Obamacare a year later: It will prove costly

Guest Column By Michael Tanner and Nathan Benefield

In the days before the new health care law passed Congress last year, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said that we would “have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.”

Well, it has been a year since the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed, and we are now learning what was in it — much to the detriment of Pennsylvania taxpayers, businesses, doctors and patients.

Here’s some of what we now know: You probably will not be able to keep your current insurance plan. Although the president constantly reassured us that Americans would not be forced to change their current insurance plans, that increasingly appears untrue.

For example, 877,000 Pennsylvania seniors participate in the Medicare Advantage program. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that PPACA “could lead many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise their premiums or withdraw from the program.” And, the Medicare program’s chief actuary has testified that more than a quarter of seniors could be forced out of the program.

If you get your insurance at work, you will almost certainly have to change plans. The administration now admits that more than two-thirds of companies could be forced to change the coverage they offer their workers. For small businesses, the total could reach 80 percent. The new plans will have to offer additional benefits and meet new federal requirements, likely making them more expensive.

Already, thousands of Pennsylvania workers with Flexible Spending Accounts have seen how much can be contributed to the accounts cut in half, and FSA funds can no longer be used to purchase over-the-counter medications.

Workers with Health Savings Accounts remain in limbo, awaiting rules from the federal Department of Health and Human Services to determine if their plans will survive. Moreover, the law’s individual mandate continues to pose a threat to Pennsylvanians’ ability to keep their current coverage.

That mandate not only requires everyone to buy insurance, it requires insurance to meet strict government requirements, offering the benefits that the government thinks you should have, not necessarily the benefits you want or need.

The Congressional Budget Office officially “scored” the health care bill as costing $950 billion. However, those numbers do not reveal the new law’s true cost. For example, CBO’s estimates do not include roughly $115 billion in implementation costs such as the cost of hiring new IRS agents to enforce the individual mandate.

The arcane budget rules of Medicare, Social Security and the law’s new long-term care program also allow the government to double count savings while ignoring future costs outside the budget window.

Finally, the law front-ends taxes while deferring costs, providing a misleading 10-year budget outlook. True accounting suggests that the law will cost as much as $2.7 trillion over 10 years of full operation and add $823 billion to the federal deficit.

Any Pennsylvanian opening their health insurance bills recently can see that their premiums are not going down. BlueCross of Northern Pennsylvania was just granted permission to increase its rates from 9 percent to 15 percent. Capital BlueCross and Geisinger Health are predicting steady increases during the next decade. Highmark has increased its rates for small businesses by an astonishing 50 percent.

While not all of the increase can be traced to Obamacare, there is no doubt that the law has done nothing to slow rising health care costs. And the law does add its own costs. Aetna cites provisions of Obamacare as a significant reason for its recent 10 percent hike in premiums for its Individual Advantage Plan. Your taxes are going up. The PPACA imposes more than $569 billion in new or increased federal taxes during the next 10 years.

And, it’s not just federal taxes that are rising. PPACA will add more than 454,000 people to Pennsylvania’s Medicaid rolls, driving up the cost of the state’s program by more than $840 million by 2019. That means state taxes will go up or other state services will be cut. Now that we’ve had a year to see what is in the bill, Pennsylvanians should say “no thank you.”

Michael Tanner is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and Nathan Benefield is director of policy research at the Commonwealth Foundation.

Where is 'realist' position on Marcellus Shale drilling?

Guest Column By Anna Marie Sossong

The past year has brought an increasing number of articles on Marcellus Shale — addressing the science, the number of wells, the volume of gas and the actual and possible effects on the environment in the commonwealth. There are articles espousing the industry viewpoint — drilling is good, prosperity is just around the corner, the drilling industry would never do anything to hurt anyone.

There are an increasing number of articles from the naturalists — drilling is bad, radiation will contaminate our waters, the industry is evil. There seems to be no one espousing the realist position — the industry is here, the gas is here, we need to find ways to maximize the benefits and minimize the detriments to the commonwealth.

For several generations, Pennsylvania has suffered a decline in jobs available to its youth. High school and college graduates have left this state for greener pastures elsewhere. Pennsylvania’s population has declined as has its political influence. We are a state of older workers. Workers older than age 45 comprise more than 37 percent of our statewide workforce.

