Almost everyone knows that the Pennsylvania State Budget is long pasted overdue. It has been early five months of no progress whatsoever. Usually around this time college students are just worried about going home for Thanksgiving break and getting through finals week so that they can go home for winter break. However, college students are starting to feel the burdens of the state budget not being approved. Since the state budget is not approved yet college students are not getting their PHEEA state grants to help them pay for their college education. This is causing students to pay off their school accounts and not eat because they don’t have money to buy food.
Pennsylvania needs a budget that invests in people and is supported by sustainable
…show more content…
Progressive distribution of revenues for property tax relief is even more essential because the budget framework raises all the revenue for such relief from Pennsylvania’s most regressive tax, the sales tax. Without a renter rebate, many families earning less than $50,000 per year could pay several hundred dollars in additional sales tax but get none of the tax relief. Similarly, if large portions of property tax relief go to businesses and to upper-income homeowners, moderate-income homeowners and neighborhoods could pay more in additional sales tax than they get back in property tax relief. Analysis of the original Wolf and House property tax relief proposals makes clear that many constituents in Republican-represented districts, including a majority in lower-income rural areas, would benefit from a more progressive distribution of property tax relief that includes a renter rebate. So, unless playing reverse Robin Hood has more appeal to some lawmakers than representing their constituents, getting the distribution of property tax relief right should be an easy bipartisan
In 1978, two plans were put forth regarding how each state in the union would be represented in the national legislature. The two plans put forth were the, “Virginia Plan” (which favored big states), and the “New Jersey Plan.” (which favored small states) Edmund Randolph of Virginia proposed the Virginia plan. The plan laid out a system in which states would be represented in the national legislature based on their population and/or by how much revenue they contributed to the national government.
The Virginia plan is a draft in the Article of Confederation, an proposal by James Madison. Because Virginia is such a large state, it needed 2 houses of the house of representatives to determined the proportions of the populations meaning there should only be House of Representatives with no Senate when it comes to decision making. On the other hand for the New Jersey Plan its the other way around, due to the smaller population of New Jersey, all representation where equal to other states. So for New Jersey plan there would be Senate but there wouldn't be any House of Representatives. To summarize the Virginia plan and the New Jersey plan, the Virginia would involve the House of Representatives but not Senate and for New Jersey plan
When making a national government, two plans were proposed, the New Jersey plan and the Virginia plan. The new Jersey plan proposed to have three branches (legislative, judicial, and executive), but the legislative branch would be elected by each state, regarding size. The judicial branch would be appointed by the executive branch, who would be appointed by the legislature. These factors are made considering New Jerseys size. At this time period, many states thought that that size and population meant a lot towards the national government.
I believe that the Virginia plan is much wiser than the New Jersey plan because it was proportional, or corresponding in size, to the population in state. The best plan is this one because it has two legislative houses (Bicameral), the Senate and the House of Representatives. We each get to vote for the representatives we want. The New Jersey plan only has one Legislative house (unicameral) and it only gets one vote for each state this is what deprived the smaller states from equality. The New Jersey Plan had so many disagreements that it had to appoint a “grand committee” and then it was known as the Great Compromise (An agreement between two or more sides in which each side gives up what some of what it wants).
"The Virginia Plan" (May 1787), authored by James Madison and Edmund Randolph, contained several proposals that represented objections for some individuals who ultimately refused to sign the Constitution. These objections centered around concerns over the proposed structure of government and the balance of power between the states and the central government. One proposal in the Virginia Plan that raised objections was the establishment of a bicameral legislature with representation based on population. This provision would have given larger states, with higher populations, more influence and power in the legislative branch. Smaller states, fearing their interests would be overshadowed by larger states, objected to this representation model,
There were two major plans for government submitted by the states: the Virginia plan- A.K.A the Large States plan, and the New Jersey Plan- A.K.A the Small States Plan. The Virginia Plan was made to specifically benefit the large, slave-holding, southern states. It called for a bicameral legislature which would take a state’s population into account when selecting the number of senators and representatives for a state. This would have given massive power to the southern states which had large populations due to slaves as opposed to the free, northern states. In reply to this was the New Jersey Plan, which was unicameral and gave equal representation to each state regardless of population.
How would you like it if you and a group worked really hard on a project and thought it was perfect just the way it was. Then some people come around and decide it's not good enough so they try and change it or just make a completely new one .Well that's what happen with the articles confederation. Rufus king or the delegate of massachusetts thought it they were all good and didn't want to make any changes. He was one of the youngest delegates at the age of thirty three.
(1) I can see how you would say “several presidents that fit into this category but I read about two in particular.” if you are talking about raising the National Debt. Reagan more than doubled the National Debt, from$997,853 million in 1981 to $2,602,337 million in 1988 and GW Bush also more than almost doubled the National Debt going from $5,807,463 million in 2001 to $ 10,024,724 in 2007. When it comes to a discussion about National Debt, would please explain (I know you most likely will not reply) how President Reagan’s approval rating has anything to do with the topic?
This province produces all sorts of grain or corn, the inhabitants likewise breed all sorts of Cattle, in great quantities, which they supply the Merchants of New York and Philadelphia, to carry on their trade, to all the American Islands; but were they a distinct Government, (having very good barbours) merchants would be encouraged to settle amongst them, and they might become a considerable trading people; whereas, at present, they have few or no ships, but coasting vessels, and they are supplied from New York ,and Philadelphia with English Manufacturers having none of their own. New Jersey has large areas of farmland. The settlers of the New Jersey colony made a living by hunting, fishing and farming. Ashes from
"Abolish the penny? " This is a question that has frolicked around the economic scene for decades. Advocates of abolishing the penny call upon claims supported by faulty evidence, for instance, "Two thirds of [pennies] immediately drop out of circulation" (Source C). This claim is fatally misleading as studies have been conducted to show that "the annual rate pennies dissappear from circulation is surprisingly similar to all other forms of coinage -- around 5.6 percent" (Source C). So why should we, as Americans, abolish something as symbolic to our national heritage as the penny, without proper reasoning?
The national debt is growing by the second. The United States is 20 trillion dollars in debt. The largest portion of the debt is money that the government owes itself, borrowed from Medicare and social security. Debt is different from the deficit, deficit when the government plans to spend more than they have yearly counted. Debt is the accumulation of deficit.
School Funding Inequality “One of the most powerful tools for empowering individuals and communities is making certain that any individual who wants to receive a quality education can do so” (Christine Gregoire). Everyone deserves an equal education regardless of where they live or who their parents are. Children are facing the consequences of decisions they can’t make. The current way public schools are being funded is not working effectively, students are suffering and there needs to be a change.
Finally, the school board is worried that this funding and jobs from this program will take away from other school district. This is a non-starter; it was stated that the funding would be private funding. So therefore, the school district can’t rob Peter to pay Paul, they should see this funding as a gift
Public school funding Increasing school funding is very important in today’s future American students. Education should be one of the top priorities in the United States to make sure every student has the same opportunity to get the same great education. Increasing public school funding be beneficial for outdated textbooks, lack of technology, and increases more resources for students. These resources would be crucial of generating students of America. These students are the workers, leaders, and inspirations of future America.
A budget surplus occurs when tax revenue is greater than government spending. Therefore, the government can use the surplus revenue to pay off the national debt. Budget surpluses are quite rare in modern economies because of the temptation for politicians to spend more money and cut taxes.