$50.5 million, just the tip of the of the Pennsylvania state budget iceberg for the 2016-2017 fiscal year. With millions of dollars more on the line, heavily influenced by the veto or passing of PA House Bill 1460 Printer’s Number 2626 and PA Senate Bill 1073 Printer’s Number 1459, it is with certainty that I suggest looking carefully at the implications of a hasty decision. Looking toward future success of our state, a veto of both bills produces an unwavering vision.
In dealing with Pennsylvania’s current situation, an unpassed budget, limited time, and limited monies there are four main solutions that could be enacted. The first solution as mentioned previously, is a complete line-item veto of both bills, of particular interest, the items involving the Land Scrip Fund. The second option is to lower the amount of funding supplied through the Land Scrip Fund. Third, a passing of both bills could occur with a guaranteed reevaluation within one year. Lastly, the bills can be passed with complete funding being directed at the Land Scrip Fund.
Much of the House and Senate Bills address the Land Scrip Fund, a direct form of financial gain for the Pennsylvania State University and the Extension program it runs as the State’s Land Grant Institution. While the work the University and Extension programs engage in and promote are worthwhile and valuable in our society today, it is difficult to ignore that if the current funding amount of $50.5 million dollars is distributed, the Pennsylvania State budget will remain catastrophically unbalanced, millions of dollars short.
In order to counteract the disparity I first suggest a complete line-item veto of the House and Senate Bills. A line-item veto would completely remove the $50.5 million from the Pennsylvania state budget and would result in the ability to reallocate funds to areas they have been unable to reach.
While the Pennsylvania State University and the programs it runs emphasize the development of youth through programs such as 4-H, nutritional outreach and master gardeners, it is increasingly difficult to look past those who are being denied the basic right of a high quality elementary and high school education because their schools are underfunded. {One of the most challenging aspects of these bills are the time constraints which action needs to be made within. }Pennsylvania has already been operating without an approved budget for upwards of three months, which for many small town school districts has drained all budgeted reserves, teachers have either received their last payment or are nearing the end of compensation until a resolution is passed. Schools are operating without purchasing imperative educational materials and in the worst of cases teachers have begun fighting back with planned strikes or inactivity in the classroom. It would illogical to deny funding to these schools, where future generations are being carefully molded, but this is precisely what the passing of either of these appropriations bills would do. With cuts of $95 million to primary and secondary educational faculties, the bills are not in accordance with previously passed Senate Bill 1073 Printer’s Number 1459, which placed historic investments into the hands of those selected educational facilities this year. I highly suggest siding with Pennsylvania’s State governor who has already expressed a desire to line-item veto the bill.
Not only would a line-item veto of the bills return funding to our traditional educational systems, but it would also open up more money for the all important services the state provides revenue for. Police, fire and EMS departments, as well as maintenance facilities and crews. Even Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs, public transportation, and penitentiary systems would benefit from an increase in state funding.
The second option of amending the bills and lowering the amount of funding provided to the Pennsylvania State University and Extension Program through the Land Script Fund would require a much more complicated process. Not only does it take valuable time for bills to be amended but reaching a proper conclusion on new allocation of funds can be difficult and reopen previous discussions. Just how much would the University and Extensions be able to lose in order to maintain programs as is? Surely the reason budgeted numbers are so high is because movement forward in research and the strengthening of programs is expensive. But remaining at the same effectiveness should take less money than currently is in limbo. If possible program reductions could also make the continuation of extension feasible. Once the amount of money to be removed from the Land Scrip Fund budget is decided, committees then have to hash out a plan for placing the freed money into the appropriate sectors.
The next solution I would like to address is passing the bills as they are written, but with a mandatory one year evaluation and adjustment process. This would result in immediate continuation of funds to the Land Scrip but it would result in a loss to other community needs as well as a catastrophic depletion of any remaining state emergency funds. While important, perhaps it would be safer to save this rainy day fund for natural disaster relief or other sort of life saving aid.
The final solution is of course is to pass the bills as they are written now. This would result in a large discrepancy in budget, and would result in a direct blow to all state run activities. Keeping the Land Scrip Fund, the Pennsylvania State University and the Extension Program as they are now means the loss of education to already struggling youth, loss of police departments and other service providers in high poverty neighborhoods struggling with crime. It even means many elderly will have to go without benefits and essential healthcare. Undeniably we can not enrich a few for the pass rights of a few.
It is with urgency that I ask you to consider all options, and notice that a direct line-item veto of both the House and Senate bills would be most effective and beneficial for the greatest portion of the Pennsylvania society.
For me studying the Bills surrounding the line-item veto of the Land Script Fund was a natural extension of experiences I had last year. As an 11 year 4-H member, completing my final year as a youth, I served in every leadership capacity from President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, Historian, Public Relation Officer and Scrap Booker at the Club, County, District and State levels to a Member of County and State Council. I was able to learn and grow immensely from all of the trips I have had the opportunity to take, people I have been granted to meet, and situations I have been exposed to and learned to handle over the years. When given the option to go to our nations capital and speak to our Representatives on the severity one little veto could have on our nation, I knew I had to jump at one of my concluding opportunities with one of the finest youth organizations in the world.
I had the chance to speak not only with those representatives who supported both the Senate and House Bills maintaining the Extension Programs funding, but I also spoke with those who believed that other aspects of the bills were required more, thereby denying funding. I even was able to sit with two of my peers and Pennsylvania State Governor Tom Wolf who initially greatly supported the line-item veto, evidenced by his official statement and written veto. But after nearly eight hours of meetings, discussions and panels later we were able to convince him that the Extension program does more for our community and nation then perhaps even the greatest educational institutions. With education and long reaching youth impacts, especially in impoverished areas, the $50.5 million of Land Scrip funding reaches worldwide, for generations to come.
