Guest Column by Lowman S. Henry,
Governor Tom Corbett and Republicans in the state legislature have spent the last six months patting themselves on the back for fulfilling their main constitutional duty of passing a state budget on time. It was a significant achievement, more so because it held the line on taxes. But that victory was fleeting because yet another budget battle is getting underway.
The problem is despite large Republican majorities in both chambers of the General Assembly and the coming to power of a Republican governor the budget victory has not been followed up by the enactment of structural changes to address the cost drivers in the state budget. Major funding issues, such as the state's ongoing need for investment in roads and bridges, remain untouched.
State Budget Secretary Charles Zogby signaled the start of the 2012 budget battle in late December by reporting that revenue collections are coming in below estimates and that budget makers will once again face a deficit. Spending interests decried Zogby's report as a tactic, but the fact is the ongoing national recession coupled with Pennsylvania's generally inhospitable business climate have depressed economic activity resulting in less income and earnings to be taxed.
Also contributing to budgetary pressures is the Corbett's administration's failure to address labor costs. A number of union contracts expired last year and, generally speaking, the new agreements lacked significant cost-saving concessions. It was a missed opportunity to bring labor costs under control that will have a lasting impact for years to come.
Legislatively, unions survived the first year of Republican domination of state government largely unscathed. Even minimal reform, such as increasing the ceiling for prevailing wage laws to kick in on public works projects, have yet to advance through the legislative process. Issues such as ending government collection of union dues and passage of Right-to-Work legislation have not seen the light of day.
Structural reforms to education, such as school choice, ran aground in the legislature. Privatization of the state's liquor store monopoly is stalled. Calls for passage of a severance tax on Marcellus Shale gas continue to echo around the halls of the capitol, creating uncertainty in the state's biggest growth industry. A year into the governor's term, no plan for eliminating waste and cutting the state's out-of-control welfare system has emerged.
And now the bad news: this is an election year. Every seat in the state House of Representatives and half of the state Senate will be on the ballot in the upcoming April primary. The official start of the election process, gathering signatures to get on the ballot, begins in just a couple of weeks. Typically most major legislative accomplishments occur in non-election years because incumbents shy away from casting controversial votes in the midst of their re-election campaigns. Thus expectations for progress this year are low.
Those who thought large Republican majorities in the legislature would result in a more fruitful session are disappointed. But, the lack of output by the General Assembly reveals an inconvenient truth: Republican control does not equate to conservative policies. There continues to exist within both the House and the Senate - particularly in the Senate - a small but pivotal number of Republicans who are beholden to labor unions and whose goal it is to prevent enactment of the conservative policy agenda espoused by the governor.
In short, the GOP is a dysfunctional family. Governor Corbett and the state House leadership tilt conservative, but the Senate leadership is under labor union sway. Thus the three power centers cannot agree on an agenda, resulting in gridlock. Given that most state policies currently in place are not to the liking of conservatives, gridlock is a bad state of affairs.
With another budget battle getting underway against the backdrop of election pressures look for little to get accomplished in 2012. In fact, holding the line on taxes and getting another budget passed on time will be a Herculean task. Simply holding on to 2011's meager gains may be all that is possible in the upcoming year. On the positive side voters have before them the opportunity to elect to office senators and representatives who will pursue more taxpayer friendly policies. The key to future progress is an educated and involved electorate in this important election year.
Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.
Showing posts with label Lowman S. Henry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lowman S. Henry. Show all posts
Mar 2, 2010
TEA for Two? Should the TEA party movement be co-opted by the government?
Guest Column By Lowman HenryThe TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement over the past year has developed into a major force in American politics. So much so it lifted a little known state senator in Massachusetts into the U.S. Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy, and last month held a national convention that attracted Sarah Palin and other big names as speakers.
But where does the TEA Party movement go to from here?
TEA activists, in Pennsylvania and nationwide, will undoubtedly have a significant impact in a number of statewide, congressional and even legislative races. There will also likely be an inflow of TEA activists into the official Republican Party structure as seats on both the state and county committees are up for election this year.
How closely though should the TEA Party movement bind itself to the Republican Party? When it adheres to its principles, which it sometimes does not, the Republican Party is clearly more ideologically in step with the TEA activists than the Democrats. In fact, is the Leftist Democratic agenda pushing for nationalized health care, Cap and Trade, excessive spending and massive deficits which have awakened and energized TEA partiers causing them to become involved or more involved in the political process.
Despite that, there is good reason for the TEA Party movement to not allow itself to be co-opted into the establishment Republican Party. It would be far better for the movement to exist as an independent political force, making common cause with the GOP when interests coincide.
The debate is running both ways. Establishment Republican leaders are divided over how to deal with the TEA Party movement. Some are politically savvy enough to understand many of the TEA partiers are part of the conservative base of the GOP that became disaffected with the party's straying from its principles over the past decade.
Other Republican officials are scared of the TEA Party types. One Republican county chairman recently called a congressional candidate to berate him for speaking at a TEA Party rally. State Republican Chairman Rob Gleason was the master of ceremonies at a TEA Party candidates' night, and then branded as rebels anybody who opposed the party's endorsed candidates - all in the same week.
There is no doubt that when the TEA Party movement and the Republican Party are united they are unbeatable. But, that unity should only exist around candidates who deserve it. TEA partiers should remain free to boycott those Republican candidates who don't reflect their ideals - or even to support conservative Democrats who do.
If the TEA Party movement is co-opted into the mainstream Republican Party its influence will wane. The movement is powerful precisely because it cannot be counted on: it must be courted, and candidates must prove they deserve its support. If the TEA Party activists are assimilated into the establishment GOP they will simply be taken for granted much in the same way the conservative Republican base has been in recent years.
This is not a broadside at the Republican Party. It simply is the natural order of things. In the Democratic Party, for example, the African-American vote is taken for granted because party leaders know 90% or more will vote for the Democratic candidate in any given election. Thus, elected Democrats tend not to be overly responsive to the needs of that community.
The same fate will befall the TEA Party movement if it allows itself to be incorporated into the Republican Party. For now, at least, the TEA Party is best developing as an independent movement, and the GOP would be wise to court its support. That will allow the TEA Party movement to keep alive its activist fervor, while making the Republican Party toe the ideological line.
It is best if the Republican Party is forced to earn the support of the TEA Party activists. Or perhaps, as happened in Massachusetts, the TEA Party movement can earn the support of the mainstream Republican Party. After all, the GOP had written off Scott Brown and it was the TEA Party movement that put him in a position to win. Only then did the Republican machinery kick into gear and help to put him over the top. The bottom line there is that Republicans and TEA Party activists worked together - and won.
The formula for success has been discovered, and there is no reason to fix what isn't broken.
(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His email address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)
Jan 19, 2010
Black Robed Bad Boys
Legislature doesn't have a corner on corruption
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
As a result of the Bonusgate and capitol corruption scandals a harsh spotlight has been shone on the criminal misdeeds and alleged criminal actions of formerly powerful members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and their staffs. Less noticed, but equally troubling, is a growing list of illegal, unethical and unbecoming actions by members of the commonwealth's judicial branch.
Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judicial branch of government operates largely out of sight only invading the public consciousness in times of sensational trials or when corruption is uncovered. Even when corruption is alleged, it is handled behind closed doors and more often than not simply swept under the rug because public attention is focused elsewhere.
That may be about to change. A series of high profile judicial corruption scandals have pierced what Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie-Melvin called the "cloak of public trust" that many Americans place in the judicial system. During remarks following her installation earlier this month as a justice of the high court; Judge Orie-Melvin focused on corruption plaguing the judiciary saying Pennsylvanians are demanding, transparency, accountability and reform.
None of those are things the judicial system does well. The judiciary is covered more by a cloak of secrecy than by a cloak of public trust. The most glaring recent example involves a scheme by two Judges of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas who accepted $2.6 million in kick-backs to sentence juveniles to unwarranted confinement in detention facilities. Complaints were made to the Judicial Conduct Board which was, to put it mildly, slow and unresponsive. Ultimately the media picked up on the issue and that lead to the resignation and conviction of the two wayward jurists.
In recent days Luzerne County's bench has again been in the headlines as Judge Michael Toole has been forced to resign for "honest services fraud," which is legalese for having an improper financial relationship to essentially receive kick-backs for legal referrals. He has also been charged with income tax evasion. It is also apparently hazardous to be married to a judge. The former president judge of Perry and Juniata counties, Judge Joseph Rehkamp was arrested several days ago and charged with assaulting his wife. Ironically, Judge Rehkamp now lives in Luzerne County.
Unfortunately, the wave of judicial misconduct crashing across Penn's Woods is not limited to the Common Pleas level. There is also the matter of Judge Michael Joyce who served on the statewide Superior Court. Judge Joyce, of Erie County, is serving time in prison after having been convicted on federal insurance fraud charges.
The statewide judiciary also suffered a black eye during the infamous pay raise uproar several years ago. The legislature bore the brunt of public anger for having raised its own salaries, but it was behind-the-scenes lobbying by certain members of the appellate courts that brought the issue to the table in the first place. There has since been allegations that judicial involvement in the pay raise process was excessive and untoward, but by and large the black robes escaped any serious consequences as a result of their actions.
During last year's campaign for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, both the Democratic nominee Jack Panella and the winning Republican nominee Joan Orie-Melvin made corruption an issue. It was obviously not a winning issue for Panella who was successfully attacked by the Orie-Melvin campaign for his role as a member of the Judicial Conduct Board which is widely viewed has having dropped the ball on the Luzerne County matter. Nevertheless, the fact candidates for both parties made judicial conduct a campaign issue speaks to the degree to which corruption in the courts has become a major problem.
It remains to be seen whether or not any serious reform will be forthcoming. Like their counterparts in the legislature there has been a lot of talk by judges and judicial candidates about reform, but little action. They could start by understanding the courts are a co-equal branch of government and thus properly subject to the same scrutiny as the other two branches. For way too long the judicial system has operated behind closed doors setting it above and apart from everyone else. And while the overwhelming majority of judges and justices are good, honorable and hard working jurists, there have been enough bad apples that the time has come for the judiciary to move into the 20th century by making itself more open, transparent, and accountable.
(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
As a result of the Bonusgate and capitol corruption scandals a harsh spotlight has been shone on the criminal misdeeds and alleged criminal actions of formerly powerful members of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and their staffs. Less noticed, but equally troubling, is a growing list of illegal, unethical and unbecoming actions by members of the commonwealth's judicial branch.
Unlike the executive and legislative branches, the judicial branch of government operates largely out of sight only invading the public consciousness in times of sensational trials or when corruption is uncovered. Even when corruption is alleged, it is handled behind closed doors and more often than not simply swept under the rug because public attention is focused elsewhere.
That may be about to change. A series of high profile judicial corruption scandals have pierced what Supreme Court Justice Joan Orie-Melvin called the "cloak of public trust" that many Americans place in the judicial system. During remarks following her installation earlier this month as a justice of the high court; Judge Orie-Melvin focused on corruption plaguing the judiciary saying Pennsylvanians are demanding, transparency, accountability and reform.
None of those are things the judicial system does well. The judiciary is covered more by a cloak of secrecy than by a cloak of public trust. The most glaring recent example involves a scheme by two Judges of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas who accepted $2.6 million in kick-backs to sentence juveniles to unwarranted confinement in detention facilities. Complaints were made to the Judicial Conduct Board which was, to put it mildly, slow and unresponsive. Ultimately the media picked up on the issue and that lead to the resignation and conviction of the two wayward jurists.
In recent days Luzerne County's bench has again been in the headlines as Judge Michael Toole has been forced to resign for "honest services fraud," which is legalese for having an improper financial relationship to essentially receive kick-backs for legal referrals. He has also been charged with income tax evasion. It is also apparently hazardous to be married to a judge. The former president judge of Perry and Juniata counties, Judge Joseph Rehkamp was arrested several days ago and charged with assaulting his wife. Ironically, Judge Rehkamp now lives in Luzerne County.
Unfortunately, the wave of judicial misconduct crashing across Penn's Woods is not limited to the Common Pleas level. There is also the matter of Judge Michael Joyce who served on the statewide Superior Court. Judge Joyce, of Erie County, is serving time in prison after having been convicted on federal insurance fraud charges.
The statewide judiciary also suffered a black eye during the infamous pay raise uproar several years ago. The legislature bore the brunt of public anger for having raised its own salaries, but it was behind-the-scenes lobbying by certain members of the appellate courts that brought the issue to the table in the first place. There has since been allegations that judicial involvement in the pay raise process was excessive and untoward, but by and large the black robes escaped any serious consequences as a result of their actions.
During last year's campaign for a seat on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, both the Democratic nominee Jack Panella and the winning Republican nominee Joan Orie-Melvin made corruption an issue. It was obviously not a winning issue for Panella who was successfully attacked by the Orie-Melvin campaign for his role as a member of the Judicial Conduct Board which is widely viewed has having dropped the ball on the Luzerne County matter. Nevertheless, the fact candidates for both parties made judicial conduct a campaign issue speaks to the degree to which corruption in the courts has become a major problem.
It remains to be seen whether or not any serious reform will be forthcoming. Like their counterparts in the legislature there has been a lot of talk by judges and judicial candidates about reform, but little action. They could start by understanding the courts are a co-equal branch of government and thus properly subject to the same scrutiny as the other two branches. For way too long the judicial system has operated behind closed doors setting it above and apart from everyone else. And while the overwhelming majority of judges and justices are good, honorable and hard working jurists, there have been enough bad apples that the time has come for the judiciary to move into the 20th century by making itself more open, transparent, and accountable.
(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)
Jan 10, 2010
Second Fiddle: It does matter who is Pennsylvania's next lieutenant governor
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
Dramatic developments in races for the United States Senate and Pennsylvania Governor have dominated coverage of the 2010 elections in Penn's Woods. But, a third statewide office will be on the ballot this year and it has drawn an unusually large field of contenders.
The job is that of Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor. And it is apparently a plum assignment. The lieutenant governor is paid $161,000 per year and full state benefits. He or she gets a mansion with a pool at Ft. Indiantown Gap in Lebanon County, full state police protection, an ornate office in the center of the capitol and all the trappings of a top statewide official.
In exchange the lieutenant governor does, well, actually very little. The state constitution (a seldom read document) provides that the lieutenant governor serves as president of the state senate. That basically means standing at the podium and looking good while senators go about the real business of governing.
Aside from that, the lieutenant governor basically sits around and waits for the governor to die, to become incapacitated, or to leave office prematurely. That has actually happened quite a bit in recent years. Lieutenant Governor Mark Singel became acting governor when then Governor Robert P. Casey, Sr. had a multiple organ transplant. Then, in 2001, when Governor Tom Ridge was summoned to Washington to help secure the homeland, Lt. Governor Mark Schweiker became governor.
For his part, Schweiker actually made something of the lieutenant governor's office. He was delegated the responsibility of overseeing emergency preparedness and became the official face of state government often wearing plaid shirts during major snowstorms. His successor, the late Catherine Baker Knoll, did not look good in plaid, so she discontinued the practice.
The current lieutenant governor, State Senator Joseph Scarnati, is something of an anomaly. He is the President Pro Tempore, the guy who actually presides over the state senate when the lieutenant governor is otherwise occupied. When Mrs. Knoll, a Democrat, passed away Senator Scarnati, a Republican ascended to the office.
Having a governor and a lieutenant governor of differing political parties is virtually unheard of in Pennsylvania. That is because while nominees for the two offices are selected separately in the primary, voters cast but one vote in the general election for governor and the lieutenant governor comes along as sort of a package deal. Thus, it is not possible for a governor and lieutenant governor of differing parties to be elected.
That state of normalcy will be restored this year when voters elect a new governor. But, before that happens voters of each party will get to determine in the May primary who will be their candidates for lieutenant governor. For Republicans the field is large and diverse, but few contenders have emerged on the Democratic side.
Depending on the day, there are over a dozen Republicans seeking the GOP nod for lieutenant governor. Campaigning with various degrees of seriousness are several state representatives, a couple of county commissioners and a former county executive, businessmen, reform activists, a city councilman, and even a minister.
