The Democratic nominee in PA-166 walks through the campaign that beat Greg Vitali, Harrisburg's dysfunction, and what she'd push for in a Democratic trifecta.
Nick, Judy has a very ambitious agenda. Did she identify the costs of the entire package? She seems to know how much in taxes will be collected from legalizing marijuana. She's worried about affordability, but what about the tax impact of her priorities?
You're doing a nice job, Nick, informing voters on many issues and candidates. Take it to the next level and start challenging on cost/tax implications.
I'm struck by the fact that the Senator she worked for is not named. I can only hope she doesn't forgo her principles for the sake of 'bi-partisanship', like another recently elected Pa politician.
Everything costs $. we want to fix things , but we don't want to pay for them. An ambitious agenda is really only an agenda. We can look at many agendas over the years and see if much has really been accomplished. But, I agree that 'transparency' includes the cost to make informed decisions.
The radar issue has been brought up repeatedly in bills from both house and senate, typically framed in the past by republicans using the same language that Trombetta offers here: that police believe it will be a helpful enforcement resource for them. There were several bills introduced during the time she supported a state senator, as well. Historically it's seen strong support in committee but never seems to make it all the way through and it's interesting to see the different pockets of pushback both in terms of party logic, geographic opinions, and public support. It's grown in popularity with democrats over the years with the growth of Vision Zero planning and goals to reduce pedestrian deaths. Early this year there was a bipartisan bill introduced in the senate that has since been referred to the transportation committee. Personally I appreciate the requirement in the most recent bill about signage warning drivers when and where radar is used; it will be interesting to see how the revenue argument plays out since I believe this bill allows for higher revenue than a 2021 bill did. I don't know how I feel about punting this down to individual municipalities - that kind of local governance further balkanizes delco, you know?
I'm surprised since you're seeming to come at these interviews from the left that you didn't push back on her support for it as a means of increased surveillance and policing.
Re: the data centers, I think it's important for every state legislator to remember that this isn't just about their district but it's governance for the whole state. The impacts of data centers aren't limited by borders; we will see impacts to air, water, ground, and noise. There's something like 9 of them proposed in Upper Merion, Montgomery County - do we really want to be fighting this fight at the hyper-local level, like Trombetta suggests? We all need to learn way more, way faster.
Nick, Judy has a very ambitious agenda. Did she identify the costs of the entire package? She seems to know how much in taxes will be collected from legalizing marijuana. She's worried about affordability, but what about the tax impact of her priorities?
You're doing a nice job, Nick, informing voters on many issues and candidates. Take it to the next level and start challenging on cost/tax implications.
Thank you for another informative article .
I'm struck by the fact that the Senator she worked for is not named. I can only hope she doesn't forgo her principles for the sake of 'bi-partisanship', like another recently elected Pa politician.
Everything costs $. we want to fix things , but we don't want to pay for them. An ambitious agenda is really only an agenda. We can look at many agendas over the years and see if much has really been accomplished. But, I agree that 'transparency' includes the cost to make informed decisions.
The radar issue has been brought up repeatedly in bills from both house and senate, typically framed in the past by republicans using the same language that Trombetta offers here: that police believe it will be a helpful enforcement resource for them. There were several bills introduced during the time she supported a state senator, as well. Historically it's seen strong support in committee but never seems to make it all the way through and it's interesting to see the different pockets of pushback both in terms of party logic, geographic opinions, and public support. It's grown in popularity with democrats over the years with the growth of Vision Zero planning and goals to reduce pedestrian deaths. Early this year there was a bipartisan bill introduced in the senate that has since been referred to the transportation committee. Personally I appreciate the requirement in the most recent bill about signage warning drivers when and where radar is used; it will be interesting to see how the revenue argument plays out since I believe this bill allows for higher revenue than a 2021 bill did. I don't know how I feel about punting this down to individual municipalities - that kind of local governance further balkanizes delco, you know?
I'm surprised since you're seeming to come at these interviews from the left that you didn't push back on her support for it as a means of increased surveillance and policing.
Re: the data centers, I think it's important for every state legislator to remember that this isn't just about their district but it's governance for the whole state. The impacts of data centers aren't limited by borders; we will see impacts to air, water, ground, and noise. There's something like 9 of them proposed in Upper Merion, Montgomery County - do we really want to be fighting this fight at the hyper-local level, like Trombetta suggests? We all need to learn way more, way faster.