News, Entertainment, Enlightenment
Laws proposed or passed in the Pennsylvania Legislature
State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129) testified last week about The Property Tax Independence Act (HB 76) which would replace revenues collected through school district property taxes with alternative statewide funding sources.
You can find information about the bill here.
You can watch Cox’s testimony here.
Local Pubs Help Stop Pro-Environmental Law — An attempt to de-fang the anti-environmental Davis-Bacon Act was defeated, June 5, after 36 Republicans joined all Democrats to vote down an amendment to the Military Construction/Veterans Affairs appropriators bill to bar the use of its funds to enforce the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements.
The Davis Bacon Act is a 1931 federal law that mandates paying the local prevailing wages on public works projects over $2,000.
The law inflates the costs of such products by an estimated 15 percent, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
This means there is less money to repair bridges, fix roadways and resolve polluting traffic snarls that waste gas and clog our atmosphere.
Just consider that the historic Rose Tree Tavern in Upper Providence was moved back from the intersection of Route 252 and Rose Tree Road in 2004. When is PennDOT going to put in the desperately needed turn lanes? Wouldn’t it be nice if we didn’t have to wait until 2017 for an interchange between I-95 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike?
In fact, with less money needed for construction projects maybe we could get rid of the turnpike tolls ending the smog producing toll lanes.
Davis-Bacon is a significant part of the reason for our declining infrastructure.
Here are, courtesy of Bob Guzzardi, the Pennsylvania Republicans that voted against the amendment: Jim Gerlach (PA-6), Pat Meehan (PA-7), Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-8), Bill Shuster (PA-9), Lou Barletta (PA-11) and Tim Murphy, (PA-18).
Guzzardi also notes the last year’s vice presidential GOP nominee Paul Ryan of Wisconsin also opposed the amendment.
And this is why things don’t get better.
Pennsylvanians Want Private Liquor Stores — The Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Association reports that the latest results from Susquehanna Polling and Research, show that 55 percent of Pennsylvanians want the state out of the liquor business while just 41 percent are against.
Those
who would be more likely to support liquor privatization, however, grew to 69 percent if penalties for selling to minors became stricter and to 68 percent if displaced workers could find jobs in the private sector.
Now, Republicans control the governor’s office, and both houses of the legislature. Who do you think is going to get the blame if this rather popular — and simple — thing goes undone?
Hmmm, Sen Erickson?
Hat tip Bob Guzzardi.
The season has finally arrived!
Memorial Day weekend ushered in the unofficial start of summer when people relax with family and friends, enjoying what little leisure time is left in America.
But Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett made it abundantly clear he wasn’t interested in that season.
For him, it was all about making it Open Season — on Pennsylvanians.
In a move that defies every ounce of common sense for a governor touting the lowest popularity in the nation, Corbett had his state police slip across the border over the weekend to engage in sting operations, targeting Pennsylvanians for the capital crime of buying liquor in Delaware and crossing back into the Keystone State.
And what was the mammoth haul of Tommy’s troopers?
The equivalent of 17 cases of beer, 10 cases of wine, and 15 bottles of liquor.
At least Pennsylvania has no other pressing problems to which its increasingly limited resources should be allocated. Oh, wait. It does. A lot, actually.
That was made readily apparent watching the local news when, immediately after the liquor confiscation story, it was reported that Pennsylvania had the worst, most dangerous bridges in the nation (while Delaware’s were second best).
How can the governor reconcile those things? Despite having historic Republican majorities in both legislative chambers, Corbett has made zero headway fixing our crumbling infrastructure, yet prioritizes undercover operations (which nab three people) buying alcohol in another state. Going out on a limb here, but wouldn’t the substantial resources spent on operations in Delaware be better utilized elsewhere? Like in Pennsylvania?
How much taxpayer money was wasted on logistics, fuel costs, and troopers’ salaries, compared to the miniscule tax Pennsylvania “lost?” The numbers aren’t even in the same ballpark, so what were they doing? Squandering resources just to make a point — whatever that point is?
Try explaining that to the family who loses a loved one to a drunk driver who maybe, just maybe, could have been stopped had the state police been patrolling in-state. Or to those victimized by burglary, assault and numerous other crimes while their police were busy making out-of-state, small-time liquor busts.
On a holiday weekend where there is always an upswing in driving while intoxicated (there were five fatal DUI crashes, according to state police), the governor unleashed his dogs on those simply trying to avoid the whopping 18 percent Johnstown Flood Tax of 1936 (plus the additional sales tax) that Pennsylvania levies on wine and liquor.
