From the BCCT.
Kudos to Rep. Galloway for hearing the outcry and starting a legislative response.
Sen. McIlhinney believes "the state needs to do something." That's a bold call for action..NOT. Even our school board members think the state should so something. The difference here, sir, is that you're one of the ones who is a "do-somethinger" in this mess. Let's get your do-something machine in gear sometime this decade, if you would?
Contact Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th) and Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
Galloway: Pensions a 'snowballing crisis'
By: JAMES MCGINNIS
Bucks County Courier Times
The pension fund for school employees reported a loss of $1.7 billion. The fund for state workers said it lost $11 billion.
The global recession has only added to a "snowballing crisis" with state pensions and, without a special commission, it's only going to get worse for taxpayers, state Rep. John Galloway, D-140, said Thursday.
Galloway has joined a long line of Pennsylvania lawmakers to ring alarm bells over two pensions - one for Pennsylvania's teachers and the other for all state workers. He sent a letter this week to the speaker of House of Representatives, calling for a commission on the pensions.
Each fund lost billions of dollars in 2008 and, unless the economy turns around, Pennsylvania could be forced by law to raise taxes to support those funds in 2012, lawmakers said.
The Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement System reported a loss of $1.7 billion in 2008. There's about $60 billion left.
The state workers pension fund reported a loss of $11 billion, leaving $24 billion in the fund at the beginning of 2009.
Galloway said he believes the traditional legislative process of sending such matters to a committee for research and consideration simply wasn't going to work this time.
"I think the problem is so large - it's not something that we can just deal with in committee," he said. We need to act on this, and a (traditional) committee might never even come to the floor (of the House).
"A speaker's commission would bring in all the different committees and put more pressure on us to act," Galloway continued. "We're getting a lot of pressure to just do nothing and wait and see if the economy can just turn this around."
"But what if it doesn't?" Galloway said.
State Rep. Scott Petri, R-178, said he "would not oppose anything that brings more attention and urgency to this problem. Waiting and knowing, and just letting it stew is not resolving it.
"Before the recession, it looked like we were starting to build a way out of this hole - at least a way to make the hole smaller," Petri added. "But then the economy made a turn for the worse."
A number of state lawmakers are trying to secure federal stimulus funds to try and plug that hole, Petri added.
While he would support a speaker's commission, state Rep. Tony Melio, D-141, said lawmakers can't seriously consider any ideas that cost Pennsylvania more money.
"We had a meeting with the appropriations chairman, who told us that we just don't have any money and we can't spend any more money," Melio said. "Until we get the stimulus fund figured out, we just can't do anything."
State Sen. Chuck McIlhinney, R-10, said he supported the need for a special convention on the pension and considers it a crisis. The state needs to do something, he said.
State Rep Gene DiGirolamo, R-18, was less certain of the need for a speaker's commission and he disagreed with Galloway's remarks about the committee process.
"I don't know if I agree with the idea that if it goes into a committee that it would just die in there. I think the committees would have to be part of this process also.
"Whether this is a crisis or not is going to depend on the economy over the next couple of years," DiGirolamo continued. "It's something that we certainly should be studying. What he's proposing - I'm not sure if that's the right approach."
The Pennsylvania school pension fund serves more than 600,000 current and former school employees in Pennsylvania, according to its Web site. The Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System has about 219,000 members, officials said.
Showing posts with label McIlhinney. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McIlhinney. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2009
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Don't Show Us the Money!
From the BCCT.
Pennsylvania Republicans are moving toward saying "NO" to stimulus money.
Pa. may turn down some stimulus funds
By: Gary Weckselblatt
The Intelligencer
State Republican lawmakers from Bucks County claim federal stimulus money has too many strings and will ultimately leave the state with long-term fiscal problems if it's accepted.
Citing federal mandates that come with portions of the $16 billion and rules that still "haven't been written," the legislators said in some cases it's best to turn the money down.
"We'll take the money for construction and engineering jobs," state Sen. Chuck McIlhinney said. "The shovel-ready projects are the way to go. The other stuff is just social engineering."
Speaking at a Central Bucks Chamber of Commerce breakfast Friday, where members begged for some good news, the lawmakers didn't oblige.
McIlhinney said if the state accepts federal stimulus funds for unemployment compensation, for example, it's mandatory that the Family Leave Act includes 12 weeks of time off with pay.
"That would cripple small business," McIlhinney said. "It's a very noble idea. They're doing it in California and they're in great shape there.
"These are the things we're going to say no to."
Another example McIlhinney cited is the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP], where rules for gaining access to the $700 billion kept changing.
"Tell us what you want up front," he said.
"That's the amazing thing about Washington," said state Rep. Kathy Watson, "the money's coming, but the rules for using it haven't been written."
It's possible a portion of the stimulus money could be used to stave off the anticipated school pension spike in 2012 from today's 4.76 percent district contribution rate to one in excess of 30 percent.
State Rep. Bernie O'Neill, co-chair of the House Republican Policy Committee's Education and Job Training Task Force, is looking at giving districts stimulus money to hold in a "secure dedicated fund" to ease the increase.
O'Neill also bemoaned Gov. Ed Rendell's plans to create new education programs while cutting others. "It's going to be a battle," he said.
He cited the state's push for Keystone Exams, a series of 10 state-developed end-of-course exams that area districts had balked at.
"It would cost our school board $42 million," O'Neill said.
State Rep. Paul Clymer said he's "opposed to the direction the governor is moving on these tests."
Clymer, an anti-gambling crusader, also blasted Rendell's proposed expansion of video gambling machines into bars to lower costs for those attending state universities.
"It's an enormous amount of gambling expansion in Pennsylvania," he said. "This is not the way this state should be going."
The same could be said for overall spending, according to State Rep. Scott Petri, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Economic Impact and Infrastructure.
He said that although state revenues decreased by 6.2 percent this fiscal year Rendell plans to increase spending from $28 billion to $29 billion.
"I don't believe another state has proposed higher spending than last year," Petri said. "We've got to buckle down."
Also Friday, state Rep. Marguerite Quinn argued on behalf of Worth & Co., the mechanical contractor from Plumstead that's been hounded by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry for paying 19 of its 450 workers $61,516 less than prevailing wage over a four-year period.
She said the state's "draconian measures" could put the company out of business.
"We're told by the governor, we're told by Washington that things are getting better. I'm not seeing it," Quinn said.
She then went on to question the government's commitment to job growth.
Quinn used the illustration of Congressman Patrick Murphy's plan to spend $10 million in flood relief to potentially create 200 jobs and $2 million more for up to 12 jobs at Humanistic Robotics.
"Do the math," she said. "We've got 450 jobs here that pay between $75,000 and $100,000 each. We're going to throw those away for $61,000.
"I'm deeply concerned with this fight. + Scream about this. It's something we should not let happen."
Pennsylvania Republicans are moving toward saying "NO" to stimulus money.
Pa. may turn down some stimulus funds
By: Gary Weckselblatt
The Intelligencer
State Republican lawmakers from Bucks County claim federal stimulus money has too many strings and will ultimately leave the state with long-term fiscal problems if it's accepted.
Citing federal mandates that come with portions of the $16 billion and rules that still "haven't been written," the legislators said in some cases it's best to turn the money down.
"We'll take the money for construction and engineering jobs," state Sen. Chuck McIlhinney said. "The shovel-ready projects are the way to go. The other stuff is just social engineering."
Speaking at a Central Bucks Chamber of Commerce breakfast Friday, where members begged for some good news, the lawmakers didn't oblige.
McIlhinney said if the state accepts federal stimulus funds for unemployment compensation, for example, it's mandatory that the Family Leave Act includes 12 weeks of time off with pay.
"That would cripple small business," McIlhinney said. "It's a very noble idea. They're doing it in California and they're in great shape there.
"These are the things we're going to say no to."
Another example McIlhinney cited is the Troubled Asset Relief Program [TARP], where rules for gaining access to the $700 billion kept changing.
"Tell us what you want up front," he said.
"That's the amazing thing about Washington," said state Rep. Kathy Watson, "the money's coming, but the rules for using it haven't been written."
It's possible a portion of the stimulus money could be used to stave off the anticipated school pension spike in 2012 from today's 4.76 percent district contribution rate to one in excess of 30 percent.
State Rep. Bernie O'Neill, co-chair of the House Republican Policy Committee's Education and Job Training Task Force, is looking at giving districts stimulus money to hold in a "secure dedicated fund" to ease the increase.
O'Neill also bemoaned Gov. Ed Rendell's plans to create new education programs while cutting others. "It's going to be a battle," he said.
He cited the state's push for Keystone Exams, a series of 10 state-developed end-of-course exams that area districts had balked at.
"It would cost our school board $42 million," O'Neill said.
State Rep. Paul Clymer said he's "opposed to the direction the governor is moving on these tests."
Clymer, an anti-gambling crusader, also blasted Rendell's proposed expansion of video gambling machines into bars to lower costs for those attending state universities.
"It's an enormous amount of gambling expansion in Pennsylvania," he said. "This is not the way this state should be going."
The same could be said for overall spending, according to State Rep. Scott Petri, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Subcommittee on Economic Impact and Infrastructure.
He said that although state revenues decreased by 6.2 percent this fiscal year Rendell plans to increase spending from $28 billion to $29 billion.
"I don't believe another state has proposed higher spending than last year," Petri said. "We've got to buckle down."
Also Friday, state Rep. Marguerite Quinn argued on behalf of Worth & Co., the mechanical contractor from Plumstead that's been hounded by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry for paying 19 of its 450 workers $61,516 less than prevailing wage over a four-year period.
She said the state's "draconian measures" could put the company out of business.
"We're told by the governor, we're told by Washington that things are getting better. I'm not seeing it," Quinn said.
She then went on to question the government's commitment to job growth.
Quinn used the illustration of Congressman Patrick Murphy's plan to spend $10 million in flood relief to potentially create 200 jobs and $2 million more for up to 12 jobs at Humanistic Robotics.
"Do the math," she said. "We've got 450 jobs here that pay between $75,000 and $100,000 each. We're going to throw those away for $61,000.
"I'm deeply concerned with this fight. + Scream about this. It's something we should not let happen."
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Lawmakers take a look at spending plan
From the BCCT.
"Morrisville must be absorbed." "Resistance is futile." Pass it on.
Lawmakers take a look at spending plan
By GARY WECKSELBLATT
As he listened to Gov. Ed Rendell give his budget address Wednesday, state Rep. Scott Petri couldn’t help but think back to the old comedy team of Laurel and Hardy.
“Oh, boy, what a fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, Ollie,” Petri said from Harrisburg, where Rendell unveiled his $29 billion spending plan.
“I just don’t believe he cuts enough to get the job done,” said Petri, R-178. “We have to do what every household is doing right now, tighten our belts as much as we can. That’s not easy, but nothing can be excluded.”
Local legislators reacted to Rendell’s proposal, which comes at a time of a deepening economic recession that has left most states facing spending cuts and hoping for a federal monetary injection.
Pennsylvania is no different, expecting $2.4 billion in stimulus money from Washington to help overcome a shrinking economic base due to rising unemployment.
Among the highlights likely to spark debate:
Rendell would spend $130 million this year to shrink the cost of college education for students who attend the 14 public universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education or community colleges. For example, a student in a family making $60,000 a year would have tuition dropped from $12,010 to $4,750.
Funding the program could be problematic. Rendell suggests video poker games in bars, taverns, restaurants and private clubs — establishments with liquor licenses.
Rendell would cut $218 million, or 35 percent, for the Community and Economic Development Department that gives grants and aid to local governments, community organizations and businesses.
The governor is also suggesting eliminating 400 of the state’s 501 school districts to make public education more efficient.
While there would be no broad-based tax increases, the state cigarette tax would rise 10 cents a pack to $1.45.
There would be a tax on other tobacco products, including cigars, snuff and pipe tobacco — 36 cents an ounce for smokeless and loose tobacco and 36 cents per 10 cigars or cigarillos.
“He made a lot of very bold and courageous statements today,” said Sen. Chuck McIlhinney, R-10. “He put some stuff out there that’s very valuable and worth looking at.”
State Rep. John Galloway, a Democrat like Rendell, is all for the measure to merge districts. In Galloway’s 140th District is the Morrisville School District. Saddled with worn-out buildings and high taxes, the district has tried to be absorbed by neighboring Pennsbury.
“It’s an idea I fully support,” he said. “We could get down to 200 school districts and save taxpayers billions of dollars. It’s the smart way to go.”
Sate Rep. Paul Clymer, R-145, disagreed. “I’m opposed to it,” he said. “To be bigger is not always better. It would take away community pride. Teachers teach better when they’re in schools they’re accustomed to. I think students will get lost in this process. You lose a sense of history and pride and what you’re about as a community.”
McIlhinney wasn’t ready to commit. He said as Rendell spoke, “I tried to picture how it would work. Could we get to 100 school districts? I don’t know. Do we have some with 600 students that shouldn’t be there? Probably.”
Clymer, a critic of legalized gambling, reserved his real venom for Rendell’s plan to legalize video poker.
Citing 107,000 slot machines in Las Vegas that Pennsylvania can top under Rendell’s guidelines, Clymer said “he’s trying to turn us into Las Vegas. But we’re not a travel destination like Las Vegas. The people who gamble here are from here. The money we’re getting to feed this program is Pennsylvania money.”
Clymer lamented that gambling studies show it’s the poor and less educated who gamble. “Now you have the poor being lured into bars and taverns. The mixture of alcohol and gambling is lethal to begin with.”
A point seconded by Petri.
“In this economy do you want people to go to a bar and come home with no paycheck at all?” he asked. “And what does this do to the gaming industry that was supposed to give us property tax relief? And what does it do to the lottery fund (that pays for senior programs)?
“Every action has a consequence. This is over the top.”
While saying gambling is not a panacea, Galloway said the money should not be used for student aid. “I think it should be used for property taxes to directly affect the people in those municipalities (where the machines are located).
McIlhinney called the tuition plan “rather ambitious, but you can’t dismiss anything on day one. But as I’m sitting here now I’m leaning against it.”
Of cuts to local governments, Clymer said there’s going to be “universal pain. We have to balance the budget and work together as never before.”
Petri, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said in the coming weeks he’ll be “digging through every line item and looking for every savings and dollar I can find. We must expand the base of people who are employed. That’s what our mantra has to be.”
Said Galloway, “It’s my contention we should go even further and fundamentally change the way we do business here. I see this as an opportunity. This could be one of our better days in Harrisburg. We’ve taken our hits here, and rightfully so. Hopefully we’re up to the task.”
McIlhinney represents Falls, Lower Makefield, Morrisville, Tullytown, Newtown, Newtown Township, Upper Makefield, Yardley, 20 municipalities in Central and Upper Bucks, 2 Montgomery County communities. Petri’s district includes Northampton, Wrightstown, Ivyland, portions of Upper Makefield, Upper Southampton, Warwick. Galloway represents Bristol, Morrisville, Tullytown, Falls, 2 districts in Bristol Township, 1 district in Middletown. Clymer represents 14 municipalities in Upper Bucks.
"Morrisville must be absorbed." "Resistance is futile." Pass it on.
Lawmakers take a look at spending plan
By GARY WECKSELBLATT
As he listened to Gov. Ed Rendell give his budget address Wednesday, state Rep. Scott Petri couldn’t help but think back to the old comedy team of Laurel and Hardy.
“Oh, boy, what a fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, Ollie,” Petri said from Harrisburg, where Rendell unveiled his $29 billion spending plan.
“I just don’t believe he cuts enough to get the job done,” said Petri, R-178. “We have to do what every household is doing right now, tighten our belts as much as we can. That’s not easy, but nothing can be excluded.”
Local legislators reacted to Rendell’s proposal, which comes at a time of a deepening economic recession that has left most states facing spending cuts and hoping for a federal monetary injection.
Pennsylvania is no different, expecting $2.4 billion in stimulus money from Washington to help overcome a shrinking economic base due to rising unemployment.
Among the highlights likely to spark debate:
Rendell would spend $130 million this year to shrink the cost of college education for students who attend the 14 public universities in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education or community colleges. For example, a student in a family making $60,000 a year would have tuition dropped from $12,010 to $4,750.
Funding the program could be problematic. Rendell suggests video poker games in bars, taverns, restaurants and private clubs — establishments with liquor licenses.
Rendell would cut $218 million, or 35 percent, for the Community and Economic Development Department that gives grants and aid to local governments, community organizations and businesses.
The governor is also suggesting eliminating 400 of the state’s 501 school districts to make public education more efficient.
While there would be no broad-based tax increases, the state cigarette tax would rise 10 cents a pack to $1.45.
There would be a tax on other tobacco products, including cigars, snuff and pipe tobacco — 36 cents an ounce for smokeless and loose tobacco and 36 cents per 10 cigars or cigarillos.
“He made a lot of very bold and courageous statements today,” said Sen. Chuck McIlhinney, R-10. “He put some stuff out there that’s very valuable and worth looking at.”
State Rep. John Galloway, a Democrat like Rendell, is all for the measure to merge districts. In Galloway’s 140th District is the Morrisville School District. Saddled with worn-out buildings and high taxes, the district has tried to be absorbed by neighboring Pennsbury.
“It’s an idea I fully support,” he said. “We could get down to 200 school districts and save taxpayers billions of dollars. It’s the smart way to go.”
Sate Rep. Paul Clymer, R-145, disagreed. “I’m opposed to it,” he said. “To be bigger is not always better. It would take away community pride. Teachers teach better when they’re in schools they’re accustomed to. I think students will get lost in this process. You lose a sense of history and pride and what you’re about as a community.”
McIlhinney wasn’t ready to commit. He said as Rendell spoke, “I tried to picture how it would work. Could we get to 100 school districts? I don’t know. Do we have some with 600 students that shouldn’t be there? Probably.”
Clymer, a critic of legalized gambling, reserved his real venom for Rendell’s plan to legalize video poker.
Citing 107,000 slot machines in Las Vegas that Pennsylvania can top under Rendell’s guidelines, Clymer said “he’s trying to turn us into Las Vegas. But we’re not a travel destination like Las Vegas. The people who gamble here are from here. The money we’re getting to feed this program is Pennsylvania money.”
Clymer lamented that gambling studies show it’s the poor and less educated who gamble. “Now you have the poor being lured into bars and taverns. The mixture of alcohol and gambling is lethal to begin with.”
A point seconded by Petri.
“In this economy do you want people to go to a bar and come home with no paycheck at all?” he asked. “And what does this do to the gaming industry that was supposed to give us property tax relief? And what does it do to the lottery fund (that pays for senior programs)?
“Every action has a consequence. This is over the top.”
While saying gambling is not a panacea, Galloway said the money should not be used for student aid. “I think it should be used for property taxes to directly affect the people in those municipalities (where the machines are located).
McIlhinney called the tuition plan “rather ambitious, but you can’t dismiss anything on day one. But as I’m sitting here now I’m leaning against it.”
Of cuts to local governments, Clymer said there’s going to be “universal pain. We have to balance the budget and work together as never before.”
Petri, a member of the Appropriations Committee, said in the coming weeks he’ll be “digging through every line item and looking for every savings and dollar I can find. We must expand the base of people who are employed. That’s what our mantra has to be.”
Said Galloway, “It’s my contention we should go even further and fundamentally change the way we do business here. I see this as an opportunity. This could be one of our better days in Harrisburg. We’ve taken our hits here, and rightfully so. Hopefully we’re up to the task.”
McIlhinney represents Falls, Lower Makefield, Morrisville, Tullytown, Newtown, Newtown Township, Upper Makefield, Yardley, 20 municipalities in Central and Upper Bucks, 2 Montgomery County communities. Petri’s district includes Northampton, Wrightstown, Ivyland, portions of Upper Makefield, Upper Southampton, Warwick. Galloway represents Bristol, Morrisville, Tullytown, Falls, 2 districts in Bristol Township, 1 district in Middletown. Clymer represents 14 municipalities in Upper Bucks.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Don't turn your back
From the BCCT.
Why did the BCCT tack on $20 million dollars? The cost of the K-12 was $30 million as shown in previous articles and Google Archives. The archive also highlights how long ago these buildings have been found to be in disrepair and just how long this board of taxpayer advocates have been fighting it. It also shows the ugliness of their tactics through the years.
Why isn't the BCCT also calling for the removal of the school board? If it's clear that"most members are not committed to a high school program at all" then why are these people even on the board?
To the readership in Harrisburg (and yes, there is), if the local newspaper can see that the board has shirked its responsibility, can you see it as well?
Don't turn your back
The welfare of Morrisville students should be uppermost in everybody's mind.
Someone once said "It takes a village to raise a child." With that in mind, we turn to the resurrected debate over transferring Morrisville students to the Pennsbury School District, which once again focuses on cost, capacity, transportation and other issues of practicality. A little history: Morrisville has proposed transferring its 300 or so high school students to another district - preferably Pennsbury - with Morrisville footing the bill for their education. Pennsbury school board members were not receptive to the idea when questioned by our reporter, citing practical concerns and the impact on Pennsbury taxpayers.
For sure, practicality should be part of the debate. What's missing is attention to what's best for kids.
Without a doubt, the best thing for Morrisville students would be to remain at their hometown school in pursuit of a quality education. Problem is, the Morrisville school board is not committed to providing a quality high school program. In fact, most members are not committed to a high school program at all.
The current board majority was elected to nix a $50 million school construction project that would have given the district a new K-12 school. Instead, the board wants to renovate the high school for K-8, closing the two elementary schools and transferring the high school students to a willing taker.
Given the board's political and philosophical makeup, the high school students would be better off elsewhere. That's the sad reality. We're not saying it's OK; just the sad situation that exists. It's also a tough situation for students, their parents and officials in other districts that Morrisville has petitioned to strike a deal.
Indeed, so difficult and sensitive is the situation that we encourage the district's state representatives to get involved. That includes state Rep. John Galloway, D-140, and state Sen. Charles McIlhinney, R-10. It also could and perhaps should include state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-31, who, with Galloway, represents citizens in Pennsbury.
Galloway already entered the fray, suggesting that Morrisville and Pennsbury place referendums on their ballots. That's one idea. Another might be for the three reps to facilitate discussions between officials and hold informational sessions for citizens. We know money is tight in Harrisburg but maybe funds could be found to help a willing district absorb the Morrisville students.
Whatever happens, we encourage all involved to put the educational welfare of students above all else. Granted, that's the Morrisville board's responsibility - one it has shamefully shirked. We'd just hate to think that everybody intends to turn their backs on those kids.
FOLLOW UP EMAIL: 11:25 AM: There is no Pennsbury fairy...
I thought you might be interested in posting the comments written in response to the Courier editorial. The second and third reflect what we are up against. We have to take care of our own. There is no Pennsbury fairy, and we should stop stalking them with nothing to offer in return:
Pat17, 01-27-09, 8:26 am | Rate: -1 | Report
While I appreciate the sentiment of your editorial, there is a significant factual error. The new school project was NEVER a 50 million dollar project, it was a 30 million dollar project.
Goon, 01-27-09, 8:31 am | Rate: -1 | Report
I think the Pennsbury board is putting students first, the Pennsbury students. Our schools are already overpopulated and there seems to be no feasible reason why us taxpayers should absorb additional costs and lessen our own children's educational experience.
Morrisville residents unfortunately continually vote in incompetent board members and now want to shovel their problem off on us? I don't think so.
Rebecca100, 01-27-09, 9:22 am | Rate: 0 | Report
Pennsbury does not even put Pennsbury students first. Staff come first. Kids are way down the list. Parents get 5 minutes to be ignored at school board meetings. Wellness policies mandated by the federal government and PA dept of education policies like the one for hand washing are being ignored and called "an ideal" not a law. When I came here the gym capacity sign read "300" whereas over 650 students plus staff were attending assemblies. The principal changed the sign to the enrollment number (actually 2 short of the enrollment number, perhaps my 2) a week before the fire marshall came to do the actual inspection.
There seems to be no concern for rules or the kids.
I would like to see these school districts work together for the sake of the kids but each district has to bear its fair share of responsibility for its own resident students too.
But we need a change in heart or a change in personnel in the Pennsbury District too.
snowbird080, 01-27-09, 11:25 am | Rate: Flag 1 Flag | Flag Report
Why are they trying to force Pennsbury to take these students? Why not just send them to Trenton High School where probably most of them belong anyway.
Pat17, 01-27-09, 11:30 am | Rate: Flag -1 Flag | Flag Report
To Rebecca and Goon. As a Morrisville parent I appreciate your comments because this community needs to wake up and take responsibility, and I hope we will. The current board was voted in to end a building project, and ran on the idea that a k-12 school was a bad idea, not just a tax issue.
The new building would have housed all our students in a more cost efficient and educationally sound facility, that was designed to separate age levels and had flexibility to accomodate a changing educational program. We would be in the third year of the three stage tax increase by now and would be realizing significant operating cost reduction had the current board not ended the plan.
Board members have an obligation to act in the educational interest of the students they serve. They are not a taxpayer advocate body, but are charged with upholding quality public education. This board ended the new building project with only a cursory study of the issues with the buildings. Now we are dealing with a crisis and the education of our children has been disrupted, as much as the teachers and kids have made the best of a bad situation. And the "bad" k-12 idea? Now we have it, without any planning, redesign or age appropriate settings for the youn children.
That said, the voters voted based on what the candidates told them, and I know many who would now take back their vote. Hopefully, this is a wake up call - nobody else s going to fic our problems for us. Unfortunately, the ones most affected are those who have no vote at all, the children. Let's hope this is a bad as it gets and the next disaster does not result in tragedy.
