Pennsylvania Budget 2017 Explained

Pennsylvania Budget 2017 Explained

By Nathan Benefield

If Gov. Wolf is looking to leave a legacy of unusual—and unconstitutional—budget happenings, he remains on track.

Here’s a quick run-down of what’s going on with the state budget:

As you know, last Friday the House and Senate sent the governor a $32 billion budget (a spending increase of $500 million) with no plan to pay for it.

Gov. Wolf had 10 days to sign, veto, or line-item veto the budget. The state constitution requires a balanced budget and the state Administrative Code mandates that the governor line-item veto any spending above existing revenue. The deadline was Monday. Gov. Wolf took no action and the budget became law. Gov. Wolf has yet to sign a Pennsylvania budget in his tenure.

Now, the focus remains on a revenue package. GOP leaders have expressed frustration with Gov. Wolf’s rejection of their revenue plans that included borrowing and no tax hikes. According to reports, Gov. Wolf wants more tax hikes.

Multiple tax hikes have been rumored:

  • A drink tax on bar and restaurant patrons
  • A new tax on families’ cable TV bill
  • A new tax on homeowners’ gas heating bill
  • An additional tax on energy jobs

Additionally, borrowing gimmicks continue to be discussed as a way to bridge the budget gap.

It’s important to continue to reach out to your lawmakers so they know that Pennsylvanians cannot afford more tax hikes.

But here’s good news: Lawmakers are also discussing substantive changes in government to balance the budget without higher taxes—including letting grocery stores and other private retailers sell liquor and reducing government subsidies for horse race prizes. And yesterday, the House passed meaningful welfare reforms that will help improve our state’s safety net.

Click here to send a message to your lawmakers now.

You can get the latest on the state budget from the CF team on our PolicyBlog, Facebook, and Twitter.

Mr. Benefield is vice president and chief operating officer of Commonwealth Foundation.

Pennsylvania Budget 2017 Explained

Pennsylvania Budget 2017 Explained

 

New Wolf Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

New Wolf Budget Also Burdens Little Guy By Matthew J. Brouillette

Yesterday, Feb. 9, Gov. Wolf doubled down on his tax-and-spend agenda. Here are five facts you need to know about how Gov. Wolf’s budget would affect your family and our state:

1. It’s more of the same. Wolf’s proposed budget mirrors what he repeatedly offered—and lawmakers repeatedly rejected—last year: Massive tax hikes and record spending increases. Wolf New Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

2. It’s the biggest spending increase in 25 years. Wolf’s $33.3 billion General Fund budget (including pension payments) represents a 10% increase over the budget passed by the legislature in December and is the bgigest spending increase since 1991-92.

3. Wolf’s tax hike = $850 more per family four annually.

4. Wolf’s budget includes $1.1 billion more for public schools, on top of the record-high level of funding passed by the legislature in December. This comes with no accountability measures and with punitive cuts to public charter schools.

5. At least eight different tax hikes are in the budget. This includes an 11% personal income tax hike—retroactive to January 2016 (in other words, you already owe the state more taxes).

Wolf talked about ‘saving’ the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Instead, he’s taxing us backwards and forwards.

Join us in telling Gov. Wolf, “Please, no more taxes!” Get all the budget facts—and a catchy decal—over on our site at Commonwealth Foundation.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation.

Wolf New Budget Also Burdens Little Guy

WAMS Back In Senate Budget

WAMS Back In Senate BudgetBy Matthew Brouillette

Yesterday, Dec. 7,  the Pennsylvania Senate passed budget-related legislation: SB 1073 and SB 1082. Now, taxpayers can finally see what’s in Gov. Wolf’s “framework” for a new budget. Here are five things we know:

1. Excessive Spending Growth. The $30.8 billion budget represents record spending and a 5.4 percent increase over last year’s budget. Even including items shifted off budget last year, this amounts to an increase of $500 million more than inflation and population growth.

2. WAMs are back. The Senate budget includes a $103 million increase in Community and Economic Development spending. This includes several line-items identified as WAMs (or “walking around money”)—slush funds used for special projects. In the past, they’ve been used to buy votes and foster rampant corruption.

3. Problematic pension reform. The revised pension bill includes a side-by-side hybrid, with a smaller defined benefit pension and a defined contribution component. While a step in the right direction, it doesn’t get the politics out of pensions.

The proposal further underfunds teachers’ and state workers’ pensions and lacks transparency. It suspends a provision that requires pension bills to have an actuarial note explaining long-term impact before a vote.

