Toomey: Government red tape is hurting Pa.

Over the past week, I have had the chance to travel across the commonwealth to meet with Pennsylvania small-business owners and listen to their concerns about running their businesses and creating new jobs in the state.

From Erie to Bucks County to Harrisburg to West Chester, these hard-working entrepreneurs have shared personal stories and challenges with me. The types of businesses are different and the details of their stories are unique, but the resounding message is the same: The burdens of overzealous government mandates and regulations are making it difficult for companies to expand and hire new workers. In some cases, it is making it nearly impossible for people to keep their businesses going at all.

In Erie, I toured the Smith Provision Co.’s hot dog and sausage factory and learned about all the hard work that goes into producing the delicious hot dogs, sausages and award-winning hams Pennsylvanians love to eat.

In Meadville, I toured the Tech Tool & Mold plant, a family business employing more than 100 Pennsylvanians, on the verge of expanding.

In Bucks County, I met with doctors and administrators from St. Mary Medical Center in Langhorne, a major employer in southeast Pennsylvania.

In Venango Country and Harrisburg, I had the opportunity to speak with small-business owners at local jobs roundtable events where they voiced their concerns and thoughts.

In Chester County, I spoke with a major medical device manufacturer about the burdens imposed on them by the new health care legislation.

Some of the most burdensome regulations have gotten a lot of attention. For example, the 2.3 percent medical-device tax in the president’s health care law will be applied to total sales — not profits. Many of our most promising medical-device manufacturers are young, small businesses with great promise but, so far, little or no profits. Hitting them with a big new tax will threaten the viability of some of these companies and result in fewer jobs throughout the industry. Today, these companies and their suppliers employ more than 100,000 people in Pennsylvania with the potential to grow significantly. Not only does this tax penalize those researching and developing potential life-saving technologies, it threatens existing and future high-paying manufacturing jobs. That is why I have co-sponsored two pieces of legislation to repeal this onerous tax.

In other cases, obscure regulations and bureaucratic red tape are hurting small businesses. One company told me how the research and development tax credit intended to help businesses expense new equipment purchases is actually costing them time and money just to qualify through the Internal Revenue Service.

A 100-year-old company in central Pennsylvania told me about new Environmental Protection Agency regulations that could force it to replace its boiler at a time when the company cannot afford it. A factory president told me federal regulators can be very unresponsive in approving food product labels, throwing their entire production schedule off.

These are just a few examples of the types of challenges Pennsylvania businesses face on a daily basis. Often, federal bureaucrats don’t understand and have no knowledge of what it takes to run a hot dog factory in Erie or a hospital in Bucks County. Their top-down mentality makes it impossible for them to anticipate the kind of unintended consequences mandates and regulations impose on struggling businesses.

Over the past two years, Washington leaders told us the best way to create jobs was to borrow and spend money at unprecedented levels. But now, we have record-breaking deficits and debt, and still a frail economic recovery at best. Clearly, we need to try a different approach.

As a former small-business owner who ran several food establishments with my brothers in the Lehigh Valley and Lancaster, I know firsthand the amount of hard work, effort and risk that goes into starting one’s own business and keeping it running. I have also seen how bad government policies can make it difficult, if not impossible, for these small businesses to thrive.

There are a lot of things the government can do to encourage risk taking, entrepreneurship and job creation, but the worst thing it can do is enact policies that actually discourage new jobs.

One of my top priorities is to make sure we have the right government policies to encourage job creation.

Pennsylvania has some the hardest working, most innovative and most productive workers in the country.

We are leaders in many industries from manufacturing to medical technology, to energy production, and I know we can be at the forefront of a booming economic recovery if the government lets us.

Pat Toomey, a Republican, represents Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate.

Questions for our new governor

Guest Column By State Representative Scott Conklin

I have a question for the politicians who oppose a referendum for a citizens constitutional convention: If we trust a jury of our peers to decide matters of life and death, why wouldn’t we trust those same people to give us recommendations on how to streamline our state government?

It amazes me that Gov. Tom Corbett and his allies are now in full-scale retreat on this issue after supporting the concept during last year’s campaign. We are now being told, “We are in charge now, and we will reform ourselves. We don’t need a constitutional convention.”

Does anybody really believe that politicians will reform themselves?

Mr. Governor, why can’t we put the question on the November ballot and let the people decide? With all due respect, you campaigned for a convention last year.

People want to reclaim their government because they have lost confidence in their political leaders, but not in themselves.

