Translate

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Quigley rejects fiscal recklessness of budget deal

Rep. Tom Quigley (R-Montgomery) released the following statement regarding his rejection of Pennsylvania's latest budget deal, which will imperil the future fiscal strength of the Commonwealth:
"Everyone in Pennsylvania is breathing a collective sigh of relief that this budget is almost complete, but in reality the fiscal irresponsibility of this budget could cause it to be reopened in the near future. Revenues continue to fall short of expectations and the Commonwealth is down $140 million from its projected revenue collections so far this year. This deal is a case of the state writing a check it cannot cash, and the taxpayers will be held liable when that check bounces.

"I am happy that our community service providers and schools will finally receive their funding, but the struggles they have faced since July were completely unnecessary. Those organizations could have been funded, but the governor chose to veto their support from the 'bridge budget' in August.

"What the people need to recognize is that this budget completely depletes Pennsylvania’s reserve funds. While the stock market has improved, unemployment is still very high, and our Commonwealth has not seen a full economic recovery. It could be years before we totally rebound from this unprecedented recession, so it is unwise to exhaust our Rainy Day Fund and other reserves. This budget puts us on a collision course with a future tax increase because, without any savings, that will be our only option to resolve future deficits.

"Every worker in Pennsylvania should be concerned about the impact this budget will have on their employer. Because it raises taxes on businesses, they will be unlikely to increase salaries or hire new employees. This will perpetuate the economic cycle we are, leaving unemployment high and consumer spending low. Raising taxes on employers is ill advised during a recession, and could have been avoided if the fiscally responsible House Bill 1943 had been considered. That legislation would have ensured our economic health for years to come."

No comments: