.”


Legislators from both parties, as well as community, business and civic leaders, have been calling for the state budget to restore funding or, at minimum, stop cutting the support for education.  Many legislators are scrambling to position themselves as a friend of public education, given the trend. With state cuts being so drastic, many communities have been forced to cut programs, increase class sizes or raise local taxes, the worst way to fund education.  For the last couple of decades, communities have had to take care of what the state has sloughed off, which is a neat political trick for state elected officials, but communities are tired of having their local economies being played.


The Governor’s political spin has been that this is the fault of the temporary stimulus money, but in reality, the stimulus money was supposed to be used to help prevent harmful state cuts during the worst of the downturn– they paid our bills and: “After that money was gone, the Commonwealth was supposed to resume their role in properly funding the state basic education formula.”  Gobreski said, “The political tricks and fuzzy math abound: they reduce overall spending, combined several line items into one and called it an increase, knowing that the average person isn’t going to read the line by line version of the budget. It would be like doing this to your kids; last week your allowance was $10, plus I gave you $8 for lunch money and then $2 for your scout dues.  But from now on, instead, I am going to give you $15 in allowance (total) as your money for the week.  There, I increased your allowance.  Aren’t you happy?”


Education Voters is a non-partisan non-profit advocacy organization that works with parents and community leaders throughout the Commonwealth, engaging voters in advocating for strong public education policy.

PA House Passes Appalling Legislation to Shield Nursing Homes from Liability for Misconduct and Neglect

Seniors in Long Term Care Facilities Deserve Meaningful Accountability

for the Quality of their Care

As an organization that advocates for the quality of life of Pennsylvania Seniors, the PA Alliance for Retired Americans is deeply concerned with the provisions in House Bill 1907, which would shield nursing homes with negligent caregivers from any meaningful accountability.  This legislation would strip some of our most vulnerable seniors of their right to advocate for themselves in a meaningful way.  Overall, HB 1907 would be a large step backwards in the quality of care in our state’s nursing homes.

Pennsylvania Alliance President Jean Friday issued the following statement:

“House Bill 1907 would limit punitive damages against long-term care facilities and their employees to 200% of compensatory damages.  Imagine for a moment that a loved one in your family was neglected in such a facility. If a suit was brought to hold that facility accountable, how much really could be expected in the form of compensatory damages?  A few additional medical bills are likely to be the only compensatory damages awarded.  Capping punitive damages at 200% of those additional medical bills is woefully inadequate.  The amount of money would be so insignificant as to make such suits exercises in futility.  This shield from punitive damages leaves nursing home operators and caregivers with no legal or financial incentive to strive for excellent care.  Seniors in nursing homes, and their loved ones, deserve better piece of mind.  They deserve to know that the law will protect them from misconduct and punish the negligent!

“Supporters of House Bill 1907 will no doubt point out that the damage cap is lifted when ‘intentional’ misconduct is proven.  However, we find this to be of almost no solace.  Proving caregivers to be negligent is one thing.  How on earth would ‘intentional’ negligence be proven?  Would we need tape recordings of caregivers discussing their future misconduct?  How about memos from nursing home ownership detailing preferred misconduct methods?  The bill sets a standard that is absolutely ridiculous for abused seniors and their loved ones to exact real justice.

“Seniors are sorely disappointed that a small majority of State House members voted to pass this bill.  We hope that the State Senate has the good sense to protect seniors, instead of their abusers.  They should make sure that this legislation never reaches the Governor.”

The PA Alliance for Retired Americans has 300,000 members and 142 local affiliates in Pennsylvania.  For more information, contact Adam Swope in our Harrisburg office at aswope@retiredamericans.org, 202-341-7821 or visit www.pennretiredamericans.org.

All you need to know about the Affordable Care Act

Want to know about the Affordable Care Act?  Here's a simple explanation of what it has done and what it will do--in cartoon form.

Our vote for Best Super Bowl Ad

Our friends at Mayors Against Illegal Guns will be running this ad on Sunday:

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT SAYS “NO” TO BAYER

HARRISBURG, PA – Late yesterday the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unanimously rejected Bayer’s request to halt legal proceedings over its birth control drug Yaz. “This is a huge victory for consumers from Pennsylvania and across the United States” said Michael Morrill, Executive Director of Keystone Progress. “Bayer has been reckless in distributing a drug that had potentially lethal medical impacts.  The Supreme Court’s ruling means that consumers will soon be able to get justice in our courts.”

