Offline
Will the Governor continue to play with fire and cause schools across the state to go bankrupt?
This is the most reckless Governor in the history of the state. Playing with the lives of kids who depend on the state to do their constitutional duty and fund school as per state law!
Please STOP playing politics with the children Gov. Wolf.
Bring budget battle to a merciful end, governor
Members of the Senate and House Agriculture and Rural Affairs Committees held a joint hearing this week to explore the impact of Gov. Wolf’s nearly $100 million in cuts to the Department of Agriculture. The testimony gathered during this meeting was extremely sobering.Without funding, more than a thousand employees of the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences and Extension Services will receive pink slips in less than two months, and the Animal Diagnostic Lab will close on June 30.
Numerous other programs and services that help keep our agricultural operations safe and viable could also face a bleak future in the absence of a completed state budget. These are real programs that protect our food supply and ensure our agribusinesses can continue to operate effectively, and the governor’s vetoes have put them in jeopardy.Sadly, these serious problems are not isolated to the agriculture community. The governor’s $3.1 billion in education cuts have left many schools scrambling to find enough money just to keep the doors open through the end of the school year.
Our prisons are only receiving funding through an accounting gimmick that may be illegal and unconstitutional. Many rural hospitals are considering the real possibility of cutting services to patients. No responsible elected official should ever allow any of this to happen.Pennsylvanians are outraged that the situation has reached this point, and they have every right to be angry. It is far past time to close the book on this year’s budget so we can end this unnecessary and completely avoidable suffering.I joined lawmakers this week in supporting a bill to restore some of the most painful cuts perpetrated by Gov. Wolf in December.
The bill would use revenues the state already has available in order to fund these programs without the need for a tax increase. Most importantly, it would prevent our communities from feeling the catastrophic impacts of the governor’s vetoes.It is extremely disappointing that the governor has met this bill with nothing but derision and political posturing. It is far past time for the governor to show some real leadership, and that process begins by releasing the innocent victims that he has taken hostage over the past several months.When discussing the budget, the governor is fond of perpetuating the myth that lawmakers must choose between two paths: one path with deep funding cuts to schools and other vital government programs, and another path with massive tax increases.
Most observers understand that this line of attack is nothing more than an exceptionally lazy rhetorical device intended to obscure the complexities of the budget process. In a budget with hundreds upon hundreds of line items, lawmakers absolutely have more than two options at their disposal.However, when this budget bill reaches his desk, Gov. Wolf will truly be faced with two paths. One path leads to our schools, hospitals and agricultural programs receiving the funding they need to serve our communities.
The other path ends with our students left in limbo as schools close prior to the end of the school year, our farmers and agribusinesses suffering due to indiscriminate funding cuts and hospitals curtailing critical services to patients.
We can only hope that Gov. Wolf sees fit to set aside his ego and close the book on this regrettable nine-month charade. If he chooses the wrong path, then the governor – and all those who support his unique brand of callous obstructionism – must accept full responsibility for the dire consequences our communities will suffer. Lawmakers who support this budget have done our job. It’s time for Gov. Wolf to finally do his.
Sen. Rich Alloway is a Republican whose district includes Adams County.
Offline
Okay, now I get it. It's that all too familiar song and dance we've heard for the last seven years with Obama as president, receiving a beating by the Republican Congress. Now, it's all Wolf's fault for there being no budget passed in Pennsylvania's Republican State Legislature. I saw only a sliver of a R legislator speaking to a group the other day, saying "now, if the governor only will come to his senses," blah, blah, blah. I can assure you that whoever is running for re-election at any level will not get my vote come November.
Offline
Did he veto 3 budgets? Yup............. game time is over! Sign the budget now! There won't be any tax increases this year.
Offline
How do you think the 3% increase, acknowledged by Scott Wagner, in the latest proposed congressional budget, will be paid for? There are no proposed cuts to cover this, and, since the government doesn't produce anything that they can sell for a profit, the only income source is taxes. So, the only way to cover the increase in the budget is to increase taxes. But nobody in Harrisburg seems to be concerned with actually balancing the budget, so they will just increase the deficit and let somebody else worry about it.
