Is Governor Corbett Embracing Cronyism?

The Courier Times News published a great editorial today sharply criticizing some of Governor Corbett's administrative appointments. Corbett has looked to several political insiders, campaign contributors, and even family members of his campaign's inner circle in the case of the PA Turnpike to fill administrative vacancies.

From the The newly named head of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, for example, falls into that category. Roger E. Nutt is the commission's new chief executive officer, a job that pays $196,700 a year. If the name sounds familiar that's because Nutt, 70, is the father of Brian Nutt, who ran Corbett's campaign for governor and was later named the governor's chief of staff, a position he left for a job with a political consulting firm. Brian Nutt remains Corbett's chief political adviser. Click Here To Read More

The editorial rightly asks the question why someone who as Attorney General spent so much time fighting Harrisburg corruption highlighted by the convictions in the "Bonusgate" scandal, would revert back to business as usual when it comes to appointments to high level government positions as Governor?

I've stated before that despite Governor Corbett's anti government corruption crusade as Attorney General, he has always been a Harrisburg insider. He has never ruffled any feathers until the "Bonusgate" scandal.

Corbett was no where to be found during the Pay Raise scandal of July 2005 when state lawmakers passed pay increases for state lawmakers, judges, and top executive-branch at 2:00 AM in the morning without public review. He never questioned the unconstitutional "unvouchered expenses" trumped up by then Chief Justice Ralph Cappy. As the Commonwealth's chief lawyer representing the people, Corbett let us down then and it is not a surprise to me at least that he is hooking up his inner circle as Governor. Continuing the tradition of business as usual as Governor.

De-fund NPR & Planned Parenthood

De-funding NPR or the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), since it is really the true corporate arm of NPR, along with Planned Parenthood, are logical since it is seriously objectionable to require taxpayers to fund organizations they find morally repugnant. More than that!

The US Constitution has no provision(s) within to legally justify such funding. Yes, there are probably 'conservative' causes that also are not mentioned in the constitution & yes, they too should probably be de-funded. Whats good for the goose is surely good for the gander. No problem here. Would mean less money spent!

In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) also recently released a report defining duplicate federal departments, agencies, bureau's, panels, etc., costing taxpayers over $200 billion. That number is astonishing to me.

By eliminating the duplicate agencies, the reduction in our budget deficit would be more positively affected than even the recently proposed $61 billion dollar federal budget expenditure cuts proposed by Republicans & summarily rejected by Democrats seeking, among other frivolous expenditures, to preserve taxpayer funding for Cowboy Poetry Festivals in Nevada!.

Obtuse is the only descriptive word that I can come up with. A $61 billion dollar reduction was rejected when we know of over $200 billion dollars in duplicative waste, simply provides additional justification to taxpayers that their government may no longer represent, the people.

The fact that continuing resolutions are needed to keep the federal government open for business, since there is not & has not been an approved budget for nearly two years now, demonstrates to the public that concentrated federal government, affected by suspiciously influential special interest groups, is as ineffective and potentially destructive, as the nations founders suspected it would be.

Obviously, this is why the founders did not want a strong central government.

Democrat wins special election for O'Pake Senate seat

There's a reason Pennsylvania's 11th State Senate District has been represented by a Democrat since it was created in 1961.

It's one of the most heavily Democratic legislative districts in Pennsylvania.

Democratic Sen. Mike O'Pake first won the Senate seat in 1972 and had two more years left in his current term when he died Dec. 27 at age 70 from complications following heart surgery.

Democrat Judy Schwank, a former two-term Berks County commissioner, won the special election Tuesday to finish O'Pake's term, with 20,124 votes to Republican challenger Larry Medaglia's 14,794.

The 11th District includes the City of Reading, where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 5-1 margin. The most recent voter registration numbers show 82,727 registered Democrats to 48,674 Republicans in the 11th District.

Even with Schwank's victory, Republicans hold a 30-20 majority in the state Senate. Republicans also control the state House and the governor's mansion.

Some State Budget Debate Thoughts From Right Field

Here at PennPatriot Blog our revenues were down about 6,000 in fiscal year 2010 and we will be facing a 8,000 dollar projected budget shortfall in 2011. Mmmm......What should we do?

1. We could increase spending in 2011 so we can rack up even more debt. Yeah groovy!!

2. We could borrow more money to pay off the debt we already have thus increasing our interest payments and again end up increasing our overall debt.

3. We could renegotiate the terms of our debt forcing our lenders to extending the number of years we have to payback our debt passing the debt onto future blog contributors. Now that is an idea.

4. We could increase our revenues here at PennPatriot Blog if only we didn't have to pay more school property taxes, county property taxes, local municipal property taxes, sales taxes, income taxes, local head tax, emergency services taxes, and gas taxes. Oh I forgot to add in the burdensome government regulation, insurance requirements, ObamaCare costs, and other government fees which also impact our bottom line.

5. We could move our operations to Florida where there is no income tax. That's and idea. Fun in the Sun!!

6. We could move our operations to a Right-To-Work state like Texas but then our union contributors and local news sources would march in the streets.

7. We could cut spending and asked our contributors to fork over more cash for expenses. Um that's not going to happen!

8. We we could stop blogging all together because it is too time consuming and no one cares what the hell we have to say anyhow!

Please read these options carefully and then think about our overall budget crisis here in Pennsylvania. Just a bunch of nonsense.

Maybe our elected officials at all levels of government have not learned anything from the election results in November. God help our Pennsylvania businesses and those state lawmakers who fully understand that we must cut government spending to get our economy moving again.

We must hold elected officials accountable

Guest Column By Steve Vogel

Ask not what they can do for us, but rather what we will do for them.

This should be the slogan of all politicians seeking to run for office or re-election. They all talk a good game, but bottom line is “it appears they are looking out only for themselves.”

With the federal deficit huge, I thought, maybe, if all the senators and congressmen had to pay more for their benefits it might help reduce it. So I inquired from Congressman Joe Pitts what do they pay for their benefits! I asked not once but twice and guess what? I did not get a response.

Did we not elect him? And yet he won’t answer a simple question. That to me says a lot and trust me, Mr. Pitts when up for re-election will not get my vote. We put them in office and then they do as they damn well please. They take trips and when they get caught say, “I was going to pay for it.” Sure you were.

If you worked for a company, you could lose your job for taking stuff from vendors, but we continue to let our elected officials do as they want. The answer is get rid of them and put someone else in and if they aren’t accountable get rid of them.

If we are going to improve this state and this country, we need to hold our elected officials accountable and we do not. Counties, states and the federal government are all operating in the red and it is the person who can least afford it that is forced to suffer. Wake up, people, and stand up for our country.

Listen to the song by Sugarland, “Standup.” It says it all. We need to take our heads out of the sand before it is too late. If you disagree with me, e-mail me and tell me why I am wrong.

Don't blame labor unions for budget woes

Guest Column By Jim Foster

These are troubled times for all levels of government.

Federal, state and local leaders are grappling with budget deficits. A significant part of the problem is public pensions whose obligations have not been fully funded.

Everyone agrees that this is a problem.

What gives me heartburn is the constant chorus telling us that this problem is caused solely by greedy labor unions.

Blaming unions for the current fiscal crisis seems to me a bit like George Steinbrenner, late owner of the New York Yankees, blaming Alex Rodriguez for negotiating the largest contract in baseball history.

There was no gun at George’s head as he agreed to take on A-Rod’s deal. But to hear some politicians and tea partiers these days, the unions were wielding automatic weapons when they negotiated the public sector pension deals.

The truth is that these pensions were arrived at fair and square through a series of negotiations between unions representing employees and elected officials representing us, the taxpayers. Both sides had legal representation and knew exactly what they were doing.

The problems arose after the negotiations. These pensions created liabilities. Government representatives were supposed to fund these obligations. They simply didn’t do it.

It is morally reprehensible for our officials to now blame the unions for the terrible sin of negotiating a deal and then expecting government to live up to it.

It is generally true that public sector pensions are better than those in the private sector. But again, is A-Rod to blame because he was able to negotiate a better deal than his fellow athletes? Another fact is that private sector pensions used to be better than they are now.

But during the past generation, retirement benefits in the private sector have declined significantly. Many companies have converted their defined benefit pension plans, where the company takes more risk, to defined contribution plans, where the employees take most of the risk. This hasn’t happened as much in the public sector because more public employees are represented by unions who haven’t allowed this.

Financial planners have been advising us for years to prepare for our retirement. That is what the public sector unions did for their members. Unions made sure that their employees had adequate pensions. In many cases, unions agreed to give up larger salary increases in return for better pensions. Now, in the fun house mirror world of today’s politics, they are the bad guys.

Do I detect a little pension envy here?

Here’s a concrete example. I worked more than 30 years in the private sector. My wife worked about the same length of time as a public school employee. We have graduate degrees. I consistently earned a paycheck of about one third more than her. But now she enjoys a pension benefit that is about three times more than mine.

In my opinion, that is because her pensions were negotiated through a collective bargaining process, and mine were not.

So, whom should we blame for the fix we are in?

I say it is the politicians who agreed to these pensions without adequately funding them.

So, hey, President Reagan, President George W. Bush and Congress — why did you cut taxes on the rich without first funding government pensions and our infrastructure needs?

On the state level, hey, Gov. Ridge, Gov. Rendell and state legislators — why did you agree to the pensions and early buyouts for state workers without providing adequate funding for them?

Ultimately, though, I think we all need to look in the mirror. We let our politicians get away with the charade of inadequate funding.

They told us there was a free lunch, and we were foolish enough to believe it. The most we can accuse the public sector unions of is being good negotiators.

We will all need to make sacrifices to fix our budgetary problems. However, it is a mistake to blame the unions.

Corbett takes poetic license with speech

Guest Column By Christopher Orchard

The Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley said that poets were the unacknowledged legislators of the world. If he was alive today, he might have been surprised to find that politicians are pushing back and appointing themselves the unacknowledged poets of their own domain.

Last Tuesday, Gov. Tom Corbett headlined a political poetry slam when he evoked William Wordsworth and his contemporaries in his budget address.

There is nothing wrong with using poetry to add gravitas to a speech or displaying poetic cadence in the speech itself.

But politicians should not use verse irresponsibly or insert poetry without context. Poetry sound bites can backfire. January news reports from California showed various lawmakers there misquoted the famous line from S. T. Coleridge’s poem “The Ancient Mariner” that says “Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink” in talking about water shortages facing their state.

Quoting that line is ironic because in the poem the lack of fresh drinking water is a punishment afflicted on the mariner for killing an Albatross. So rather than touch on water shortages, as the legislators intended, it actually touches on mankind killing endangered animals.

And two years ago, the former governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, peppered his meandering reflections on his political misfortunes with quotes from various poets such as Tennyson and Kipling.

Blagojevich vowed to remain in office in the face of criminal and impeachment proceedings, quoting Rudyard Kipling’s poem “If” which includes the lines: “If you can keep your head when all about you / Are losing theirs and blaming it on you ...¤ “ He left out the last line of the stanza: “And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise.”

So in quoting from — but misreading — a snippet from a William Wordsworth poem, our own governor has good company.

We might expect politicians to feel poetic in inaugural addresses rather than budget speeches. The conceptions of poetry feel more appropriate when you are laying out a vision for a state’s future than when you are referencing statistics and crunching numbers. Corbett obviously thought it appropriate.

In his speech, he uses two lines from Wordsworth’s poem “The World is Too Much With Us.” Those lines — “Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers” — were cited as poetic support for his talk about austerity and fiscal responsibility that Pennsylvanians need to embrace in the coming year. So far, so good.

However, what is ironic is that it was inserted in a speech lauded as pro-business, whereas the poem’s message is passionately environmental and anti-capitalist. Surrounded by the factories and other industries, Wordsworth was appalled, like many of his contemporaries, by the negative impact of capitalism on society.

In particular, Wordsworth was concerned about how man had become removed from his connection with Nature, to the extent, as he says later in the poem, “ Little we see in Nature that is ours.”

In a poem that regrets the way that man has become spiritually and emotionally disconnected from his natural environment, it is as much about how we are deaf to its magnificence and indifferent to its presence around us: “It moves us not.” Without this empathy, we exploit it.

Put Wordsworth in a time machine and transport him to Pennsylvania in 2011 and the sentiments of the poem would be pertinent as a critical voice concerning the negative impact of Marcellus Shale. What is ironic is that Wordsworth would be a more appropriate writer for a Democrat to quote, not a Republican presenting his first budget address.

Citation is not a neutral game in a public forum. Your choice of writer can signal all sorts of subtle associations, but you have to be sure the image fits your purpose. And that rule applies here.

Corbett also spoke about the intentions of several Romantic poets to build a utopian community on the banks of the Susquehanna River. This is true. Robert Southey and S.T. Coleridge discussed the possibilities on many of their walks together and approached random people to solicit their opinion on their plans for America.

And Corbett also is right that the concept never materialized. The poets hesitated because they were worried they would be exploited by shady businessmen and sold a bill of goods that did not match the description of the Pennsylvanian landscape.

They chose Wales instead. But Southey’s intent in 1794 was to establish a society equally ruled by all “where possessions were held in common.”

If they were visitors to the state capital in 2011, none of these poets would have seen eye to eye with the new governor. I might be wrong, but I do not think the pro-business governor has a socialist commonwealth in mind for his people.

I always tell my students to pay attention to the titles of poems because they frequently anticipate the theme that follows.

If the governor really intended the poem as a message about Pennsylvania’s financial condition, then to accept that ‘The World is too much with us” can only mean that we ignore all financial concerns, let alone focus on a budget.

Poets can be politicians and politicians can be poets, but poetry itself can only be effective if you know how to use it.

Christopher Orchard is an associate professor of English at Indiana University of Pennsylvania.

Seek sensible solutions to Marcellus tax question

Guest Column By Clifford Rieders

The debate rages as to whether Marcellus Shale drillers should pay a severance tax to the government.
The taxers say that the drillers are depleting the land and therefore ought to pay money representing a percentage of what they sever from the land because the asset will one day be gone.

The no-taxers say we need to incubate the industry to maximize the number of jobs and economic growth the drillers and their compatriots will bring. No-taxers point out that even though 38 other states have a severance tax, virtually every state that has gas in the ground, some of those states have a lower total tax when you count levies such as income and sales taxes.

Who is right? We can argue about the long-term cost of drilling as opposed to the long-term value and economic development. We can argue as to whether a severance tax would be lost in the general coffers of a money-hungry commonwealth or whether it would be used wisely to remediate damage caused by gas drilling and its associated fracking.

If there is no severance tax, would the economic activity be so much more as to make up for the cost of drilling? No analysis available to the public proves that argument. Do the states that tax oil and gas taken from the land wisely use that money? It depends on the state and who is in power.

Landowners who have gas removed from their property and benefit by royalties may or may not invest locally. However, from a tax point of view, the land depreciates as the gas is removed. This "depletion allowance" is a tax benefit to landowners by virtue of the theory that their land becomes less valuable as the mineral or other substance is removed. Therefore landowners can reduce the taxes they pay on the royalties by the extent to which the gas goes bye-bye.

That would not be so bad if the gas drillers paid taxes on all the money they make. Gas drillers also benefit by our corporate-cozy tax code. From their income, the gas drillers can deduct the cost of searching for the gas, drilling, research and development, tools, parts, equipment, employees, and royalty payments to landowners. The tax advantages to drillers and landowners are second to none in the tax code.

Considering that both landowner and driller make money from the activity and are afforded considerable tax savings, the question is properly asked as to who should pay the bill from any problems caused by the drilling. It seems as though those who are making money off the activity should be putting a little something aside for our grandchildren, who will have to deal with any problems caused by gas removal.

One good idea that has been floated is local taxation, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has suggested that the quirky doctrine of pre-emption prevents local municipalities from protecting themselves.

What about local excess user fees charged by school districts, social service agencies and municipalities for use of their facilities by drillers and owners? This can be based upon amortization or depreciation of the particular facility.

For example, a road would ordinarily be built so it would have to be resurfaced once every 10 years. But now because of the use of heavy-duty drilling rigs, the road must be replaced after five years and the projected cost of that activity could be levied against the users. The same thing could be done for other services provided by local government as demands of the burgeoning industry increase.

User fees have been a commonly accepted way of financing everything from museums to court systems.

The problem is that we spend more time arguing over philosophy and dogma than trying to wrap our arms around solutions to imminently solvable problems.

We need to put aside the Republican-Democratic schism and focus upon the cost to our local agencies by virtue of the gas-drilling cornucopia. Once we get a good handle on those costs, we must be willing to examine what is driving those costs and how best to address them without throwing out the baby with the bath water. Problems are solvable, even if attitudes are not.

Clifford Rieders is past president of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association.

‘Right-to-work’ needed now in Pennsylvania

Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry

In Wisconsin, Gov. 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, Gov. 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 Gov. Walker on many of the financial issues involved in their standoff. 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. Gov. 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. Gov. 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 Aid 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 percent backed a “Right-to-Work” law, while just 30 percent 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.

Gov. 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.

Take PSU's slice of budget pie and give it to others

Guest Column By Scott Paterno of RockTheCapital

The loud wailing you heard Tuesday coming from the old Mitchell Mansion, one of the nicest pieces of property in State College, was the sound of Penn State University President Graham Spanier losing his mind over the proposed state budget.

In case you missed it, the governor’s proposed budget takes a battle-ax to higher education funding — a 50 percent cut across the board for the 14 State System schools and Pitt, Temple, Lincoln and Penn State.

It adds up to $554.4 million in cuts.

Now, let me acknowledge the obvious: I have a family history with dear old state. I grew up a mere three blocks from campus, all of my family went there, and I hold two degrees from the original land-grant university. My parents have donated generously to the school and their name adorns the library. Yet against that backdrop, I still feel compelled to say the following:

Not only should the state cut $153 million from Penn State’s general appropriation — it should cut all $304 million. Every dime.

And I have a good policy reason: I want to shift those funds back to the State System schools — the 14 schools that serve the broadest swath of the commonwealth’s children.

In a perfect world no cuts would be necessary.

We live in tough times, and that means we have to make tough choices. Penn State, with its proven ability to raise private funds, is plainly in a better position to absorb these cuts than the other players at the education table. And while an “across-the-board 50 percent cut” looks like equal pain to all in higher education, it is not.

Putting Penn State’s cuts in perspective shows they are hardly “catastrophic” as claimed by President Spanier. On the contrary — the proposed cut in state funding represents a modest — but significant — 3.8 percent cut in Penn State’s overall budget of roughly $4 billion (athletics is self-funded, by the way).

By comparison, the proposed $232.6 million cut to the State System’s 14 schools represents 11 percent of its roughly $2 billion annual budget. In that light, the cuts proposed disproportionately impact the State System when compared with Penn State — some might even say catastrophically so.

(You can read a more detailed comparison at www.rockthecapital.com, from which this is adapted). So when you ask me “why cut Penn State more than others?” the question should really be “why are we asking so much more from the State System?”

After all, Penn State is a premium product and can afford to increase its price tag more easily than the State System.

That’s why I make the case that all of Penn State’s state funding should be cut if there are cuts to be made in higher education.

Surely Penn State can find a mix of cost savings, private giving and resource reallocation to survive such a hit — especially when you consider that it has a top 25 business department full of smart people to help.

More to the point, the only fair way to approach this is to view the cuts in terms of the institutions’ total budgets.

If we cut Penn State by $304 million and the State System by only $80 million, the result is more balanced in light of the total picture.

And there are many other reasons to start weaning Penn State off the public’s trough.

It is a huge corporation, it has a president making more than, well THE president, and it has gone from being an affordable option for Pennsylvania kids to the most expensive state school for in-state kids anywhere in the United States.

It has thrived — and expanded — in that time.

It also has had several high-profile failures (remember the Hershey/Geisinger merger? That cost millions of dollars), has built on an aggressive scale and has raised billions of dollars in private funds.

In many ways, it is only a state school in its origins; it is now so large and state funding is so small a part of the budget that it more closely resembles Penn than Bloomsburg — something that 30 years ago was not the case.

In that light, and understanding that the mission of state taxpayer higher education dollars are to educate the children of the commonwealth, it is only logical that Penn State take the biggest cuts in lean times as it has the ability to take them more easily.

President Spanier and the administration should look at it this way — we ask the richest Americans to pay the most taxes, largely because they can take the hit.

Likewise, Penn State will thrive even without $304 million of our dollars.

I don’t like the cuts, and I wish they didn’t have to be. But as a matter of policy, once we determine the cuts have to be made shouldn’t they be allocated in light of the total financial picture of these institutions?

After all, Penn State is as strong as it is because we built it — now we are asking it to move out of the house and live on its own, secure on the foundation we gave it.

SCOTT PATERNO is a consultant who lives in Derry Twp. and a contributor to rockthecapital.com.

Legislators need to look in the mirror

The latest targets in the battle to balance budgets are former American heroes: hardworking teachers, firefighters and police who are the safety net in our communities.

Ironically, those supporting the insults and threats against these heroes are members of Congress who often have little to contribute. Where are the arrests for bankers who again plundered the worldwide economy? Where are the congressional investigation committees that should have been formed to not only jail the thieves that triggered trillions of dollars of losses, but also to recover the stolen money?

The billions to be gained here would go a long way to help ailing state and local budgets. Why not go after the disgustingly evil people who had no regard for lives they would destroy, instead of trying to vilify the champions of our society who have sometimes sacrificed their own lives? The priorities of government could not be more wrong.

A final irony of note is that, according to the National Taxpayers Union, some legislators are now eligible for pensions in excess of $4 million. So if their search for waste is to be complete, they better check the nearest mirror.

PSU: Political Stunt University?

Guest Column By Charles Mitchell

University presidents are howling in response to Gov. Tom Corbett's budget address, in which he proposed giving their institutions less of taxpayers' hard-earned money. The loudest protests are coming from Graham Spanier, president of Penn State University. I see his Ph.D. is in sociology, but judging from his latest performance, he's an expert in political theater: According to the Post-Gazette, President Spanier is threatening to close campuses, warning he'll have to raise in-state tuition, and accusing Gov. Corbett of asking students to bear the brunt of his cuts.

This is the very same strategy that Gov. Ed Rendell executed so well, time after time: If someone proposes a cut in state spending, scream bloody murder that you'll have to fire all the police and firefighters. Next, label it an attack on your choice of the children, the elderly, the poor, the middle class, and/or those in a relevant lawmaker's district.

The only problem with all these wonderful theatrics is those pesky facts. While we'll have much more to say about this in the days to come, consider just two commonsensical points.

First of all, as CF's Elizabeth Stelle has pointed out, Penn State has been hiring administrators like nobody's business. According to a report by the Goldwater Institute, the university's administrative staff per 100 students grew by 71 percent between 1993 and 2007. That number happens to be 9 points higher than the number of Penn State students who earn a degree in four years (62 percent). Penn State's own statement on the cuts even says that the university has 96,000 students and 47,000 faculty and staff, one employee for about every two students. Does that sound to you like an institution that has no fat to trim before raising tuition?

Secondly, Gov. Corbett's proposal amounts to a reduction of less than four percent in Penn State's budget. The university's statement contends that is "the most dramatic appropriation cut in the history of American higher education," "devastating," and "catastrophic." Those of us who live in the real world know a less-than-four-percent belt tightening is nothing compared to the burdens many Pennsylvania families are bearing during this recession.

Legislators who are evaluating the Governor's budget, and parents who are being told their kids' tuition is going to go way up, mustn't be fooled. Penn State's response is a classic political stunt by a huge, wealthy institution that needs to make tough decisions about its own resources before loudly demanding more of ours.

Originally Posted On The Commonwealth Foundation Policy Blog