I recently introduced a bill that calls for the people to decide in November whether they want to convene a constitutional convention to provide recommendations on how to improve our state government. We cannot continue on our current path. A convention would provide an orderly way for Pennsylvanians to decide what is best for the state and would prevent these reforms from being tied up in legal challenges for years. This is to be a citizens convention, and the body of delegates must accurately represent the citizenry. We need to look at this issue not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Pennsylvanians. We have a chance to reform our government to reflect the new century we are living in. If political leadership sets the agenda and elects the delegates, it is not a citizens convention; it is a politician’s convention.

Here are a few key highlights of my bill:

• The recommendations of the convention shall be submitted to the electorate as determined by the convention.

• The convention shall frame the ballot question or questions.

• The recommendations of the convention shall be submitted to the electors for their approval or rejection.

It is very important to point out that under my bill no changes would be implemented unless the people voted to approve it.

Please visit www.pahouse.com/conklin and look at House Bill 763. I then ask you to call your representatives and ask them to bring the bill up for a vote.

State Rep.Scott Conklin represents the 77th District.

Commonwealth Foundation Grades Corbett's First Budget a B

Plan slows runaway government train, short of A+ improvement

The Commonwealth Foundation graded Gov. Tom Corbett's budget address a solid B today in its call to end the tax-borrow-and-spend approach to budgeting that placed Pennsylvanian in the present fiscal crisis.

"Unlike the past eight years that earned a fiscal grade of F, this budget puts the taxpayers first and deserves a solid B for not increasing taxes, reducing expenditures, and putting the taxpayers' interests first," said Commonwealth Foundation President and CEO Matthew J. Brouillette. "But much more can be done to limit state government to its core functions and begin reducing Pennsylvania's ranking as the 10th highest tax burden in the nation."

Brouillette praised the governor's call to give taxpayers greater control over school property tax increases above the rate of inflation, but encouraged him to go further. "Act 1 of 2006 failed to control property tax increases, and homeowners are paying for that legislative failure today," said Brouillette. "But we should give taxpayers a say over any and all tax increases. These are the taxpayers' schools and they should decide if they want to pay a penny more for them."

The governor also called for wage rollbacks and salary freezes for state workers who received pay increases while the private sector lost jobs. "Gov. Corbett gave great hope that Pennsylvania can end the inequity between private-sector taxpayers and government employees who enjoys better health care benefits, better pensions, better job security, and an earlier retirement," said Brouillette.

"In calling for ‘collective sacrifices' in the union bargaining process, Gov. Corbett asked state government workers to share in the same economic reality and burdens the taxpayers have every day," said Brouillette. "With 17 of 19 state union contracts set to expire in June, this is a reasonable approach to restoring the balance of power back to the taxpayers of Pennsylvania."

Setting the agenda for greater school choice and expanded privatization to include ending the state monopoly over liquor, Gov. Corbett called for "reality-based budgeting" by changing the budget focus from inputs to outcomes and having government prioritize spending based on well-defined core functions.

"This is a big step in the right direction, but it only slows the runaway tax-borrow-and-spend train that is state government," said Brouillette. "Pennsylvania still has a lot of work to be done, but we are hopeful this governor and this General Assembly will keep the promises they have made to the taxpayers."

To earn an A+, the Commonwealth Foundation recommends the complete elimination of "corporate welfare" programs; a more fiscally conservative revenue projection; reducing welfare fraud and abuse; and better financial planning for the coming pension, retiree health care, and Medicaid funding crises.

The Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org) is an independent, non-profit public policy research and educational institute based in Harrisburg, PA.

Vouchers: They are a distraction, not a solution

By Ian Rosenblum

Imagine you're relocating and can choose to live somewhere with an unemployment rate of about 4 percent, nearly 9 percent or 13 percent. For most of us, we'd go where we have the best chance of getting a job.

But for Pennsylvanians, these unemployment rates aren't a matter of where they live - it's all about the education they received. Even in these tough economic times, Pennsylvanians with a college degree have an unemployment rate of only 4.4 percent. For those with a high school diploma, it's 8.6 percent. And for Pennsylvanians who dropped out of high school, the unemployment rate is a whopping 12.9 percent.

Improving education is essential to getting our economy back on track. But the so-called "solution" getting all the attention - taxpayer-funded private school vouchers - doesn't measure up.

Who wins with vouchers?

Powerful campaign contributors and the for-profit education industry. Gov. Tom Corbett even appointed one of the biggest pro-voucher donors to co-chair his education transition committee. And with vouchers, private companies and private schools get rich at taxpayer expense.

Who loses?

Students and taxpayers.

Pennsylvania faces a multibillion-dollar deficit, so stop digging.

The state can't afford a new entitlement program that could easily cost $50 million in new spending next year and ultimately $1 billion each year after.

