Pa. House OKs GOP's $27.7B budget proposal
HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania's House of Representatives on Thursday approved a Republican-crafted spending plan, pushing it one step closer to enactment with the beginning of the state's new fiscal year closing in.
The 120-81 vote culminated more than three hours of debate over the $27.7 billion proposal for the 2012-13 fiscal year that starts on Sunday. It sets the stage for a final Senate vote as early as today.
The proposal was negotiated by GOP Gov. Tom Corbett, who originally advocated limiting spending to this year's $27.1 billion, and leaders of the Legislature's Republican majorities, who convinced Corbett that tax collections are healthy enough to sustain hundreds of millions more.
All but one Republican voted in favor it, while just 11 Democrats joined them.
The plan boosts spending by 1.5 percent, mostly to cover the rising cost of health care and public employee pensions, and provides new business tax cuts. It would hold public education spending level after this year's 10 percent reduction — financially ailing school districts would see a little more aid — while cutting funds for county-run social services and shutting down a Depression-era program that provides a $200-a-month cash benefit for disabled adults who are unable to work.
“This is a fiscally responsible, but caring, prioritized budget,” House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny, said in the final throes of the debate.
Democrats accused the Republicans of sitting on a surplus that could be tapped to blunt some of the social service cuts and charging that the “no-tax” budgets would force increases in local property taxes necessary to run the public schools while locking in this year's subsidy reduction.
“My advice to Pennsylvanians ... is don't get old, don't get sick, don't try to educate kids, don't be unlucky enough to be disabled, don't try to find a job, don't try to catch a bus and don't try to find a non-deficient bridge,” said Rep. Joe Markosek of Allegheny County, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.
Rep. Greg Vitali, D-Delaware, criticized ongoing personnel reductions at the Department of Environmental Protection, citing estimates that 60,000 natural gas wells will be drilled in the state over 20 years.
“The environmental stresses are increasing and the resources we are giving the agency to enforce environmental laws are decreasing,” he said.
Rep. Michelle F. Brownlee, D-Philadelphia, said the proposal is “sinking every lifeboat that the truly needy people in this commonwealth need to keep afloat.”
Republicans cited the critics' broad-ranging complaints as evidence that the plan is a genuine compromise that balances Pennsylvanian's needs with fiscal responsibility.
“You are the fiscal stewards of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollar,” Turzai said. “They are taking money from their pocket and giving it to this Legislature to spend in an appropriate and responsible manner.”
“Pennsylvania faces the same challenge that every state in America faces ... how to make do with less,” said Rep. Kate Harper, R-Montgomery. “Pennsylvania is a balanced-budget state. We don't print money and we don't deficit-spend.”
“None of us ever gets everything we want,” said Rep. Scott Petri, R-Bucks.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.