4. No privatization in “liquor privatization.” The Senate liquor plan—which has been reported on but not yet passed—would retain the government monopoly over wholesale distribution. That means every retailer would continue to buy wine and spirits from the PLCB. There would be a “study” to recommend whether the state should privatize. On the retail side, state stores would remain open in perpetuity.

5. Higher Taxes. The Senate plan requires higher taxes. We know this will include some broad-based tax increase to generate the $600-$700 million needed to pay for the spending.

We don’t know what taxes will go up. There is no agreement on a tax plan; that is, the Senate passed a budget without the revenues to pay for it. It’s unclear if there is support in the Senate to pass a tax hike, but there are very clear signs there isn’t support in the House for a tax hike of this magnitude.

To see how your senator voted, here is the roll call for SB 1073 and SB 1082.

It’s not over yet. To voice your concern to your Senate and House members, email them today.

Mr. Brouillette is president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation.

WAMS Back In Senate Budget

Sales Tax Hike Problem For Pa.

By Nathan Benefield Sales Tax Hike Problem For Pa.

After nearly five months of gridlock, a new state budget framework has been announced. The plan would raise the sales tax rate to the second-highest in the nation while promising property tax relief for homeowners in return.

At this point, it’s tempting to call any progress on budget agreement a victory, but is this tentative framework truly a “win” for Pennsylvanians?

Let’s start with the good: It appears taxpayers will be spared a personal income tax hike. A spike in utility bills caused by a new severance tax is also off the table. Additionally, Governor Wolf’s plan to expand the sales tax to 45 items like nursing homes, day care, funerals, and college textbooks has reportedly been dropped.

That’s great news, given Pennsylvanians already face the 10th-highest tax burden in the nation, but not everything is so rosy.

Under this budget plan, Pennsylvania would see the first sales tax hike in nearly 50 years and would have the second-highest rate in America. At 7.25 percent, the new rate would be 21 percent higher than the state’s current 6 percent rate.

It gets even worse for Pittsburgh residents who would pay a crushing 8.25 percent, and Philadelphia’s sales tax would spike to 9.25 percent. Delaware retailers, which benefit from no sales tax, should cheer, but business in the Keystone State would suffer.

The sales tax hike would collect about $2.1 billion more from consumers, while providing only $1.5 billion in property tax relief.

What about the leftover money? It will be used to replace $600 million in gambling funds formerly allocated to property tax relief that would now be redirected to additional spending.

Most homeowners would benefit from this tax shift, but businesses—which pay an estimated 40 percent of all sales taxes—and renters would lose. They would pay the higher sales tax but see no reduction in property taxes or rents under the current proposal.

In one sense, progress has been made. Wolf’s initial budget proposal in March called for the largest tax increase in the nation, costing an astonishing $1,400 per Pennsylvania family of four. While this sales tax is far lower, taxpayers should be asking what they’ll get in return for any increase.

Much is still being worked out behind the scenes, and there’s still an opportunity to act on crucial issues like pension reform, liquor privatization, and corporate welfare reform.

First, true liquor privatization—allowing private retailers to sell wine and spirits and ending the government monopoly over distribution—must be part of any deal. This would give consumers greater selection and convenience, generate recurring revenue, and end the state’s conflict of interest as both alcohol salesman and liquor law enforcer.

Though Wolf vetoed privatization this summer, Pennsylvanians still strongly support the measure because it makes fiscal sense and common sense.

In any serious discussion of property tax relief, lawmakers must first address the primary cause of property tax increases: unsustainable public pension costs. Only by moving to a defined-contribution plan, like a 401(k), will we stop the bleeding and end the political manipulation that created a $53 billion unfunded pension debt.

Moreover, any property tax shift should include strict controls over future school tax increases. Pennsylvania ranks near the top on education spending, while residents face some of the highest property taxes. To give taxpayers more control, lawmakers should give voters the chance to approve any school tax increase—a right residents of other states, like our neighbors in Ohio, already have.

For anyone looking to cut budget waste, this one’s hard to miss: Pennsylvania hands out nearly $700 million in corporate welfare subsidies through grant and loan programs. These subsidies provide businesses an unfair advantage at taxpayer expense and should be eliminated.

Finally, any budget agreement should include a long-term pledge that government will not recklessly overspend our hard-earned dollars. The Taxpayer Protection Act, supported by 64 percent of Pennsylvania voters according to a recent poll, would limit spending growth to the rate of inflation plus population growth.

Pennsylvanians need a state budget, but they don’t want promises of relief that hide higher taxes.  Before we ask taxpayers for more, the governor and lawmakers should ensure tax dollars are spent well. True reforms that will set our state—and our families—on the path toward lasting prosperity should be part of any budget deal.

Nathan A. Benefield is vice president of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation

Sales Tax Hike Problem For Pa.

Wolf Budget Costs Family Of Four $1419

Wolf Budget Costs Family Of Four $1419
Wolf Budget Costs Family Of Four $1419

By Bob Dick

Gov. Tom Wolf’s budget proposal expands the size of government and shrinks the size of your wallet.

The governor argues that his property tax relief plan would offset the brunt of these tax hikes, but this relief is delayed until 2016-17. In the meantime, the state will collect higher taxes and retain those funds.

Should Gov. Wolf’s property tax plan pass the General Assembly, there’s no guarantee school districts will stop raising property taxes. Even if local governments did manage to hold the line on property taxes, Pennsylvanians would suffer a net tax increase of $4.3 billion in the 2016-2017 budget.

These tax hikes will grease the wheels for record levels of spending. Under Gov. Wolf’s plan, true General Fund spending in 2015-16 would reach $31.6 billion (Governor Wolf moves $1.75 billion in school pension payments to a new fund, which makes the General Fund increase appear smaller). This amounts to the largest spending increase in 25 years.

Of course, the General Fund is only a portion of Pennsylvania’s total operating budget. If each of Gov. Wolf’s proposals were enacted, Pennsylvania’s total operating budget would surpass $78.6 billion—the highest spending level in the commonwealth’s history.

Unsustainable spending growth and tax increases have been the prevailing trend in Pennsylvania since the 1970s. As a result, Pennsylvania ranks near the bottom in job, income and population growth. Governor Wolf’s proposals would accelerate this trend despite evidence of its harmful consequences.

There is a better alternative.

We need to grow the economy by limiting government. This means unleashing innovators and protecting working families—not weighing them down with higher taxes.

For a detailed look at the budget visit here.

Bob Dick is a Policy Analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives.

Wolf Budget Costs Family Of Four $1419

Five Facts Concerning 2014 Pa Budget

 Commonwealth Foundation has published these five facts concerning 2014 Pa Budget.

By Bob Dick

On June 30, the General Assembly passed a $29.1 billion budget, sending it to Gov. Corbett for his approval. While Gov. Corbett is taking time to review it, here are five facts you should know.

1. Limited spending growth: The General Assembly’s budget represents a spending increase of 2 percent over the prior year’s budget. This is consistent with Taxpayer Protection Act, which calls for limiting increases in state government spending to inflation and population growth.

If fact, the budgets over the past four years have limited spending, with an average growth of less than 1 percent. In contrast, spending increased at double the rate of inflation over the previous 8 years, and has increased by an average of 6.2 percent per year since 1970.

2. No new taxes: Lawmakers did not include any new taxes in this year’s budget, despite pressure from outside groups pushing to increase the tax burden on working Pennsylvanians.

Not only did lawmakers resist calls for a unfair severance tax, which would have hurt farmers like Shawn Georgetti, but they also moved forward with the phase out of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax after years of delaying its elimination.

3. State spending exceeds state revenues: For the seventh consecutive year, state spending will exceed state revenue collections. This is possible due to one-time transfers from other funds and one-time revenue collections.

While the state revenue sheet appears balanced, lawmakers will still have to make tough decisions to deal with our long-term fiscal challenges, which threaten the state’s fiscal health and economic growth.

4. Overall spending, including education spending, is at an all-time high:  Despite the myth being touted by government union executuves, Gov. Corbett and Republican lawmakers did not cut $1 billion from public schools.

In fact, state spending on education will be at the highest level ever this fiscal year. Of course, more education spending does not automatically translate into better student outcomes, absent reform.

5. Missed opportunites: The legislature will not pass meaningful pension reform and liquor privatization before the General Assembly breaks for summer recess. Moreover, they delayed action on paycheck protection for the time being.

But those issues aren’t going away just because lawmakers have recessed for a few months. The importance of addressing the state pension crisis, delivering the alcohol convenience most Pennsylvanians want, and ending the use of taxpayer resources to fund partisan politics will be just as great when lawmakers return in September.

 

Five Facts Concerning 2014 Pa Budget

 

Five Facts Concerning 2014 Pa Budget

Union Leaders Above Law

By Matthew J. Brouillette

Pennsylvania’s government union executives should be at the top of any list of political power players in Harrisburg. With the kind of influence that millions in campaign contributions and political ads can buy, shouldn’t they follow the same lobbying laws as other political organizations?