Voucher advocates accuse opponents of supporting the status quo, but the reality is that vouchers would make our public schools - which will continue to educate the vast majority of students - much, much worse by slashing funding and increasing local property taxes.

There's also no reason to believe that vouchers increase achievement.

Perhaps that's why the state Senate's voucher bill doesn't bother to test voucher recipients in math and reading like we do for public school students so we could compare results.

But maybe there's a silver lining: The voucher debate shows that Pennsylvania has the political will to tackle the real challenge of making sure all kids receive a quality education - and that we taxpayers are getting our money's worth.

Pennsylvania has made great progress during the last decade; today, 290,000 more students are scoring on grade level in reading and math, and we are the only state that made across-the-board academic gains.

Yet hundreds of thousands of students still lack essential skills, and too many are trapped in schools that have failed for years.

Let's tackle this problem, but let's do it right.

Here's how:

First, prevent local property tax hikes.

If Gov. Corbett and legislators cut the state education budget this year, it guarantees a tax increase - just at the local level instead of the state.

Pennsylvania should protect the current funding level and, as the economy recovers, continue to implement the school funding formula known as the Costing-Out Report.

We also must expand early childhood education, which is the best way to reduce future unemployment, welfare and prison costs.

Second, pass a law focused on fixing failing schools.

Whether it's a traditional public school or a charter school, a school should no longer exist if it doesn't work.

If a school needs to be closed; to be relaunched with a new principal, new staff and new curriculum; or to be run by experts in turning around schools, then do it.

The worst-off schools also need more learning time for students, professional time for teachers, and health and family services.

In addition, change the rules and rewards so the best teachers get the toughest assignments.

And if a school board doesn't have the will or capacity to fix a failing system, the state needs to take over.

Third, recruit great educators, dismiss those who aren't effective, and encourage innovation.

For eight years, the Rendell administration tried to end principal tenure and put superintendents and principals on performance contracts - and neither Republican nor Democratic legislators were interested.

It's time.

It's also time to evaluate teachers based in part on whether their students are learning.

And let's create a menu of ways for would-be teachers - especially mid-career professionals - to get certified, and then hold these training programs accountable for how their graduates do in the classroom.

Fourth, in a time of tight budgets, spend less on bureaucracy so we can invest more in our classrooms.

Consolidating school districts is a political non-starter.

But the state doesn't need 500 separate billing, transportation, purchasing and food service departments.

Take all of these back-office functions and perform them at the county level - eliminating redundancy and improving purchasing power.

In addition, the insurance companies have the upper hand when school districts negotiate health insurance contracts.

If we create a statewide or regional school employee health purchaser, we'll get the best deal for taxpayers.

Voucher advocates are right that we can't sacrifice any more children in failing schools; they're just wrong about the prescription.

And that's the real economic and civil rights challenge.

School choice offers innovation and opportunity

By State Senator Anthony Hardy Williams

“It’s time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody’s role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for innovation and productivity. It’s no surprise that our school system doesn’t improve.”

These are not my words or those of my colleague, Sen. Jeff Piccola, but those of Albert Shanker, former union president of the American Federation of Teachers, who said them in 1989.

School choice will bring those necessary incentives for innovation and productivity.

As one such incentive, Sen. Piccola and I have introduced Senate Bill 1, the Opportunity Scholarship and Education Improvement Tax Credit Act. This landmark legislation will expand school choice in Pennsylvania.

School choice is not an alternative to public education. It is a vital part of an innovative and productive public education system.

Parents who are financially able to, make choices by moving into good school districts or by sending their children to private school. SB1 would allow low-income families to take the state tax dollars devoted to their child and apply them to the public or nonpublic school of their choice.

It would allow more middle class and working families across Pennsylvania to choose the best schools for their children by expanding the popular Education Improvement Tax Credit, which provides tax credits to companies that donate money for scholarships or educational improvement.

The time for school choice, and yes, school vouchers, has come.

When asked, most Pennsylvanians say they support school choice. Gov. Tom Corbett supports school choice. School vouchers are overwhelmingly supported by public school parents wanting more and better choices for their children.

Parents, the ultimate arbiters of what works, are voting with their feet, moving and taking their children out of failing schools and enrolling them in charter, private and parochial schools. In fact, there are close to 25,000 students on charter school waiting lists in Pennsylvania.

SB1 has earned the support of a broad coalition from across the state, including Democrats and Republicans, large unions and grassroots organizations.

It deserves your support as well. An educated workforce makes Pennsylvania more competitive, attracts jobs and reduces expenditures on social services.

The Pennsylvania School Boards Association and Pennsylvania State Education Association are the primary opponents of school choice.

These political organizations employ highly paid lobbyists to “stand in the doorway” of progress while protecting the status quo.

