Category: Pennsylvania Legislation

Laws proposed or passed in the Pennsylvania Legislature

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

Senate Passes Pension Reform

The Pennsylvania Senate, this afternoon, May 13, passed SB 1 which would change the  plans for  those in the Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) and State Employees’ Retirement System (SERS) into defined contribution ones akin to the 401Ks most of us have. Senate Passes Pension Reform

The vote was 28-19 with Stewart Greenleaf of the 12th District being the only Republican voting nay. Dominic Pileggi of the 9th District, who it was surmised would vote against the bill, wound up supporting it.

Not voting were Pat Browne (R-16) and Anthony Williams (D-8).

The bill was introduced May 8 with Jake Corman (R-34) as the prime sponsor.

It now goes to the House.

The reason for the need is explained in the bill’s first section:

Pennsylvania’s retirement systems, SERS for State employees and PSERS for school employees, together have an unfunded liability of $60,121,184,000. The level of payment by the Commonwealth and school districts required to annually address these amounts is staggering, particularly when other state revenues are reduced due to a struggling economy. The current condition of Pennsylvania’s unfunded system combined with the State’s structural deficit threaten the financial well-being of current and future public employees.

In order to fully fund State pensions systems, economists estimate that contributions will continue to require a significant portion of state revenues. In fiscal year 2015-2016, pension expenditures are expected to exceed $4,800,000,000 and $7,300,000,000 by 2025.

The tax increases that would be required to address increasing pension obligations would place a heavy burden on the citizens of this Commonwealth and hamper the ability to provide them with services vital to the public’s health, safety and welfare. Therefore, it is imperative that the Commonwealth adopt reforms that will maintain the financial health of the Commonwealth and its school districts.

Therefore, the reforms contained in this legislation are intended to use resources judiciously and enable the Commonwealth to provide retirement security for Commonwealth and school employees while reducing the burden on taxpayers.

The reforms of the retirement benefits of Commonwealth and school district employees contained in this act are prospective and will not impact benefits earned from services rendered prior to the effective date of this act

Senate Passes Pension Reform

Senate OKs Transparency Bills

Commonwealth Foundation is praising the Pennsylvania Senate for passing two bills, May 6,  that bring  greater financial openness and transparency in government and that sunshine contract negotiations between public sector unions and elected officials. Senate OKs Transparency Bills -- SB 645 sponsored by Sen. Patrick Stefano,
SB 644, sponsored by Sen. Mike Folmer, empowers the Independent Fiscal Office to provide the public with cost estimates on state public sector union contracts prior to ratification.

SB 645, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Stefano, requires public sector collective bargaining agreements to be posted on state, school district, or local government websites two weeks prior to signing.

Senate OKs Transparency Bills

Lawmakers Seek To Cut Representation

Lisa Esler has informed us that the Pennsylvania House has, this week, passed House Bill 153 that would reduce the size of the House from 203 to 151 and House Bill 384 would reduce the size of the Senate from 50 members to 37. Lawmakers Seek To Cut Representation

If you think easy access to your state legislator is a bad idea then obviously you should support these bills.

On the other hand, if you think easy access to your state legislature is a good idea you would support bills increasing the size of the legislature to 424 as it is in New Hampshire, a state with a population about a 12th of Pennsylvania’s and area of about a fourth.

The claim is to save money. Rather than cutting the size of the legislature by about a quarter, why not cut the salaries of the legislatures by that much? It’s not as though they can’t afford it.
Lawmakers Seek To Cut Representation

Scott Wagner Warns Ship Going Down

Scott Wagner Warns Ship Going Down
State Sen. Scott Wagner (right) with Joe Gale who is a candidate for Montgomery County Commissioner

State Sen. Scott Wagner (R-28) compared Pennsylvania to the Titanic with disaster just ahead at tonight’s (April 6) meeting of the Delaware County Patriots.

About 100 persons attended the event which was held at the Knights of Columbus hall in Newtown Square.

“The ship is going down and we got to do something about it,” Wagner said.

He was referring to Pennsylvania’s fiscal crisis driven by out-of-control state pensions and spiraling property taxes.

