Guest Column: PA House Democrats Throw Women Under the Bus

 By Lowman S. Henry

The Left has become adept at using various issues as a wedge to gain political advantage with women voters. They have been particularly effective in using so-called “reproductive rights,” mischaracterizing the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision as having taken away those supposed rights even though the court merely returned the issue to the states where it properly belongs.

But, as the saying goes, they are “all hat, and no cowboy” when it comes to protecting actual women. Here in Penn’s Woods Pennsylvania House Democrats have been particularly brazen in throwing women under the bus if acting on their behalf in any way threatens their tenuous hold on legislative power.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has been a chamber virtually evenly divided since the beginning of the current session. Capitalizing on the most egregious Gerrymandered set of district lines in the Commonwealth’s history, Democrats seized a one-seat majority in the 2022 elections.

Plagued by one death and multiple resignations the chamber has periodically fallen into a 101-101 tie. This has prompted Democrats to use various tactics including the snookering of several Republicans to vote for a supposed “non-partisan” temporary House Speaker to hold the chamber in recess for months using the flimsy excuse of fixing a leak in the chamber ceiling.

The latest example of Democrats’ prioritizing political power over protecting women occurred last week when Speaker Joanna McClinton allowed State Rep. Kevin Boyle to vote even though he was on the lamb hiding out from law enforcement seeking to execute a warrant for his arrest for allegedly violating a protection from abuse order. McClinton and House Democrats showed no concern for the female victim who filed the protection from abuse order, feeding instead their lust for legislative power. 

A variety of excuses were forthcoming. Rep. Boyle, who was recently involved in a drunken rant at a local bar, was said by defenders to be suffering from mental health issues. If indeed that is the case, then Mr. Boyle should be given the appropriate medical care. 

But there are larger issues here. First and foremost: is his flight from the law in any way imperiling the safety of the woman who filed the protection from abuse order? Second, should a fugitive from justice be permitted to cast a vote – or have someone else vote for him – in Pennsylvania’s legislative body? 

Realizing the optics of the situation House Democrats decided to propose new rules for expelling a member. Getting back to our analogy theme that is the equivalent of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. Time will tell if any action will follow.

Sadly, this is not the first time House Democrats have placed power over people. Last Spring, their majority still teetering by one vote, House Democrats obfuscated as then-Rep. Mike Zabel of Delaware County stood accused of sexual harassment by a labor union lobbyist. It took pressure from female Republican House members to force Zabel’s resignation.

Likewise, Gov. Josh Shapiro has placed political expediency over the protection of women. One of his top aides, former Secretary of Legislative Affairs Mike Vereb, was forced to resign in the wake of sexual harassment allegations lodged by a female staff member. Vereb remained on the job for months while a taxpayer-funded monetary settlement of $295,000 was negotiated and paid to the victim. The issue only gained traction when state Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward and other female legislators forced it into the public spotlight. As did his colleagues in the state House, Shapiro placed power and perception over the protection of women.

There has been much ado made over the fact House Speaker Joanna McClinton is the first woman to occupy that leadership role. While that is indeed an accomplishment you would think she would use that position to further the protection of women. Instead, she has prioritized the protection of her political majority. It is a choice that will tarnish what should otherwise be a shining legacy.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal and American Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Senate Republican Leadership Statement: Massive Spending Increase in Shapiro Budget Raises Concerns

Senate Republican Leadership Statement: Massive Spending Increase in Shapiro Budget Raises Concerns - Pennsylvania Senate Republicans: The massive $3.2 billion increase in state spending in Gov. Josh Shapiro’s proposed 2024-25 state budget raises concerns for Senate Republicans, said Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R-39), Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-41) and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Scott Martin (R-13).

Guest column: Pennsylvania's Lone Wolf

By Lowman S. Henry,
Columnist

Governor Tom Wolf has followed a go it alone approach in dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic since it burst upon the scene back in early March. He has been unyielding in insisting, with the possible exception of state Health Secretary Dr. Rachael Levin, that he and he alone knows what is best for all Pennsylvanians.

He has attacked and criticized those who do not submit to his every decree, even when he himself violated his own orders. The degree to which he is willing to profess his omnipotence came in late July when he got into a spat with the General Assembly over the new Right to Know law.

Having come into office pledging to run the most transparent administration in history, the governor has instead emerged as a lone voice against ensuring transparency during an epidemic.  Among the first state offices closed in March was the Office of Open Records, thus denying the news media, lawmakers and taxpayers the ability to access the very information on which decisions were being made that have affected the daily lives of every Pennsylvanian.