Opponents of school choice will argue that parental involvement is key to a child’s success then spend millions to deny parental involvement in choosing the school that best fits their child’s needs. They recommend more money, which we cannot afford and want more time, which our children don’t have.

It’s been 15 years since Gov. Tom Ridge first proposed school vouchers, and I argued on the floor of the House — I was a member of that chamber then — in support of parental school choice.

We heard the same arguments from our opponents.

They simply needed more money and more time. Well, they got both. Since 1996, public school spending has doubled to $26 billion annually. Pennsylvania taxpayers spend more than $13,000 per student — $2,000 more than the national average and more than 39 other states.

In some of our persistently lowest-achieving public schools, we spend nearly $20,000 per student — a poor return on investment while you are demanding a more efficient use of your tax dollars. More time and more money was not the answer then and it is not the answer now.

Our opponents seem more concerned with propping up a system than educating children. They cling to the antiquated belief that existing public school systems have the right of first refusal when it comes to educating our children. An innovative and productive public education system can include home schooling, parochial schools, private schools, cyber schools, public charter schools and, yes, traditional public schools — all of which I support.

Forcing children to remain in a system that fails to provide them with a quality education is not an acceptable outcome when proven options could be made available.

In all of their talking points, the opposition never provides a viable answer to one basic question: What should involved but financially trapped parents do with a child in a persistently failing neighborhood school?

Their reply is the same as it has been for nearly two decades: “Wait. Leave your children here until the school is fixed. More money, more time is all that is needed.”

Sadly, these are the same answers they heard when they were students in these same schools more than 15 years ago. And the beat goes on, the cycle continues and another generation is lost.

The time for school choice is now. Contact your legislators. Tell them you support Senate Bill 1. The future of our commonwealth — our children — depends on it.

Kill the property tax and see Pa. prosper

The following is an open letter to the state Senate:

The state House of Representatives passed the Stop Primary Residence Protection Plan to completely abolish the corrupt property tax. It now sits in the Senate waiting for cowardly senators to act on it and put it out for the sheeple to vote on it. Below is the answer to Pennsylvania’s financial crisis.

Would a $24 billion infusion of economic activity (at no cost to government on any level) boost Pennsylvania’s stagnant economy?

There is $8 billion sitting idly in tax escrow accounts in banks all over Pennsylvania. Banks pay no interest on the $8 billion, so this idle money gains the depositor (homeowner with a mortgage) absolutely nothing.

Banks cannot lend the money, so it generates no economic activity in the marketplace; and banks don’t benefit either. It just idly sits there waiting until yearly property taxes are due on homes. Then the banks forward the money to the counties, school districts and municipal governments.

Economists say money reverberates through our economy multiple times. We used three times (a very conservative estimate) to arrive at the $24 billion in economic activity that would be occur if the $8 billion in tax escrow accounts was no longer required from those with home mortgages.

If there were no property tax escrow accounts, home owners with mortgages would pay only the principal and interest on their mortgage plus homeowners insurance, cutting their monthly “house” payment by multiple hundreds of dollars.

More people could keep their homes.

More people could buy homes greatly boosting the housing market. More people would improve their homes.

More young people would establish their home for their families in Pennsylvania rather than some other state

More seniors (retirees) would remain here, keeping their accumulated wealth here, too.

Greater population would attract more businesses to serve them.

Tens of thousands of permanent jobs would be created in the private sector with no need for governmentally funded, so-called “job creation” programs. Make-work governmentally induced jobs are often temporary — lasting only until the federal or state funding is no longer forthcoming.

More people working, plus more businesses, equals more tax revenue for schools, counties and municipalities.

More people able to purchase homes means revitalization of our suffering municipalities.

No more sheriff sales for “delinquent” property taxes currently based on phony, corrupt assessment figures stealing the homes and most, or all of the equity of 30,000+ Pennsylvania home owners every year.

No more countywide reassessments, which cost Pennsylvania taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.

Smaller government, since every county’s property tax assessment offices could be cut dramatically, saving taxpayers tens of millions across the state.

No more harassment of homeowners since there would be no more reassessment hearings.

The Lottery-Funded Property Tax Rebate program could be abolished, saving the lottery over $60 million per year, which could be used to provide more seniors with PACE coverage, or expanded Rent Rebates.

True home ownership would come to Pennsylvanians for the first time in our history, since we currently, in effect, only “rent” our homes from the counties, municipalities and school districts. Private property ownership rights is a basic component of our freedom.

How could this dream become a reality? First, if anyone tells you it can’t work, they are either misinformed or lying. They need only to check with the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, which studied the STOP Primary Residence Protection plan and found abolishing all three property taxes on primary residences (homesteads/farmsteads) is fiscally sound and economically viable.

