Corbett: Pensions a pocketbook issue
Superintendent John Hoover has a $600,000 problem that he fears will cause Hampton Township School District to raise tax rates again.
“We raised taxes last year, we raised them again this year. In all likelihood, we'll have to raise them next year,” he said. “This system is just not sustainable.”
The district's pension costs are set to spike by $600,000 to $2.5 million next year, more than quadruple what they were a few years ago.
Hoover spoke at an event on Monday afternoon with Gov. Tom Corbett, who embarked on a statewide campaign to push pension reform. Lawmakers broke for summer vacation without enacting policies to deal with the state pension system's nearly $50 billion in unfunded liabilities or annual cost increases at state and local levels.
Corbett spoke at Shaler Municipal Building, where he once was a commissioner, in front of a banner reading, “Pension Reform = Property Tax Relief.”
In Allegheny County, pension costs for school districts increased $92 million in 10 years, data show, part of $1.9 billion in increases statewide.
“All you have to take a look at is what's happening with your property taxes to see that there's a pension issue,” Corbett said.
It's a central focus of his re-election campaign, where he trails York County businessman Tom Wolf. At a morning event with Boilermakers Local 154 on the heels of their endorsement, Corbett asked how many of the 90-some members in attendance paid higher property taxes in the past few years. About half the crowd raised hands.
School districts in Pennsylvania are subject to a state-calculated cap on property tax increases. To raise taxes past that cap, they need approval from the Department of Education. In the 2014-15 school year, 163 districts — including 13 in Allegheny County — said pension costs contributed to raising rates past the index.
Lawmakers lacked votes in both chambers to pass a proposal to put new employees into a hybrid pension plan that utilizes a 401(k)-style plan. Critics said it does not address the pressures of short-term contributions. Corbett abandoned his proposal to modify eventual benefits for current employees when legislators balked at the potential for the policy to wind up in court.
A hybrid plan remains politically viable, Corbett said: “This is the one that has the most votes behind it.”
Corbett called out Democrats for withholding support. Senate Democrats favor a plan involving $9 billion in borrowing and cutting contributions in the short-term, Minority Leader Jay Costa, Forest Hills, said.
“The reason he can't get the plan past the members of his own party is because it's an irresponsible plan,” Costa said.
Pennsylvania's pension debt stems from failure to make annual contributions, said Stephen Herzenberg, executive director at Keystone Research Center, a left-leaning policy group in Harrisburg. But Herzenberg said state actuarial reports show the hybrid proposal “doesn't provide any short-term budget relief at all. It actually does cut benefits sharply for a lot of new employees, but any savings come well down the road.”
Marty Marks, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, said Corbett's latest campaign is “political desperation.” Public education funding has been cut by about $1 billion since Corbett took office, he said.
“We don't have a problem on the spending side of the ledger,” Marks said. “Our problem is on the revenue side, and the governor has done nothing towards bringing new revenues into the state.”
Democrats proposed expanding Medicaid, enacting a severance tax on natural gas drilling, and taxing cigars and smokeless tobacco. Corbett said that won't address “the root cause” behind budget struggles.
His administration says federal funding that expired when he took office led to the $1 billion gap in education funding.
Melissa Daniels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-8511 or email@example.com.
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.
- Observers mixed on grid backup amid carbon rules, natural gas uncertainty
- Home sellers are able to remain mum about violent crimes committed there
- Construction of $500M power plant in South Huntingdon stalled