Bill Adolph Tribute

Bill Adolph TributeBill Adolph Tribute –Bill Adolph has announced that he will not seek re-election which will mean that come 2017 the 165th District in the Pennsylvania State House will have a new face for the first time since 1989.

The 165 District consists of all of Morton Borough, most of Springfield and Marple Townships and a large part of Radnor. Specifics can be found here.

Since this blog came into existence, we’ve probably been harder on Bill more often than not — actually we have been seriously hard on him at times — but we will never deny he cares deeply about his community. A Springfield resident, he has lived in the same house off Springfield Road for as long as we can remember, and the same can be said about his accountant’s office on Saxer Avenue. He was easy to find and easy to approach and if he wanted to hold the seat for another 28 years we  suspect he’d have no problem doing so.

And he’s done a lot of good things too, most recently doing yeoman’s work in keeping Gov. Wolf from dumping a brutally crushing new tax burden on his constituents.

So Godspeed Bill. Hopefully you stay in Springfield and stay active on the political scene.

Now, regarding those who seek to replace him regardless of party registration, we have your issue.

The (non-partisan) Springfield School Board has approved a new high school with an estimated cost of between $118 million and $140 million. The Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act of 1961 requires wages to be paid at an amount set by the Bureau of Labor Law Compliance. This law inflates the cost by perhaps up to 40 percent albeit 20 percent seems to be the consensus. Using the lowball estimates, simply repealing the law — and it doesn’t have to be replaced with anything — would save the Springfield taxpayers $23.6 million on this project alone.

And of course, other communities would save in the same proportions for all county, school and municipal projects.

Repeal should really be a no-brainer.

And so there you have a winning issue, candidates for the 165th District.

Bill Adolph Tribute

SB76 End Run Failure Explained

By Sen Scott Wagner SB76 End Run Failure Explained

After much debate and discussion on Monday in the Senate caucus, Senator Dave Argall later on the Senate floor offered an amendment to House Bill 683 that contained language that was similar to the language in Senate Bill 76.

The amendment was voted on by the full Senate – the vote was 24 – yes votes ( 18 Republicans – 6 Democrats ) and 24 – no votes ( 12 Republicans – 12 Democrats)  – Lt. Governor Stack cast the tie breaking vote of no – so the amendment failed.

While the no vote might be viewed as a defeat – I see progress – # 1 – the issue of school tax elimination made its way to the Senate floor for a vote – I personally, along with other Republican Senators, had many unanswered questions but I voted yes to get the ball on the field – I give our Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman credit for allowing the amendment to the Senate floor for a vote – # 2 – I am reaching out to many of the Republican Senators who voted no to ask what their concerns and reasons for voting no were.

The reasons for the no votes by some of my Republican colleagues are understandable and deserve a chance to be addressed.

Some of the reasons I heard from my colleagues who voted no on the bill were as follows:

– No cost containment is taking place in the schools – increasing wages and benefits, not tied to CPI Index
– Cannot support raising the sales tax to 7% when their Senate district borders Delaware where there is zero sales tax
– Issues with how the funds controlled by the state would flow to their school districts

Another large issue is the current “Hold Harmless” agreements– this means no school district would receive less funding next year than they received the previous year – some school districts are receiving $8-10,000 per student and some districts receive $20-25,000 per student – we need to completely rework the funding formula.

I am fully aware of the school property tax burden on many working families – I am also a private sector business owner.

When I received the tax rates proposed in the amendment on Monday I did a back of the napkin calculation of what the increased personal income tax and sales tax would cost my company and me – the result would be a minimum of  $200,000 per year (personal income tax and sales tax) – I am watchful of how the new taxes that are intended to eliminate school taxes on real estate would also impact businesses.

My calculation for the increased taxes my company and I would pay are the gross taxes that would apply –  we would see eliminated school taxes of approximately $60,000 on our various properties, which I would deduct from the additional taxes, but at the end of the day the increased tax impact would be in the $140,000 per year range – I am also aware that any additional sales tax that my business would pay would be deducted as a business expense and would reduce our federal tax liability.

