Article by Cathleen Palm & Associates
Three hours before the magical hour of midnight, Governor Tom Corbett had each of the bills required to effectuate his promise and that of Republican leaders that they would ensure an on time state budget.
The main budget bill (House Bill 1485 - the one with all the numbers) and all the side car bills needed to effectuate the numbers and policies negotiated as part of the process were primed and ready to go.
And then there were shades of former Governor Rendell as Governor Corbett drew a line in the sand that it wasn’t just the budget bills he wanted but also another of his priorities - further limiting the ability of school boards to raise property taxes.
That provided a small window for Democrats to try and deny Corbett one of the key ways he vowed he would be different than Rendell – putting his name on an on-time budget.
Democrats pushed for the property tax bill to be available for review and debate for 24 hours after it arrived in the chamber (meaning until at least 10:30 p.m.) triggering a series of procedural gymnastics.
Majority Leader Mike Turzai sought to offer “an olive branch” saying he hoped to avoid a “confrontational end to the session” before the summer. He struck a civil tone and reflected on some good conversations he had throughout the course of the day with members of the other side of the aisle particularly “on important issues that deal with the children of this state and their future.”
Democrats said they appreciated his tone and attempt to include them in deciding the direction of the House even as they noted it was about six months too late.
And from there a series of leaders jumped up and down to force rulings of the Chair about exactly who had the upper hand to keep the clock running or to stop the clock and all debate. House Republicans were able to kick the back end referendum property tax bill back to the Senate for a quick and final vote.
With an hour to spare that chamber approved the Gov’s priority property tax legislation 32 to 17 – a bill he signed even before the budget bill.
He greeted lawmakers in the rotunda shortly before midnight saying “Thank you very much, on behalf of the people of Pennsylvania thank you very much.” He was warned by lawmakers against any long speeches “because the clock is running.”
Before he put his pen to work he said, “Make no mistake about it this is a budget for PA families - PA working families. It imposes no new taxes on them nor does it raise any new taxes.”
And with that “working for the people of Pennsylvania” he put a budget to bed before the clock struck midnight.
EDUCATION CODE HIGHLIGHTS
FISCAL CODE HIGHLIGHTS
PUBLIC WELFARE HIGHLIGHTS – Including debate excerpts
EDUCATION CODE (House Bill 1352)
In addition to including language to implement the educational provisions of the budget, it brought together ten stand alone bills (Senate Bills 224, 343, 857, 858, and 872 plus House Bills 257, 1307, 1345, 1363 and 1411). Among the issues put into law:
-
Reestablishment of the Safe Schools Advocate for Philadelphia placing it within the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency (PCCD) instead of the Department of Education
-
Requiring that intermediate units (IUs) report to PDE funding they receive on “contracts greater than $50,000 between the IU and a Commonwealth agency” and requires more transparency about such contracts
-
Effectuating a 2-year moratorium “on collection of data” through the Pennsylvania Information Management System (PIMS) and Pennsylvania’s Enterprise to Link Information for Children Across Network (PELICAN) system outside some “enumerated circumstances” that must be made known to “affected program participants” by August 1, 2011.
-
Imposing a lifetime ban for school employees for a convictions related to
Ø Luring a child into a motor vehicle or structure;
Ø Sexual intercourse with an animal;
Ø Incest:
Ø Concealing death of a child;
Ø Endangering welfare of children;
Ø Dealing in infant children;
Ø A felony relating to promoting prostitution;
Ø Selling and disseminating obscene and other sexual materials and performances to minors;
Ø Corruption of minors;
Ø Sexual abuse of children;
Ø Unlawful contact with a minor;
Ø Sexual exploitation of children: and,
Ø Institutional sexual assault
Requiring ten and five year bans on employment for lesser offenses as well as 3-year post a sentence being satisfied following a DUI conviction.
