Representative Youngbloods Strange Votes
Much of the time
Rosita Youngblood votes along with Democrats from Philadelphia. But she has cast a number of troubling votes
in support of Republican supported conservative measures. Here are a few
of them that should disturb Democrats in the 198th district:
Will Representative Youngblood Support a Democratic Speaker of the
House?
The greatest
barrier to progressive legislation in Pennsylvania is Republic control
over both the House and Senate in the General Assembly. Governor
Rendells education was eviscerated and the budget delayed because of
Republican opposition. The Senate which has 28 Republican, 21 Democrats
and is likely to remain in Republican control for the foreseeable
future, as it. In the House of Representatives there are 108
Republicans, 94 Democrats, and one vacancy.
It will be
difficult to accomplish, but the Democrats have a chance to pick up
enough seats to regain control over the House in the next few elections.
A movement to do so is beginning now: There are a number of good
Democratic challengers who are trying to upset Republican incumbents.
And there are aggressive, young candidates running for Democratic seats
that will try to reinvigorate our party in Harrisburg.
The question for us
in the 198th district, however, is who Rosita Youngblood will
support if the Democrats ever have a majority of the seats? Given her
antipathy to the Democratic Leadership, will she vote to make Democrat
Willian DeWeese the Speaker of the House over Republican John Perzel?
How likely is it given that she has sued the Democratic leaders?
One indication of
what she will do is her vote on HR 1. Every two years, the House of
Representatives adopts rules. The majority party proposes rules that
typically gives more power to their side. And the minority party opposes
those rules. The vote on HR 1 is almost always a straight party vote.
For it is by this vote by that legislators declare their fundamental
party allegiance. In January, 2003, Rosita Youngblood was the only
Democrat to vote with the Republicans on HR 1.
HR 1 also did away
with the requirement that each bill or amendment be clearly explained
before a vote is taken.
Why should we elect
a Democratic State Representative who votes with the Republicans to
organize the House of Representatives?
Medical Malpractice
Representative
Youngblood was a co-sponsor of Joint Resolution 1326 which proposed an
amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that
would allow the legislature to set limits on non-economic damages
(damages for pain and suffering and punitive damages ) in cases of
medical malpractice.
Reforms are
necessary in the process by which damages are awarded to those who
suffer from medical malpractice, and in other liability cases. The
medical malpractice crisis is, to some extent, the result of unjust and
excessive jury rewards. Yet there are ways to limit these rewards
without setting a fixed cap on damages paid to compensate people for
their pain and suffering and to punish those who fail to do what they
should to avoid harming others. We might want to consider a number of
reforms in tort law: better guidance can be given to juries by judges;
judges can be empowered to overturn damages that are excessive; special
courts with judges trained to evaluate certain kinds of cases, such as
medical malpractice, can be instituted; regulations can be instituted
that regulate who can testify in malpractice cases and so forth.
Representative
Youngblood is a sponsor, along with a number of Republicans, of a bill,
HB 139, that would limit non-economic damages in medical malpractice
cases to $250,000. Such a hard and fast rule makes no more sense in law
than it would in medicine.
Just last week I
read of a woman who was told she had breast cancer in both breasts. Both
were surgically removed. And then the poor woman found out that her
tests were misread or mistaken for the test of another woman. She did
not have breast cancer at all. Under the Republican proposal, the woman
would be paid to have reconstructive surgery. But, because the economic
damages of having ones breast removed are minimal, she would receive
little in economic damages and only $250,000 in compensation for her
pain and suffering. That seems to me to be outrageously low.
Changes in Tort Law to Benefit Corporate Malefactors
In the course of
the debate on Medical Malpractice, Republican Representative Turzai
introduced an amendment that would allow the legislature to set limits
on non-economic damages in all liability cases. Under this amendment,
the legislature could limit the pain and suffering and punitive damages
a corporation could be forced to pay for polluting the environment or
making a dangerous product. This is absolutely outrageous public
policy. While tort law has been abused, the ability of citizens to sue
corporations for the harms they cause has contributed a great deal to
protecting us from pollution and dangerous products. And, to be
effective, these lawsuits have to hold corporations to a high standard.
It is often not enough that they pay for economic damages. They must
also pay for the pain and suffering they cause. And they should pay
punitive damages when their neglect of the common good is especially
awful or where they skirt the law in hiding their misdeeds.
Representative
Youngblood initially voted against allowing this amendment, A1268, to be
considered. But then she voted for the amendment, one of only nine
Democrats to do so.
To confuse matters
even more, at the end of the legislative process, she voted against a
bill she both supported initially and after amendment.
When I am your
State Representative, my votes wont contradict one another and you
wont have to guess my stand on these issues. I will oppose this
constitutional amendment, both in its moderate and extreme forms.
Telecommunications Policy
In November, the
House of Representatives passed a telecommunications bill that has the
potential to increase phone bills by about $4 Billion. Some rate
increase is perhaps justified. But this increase was too great. As
importantly, the House turned down an Amendment, sponsored by Democratic
Whip Mike Veon, that would have made broadband internet access more
broadly available five to seven years earlier than is now required;
would have provided penalties for telephone companies that abuse their
customers; and that would prevent telephone companies from increasing
rates on small businesses without first getting approval from the Public
Utilities Commission.
Veons amendment
would require telephone companies to make broadband internet access
available to their customers by 2008 in the areas served by the largest
companies and 2010 in all other areas. Current law, which was passed in
1993 before the widespread adoption of broadband internet access, allows
telephone companies to wait until 2015. There is no technological or
economic reason to wait so long. Requiring telephone companies to
provide broadband service will create competition with cable companies,
thereby lowering prices. It would improve education. And it would spur
economic development.
The amendment would
also force phone companies to give their customers a credit of at least
one months service if a customer cannot reach telephone company
personnel to report service interruptions of service or schedule
repairs; if a repair is not done
when promised; and if a customer doe not receive credit when the period
of time they spend without phone service.
The Democratic
proposal would also prevent telephone companies from raising rates on
small businesses with more than four phone lines without first getting
approval from the Public Utilities Commission. Even very small
businesses often have more four phone lines, given that phone lines are
used for computers and fax machines.
Finally the
Democratic proposal would have instituted automatic enrollment in the
federally funded Lifeline program for all customers below certain
incomes. That program makes it possible for people with low incomes to
receive subsidized phone service. At present, customers must voluntarily
enroll for Lifeline service. But many people are unaware it exists.
Pennsylvanians get back just $1 for every $4 they pay into the federal
fund that subsidizes the Lifeline program. Representative Veon reports
that, according to State Consumer Advocate Irwin Popowsky, just 10
percent of the low income people who qualify for the Lifeline program
are enrolled in it. Automatic enrollment in this program would help more
than 50,000 Pennsylvanians, including many in the 198th
district.
The Democratic
alternative also had provisions that would protect telephone workers who
report problems of service, safety, and security.
Inheritance Tax
In 2001
Representative Youngblood was a co-sponsor HB 22, a bill that would
reduce and then eliminate the state inheritance tax. Of the 56 sponsors,
only 14 were Democrats. The inheritance tax should not be applied to for
people whose estates are small. And it should be applied in a way that
minimizes the difficulties of passing family owned businesses from one
generation to another. But the inheritance tax should be a fundamental
part of any political community that aims for equality of opportunity.
American should be a place where what we inherit in commonour ideals,
our liberties, our political institutions, and an excellent educationis
more important than what we inherit individually. That means we must
improve education so that everyone has an equal chance to develop their
skills and abilities. And we must limit the impact of great wealth on
our share of political power and our ability to develop ourselves.
Factory Farms and Pollution
At the end of
December, the General Assembly, with the support of Rosita Youngblood,
passed a truly awful bill. The original purpose of HB 1222 was a good
one, to regulate criminal sex offenders. But in December the Senate
amended it to include another bill, that undermined the ability of
localities to enact zoning or nuisances codes that regulate factory
farms.
This is a difficult
and complicated issue. It involves the rights of farmers to carry on
their business; the right of the public to be free from the harmful and
burdensome pollution that is often a product of large scale livestock
farming and the well being of the animals themselves. Factory livestock
farming is an unfortunate part of our lives. Instead of encouraging, we
should be seeking ways to make organic and free range livestock farming
economically competitive with factory farms. In the meantime, we have to
regulate large farms in a way that minimizes the burden they place on
their neighbors and on our water supply.
The Senate
amendment to HB 1222 was unconstitutionalit violates the constitutional
requirement that all amendments be germane to the underlying bill. It
was also bad public policy. Under current law, state regulations already
take precedence over local zoning and nuisances codes. While HB 1222s
rightly seeks a means to insure that localities adhere to this policy,
it does not deal with the continuing problems of factory farms. For
example, by sending their manure to other farms, livestock farmers can
bypass the regulations on the spreading of manure. This has lead to some
notable cases of water pollution.
It is very
difficult to understand why a Representative from Northwest Philadelphia would vote for an unconstitutional bill whose
only direct consequence for our communities is to undermine our water
supply. We can be grateful that Governor Rendell vetoed the bill and
called on the General Assembly to pass a balanced and comprehensive
policy to address these issues. I agree with the Governor up to a point.
I do think, however, that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania needs to do
much more to encourage alternatives to factory farming, for our sakes
and for the sake of the animals under our control.
Conclusion
This is just a
sketch of some of Rosita Youngbloods legislative work. It is very
difficult to find both the voting record of our legislators and the kind
of detailed discussion of the bills they vote on we need if we are to
evaluate their actions in Harrisburg. It is only in the last year that a web-based
source for some of this information has become available.
As our campaign
does further research, we expect to find that Representative Youngblood
has taken even more strange and troublesome stands on the floor of the
House of Representatives. You can check back here from time to time to
see what we come up with. Or better, vote for a new Representative who
will not just support a follow progressive vision of justice and the
common good, but will make it easy for you to understand what he does in
Harrisburg and why.
|