Is this his way of strong-arming his liquor privatization plan? A kind of “pass my bill or it’ll be like this until you do” message?
Great, except that his bill wouldn’t keep people from flocking to other states to buy liquor, as Freindly Fire explained in a prior column. No one is a bigger privatization proponent than I, but do it right or not at all. But since neither Corbett’s nor the Legislature’s plan eliminate the Johnstown tax, prices will remain high or, quite likely, further increase, if either proposal passes.
And if Delaware stings aren’t about liquor privatization, then what are they about? And why?
Give Tom Corbett credit for one thing: If he’s trying to attain a single-digit approval rating, he is succeeding better than the Democrats ever dreamed.
Aside from the sheer stupidity of engaging in such an operation, several questions are worth asking:
1. Are Pennsylvania State Police legally permitted to operate in other states? If so, why? A call to the Delaware State Police yielded no information, as two individuals had no knowledge of Pennsylvania’s actions. Which makes sense, since it is not in Delaware’s interest to put a damper on legal Delaware commerce.
2. How is this not a violation on the Interstate Commerce Clause? It should be, but the 21st Amendment has a provision allowing states to regulate alcohol almost any way they want. It should be changed.
3. Since random, empty liquor boxes are used to package alcoholic and non-alcoholic bottles at the checkout counter, do the police have probable cause to search one’s trunk after the border crossing is made? How do the police know that the Grey Goose box doesn’t contain soda and non-alcoholic beer? As long as we’re talking about amendments, the governor and police should read the Fourth one. It’s kind of important.
4. When Corbett’s liquor privatization plan doesn’t pass this month — and it probably won’t — will the number of search and seizures escalate? Bet you a case of Delaware liquor they will.
Corbett continues to rationalize why his Jerry Sandusky investigation took so long. One excuse was that he didn’t have the necessary resources, since as attorney general, he didn’t control the state police — the governor did. Under that rationale, Tom Corbett as governor is, and must be, responsible for all operations of the state police under his command, so the buck stops with him on these heavy-handed liquor stings.
As the backlash grows, it has become yet another reason why next year’s re-election chances looks very sobering for Tom Corbett.
Hearings Held On Pa. Child Abuse Bill — Members of the House Children and Youth Committee recently held a public hearing on legislation that would more clearly define what constitutes child abuse in Pennsylvania and strengthen protections for children, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129)
House Bill 726 proposes to lower the injury threshold for physical abuse, terming it “bodily injury” – the standard used for the crime of simple assault. The bill also defines, and makes it easier to substantiate, cases of serious emotional abuse or neglect, sexual abuse or exploitation, or conduct that intentionally compromises the safety of a child.
House Bill 726 was introduced based on recommendations made by the Task Force on Child Protection to improve state laws to protect against child abuse. The House Children and Youth Committee has made child protection one of the top priorities this session in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.
Child Identity Theft Bill Advances — The House has approved a bill aimed at combating the growing crime of child identity theft, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129)
House Bill 714 would include children within a protected class of victims for which the offense of identity theft receives an enhanced grading.
Often, a child doesn’t know his or her identity has been stolen until many years after the fact, when he or she first applies for college assistance or a credit card. This can lead to financial headaches and delayed enrollment in college until the situation can be resolved. The Federal Trade Commission has recognized identity theft committed against children as a growing problem. One study that found an estimated 142,000 instances of identity theft are perpetrated against children in the United States each year.
The bill now moves to the Senate for consideration.
Merger Of Fish, Game Commissions To Be Studied — The House voted unanimously, last week, in support of a measure to launch a detailed study of the potential impacts of merging the Pennsylvania Game Commission and the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129).
House Resolution 129 calls on the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to study the financial feasibility, impact, costs and savings that may be realized by combining the agencies. It also calls on the committee to explore a range of options with regard to how to structure the state’s wildlife agency to best manage the wildlife and aquatic resources of the Commonwealth.
A similar study was conducted 10 years ago, and it showed a merger was feasible and would save money. No legislative action resulted from that study’s findings, however.
The study is expected to take about six months. Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation where management and oversight of fishing, boating and wildlife activities are managed by two separate, independent agencies.
State Rep.Daryl Metcalfe, one of the good guys, has just reported that the Pennsylvania Senate — which is controlled by Republicans if you are not aware — is considering a transportation funding proposal that will increase the financial burden being carried by Pennsylvania’s citizens by $2.5 billion through tax and fee increases.
“The Governor is proposing to increase our financial burden by $1.5 billion,” he noted. “Government collects enough money from us already, reprioritizing expenditures is the answer to our transportation funding problem. I oppose the tax and fee increases being proposed. If you agree, then like and share this post. Contact your state legislators and the Governor to say no more tax and fee hikes!”
Online Impersonation Bill Passes Pa. House — The Pennsylvania House, last week, sent to the Senate a measure to help prevent individuals from creating fake profiles online with the intent to maliciously harm another person, reports State Rep. Jim Cox (R-129).
House Bill 764 would make it a crime to use the name or identifying information of another person to create a web page; post messages or open an account/profile on a social networking site; send an email or text; or open an email account while engaging in any of the following underlying offenses: harassment, terroristic threats, stalking, and witness or victim intimidation or retaliation.
The offense would be graded as a second-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to two years in prison and/or a fine of up to $5,000, or as one grade higher than the underlying offense, whichever is greater. In addition, the bill would allow a court to award actual civil damages (such as loss of money, reputation or property) or $500, whichever is greater, as well as attorney fees, court costs and restitution.
Picture this: You’re on your way home from visiting family in Delaware and decide to stop at a wine store near the Pennsylvania border. As you walk through the parking lot, something seems off. For every Delaware license plate you see, there are three Pennsylvania plates. An aberration? Hardly.
As a recent investigative video shows, liquor stores in New Jersey and Delaware are filled with Pennsylvania shoppers every day. The video, produced by the state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, should shock no one.
We already know consumers shop with their feet—even the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board acknowledges it. Their survey of Philadelphia region residents found nearly half shop in other states, costing the commonwealth hundreds of millions annually in sales due to “border bleed.”
Consumers want greater convenience, selection, and lower prices. They want beer, wine, and liquor to be sold in local grocery stores. They don’t want to drive as far, or make multiple stops. And they want the ability to buy alcohol in whatever quantity they choose. That’s why a Delaware shop had three times as many Pennsylvanians as Delaware shoppers. But we can bring them back.
Lawmakers, customers, and activists celebrated the historic vote in the Pennsylvania House to end the government liquor store monopoly. Indeed, lawmakers accomplished what many pundits doubted was possible—and what several governors had tried and failed to do—by even holding a vote on a liquor store privatization bill.
But consumers and taxpayers have nothing to toast—not until the Senate and House agree to legislation that will earn Gov. Corbett’s signature. The challenge for lawmakers is balancing the free market consumers want with the demands of those already vested in the current system.
The state Senate has begun hearings on privatization and it is a near certainty they will do something, but what that something will be is far from certain. Sen. Chuck McIlhinney, who chairs the committee taking up the House-passed bill, says he supports privatization, but what does privatization really mean?
Here are two key things that must happen in any bill to deliver for consumers and taxpayers:
First, lawmakers must increase retail competition. This means licensing more stores to sell wine and spirits so consumers don’t need to cross state lines, allowing beer distributors and grocery stores to carry wine and liquor for greater convenience, and creating meaningful competition even if they don’t shut down the state-run stores immediately.
No Pennsylvanian wants to see a government monopoly replaced with a private one. And providing a mechanism to close down state stores once private competition has ramped up, as the House-passed legislation did, will finally get government out of the booze business and allow the PLCB to focus on its regulatory mission.
Second, lawmakers must end the government monopoly over wholesale operations. The wholesale monopoly allows government bureaucrats to determine what is sold in Pennsylvania and what isn’t, to set artificially high prices for every bottle sold, and to limit competition and selection.
The PLCB’s wholesale monopoly is the source of endless frustration for restaurant, winery, and bar owners and has produced a series of boondoggles on the taxpayer’s dime. One of the biggest PLCB blunders is the branding and marketing of their own wine label, TableLeaf. This government wine takes prominent shelf space away from Pennsylvania labels, yet the brand state taxpayers own is actually grown and bottled in California and directly competes with wineries right here in the Keystone State.
Thanks also to the PLCB wholesale monopoly, consumers were treated to the infamous wine kiosk program—elaborate vending machines in grocery stores that required a public breathalyzer test, identity verification, and a video sobriety test prior to allowing a sale.
It’s decades past time to get government out of our Prohibition-era liquor system. Pennsylvanians have suffered from the PLCB’s conflicts of interest and taxpayer-funded boondoggles for far too long. Until lawmakers pass a plan that satisfies both consumers and stakeholders, we will continue to see shoppers stream across state lines for the convenience our government monopoly has failed to deliver.
Nathan A. Benefield is Director of Policy Analysis with the Commonwealth Foundation (CommonwealthFoundation.org).