FISCAL CODE (Senate Bill 907)
The bill prohibits the depositing of any of the 2010-2011 “surplus” into the Rainy Day Fund (aka Budget Stabilization Reserve Fund). The surplus or some like to term it “revenue exceeding estimates” was $539 million at the end of May and have now grown to closer to $700 million.
The bill also creates a working group on Human Services Multiple Purpose Grants.
The Department of Public Welfare (DPW) is directed to convene a “working group” that includes representatives from the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania in order to develop by October “mutually agreeable pilot programs for allocation of county human services funding as multiple purpose grants.” The grants would be intended to allow the county to receive funding outside of the current rigid categorical or silo structure to allow the county to have some flexibility to respond to cross-systems needs (e.g., child welfare, mental health, substance abuse, etc). The intent is to “report jointly developed recommendations” so that a Multi Purpose Pilot Grant Program would be included in the 2012-2013 budget cycle (so next year around).
This workgroup and attempt to get counties some degree of flexibility, pool of resources to meet the complex needs of populations that fall outside of (or cross) a specific categorical funding stream relates to a promise that the Administration and lawmakers made to the counties, in part, of recognition that the current system is untenable but also that state funding is now and likely into the future going to be tight.
PUBLIC WELFARE CODE (House Bill 960)
This is the bill that generated significant controversy for its inclusion of a 1-year dramatically enhanced level of authority entrusted to the Secretary of the Department of Public Welfare (DPW). The bill permits the expediting of rule making and curtailing engagement of the General Assembly and public in decisions about eligibility, copayments, benefit packages, etc within the jurisdiction of DPW.
The bill passed with a bipartisan (130 to 66) vote with Western Pennsylvania Blue Dog Nick Kotik summing up the challenge for many Democrats. He said he simply “can’t win” as a Democrat on this issue. If he casts a yes vote he would risk the ire of those who fear it is an attack on the poor if he votes no then he ignores the 99 out of 100 constituents who genuinely believe “people get $2,000 in monthly benefits” and use those benefits “to smoke marijuana and buy beer.”
Kotik said he was “very reluctant to vote yes” but also felt that it might well serve to launch an “experiment” to get to the bottom of “either there is a great amount of waste, fraud and abuse or there isn’t.” He said he would search his conscience and pray about it even as he remarked, “The people of Pennsylvania believe the welfare dept is out of control.”
In the end, he was one of 20 Democrats in the yes category (the only Republican in the No column was Philadelphia Representative Denny O’Brien).
Democratic Leader Joseph Markosek (D-Allegheny) framed his remarks around the approaching July 4th holiday noting it represents the “anniversary of our freedom, our form of government – government by and for the people.” He emphasized we “are not a Monarchy” as he faulted the bill’s requirement that the General Assembly turn its legislative, oversight and transparency powers over to the Executive Branch.” He emphasized the need for and value of checks and balances.
Representative Dan Frankel(D-Allegheny) said the bill was “monumental” in its ability to permit “enormous change of public policy….in such a stealth manner without any public input.” He said it allows for the “evisceration of the safety net” based “on the “whim of a single person.”
Senator Pat Vance – Chair of the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee –on Wednesday and again Thursday didn’t dismiss her own reservation about the expedited process but also said that she was assured that changes will not occur without the consultation of the General Assembly and a public comment period.
That assurance was affirmed by House Health Committee Chairman Matt Baker (R-Bradford/Tioga).
He stipulated that the expanded authority and expedited rulemaking is provided only for one year and there would be a 30-day comment period after a proposed rule is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. He said that DPW Secretary Gary Alexander has “pledged” to notify the Chairs of the respective Standing Committees of the General Assembly 10 days prior to any publication in the Bulletin.
Representative Mauree Gingrich (R-Lebanon), who was the prime sponsor of the bill and is the Co-Chair of the House GOP Policy Team on Welfare Reform, said the intent was to give the DPW Secretary the tools he needs to “do his job effectively.” She vowed, however, that he will work “in partnership” and that whatever changes he proposes to find the required savings in the hundreds of millions (aka “waste, fraud and abuse”) will be done in “partnership” with the General Assembly and public.