Wendell Young IV, president of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union Local 1776, says yes. He told the watchdog group Media Trackers, “We shouldn’t be held to a different standard than everyone else.”

But the fact is, they are – it’s just a much lower one. And a recent investigation reveals an above-the-law attitude that goes beyond mere political privilege.

Media Trackers reports that the heads of three major public unions are not – and haven’t ever – registered as lobbyists, as a 2006 state law requires. A Commonwealth Foundation search of the Pennsylvania Department of State’s lobbyist database confirms this. Yet these union executives maintain frequent contact with lawmakers and staff, in person and via phone and e-mail, on legislative issues.

Young and David Fillman, executive director of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Council 13, are required to report their lobbying to the federal government. According to public records filed with the U.S. Department of Labor and examined by Media Trackers, Young reported 8 percent of his time as being spent on “political activities and lobbying,” while Fillman claimed 15 percent. Pennsylvania AFL-CIO president Rick Bloomingdale, the third union leader mentioned in Media Trackers’ investigation, isn’t required to make the same reports.

None of the three is registered to lobby in Harrisburg, though other leaders of nonprofits – such as the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) president, Michael Crossey, and Gene Barr, president of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry, are.

When confronted about the lack of registration by a Pennsylvania Independent reporter, Young replied, “Clearly I do lobby, but it’s not my primary function as president of the union.” Young was paid $23,421 (8 percent of his $292,765 salary) for political activity and lobbying in 2013. Registration is required by the commonwealth if payment for lobbying exceeds $2,500 per quarter.

How can union leaders lobby against liquor privatization and pension reform for years without registering as lobbyists? No one’s been checking up on them – until now.

Such activities should be a wakeup call for union members who think their dues are separate from political activities. They aren’t.

Union members’ dues can legally be spent on political activity, whether in the form of political commercials, paid lobbyists, or get-out-the-vote efforts. Indeed, the PSEA told its members last year that as much as $7 million of their dues could be spent on “lobbying and political expenses” in 2013-2014.

In the case of the UFCW, even workers who have opted out of the union are forced to fund political activities.

Recently, some absurd ads vilifying the prospect of selling wine in grocery stores have blanketed the state. (They claim, “It only takes a little bit of greed to kill a child.”) Those ads were paid for by the UFCW, which funded a similarly over-the-top $1 million ad campaign last year.

But when the union reported last year’s campaign to the U.S. Department of Labor, it called the nakedly political ads a “representational activity” rather than a “political” one – and the difference matters.

Government workers, like teachers or liquor store clerks, who don’t wish to fund political ads can opt out of union membership. But in many cases, they still have to pay the union a “fair share” fee, which is supposed to only cover “representational activity,” like collective bargaining costs. That fee cannot be used for politics.

The union may view ad campaigns as “representational,” but lobbying on issues before the legislature is clearly “political.” Beyond the legal questions involved, the liquor store clerks and teachers who have jumped through hoops to keep their money from being spent on politics are still being forced to fund union political activity.

And this all happens courtesy of the taxpayers. Government union leaders use public resources to collect union dues, fees, and campaign contributions from workers’ checks and then spend that money on politics with impunity. In recent years, several elected state officials have been prosecuted for using public resources for partisan purposes.

If we can’t control the behavior of union leaders, we can at least stop using taxpayer resources to collect union political money. Tell your representatives in Harrisburg to support paycheck protection, which would prevent governments from deducting union dues from the checks of public employees – and force unions to play by the same political rules as everyone else.

Matthew J. Brouillette is president and CEO of the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org), Pennsylvania’s free market think tank.

Union Leaders Above Law

Union Leaders Above Law

Paycheck Protection Benefits Teachers

 By Matthew J. Brouillette Pope Says Redistribute Wealth

Pennsylvania’s AFL-CIO union boss Rick Bloomingdale is absolutely right that there is a “war on workers” here in Pennsylvania—he should know, because he is waging it. His recent opinion piece on PennLive tries, and fails, to defend the indefensible, getting the facts wrong in the process.

What has Bloomingdale so upset?

It’s a proposal that would simply stop using public resources to collect union campaign contributions and political money for government unions.

Far from an attack on workers, this reform would actually give union members a stronger voice in how their dues and campaign dollars are spent. It is not anti-union. It is pro-worker.