For readers who understand different tax categories, my company is a Sub-S Corporation so pass through income would be taxed at the higher rate.

I can assure you of this point –  the “Property Tax Ball” is out on the field and is not going away – until it gets resolved.

This past April I circulated a memo proposing a piece of legislation called the “Taxpayer Fairness in Compensation Act” asking for co-sponsors.

Sen. Wagner represents the 28th District in the Pennsylvania Senate.

SB76 End Run Failure Explained

SB76 Free Lunch Not

By Sen. Scott Wagner SB76 Free Lunch Not

This week has been busy with many people visiting my Senate office in Harrisburg and many emails received regarding Senate Bill 76 – The Property Tax Independence Act.

If SB76 is passed it would eliminate school taxes on all real estate.

To be clear – local county and municipal taxes would remain in place.

The elimination of school taxes would apply to all real estate in Pennsylvania – residential, commercial and industrial.

To completely eliminate school taxes on real estate in PA the legislature has to find between $12-14 Billion Dollars of revenue from other sources.

Other sources mean new taxes, increased taxes, and lifting exemptions on goods or services not currently taxed.

There is no free lunch – money is not falling out of the sky – so everyone has to have realistic expectations.

I have been a private sector business owner for over 35 years and I learned over 20 years ago this bit of wisdom from a business associate – “Begin with the end result in mind.”

So here is how we begin the task of eliminating school taxes on real estate – we have to identify the actual dollar amount that is needed to cover the school tax elimination – that is the easy part.

Here is the hard part of SB76 – we currently have 500 school districts in PA – each school district has a school board – to be clear there are 500 different school boards that are comprised of volunteer board members.

Each school district negotiates teacher contracts for wages and benefits without any input from the legislature.

Currently there are many school districts renewing teacher contracts with annual salary increases of anywhere from 2% to 3.5% increases – these increases are being given in a period when the CPI index is less than 1%.

The private sector business world is seeing dramatic health insurance increases – in the private sector it is customary for employees to pay for between 20% and 30% of their monthly health insurance costs.

In the Philadelphia School District teachers pay zero toward their health insurance – many teachers throughout PA pay a lower percentage toward their monthly health insurance costs than private sector workers.

We still have not fixed the pension crisis in PA.

Prevailing wage mandates are still required for construction and maintenance projects at school districts.

In my own school district in York this past summer the school district replaced roofs on several buildings – the school finance director requested two bids to replace the roofs, the first bid required using prevailing wage labor and the second bid did not require prevailing wage labor.

The prevailing wage labor price was $2.8 Million Dollars – the non-prevailing wage price was $2.2 Million Dollars a difference of $600,000 – Six Hundred Thousand Dollars – the district had no choice but to award the contract using mandated prevailing wage labor.

I call school districts the “Hungry Monster” that needs to be put on a diet – until we solve salary and health insurance increases – SB 76 will be a disaster – we MUST get school costs under control first.

Another very large issue with school boards is that I estimate that between 25% and 50% of volunteer school board members are married to a teacher, have a son or daughter who are teachers, the board member may be a teacher at another school or the board member may have been a former teacher – My point is that there is a large amount of conflict on school boards – these conflicts must be resolved and eliminated.

The conflict of interest on school boards is similar to the fox guarding the chicken coop.

So here is the dilemma that I face when voting on SB 76 – have spiraling costs been contained or eliminated – and where is replacement revenue coming from?

Here is another bit of wisdom I heard over 20 years  – “Align your expectations with reality.”

In reality the SB 76 issue is front burner for everyone – it must be done correctly or three years from now what was a good intention will explode.

That leads me to my closing comment –  “I am a person that will tell you what you need to hear – not want you want to hear.”

SB 76 must be done with great thought, planning and precision – My colleagues in the Senate are committed to getting this issue to the finish line.

I intend to vote for SB76 but it is important that it be done properly and not just jammed through.

Scott Wagner represents the 28th District in the Pennsylvania State Senate.