Pennsylvania used to be the center of the economic universe of the United States — supplying much of the coal and steel used to build railroads, bridges and other infrastructure that permitted nationwide industrial growth. During the last 50 years or so, we have stopped being an economic engine of prosperity and have settled into a familiar pattern of loss of manufacturing jobs, loss of our industrial base and increase in lower paying service jobs.

The Marcellus Shale gas play will permit Pennsylvania to again generate jobs and wealth for all its citizens — if properly managed by everyone involved, including the gas drillers and the commonwealth. The Marcellus Shale gas industry is here to stay.
We can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. We can’t, and shouldn’t, try to stop the drilling. What we, as Pennsylvanians, should do is make sure that the citizens of the commonwealth receive the maximum benefit from this new engine of prosperity.

What does that mean? It means that yes, we must regulate, inspect and oversee the industry to ensure that Penn’s Woods remains as beautiful and vibrant as possible. It also means that we must permit the gas drillers to drill, to use our water and to hire our citizens.

However, it also means that we must make sure that the wealth generated by the industry stays in the state — to build new businesses, grow our existing businesses and create new manufacturing and industrial jobs for Pennsylvania’s youth so they can stay in this state to raise their families and enjoy the wonders of the commonwealth.

As I see it, right now, there seems to be no concerted effort at the state or industry level to coordinate economic development efforts throughout the region so the commonwealth maximizes the benefits while minimizing the risk. DEP is racing to catch up on the regulatory side of the problem.

Labor and industry is concentrating on training Pennsylvanians for jobs in the drilling industry. The Governor’s Action Team in DCED hasn’t been at all visible. The Marcellus Shale Coalition is, rightfully, also concentrating its efforts on developing drilling industry jobs for Pennsylvanians. But I have seen no government agency or industry initiative designed with the larger view — creating economic development opportunities in nondrilling industries or assisting existing Pennsylvania businesses to enter the drilling industry.

The current budget crisis in the commonwealth will make it difficult to fund all the necessary DEP efforts to keep up with the inspections and regulations. Creation of a coordinated economic development initiative at the state level will be difficult to fund — unless the industry decides that it sees the economic and public relations value in such a program and decides to join the commonwealth in its funding.

Let’s hope that all the powers-that-be see that the Marcellus Shale gas play is here to stay and that it presents the commonwealth with tremendous opportunity for long-term growth and development that needs to be encouraged and managed by everyone.

Anna Marie Sossong is an attorney at Skarlatos & Zonarich LLC in Harrisburg.

Pay Freezes: A Modest Proposal

From Democracy Rising PA

It is encouraging to see that school professionals and their unions are willing to consider freezing their salaries in response to state and local budget problems. If only our state leaders would do the same.

Gov. Tom Corbett asked others for freezes, but he's paying his staff an average of 11% more than Gov. Rendell paid his staff. The legislature still sits on a surplus of $188.5 million. The judiciary still indulges in expensive perks. And lawmakers, the governor, cabinet officers, and judges get an automatic pay raise every December 1.

Gov. Corbett’s budget did not propose meaningful cuts for any of our aristocracy. So here’s a humble suggestion: Make the freeze for public employees contingent on the legislature repealing the automatic pay raise for the highest-paid people in state government and on the legislature returning all $188.5 million to the Treasury to use for better things than sitting in leaders’ slush funds.

Here’s how KDKA-TV’s Jon Delano reported on the issue: Lawmakers not asked to sacrifice in Corbett’s budget.

If the state’s leaders don’t lead by example, their arrogance, hypocrisy and selfishness will be on full display for next year’s elections.

Santorum Renews Call to Repeal Obamacare on One Year Anniversary

Washington, DC - Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) issued the following statement on the one year anniversary of Obamacare:

"This deeply flawed legislation has done nothing it was promised to do. Costs aren't lower, quality isn't better, and access isn't greater. All this law has done is put more power in the hands of the Obama Administration, and taken power away from the average American. Government control of healthcare is not the answer, and Obamacare must be repealed."

"What's worse is as more light is shed on what this bill includes, we are learning just how dangerous this bill is. Obamacare maintains a $105 billion "slush fund" that funds the implementation of the legislation. This fund bypassed Congressional budget processes and gives the legislation advanced appropriations. Further, more than 1,000 companies, businesses and even the state of Maine have received waivers to escape the new regulations Obamacare requires. Even labor unions, which lobbied for the law, have received waivers. Maybe if our elected officials had taken the time to read this bill before voting for it, they could have prevented these flaws."

"Obamacare is bad policy. It is hurting our economy with its increased costs, burdensome regulations and higher taxes, and it must be repealed."

Corbett: the lion tamer

Guest Column By Albert Paschall.

What does a new governor do when he inherits a $4.5 billion deficit from his free spending predecessor? There are only two answers: either raise taxes or cut spending.

In a time when people are hard pressed, unemployment is out of control and borrowing is difficult, raising taxes won't work so cutting spending is all that is left. Tom Corbett is going to try to do that and he's put one of Pennsylvania's most sacred cows on top of the chopping block: Penn State University.

Penn State's budget is close to $3 billion dollars. University president Graham Spanier likes to boast that he only takes $642,000 a year out of that number. Spanier's point might be well taken. If he were running a federally subsidized Wall Street empire of that magnitude $642K would likely just be his year end bonus. Like counterparts on Wall Street Spanier also gets housing, a car and the essential country club dues.

The Commonwealth's taxpayer subsidies of $304 million to Centre County's largest employer are by no means to a public school. It is entirely a private institution basing admission on class standing, academic achievement, test scores and something called a personal statement. It boasts students from all 50 states and 31 countries.

Therein lies the rub. While the state pumps the average annual earnings of over 7,000 Pennsylvania's workers on to Penn State's 24 campuses there's no guarantee that your kid could attend even the Altoona Campus, where last month he or she could have attended the free "Live Group Sex Therapy Show."

Corbett's case is plain. While Penn State has received subsidies of $3-1/2 billion over the last ten years it has increased tuition by 110%. Which institution: the state or Penn State's spending is out of control?

Corbett has picked his target well. Undoubtedly thousands of fans of the blue and white will cascade the state capital with pleas to the legislature for fiscal mercy. But someday if Tom Corbett can tame the Nittany Lions' voracious appetite for taxpayer dollars he'll have taken the first big step towards fiscal sanity in this state.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Paschall is Senior Fellow at the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research. Somedays is syndicated to leading newspapers and radio stations in Pennsylvania.lincolnpa@aol.com

You Don't Deserve More Tax Dollars

How are we going to get out of the financial mess we are in, both in Pennsylvania and in the nation? The Tea Party has been adamant about cuts and more cuts. To which the elites in the media, on the left and Washington in general say, "We can't just do it with cuts. We need to raise taxes."

To this I say, "YOU DON'T DESERVE ANYMORE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS!". There is talk of taxing I95 and 422. Talk of taxing gas drilling, eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts, a VAT tax, a Carbon Tax. This is but a small part of a much larger list. It does not take into account antiquated taxes that were never repealed when the times changed. Government has not been responsible with the money we have sent and continue to send to the treasury, by what reasoning should we send more?

We can not accept new taxes, whatever the form, unless and until government at all levels has proven that they are taking responsibility for SPENDING. The American people understand that there are some things that government must do and this requires revenue. Were we convinced that the government was being responsible with that revenue, then we would not have an issue. It is clear that this is not the case.

Why do we not see a responsible government? Because the money goes too far away from the people who earn it. When I send money to my township government, I can see where it is going. If I have a complaint I can go to the Mayor or the counsel and discuss changes to what is being spent. If I am still not satisfied, I can run for one of those local offices and take responsibility myself.

This is less so on the State and Federal level. The bigger the beaurocracy, and the more people represented by an individual Assemblyman or, Congressman, or Senator the more difficult is

a: to be heard.(It requires an expensive lobbyist or a rabble rousing community activist to be heard at these levels.)

b: to avoid the inevitable influence of big money on a large scale (again, the expensive lobbyists), or

c: to run for an office that will than allow me to take on the responsibility to make things right. (The bigger the office, the more complicated and expensive it is to run for it. This eliminates many citizen legislators from the pool of potential leaders.)

This was the genius of our Founding Fathers. They new this from their studies of history and from being beholden to a ruler that was a thousand miles away.

The trick to solving the problem is to leave the bulk of government responsibility with the local governments. Cut the Federal Programs (and mandates) and the Federal Taxes and let the local government handle things like police, health-care, homelessness, etc. If my Federal tax rate went down to 5% (or zero) but my local taxes went up to 5%, or 10%, we would be paying less, and I guarantee we would be getting more.

The larger the government, the smaller the individual. This Country has been a beacon of hope because it was founded on principles of allowing individuals to flourish in an environment of largely "self rule". It was not great because it was wealthy, it was wealthy because it was FREE.

DeWeese slams Corbett: Highlights Governor's Hypocrisy

It is incredible that Gov. Tom Corbett appointed the father of his former chief of staff/campaign manager as the $196,700 CEO of the Turnpike Commission, one of the highest-paid positions in state government.

During his time as attorney general, Corbett, through the 28th Statewide Investigating Grand Jury, Report No. 1, excoriated the General Assembly and openly proclaimed that our institution was trapped in a “time warp,” particularly as it relates to patronage jobs and the purported abuses they may engender.

Additionally, during my voluntary interviews with seven or eight senior Attorney General’s Office staff attorneys and agents, I was subject to their obsessive rage over the propriety of legislative leaders seeking state jobs for constituents and friends.

Why, then, does now-Gov. Corbett ignore the findings and recommendations of his own grand jury by hiring the father of his former, longtime chief of staff and campaign manager through three statewide campaigns? That person remains his top political adviser.

Corbett apparently has no problem using his key political strategist to help him fill top jobs, but he used a grand jury to question legislative leaders on this exact practice.

This is definitely a case of, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

Reducing size of Legislature in Pa. urged

Guest Column By Senator David G. Argall

In the near future, I will again introduce legislation to reduce the size of Pennsylvania’s General Assembly to provide an important cost-saving measure. Since the state’s last Constitutional Convention in 1968, dozens of similar proposals have been offered, but all have failed. However, I believe the time is now right for the General Assembly to take decisive action on this issue.

Passing legislation to reduce the size of the Legislature is no easy task. However, the state’s recent financial hardships have created a “perfect storm” of factors that could allow the state to ultimately reduce the size of the legislature.

The Senate has taken a number of important steps to reduce costs, but I believe these cost-saving measures do not go far enough. The General Assembly cannot continue to ask state agencies to continue to cut costs unless we are also willing to lead by example.

It is important to remember that most major reforms are not accomplished overnight. This proposal would require an amendment to the state Constitution. To become law, the proposal would have to pass in two consecutive sessions of the General Assembly and be approved by the voters through a referendum.

My proposal would make several reductions in the number of legislators over a period of time, culminating in 50 fewer House members by 2053 and five fewer Senators by 2033. I believe it is important to offer a plan that will have a realistic chance of winning legislative approval instead of a more dramatic proposal that will end up languishing in various legislative committees.

If a majority of my colleagues in the General Assembly favor a faster reduction, I would gladly support that measure. However, I believe my proposal to enact incremental changes to the size of the Legislature has the best chance to garner support. I strongly believe that the pace of these changes is far less important than accomplishing the ultimate goal of winning final legislative approval.

With the state struggling to close massive budget deficits in recent years, it is important to consider every avenue to help save taxpayer dollars. As I worked with members of the Senate’s bipartisan Government Management and Cost Study Commission last year to identify ways to save taxpayers $400 million, reducing the size of the Legislature was the most popular suggestion submitted by members of the public. My bill would help save as much as $10 million annually. While this is no silver bullet to solve all of the state’s financial woes, this is a significant savings to taxpayers.

The public overwhelmingly favors a smaller Legislature, and I am hopeful we can now build on this momentum to get this legislation approved.

Senator Dave Argall is a Republican representing Pennsylvania’s 29th District.

Democrats try to spin special election results

Caution! You are about to enter the "No Spin Zone." With apologies to Bill O'Reilly, welcome to The Phyrillas Factor.

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party along with its allies in the blogosphere and an ultra-liberal newspaper in Berks County have been working feverishly this past week to persuade anyone who will listen that a special election for a vacant state Senate seat has statewide, and even national, significance.

The spin put out by the Democrats and their allies goes something like this: The election of Democrat Judy Schwank to complete the final two years of the term held by the late Sen. Mike O'Pake is a message to Gov. Tom Corbett to raise taxes and not cut state spending, and to governors across the nation to leave unions alone.

"This election has marked a change in momentum, and one that we will carry through the 2012 elections," said state Sen. Daylin Leach, chairman of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee.

Oh, please!

Anyone who believes the election of a Democratic candidate in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 2-1 margin is a seismic shift in the political landscape needs to put down the Kool-Aid.

Schwank won the seat O'Pake held for 38 years by a comfortable margin (58 percent to 42 percent) but the six-week campaign was hardly a referendum on state or national issues. (O'Pake won 71 percent of the vote when he last ran in 2008.)

Schwank and her Republican opponent, Larry Medaglia, agreed on most key issues, including lowering property taxes, creating a more business-friendly climate in Pennsylvania, fiscal responsibility and reforming the state Legislature.

If anything, the special election was seen by many Berks County residents as a way to pay a final tribute to the popular O'Pake, the only state Senator most Berks voters knew. Schwank shrewdly positioned herself as the heir to O'Pake's legacy. She invoked his name at every public appearance and in campaign literature. She also made a point to publicly announce she would keep most of O'Pake's staffers if she was elected.

Schwank won a heavily--Democratic district because labor unions in Berks County, and especially in the city of Reading, managed to get their supporters to the polls. Labor unions also accounted for most of Schwank's campaign contributions.

So before Democrats pop the champagne bottles thinking they've stopped the hemorrhaging from last year's disastrous midterm elections, let's step back and take in a dose of reality.

Turnout for the March 15 election was higher than anticipated at 22 percent, but still pitiful when you consider that eight out of 10 voters in the 11th Senate District did not bother to show up.

What is the significance of Schwank getting the opportunity to finish the remaining two years of O'Pake's term? Absolutely nothing.

Republicans held 30 of the 50 seats in the state Senate before the March 15 election. Republicans hold 30 of the 50 seats after the election.

Schwank winning the 11th District is akin to a Kennedy winning in Massachusetts. It's what you expect. Had Medaglia won, it would have been one of the biggest political upsets in Pennsylvania political history. Something similar to Republican Scott Brown winning Ted Kennedy's U.S. Senate seat in the 2010 special election.

You could even make the argument that residents of the 11th Senate District are worse off today than they were before Schwank won the election. After nearly 40 years in the Senate, O'Pake was the No. 2 leader among Senate Democrats. He built strong relationships on both sides of the aisle and had clout to get legislation passed. Schwank is now the Democrat with the least seniority in the Senate and ranks 50 in terms of clout. She will never get a bill passed and the Republican leadership in the Senate will make sure she doesn't get any money for projects back home.

Had Medaglia won, the Republican governor and legislative leaders would have steered state funding into the 11th District to bolster his chances of winning a full four-year term in 2012.

So why all the hoopla? Pennsylvania Democrats suffered a string of embarrassing defeats in 2010 and were desperate to win something — anything. The special election was the closest thing to a high-profile race anywhere in the state this year. Demoralized Democrats needed a win. Even table scraps are a banquet to a starving man.

How bad was 2010 for Pennsylvania Democrats? The party lost a U.S. Senate seat, five U.S. House seats, the governor's mansion and the majority it held in the state House for four years. Democrats failed to pick up a single state Senate seat last November despite pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into races across the state.

So keeping a state Senate seat that has been in Democratic hands since the district was created in 1961 — one that was never in danger of going over to the Republican column — is the glimmer of hope some Dems need to step away from the ledge.

That speaks volumes about the challenges Pennsylvania Democrats face in 2011 and 2012 to prevent becoming a permanent minority party.

Sen.-elect Schwank will be sworn in sometime in April, but nothing has changed in Harrisburg.

Tony Phyrillas, who writes about politics for The Mercury in Pottstown, Pa., won a first place award for column writing in 2010 from the Pennsylvania Associated Press Managing Editors.

PA Public Welfare: The math and the message

There are 40 state agencies and departments in Pennsylvania that require funding in order to operate. These include Education, Economic Development, Public Welfare, the Liquor Control board, Civil Service, Ethics, Veterans Affairs and 33 others.

To operate these agencies, Governor Corbett has established a $63.6 billion dollar budget. The money to fund this budget comes from four different sources–with much of those four sources funded by you, the taxpayer. For the sake of perspective on public welfare, I’d like to break that $63.6 billion dollars down.

$27.3 billion dollars of this budget are funds collected from Pennsylvania taxpayers including state sales tax, state income tax and other taxes. These tax revenues go into what’s called Pennsylvania’s “General Fund.” $11.2 billion dollars of the General Fund is allocated for Public Welfare. That’s 43%.

$4.34 billion dollars comes from collection of other taxes and fees, such as gasoline tax and motor licensing fees. The monies collected from sources like these are part of what is called “Special Funds.” $121.3 million dollars of Special Funds is allocated for Public Welfare. That’s 3%.

$9.8 billion dollars comes from what is called “Other Funds.” “Other Funds” are dedicated for specific programs such as Workers Compensation and Unemployment Compensation. $1.8 billion dollars of Other Funds are dedicated to Public Welfare. That’s 18%.

Finally, some of the money for Pennsylvania’s operating budget comes from the Federal Government or “Federal Funds.” The Federal Government will give $22 billion dollars to Pennsylvania for 2011-12. $14.5 billion of those funds are specifically earmarked for Public Welfare. That’s 70% of the return on your federal tax dollars, going to Public Welfare.

There is great debate over how much each agency should require in funding, and much debate over whether each agency fulfills its mission, whether or not its mission is necessary at all, and whether or not there is waste and abuse within the ranks.

For one single agency, PUBLIC WELFARE, Governor Corbett will allocate 43% of the General Fund, 18% of Other Funds, 3% of Special Funds, and 70% of Federal Funds. That’s 43% of Governor Corbett’s $63.6 billion dollar operating budget, a budget funded by hard-working Pennsylvanians, that is allocated to just one agency.

There are 39 other agencies that do not receive such unprecedented priority, and many would argue that surely on one of these other agencies, perhaps Higher Education, or Economic Development, the priority would be better placed and bring greater return on the hard work that generates all those tax dollars.

Those are the facts. Where my opinion is welcome, I would offer that there is a clear message in these numbers. The message, in my humble opinion, is that toward those who do not demonstrate ability to contribute, the Government communicates an attitude of superiority that suggests these people are worth little, they are “uneducatable” and too stupid to realize their Government is cheating them by appeasing them with meager rations rather than giving a true helping hand. They laugh at these people who think they’re making out on the deal, and in some cases, they laugh even harder at those who think they’re getting one over on the system.

Toward those of us who have demonstrated ability to contribute, the Government communicates an attitude of arrogance and indifference that suggests we are not smart enough to realize our Government has cheated us as well. Rather than assist them in becoming fellow thinkers and contributors, they have insulted and forsaken our fellow citizens and us–and have done so at taxpayer expense. They have saddled on our back the resulting burden which is called “43%,” and they laugh as, like pack mules, we carry the load. I suppose we do look silly.

Mention Public Welfare and you’ll no doubt hear lament about the people who refuse to work, or illegal aliens who collect at the expense of legal citizens who will work. But this is not the real story of Public Welfare. These are just the symptoms.

Yes, people cheat the system, but the biggest, most egregious cheater is the Government who allows it, and their constituents to pay for it, because it’s more convenient than being honest and responsible. To focus collective anger toward those who collect from this bogus system serves only to misdirect the focus and absolve an irresponsible Government. Public Welfare tells a story, not about abuse by the people, but about abuse of the people.

Geist Has A Plan To Fix Infrastructure Funding Problems

Darrin Youker of the Reading Eagle highlights State Representative and Chairman of the House Transportation Committee Rick Geist's (R-PA 79th) plan to fix the transportation funding crisis facing Pennsylvania. In a speech to the Greater Reading Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Geist outlined his plan that included tolling I-95.

Geist, who is chairman of the House Transportation Committee, said his committee has approved legislation to create public-private partnerships to build and manage the state's highway infrastructure. The bill still needs full House approval, he said.