If Rick Bloomingdale were interested in protecting the middle class, he’d be standing alongside teachers like Rob Brough rather than against them.

Just ask Rob Brough, a teacher in Pennsylvania who must pay fees to a government union, the Pennsylvania State Education Association, in order to keep his job.

“Their agenda and political ideals are counter to what I believe, and it is a kick in the teeth every time my dues are withdrawn from my hard-earned paycheck and handed off to some organization that I would never contribute to of my own free will,” Brough said.

Shouldn’t the PSEA have to look Rob in the face, ask him for his $680 in dues, and then explain how the union plans to spend it? Since Rob is forced to pay this money to keep his teaching job, isn’t it fair that he should be empowered to have a stronger voice in how his money is spent on politics?

Right now, the leaders of the PSEA and other government unions don’t have to do that. They can use taxpayer resources to collect campaign contributions and political money directly out of employees’ paychecks.

Not only is this unfair to taxpayers; it hurts the very workers government unions claim to represent. Union members are harmed because union bosses don’t have to explain the unions’ political expenditures to members.

That’s what the legislation Bloomingdale references would fix. And he’s wrong that it would affect “all unions”—it only affects government unions, the ones that represent people whose salaries we taxpayers pay.

Bloomingdale argues that ending this special legal privilege for government unions and requiring them to play by the same rules as everyone else “singles out unions only for unnecessary and burdensome rules and restrictions.”

In reality, it is teachers like Rob who are singled out for onerous and unfair restrictions on their hard-earned money—not union bosses.

Imagine if the National Rifle Association or Planned Parenthood demanded taxpayers pay for the collection of their lobbying funds and campaign contributions. They would be ridiculed and rejected – and rightfully so.

Government unions enjoy this same benefit of using your township, borough, city, and state tax dollars to collect their political money and deny union members the ability to hold their union bosses more accountable. No other private or political organization enjoys this financial and political privilege.

Unions can – and should – play by the same rules as everyone else. One questions how viable and relevant government unions are today if, as Bloomingdale implies, they are so dependent on taxpayer subsidies that they would have to close up shop should they lose this exclusive legal privilege.

Paycheck protection would do one thing: Stop the use of taxpayer resources for politics. That, in turn, would set teachers free, allowing them to make their own choices with their own money. It won’t end collective bargaining or keep unions from collecting dues. They would simply have to do it themselves.

Protecting the paychecks of union members and taxpayers is supported statewide. No less than three separate polls of Pennsylvanians reveal overwhelming support for ending Bloomingdale’s exclusive legal privilege.

One survey of likely voters revealed that 79 percent of voters (and 75 percent of union members) agree that unions should not be permitted to use taxpayer-funded resources to collect government union dues.

The public gets it because no other political group enjoys such privileges on the taxpayers’ dime. There is no greater pro-worker and pro-taxpayer proposal than ending the taxpayer-funded collection of dues and campaign contributions for government unions.

If Bloomingdale were truly interested in protecting the middle class, he’d be standing alongside teachers like Rob Brough rather than against them.

Matthew Brouillette is president and CEO of Commonwealth Foundation

Paycheck Protection Benefits Teachers

 

School Spending Transparency Coming?

Pennsylvania earned a “C+” for providing citizens information on how public schools spend money, according to a recent report from the Cato Institute titled “Cracking the Books”.  While the report ranks Pennsylvania 9th among states, our mediocre grade and comparison to “A” states shows opportunity for improvement.

We should strive to provide the most comprehensive and user-friendly tool for parents, teachers, researchers, and taxpayers to know how public schools are spending money.

Legislation (HB 1411) pending in the General Assembly would do just that.  In 2011, state lawmakers passed, and Gov. Corbett signed, legislation which put state spending—including budgets, payments to vendors, and employees’ salaries— online.  That website, PennWATCH, has already proven to be a useful tool for tracking state spending.  HB 1411 would mirror this success, creating SchoolWATCH to put public school spending data (including charter schools) into a searchable website.

There are ways to improve SchoolWATCH from its present form.  Because Commonwealth Foundation has run OpenPAGov.org—a transparency database letting users find school district spending, performance, tax, and salary data acquired from the Department of Education—for the past four years, we have some suggestions. Some of these have already been proposed as amendments to HB 1411.

SchoolWATCH should include school performance data already being collected by the state Department of Education.  Being able to link spending with performance is an important tool for parents and researchers.  Such information will allow education advocates to identify successful schools and develop best practices for what works and is cost-effective.

