ShareThis Page

Adventures in state budgeting

| Monday, April 17, 2017, 9:00 p.m.
JASMINE GOLDBAND
The Pennsylvania state Capitol (Trib photo)

In Lewis Carroll's classic Wonderland tale, Alice famously asks the Cheshire Cat, “Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?”

“That depends a good deal on where you want to get to,” the feline answers.

The response could equally apply to those asking what's next for Pennsylvania.

Fortunately, the state House is more decisive than Alice. Lawmakers opted for the path of fiscal responsibility by passing a budget that confronts state government's spending habit head-on while rejecting tax hikes. Gov. Tom Wolf's proposed budget also recognized the need to streamline government but still included large spending increases and $1 billion in higher taxes, averaging $315 per family of four.

While the gap between the two visions is wide, the sides are dramatically closer than in prior years, signaling an on-time budget is possible.

As the budget heads to the Senate, where should lawmakers go from here? That depends on where they want Pennsylvania to “get to.” To put our state on a trajectory of economic growth and opportunity for all, they should ensure the budget holds to the following principles:

No tax hikes

Were the House budget to become law, Pennsylvanians could breathe a sigh of relief that their state tax bills would not increase. Given state residents already bear the 15th-highest state and local tax burden in the nation, “no tax hikes” are three words Pennsylvanians want to hear.

Spending intervention

In a welcome departure from recent budgets, the House budget keeps spending growth below the rate of inflation plus population changes, as outlined in the Taxpayer Protection Act. For the past 47 years, state spending has tracked consistently upward at an unsustainable pace, increasing by an inflation-adjusted 189 percent, or $4,103 per person.

Corporate welfare cuts

Pennsylvanians deserve a budget that works for all, not just the politically connected. Our state leads the nation in corporate welfare spending, yet has little to show for it. While the House budget does not leave wasteful business subsidies entirely by the wayside, it reduces them by more than $56 million, with even more cuts possible.

A re-imagined government

The House budget starts down this road by expanding on last year's progress toward ending government's liquor monopoly and beginning to tackle critical human services and corrections reforms. In addition, both the House and Senate are taking steps toward structural pension reform that will increase options for public workers while respecting taxpayer dollars. Making this reform a reality is critical to our state's future.

During her adventures in Wonderland, Alice didn't much care where she ended up, so the Cheshire Cat said it didn't matter which way she went.

Unlike Alice, Pennsylvanians care about what lies ahead. They want a state where their families and communities are set up for success.

By controlling spending, rejecting tax hikes and pursuing structural forms, lawmakers can pave the way for opportunity and economic growth and define the next chapter in Pennsylvania's story.

Bob Dick is a senior policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org).

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.