At this point the Republican nomination appears to be wide open. Typically, the party's endorsed candidate for governor picks a running mate. But sheer numbers make that hazardous this year as one happy camper would be overwhelmed by disappointed also-rans. The number of candidates virtually ensures a contested primary, so a pick from the top could ultimately be rejected by voters.
Meanwhile, far fewer Democrats have shown an interest in the office. Perhaps that is because the race for governor on the Democratic side of the ledger is less settled than it is for Republicans. The only serious candidate to emerge to date is former Philadelphia Controller Jonathan Saidel. Several others have floated trial balloons, but at this point the nomination appears Saidel's to lose.
A flood of Republican candidates and a dearth of Democratic candidates only tend to make an obscure race even more so. Republican voters will have difficulty sorting through the field, while there is little interest on the Democratic side. With more fireworks expected in hotly contested U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, the party nomination battles for lieutenant governor will be largely overlooked.
But they shouldn't be. While the office in and of itself has no power and virtually no influence, lieutenant governors have been called upon to step into the top spot. And when they are, the circumstances are almost always bad. And the only real chance for voters to weigh in comes during the primary process. So, while it may be second fiddle, it is important to pay attention to who is standing next to Pennsylvania's new governor on inauguration day.
Lowman S. Henry is chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org
Dramatic developments in races for the United States Senate and Pennsylvania Governor have dominated coverage of the 2010 elections in Penn's Woods. But, a third statewide office will be on the ballot this year and it has drawn an unusually large field of contenders.
The job is that of Pennsylvania Lieutenant Governor. And it is apparently a plum assignment. The lieutenant governor is paid $161,000 per year and full state benefits. He or she gets a mansion with a pool at Ft. Indiantown Gap in Lebanon County, full state police protection, an ornate office in the center of the capitol and all the trappings of a top statewide official.
In exchange the lieutenant governor does, well, actually very little. The state constitution (a seldom read document) provides that the lieutenant governor serves as president of the state senate. That basically means standing at the podium and looking good while senators go about the real business of governing.
Aside from that, the lieutenant governor basically sits around and waits for the governor to die, to become incapacitated, or to leave office prematurely. That has actually happened quite a bit in recent years. Lieutenant Governor Mark Singel became acting governor when then Governor Robert P. Casey, Sr. had a multiple organ transplant. Then, in 2001, when Governor Tom Ridge was summoned to Washington to help secure the homeland, Lt. Governor Mark Schweiker became governor.
For his part, Schweiker actually made something of the lieutenant governor's office. He was delegated the responsibility of overseeing emergency preparedness and became the official face of state government often wearing plaid shirts during major snowstorms. His successor, the late Catherine Baker Knoll, did not look good in plaid, so she discontinued the practice.
The current lieutenant governor, State Senator Joseph Scarnati, is something of an anomaly. He is the President Pro Tempore, the guy who actually presides over the state senate when the lieutenant governor is otherwise occupied. When Mrs. Knoll, a Democrat, passed away Senator Scarnati, a Republican ascended to the office.
Having a governor and a lieutenant governor of differing political parties is virtually unheard of in Pennsylvania. That is because while nominees for the two offices are selected separately in the primary, voters cast but one vote in the general election for governor and the lieutenant governor comes along as sort of a package deal. Thus, it is not possible for a governor and lieutenant governor of differing parties to be elected.
That state of normalcy will be restored this year when voters elect a new governor. But, before that happens voters of each party will get to determine in the May primary who will be their candidates for lieutenant governor. For Republicans the field is large and diverse, but few contenders have emerged on the Democratic side.
Depending on the day, there are over a dozen Republicans seeking the GOP nod for lieutenant governor. Campaigning with various degrees of seriousness are several state representatives, a couple of county commissioners and a former county executive, businessmen, reform activists, a city councilman, and even a minister.
At this point the Republican nomination appears to be wide open. Typically, the party's endorsed candidate for governor picks a running mate. But sheer numbers make that hazardous this year as one happy camper would be overwhelmed by disappointed also-rans. The number of candidates virtually ensures a contested primary, so a pick from the top could ultimately be rejected by voters.