Schools, counties and municipalities would be fully funded with replacement revenue for the lost property tax revenue. Increased economic activity would mean even more revenue for the county and municipal governments and school districts than they are currently receiving.

During the eight years of Gov. Ed Rendell’s reign of error, 240,000-plus Pennsylvania families lost their homes and equity and he couldn’t have cared less. Will Gov. Tom Corbett be any better? Let’s hope and pray he will.


By Dom Lauro Upper Darby PA

PA School Voucher Legislation Just Another Big Government Entitlement Program?

Senate Bill 1 is being sold by Sens. Jeffrey Piccola and Anthony Williams as the "civil rights movement" of the 21st century. But their solution — create another government agency to oversee implementation of an untested voucher program limited to a small percentage of the low-income population — leaves the middle class behind.

The program would cause a reactionary increase in non-public school costs, resulting in bloated and more expensive private education. There would be no restraint and no incentive for non-public schools to leave money on the table, especially for opportunists who see private schools as investments using taxpayer money. It would be vulnerable to lobbyists and special interest groups. Vouchers would likely increase, resulting in greater intrusion into the private sector with a potential to regulate and restrain participating non-public schools. A recent CATO Institute study revealed that vouchers, not tax credits, impose a significant, additional regulatory burden on participating private schools.

SB1 would increase the successful Educational Improvement Tax Credit, where businesses contribute to scholarship organizations in exchange for a tax credit. EITC is currently law and does not belong in SB1. It is the proverbial carrot dangling to entice the middle class to support the bill. Instead of another entitlement program that would serve as a mechanism for big government, we support:

•Expansion of EITC, which saved taxpayers more than $531 million in 2007-08 and benefited more than 44,000 students.

•Personal income tax credits for contributions to scholarship organizations and for educational expenses, offsetting private school tuition and home-school expenses.

•Educational savings accounts, where the state would contribute funds in exchange for parents agreeing not to enroll children in public schools. Parents could use the account for a wide range of educational services, including alternative schools and higher education. Furthermore, parents could contribute to an account tax free and withdraw money without tax penalties.

•Interdistrict (public school to public school) education, with guidelines to not limit spaces for incoming residents and to address the issue of participating vs. non-participating public schools.

If vouchers become law, we highly recommend a sliding scale for transparency and accountability based on the Thomas B. Fordham Institute report, "When Private Schools Take Public Dollars." The more vouchers a school receives, the more transparency and higher accountability are needed. This would prevent "educrats" and greedy philanthropists from creating private schools and managing charter schools simply to make a profit and not be held accountable.

UNITEPA supports academic freedom for all parents and guardians, not just a small percentage. The voucher program lends itself to another failed government program, whose tentacles would reach far into the non-public school system.

We have a tremendous opportunity to pass a constitutional, principled bill for school choice to offer an equal opportunity for all Pennsylvanians. However, SB1 is not about school choice. It is a political attempt to disrupt the union stranglehold on schools while promoting an unconstitutional quick fix for failing schools. We hope our legislators develop a more inclusive and fair bill and/or amendments to SB1.

Sharon Cherubin is executive director of UNITEPA of Lancaster County.

Free at last

Guest Column By Albert Paschall

What is the most institutionalized system of discrimination in this state? Criminal justice, corrections and prisons or our public schools?

While a case could be made for all three, and they are connected, the public school systems wins hands down as the system that suppresses the hopes and dreams of African Americans and Latinos especially in Pennsylvania's larger cities.

In a recent speech, Philadelphia's new District Attorney Seth Williams, Jr. announced a startling statistic: on average only 43% of that city's school children graduate from high school. Called disaffected by social workers, society calls them drop outs. The economic contrasts are enormous. According to an organization called 'Youth United for Change' the average drop out will earn $475,000 over his or her lifetime, the average college graduate $2 million.

A press celebrated Bucks County High School teacher wrote on her blog about how some of her students would be qualified "when the trash trucks were hiring." Why work on a trash truck when selling drugs or robbery pays a lot more money?

That's the correlation, the child left behind in an inner-city school that drops out before graduation is far more likely to be incarcerated. As a taxpayer would you be more likely to spend $20,000 a year to keep a young person in prison, with little chance of a good job after they get out or $20,000 a year to send them to Penn State to become productive citizens? Both cost about the same.