The governor's go-to attack on anybody defying his will has been to accuse them of partisan politics while urging the voters of Lebanon County to vote out elected officials who defied his shut-down orders.  That tactic, however, could not be used in justifying is opposition to the Right to Know law.

That is because something almost unheard of happened under the Capitol dome in Harrisburg: the law passed both chambers of the General Assembly unanimously.  Every single Republican, every single Democrat, and the one independent in the Senate were united in support of the Right to Know law.

Wolf disagreed and threatened to veto the legislation.  But, with a veto override a certainty he allowed the bill to become law without his signature.  In the process, however, he penned a political screed saying he was doing so despite his supposedly better judgment.

The unnecessary kerfuffle over the Right to Know law was the apex of Governor Wolf's go it alone approach.  Throughout the pandemic he has exercised dictatorial powers confining people to their homes, closing businesses, implementing restrictions all with little to no consultation with stakeholders and generally with little advance notice.

This pattern of unilateral decision-making was set early in the pandemic when Wolf abruptly closed the state's public schools.  Administrators in the state's 500 school districts were caught off guard and given just hours to close and no time to put alternate plans into place to educate students.

Then, again acting without consulting affected state-holders his know-it-all administration ordered so-called non-life sustaining businesses to close.  The order resulted in mass confusion as critical supply chains, some which produced the very medical supplies needed to combat the pandemic, were disrupted. To this day, defying even a subpoena issued by the state Senate, information on the business closure process and resultant contradictory and inconsistent wavier procedures have yet to be fully revealed.

Wolf even managed an amazing feat: triggering lay-offs in the health care sector during a public health crisis.  His blanket ban on elective surgeries, which remained in place until a revolt by providers, decimated hospital budgets and sent workers to the unemployment line.  He even ordered a halt to construction of medical facilities -- preventing the development of capacity that would have been critical had the worst-case predictions of the pandemic been realized.

Wolf has vetoed bi-partisan legislative efforts to re-open segments of the state's economy and has turned a deaf ear to county and local leaders who have argued his statistics and metrics, which frequently changed, did not accurately reflect actual circumstances.

This brings us to the current situation. After saying he would allow county officials to deal with localized spikes in COVID-19 cases as the economy reopened, he has instead placed statewide restrictions on the bar and restaurant industry.  Dr. Levine claims there is data indicating they have been the source of the spread, but she has adamantly refused to release the data that lead to that conclusion to the news media.

And so Tom Wolf continues to rule Pennsylvania by executive fiat, unrestrained by a compliant state Supreme Court that allowed his emergency powers to remain in effect.  At least until next May when voters will have the opportunity to amend the state constitution giving the legislature the clear authority to end those powers Pennsylvania will be governed by a Lone Wolf.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly American Radio Journal & Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Guest Column: Un-Fair Districts PA

By Lowman S. Henry 

A few weeks ago on Election Day I stood outside of my local fire hall which serves as the polling location for our precinct handing out poll cards for our slate of candidates. Mid-morning an older gentleman showed up and posted a sign touting "Fair Districts PA." He then proceeded to ask voters to sign a petition against gerrymandering.
Gerrymandering is the drawing of congressional and/or legislative district lines to benefit one party over another. It is a process almost as old as the republic itself so named after Elbridge Gerry who as Governor of Massachusetts in 1812 signed into law a congressional redistricting plan that included one district which bore a striking resemblance to a salamander, thus giving birth to the term gerrymander.
As are all subjective processes, gerrymandering is in the eye of the beholder.  Over the decades various court rulings have taken the edge off the most egregious abuses of the redistricting process, but to some degree those with the power to draw district lines generally tilt the playing field a bit.
After next year's census the process of redistricting will begin anew.  This constitutionally mandated exercise apportions congressional seats among the states, and then new districts are drawn within the states taking into consideration the population shifts of the previous decade.
Now, of course, most people are at least in theory opposed to gerrymandering so the gentleman at my polls got a few signatures. He did, however, misrepresent the current process as unfair and touted a so-called "fair" alternative, which we will get to shortly.
Is the current process fair? Let me answer that question with another question: Do you believe the process by which a bill becomes law is fair?  Because that is exactly how congressional redistricting is accomplished in Penn's Woods.  Congressional redistricting takes the form of a bill, which must be passed by both houses of the General Assembly and signed by the governor.
That means 253 elected representatives of We the People (our state house and senate members) vote on the bill.  That occurs after the legislation is fully vetted through the committee process, including massive amounts of public input, then debated and voted on in legislative session before going to the governor's desk.
The process is open, transparent, and constitutional. As we approach the 2021 redistricting it is also politically balanced as it is likely the General Assembly will be controlled by Republicans and a Democrat governor will be in office.  In fact, in 2011 - when the GOP controlled both the governor's office and the legislature - the congressional redistricting plan passed the legislature with strong bi-partisan support.
"Fair" Districts PA proposes to ditch that process and replace it with an "independent citizens commission" which would then draw the district lines. So unelected "citizens," or at least those motivated to invest a considerable amount of time and effort, can apply to be on the commission.  
In a bow to identity politics, the applicants would then be "weighted" by racial, gender, and unspecified "demographic diversity."  The proposed change then vests in the Secretary of the Commonwealth, who is a political appointee, the power to select the final pool of candidates.  
Conveniently, the Secretary of the Commonwealth who will be serving in 2021 when the next redistricting occurs will be an appointee of - as the Huffington Post has described him - the most liberal governor in America, Democrat Tom Wolf.  
Further, the "fair" districts proposal would inject an element found in neither the U.S. nor Pennsylvania constitutions - political parties. The "citizens commission" would be mandated to include four Republican "citizens," four Democrat "citizens," and three "citizens" who are either unaffiliated or members of a minor political party.
This lays bare the true goal of "Fair" Districts PA - a hijacking of the redistricting process to solidify the unconstitutional re-gerrymander of districts implemented by Pennsylvania's rogue state Supreme Court in 2018. 
Just as the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) has turned out to be anything but affordable, Fair Districts PA has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with changing the rules of the game to secure partisan political advantage.  

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Guest Column: What is wrong with a property tax?

The right to personal property sets the United States apart from other nations. Outside the United States, the rights to property have long been subject to the realm of kings and queens — a feudal society of sorts.

There is a tremendous anger surfacing due to the relentless loss of property and our government’s explosive spending binge. Ravenous government spending mortgages ourselves, our children, and our property to an unrelenting assault by a government which is out of control.

The major negatives with property taxes relates to these very issues:

• Property taxes are fixed expense with no regard to the person’s ability to pay.

• One’s property serves as collateral for potential unlimited government spending.

• Taxes on property value reduce the incentive to maintain property

• The regressive nature of the property tax makes home ownership that much more elusive for much of the population.

Taxes on property have been debated incessantly for decades. What started out as an “innocent” means of raising taxes has blossomed into a perceived unlimited source of funds by which government can make promises of future benefits to a select few to the detriment of the remainder of us. Property owners have the choice of either paying the taxes dictated for them by politicians or risk losing their property through foreclosure and tax sale.

Contrary to popular belief, the property tax system started in the United States dates at the time of the founding of our nation. At that time however, it is important to remember the historical context in that only the gifted few owned property. Only property owners at the time of the founding of our nation were permitted to vote.

The evolution of our republic has allowed the opportunity for owning property and of voting rights to expand to most of the population. As such, the antiquated notion of the property tax may negatively impact the very people who are now just beginning to enjoy the American dream evolving in the great experiment of the United States.

The negative impact of a property tax system is that your property serves as collateral for government promises. Ever increasing property taxes have allowed municipal governments and schools to make promises that they could not possibly keep if they did not have such a reservoir of potential funds at their disposal.

These “promises” have precipitated a record number of bankruptcy filings of municipalities since 2010. The settlement of these bankruptcies will most certainly raise the level of debate of property taxes to unparalleled heights. The outcome of this battle will most decidedly determine whether or not American citizens have the right to own property.

With the rapid rise in property taxes needed by most jurisdictions to cover their promises and with lower pay and higher unemployment of taxpayers throughout the nation, the property tax is now forcing millions of Americans to reassess where they live, how they live, and if they can ever retire let alone own their home.

The U. S. Constitution addresses and protects property rights in so many ways: Source: “The Constitution and Property Rights”

“The Founders were worried that Congress might use the tax system to loot property owners in some states for the advantage of other states. Accordingly, they required that direct taxes (mostly importantly property and income taxes) be apportioned among the states (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, Clause 4).

They granted the federal courts jurisdiction over interstate land claims and interstate debts to limit the extent to which state courts could discriminate against the property rights of out-of-staters (III-2-1 and III-2-2).

They added the Full Faith and Credit Clause (IV-1) partly to require state courts to honor property records in other states.

The Founders gave Congress an unlimited power to dispose of public land (IV-3-2), but only limited power to acquire or hold land (I-8-17 and certain incidental powers). This was because they wanted most publicly-owned land to be transferred to the private sector.

They also inserted a number of other checks and balances, designed partly to protect minorities from unfair property confiscations.”

Today, threats to property, particularly your home, are at epic levels and the battle will shape the landscape of our nation forever.