Why did the BCCT tack on $20 million dollars? The cost of the K-12 was $30 million as shown in previous articles and Google Archives. The archive also highlights how long ago these buildings have been found to be in disrepair and just how long this board of taxpayer advocates have been fighting it. It also shows the ugliness of their tactics through the years.
Why isn't the BCCT also calling for the removal of the school board? If it's clear that"most members are not committed to a high school program at all" then why are these people even on the board?
To the readership in Harrisburg (and yes, there is), if the local newspaper can see that the board has shirked its responsibility, can you see it as well?
Don't turn your back
The welfare of Morrisville students should be uppermost in everybody's mind.
Someone once said "It takes a village to raise a child." With that in mind, we turn to the resurrected debate over transferring Morrisville students to the Pennsbury School District, which once again focuses on cost, capacity, transportation and other issues of practicality. A little history: Morrisville has proposed transferring its 300 or so high school students to another district - preferably Pennsbury - with Morrisville footing the bill for their education. Pennsbury school board members were not receptive to the idea when questioned by our reporter, citing practical concerns and the impact on Pennsbury taxpayers.
For sure, practicality should be part of the debate. What's missing is attention to what's best for kids.
Without a doubt, the best thing for Morrisville students would be to remain at their hometown school in pursuit of a quality education. Problem is, the Morrisville school board is not committed to providing a quality high school program. In fact, most members are not committed to a high school program at all.
The current board majority was elected to nix a $50 million school construction project that would have given the district a new K-12 school. Instead, the board wants to renovate the high school for K-8, closing the two elementary schools and transferring the high school students to a willing taker.
Given the board's political and philosophical makeup, the high school students would be better off elsewhere. That's the sad reality. We're not saying it's OK; just the sad situation that exists. It's also a tough situation for students, their parents and officials in other districts that Morrisville has petitioned to strike a deal.
Indeed, so difficult and sensitive is the situation that we encourage the district's state representatives to get involved. That includes state Rep. John Galloway, D-140, and state Sen. Charles McIlhinney, R-10. It also could and perhaps should include state Rep. Steve Santarsiero, D-31, who, with Galloway, represents citizens in Pennsbury.
Galloway already entered the fray, suggesting that Morrisville and Pennsbury place referendums on their ballots. That's one idea. Another might be for the three reps to facilitate discussions between officials and hold informational sessions for citizens. We know money is tight in Harrisburg but maybe funds could be found to help a willing district absorb the Morrisville students.
Whatever happens, we encourage all involved to put the educational welfare of students above all else. Granted, that's the Morrisville board's responsibility - one it has shamefully shirked. We'd just hate to think that everybody intends to turn their backs on those kids.
FOLLOW UP EMAIL: 11:25 AM: There is no Pennsbury fairy...
I thought you might be interested in posting the comments written in response to the Courier editorial. The second and third reflect what we are up against. We have to take care of our own. There is no Pennsbury fairy, and we should stop stalking them with nothing to offer in return:
Pat17, 01-27-09, 8:26 am | Rate: -1 | Report
While I appreciate the sentiment of your editorial, there is a significant factual error. The new school project was NEVER a 50 million dollar project, it was a 30 million dollar project.
Goon, 01-27-09, 8:31 am | Rate: -1 | Report
I think the Pennsbury board is putting students first, the Pennsbury students. Our schools are already overpopulated and there seems to be no feasible reason why us taxpayers should absorb additional costs and lessen our own children's educational experience.
Morrisville residents unfortunately continually vote in incompetent board members and now want to shovel their problem off on us? I don't think so.
Rebecca100, 01-27-09, 9:22 am | Rate: 0 | Report
Pennsbury does not even put Pennsbury students first. Staff come first. Kids are way down the list. Parents get 5 minutes to be ignored at school board meetings. Wellness policies mandated by the federal government and PA dept of education policies like the one for hand washing are being ignored and called "an ideal" not a law. When I came here the gym capacity sign read "300" whereas over 650 students plus staff were attending assemblies. The principal changed the sign to the enrollment number (actually 2 short of the enrollment number, perhaps my 2) a week before the fire marshall came to do the actual inspection.
There seems to be no concern for rules or the kids.
I would like to see these school districts work together for the sake of the kids but each district has to bear its fair share of responsibility for its own resident students too.
But we need a change in heart or a change in personnel in the Pennsbury District too.
snowbird080, 01-27-09, 11:25 am | Rate: Flag 1 Flag | Flag Report
Why are they trying to force Pennsbury to take these students? Why not just send them to Trenton High School where probably most of them belong anyway.
Pat17, 01-27-09, 11:30 am | Rate: Flag -1 Flag | Flag Report
To Rebecca and Goon. As a Morrisville parent I appreciate your comments because this community needs to wake up and take responsibility, and I hope we will. The current board was voted in to end a building project, and ran on the idea that a k-12 school was a bad idea, not just a tax issue.
The new building would have housed all our students in a more cost efficient and educationally sound facility, that was designed to separate age levels and had flexibility to accomodate a changing educational program. We would be in the third year of the three stage tax increase by now and would be realizing significant operating cost reduction had the current board not ended the plan.
Board members have an obligation to act in the educational interest of the students they serve. They are not a taxpayer advocate body, but are charged with upholding quality public education. This board ended the new building project with only a cursory study of the issues with the buildings. Now we are dealing with a crisis and the education of our children has been disrupted, as much as the teachers and kids have made the best of a bad situation. And the "bad" k-12 idea? Now we have it, without any planning, redesign or age appropriate settings for the youn children.
That said, the voters voted based on what the candidates told them, and I know many who would now take back their vote. Hopefully, this is a wake up call - nobody else s going to fic our problems for us. Unfortunately, the ones most affected are those who have no vote at all, the children. Let's hope this is a bad as it gets and the next disaster does not result in tragedy.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Another bailout: Pension tension
From the BCCT.
There's no sense going after the local officials who only enforce policy. Take your concerns about tax policy to the tax writers in Harrisburg.
You don't have to go that far.
Rep. Galloway has a local office in Levittown
8610 New Falls Road
Levittown, PA 19054
Phone: (215) 943-7206
Monday - Friday
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Senator McIlhinney is even more local than that.
56 East Bridge Street
Suite 1
Morrisville, PA 19067
Phone: 215-736-5960
Toll Free: 866-739-8600
FAX: 215-736-5964
Another bailout: Pension tension
Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to dig deeper to help state and school workers retire — even as private pensions wither away.
There is not good news and bad news for Pennsylvania taxpayers. There is only bad news and worse news.
As taxpayers helplessly watch their 401(k) plans and other retirement savings dwindle, they are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets to prop up pensions for state and school employees. School pension costs will be the biggest hit, since nearly half the funding comes from the local property tax.
The Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System recently urged school districts to start putting funds in reserve to prepare for a huge jump in pension costs anticipated in three more years. The districts’ share is projected to go from 4.78 percent of payroll in 2009-2010 to 16.4 percent in 2012-13. And that estimate, prepared before the stock market tanked this fall, assumes the pension fund will earn an 8.5 percent return on investment each year.
Since pension payments are mandatory, districts either must cut other expenses or raise taxes.
The state reimburses districts for about half the cost, but it all comes from taxpayers.
Unlike private employers, the state and school districts are prohibited by law from reducing or eliminating employee pension benefits or increasing the mandatory employee payroll deduction for pensions. School employees contribute an average of 7.3 percent of salary.
Two years ago, an Associated Press series on the pension crunch projected the taxpayer subsidy for state and school employee pensions would triple by 2012 to the equivalent of $240 a year for every man, woman and child in Pennsylvania.
And that didn’t include the multi-billion dollar cost of medical, dental, vision and prescription benefits for retirees.
The blame for this mess lies with the state Legislature (who else?). Mesmerized by a stock market boom, legislators in 2001 increased their own pensions by 50 percent and — to divert attention from their own avarice — gave more than 300,000 state and school employees a 25 percent hike.
This means public employees receive a pension based on 2.5 percent of salary (the average of the three top years of compensation) for each year worked. Employees 60 and older may retire at 75 percent of salary after 30 years of service and at 100 percent after 40 years, guaranteed for life.
Even by public sector standards, Pennsylvania is extremely generous.
Maryland, for instance, increased state and school employee pensions in 2006 from 1.4 percent of salary a year to 1.8 percent. A Maryland teacher may retire at 54 percent of salary after 30 years and 72 percent after 40 years.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania taxpayers are stuck with the bill due to the Legislature’s fecklessness. We don’t know what the long-term solution is, but the first step should be for voters to “retire” those legislators who feathered their own nest at the public’s expense.
There's no sense going after the local officials who only enforce policy. Take your concerns about tax policy to the tax writers in Harrisburg.
You don't have to go that far.
Rep. Galloway has a local office in Levittown
8610 New Falls Road
Levittown, PA 19054
Phone: (215) 943-7206
Monday - Friday
8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.
