State rep: Federal cuts leave Pennsylvania torn between basic needs and big ideas
Passing the state budget each year is much more than putting numbers on a spreadsheet. It's a reflection of our shared values.
State lawmakers want progress for our state and the people who live here. Therefore, we — especially those of us in the House Democratic Caucus — look to fund our state universities like Penn State, Lincoln, Pitt and Temple that help shape the next generation of leaders, and to fund our institutions that promote innovation, like Ben Franklin Technology Partners.
Unfortunately, when there is so much chaos and uncertainty in our federal government, we cannot count on federal funding like we have in previous years. The federal cuts we already know about will have devastating and rippling consequences.
Pennsylvania simply does not have the resources to replace federal funding cuts for science.
Rep. Mary Isaacson
Pennsylvania simply does not have the resources to replace federal funding cuts for science, for example. These wanton cuts to funding will not just rob Pennsylvania of the opportunity to be pioneers in technology, scientific research and innovative startups; they'll also dim our ability to think outside the box to advance our state's future as we struggle to have people's basic needs met.
We are now in a position where we are tasked with the impossible: continuing to fund programs that will keep Pennsylvania competitive and innovative while meeting the basic needs of Pennsylvanians, such as healthcare, food and affordable housing.
This is not ideal as the state budget is supposed to carve a path for Pennsylvania's future success. However, it is quickly becoming a reality that we must make difficult decisions.
To manage the continuing burden of federal dysfunction, state House Democrats continue reaching across the political aisle and across legislative chambers to protect the people of Pennsylvania in every way we can. For example, the House recently acted in bipartisan spirit to protect Pennsylvanians from immoral health insurance companies that are more interested in their bottom line than in helping patients. Everyone deserves easy and affordable access to healthcare.
The House passed a package of bills in March that are designed to enshrine key elements of the Affordable Care Act, should federal lawmakers and the Trump administration repeal or change the federal healthcare law.
House Bill 535, sponsored by Pittsburgh-area Rep. Dan Frankel, would prohibit Pennsylvania insurers from capping coverage benefits.
House Bill 618, sponsored by Luzerne County Rep. Jim Haddock, would prohibit Pennsylvania insurers from denying or excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
House Bill 755, sponsored by Bucks County Rep. Perry Warren, would require Pennsylvania insurers to cover preventative healthcare services without cost-sharing.
House Bill 404, sponsored by Wilkes-Barre-area Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski, would allow children to remain on their parents' private health insurance plan up to the age of 26.
We need a serious, honest conversation in Pennsylvania — not just about what we fund, but about what we're being asked to replace. When we have to replace funding cut by the federal government for food assistance for senior citizens and healthcare for the poor and elderly, we will be hard-pressed to both feed people in need and fight for university lab funding for their groundbreaking research.
Unless the federal government recommits to the basic safety net of healthcare, food and housing, we're going to be forced to make trade-offs that hurt real people and Pennsylvania's chances to be a leader in innovation and scientific research.