This is yet another legal loss for Bayer on this issue as the First District Courts, the Intermediate Appellate Courts and now the Pennsylvania Supreme Court have all decided that these cases should be allowed to move forward.

As of November 2011, there were 1,795 cases pending in which thousands of women from across the country have claimed their health has been severely damaged by Bayer’s birth control drugs Yaz, Yasmin, and Ocella. The alleged health impacts have included increased risk of blood clots and gallbladder surgery.  Since Bayer’s headquarters are located in Pennsylvania, the women have filed in Pennsylvania at Philadelphia’s Complex Litigation Center (CLC). The CLC has been nationally recognized to efficiently and fairly handle similar cases in the past.

Komen for the Cure de-funds Planned Parenthood

They did WHAT?

The Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation just announced that it will stop funding Planned Parenthood’s lifesaving breast cancer screenings. Why? Because of political pressure from congressional conservatives and anti-choice extremists.

Planned Parenthood is often the only provider of health care services for low-income and underserved women. Komen’s support for Planned Parenthood has provided nearly 170,000 clinical breast exams and referrals for more than 6,400 mammograms in just the last 5 years. These cancer detection and prevention programs save lives, plain and simple.

Komen’s decision is an outrageous surrender to anti-choice extremists. The far-right has relentlessly targeted anyone supporting women’s health programs, and it's wrong.

It’s shameful that a foundation supposedly dedicated to saving lives would bow to the far-right on a life and death issue like breast cancer screenings.

At this critical moment, we must stand with Planned Parenthood against these unconscionable attacks on women’s health. Sign our petition to the Komen Foundation calling on them to reject anti-choice extremists and resume funding Planned Parenthood!

Click here to sign the petition
Thanks for all that you do,

The Team at Keystone Progress
Want to support our work? Become a monthly donor!

Tell Komen to restore funding to Planned Parenthood

Senior Advocate Calls on Governor Corbett to Reverse Policy

President of State Seniors’ Group Says New Food Stamp Rules will Hurt Families’ Efforts to Recover from Temporary Economic Problems

Jean Friday, President of the Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans, released the following statement regarding the imposition of new “asset tests” on food stamp benefits, which disqualify beneficiaries for having between $2000 and $4000 in savings, depending on age and other factors:

“The Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans would like to formally express our concern over Governor Corbett’s newly-announced policy to impose an asset limit on eligibility for food assistance in Pennsylvania. This policy, we believe, will leave deserving families without assistance, straining our local charities and food banks, while potentially causing some families to fall into far worse economic situations (and far more expensive for PA taxpayers).  Furthermore, we believe that this policy runs contrary to the idea that state assistance should not be a permanent situation for Pennsylvania families. 

“Pennsylvanians find themselves on food stamps for a variety of reasons.  Some are temporarily out of work, but don’t qualify for unemployment.  Some lose their income for medical reasons.  Others are simply retired but do not earn enough in Social Security or pension to get by.  Many families that are new to food stamps during this recession might have savings tucked away for their children’s college.  They might also have funds stored up in case of an emergency.  Many seniors on food stamps have savings as well.  These asset limits would force them to live on the edge, and even prevent seniors from saving up for their own funeral expenses, placing the burden back on their families.  Should we really force these families to abandon their college, emergency or even end-of-life savings before we help them eat?

“If the answer to that question is “no”, we have to assume that many of these people will decide to keep their assets in the hope that their situation recovers, and lose their benefits.  Of course this sounds like an effective cost-saving measure, but it should be noted that these benefits are almost completely federally funded, meaning the savings to the state would be minimal! Furthermore, I worry about the charitable organizations, food banks and others who are already struggling to make a difference during this deep recession.  How will our charity network cope with this new influx of needy?  When these groups divide their resources, this policy could end up impacting the extremely needy via chain reaction.

“This issue gets at the very heart of the welfare debate in this state and nation.  Many citizens believe, including many of our members, that too many people are “stuck” in a permanent cycle of government dependence.  This dependence is expensive to taxpayers and strikes many as unfair.  However, the administration’s proposed policy will not reverse this trend.  Instead, it will force those in temporary need into a situation that is more longstanding!  Under the new policy, a family on food stamps cannot save up for a used car that can expand their opportunities for jobs.  Under the new policy, a family on food stamps cannot save up to move where job opportunities are better.  Under the new policy, a family on food stamps cannot save up to send themselves back to community college to learn a new skill.  Modest savings are a tool that poor families can use to lift themselves out of poverty.  The new policy will rob them of that tool.  It’s penny-wise and pound-foolish to make it harder for people to qualify for benefits but also make it harder to get off of them.  Obviously there is a level of savings at which these arguments become moot.  But that level is probably 10 times what the administration has suggested. 

“Finally, this policy may end up costing the state more than it saves in the long run.  In order to qualify for food stamp benefits that they desperately need, some families and seniors will choose to spend down their small savings in order to qualify for the program.  Once they do that, these people who were not eligible for Medicaid before may find themselves eligible for that program now as well!  In light of the recent expansion of Medicaid, do we really want to encourage people to lower their assets to the point where they might qualify?  This new policy may turn out to be penny-wise and pound-foolish in more ways than one.

“Families and Seniors who need help feeding themselves and their children shouldn’t have to deepen their poverty to satisfy these new requirements.  We call on the Governor not to doom these families to permanent welfare status just to score some political points!  For the long-term good of Pennsylvania, this new policy must not be enacted.”

The Pennsylvania Alliance for Retired Americans has 300,000 members and 142 local affiliates across the Commonwealth.   For more information, please contact Adam Swope in our office at 202-341-7821 oraswope@retiredamericans.org; or visit www.pennretiredamericans.org.

Bush v. Obama on Job Growth

All you need to know about monthly job growth.  Red is Bush, blue is Obama:

The Movement to Overturn Citizens United Swamps the Internet

Like this video by Lee Camp?  See his stand-up routine at the Pennsylvania Progressive Summit
www.paprogressivesummit.org

Dogs Against Romney

From our friend Rob Groce in South Carolina:  Dogs Against Romney:

Our 2011 PA Legislative Heroes

Keystone Progress is proud to recognize the 20 Pennsylvania Legislators who voted correctly on all 11 votes we selected as key to protecting a progressive vision for our state.


These are the 20:

Rep. Louise Williams Bishop
Rep. Tim Briggs
Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown
Rep. Michelle Brownlee
Rep. Mark Cohen
Rep. Lawrence Curry
Rep. Pam DeLissio
Rep. Dan Frankel
Rep. Robert Freeman
Rep. Michael Gerber
Babette Josephs
Rep. Michael O'Brien
Rep. Cherelle Parker
Rep. James Roebuck
Rep. Steven Santarsiero
Rep. Michael Sturla
Rep. Curtis Thomas
Rep. Greg Vitali
Rep. Jewell Williams
Rep. Rosita Youngblood


Thank them by clicking here: http://keystoneprogress.pnstate.org/site/Advocacy?pagename=homepage&id=1719

All of these legislators voted with our position on all 11 of the following votes.  Our position is in CAPS:
HB 40 FP on 4/12 (Castle doctrine) OPPOSE
HB 574 A 1894 on 5/10 (Choice) SUPPORT   
HB 916 2nd Cons. On 5/24 (Unemp Comp) OPPOSE         
HB 934 on 6/23 (Voter ID) OPPOSE          
SB 1131 on 6/27 (Tort) OPPOSE 
SB 330 FP on 6/30 (Education) OPPOSE  
HB 1950 FP on 11/17 (Natural Gas Impact Fee) OPPOSE 
HB 1977 A 7021 on 12/7 (Choice) SUPPORT          
SB 732 A 4485 on 12/12 (Choice) SUPPORT  
SB 732 FP on 12/13 (Choice) OPPOSE             
SB 560 A 7732 on 12/14 (Education Voucher) OPPOSE

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick refuses to allow vote on payroll tax cut

Even the right wing is now accusing Corbett of inaction in Sandusky case

http://www.newsmax.com/Freind/Corbett-Penn-State-Case/2011/12/19/id/421500

Did Corbett slow-walk the Sandusky prosecution?

Finally, someone in the mainstream press is raising questions about Corbett protecting Sandusky for over three years. http://blogs.phillymag.com/the_philly_post/2011/12/20/tom-corbetts-jerry-sandusky-problem/

The wealthy protest in Harrisburg, "Don't tax my jet!"

Keystone Progress organized a great mock news conference about HB 1100, the Private Jet Sales Tax Exemption Bill.  At a time when they say we can't afford public schools, healthcare for the poor or nursing home assistance, they're giving tax breaks to the wealthy for their corporate jets.  This is not a joke.  They're serious.

http://www.abc27.com/story/16342772/proposed-tax-cut-on-private-planes-creates-turbulance-at-capital?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=6556103

Another Corporate Attack on Our Rights

It’s that time of year again. Hanukkah, Christmas, New Year’s Day. Oh, and the annual “report” on courts by the Big Tobacco front group American Tort Reform Association (ATRA). Their so-called “report” allegedly ranks the worst courts in the United States. And despite its lack of credibility or objectivity, it gets media coverage every year.

ATRA identifies the courts that it believes are “judicial hellholes.” Their definition of a hellhole is a place “where judges systematically apply laws and court procedures in an unfair and unbalanced manner, generally against defendants in civil lawsuits.”[i]

What they really mean is a “Judicial Hellhole” is a place where working people have a fair chance against corporations with products that have harmed consumers.

In truth, this is part of a campaign to limit our ability to sue big corporations.

The release of an annual “report” is part of that campaign, and the mainstream media eat up this propaganda as if it were an objective study. But ATRA’s Judicial Hellhole propaganda has been repeatedly debunked.

In 2007, the New York Times published this damning paragraph:

“The question is whether the report’s arguments make sense, are supported by evidence and are applied evenhandedly. Here the report often falls short. It is, for starters, a collection of anecdotes based largely on newspaper accounts. It has no apparent methodology. There is no way to tell why South Florida is the top hellhole while West Virginia is hellhole No. 4.”[ii]

Indeed, even ATRA admits they just make things up. “’We have never claimed to be an empirical study,’ said Darren McKinney, a spokesman for the association.”[iii]

ATRA called Philadelphia their #1 hellhole this year, in part because it allows cases against Big Pharma and asbestos to be tried collectively. Cases involving corporate liability are expensive to litigate, and unless working people can join together in what’s called “mass tort,” lawyers won’t be able to build a winnable case against corporations like Bayer with their untold billions of dollars in resources.

Bayer is the manufacturer of the birth control pill Yasmin, or Yaz, that has been shown to cause blood clots in blood vessels that can lead to death.[iv] According to recent studies, Yaz carries triple the risk over traditional birth control pills.[v]

So what is the response of Bayer, the manufacturer of Yaz? They are trying to prevent women from being able to sue for damages by changing the rules by which plaintiffs can pool their efforts to sue when there is a large number of claims of damages against a product.

There are already approximately 2,000 cases filed against Bayer, with many more to come. Bayer wants to change the rules, effectively separating the cases, requiring 2,000 individual trials in courts across the country. The ATRA “report” is part of the campaign to change those rules and squelch our ability to sue them.

If ATRA and Bayer win, it will effectively end the possibility of a fair trial for women who are making claims that they were injured or killed by Yaz. And it will mean that other corporations, including tobacco and asbestos, will have a new way to avoid responsibility by manipulating our courts.

TAKE ACTION:

1) Tell Bayer to play fair. Sign our petition demanding that they stop their attempt to change the rules.

http://signon.org/sign/dont-let-bayer-avoid-2?source=s.em.cr&r_by=101730&mailing_id=1354

2) And if you see this “report” in any media outlets, please do two things. First, write a letter to the editor telling them the truth about this “report.” Second, write to us and let us know who covered it.

---

[i] “Judicial Hellholes,” American Tort Reform Association, December, 2011

[ii] New York Times, December 24, 2007, “The Worst Courts for Businesses? It’s a Matter of Opinion” http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/us/24bar.html?pagewanted=all

[iii] ibid

[iv] British Medical Journal http://www.bmj.com/content/326/7383/257.full

[v] Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/22/idUS87382+22-Apr-2011+PRN20110422

Anti-Obamacare Activist Sees The Light, Changes Sides And Apologizes To Obama

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/12/14/anti-obamacare-activist-sees-the-light-changes-sides-and-apologizes-to-obama/2/
By Rick Ungar
12/14/2011 @ 11:23AM

It’s all fun and games, politics and ideology until someone gets…sick.