Ever articulate in such a plain spoken way, Representative Bud George (D-Clearfield) said, “I’m on a mission I’m on a mission to find men and women with the courage to stand up for those who are living in despair, trying desperately to live lives of dignity…those lawmakers with the courage to look past the stereotypes.”
As he did throughout the spring Appropriations hearings, Representative Scott Petri (R-Bucks) focused on “cases of civil fraud and certainly abuse” as he talked about administrative costs for contracts like those executed with the Child Care Information Systems (CCIS). He faulted an attitude within DPW that he said doesn’t view a 9 percent administrative cost as “a large fee.” He referred again to a $69 administrative cost “to ensure that 120,000 have day care subsidized, this is not for the actual day care cost…it is just to make sure parents qualify.”
Petri then had some strong words for providers of services paid for, in part with public dollars.
He talked about the number of providers that came in and talked about “Draconian” cuts and waiting lists and then suggested to his colleagues that the “appropriate first question to them is how much money do you make?”
He said everyone is “entitled to make a living” but raised caution about the number of providers coming to seek more money as they “make six figures.” He also said that if there was an effort to reduce administrative costs by two to three percent, “we can eliminate waiting lists in a lot of areas.” He concluded that it was time to get back to “providing services and not jobs for people who think it is their right to have a paycheck out of the public dole.”
Representative Timothy Krieger(R-Westmoreland) used the debate both on the education code and the public welfare code bills to raise his concerns that “the destruction of the family” is at the heart of many challenges in schools and society.
Earlier in the day he said that a child living in a home filled with violence “is not going to learn.” In making the case for the welfare code bill he said it is partly about money – bringing down costs but it really was about “what welfare does to our people……it destroys our family, character, and incentivizes bad behavior.”
Gingrich concluded the debate attempt to balance the debate saying it “will instill greater accountability and integrity and close loopholes we all know exist.” She promised that efforts to bring down costs and restore integrity would arrive with recognition of the “responsibility to our most vulnerable and needy among us the elderly, disadvantaged children, and disabled.”
Other provisions within the Welfare Code bill:
-
DPW can alter and increase subsidized child care copayments “at incremental amounts” so long as family income is considered, occurs on a sliding scale, and at least a minimum of $5 is paid by the family. Families at 100 percent of federal poverty ($22,350 for a family of four) or below could face a co-payment up to 8 percent of their annual income and for families above 100 percent of poverty guidelines the co-payment can be up to 11 percent of the family’s annual income. Currently a family of four at 100 percent of the FPIG ($22,350) pays a $20 weekly co-payment for child care or $1,040 per year (assuming 52 weeks) - about 5 percent of their annual income. Increasing the weekly co-payment by $5 eats up about another 1 percent of the family’s annual income. So if DPW was to pursue their new authority to increase rates up to 8 percent of family income (for families at 100% FPIG) a family would see their co-payment rise from the current weekly rate of $20 to $35.
-
Authorizes DPW to develop a co-payment schedule for the so-called “Loophole” children – children with disabilities or complex health care needs. DPW would develop a co-payment schedule for families with income that exceeds 200 percent of FPIG ($44,700 for a family of 4). Vance reminded that the ability to seek a co-payment from these families is already law.
-
Permits further reductions or eliminations to the Special Allowance program
-
Adjusts the Hospital Assessment from the current 2.9 percent to 3.22 percent
DPW is required to realize savings of about $195 million that include $109 via the hospital assessment, $16 million by “restructuring” child care co-payments, $10 million through co-payments for families with “Loophole” children, $4.5 million by stipulating that hospitals can only charge the Medical Assistance rate when providing in-patient care to state and county prisoners, and $53.7 million through altered dental and pharmacy benefits for Medical Assistance recipients.
For more information contact: Joe Ostrander
joe@thecaap.org