And the voters keep putting the same people back in office.
So, it's ultimately our fault. We get the government we deserve.
Last edited by Rongone (3/19/2016 10:56 am)
Offline
You would not need to necessarily increase taxes to cover a 3% increase in spending. If tax revenue also increased over the previous year by 3%, then no tax increase would be necessary.
Offline
Here is the state of the state according to the Dept of Revenue from Dec 2015. You can look at the stats and decide for yourselves if the state has the money to cover the expenditures needed.
BTW, it sometimes appears that perhaps some people think the legislature submits the budget to the Governor, actually it is the reverse. The initial budget comes from the Governor himself. The budgets coming back are those legislative negotiations to the original budget.
Offline
OMG! Raise the sales tax and give 1/2 % to local governments, stop giving away tax-free freebies, begin to tax everything but RX, nursing homes and other LEGITIMATE elderly care.
Those gutless wonders in the state legislature are sooooo damn afraid of their constituents and not getting re-elected. Just once DO YOUR JOB AND STOP BLAMING THE GOVERNOR. Granted, he's no prize package either but at least he wants to go in the right direction with taxes.
Offline
Brady Bunch wrote:
You would not need to necessarily increase taxes to cover a 3% increase in spending. If tax revenue also increased over the previous year by 3%, then no tax increase would be necessary.
So, somehow $872.6 million dollars is going to fall out of the sky from a "tax revenue increase" over the previous year, without increasing taxes this year (possibly retroactively due to the impasse) or next year, or for the next ten years to make up for the cumulative shortfall?
Man, you should run for the state house or senate. With ideas like that, you'd fit right in with the status quo.
Offline
Rongone wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
You would not need to necessarily increase taxes to cover a 3% increase in spending. If tax revenue also increased over the previous year by 3%, then no tax increase would be necessary.
So, somehow $872.6 million dollars is going to fall out of the sky from a "tax revenue increase" over the previous year, without increasing taxes this year (possibly retroactively due to the impasse) or next year, or for the next ten years to make up for the cumulative shortfall?
Man, you should run for the state house or senate. With ideas like that, you'd fit right in with the status quo.
Did you read the link Tennyson posted? Total YTD tax revenue collection was up 2.6% at the end of December 2015 compared with 2014 at the same time ($13.256 billion compared to $12.922 billion). I guess the 2.6% increase in tax revenues just "fell from the sky".
You do realize tax collections can increase based on increased incomes and revenues of people and corporations.
BTW, I never said it would take care of the increased spending. I was just pointing out you don't necessarily need tax increases to cover increased spending every year, as your post insinuated.
The tone here has been pleasant for the past several weeks, there really is no need to be condescending to me because we might disgaree. I believe I have but nothing but pleasant to you in all of our conversations.
Last edited by Brady Bunch (3/19/2016 1:16 pm)
Offline
Brady Bunch wrote:
Rongone wrote:
Brady Bunch wrote:
You would not need to necessarily increase taxes to cover a 3% increase in spending. If tax revenue also increased over the previous year by 3%, then no tax increase would be necessary.
So, somehow $872.6 million dollars is going to fall out of the sky from a "tax revenue increase" over the previous year, without increasing taxes this year (possibly retroactively due to the impasse) or next year, or for the next ten years to make up for the cumulative shortfall?
Man, you should run for the state house or senate. With ideas like that, you'd fit right in with the status quo.Did you read the link Tennyson posted? Total YTD tax revenue collection was up 2.6% at the end of December 2015 compared with 2014 at the same time ($13.256 billion compared to $12.922 billion). I guess the 2.6% increase in tax revenues just "fell from the sky".
You do realize tax collections can increase based on increased incomes and revenues of people and corporations.
BTW, I never said it would take care of the increased spending. I was just pointing out you don't necessarily need tax increases to cover increased spending every year, as your post insinuated.
The tone here has been pleasant for the past several weeks, there really is no need to be condescending to me because we might disgaree. I believe I have but nothing but pleasant to you in all of our conversations.
Not quite that simple. The General Fund which is where all the payments need to be made from is not up anywhere near that amount. I