Corbett's budget: Likes & red flags
There are some things to like about Gov. Tom Corbett's proposed budget. But there are red flags, too.
High on the list of likes is the phase-down — over 10 years and beginning in 2015 — of Pennsylvania's onerous corporate income tax, from 9.99 percent to 6.99 percent. It will prompt investment and growth and lead to more state tax receipts.
Then there's the commonsense move from defined-benefit pensions to defined-contribution retirement accounts for new state employees. There's also a recalibration of benefits for those whose traditional pensions will remain intact but whose provisions were roundly exploited for taxpayer-shafting windfalls. It's a long overdue recognition that 20th-century-style pensions are not sustainable in the 21st.
But the pension “reform” also comes with a vigorously waving flag of red — further reducing taxpayer contributions for a combined short-term savings of more than $300 million for the state and local school districts with the hope that future “reforms” will save the day. Past being prologue, it only makes longer the fuse on the pension time bomb.
Of course, there's also the mother of all tax increases, one the Corbett administration keeps insisting is no tax increase at all and one that consumers won't notice — the five-year phaseout of the Oil Company Franchise Tax.
A nearly 30-cent increase in the per-gallon tax on the wholesale price won't be passed on to consumers? On what planet? And a proposed 2-cent-per-gallon reduction (at the pump) in the Liquid Fuels Tax is a poor consolation prize.
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.