PA House vote on Transportation Funding Bill FAILS (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh: wages, bus)

[pman]

they're not ALL to blame, certain ones aer to blame. while if you're a partisan it might make sense to blame a party, from a voter standpoint it makes more sense to blame your representative if they voted against your wishes. as for the poison pill angle, that assumes that it was a bad provision...of course, it's actually a pretty reasonable provision. it sounds like you're taking the long way around to blaming corbett and overlooking the inexcusable ravenstahl vote.

eta: there is still time so I have a sliver of hope that something will be worked out.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by pman

they're not ALL to blame, certain ones aer to blame. while if you're a partisan it might make sense to blame a party, from a voter standpoint it makes more sense to blame your representative if they voted against your wishes. as for the poison pill angle, that assumes that it was a bad provision...of course, it's actually a pretty reasonable provision. it sounds like you're taking the long way around to blaming corbett and overlooking the inexcusable ravenstahl vote.

eta: there is still time so I have a sliver of hope that something will be worked out.

I live in Jake Wheatley's district and he voted the way I would have. I actually blame the House GOP leadership more than any other actor.

I too hope that something can be worked out. If it is...absent the prevailing wage provision (or a more watered down one)...then that actually becomes my optimal outcome and the Ravenstahl vote becomes a courageous one to me. We shall see.

I'm still unclear as to why any union concession was required for this to come to a vote in the House while it wasn't required to be overwhelmingly passed in the Senate.

[Aqua Teen Carl]

Always relevant:

[Drover]

Originally Posted by airwave09

Yeah that seems smart, let the infrastructure of a state fail because you disagree with someone of an internet message board. Good thing you have no actual influence in this important matter.

You can even call me a "Billy Joe Blob redneck" if it makes you feel superior.

[Impala26]

Originally Posted by Aqua Teen Carl

Always relevant:

You seriously win the City-Data Forum with that post!

That game seriously was what fostered my interest in transportation and cities in general as a kid.

[pman]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I live in Jake Wheatley's district and he voted the way I would have. I actually blame the House GOP leadership more than any other actor.

I too hope that something can be worked out. If it is...absent the prevailing wage provision (or a more watered down one)...then that actually becomes my optimal outcome and the Ravenstahl vote becomes a courageous one to me. We shall see.

I'm still unclear as to why any union concession was required for this to come to a vote in the House while it wasn't required to be overwhelmingly passed in the Senate.

certainly a bizarre viewpoint. there's nothing courageous about being a petty politician. blaming house leadership is really just a partisan game. being courageous is not giving in to the special interests that represent a small sliver of the populous and voting against them for the benefit of your constituents. the idea that there is some courage in not raising the exemption to a still very low $100k is laughable really. it's backwards politics in pittsburgh, nothing more. no doubt the reps don't ride the bus but they do take union checks.

[Lobick]

Originally Posted by pman

certainly a bizarre viewpoint. there's nothing courageous about being a petty politician. blaming house leadership is really just a partisan game. being courageous is not giving in to the special interests that represent a small sliver of the populous and voting against them for the benefit of your constituents. the idea that there is some courage in not raising the exemption to a still very low $100k is laughable really. it's backwards politics in pittsburgh, nothing more. no doubt the reps don't ride the bus but they do take union checks.

Feel free to use your own adjectives but unsuprisingly "bizarre" doesn't come to my mind.

You utilize a lot of language (coded perhaps; maybe not) to smear politicians and their motives (petty", "game", "special interests", "union checks", etc.) that I largely do not subscribe to absent evidence.

I feel there is a distinct possibility that these individuals felt that a prevailing wage is an important public policy and any unecessary attack on it was a ransom (however trivial you may concieve it to be) that was unwise to request and foolish to pay out. No doubt the next transportation bill would have included yet another raise in the level and, why not, having already secured one increase this time around.

I do feel it's courageous to risk something over principle, perhaps we differ. Following the conventional wisdom in this case, it would seem to me to be the easier vote (and again, one I personally would have taken) to approve of the transit plan. After all, Unions are an eroding electoral player (rhetorically, one wonders why?)

