The backlash appears to be growing against a new Pennsylvania House rule that limits public review of legislation, supposedly in the name of legislative efficiency.
The rule, adopted on Jan. 3, would allow the House to wait six hours — instead of the old standard of 24 hours — before taking a final vote on legislation amended by the state Senate, which has a similar rule regarding House amendments.
And that’s the rationale House Republicans and Democrats used to defend the change. They scoff at the notion that transparency suffers.
The bark of the watchdogs has been mixed on the change. Rock the Capital’s Eric Epstein calls the reduced wait/review time “a joke.” Melissa Melewsky, of the Pennsylvania Newsmedia Association, has taken a wait-and-see attitude.
Newspaper editorialists on both sides of the liberal-conservative divide have panned the move.
The Patriot-News of Harrisburg (pennlive.com) called it “a step backward.”
“In the end, making laws is not about legislators’ expedience, it’s about serving a (busy) voting public that deserves the courtesy of at least 24 hours to review and understand the actions that shape their lives in profound ways.”
The Tribune-Review (triblive.com) opined that “it’s hard to see this change as doing anything but diminishing legislative openness.”
The Trib slapped legislators for putting “their own convenience above the public’s right to know.”
It behooves the Pennsylvania House and the Senate to use a 24-hour rule. It’s one that serves the public better and one that tamps down suspicions that legislators put themselves first and the public, their boss, second.
A new study concludes that there has been little or no improvement over the last decade in student achievement trends in Pittsburgh Public Schools, the Post-Gazette reports.
Yet Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of Great City Schools, the consortium of the nation’s 70 largest urban school districts behind the (latest) analysis, insists Pittsburgh’s schools are “not broken” and have the ability to “rebound over the next several years.”
And in a gigunda rationalization, Casserly says past district leaders should be held harmless for this stellar underperformance.
This is the problem with “progressive” public education in 21st-century America: It’s a failure, no one is held accountable and more and more taxpayer dollars are poured down the educratic rat hole.
While some parties keep talking up the idea of a “hyperloop” system — what effectively are large pneumatic tubes to transport freight and people at very high speeds over long distances — at least one expert is pooh-poohing it.
There has been talk of Pittsburgh becoming part of such a transit hub that could run from the erstwhile Steel City to Columbus, Ohio, and on to Chicago. And there’s talk of “public-private partnerships” to fund such a system — the total cost and cost to taxpayers not exactly calculated. (Hold onto your wallets!)
But David Levinson, a professor of civil engineering at the Intelligent Transportation Systems Institute at the University of Minnesota, tells the Post-Gazette the concept is “just silly” and could be dangerous if it is pushed too quickly.
Levinson even tells the P-G that the technology is less developed than the magnetic-levitation (maglev) system that was proposed for Pittsburgh — and roundly and properly pummeled — in the 1990s.
We’re all for improving Pennsylvania’s and America’s transportation infrastructure. Goodness knows, laggard upkeep of our river locks and dams and high-speed rail that isn’t has harmed the economy. And while the concept of “hyperloop” indeed is intriguing, it’s clear that much development — and much vetting — remains.
State College has become the latest Pennsylvania community to declare itself a “sanctuary city.” That means, as WPSU Radio’s Eleanor Klibanoff reports, the borough will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the pursuit and detainment of illegal aliens.
It cites a lack of resources. But it notes the borough council’s resolution also is “a recognition that the borough is a diverse community that is becoming more diverse and embraces and welcomes the diversity.”
Since when is lawlessness in the name of “diversity” acceptable?
Pittsburgh United, “a coalition of community, labor, faith and environmental organizations,” has made it official: It is opposed to the nomination of Andrew Puzder, a fast-food CEO, to head the U.S. Labor Department.
In a Thursday commentary in the Post-Gazette, the group’s executive director, Barney Oursler, says the mission of the Labor Department is “to foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners of the United States, to improve their working conditions and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment.”
Ironically, Oursler’s lead lament against Puzder is that the nominee-designate opposes increasing the minimum wage.
But as numerous studies have indicated, wage floors set by government fiat (and not by the marketplace) result in fewer entry-level jobs for those who need them the most (especially minorities). These also are the jobs that help those stepping onto the first rung of the employment ladder to learn how to work, which predicts future success.
If Oursler really wants to “foster, promote and develop the welfare of the wage earners in the United States … and advance their opportunities for profitable employment,” he’d be opposed to raising the minimum wage and urging the confirmation of Andrew Puzder as Labor secretary.
Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
