ShareThis Page

Forever waiting

| Sunday, June 18, 2006

Gov. Ed Rendell and members of the General Assembly who voted for property tax "reform" must be fans of the Food Network. They cooked the taxpayers' goose with a special blend of herbs and hallucinogens that grow only on the banks of the Susquehanna.

The key feature is using slots revenue to provide a few more dollars of tax relief for low- and moderate-income senior citizens and some cuts for other homeowners. School district voters also may substitute wage taxes for property taxes. In addition, the measure provides for a referendum that allegedly gives voters control over school-tax increases but, in fact, has gaping loopholes.

By one estimate the property tax statewide has increased $2 billion since Rendell took office. Yet, Fast Eddie hailed the $1 billion bill as the largest property tax cut in state history. In fact, he beguiles voters in an election year from appreciating that nothing was done to permanently lighten the tax load on homeowners.

Here's what Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-Butler, had to say:

"In addition to not removing the ever-increasing burden of school property taxes, it contains absolutely no essential taxpayer protections to keep school districts from spending even more than before."

For 30 years we have waited for firm caps on school taxes -- an essential precondition of local tax reform. Unless voters sterilize Harrisburg of the tax-and-spendaholics, expect to wait forever.

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.

click me