I suspect the Senate Bill comes to the House for a clean vote or the Republican have placed a rather large albatross around Corbett's neck. Should that prove the case, his re-election would face an even greater uphill climb and House and Senate races become most competative, all redounding to the benefit of pro-transit forces (one would think).

Again, shamelessly lifted:

I would have voted for the bill, but I don't get the logic of blaming the Democrats exclusively because the Tea Party-types are not "gettable", and the House Republican leadership is afraid to allow a vote on a bill that might get too much of its support from Democrats ("party cartel dynamics").

First, that attitude seems to give the Tea Party-types a free pass for not being "gettable", and the House Republican leadership a free pass for enforcing a "party cartel". But why was it only Democrats who "actually had to weigh the trade-off between union wages on mythical $25,000-$99,999 transportation projects, against the toll that transit service cuts and deferred road maintenance would take on our economy"? Why don't the Republicans who are voting against these bills, or the Republican leaders who are refusing to allow a vote on alternatives, actually have to weigh that issue to?

In other words, that sort of attitude says when it comes to "must-pass" bills Republicans are free to either be irrational extremists or party hacks, because they don't actually have to try to do their jobs. And since Republicans get a free pass on not actually doing their jobs, Democrats always have to supply the necessary votes for whatever bill the Republicans dictate (but refuse to supply enough votes for themselves) in the name of the greater good. And Democrats are never, ever allowed to think about the long-term consequences for their party and its underlying coalition when these issues are being voted on, whereas Republicans get to make that consideration their top priority every single time.

And incidentally, it's not really just this one issue. If Democrats had their way, the bill would undoubtedly be different in lots of respects, but understanding they don't control the legislature they are willing to supply votes for a compromise like the Senate Bill. So what this logic is saying is there is never any point at which Democrats should have to stop compromising if the Republicans come back asking for more concessions, because apparently Democrats shouldn't be allowed to get anything in return for supplying the extra votes the "ungettable" Tea Party-types refuse to give their own leadership.

Again, despite all this I would have voted for the bill. But a big part of why our politics is so broken is that the media cannot bring itself to openly blame the right people for what is going on in cases like. Republicans control both houses of the state legislature and the governorship, but it is the Democrats' fault for not supplying enough votes in the House for a bill that was modified to cater to extremist Republicans who then refuse to vote for it anyway?

Sheesh.

[BPP1999]

Originally Posted by Lobick

I suspect the Senate Bill comes to the House for a clean vote or the Republican have placed a rather large albatross around Corbett's neck. Should that prove the case, his re-election would face an even greater uphill climb and House and Senate races become most competative, all redounding to the benefit of pro-transit forces (one would think).

This.

I hope you are right. This is the best-case scenario I can think of. If not, then it's truly dead, at least until 2015.

[gwillyfromphilly]

So what's the back up plan?

[pman]

Originally Posted by Lobick

...You utilize a lot of language (coded perhaps; maybe not) to smear politicians and their motives (petty", "game", "special interests", "union checks", etc.) that I largely do not subscribe to absent evidence.

it's the language of politics. are you seriously saying that there is no evidence that special interest influence political decisions? while everyone is entitled to their opinion, I'll let your bizarre statement stand on its own merits.

Originally Posted by Lobick

I feel there is a distinct possibility that these individuals felt that a prevailing wage is an important public policy and any unecessary attack on it was a ransom (

it's possible though it seems a naive and fairly quaint. I live in PA and it's extremely unlikely your view of the world is at all reality. most democrats favor liquor privatization, most democrat politicians are against it. why? hint: it's not because the politicians think it's bad policy, it's because they receive funding and support from unions.

Originally Posted by Lobick

I do feel it's courageous to risk something over principle

sure, except they aren't risking anything over principle. they're just doing the bidding of their interest groups and doing their part keeping PA backward. If there were any truth to your statement you can be damn sure that Philadelphia reps would have voted against it in lock step. the reality is the provision is largely irrelevant to the wages of union members and mostly symbolic. the pittsburgh reps lack courage.

I hope you're right about it getting passed, one way or the other, even if I don't buy into the mental gymnastics used to shield local reps from responsibility.