This isn't about partisanship—it's about partnership. We need Washington, DC, to hold up its end so we can continue doing our job here in Harrisburg. And we need our communities to stay informed, engaged and vocal, because the stakes are too high to be decided in silence.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Technical.ly
3 days ago
- Technical.ly
State rep: Federal cuts leave Pennsylvania torn between basic needs and big ideas
This is a guest post by state Rep. Mary Isaacson, an elected official serving Pennsylvania's 175th District in Philadelphia. Passing the state budget each year is much more than putting numbers on a spreadsheet. It's a reflection of our shared values. State lawmakers want progress for our state and the people who live here. Therefore, we — especially those of us in the House Democratic Caucus — look to fund our state universities like Penn State, Lincoln, Pitt and Temple that help shape the next generation of leaders, and to fund our institutions that promote innovation, like Ben Franklin Technology Partners. Unfortunately, when there is so much chaos and uncertainty in our federal government, we cannot count on federal funding like we have in previous years. The federal cuts we already know about will have devastating and rippling consequences. Pennsylvania simply does not have the resources to replace federal funding cuts for science. Rep. Mary Isaacson Pennsylvania simply does not have the resources to replace federal funding cuts for science, for example. These wanton cuts to funding will not just rob Pennsylvania of the opportunity to be pioneers in technology, scientific research and innovative startups; they'll also dim our ability to think outside the box to advance our state's future as we struggle to have people's basic needs met. We are now in a position where we are tasked with the impossible: continuing to fund programs that will keep Pennsylvania competitive and innovative while meeting the basic needs of Pennsylvanians, such as healthcare, food and affordable housing. This is not ideal as the state budget is supposed to carve a path for Pennsylvania's future success. However, it is quickly becoming a reality that we must make difficult decisions. To manage the continuing burden of federal dysfunction, state House Democrats continue reaching across the political aisle and across legislative chambers to protect the people of Pennsylvania in every way we can. For example, the House recently acted in bipartisan spirit to protect Pennsylvanians from immoral health insurance companies that are more interested in their bottom line than in helping patients. Everyone deserves easy and affordable access to healthcare. The House passed a package of bills in March that are designed to enshrine key elements of the Affordable Care Act, should federal lawmakers and the Trump administration repeal or change the federal healthcare law. House Bill 535, sponsored by Pittsburgh-area Rep. Dan Frankel, would prohibit Pennsylvania insurers from capping coverage benefits. House Bill 618, sponsored by Luzerne County Rep. Jim Haddock, would prohibit Pennsylvania insurers from denying or excluding coverage based on pre-existing conditions. House Bill 755, sponsored by Bucks County Rep. Perry Warren, would require Pennsylvania insurers to cover preventative healthcare services without cost-sharing. House Bill 404, sponsored by Wilkes-Barre-area Rep. Eddie Day Pashinski, would allow children to remain on their parents' private health insurance plan up to the age of 26. We need a serious, honest conversation in Pennsylvania — not just about what we fund, but about what we're being asked to replace. When we have to replace funding cut by the federal government for food assistance for senior citizens and healthcare for the poor and elderly, we will be hard-pressed to both feed people in need and fight for university lab funding for their groundbreaking research. Unless the federal government recommits to the basic safety net of healthcare, food and housing, we're going to be forced to make trade-offs that hurt real people and Pennsylvania's chances to be a leader in innovation and scientific research. This isn't about partisanship—it's about partnership. We need Washington, DC, to hold up its end so we can continue doing our job here in Harrisburg. And we need our communities to stay informed, engaged and vocal, because the stakes are too high to be decided in silence.
Technical.ly
28-07-2025
- Technical.ly
Map: Where PA's $90B AI and energy money is going — and what doesn't match up
Some of the headline-grabbing investments announced at this month's Energy and Innovation Summit in Pittsburgh don't match what companies have actually pledged. National energy and tech CEOs joined Sen. Dave McCormick and other elected officials at Carnegie Mellon University on July 15 to announce more than $90 billion for various data center and energy generation projects. While many executives at the summit credited the Trump administration for paving the way for these investments, reporting from WESA found that several of the Pennsylvania-based projects were already underway before the second Trump administration began in January. A deeper dive into the full list of investments released by McCormick's office reveals that some of those figures do not align with the pledges companies actually made in their own announcements, either. For example, the release from McCormick's office says Constellation Energy will spend $2.4 billion to increase power generation at the Limerick nuclear power plant, but the company would not confirm that amount. McCormick's office did not respond to request for comment. That's just one of the discrepancies that found. Keep reading for a breakdown of the pledges made at the summit and where those investments currently stand.
