Representative Youngblood’s 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 198^th 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 Rendell’s 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 198^th 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 won’t contradict one another and you won’t 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.

Veon’s 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 month’s 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 198^th 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 common—our ideals, our liberties, our political institutions, and an excellent education—is 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 unconstitutional—it 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 1222’s 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 Youngblood’s 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.