ShareThis Page

Republican House budget panel chairman accuses Wolf of 'creating' budget crisis

| Thursday, March 10, 2016, 11:10 p.m.
Rep. Bill Adolph, R-Delaware County

HARRISBURG — A Republican House budget panel chairman accused Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf on Thursday of “creating a crisis” with his state budget proposals rather than seeking compromise.

Wolf in June became the first governor since the 1950s to veto the entire budget when he could have nixed portions of it, said Rep. Bill Adolph, R-Delaware County, who heads the House Appropriations Committee.

Adolph blamed Wolf for using his line-item veto to cut $6 billion from education, state prisons and human services instead of working with the House on a compromise members offered in December that left just $500 million in dispute.

Two months later, Adolph said, the education department sent instructions to school districts about how to close schools, which Republicans said was a tactic to gain support for spending increases.

“That's not trying to compromise; it's creating a crisis,” Adolph said. “If you want to settle this, you don't send out a booklet on how to close a school.”

Wolf's budget secretary, Randy Albright, went before the panel to defend his boss.

“What we're interested in more than anything else is compromise,” said Albright, who testified at the final budget hearing in the House on the 2016-17 state budget and the incomplete 2015-16 state budget.

Wolf last month proposed a $32.7 billion state budget that seeks to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more on public education.

He has proposed raising the state income tax from 3.07 percent to 3.4 percent. It would be retroactive to Jan. 1. The sales tax base would be expanded, and cigarette taxes would be boosted by $1 per pack.

“The people of Pennsylvania cannot afford those kinds of taxes,” Adolph said.

Referring to the booklet on closing schools, Republicans controlling the committee and the House said Wolf's tactics were intended to leverage support for higher spending and taxes.

However, a Department of Education spokeswoman said the document “was developed by (the department) by a team of experts and stakeholders after the department received inquiries for assistance from school districts around the commonwealth.”

New, recurring state revenue is needed to close a $2 billion structural deficit by July 2017, Albright said. Without it, the state's cost of borrowing will go up, education will face $1 billion in cuts, state-related universities such as the University of Pittsburgh won't receive state funding and “human service providers will bear the brunt of the cost.”

Failure to act by the Republican-controlled Legislature will result in “hidden tax increases,” forcing higher property taxes, Wolf has said.

Standard & Poor's warned last month that Pennsylvania has 90 days to fix its fiscal situation or its credit rating will likely be downgraded, Albright said. If that occurs, taxpayers would have to pay millions of dollars more when the state borrows money.

Rep. Seth Grove, R-York County, raised questions during the panel session about the $150 million in savings touted by the Wolf administration as part of an effort to develop efficiencies and cut costs in state government. The savings were not noted in the administration's budget data, Grove said.

A Department of General Services official told the committee that the savings had been spent, Grove said.

“Why not put the data in there? Why not account for it?” he asked Albright.

Albright said the savings was built into appropriation amounts across the board rather than for a single agency.

Brad Bumsted is the Tribune-Review's state Capitol reporter. Reach him at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.