Meanwhile, far fewer Democrats have shown an interest in the office. Perhaps that is because the race for governor on the Democratic side of the ledger is less settled than it is for Republicans. The only serious candidate to emerge to date is former Philadelphia Controller Jonathan Saidel. Several others have floated trial balloons, but at this point the nomination appears Saidel's to lose.
A flood of Republican candidates and a dearth of Democratic candidates only tend to make an obscure race even more so. Republican voters will have difficulty sorting through the field, while there is little interest on the Democratic side. With more fireworks expected in hotly contested U.S. Senate and gubernatorial races, the party nomination battles for lieutenant governor will be largely overlooked.
But they shouldn't be. While the office in and of itself has no power and virtually no influence, lieutenant governors have been called upon to step into the top spot. And when they are, the circumstances are almost always bad. And the only real chance for voters to weigh in comes during the primary process. So, while it may be second fiddle, it is important to pay attention to who is standing next to Pennsylvania's new governor on inauguration day.
Lowman S. Henry is chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org
Dec 26, 2009
Expanded gambling not in the cards for Pa.
Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry
Who would have thought that half-way through the state's fiscal year the budget would still not be a completed document?
Our "full time" Pennsylvania General Assembly took a big chunk of the last three months of the year off, presumably to rest after the epic 101-day budget stalemate. True to form, one of the highest paid legislatures in the nation departed the capitol on Christmas break leaving a major component of the 2009-2010 budget still unresolved.
To end the budget deadlock of last summer and fall the governor and the legislature resorted to sleight of hand and included in the revenue projections $200 million from a source that did not — and to this day does not — exist. That would be fees and tax revenue from table games at the casinos which now dot the landscape of Penn's Woods.
The theory was that soon after passage of the budget the General Assembly would pass legislation legalizing table gaming and the commonwealth would rake in a windfall of $200 million in licensing fees. To keep things temporarily balanced, the legislature held off on approving funding for state-related universities, leaving them in a state of continued uncertainty.
That might have worked if the legislature had stayed in town to finish the job. But it didn't. Legislative leaders immediately closed up shop and headed home on a six week vacation that extended into mid-November. After putting in nominal effort prior to Thanksgiving, the "full time" legislature again adjourned to eat turkey and hunt deer. The $200 million revenue hole persisted, and students continued to wait for their funding.
With turkey in their bellies and venison in their freezers lawmakers returned to session. The state House finally did pass a bill legalizing table gaming, and so did the Senate. One small snag though: the bills were not the same.
All of this was just too much for House Speaker Keith McCall and Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, who decided it was time to take a break to celebrate the holidays (Christmas having been banned from the public square).
And so here we are, six months — half way —- into the fiscal year and still $200 million short of the funds needed to balance the state budget.
That, however, is only part of the problem. Setting aside the revenue component of legalizing table gaming, the casino industry in Pennsylvania has been beset by a multitude of problems including but not limited to corruption, financial malpractice, and the failure to even get a casino up and running in Philadelphia.
The initial law legalizing slots casinos was one of those typically Pennsylvania pieces of legislation that was passed under pressure from leadership and without the inclusion of needed safeguards. Worse, promised property tax relief fell woefully short of expectations as lawmakers siphoned off tax revenue generated by the casinos for pet projects.
The current effort to expand gambling to include table gaming is shaping up as a rerun. Neither version of the expansion bill addressed the many serious deficiencies of the initial law. If gambling is to be expanded, it only makes sense to remedy the problems that have become evident over the past few years. In particular, there must be more oversight by law enforcement agencies over the activities of the casinos and their operators.
Keeping in mind revenue from the legalization of table gaming is supposed to plug a budget hole, media reports indicate lawmakers are now trying to stick their pet projects into the legislation. This means massive new government spending for projects that didn't have enough support to get into the state budget. Thus a new pot of WAM — Walking Around Money — will have been created with the ultimate impact being to fund projects that further legislators' re-election chances rather than address the state's revenue shortfall.