One road that could see improvement under a public-private partnership is the Schuylkill Expressway, the main artery into downtown Philadelphia, Geist said.

Geist also supports a measure to toll I-95, with the proceeds going to repairs on that highway . Click Here To Read More

Geist says that his plan makes a stronger case for tolling than previous attempts to toll I-80 which was denied by federal transportation regulators. Geist feels that tolling I-95 and using the revenue to fix the 7 billion dollars worth of reparis to the highway would be a great first step in solving our transportation funding needs. In his speech he also outlined plans to promote public/private partnerships to also help reduce costs on other major infrastructure projects.

Uncivil Unions: Thuggery is the main negotiating tool of the Left

Guest Column By Lowman S. Henry

A few short weeks ago the buzzword in American politics was "civility." The mainstream news networks, liberal newspapers, the left-wing blogosphere and their assorted allies were in high dungeon claiming Tea party conservatives and the new Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives was responsible for what they viewed as an uncivil tone in the national debate. They even suggested, in some cases stated outright, the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by a madman was somehow related to conservative rhetoric.

But, in the past couple of weeks it is the American Left which has come unhinged and engaged in some decidedly uncivil actions. A combination of new Republican majorities in governorships and legislatures across the nation and the inevitable fiscal impact of the recession on state budgets have thrown into reverse gear the gains liberal/progressives made over the past two years.

And they are reacting poorly.

The most visible example of leftist rage has come in the state of Wisconsin where new Governor Scott Walker and a newly empowered majority in the state legislature ended collective bargaining privileges for state employee unions. It was a fiscally necessary action, but the labor unions flew into a rage. This despite the fact comprehensive collective bargaining privileges for public employee unions are far from universal, with workers in 24 states not having them.

In Wisconsin, as with many other northern states, unions were accustomed to winning such fights. This time it was clear they were going to lose. In a childish move state Senate Democrats fled to Illinois in an unsuccessful effort to prevent the repeal of collective bargaining privileges from coming to a vote. Union workers abandoned their jobs to stage a raucous protest at the state capitol.

It would be charitable to describe the union protest as uncivil. The demonstrators were loud, frequently profane, borderline violent and generally unruly. It took days of negotiations to get them to leave the capitol rotunda at night so crews could clean. Contrast their behavior and the mess they left behind with that of Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally in Washington, D.C. last summer and you get a clear cut picture of how conservatives and liberals conduct themselves at public events.

Wisconsin is not the only state where leftist thugs have behaved inappropriately. In Idaho an education reform bill that would have eliminated tenure and seniority and allowed more charter schools to be established drew the ire of unions. The superintendent of Idaho's public schools, Tom Luna, who championed the reform plan, had his car vandalized. One protestor even showed up at the home of Luna's mother.

Here in Pennsylvania radical environmentalists invaded the offices of former Governor Tom Ridge's consulting firm. Ridge is now a high profile lobbyist for Marcellus Shale gas drilling companies. The protestors were angry over Governor Tom Corbett's refusal to place a severance tax on gas extracted from the Marcellus Shale reserve. Despite the fact Ridge is a private citizen and his office private property; they stormed the place demanding to talk with the former governor.

The conservative media has made much of this wave of uncivil behavior, but the establishment media has been largely silent. Imagine if you will that conservatives behaved in such a manner. If a deranged shooter who is a devotee of Karl Marx somehow unleashed liberal finger waggling, such behavior as exhibited by liberal activists by conservatives would have brought about a hail storm of condemnation.

Unfortunately we can expect more uncivil behavior from labor unions, radical environmentalists and other components of the Left. Republicans at the state level are grappling with massive budget deficits brought about by years of overspending and by the lingering economic recession. It is clear to voters that the current levels of public spending cannot be maintained, and the policies that created growing deficits must be reversed.

Given that labor is a substantial part of any state budget it is inevitable that public employees will have to join their private sector counterparts in paying more for health care and other benefits, contribute more to their pension plans, and do more work with fewer workers. Collective bargaining stands in the way of accomplishing those goals, so it will be a target in more and more states as the fiscal year progresses.

So far, unions and their allies have not handled the situation in a civil manner. Few expect they ever will, and fewer still expect they will be held to the same standards of public behavior as conservatives.

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.