SchoolWATCH should include collective bargaining agreements.  Putting these union contracts online provides a resource for teachers, parents, advocates, and members of the media—particularly during contract disputes and strike situations.

SchoolWATCH should include individual salary information for all employees.  Salary information is public record and is already collected (and provided on request) by the state Department of Education.  Moreover, salary information for state workers is currently available on PennWATCH. It would be inconsistent to treat public school employees different than state workers.

Commonwealth Foundation already provides individual school employee salary information on OpenPAGov.org—in fact, that is our most popular search.  Newspapers have also posted this information from state data.  If SchoolWATCH is to be the most comprehensive tool for school financial information, it should include data already being provided on external databases like ours.

In the past, transparency has been a bi-partisan issue. Lawmakers should be able to work together once again to enhance our ability to get good information from state government.

Mr. Benefield’s original column can be found at Commonwealth Foundation

School Spending Transparency Coming?

Workers Lose Under Obamacare

Workers Lose Under Obamacare

By Elizabeth Stelle

Yes, workers lose under Obamacare.

Imagine one Monday your boss tells you the company is cutting your hours so they don’t have to give you health insurance.  This bad news is compounded when you start shopping for insurance and discover that premiums have skyrocketed in the last few years.

That’s a tough blow for any worker, but it’s becoming the new normal for individuals and families across Pennsylvania—even labor unions that supported the law are voicing their concerns.

Recently, the Nevada Chapter of the prominent union coalition AFL-CIO released a resolution stating, “The unintended consequences of the [Affordable Care Act] will lead to the destruction of the 40-hour work week, higher taxes, and force union members onto more costly plans—eventually destroying [union health plans] completely.”

No wonder Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius visited Philadelphia to defend the Affordable Care Act (ACA) against growing public opposition. Secretary Sebelius continues to deny the law’s adverse impact on workers, but stories of layoffs due to Obamacare are a dime a dozen.

Thanks to the ACA, public sector workers like school aides around the state are losing hours, pay and in some cases even their jobs.  East Lancaster County School District and Dallas School District in Luzerne County are cutting back on support staff to avoid the ACA’s “employer mandate” that penalizes employers for not offering health insurance to full-time employees—encouraging employers to use part-time workers and contractors, instead.

Ironically, the very organizations that ostensibly exist to protect these public sector workers—government unions—enthusiastically supported the job-killing law.

For example, in 2012 and 2013 the National Education Association gave $250,000 to Health Care for America Now!—a group lobbying for Obamacare.  The Service Employees International Union also launched $12 million in television ads supporting the law. It seems these unions failed to take into account the law’s many negative consequences.

The ACA was intended to expand access to health insurance, but in practice it reduces employment, increases insurance premiums, and hikes taxes through a complex labyrinth of rules and regulations. In effect, it’s making it harder—not easier—for the average person to access health insurance.

Under the ACA, all employers, including governments, with more than 50 employees must provide full-time workers—those working 30 hours or more per week—with health insurance.  Moreover, employer health insurance plans must meet new federal regulations and mandates regarding the cost to employees.  Failure to meet these mandates results in a substantial fine.

That’s a major burden on job creators around the country and here in Pennsylvania.

Because of the health care law’s harsh financial penalties, restaurant chains including Applebee’s and Papa John’s, big box stores like Wal-Mart and even grocery stores like Wegmans are cutting hours or benefits.  In fact, the people who struggle the most to find affordable health care—the working poor—are those hardest hit as their hours and paychecks shrink.

President Obama recently suspended this job-killing employer mandate—though his authority to do so is questionable—until after the next election.  Unfortunately, that still leaves businesses trapped in an state of uncertainty, not knowing when the government will require them to provide insurance or face a penalty.

Not only are these workers being hurt with fewer hours and less pay, but they will pay more for insurance under the ACA.  So, too, will small businesses and full-time workers.

Three years into the ACA, average family premiums have increased by $3,000.  The CEO of Highmark predicts premiums will continue to rise ¾this after Highmark already increased Pennsylvania’s individual and small group rates in 2010 and 2013.  Meanwhile, Aetna raised premiums in Pennsylvania by 10 percent in 2011, noting the ACA as a significant cost driver.

Elected officials must now find ways to protect both public and private sector workers from such skyrocketing premiums and pay cuts. A good start would be giving those without employer-based insurance the same tax benefits businesses receive—leveling the playing field for all Pennsylvania workers.

Elizabeth Stelle is a policy analyst at the Commonwealth Foundation

Workers Lose Under Obamacare