This is the Pennsylvania legislature at its worst. State employees have been laid off, a school for veterans' children has been closed, libraries and museums are cutting hours; but lawmakers are still grabbing fistfuls of our tax dollars to achieve the most important goal of all — re-election. It is important to understand that not all legislators are acting in this manner. But all too many are, and they apparently are the ones in control of the process.
The bottom line: Pennsylvania still does not have a completed state budget. State employees had their Christmas, er, holidays, ruined by Governor Ed Rendell threatening to lay-off 1,000 of them if the legislature doesn't deal with the budget shortfall by early January.
They better hurry up and get busy; after all, the Groundhog Day break is just around the corner.
Lowman S. Henry is chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org
Who would have thought that half-way through the state's fiscal year the budget would still not be a completed document?
Our "full time" Pennsylvania General Assembly took a big chunk of the last three months of the year off, presumably to rest after the epic 101-day budget stalemate. True to form, one of the highest paid legislatures in the nation departed the capitol on Christmas break leaving a major component of the 2009-2010 budget still unresolved.
To end the budget deadlock of last summer and fall the governor and the legislature resorted to sleight of hand and included in the revenue projections $200 million from a source that did not — and to this day does not — exist. That would be fees and tax revenue from table games at the casinos which now dot the landscape of Penn's Woods.
The theory was that soon after passage of the budget the General Assembly would pass legislation legalizing table gaming and the commonwealth would rake in a windfall of $200 million in licensing fees. To keep things temporarily balanced, the legislature held off on approving funding for state-related universities, leaving them in a state of continued uncertainty.
That might have worked if the legislature had stayed in town to finish the job. But it didn't. Legislative leaders immediately closed up shop and headed home on a six week vacation that extended into mid-November. After putting in nominal effort prior to Thanksgiving, the "full time" legislature again adjourned to eat turkey and hunt deer. The $200 million revenue hole persisted, and students continued to wait for their funding.
With turkey in their bellies and venison in their freezers lawmakers returned to session. The state House finally did pass a bill legalizing table gaming, and so did the Senate. One small snag though: the bills were not the same.
All of this was just too much for House Speaker Keith McCall and Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, who decided it was time to take a break to celebrate the holidays (Christmas having been banned from the public square).
And so here we are, six months — half way —- into the fiscal year and still $200 million short of the funds needed to balance the state budget.
That, however, is only part of the problem. Setting aside the revenue component of legalizing table gaming, the casino industry in Pennsylvania has been beset by a multitude of problems including but not limited to corruption, financial malpractice, and the failure to even get a casino up and running in Philadelphia.
The initial law legalizing slots casinos was one of those typically Pennsylvania pieces of legislation that was passed under pressure from leadership and without the inclusion of needed safeguards. Worse, promised property tax relief fell woefully short of expectations as lawmakers siphoned off tax revenue generated by the casinos for pet projects.
The current effort to expand gambling to include table gaming is shaping up as a rerun. Neither version of the expansion bill addressed the many serious deficiencies of the initial law. If gambling is to be expanded, it only makes sense to remedy the problems that have become evident over the past few years. In particular, there must be more oversight by law enforcement agencies over the activities of the casinos and their operators.
Keeping in mind revenue from the legalization of table gaming is supposed to plug a budget hole, media reports indicate lawmakers are now trying to stick their pet projects into the legislation. This means massive new government spending for projects that didn't have enough support to get into the state budget. Thus a new pot of WAM — Walking Around Money — will have been created with the ultimate impact being to fund projects that further legislators' re-election chances rather than address the state's revenue shortfall.
This is the Pennsylvania legislature at its worst. State employees have been laid off, a school for veterans' children has been closed, libraries and museums are cutting hours; but lawmakers are still grabbing fistfuls of our tax dollars to achieve the most important goal of all — re-election. It is important to understand that not all legislators are acting in this manner. But all too many are, and they apparently are the ones in control of the process.
The bottom line: Pennsylvania still does not have a completed state budget. State employees had their Christmas, er, holidays, ruined by Governor Ed Rendell threatening to lay-off 1,000 of them if the legislature doesn't deal with the budget shortfall by early January.
They better hurry up and get busy; after all, the Groundhog Day break is just around the corner.
Lowman S. Henry is chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)