Technical.ly
28-07-2025
- Technical.ly
As Trump admin promotes AI plan, experts consider next steps for regulation
As the debate over artificial intelligence regulation intensifies, the divide over how and whether to rein in the technology is becoming increasingly stark. That dilemma was on display yesterday at Broadband Breakfast's latest weekly live virtual session, where a panel of experts debated competing visions for the future of AI. The panel aired the same day the Trump administration announced its AI action plan, a series of policy recommendations that pushed scaling back regulations and eliminating what a statement called 'ideological bias' in AI. The plan outlines priorities including expanding data center infrastructure and promoting American AI technology in both government and private sectors. The online discussion was moderated by Drew Clark, CEO of Breakfast Media and a longtime advocate for broadband expansion. As part of the organization's work to cover tech developments and broadband issues, Clark regularly hosts the weekly panels, which cover a wide range of topics related to internet policy. The most recent discussion touched on issues such as federal versus state AI regulations and the potential impact of AI on jobs. Here are a few key takeaways from the discussion. Best regulator remains unclear Since the president's reconciliation bill dropped a proposed AI moratorium, which would have barred states from regulating AI for 10 years, experts differ on how to best approach AI regulation. Sarah Oh Lam, senior fellow at the Technology Policy Institute, emphasized the need to strike a balance between protecting state interests and fostering AI innovation. She noted that while many existing state laws are narrow and sector-specific, targeting areas like employment or judicial proceedings, recent legislation in states like Colorado and California takes a much broader approach. 'I think it's more art than science … coming to the right balance of being able to set a floor to protect innovation and advancement of frontier models, but also letting states have some local jurisdiction,' Lam said. Chris Chambers Goodman, a professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law in Los Angeles, also acknowledged the downsides of a patchwork of state laws, warning that inconsistencies in definitions and regulatory scope could lead to compliance challenges and legal uncertainty. At the same time, she argued that states should serve as laboratories for experimenting with new regulations. The scholar, whose work focuses on equal protection issues including algorithmic bias, is concerned about the shift from the Biden administration's focus on safety and privacy to the Trump administration's push for rapid AI acceleration. 'We're supposed to let the states try things out, come up with rules and regulations, and then after studying if these have been effective, Congress could decide on legislation that was actually based on best practices,' Goodman said. How Trump's plan influences competition with China The experts also debated the role of China in shaping US AI policy, offering sharply contrasting views on whether the United States should treat artificial intelligence as a geopolitical race. While some panelists called for urgency and limited regulation to stay ahead, others warned that framing AI development as a race with China could lead to risky, short-sighted decisions. Adam Thierer, senior fellow at the free market-focused R Street Institute, argued that the US is locked in a 'stiff competition with China,' where leadership in AI has national security and ideological implications. He supported the Trump administration's new plan as a step toward fostering innovation and asserting American leadership in emerging technologies. 'It's not just about money and commerce,' Thierer said. 'It's also about values.' Professor Yonathan Arbel of the University of Alabama School of Law took a more cautious view. While he agreed that the US should remain competitive, he pushed back against the 'race' narrative, questioning what winning actually means in a fast-evolving field where breakthroughs are quickly matched. Arbel warned that racing ahead without proper safeguards could create harms that are difficult to undo, especially as AI systems become less transparent. 'I don't love the race metaphor, and I think it leads us down a very dark road where we have to win no matter what the price is,' Arbel said. The people's role in responsible AI use Goodman warned that AI use in government services can impact due process. She cited Covid-era welfare benefits systems that used algorithms to flag people as fraudulent based on frequent address changes, which were common due to the instability of the pandemic. 'The government owes its citizens and residents the right to due process,' she said. 'And when decisions are made by AI technologies that are infringing on those rights, then we really do have a big issue.' Lam also pointed out how humans still play a role in deploying and interpreting AI tools and how that can affect liability moving forward. 'Officials have choices between different models,' Lam said. 'So one pushback is: How is AI different from just software liability?' Maria Eberhart is a 2025-2026 corps member for Report for America, an initiative of The Groundtruth Project that pairs emerging journalists with local newsrooms. This position is supported in part by the Robert W. Deutsch Foundation and the Abell Foundation. Learn more about supporting our free and independent journalism.