The American dream of home ownership and the liberty inherent in property are at risk.

Ending property taxes will begin to restore the American dream to those most negatively affected by such an antiquated system as a property tax.

For those who are just getting involved, this article is the second in a series explaining the basis behind our property tax elimination bill. The other articles in this series can be found on our website at www.repfrankryan.com.

Frank Ryan, CPA, USMCR (Ret) represents the 101st District in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He is a retired Marine Reserve Colonel, a CPA and specializes in corporate restructuring. He has served on numerous boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations. He can be reached at fryan1951@aol.com.

GUEST COLUMN: Time to eliminate property taxes in Pennsylvania

By Rep. Frank Ryan
Guest columnist

There have been discussions about eliminating property taxes for decades.

In November 2017, a constitutional amendment passed by substantial margin to allow for the elimination of property taxes. With that amendment, it would only be necessary for legislation to be enacted to rid the Commonwealth of this regressive tax.

The question then becomes what is the status of the bill to eliminate property taxes?

In December 2018, I circulated a co-sponsorship memo in the PA House for a bill which will eliminate property taxes 100% for all properties if enacted. The objective of the bill is simple — to eliminate all property taxes. The tricky part is the replacement tax.

That very simple statement will be the subject of eight detailed articles I intend to write explaining the issues in detail to solicit your feedback and to allow the best possible solution to come about as quickly as possible.

The eight articles will include:

1. Critical economic reasons for eliminating property taxes.

2. Problems with the existing property tax system.

3. Unfunded pension liabilities.

4. Funding formulas for school districts under current laws.

5. Property tax elimination and impact on senior citizens.

6. Property tax elimination and impact on working families.

7. Property tax elimination and impact on schools and teachers.

8. Proposed property tax elimination bill.

Eliminating the property tax is critical to the economic survival of the Commonwealth and our citizens!

In my 40+ years as a certified public accountant and expert in helping organizations avoid bankruptcy, I can think of no more complicated problem to the financial survival of the Commonwealth than eliminating property taxes.

The reason this is so complicated is because our current system of taxation and funding schools is so fundamentally flawed that even minor fixes to peripheral elements of the system may have significant unintended consequences.

For example, the funding formulas for the schools result in Palmyra Area School District receiving $1 Million less per year than it would receive under a newly enacted funding formula which will take almost 20 years to fully implement. This means that Palmyra School District must fund that shortfall from the state by either cutting spending and or with property tax increases.

The Independent Fiscal Office five year outlook provides an insight into Pennsylvania’s stagnant growth and substantial budget shortfalls over the next five years. When combined with declining population for citizens under age 60 and significantly increasing population for citizens over 65, the trends continue to be negative for the Commonwealth.

If we take decisive action now to reform our tax policies for working families, seniors, businesses, and school districts with the fundamental shift in the elimination of property taxes we can reverse these negative trends. I am extremely optimistic if we take the problem seriously.

Efforts in the past to eliminate property taxes have not been successful because of a whole bevy of reasons.

The primary reasons for the failure of prior efforts revolve around the following:

A. The proposed replacement taxes involve funds going to the Commonwealth rather than to local control.

B. The impact of property tax elimination on people who rent rather than own their homes.

C. The perceived lack of stability in school funding under the replacement formula.

D. The expansion of the sales tax base was a problematic for some powerful stakeholders.

E. The proposed replacement taxes were directed predominantly at working families.

The system that I am proposing will address these issues and provide for an orderly phase in so that the schools and the community are able to adapt to a new system with no major disruptions to the educational opportunities of our students.

I cannot emphasize enough how severe the problem is with property taxes. The funding formula itself which is a separate issue is equally problematic and leads to the difficulty in solving this problem. It is critical however that everyone understand that if we do not resolve this problem together the probability of surviving the next economic downturn is limited.

Our financial rescue plan that I proposed when I first got elected two years ago discusses all the efforts we need to turn around the finances in Pennsylvania. We are well on the way to enacting these bills and property tax elimination is a major component of it.

I look forward to your input and comments on the particles that we will be submitting and ask you to please get active in this and provide me the guidance that you feel needs to be included in any legislation. We cannot afford to make a mistake.

A copy of our financial rescue plan can be found at my website www.repfrankryan.com.

Frank Ryan, CPA, USMCR (Ret.) represents the 101st District in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. He is a retired Marine Reserve Colonel, a CPA and specializes in corporate restructuring. He has served on numerous boards of publicly traded and non-profit organizations. He can be reached at FRYAN1951@aol.com

Lowman S. Henry: Bluer Blue, Redder Red

By Lowman S. Henry
Guest Columnist

On the surface it would appear the power dynamic in Pennsylvania state government changed little as a result of last week's General Election.  Governor Tom Wolf was re-elected and Republicans retained solid control of both the state House and the state Senate.

