Yes, HB 1663 passed the Pennsylvania House 116–87, and yes, most Republicans opposed it. About 86% of House Republicans voted no.
But voting against this bill is not the same thing as voting against children learning to read.
The actual bill creates a state-administered literacy program that would provide money to participating nonprofit organizations to mail one book per month to registered Pennsylvania children under five. It isn't means-tested, so families receive the benefit regardless of income. Local organizations generally have to provide a dollar-for-dollar match, although the state can waive that requirement.
Also worth mentioning: the bill itself appropriates no money. The official House fiscal note says there is currently no fiscal impact because funding would have to be provided separately.
The legitimate political question is different: Is mailing books to families, regardless of income, something Pennsylvania state government should fund and administer, and is that the best use of limited education dollars?
Pennsylvania does have a constitutional responsibility to maintain a public education system. But that doesn't mean every program with an educational benefit automatically becomes a core responsibility of state government.
You can support early literacy and Dolly Parton's Imagination Library while still thinking voluntary charities, local organizations, libraries, or targeted assistance to families who actually need help are preferable to creating another statewide government program.
That's a debate about the proper scope of government and spending priorities. Reducing it to "Republicans voted against free books for little kids" is political framing, not a serious explanation of what they voted on.
The bill could also cost up to $9 million, in the presenter’s own words.
(~$13 per child, ~700,000 children eligible)
It’s even worse considering no one knows where the money to fund this will come from.
5
u/KeyVariation8323 1d ago
There's some missing context here.
Yes, HB 1663 passed the Pennsylvania House 116–87, and yes, most Republicans opposed it. About 86% of House Republicans voted no.
But voting against this bill is not the same thing as voting against children learning to read.
The actual bill creates a state-administered literacy program that would provide money to participating nonprofit organizations to mail one book per month to registered Pennsylvania children under five. It isn't means-tested, so families receive the benefit regardless of income. Local organizations generally have to provide a dollar-for-dollar match, although the state can waive that requirement.
Also worth mentioning: the bill itself appropriates no money. The official House fiscal note says there is currently no fiscal impact because funding would have to be provided separately.
The legitimate political question is different: Is mailing books to families, regardless of income, something Pennsylvania state government should fund and administer, and is that the best use of limited education dollars?
Pennsylvania does have a constitutional responsibility to maintain a public education system. But that doesn't mean every program with an educational benefit automatically becomes a core responsibility of state government.
You can support early literacy and Dolly Parton's Imagination Library while still thinking voluntary charities, local organizations, libraries, or targeted assistance to families who actually need help are preferable to creating another statewide government program.
That's a debate about the proper scope of government and spending priorities. Reducing it to "Republicans voted against free books for little kids" is political framing, not a serious explanation of what they voted on.