Impact fee suffices
I'm with state Rep. George Dunbar, R-Westmoreland County, when it comes to the proposed severance tax on gas wells in Pennsylvania. Rep. Dunbar took time from his busy schedule to meet with a few energy citizens to discuss this proposed boondoggle. George believes, as do I, that the impact fee, which funds much-needed projects for counties and municipalities, is quite enough.
Adding a severance tax will slow or even stop Pennsylvania's rapidly decreasing unemployment rate. I urge all of our leaders to consider the full impact of an additional severance tax on the entire Pennsylvania economy before they act.
Jobs are being created in many different sectors due to drilling, and these are good-paying, sustainable jobs for people. Why should we sacrifice such economic growth? Why should we push out of the state the greatest economic benefit in 100 years?
The impact of drilling is seen in our grocery stores, hotels, restaurants, entertainment centers, manufacturing, waste management and tourism industries. Jobs are being created.
Counties and municipalities are putting the impact fee to good use by improving roads and bridges. Why is another tax needed?
I stand with Rep. Dunbar and say “enough is enough.”
Chad A. McCutcheon
The writer is spokesman for McCutcheon Enterprises Inc., a waste management contractor for the oil and gas industry.
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.
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- Quarantine quandary
- EPA impoverishing seniors
- Something special
- ‘Change’ promise kept
- Back to ‘Mad Men’?
- Election in review II
- Invite God to school
- Showing appreciation
- Right on Promise