Back from where we started?

Not quite.  The 2018 election cycle saw the continuation of two trends: the drift of Democrats into the arms of the socialist Left, and a Republican power shift from the Philadelphia suburbs to the more conservative central and western parts of the state.

Governor Tom Wolf has often (and for good reason) been labeled the most liberal governor in America.  To the degree that Lieutenant Governors matter, the state's new second banana will push him even further in that direction.  Lt. Governor-elect John Fetterman is a Bernie Sanders-style socialist. He replaces the hapless Mike Stack, a Philadelphia pol more interested in the power dynamics of politics than ideology.

Wolf titled to the far Left to win his first primary four years ago and clearly felt at home.  He went on to propose tax hikes that exceeded those offered by governors in all 49 other states combined and has remained a staunch advocate for Left-wing policies ever since.  Fetterman, and the avowed socialists who upended traditional Democrats in the primary to claim seats in the General Assembly, are certain to fortify his position.

As liberal policies made the city more and more unlivable Philadelphia Democrats fled to the suburbs.  There they have continued voting into office candidates who espouse the very same policies that destroyed the city.  As a result, the four counties surrounding Philadelphia which had for decades been the epicenter of Republican power in the state have trended Democrat.

If there was a "blue wave" this election year it crashed ashore in those counties.  The numbers could change a bit as the official count progresses, but Republicans lost 13 state House seats and four state Senate seats in that region.  It is rare for more than three or four incumbents to lose statewide in a given election cycle, so the GOP wipeout in southeastern Pennsylvania can rightly be described as a blue tidal wave.

Continuing the westward shift of the statewide GOP, Republicans partially offset their losses in the southeast by flipping three Democrat seats, one in Bucks County and two elsewhere in the state. Republicans held historically high majorities in both state legislative chambers.  Thus the losses left them in solid control, but with margins closer to the historical average.

What the election did do was to shift the ideological center of both the House and Senate Republican caucuses away from southeastern liberalism into the mainstream conservatism that is popular in the balance of the state. 

While legislative Democrats voted in lockstep with their leadership, Republican legislative leaders had the more difficult task of moving conservative policies advocated by their caucus majority, while trying to appease their southeastern members.  The goal was to hold onto those southeastern seats - it didn't work.

The end result is absent the need to protect its members from suburban Philadelphia because - well, they are no longer there - legislative Republicans are now free to stand firmly against the socialist policies Governor Tom Wolf and Democrats are sure to pursue.

This means Pennsylvania's divided state government has become even more divided.  The first battle will come in a matter of weeks when Governor Tom Wolf proposes his next state budget.  It is sure to be chock full of tax hikes and new spending.  Republicans effectively blocked the more radical elements of his agenda during the governor's first term.  A more conservative majority should be able to do so in the years ahead.

Thus have voters across Penn's Woods put into effect all the elements needed for epic policy and budget battles which are likely to end in gridlock. Given the fact that most legislation that actually passes expands the dependency state at the expense of taxpayers gridlock may be the best outcome.

Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org

Pennsylvania lawmakers will get an automatic pay raise

Not only are Pennsylvania taxpayers stuck funding the most expensive full-time state legislature in the country, but they must also cough up more money each year to give the 253 state lawmakers a pay raise. Do the lawmakers deserve more money? It doesn't matter. The Legislature passed a bill granting its members automatic pay raises every year - unless they vote to reject the additional pay. That has never happened. So dig deeper taxpayers. Those overpaid lawmakers want more.

From WITF:

State lawmakers will get an automatic pay raise: Automatic pay raises have caused controversy in the past. When lawmakers return to the Capitol after their Thanksgiving recess, they'll have a little extra cash waiting for them. Every year, salaries for elected officials are reevaluated based on the cost of living. The number varies--this year, it's .81 percent, which means the average salary for a lawmaker will increase by about $700, from $86,480 dollars to $87,180. Those in leadership positions make even more. The top salaries hover around almost $140,000. The yearly pay adjustment became fully automatic in 1995. But because automated pay raises can be unpopular, some opt to donate the extra cash, or feed it back to the state Treasury. Pennsylvania's lawmakers are the second-highest-paid in the country, behind only California....

GUEST COLUMN: Pa. Taxpayers Lose Again

By Lowman S. Henry
Columnist

There is a lot of wailing and rending of garments these days over the hyper partisan atmosphere in both Harrisburg and in Washington, D.C.   Conventional wisdom holds that if Republicans and Democrats would just work together we could solve the problems confronting our state and nation.