The reasons for the collapse of urban public education in Pennsylvania are myriad. It starts in 1976 with Jimmy Carter's political payback to the teachers' unions mandating the nanny-acracy of the Federal Department of Education. The teachers' unions then turned their political clout on the states getting the right to strike. Creating the unholy alliance in Pennsylvania between those unions and the Pennsylvania State Association of School Directors whose only power is to foster regulations that continue to make their own Boards powerless. Aside from the capital projects of building new, expensive schools, with all of the bureaucratic mandates one is defied to find a School Board in this state that actually has control of more than 10% of its budget.

So how do we break this cycle of confusion? One answer: give parents the right to choose where their children will be educated. Under Pennsylvania Senate Bill 1 launched by Democrat Anthony Williams and Republican Jeff Piccolo parents of children in Pennsylvania's poorest school districts would get a voucher for up to $9,000 to educate their kids. Governor Corbett has endorsed the concept with details to follow. Liberals like Senator Daylin Leach claim the bill would cross the line between church and state if kids were allowed to go to Christian, Jewish, Muslim or other religious schools with state money. The answer to that is clear: the one God who made us all institutionalized parenting long before the state institutionalized our failed educational bureaucracies.

Someday if parents in Pennsylvania get the right to parent, to send their kids to schools that they choose, participate aggressively in their education, the cry of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. might be realized. Minority children will be on the road to equality in the system. They will be free at last.

Albert Paschall is Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Resarch. Somedays is syndicated to leading newspapers and radio stations in Pennsylvania. Mr. Paschall can be contacted at lincolnpa@aol.com.

Speaking of Rights...

The time has come for PA to enact a Right to Work law

Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry

In Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has chosen to fight a budget battle and engage in a playing field-altering confrontation with his state's labor unions at the same time. Here in Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett has decided to fight the budget battle first. But, to ultimately fix the structural budget deficit, he must also fundamentally alter the commonwealth's relationship with public sector labor unions.

Unions in Wisconsin have capitulated to Governor Walker on many of the financial issues involved in their stand-off. But, they have dug in over so-called collective bargaining rights. That is because collective bargaining by public sector unions is what gives them an unfair advantage in contract negotiations.

It is wrong to think of collective bargaining as a right. It is not a right. It is a privilege. It is a privilege that essentially gives unions the ability to dictate the terms of their own contracts. Governor Walker understands the power of collective bargaining which is why he wants to limit such privileges to give state, county and municipal governments a more level playing field.

But, let's spot the unions a big one. Let's not talk about taking away their collective bargaining privileges. Instead, let us simply demand equal rights for everyone. Since the unions are so vocal in support of their "rights," we should expect they would be amenable to support and honor the rights of others.

The next battle should be to give all Pennsylvanians the right to work. Governor Tom Corbett has said he would sign a Right to Work law if it made it to his desk. Republicans hold large majorities in both houses of the General Assembly. Since the GOP is supposedly the party of individual rights and free enterprise, there will never be a better time for passing a Right to Work law.

Simply put a Right to Work law would give every Pennsylvanian the right to hold whatever job he or she chooses without being compelled to join or pay so-called "fair share" fees to a labor union. Compulsory unionism is un-American on its face, and on the practical level, makes Penn's Woods uncompetitive when it comes to attracting new businesses and jobs.

Republican leadership in the General Assembly, often elected with thousands in union campaign contributions, has been reluctant to support or bring a Right to Work law to the floor for a vote. But, Pennsylvanians are angry at state government overspending and the rampant corruption which has plagued the legislature. Voters and taxpayers are demanding action; not just band aide fixes, but real structural reforms.

There is strong public support for enactment of a Right to Work law. Over a 16 year period the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research has asked Pennsylvania voters whether or not they support a Right to Work law. They have consistently supported such a law by a two to one margin. In the most recent poll 56% backed a Right to Work law, while just 30% are in opposition. In surveys of business owners, enactment of a Right to Work law is viewed as a necessary structural change to make Pennsylvania competitive with other states.

Governor Corbett should give unions an option: accept enactment of a Right to Work law, or cede your collective bargaining privileges. Unions, of course, will accept neither. But the time has come to stop letting labor unions - which represent a diminished and shrinking percentage of the work force - dictate the terms of public policy.

It is also time for the Republicans who now control state government to stand up and be counted. Last November taxpayers voted for change. The GOP was given the power to enact change. If that power is not put to use, then Republicans will have no argument for being returned to office the next time they face voters.

Labor unions argue they have the right to band together and bargain collectively. If that is true so is the reverse: individuals have the right to work without being forced against their will to join or pay fees to a union to which they do not wish to belong.

It is time to level the playing field.

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.

PoliticsPA Exclusive: More Good News for Casey in Latest Poll

By Keegan Gibson, Managing Editor


Bob Casey continues to enjoy relatively strong favorability, according to a poll obtained by PoliticsPA from the firm Municipoll. 46 percent of likely voters have a favorable opinion of Casey, compared with only 30 percent of voters with an unfavorable opinion.