Senator McIlhinney is even more local than that.
56 East Bridge Street
Suite 1
Morrisville, PA 19067
Phone: 215-736-5960
Toll Free: 866-739-8600
FAX: 215-736-5964
Another bailout: Pension tension
Pennsylvania taxpayers will have to dig deeper to help state and school workers retire — even as private pensions wither away.
There is not good news and bad news for Pennsylvania taxpayers. There is only bad news and worse news.
As taxpayers helplessly watch their 401(k) plans and other retirement savings dwindle, they are being asked to dig deeper into their pockets to prop up pensions for state and school employees. School pension costs will be the biggest hit, since nearly half the funding comes from the local property tax.
The Pennsylvania Public School Employees Retirement System recently urged school districts to start putting funds in reserve to prepare for a huge jump in pension costs anticipated in three more years. The districts’ share is projected to go from 4.78 percent of payroll in 2009-2010 to 16.4 percent in 2012-13. And that estimate, prepared before the stock market tanked this fall, assumes the pension fund will earn an 8.5 percent return on investment each year.
Since pension payments are mandatory, districts either must cut other expenses or raise taxes.
The state reimburses districts for about half the cost, but it all comes from taxpayers.
Unlike private employers, the state and school districts are prohibited by law from reducing or eliminating employee pension benefits or increasing the mandatory employee payroll deduction for pensions. School employees contribute an average of 7.3 percent of salary.
Two years ago, an Associated Press series on the pension crunch projected the taxpayer subsidy for state and school employee pensions would triple by 2012 to the equivalent of $240 a year for every man, woman and child in Pennsylvania.
And that didn’t include the multi-billion dollar cost of medical, dental, vision and prescription benefits for retirees.
The blame for this mess lies with the state Legislature (who else?). Mesmerized by a stock market boom, legislators in 2001 increased their own pensions by 50 percent and — to divert attention from their own avarice — gave more than 300,000 state and school employees a 25 percent hike.
This means public employees receive a pension based on 2.5 percent of salary (the average of the three top years of compensation) for each year worked. Employees 60 and older may retire at 75 percent of salary after 30 years of service and at 100 percent after 40 years, guaranteed for life.
Even by public sector standards, Pennsylvania is extremely generous.
Maryland, for instance, increased state and school employee pensions in 2006 from 1.4 percent of salary a year to 1.8 percent. A Maryland teacher may retire at 54 percent of salary after 30 years and 72 percent after 40 years.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania taxpayers are stuck with the bill due to the Legislature’s fecklessness. We don’t know what the long-term solution is, but the first step should be for voters to “retire” those legislators who feathered their own nest at the public’s expense.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Galloway Rejects Pay Increase
Remember this question?
Kudos to Rep. Galloway!
What's Senator McIlhinney going to do?
Galloway returns pay increase to the taxpayers
Pennsylvania lawmakers received an automatic 2.8 percent increase in their salaries on Monday, Dec. 1. I am writing to let you know that I am rejecting the increase and returning it to the state treasury.
The cost-of-living increase was issued in accordance with a 1995 law that provides an annual COLA to state elected officials based on a cost-of-living index.
But during these tough economic times, with many residents struggling and the state facing a large budget deficit, the legislature should be looking for ways to cut spending and direct precious tax dollars toward property tax reduction and infrastructure projects that will create jobs and boost our economy.
If all 203 lawmakers return their raises it would save the state roughly $400,000. In this economy, every penny of it can make a difference.
I look forward to serving you in the 2009-10 legislative session. Please contact me if I may be of service to you and your family.
Kudos to Rep. Galloway!
What's Senator McIlhinney going to do?
Galloway returns pay increase to the taxpayers
Pennsylvania lawmakers received an automatic 2.8 percent increase in their salaries on Monday, Dec. 1. I am writing to let you know that I am rejecting the increase and returning it to the state treasury.
The cost-of-living increase was issued in accordance with a 1995 law that provides an annual COLA to state elected officials based on a cost-of-living index.
But during these tough economic times, with many residents struggling and the state facing a large budget deficit, the legislature should be looking for ways to cut spending and direct precious tax dollars toward property tax reduction and infrastructure projects that will create jobs and boost our economy.
If all 203 lawmakers return their raises it would save the state roughly $400,000. In this economy, every penny of it can make a difference.
I look forward to serving you in the 2009-10 legislative session. Please contact me if I may be of service to you and your family.
Monday, November 17, 2008
PA State Tax report
Press release from The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center.
School board members, Morrisville Borough Council members, Senator McIlhenney and Representative Galloway: What are you doing about this? Why is there such a regressive tax system in place?
New Report Finds Pennsylvania Tax and Spending Levels Moderate and Stable Over Time
Last update: 12:01 a.m. EST Nov. 16, 2008
HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov 13, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Pennsylvania also has one of the most regressive tax systems in the U.S., with the poor paying 12.3 cents in taxes out of every $1 of income, while the rich pay only 4.3 cents.
Pennsylvania ranks favorably when compared to the nation and to competitor states in overall tax and spending levels, according to a new report from the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC).
Pennsylvania state taxes, when measured as a share of state personal income, ranked 32nd among the 50 states in 2005, while state spending ranked 30th. Pennsylvania taxes were 6.3 percent of state personal income, a half-percentage point less than the average of competing states.(1)
But Pennsylvania's tax system is highly regressive, taking a significantly larger share of the incomes of the bottom 20 percent of earners than of the incomes of more affluent Pennsylvanians.
PBPC's new report, The Common Good: What Pennsylvania's Budget and Tax Policies Mean to You, provides a roadmap to state and local tax policy in Pennsylvania, with a focus on whether taxes and spending are fair and appropriate to the state's needs. It can be viewed online at http://www.pennbpc.org/pdf/PBPC_Tax_Primer_08.pdf.
The report finds that, over the past three decades, Pennsylvania state government taxes have held steady as a share of income, while state expenditures have stayed below the national average for 27 of the last 30 years.
The findings on state taxes and spending fly in the face of myths that Pennsylvania state spending is out of control and needs to be reduced, noted Sharon Ward, director of the PBPC, a non-partisan tax policy research organization.
"State budget discussions in Harrisburg begin with an assumption that state taxes and spending are high and that state spending is a luxury," said Ward. "This report makes clear that Pennsylvania spending and taxes are both competitive and necessary for the state's economy to grow."
Two-thirds of state General Fund spending goes to just three items: education, health care, and public safety. The report argues that investments in public goods, including public and higher education, workforce development, and transportation, make a vital contribution to the state's economy and are critical to economic growth.
The new report's findings have important implications for lawmakers as they contemplate a response to a growing state budget deficit. Ward noted that the deficit is the result of declining state revenue collections resulting from a downturn in the business cycle and national economic forces, not a result of unsustainable spending.
The PBPC study found that Pennsylvania fares less well in two other areas--tax fairness and local tax burden.
The Commonwealth has one of the most "regressive" state and local tax systems in the nation, based on the share of income paid in state and local taxes by poor vs. affluent families. One reason for this is Pennsylvania's flat personal income tax rate. While most states have graduated income taxes that assess higher rates on affluent earners than on middle-class and low-income families, Pennsylvania's Constitution requires all earners (except for the poor and elderly) to be taxed at the same, or "uniform," rate. This prevents Pennsylvania from using a progressive income tax to increase the overall fairness of the tax structure.
"Without a progressive income tax, Pennsylvania's state tax system has no way to offset regressive sales and property taxes," Ward said. "That results in lower-income workers paying a bigger chunk of their paychecks in taxes than wealthier Pennsylvanians."
Pennsylvania also relies heavily on local taxes to fund a variety of services, especially public education.
The state ranks near the bottom in the state share of education spending, in 2005 numbers, with 46 other states providing more state help than Pennsylvania. The heavy reliance on local taxpayers for school funding translates into high tax rates in some lower-income school districts and low tax rates in some high-income districts. Even with high local tax rates, some districts do not have enough wealth and income to fund schools adequately, creating wide gaps in school funding.
PBPC's report also found that property taxes in Pennsylvania, measured against state personal income, are only 95 percent of the national average and lower than most competitor states.
"Pennsylvania has started moving toward greater state funding for public education, but more still remains to be done to put Pennsylvania on par with neighboring states and the national average," Ward said.
AMONG THE REPORT'S MAJOR FINDINGS:
-- State Taxes Are Relatively Low: The personal income tax rate, at 3.07
percent, is the second lowest top rate in the country, while the
6-percent sales tax (7-percent in Philadelphia and Allegheny County) is
in the middle range of all states. The corporate net income (CNI) tax
rate of 9.99 percent is relatively high, although loopholes in the law
(and other factors) mean that 71 percent of companies don't pay any
CNI tax.
-- Pennsylvania state taxes and spending are less than a majority of
U.S. states when measured as a share of state personal income. In
2005, state taxes were 6.3 percent of personal income, ranking the
state 32nd in the nation.
-- Pennsylvania state taxes are less than competitor states. New York
and Ohio had slightly higher rates as a share of personal income,
while Delaware exceeded 8 percent and West Virginia hit 9 percent.
-- Pennsylvania Relies Heavily on Local Taxes: Pennsylvania state and local
taxes combined rank 21st nationally, at 10.7 percent as a share of
personal income, compared to 32nd nationally for state only taxes. This
reflects a heavy reliance on local taxes, and especially on local
property taxes, to fund public services.
-- In 2005-06, local governments and school districts relied on
property taxes to fund 71 percent of services and public education.
-- Local Property Taxes Are Comparatively Low But Contain Significant
Disparities Across Districts: Across the state, property taxes average
3.1 percent of personal income, compared to 3.3 percent nationally, 3.3
percent in Ohio, more than 4 percent in New York, and 5 percent in New
Jersey.
-- At the same time, average property tax rates on residential property
can range from 0.9 percent to 9.7 percent of personal income across
Pennsylvania's 501 school districts. It is not uncommon for
poorer school districts to have higher school property tax rates
than more affluent districts in the same county.
-- Pennsylvania's Tax Structure Squeezes Low-Income Workers:
Low-income Pennsylvanians, living paycheck to paycheck, pay much higher
percentages of their income in taxes.
-- The lowest quintile of Pennsylvanians spends 2.5 percent of their
income on sales tax, while the wealthiest fifth spend 1.5 percent or
less.
-- Overall, the poorest 20 percent pay nearly three times their share
of income in state and local taxes than the richest 1 percent--12.3
cents out of each dollar of income compared to only 4.3 cents for
the richest families (once you take into account that state and
local taxes reduce federal taxable income for most affluent
families). Middle-class families also pay a higher share of their
income in state and local income taxes than the wealthiest 20
percent.
The report proposes that policymakers consider an amendment to the Constitution so that a graduated income tax could be introduced to Pennsylvania. That would tax the income of wealthy earners at a higher rate than lower-income workers.
It suggests the state needs a stable stream of revenue that grows over time to keep up with the cost of services, and highlights challenges to a stable tax system. They include declining corporate tax revenue, the aging population, and a tax system that has not been comprehensively updated and reformed in generations. To address these issues, state policymakers should:
-- Review tax exemptions and tax credits for effectiveness;
-- Close loopholes in the corporate net income tax system that allow
multistate and multinational companies to hide Pennsylvania earnings in
lower-tax jurisdictions. That would generate $616 million a year,
according to the Department of Revenue;
-- Broaden the state sales tax base to include currently exempt luxury
items and expand tobacco taxes to include smokeless tobacco.
Pennsylvania is the only state that does not tax smokeless tobacco.
-- Implement a "severance" tax on the extraction of state
resources from the ground, such as natural gas. Estimates show that such
a levy on natural gas drilling could raise $200 million in new revenue
annually.
The Common Good: What Pennsylvania's Budget and Tax Policies Mean to You is an easy-to-read guide to state and local taxes and Pennsylvania's budget process. It is designed to translate the sometimes esoteric terminology of budget and tax issues into plain language.
"This is a one-of-a-kind publication that will help policymakers, journalists, advocates and all Pennsylvanians navigate the world of public spending and taxes to better understand where their tax dollars go," Ward said.
About PBPC
The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) is a non-partisan policy research project that provides independent, credible analysis on state tax, budget, and related policy matters, with attention to the impact of current or proposed policies on working families. To view the new report on state and local tax policy, go to http://www.pennbpc.org/pdf/PBPC_Tax_Primer_08.pdf.
(1) State personal income measures a state's economic activity. It includes the total of all wages, salaries, employer-contributed pensions and insurance, business earnings, rental earnings, dividends, and interest earned by commonwealth residents.
SOURCE The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center
http://www.pennbpc.org/pdf/PBPC_Tax_Primer_08.pdf
School board members, Morrisville Borough Council members, Senator McIlhenney and Representative Galloway: What are you doing about this? Why is there such a regressive tax system in place?
New Report Finds Pennsylvania Tax and Spending Levels Moderate and Stable Over Time
Last update: 12:01 a.m. EST Nov. 16, 2008
HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov 13, 2008 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Pennsylvania also has one of the most regressive tax systems in the U.S., with the poor paying 12.3 cents in taxes out of every $1 of income, while the rich pay only 4.3 cents.
Pennsylvania ranks favorably when compared to the nation and to competitor states in overall tax and spending levels, according to a new report from the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC).
Pennsylvania state taxes, when measured as a share of state personal income, ranked 32nd among the 50 states in 2005, while state spending ranked 30th. Pennsylvania taxes were 6.3 percent of state personal income, a half-percentage point less than the average of competing states.(1)
But Pennsylvania's tax system is highly regressive, taking a significantly larger share of the incomes of the bottom 20 percent of earners than of the incomes of more affluent Pennsylvanians.
PBPC's new report, The Common Good: What Pennsylvania's Budget and Tax Policies Mean to You, provides a roadmap to state and local tax policy in Pennsylvania, with a focus on whether taxes and spending are fair and appropriate to the state's needs. It can be viewed online at http://www.pennbpc.org/pdf/PBPC_Tax_Primer_08.pdf.
The report finds that, over the past three decades, Pennsylvania state government taxes have held steady as a share of income, while state expenditures have stayed below the national average for 27 of the last 30 years.
The findings on state taxes and spending fly in the face of myths that Pennsylvania state spending is out of control and needs to be reduced, noted Sharon Ward, director of the PBPC, a non-partisan tax policy research organization.
"State budget discussions in Harrisburg begin with an assumption that state taxes and spending are high and that state spending is a luxury," said Ward. "This report makes clear that Pennsylvania spending and taxes are both competitive and necessary for the state's economy to grow."
Two-thirds of state General Fund spending goes to just three items: education, health care, and public safety. The report argues that investments in public goods, including public and higher education, workforce development, and transportation, make a vital contribution to the state's economy and are critical to economic growth.
The new report's findings have important implications for lawmakers as they contemplate a response to a growing state budget deficit. Ward noted that the deficit is the result of declining state revenue collections resulting from a downturn in the business cycle and national economic forces, not a result of unsustainable spending.
The PBPC study found that Pennsylvania fares less well in two other areas--tax fairness and local tax burden.
The Commonwealth has one of the most "regressive" state and local tax systems in the nation, based on the share of income paid in state and local taxes by poor vs. affluent families. One reason for this is Pennsylvania's flat personal income tax rate. While most states have graduated income taxes that assess higher rates on affluent earners than on middle-class and low-income families, Pennsylvania's Constitution requires all earners (except for the poor and elderly) to be taxed at the same, or "uniform," rate. This prevents Pennsylvania from using a progressive income tax to increase the overall fairness of the tax structure.
"Without a progressive income tax, Pennsylvania's state tax system has no way to offset regressive sales and property taxes," Ward said. "That results in lower-income workers paying a bigger chunk of their paychecks in taxes than wealthier Pennsylvanians."
Pennsylvania also relies heavily on local taxes to fund a variety of services, especially public education.
The state ranks near the bottom in the state share of education spending, in 2005 numbers, with 46 other states providing more state help than Pennsylvania. The heavy reliance on local taxpayers for school funding translates into high tax rates in some lower-income school districts and low tax rates in some high-income districts. Even with high local tax rates, some districts do not have enough wealth and income to fund schools adequately, creating wide gaps in school funding.
PBPC's report also found that property taxes in Pennsylvania, measured against state personal income, are only 95 percent of the national average and lower than most competitor states.
"Pennsylvania has started moving toward greater state funding for public education, but more still remains to be done to put Pennsylvania on par with neighboring states and the national average," Ward said.
AMONG THE REPORT'S MAJOR FINDINGS:
-- State Taxes Are Relatively Low: The personal income tax rate, at 3.07
percent, is the second lowest top rate in the country, while the
6-percent sales tax (7-percent in Philadelphia and Allegheny County) is
in the middle range of all states. The corporate net income (CNI) tax
rate of 9.99 percent is relatively high, although loopholes in the law
(and other factors) mean that 71 percent of companies don't pay any
CNI tax.
-- Pennsylvania state taxes and spending are less than a majority of
U.S. states when measured as a share of state personal income. In
2005, state taxes were 6.3 percent of personal income, ranking the
state 32nd in the nation.
-- Pennsylvania state taxes are less than competitor states. New York
and Ohio had slightly higher rates as a share of personal income,
while Delaware exceeded 8 percent and West Virginia hit 9 percent.
-- Pennsylvania Relies Heavily on Local Taxes: Pennsylvania state and local
taxes combined rank 21st nationally, at 10.7 percent as a share of
personal income, compared to 32nd nationally for state only taxes. This
reflects a heavy reliance on local taxes, and especially on local
property taxes, to fund public services.
-- In 2005-06, local governments and school districts relied on
property taxes to fund 71 percent of services and public education.
-- Local Property Taxes Are Comparatively Low But Contain Significant
Disparities Across Districts: Across the state, property taxes average
3.1 percent of personal income, compared to 3.3 percent nationally, 3.3
percent in Ohio, more than 4 percent in New York, and 5 percent in New
Jersey.
-- At the same time, average property tax rates on residential property
can range from 0.9 percent to 9.7 percent of personal income across
Pennsylvania's 501 school districts. It is not uncommon for
poorer school districts to have higher school property tax rates
than more affluent districts in the same county.
-- Pennsylvania's Tax Structure Squeezes Low-Income Workers:
Low-income Pennsylvanians, living paycheck to paycheck, pay much higher
percentages of their income in taxes.
-- The lowest quintile of Pennsylvanians spends 2.5 percent of their
income on sales tax, while the wealthiest fifth spend 1.5 percent or
less.
-- Overall, the poorest 20 percent pay nearly three times their share
of income in state and local taxes than the richest 1 percent--12.3
cents out of each dollar of income compared to only 4.3 cents for
the richest families (once you take into account that state and
local taxes reduce federal taxable income for most affluent
families). Middle-class families also pay a higher share of their
income in state and local income taxes than the wealthiest 20
percent.
The report proposes that policymakers consider an amendment to the Constitution so that a graduated income tax could be introduced to Pennsylvania. That would tax the income of wealthy earners at a higher rate than lower-income workers.
It suggests the state needs a stable stream of revenue that grows over time to keep up with the cost of services, and highlights challenges to a stable tax system. They include declining corporate tax revenue, the aging population, and a tax system that has not been comprehensively updated and reformed in generations. To address these issues, state policymakers should:
-- Review tax exemptions and tax credits for effectiveness;
-- Close loopholes in the corporate net income tax system that allow
multistate and multinational companies to hide Pennsylvania earnings in
lower-tax jurisdictions. That would generate $616 million a year,
according to the Department of Revenue;
-- Broaden the state sales tax base to include currently exempt luxury
items and expand tobacco taxes to include smokeless tobacco.
Pennsylvania is the only state that does not tax smokeless tobacco.
-- Implement a "severance" tax on the extraction of state
resources from the ground, such as natural gas. Estimates show that such
a levy on natural gas drilling could raise $200 million in new revenue
annually.
The Common Good: What Pennsylvania's Budget and Tax Policies Mean to You is an easy-to-read guide to state and local taxes and Pennsylvania's budget process. It is designed to translate the sometimes esoteric terminology of budget and tax issues into plain language.
"This is a one-of-a-kind publication that will help policymakers, journalists, advocates and all Pennsylvanians navigate the world of public spending and taxes to better understand where their tax dollars go," Ward said.
About PBPC
The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center (PBPC) is a non-partisan policy research project that provides independent, credible analysis on state tax, budget, and related policy matters, with attention to the impact of current or proposed policies on working families. To view the new report on state and local tax policy, go to http://www.pennbpc.org/pdf/PBPC_Tax_Primer_08.pdf.
(1) State personal income measures a state's economic activity. It includes the total of all wages, salaries, employer-contributed pensions and insurance, business earnings, rental earnings, dividends, and interest earned by commonwealth residents.
SOURCE The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center
http://www.pennbpc.org/pdf/PBPC_Tax_Primer_08.pdf
Friday, June 27, 2008
Email your complaints
Thanks to Dianne for her comment requesting contact information where we can send complaints or requests for information.
Here's a few to start off:
Government
Governor Ed Rendell email: web form only website
Senator Charles McIlhinney: email: cmcilhinney@pasen.gov website
Representative John Galloway email:web form only website
Here's a few to start off:
Government
Governor Ed Rendell email: web form only website
Senator Charles McIlhinney: email: cmcilhinney@pasen.gov website
Representative John Galloway email:web form only website
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
GOP seeks to cut school funding
From the Inquirer this morning.
Our PA state legislators: Contact Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th) and Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
GOP seeks to cut school funding
A Senate Republican bill would cut $400 million from Gov. Rendell’s budget.
By MARC LEVY
HARRISBURG — Public school funding is emerging as a friction point as state budget negotiators work to find common ground on an approximately $28 billion budget in the last two weeks of the fiscal year.
A Senate Republican budget bill that is primed for floor debate today would slash the $28.3 billion spending plan proposed by Gov. Ed Rendell by about $400 million. Of that, about $120 million would get cut from Rendell’s suggested basic education subsidy — state money that pays for instruction and operations in public schools.
Rendell called the proposed cut “hugely bad policy.”
“I asked around this morning, but the last time ... the basic education subsidy suggested by the governor was cut by the Legislature, no one could remember,” Rendell told reporters Tuesday.
The bill emerged from the GOP-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday on a party-line vote. A Senate Republican spokesman, Erik Arneson, characterized the bill as a step in the process of ongoing budget negotiations.
The sides have clashed over how much the state should increase spending. Rendell has advocated a 4.2 percent increase that includes $291 million more for basic education, a boost of 6 percent.
The Senate GOP bill puts forward a 2.8 percent overall spending increase. It would increase basic education spending by about $170 million, or 3.5 percent.
In the past, lawmakers have been averse to cutting a governor’s proposed education budget because school districts immediately plug their expected share of the money into their budgets. Should the Legislature trim down the governor’s proposed amount, lawmakers could face blame for local property tax increases that might result.
Rendell said he would he would rather use some of the state’s approximately $750 million budget reserve to fill in any cuts to his school funding proposal.
Arneson, however, said Senate Republicans, who control the chamber, would not discuss using the budget reserve until Rendell releases a fresh revenue projection for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Without that projection, legislative negotiators do not know how much the state can spend. Rendell said his budget office is still watching the state’s daily revenue collections before it settles on a figure.
The 2008-09 fiscal year begins July 1. Rendell, who met legislative leaders in closed-door budget talks Tuesday, described the negotiations as making slow progress on various fronts.
Our PA state legislators: Contact Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th) and Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
GOP seeks to cut school funding
A Senate Republican bill would cut $400 million from Gov. Rendell’s budget.
By MARC LEVY
HARRISBURG — Public school funding is emerging as a friction point as state budget negotiators work to find common ground on an approximately $28 billion budget in the last two weeks of the fiscal year.
A Senate Republican budget bill that is primed for floor debate today would slash the $28.3 billion spending plan proposed by Gov. Ed Rendell by about $400 million. Of that, about $120 million would get cut from Rendell’s suggested basic education subsidy — state money that pays for instruction and operations in public schools.
Rendell called the proposed cut “hugely bad policy.”
“I asked around this morning, but the last time ... the basic education subsidy suggested by the governor was cut by the Legislature, no one could remember,” Rendell told reporters Tuesday.
The bill emerged from the GOP-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee on Monday on a party-line vote. A Senate Republican spokesman, Erik Arneson, characterized the bill as a step in the process of ongoing budget negotiations.
The sides have clashed over how much the state should increase spending. Rendell has advocated a 4.2 percent increase that includes $291 million more for basic education, a boost of 6 percent.
The Senate GOP bill puts forward a 2.8 percent overall spending increase. It would increase basic education spending by about $170 million, or 3.5 percent.
In the past, lawmakers have been averse to cutting a governor’s proposed education budget because school districts immediately plug their expected share of the money into their budgets. Should the Legislature trim down the governor’s proposed amount, lawmakers could face blame for local property tax increases that might result.
Rendell said he would he would rather use some of the state’s approximately $750 million budget reserve to fill in any cuts to his school funding proposal.
Arneson, however, said Senate Republicans, who control the chamber, would not discuss using the budget reserve until Rendell releases a fresh revenue projection for the 2008-09 fiscal year.
Without that projection, legislative negotiators do not know how much the state can spend. Rendell said his budget office is still watching the state’s daily revenue collections before it settles on a figure.
The 2008-09 fiscal year begins July 1. Rendell, who met legislative leaders in closed-door budget talks Tuesday, described the negotiations as making slow progress on various fronts.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
CALL YOUR PA STATE REPS-SCHOOL FUNDING CUTS
This email was forwarded to me. Please read and respond.
Contact Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th) and Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
CALL TO ACTION!
Your Help Needed Immediately!