SB76 Free Lunch Not

HB 874 Union Bully Bill Now Law

HB 874 is now law becoming Act 59 with Gov. Tom Wolf’s signature yesterday, Nov. 4. HB 874 Union Bully Bill Now Law

The bill bans otherwise illegal acts done in the name of labor disputes  which sensible people in the Pennsylvania Legislature have been trying to do since 2013.

These acts specifically include stalking, harassment and threats to use weapons of mass destruction.

The first attempt died after being gutted in the Republican-controlled state Senate by union-connected Republicans.

Well, the Senate got a change of leadership this year and the bill was reintroduced as HB 874. It passed the House overwhelmingly on April 21 with all Democrats excepting Greg Vitali of the 166th District voting against it.

The state Senate passed it Oct. 20 on a 30-18 vote, again with the Democrats being united in opposition.

The House concurred with the changes the Senate made on Oct 27 — again with all Ds but Vitali being in opposition — and sent it to the Governor who has now made this should-have-been-a no-brainer discussion  law.

The law does not ban traditional and accepted union acts like picketing (and giant inflatable rats) it should be noted.

HB 874 Union Bully Bill Now Law

 

 

Union Bully Bill Goes To Wolf

Union Bully Bill Goes To WolfBy Leo Knepper

Pennsylvania law currently exempts union members and management from prosecution under the laws governing stalking, harassment and threatening to use weapons of mass destruction. The legislation closing these loopholes, HB 874, was approved by the House and Senate. It now heads to the Governor’s desk for a signature.

It is absurd for anyone to be exempt from prosecution for these types of serious crimes. As noted by the PA Independent, this exemption impacts real people:

Sarina Rose, vice president of development for Post Brothers Apartments, said union-affiliated contractors also photographed her children at the bus stop and taped them at their sporting events. The legal loophole gave them a pass, she said.

“‘If there was a pedophile photographing my children or if I had an ex-husband who threatened to shoot me with a gun, I could certainly implore law enforcement to do something about it,’ Rose told the House Judiciary Committee. ‘But because there are certain trades in this self-proclaimed active labor dispute with my company, the DA’s Office self-admittedly treats these cases differently.'”

Union Bully Bill Goes To Wolf

John Rafferty Disingenuous?

John Rafferty Disingenuous?
John Rafferty

The debate that occurred during Mary’s Law — which passed the Pennsylvania Senate today, Oct. 14 — unscabbed some old wounds regarding Sen. John Rafferty of the 44th District in Montgomery, Berks and Chester counties.

Rafferty, a Republican, has been accused of trying to kill the bill, SB 501, which would keep money from being involuntarily taken from the paychecks of public employees for political purposes.

The law would not stop the deduction of money for collective bargaining.

When the bill first came up for a vote in early March it failed 24-24. Sen. Scott Wagner (R-28) laid blame specifically at the feet of Rafferty and Dominic Pileggi (R-9), both of whom voted against the bill at the time.

“I have found Senator Rafferty to be the most disingenuous member of the Republican Caucus,” Wagner said. “To be honest and direct, I have watched Senator Rafferty repeatedly undermine our new leadership – Senator Rafferty is self-serving and badly wants to be Pennsylvania’s Attorney General.”

Ouch.

Well, yesterday, Rafferty proposed an amendment that would have exempted unions representing police and firefighters from the law.

It’s a dubious concept that police and firefighters would somehow think one was doing them a favor by taking their money without their permission to advocate for candidates and causes which with they might not agree, so the amendment was overwhelmingly voted down.

Rafferty then voted for final passage. Some think that’s because he sees the writing on the wall regarding what it takes to get the Republican nomination for state Attorney General, a position for which he has declared himself a candidate.

Pileggi, it should be noted, has been consistent in his opposition.

Rafferty has a tough row to hoe in his Attorney General quest. The Republican voter is certainly going to be reminded that he was the architect of the Corbett gas tax increase.

John Rafferty Disingenuous?

 

 

 

Paycheck Protection Vote Looms In Pa

The Pennsylvania Senate, today, Oct. 13, amended SB 501, also known as Mary's Law which would prevent money being deducted from public employees paychecks for political purposes. The law grandfathers in existing contracts but prevents deductions from being included in future ones. The vote sets up final passage which could be as early as tomorrow, according to Matthew Brouillette of Commonwealth Foundation.The Pennsylvania Senate, today, Oct. 13, amended SB 501, also known as Mary’s Law which would prevent money being deducted from public employees paychecks for political purposes.

The law grandfathers in existing contracts but prevents deductions from being included in future ones.

The vote sets up final passage which could be as early as tomorrow, according to Matthew Brouillette of Commonwealth Foundation.

The vote was 26-23 for passage of the amendment. Every senator representing Delaware County, shamefully, voted against it including Republicans Tom McGarrigle (R-26) and Dominic Pileggi (R-9), who along with Stewart Greenleaf (R-12) and Robert Tomlinson (R-6) were the only Republicans to do so.

How can one even morally justify taking money against the will of someone to use to promote causes in which he does not believe?

Update: The Senate passed SB 501, today, Oct. 14 by the same 26-23 vote.

Paycheck Protection Vote Looms In Pa

Third Party Access Reforms Needed

Third Party Access Reforms NeededMembers of the Pennsylvania Ballot Access Coalition (PBAC) testified at a public hearing, Sept. 22, convened by Sen. Mike Folmer (R-48), chairman of the Pennsylvania Senate State Government Committee. The committee’s purpose was to hear testimony regarding S.B. 495 also known as the “Voters’ Choice Act” (VCA). The VCA would bring Pennsylvania’s egregious ballot access laws much closer to the intent of Article 1, Section 5 of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Constitution which guarantees that all elections shall be “free and equal”.

Currently, Alternative Party candidates and Independent candidates are required to gather as many as 30 times the number of signatures required by the two old parties. In a recent election, while the Democrat and Republican candidates required 2,000 signatures, independent and minor party candidates were required to collect more than 60,000 signatures! The VCA would change the method by which a “minor party” would be qualified. Once qualified as a minor party, it would then be free of the egregious signature collecting process and its destructive consequences. The “minor party” would then be free to nominate its candidates by convention or by whichever form described in its bylaws. Independent candidates would only have to collect the same number of signatures as the candidates from the 2 old parties.

Roy Minet, from the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party spoke for the PBAC. He made it clear that ballot access laws were favored by the two old parties because they “prevented ballot clutter”. He quickly protested that what they actually “meant by ‘clutter’ was in fact competition”!

Carl Romanelli, former US Senate candidate, speaking for the Pennsylvania Green Party, revealed that not only had he been removed from the ballot but was required to pay $80,000 covering the cost of the Democratic Party which actually used a “volunteer” who was in reality a salaried employee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania resulting in what became known as “Bonusgate”. He pointed out that the VCA was “brilliant in its simplicity” in bringing about a change in the ballot access laws which would be more reflective of “free and equal elections”.

Jim Clymer, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor, speaking for the Pennsylvania Constitution Party, explained how polls showed that the majority of Pennsylvanians wanted more choice on Election Day. He also pointed out that, since any challenge to minor party or independent candidates for statewide election might result in having to pay the challenge’s $80,000 costs, such candidates are effectively removed as candidates. Jim Clymer also pointed out how the Federal District Court has recently struck down Pennsylvania’s ballot access laws because the combination of signatures and payment of challenger’s costs were unconstitutional under the United States Constitution.

Steve Scheetz, representing the Pennsylvania Libertarian Party, demonstrated how difficult it is to find volunteers because they are painfully aware that their candidate might be removed from the ballot. Moreover Scheetz clarified that with only the 2 old candidates we have positions on an issue which only differ slightly while the candidates then level personal attacks. Candidates from newer parties would change the nature of the conversation forcing all candidates to be more articulate on the issues. The “spoiler issue” was also shown to be a creation of the older parties which, virtually assert that they “own” votes which can be “taken by spoilers”. Romanelli said “the people, not any candidate or party own their own votes and they alone can decide who will deserve the precious gift of their vote”

Hat tips Bob Small and John Murphy.

Bad Pension Legislation Lives

By Leo KnepperBad Pension Legislation Lives

Bad legislation never dies in Harrisburg, and it doesn’t even slowly fade away.

So the Tobash plan for changing the design of pensions for certain classes of new employees is getting another push. The Tobash plan, HB 1499, is sponsored by Rep. Mike Tobash (R-Schuylkill), but it was originally the idea of folks at the Public Employees Retirement Commission (PERC). It is their duty with respect to the state pensions systems “to assure their actuarial viability through a review of any proposed legislative changes in those plans.”

When reviewing HB 900 this past June, which really does “stop the bleeding” and would eliminate the unfunded liabilities of SERS and PSERS over 20 years, PERC decided that it was more important for legislators to consider other budget priorities. In other words, the institution, whose sole purpose is to assure the soundness of public employee pensions, instructed legislators in PERC’s review of HB 900 to continue their dreadful and harmful 12 year policy of diverting funds from pensions to other purposes.

Perhaps it’s just a coincidence that four of the nine members of PERC’s board are legislators, and one of them is Rep. Tobash. The other five members are gubernatorial appointees. What incentive do they have to assure that pensions will be adequately funded when the last three governors, including the current one, wanted no such thing?

The Tobash plan was introduced last year as an amendment to HB 1353. At that time, it set up a “stacked” retirement benefit system. The first $50,000 in state employee pay is eligible for a traditional pension; beyond that there is a 401(k) style plan. It is worth noting that the average state employee salary was $52,655 for 2014. In other words, the Tobash plan as introduced last year would have had impacted very few future employees. According to actuarial analysis done last year, 98.8% of the “savings” projected under the Tobash plan is 15 years or farther into the future, which is a pretty big problem since SERS and PSERS are on course to be bankrupt in 15 years.

While some of these same criticisms certainly apply to SB1, the Senate’s pension reform plan, Tobash’s plan goes completely in the wrong direction. Rather than addressing the unfunded liabilities and pension costs of current employees, the Tobash plan would merely provide lawmakers the ability to say they passed pension reform without actually addressing anything.

Politicians are very sensitive to current and near-term costs because the next election is less than 2 to 4 years away. But the massive harm heading toward the commonwealth in less than a generation-well, that’s someone else’s problem apparently.

And so, another Rube Goldberg device will be trotted out, debated, lobbied, perhaps even voted on (and if passed, vetoed) and all the while the unfunded liability which impends doom for the future of the commonwealth remains unaddressed. It’s simply the politicians’ usual play: bait and switch-promise changes later and call that savings. Then use the phony savings to justify continuing to underfund the pensions and divert monies to other places in the budget.

The priority is always less pension funding today, and when tomorrow comes, the priority will be less funding then too. It might get politicians re-elected, but it’s not exactly anyone’s definition of statesmanship.

Mr. Knepper is with Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania.

Bad Pension Legislation Lives

SB1 Pension Reform Explained

Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania has a pretty good explanation of SB1, the pension reform bill passed, yesterday, May 13, by the Pennsylvania Senate. SB1 Pension Reform Explained

CAP notes the bill calls for new state workers and public school teachers to enroll in a defined contribution type plan similar to the 401Ks most of us have. They also have an option to enroll in a cash balance plan which are like savings accounts with a interest rate equal to a 30-year US Treasury Bond with a cap at 4 percent.

New employees would not be eligible for the existing defined benefit plan.

Existing employees would be prevented from spiking their average salary during their final years to hike their pension by maxing out on overtime. It would also change how future benefits are calculated for employees in the current system and require increased employee contributions.

It is estimated that the reforms would save the taxpayers $1.7 billion over the next four years and a total savings of $18 billion.

The bill is now before the House.

Kudos but why wasn’t this done four years ago when the GOP ran everything? Expect our Democrat governor, Tom Wolf, to do what he can to gut it as the unions basically own him.

And, really, the morality of someone making a $477,591 public pension must be addressed before asking the working class and those down on the luck to bail out the system.

Hat tip Lisa Esler.

SB1 Pension Reform Explained