The survey of 670 likely voters was conducted via IVR from Feb. 21-23, 2011.

These results closely resemble those in last week's Quinnipiac poll, which showed Casey with a net favorable job approval rating of 44 percent to 24 percent.

"Maybe Bob Casey isn't unbeatable but he's looking pretty darn good for a Democrat in a swing state that Senate Republicans are supposedly talking about targeting next year," said Ed Haggerty, President of Municipoll.

There is no front runner for the GOP nomination to challenge Casey, but the Senator performs well against several of the names that have been mentioned so far. Former US Senator Rick Santorum presents the stiffest challenge but Casey bests him 50 to 38 percent. Casey also beats Congressman Charlie Dent, 51 to 32 percent and Congressman Jim Gerlach, 48 to 34 percent.

The down side for Casey? After four years in office, 24 percent of likely voters still don't know enough about him to form an opinion.

The poll also found President Obama's favorability at 51 percent in the state (versus 44 percent unfavorable), again echoing last week's Quinnipiac poll.

Newly elected Republicans Governor Tom Corbett and Senator Pat Toomey enjoy net favorable ratings, with Corbett at 48 percent to 31 percent, and Toomey at 42 percent to 35 percent. However, by a 50 percent to 31 percent margin, voter expect Corbett to break his no texes, no fees pledge.

Voters favor a tax on Marcellus shale gas drilling companies and the sale of the state liquor stores, "to help close the budget deficit." (57 percent to 28 percent for the gas tax, 57 to 30 percent for selling state liquor stores).

And finally, former Senator Rick Santorum suffers a net unfavorable rating in PA, with 39 percent favorable and 44 percent unfavorable.

Pat Toomey: Congress must lead on debt

Washington’s chronic overspending problem is becoming a national emergency.

Judging by the budget he submitted to Congress, President Obama is abrogating his responsibility to provide the principled leadership we badly need to solve the problem. Instead, Congress will have to provide the leadership that the president will not. There is no more time to kick this can down the road.

In only the last decade — since 2000 — total federal spending has doubled. Last year’s level reached 25 percent of our nation’s economy — a post-World War II record and far higher than recent years have averaged. This spending surge has resulted in massive, record-breaking deficits. As recently as 2007, our deficit was only 1.2 percent of our gross domestic product. This year it is more than 10 percent, or $1.6 trillion. Our government is borrowing about 40 cents of every dollar it spends.

The recent, huge deficits have, inevitably, created a mountain of debt. Over the last 20 years, our debt had remained fairly constant as a percentage of our national output. From 1988 through 2008, federal debt averaged 41 percent of GDP. Today it’s 64 percent. It’s going to be 72 percent of GDP by October.

By the end of 2011, the debt will have more than doubled in only four years. President Obama has proposed tripling it by 2017. And, this is just a fraction of the problem that we have.
These debt figures include neither the government’s contingent liabilities nor the unfunded commitments we have taken on. Federal guarantees of just Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s outstanding obligations total $5.4 trillion, according to the Government Accountability Office.

And the unfunded commitments of the big entitlement programs — Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid — total well into the tens of trillions of dollars.

Economists who have studied the effects of excessive debt agree that it hinders economic growth and can lead to huge, sometimes repeated, financial crises. Many believe we are already experiencing the former and are on a collision course with the latter.

Yet the president just proposed another budget that continues deficit spending as usual.
Over the next 10 years, the president’s budget adds $7.9 trillion in new spending beyond his 2011 budget, $1.4 trillion in new tax increases, and still adds $8.5 trillion to our national debt. He proposes keeping the federal government bloated at nearly 24 percent of GDP and offers no reforms for the big entitlement programs driving our future deficits. And these deficits will likely be worse than the White House projects since its budget assumes stronger economic growth, lower interest rates, and lower inflation than many economists believe likely.

This irresponsible budget comes at a time when the country is only a few months away from hitting its statutory debt ceiling. Since ongoing tax revenue will fund only 60 percent of projected government spending, Congress would have to raise the debt limit to permit more borrowing and continue down the spending path we are on.

The president and his administration have demanded that Congress raise the debt ceiling, prior to reaching it, and with no conditions attached.

That would be a big mistake. An administration that gave us an $800 billion stimulus bill; a trillion-plus-dollar health-care bill; hundreds of millions in bailouts; and that even now advocates a $50 billion high-speed-rail boondoggle, cannot be relied upon to rein in spending on some indeterminate day in the future. We need to act now.

Congress should insist on real, immediate spending cuts and substantive reforms of our broken spending process as part of any debt-limit-increase package. The House has made a good start on the former with the bill it recently passed that funds the government for the rest of this year.

As for substantive, structural spending reforms, a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution would be an ideal fiscal straitjacket. But I would be open to other reforms including tough, statutory spending caps that would limit total spending and force Congress to live within its means.


If a family spends beyond its means for years, charging all of its excess purchases to an array of credit cards, when the family maxes out on the cards most Americans would say it was time for them to reform and cut their spending — before they got another credit card!

It should be no different for our government. Too much debt inhibits job creation now and dangerously jeopardizes our financial, economic, and even national security future. Before we authorize more borrowing, Congress should enact the reforms needed to put us back on a sustainable fiscal path despite the president’s objections. Anything less would be irresponsible.

Pat Toomey is the junior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania.

Fiscal self-discipline isn't in U.S. vocabulary

Guest Column By Frank Ryan

President Obama announced the 2012 budget of $3.7 trillion with an expected deficit of $1.1 trillion. This will be the fourth consecutive year the nation has run a deficit more than $1 trillion, which will push the national debt into new territory as it tops $16 trillion. A national disaster is in the making.

When combined with exploding state deficits and other unfunded liabilities, the debt crisis will begin to unfold rapidly and unpredictably for our citizens. The Republican-led Congress responded with demands for budget cuts of $100 billion. The current debt crisis requires so much more, but it seems to not be politically feasible.

Some might question why America should be concerned. After all, our professors taught us that fiscal policy and the use of government to smooth out the business cycle is a legitimate way to govern.

This time, things are different. Fiscal and monetary policies, as with all economic measures, operate within constraints. The constraints have all been broken and the effects of these fiscal and monetary policies are uncharted and will lead to extremely volatile results.

The issues facing our nation are profound and made more so because of the constraints of our aging population, the coming retirement of baby boomers, the decline in education quality and a voter turnout of less than 30 percent in the 2010 elections does not bode well for reform.

I specialize in keeping organizations out of bankruptcy. In doing so, I have found elements that are critical to the success of the turnaround of the business. Most organizations ignore corrective actions early on such that a full-blown economic crisis ensues. For economies, this is part of the “creative destruction” described by professor Joseph Schumpeter as part of the natural economic process.

It is natural for a people to ignore warnings until it is too late. Enforced discipline is apparently preferable to financial self-discipline.

For a turnaround to be successful, everyone must understand the critical problems being faced. Everyone must be willing to sacrifice. I contend that with only 30 percent of voters engaged, we, as a nation, don’t quite get it yet.

The $100 billion in cuts might be all that is palatable to the electorate right now. Unfortunately, this token cutback is not sufficient to stop even one month worth of excess spending.

True reform is required, but my belief is that it is not politically acceptable as yet. Ending the departments of Energy and Education come to mind as possible candidates for cutbacks, but I doubt that such cuts would be enacted before the crisis becomes so severe as to not make any difference.

Second, the turnaround requires all to take a long-term view and not a short-term view. Self-discipline must win out over self-indulgence. If no one is willing to accept change or cutbacks, then all cuts will be cosmetic in nature and not yield substantive results. Ford Motor Co. and its unions negotiated the tough issues and solved them. They will emerge a great company and will survive. They remembered their customers and their dealers and not just themselves. GM took the easy way out and will lose in the long run.

A turnaround is not without discomfort. The longer the fixes take to be enacted though, the more painful the cure. Social Security, for example, was first identified as a problem in the 1970s yet no substantive corrective actions were taken. The final Social Security fix will not be pleasant, but it will be done.

Third, a successful turnaround requires spending less than you take in and not increasing your revenues at the expense of controlling your costs. Government cannot make up its deficiencies by volume.

Fourth, there cannot be any sacred cows in a turnaround. Every department must be viewed and waste eliminated. In the federal government alone, the effort must be undertaken to remove incompetent managers and employees to make government more effective and less costly.

Finally, the customer must take center stage. In a government, the customer is the taxpayer. It is the person paying the bills, not the recipient of the government largesse, but the financier of the government who must be looked at as someone to nurture and not vilify.

Without the steps above enacted in a timely manner, the turnaround will not work. The failed turnaround is marked by a situation in which the solution is forced upon us. I fear that is where we are headed. Our creative destruction is under way. The bad news is that it is not stoppable any longer.

The great news is that in the long run our vibrant people will survive and a greater nation is likely to emerge but only if we decide to get engaged in the fight and strive to remain faithful to the founding principles of our nation and our Constitution. I am confident that we will.

Frank Ryan of Lebanon is a CPA specializing in corporate restructuring. He lectures on ethics for the state CPA societies and is a retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve.