The sausage-making machines are kicking into high gear in Harrisburg as the June 30 deadline looms to adopt a state budget.
Pennsylvania faces a $1.4 billion budget deficit that must be closed. A variety of issues are in “play,” the euphemism of choice for “being held hostage.”
The same Corbett administration that insists the hike in the wholesale tax on gasoline was no tax increase at all now is open to imposing a tax on the goose that lays the golden egg — Marcellus shale gas extraction. Some legislators, Republicans and Democrats, actually favor a tax on top of a tax on top of a tax.
But the governor who promised not to raise taxes (but already has) says he won't consider imposing the tax he said he wouldn't unless the Legislature adopts the state pension reform plan he favors.
That would be the plan that Commonwealth Foundation scholar Rick Dreyfuss says won't address the pension systems' systemic deficit born out of a systemic lack of funding born out of legislative self-dealing.
Then there's liquor “reform.” The Republican Senate that has the intestinal fortitude of the end result of a flu bug when it comes to the Republican House's privatization plan favors a half-arsed plan that nibbles at the state liquor monopoly while nibbling seductively on the earlobes of organized labor. Trading a shale tax for the double nibbles is a nonstarter, says Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa, D-Allegheny. Until it is not, we suppose.
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.