But there is ample evidence that when Republicans and Democrats do work together the outcome is worse than no action at all. The recent collusion between the parties in the Pennsylvania Senate to pass a revenue plan to fund the 2017-18 state budget is a prime example.

So, let's pull back the curtain and take a look at how elected officials from both parties work together to preserve their own political careers at the expense of taxpayers.

In theory Republicans stand for smaller, less intrusive government and for fiscal responsibility. Were that actually true the debate in Harrisburg over how to balance the budget would be focused on cost-savings and spending reductions. Instead, leaders of both parties in the state Senate have focused solely on what taxes to increase and on an even more irresponsible course of action - borrowing from future revenues to cover current expenses.

The GOP holds 34 of 50 seats in the Pennsylvania Senate. That is a veto-proof majority that again - in theory - should be able to pass a fiscally responsible state budget. The sordid truth is that Harrisburg is not divided by political party, but rather is governed by an incumbent party dedicated first and foremost to political self-preservation putting up a united front against taxpayers and job creators.

Thus that 34-seat Republican majority was rendered irrelevant when leaders of both parties went behind closed doors to craft a revenue package. What emerged was a toxic cocktail of tax hikes that would harm businesses such as gas drillers by implementing a severance tax; and add to the burden of homeowners by hiking taxes on gas and electric bills. Oh, and that wasn't enough to sate the appetites of the big spenders - they approved borrowing hundreds of millions from future tobacco settlement revenue meaning our children and grand-children will get to share in the pain.

When the final vote was held the revenue package passed 26-24. How the Senate got to that number is the truly disgusting part of the story. There is an old saying that you should never watch sausage or legislation being made. But we will. If all Democrats had voted for the revenue package it would only have taken 10 Republicans to craft a majority. But 14 Republicans went astray.

Why?

The goal was to provide political cover to four Democrats in competitive districts.   It is all about incumbent protection. Party leaders conspired to determine who would vote for and who would vote against the bill. Those Republicans and Democrats voting for higher taxes and massive borrowing all represent "safe" seats because they are relatively immune to serious electoral competition.

A few Republican Senators who actually favored the bill, but who would face conservative primary challenges if they voted for higher taxes were given a "pass" to vote against the plan. Those Republicans representing more moderate districts and less likely to face a serious primary challenge voted for the tax plan. Likewise Democrats deemed vulnerable to a tax vote were also given a "pass."

So everyone wins - except We the Taxpayer.

And, of course, "leadership" of both parties all voted for the revenue package on the mistaken belief that they have to be "responsible" and provide revenue to fund a state government beset by out-of-control spending.   Real leadership and a truly responsible course of action would have been to craft a budget that spends within our means rather than go looking for every way possible to wring more tax dollars from Pennsylvania's working families, senior citizens and small businesses.

The bottom line: the Senate's revenue plan vote was nothing more than business-as-usual backroom Harrisburg politics of the type that cynically preserves incumbents at taxpayer expense.

Remember that the next time you hear someone crying out for "bi-partisan cooperation."

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

How Pa. can dig out of fiscal hole ...

GUEST COLUMN: Spend-first, tax-later is flawed budgeting in Pa.

By Nathan Benefield
Last June, Gov. Wolf sparked a fiasco by vetoing the General Assembly’s budget in its entirety. The resulting 9-month impasse crippled nonprofits and threatened to shutter schools across the state. To avoid the political fallout of a repeat performance this year, the Legislature passed a spending plan Wolf says he’ll sign.

One problem: Lawmakers never said how they’ll pay for it.

Strangely, that was part of the plan. One legislative leader bluntly stated, “We want to agree on a general appropriations bill, and then we’ll get to work on how to pay for it.”

That’s not how budgeting should work — just ask any family or business. It’s easy for the Legislature to say they’ll spend 5 percent more this year than last. It’s harder deciding how to make those ends meet.

Almost certain to come, though, are tax increases.

Legislators and the governor have declared “broad-based” tax increases off the table. But they are considering a new tax on natural gas consumption.

This would raise home-heating bills for 2.7 million Pennsylvania homeowners—families, seniors, low-income households, and small business owners who use natural gas. In other words, a “broad-based” tax increase by another name.

Pennsylvanians can also expect a major cigarette tax increase. This tax falls disproportionately on low-income households, while increasing smuggling across state lines. Lawmakers’ spend-first mentality may mean balancing the budget on the backs of the poor while incentivizing a black market.

Pennsylvania already heavily relies on revenue from tobacco, gambling, and alcohol to fill budget gaps — in fact we lead the nation in so-called “sin taxes.” These revenue sources are unpredictable, decline over time, and create perverse incentives.

The state needs Pennsylvanians to keep smoking, drinking, and gambling to enable lawmakers’ addiction to overspending.

Beyond the faulty spend-first, tax-later approach, the budget itself represents the largest spending jump in a decade — $1.6 billion over last year’s budget. This is five times the rate of inflation and population growth.

Politicians often cite a “structural deficit” to justify such spending increases. However, the “structural deficit” exists only because of years of legislative inaction on pension reform and welfare reform.

Pension costs have skyrocketed over the past decade as previous legislatures and governors ignored calls for reform. Yet, we continue pushing costs onto future generations instead of paying now for what we’ve promised.

Welfare spending growth also outpaces the growth of our economy, making it unsustainable for taxpayers. Elected officials must tackle this long-term problem and control welfare spending growth.

Unfortunately, the current budget addresses neither of these cost-drivers.

It also does not address the $700 million in corporate welfare subsidies the state doles out at taxpayers’ expense — more than any other state in the nation. Instead, the budget adds $10 million in corporate handouts and pork barrel projects.

Meanwhile, the rush to pass a budget by the deadline after months of procrastination came at the expense of proper scrutiny.

For example, page 400 of the budget bill authorizes the Department of Human Services to borrow an unlimited amount of money from the Worker’s Compensation Fund to pay excessive Medicaid bills. There’s no way to know how much this will cost taxpayers.

Similarly, the Senate moved $95 million in spending off-budget, hiding the true cost, though taxpayers will still pay the bill. In reality, the Senate added $74 million in spending to the House’s budget plan.

This new spending won’t reduce the “structural deficit.” Neither will an $18 million increase (plus an $8 million retroactive increase for last year) in the Legislature’s own budget.

Despite these criticisms, taxpayers can be thankful lawmakers rejected Wolf’s call for higher income and sales taxes to fund about $1.7 billion more in spending. The budget also expands the highly successful Education Improvement Tax Credit, which will provide better educational options for thousands of students.

Yet, as it stands, this budget leaves families trapped in a game of tax roulette — praying their taxes don’t go up this year. Next year, let’s hope taxpayers don’t have to choose between an on-time budget and a good budget.

Nathan A. Benefield is vice president of policy for the Commonwealth Foundation, Pennsylvania’s free market think tank.

2001 Pa. lawmaker pension hike far more costly than infamous 2005 pay raise

Pennsylvania taxpayers shell out more than $300 million a year to fund one of the largest and most expensive state legislatures in the nation. And a big chunk of that expense goes to pay the $83,802 annual salary and lavish benefits package of the 253 lawmakers, who routinely grant themselves pay hikes and one of the most generous pension plans in the country.

This is how good government activist Eric Epstein described how the Pa. Legislature continues to enrich itself at taxpayers' expense while pretending to support pension reform:

"When was the last time you ever heard of a bank robber robbing a bank, going back to the scene of the crime putting the money back in the vault, and then changing the combination? That's what we're asking our legislators to do. It's probably not going to happen."

2001 lawmaker pension hike far more costly than 2005 pay raise - abc27 WHTM

Guest Column: No Tax Should Have the Power to Leave You Homeless

By Pa. State Senator David G. Argall (R-29), Pa. State Senator Mike Folmer (R-48), Pa. State Senator Judy Schwank (D-11), Pa. State Senator John Yudichak (D-14)

Despite renewed special interest attacks at the capitol in Harrisburg, the fight for eliminating the unfair school property tax begun by 79 grassroots taxpayer groups across the state is making some real progress.

Across the 11 counties we represent, the number one question we hear at our town hall meetings is: When will the legislature eliminate school property taxes?

Last year, we introduced a similar proposal drafted by the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations. The Senate Finance Committee held a public hearing on this proposal and we asked for a nonpartisan analysis of the bill to provide detailed funding projections. The Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) identified several problems in the original proposal. Special interest groups have used the report as a weapon against our efforts but we view it as a roadmap to achieve true property tax reform and we have moved quickly to amend the bill.

Last year's proposal garnered 13 co-sponsors, or 26 percent of the total state Senate.  This year’s proposal, Senate Bill 76, corrects the defects in the original bill, as detailed in the 80-page analysis provided by the IFO.  Even more importantly, as a result of the grassroots efforts of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayer Associations this year, 22 Senators have now co-sponsored the bill – 12 Republicans and 10 Democrats – an increase of 9 Senators from last year. We continue to forge new coalitions and pick up support from all corners of the state. Groups like the Western Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayers, the Wilkes-Barre City Taxpayers Association, and the South Eastern Tax Reform Coalition are leading the charge to eliminate this tax.

The Senate and House Finance Committees have asked the IFO to complete an updated analysis of Senate Bill 76 in the next few months. The issue of funding public schools is a $13 billion problem and we welcome their nonpartisan, professional analysis to ensure we provide a dollar-for-dollar match for basic education.

In the last few months, because of growing grassroots efforts across the state, support for the bill has grown from 13 to 22 State Senators. The number we need to achieve in the Senate is 26 votes for passage, and then it heads over to the House of Representatives, where we need 102 votes. Representatives Jim Cox and Mark Gillen have discussed this proposal with the Governor, and he is on the record with them stating he would sign the bill when it reaches his desk.

We look forward to continuing our bipartisan fight to advance this issue.  In our local newspapers, we frequently read about the thousands of sheriff’s sales that occur each year across the state. We hear this fundamental principle every day, from Marietta all the way to West Pittston: No tax should have the power to leave you homeless.

Editorial: Pension largesse for Pa. legislators is beyond generous

From the Citizens' Voice: In Pennsylvania, state lawmakers write the rules for their own defined-benefit pensions and they have not spared themselves largess at public expense. In Pennsylvania, a lawmaker 50 or older with just three years in office is eligible for a full defined-benefit pension.

Pension largesse is beyond generous - Opinion - Citizens' Voice

Christmas Comes Early For Pa. Lawmakers

PA State Rep. Tom Quigley concedes 146th Dist. race to Democrat

One week after the polls closed, Republican Pennsylvania State Rep. Tom Quigley, who has represented the Pottstown/Limerick/Royersford areas of Montgomery County since 2005, has conceded in the 146th House District.

Quigley, a popular and highly-regarded state lawmaker, was upset by Democrat Mark Painter on Nov. 6. Since the margin was about 200 votes and absentee ballots were not counted, Quigley refused to concede the race.

But after absentee ballots were counted by Montgomery County officials on Friday, the gap remained about 200 votes. 

Quigley said he spoke to Painter earlier in the day in Harrisburg, where Painter was attending an orientation session for newly-elected legislators.

Quigley also issued the following statement:

In light of the completed count of all absentee ballots, it is clear that the people of the 146th District have spoken and they have elected Mark Painter as their next Representative. I saw Mark in Harrisburg today, shook hands, congratulated him and wished him well.

I would like to take this opportunity to say what a great privilege and pleasure it has been to represent the people of the 146th District. In the past eight years my staff and I have had the chance to meet and serve numerous people in our community. My district office staff; Karen, Joan and Veronika and my Harrisburg staff; Lauren, have provided outstanding service to the many people who have sought our help on numerous issues. I know I speak for them in saying that we will miss that daily interaction and the opportunity to truly make a difference in people's lives.

My district office will be closing at the end of November when my term officially ends. My staff will be contacting those with outstanding issues to direct them to the appropriate person.

Again, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the people of the 146th District for allowing me to serve as your representative.

Although he hasn't decided what he will do next, Quigley has not rule out a run for the state Legislature in 2014 to reclaim the 146th District seat.

PA House Bill 1776 declares freedom from school property taxes

The new push to eliminate school property taxes in Pennsylvania needs support from voters.

From an editorial in The Pottstown Mercury:

The property tax reform legislation would benefit senior citizens and many lower- or fixed-income residents who struggle to pay increasing property taxes, but reform would also benefit public schools. The current system favors wealthier districts, forcing districts in poorer areas to raise taxes or cut programs to balance their budgets. The children of Pennsylvania stand to benefit from tax reform by spreading revenue for education more evenly across district lines. 

Read the full editorial at the newspaper's website.

Hundreds rally to end Pa. school property taxes

The May 7 rally is just the beginning of the hard work it's going to take to eliminate school property taxes in Pennsylvania. Every taxpayer must contact their state lawmakers and demand they support this common-sense reform.

Just remember that all 203 House seats and half of the 50 Senate seats are up for re-election this year. It's time the politicians did something for the people of Pennsylvania not just take care of themselves.

Hundreds rally to end Pa. school property taxes

Rep. Jim Cox: Property Tax Rally About the People

Lawmaker sponsors property tax elimination bill

Berks County State Rep. Jim Cox on why he introduced House Bill 1776, aka The Property Tax Independence Act:

“Many Pennsylvanians lose their homes and a lifetime’s work to sheriff’s sales each year because they can no longer afford to pay their property taxes. Senior citizens on fixed incomes are increasingly forced to sell their homes because of unrelenting increases in their tax burden.” 

Lawmaker sponsors property tax elimination bill