Abuse in Harrisburg: The per-diem party
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Saturday, Feb. 15, 2014, 5:30 p.m.
Bolstering the case for reforming state government is the $52,900 profit a former House member stands to make if he receives the asking price for a Harrisburg house purchased with per-diem money.
WHP-TV in Harrisburg reports that Democrat James Wansacz, who represented the Scranton area for a decade ending in 2010, bought the house for $72,000 in 2003. He used money from $162,904 in per diems to pay the mortgage, a practice he defended before leaving the Legislature.
Mr. Wansacz was eligible for per diems — supposed to cover lawmakers' in-session costs — because his first home was more than 50 miles from the capital. Second homes, however, are exempt from the rules, making his mortgage use of that money legal. But a public servant shouldn't be allowed to profit from money designed for one purpose then applied to another. Wansacz now is selling the house for $124,900.
Other lawmakers could do the same — state Sen. Tim Solobay, D-Canonsburg, and state Rep. Paul Costa, D-Wilkins, for example, co-own a Harrisburg row home. And the lack of accountability encourages other abuses, too, such as the $1.3 million in per diems lawmakers took for non-session days in 2011 and 2012, according to a Trib investigation.
Wansacz's case cries out for closing the “second home” loophole, stricter accountability and stiff penalties for exploiting taxpayer dollars for personal profit.
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.
- ‘Un-American’? That’s Harry Reid, the Senate’s lowly smear artist
- The market speaks: Cadillac dealers reject another electric folly
- Market perversions: Chrysler retreats
- The new SAT: Rigor gets a pass
- Sunday pops
- THE BOX
- The IRS scandal: Compelling Lerner
- Corbett’s fortunes: Troubling truths
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Another EPA crock: Sulfur silliness
- Greensburg Laurels & Lances