If you don’t believe it, just ask Spike Dolomite Ward, a California progressive and non-profit activist who campaigned in support of the Obama election effort in 2008 only to turn against the President, as many progressives have done, when he disappointed her by not going far enough with the Affordable Care Act.

But that was before Spike was diagnosed with Stage III breast cancer and found out how just how much the President had, in fact, come through for her and the many others in her difficult position. …

Aside from the obvious good news in this story, there is a message that one can only hope that progressive writers who havehammered Obamacare because they did not get all that they wanted – and you know who you are - will finally begin to understand.

By focusing on the failure to succeed with the public option – an idea that was doomed to failure in the Congress from the beginning – and a few other unfulfilled wishes, these people have failed to let people know the important things the law did accomplish. There are a lot ofSpikes out there who do not know that the Affordable Care Act solved the pressing problem Spike was facing and these people may not have a Becky in their life to discover that there may now be a solution to avoid a potentially disastrous circumstance.

As I said, it’s all fun and games, ideology and politics until you or someone in your family gets cancer and can’t pay for treatment.

That’s when the politics end and real life steps in. We would do well to keep that in mind.

New PA House districts finalized

Here's a link to the new PA house districts as finalized yesterday:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75501916/Description-of-House-districts

The plan can be appealed to the Supreme Court, but it's unlikely given the 4-1 vote by the panel.

Take action to stop the privatization of PA's public schools

From our friends at the Keystone State Education Coalition

VOUCHER ALERT:

A voucher bill may move in the House as early as Monday.

The Students First PAC which bankrolled SB 1 in the Senate, is targeting House Republican leadership for phone calls today for a last ditch push for vouchers before the end of the year.

Please consider taking these three actions ASAP:

1. Contact your State Representative’s office.

Ask them to oppose any voucher bill.

Ask them to contact House leadership and tell them not to bring a voucher bill to the floor.

2. Pass this legislative alert on to any and all public education stakeholders today.

3. Please take 10 minutes and call as many of these House Leaders as time permits.

If you are a constituent please let them know that.

If you voted for them or worked for their election let them know that.

Simple message:

Please oppose vouchers in any form. We don’t need a pilot – Milwaukee has had one for 20 years and it has not resulted in improved student achievement. Pennsylvania education policy should focus on helping all of our students, not on creating a new entitlement program for unaccountable private and religious schools.

Samuel H. Smith (717) 787-3845
Mike Turzai (717) 772-9943
Stan Saylor (717) 783-6426
Sandra Major (717) 783-2910
Mike Vereb (717) 705-7164
William F. Adolph Jr. (717) 787-1248
Richard R. Stevenson (717) 783-6438
Dave Reed (717) 705-7173

Pass real protections for insurance ratepayers

From our friends at PHAN:

Yesterday, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that for the first time, under rate review provisions of the Affordable Care Act, HHS has deemed a premium increase unreasonably high.

Everence Insurance, which sells policies to small businesses and has a presence in Pennsylvania, received a letter on Monday from the U.S Department of Health and Human Services scolding the company for a 12 percent increase for its small business clients that went into effect October 1.

"We're calling on the insurance company to immediately withdraw this rate and provide refunds or credits to any beneficiaries who have already paid the unreasonable amount," said the HHS Secretary.

But we need more than just a call. Take action to help protect small business owners from excessive health insurance premium increases.

Call your state legislators in Harrisburg and tell them to vote NO on HB 1983 and SB 1336 and to pass real rate protections for consumers instead! Click here to look up the number for your State Representative and State Senator.

The legislation being considered now should better protect consumers, but instead it takes away the few transparency protections that exist - such as requiring that health insurance companies post their proposed rate hike in the PA Bulletin. The bill even allows the Insurance Department to take away your right to have your voice heard through public comments on rate hikes.

Tell your legislators they can and should do better for Pennsylvania.