50.5 million dollars. The amount of money on the line in PA House Bill 1831 and PA Senate Bill 1120. Such a large sum of money can be allocated in many ways, which is why it should be split up and not given to fund one singular organization. The Pennsylvania State University Extension Program claimed it required the full 50.5 million dollars simply to operate, but that money influences far more than the extension program alone. The line-item veto of these bills by the governor would result in a balanced state budget, not to mention the clearing of money needed to pay elementary, middle and high school public school teachers many of whom have found themselves without a full paycheck in months. It is also noteworthy to point out that the money that goes to the extension program in the past has been used as leverage when other agricultural programs receive “matches” to the extension budget. Undeniably, with well over 100 million dollars  influenced by one simple organizations funding, a veto is necessary to spread the wealth to other aspects of Pennsylvania’s community.

http://www.witf.org/news/2016/03/psu-extension-falls-victim-to-pa-budget-crisis.php

http://www.wtae.com/article/budget-line-item-veto-defunds-50-million-to-agriculture-programs-in-pennsylvania/7477890

While each of these articles are written in opposition to the line-item veto and resulting budget cuts. Both can be used to see the side that  supports the veto and cuts. While most would see the loss of jobs as detrimental to society (which it is) the only way to balance a budget is to make cuts somewhere. Not to mention, as the second article clarifies, the money provided in this budget further acts as leverage for other programs which receive monies equal in allocation to this budget. Each articles positive wordings and inclusion of pictures of the projects the budget funds all play into the opposition of the veto.

“For Class Discussion” WA Page 32

Argument 1: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntharvey/2015/07/31/real-argument-for-raising-minimum-wage/#f29b4aa3d972

1. Article in public magazine (Forbes)/blogger. Contributor.Informal argument because of the online nature. References to Chris Rock enables a fun audience connection.
2. John T. Harvey – Professor of economics at Texas Christian University since 1987. 30 refereed publications, 2 edited volumes, 1 book and member of countless professional organizations. Credible and life involvement in the subject, appears to contribute to Forbes for own enjoyment and opinion.
3.  Internet readers, adults
4. Posted July 31, 2015 a time when the raising of minimum wage was just becoming heavily contested.
5. The author seems to side with not raising the minimum wage but doesn’t overly push his views, he challenges readers to analyze their own information and to draw their own conclusions.
6. The online nature of the Forbes website as well as the authors credibility.

Argument 2: https://fee.org/articles/3-reasons-the-15-minimum-wage-is-a-bad-way-to-help-the-poor/

1. Educational news article. Short and sweet while remaining professional.
2. Matt Zwolinsky – Associate professor of philosophy at the University of San Diego. Blogger for Bleeding Heart Libertarians, credible as he belongs to professional organizations but also slightly less credible than the first article because his specialty seems to have less to do with direct economics and his memberships are more partisan with stronger words of opposition.
3. Adults looking for news updates.
4. April 4, 2016 Massachusetts increase in minimum wage to $15 an hour.
5. To argue against a very high minimum wage, but seems to be a proponent of a moderate ($15) minimum wage.
6. Online style once again, slightly less formal but the .org website maintains its credibility and seriousness.