More Info
Budget, Mandate Waiver, Tax Collection Issues
June 17, 2008
Call Your Senator Today
Late Monday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 16-10 to report Senate Bill 1389, an alternative to Gov. Rendell's proposed budget. SB 1389 proposes to cut education funding by $118 million or 41% -less than 2 weeks before school districts have to approve their own budgets for 2008-09. As reported last week, it was becoming apparent that some type of re-distribution of funds was imminent; however massive cuts of this nature are a different story and would cause chaos in the budgeting process for scores of school districts.
The message to your Senator is to vote against SB 1389 when it comes to the floor and to restore education funding to the $291 million level that has been proposed by the governor. A vote on this bill could come this afternoon, so your calls are needed today.
Efforts to weaken the mandate waiver program underway in Senate
Efforts to water down the current mandate waiver provisions of the School Code are indeed underway. In an effort to move SB 1412, a bill amending the Keystone Opportunity Zone Act to allow municipalities and school districts to extend the tax abatement benefits to those who develop unoccupied or blighted parcels of land, the Senate is considering an amendment that would remove the most important mandate waiver available to school districts.
Specifically, in a "deal" to keep them from offering an amendment to the bill to require prevailing wage provisions to cover projects that take place inside a KOZ, some trade unions have sought to have Section 751, the section of the School Code dealing with the separate prime contract requirement, added to the list of mandates that cannot be waived. The vote is said to be very close at this point and it appears that the deal may be approved.
School board members, particularly those who have applied for and received waivers from the separate prime contract mandate under the mandate waiver program, need to call their Senators immediately and ask them not to vote for any amendment to the bill that would make add this mandate to the list of items that cannot be waived.
Since the mandate waiver program began under Act 16 of 2000, school districts that have received a waiver from the separate prime contract mandate have realized savings of over $80 million. If this waiver were to be taken away, the entire mandate waiver program would be rendered meaningless since the only things left to waive are those things that could only result in marginal savings to school districts.
For years, PSBA has asked the state Legislature to help school districts reduce costs by lowering the cost of state mandates. The mandate waiver was a major accomplishment and a major step towards this goal. Ask your Senator to reject this "trade-off" because it will only harm school districts, particularly growing districts, and taxpayers.
House to vote on SB 1063 - Earned Income Tax collection
The House is set to call up Senate Bill 1063, the consolidated earned income tax sometime within the next few session days. This bill requires that local governments and school districts to form countywide tax collection committees for the collection of earned income taxes. Each municipality and school district will have representation on the tax collection committee. While the House Finance Committee approved several of the changes PSBA sought, the costs of the tax collection committee continue to be based on revenues collected, meaning that school districts will likely absorb most of those costs.
Members are asked to call their state Representatives and ask them to support an amendment that would more fairly allocate the costs of the tax collection committee amount all its members.
Contact Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th) and Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
CALL TO ACTION!
Your Help Needed Immediately!
More Info
Budget, Mandate Waiver, Tax Collection Issues
June 17, 2008
Call Your Senator Today
Late Monday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 16-10 to report Senate Bill 1389, an alternative to Gov. Rendell's proposed budget. SB 1389 proposes to cut education funding by $118 million or 41% -less than 2 weeks before school districts have to approve their own budgets for 2008-09. As reported last week, it was becoming apparent that some type of re-distribution of funds was imminent; however massive cuts of this nature are a different story and would cause chaos in the budgeting process for scores of school districts.
The message to your Senator is to vote against SB 1389 when it comes to the floor and to restore education funding to the $291 million level that has been proposed by the governor. A vote on this bill could come this afternoon, so your calls are needed today.
Efforts to weaken the mandate waiver program underway in Senate
Efforts to water down the current mandate waiver provisions of the School Code are indeed underway. In an effort to move SB 1412, a bill amending the Keystone Opportunity Zone Act to allow municipalities and school districts to extend the tax abatement benefits to those who develop unoccupied or blighted parcels of land, the Senate is considering an amendment that would remove the most important mandate waiver available to school districts.
Specifically, in a "deal" to keep them from offering an amendment to the bill to require prevailing wage provisions to cover projects that take place inside a KOZ, some trade unions have sought to have Section 751, the section of the School Code dealing with the separate prime contract requirement, added to the list of mandates that cannot be waived. The vote is said to be very close at this point and it appears that the deal may be approved.
School board members, particularly those who have applied for and received waivers from the separate prime contract mandate under the mandate waiver program, need to call their Senators immediately and ask them not to vote for any amendment to the bill that would make add this mandate to the list of items that cannot be waived.
Since the mandate waiver program began under Act 16 of 2000, school districts that have received a waiver from the separate prime contract mandate have realized savings of over $80 million. If this waiver were to be taken away, the entire mandate waiver program would be rendered meaningless since the only things left to waive are those things that could only result in marginal savings to school districts.
For years, PSBA has asked the state Legislature to help school districts reduce costs by lowering the cost of state mandates. The mandate waiver was a major accomplishment and a major step towards this goal. Ask your Senator to reject this "trade-off" because it will only harm school districts, particularly growing districts, and taxpayers.
House to vote on SB 1063 - Earned Income Tax collection
The House is set to call up Senate Bill 1063, the consolidated earned income tax sometime within the next few session days. This bill requires that local governments and school districts to form countywide tax collection committees for the collection of earned income taxes. Each municipality and school district will have representation on the tax collection committee. While the House Finance Committee approved several of the changes PSBA sought, the costs of the tax collection committee continue to be based on revenues collected, meaning that school districts will likely absorb most of those costs.
Members are asked to call their state Representatives and ask them to support an amendment that would more fairly allocate the costs of the tax collection committee amount all its members.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
School Funding Battle
The irony here is that the Emperor and his accomplices could follow through on his school death plan only to find out that action on the school funding formulas could have saved the district from the anguish of being used as a biology classrooom dissection frog.
Here's the email I was sent. Please visit the website and register. There is no cost involved and a copy of your email is sent to:
Governor Edward G. Rendell (D-PA)
Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th)
Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
I have become increasingly concerned about how unfair Pennsylvania's
system of school finance is and how many children are not able to get a
quality education as a result. The wealthiest districts in the state
spend two and a half times as much per student as the poorest, and their
tax rates are actually much lower because they have much healthier tax
bases. As a result, many children in many communities simply don't
have access to the best teachers, modern books and materials, and
up-to-date programs. We really should do better by all of our children, and
I'm sure you agree with me about that. Nothing else the state does is
more important than guaranteeing that our children and grandchildren, no
matter where they live, have access to the best education possible.
Why am I writing to you now about this? I recently heard about and
became a supporter of the Pennsylvania School Funding Campaign, and I would
like you to join me by clicking the link at the bottom of this e-ma
il. It will just take a minute. It will cost you nothing. Your
e-mail address will not be passed on to others. You will receive one
e-mail a week to keep you posted on the Campaign's progress. The children
of Pennsylvania need our help - and it is so easy to give that help.
Thanks.
Click on this URL to take action now
http://capwiz.com/paschoolfunding/utr/2/?a=11216011&i=87477843&c=&u=capwiz.com%2Fpaschoolfunding%2Fmlm%2Fsignup%2F
If your email program does not recognize the URL as a link,
copy the entire URL and paste it into your Web browser.
Here's the email I was sent. Please visit the website and register. There is no cost involved and a copy of your email is sent to:
Governor Edward G. Rendell (D-PA)
Senator Chuck McIlhinney (R-PA 10th)
Representative John T. Galloway (D-PA 140th)
I have become increasingly concerned about how unfair Pennsylvania's
system of school finance is and how many children are not able to get a
quality education as a result. The wealthiest districts in the state
spend two and a half times as much per student as the poorest, and their
tax rates are actually much lower because they have much healthier tax
bases. As a result, many children in many communities simply don't
have access to the best teachers, modern books and materials, and
up-to-date programs. We really should do better by all of our children, and
I'm sure you agree with me about that. Nothing else the state does is
more important than guaranteeing that our children and grandchildren, no
matter where they live, have access to the best education possible.
Why am I writing to you now about this? I recently heard about and
became a supporter of the Pennsylvania School Funding Campaign, and I would
like you to join me by clicking the link at the bottom of this e-ma
il. It will just take a minute. It will cost you nothing. Your
e-mail address will not be passed on to others. You will receive one
e-mail a week to keep you posted on the Campaign's progress. The children
of Pennsylvania need our help - and it is so easy to give that help.
Thanks.
Click on this URL to take action now
http://capwiz.com/paschoolfunding/utr/2/?a=11216011&i=87477843&c=&u=capwiz.com%2Fpaschoolfunding%2Fmlm%2Fsignup%2F
If your email program does not recognize the URL as a link,
copy the entire URL and paste it into your Web browser.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)