He blamed the cause on corruption giving special scorn to those on his side of the aisle. Wagner, who started three successful businesses in York County that now employ 600 persons, described how GOP leaders would hit him up for money at campaign time and that he would write ever bigger checks. Yet, he noted, the simple things that should have made life easier for himself and his employees never seemed to happen.

“They weren’t taking care of you,” he says. “They were taking care of themselves.”

This inspired him to seek office and in a special election on March 18, 2014, he ran a write-in campaign to fill the remainder of the term left vacant by late State Senator Mike Waugh.  It was the first time a write-in candidate won a state senate seat. Wagner got 10,595 votes (47.7 percent), while the endorsed Republican nominee received 5,920 votes and Democratic nominee got 5,704.

He won an election to a full-term in November.

Wagner notes that in the private sector pensions rarely reach 40 percent of the working pay. He said in the public sector in this state it is approaching 80 percent. He notes that average pay for a teacher in his school district is $88,000 for 180 days of work and they can look forward to getting $75,000 per year for the rest of their life upon retirement. This would be  at age 60 after 30 years, or earlier after 35 years.

He said that it angers him to see soldiers coming home from overseas in wheelchairs missing limbs knowing they could look forward to $800 per month in benefits when retired teachers would be getting over $6,000.

He said if things don’t change benefits and wages would soon be dollar for dollar.

“If Pennsylvania could file for bankruptcy, I’d be the first to prepare a bill,” he said.

Wagner proposed specific solutions. He said abolishing the prevailing wage mandate that requires wages for public works projects be set by the union-dominated Department of Labor and Industry rather than the market would save school districts between $200 million and $300 million annually.

He said he will not vote for a state budget unless the state gets rid of prevailing wage.

Wagner is also pushing to turn the state pension programs into 401K defined contribution types rather than the existing defined benefit packages.

He said he is also working on ways in which force give-backs in the existing benefits package.

A related issue that he is also trying to address is the cause of the corruption that led to this crisis.

He noted that he has been targeted by Pennsylvania AFL-CIO leader Rick Bloomingdale for his push for paycheck protection for union members. He said that about $750 annually is automatically deduction from each union member’s paycheck with the members having little say for which causes the money should be used.

The state’s AFL-CIO has about 800,000 members, so that’s about $600 million that winds up supporting not-so-pro labor causes like opening borders and stopping pipelines.

Wagner pointed out that Bloomingdale’s salary is over $300,000.

Wagner mentioned that he had a recent lunch with presidential hopeful Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker who was notably successful in stopping union corruption in his state. Wagner said the big difference between Wisconsin and Pennsylvania is that unlike in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin Republicans did not get any union money.

“Eighty percent of Republicans take money from unions,” Wagner said.

Wagner said he is far from making an endorsement but that he likes Walker

Wagner said  that he is pushing for the sale of the state’s liquor stores.

“State liquor stores aren’t making the kind of money people think they are,” he said.

In a bit of irony, Wagner is now running the Senate Republican Campaign Committee which so bitterly fought him a year ago. He said that he has his eye on several Democrat seats in the western part of the state and expect to flip four or five to the GOP in 2016. The Republicans now hold a 30-20 lead in the body but Wagner notes that four or five from the Philadelphia suburbs often end up supporting the Democrats.

It was rather daring that Wagner would make his speech on his adversaries’ turf.

Wagner did have some nice things to say about Dominic Pileggi (R-9) who he was instrumental in removing as Senate Majority Leader earlier this year.

“I think he’s a brilliant guy,” he said.

He said Pileggi’s weak spot was that his training as a lawyer kept him from seeing the steps needed to save the state.

Pileggi is running for election as a Common Pleas Court judge this fall and would leave his senate seat if he should win as expected. Wagner said he expects a more conservative senator to replace Pileggi.

Wagner got some grief in the question period regarding his support for SB 76, a bill that was tabled last fall and would have replaced the property tax with either an income or sales tax to fund schools. Many members in the audience said they feared it would mean the end of local control of schools. Wagner said the bill was not perfect, is not likely to pass as is, and needs further work.

He said property tax relief is desperately needed, however, and SB 76 gets things moving.

Wagner said he does not expect a state budget to be passed until October. He said any claims that the government is going to shut down are “bullshit” a word he repeated several times. He noted that the state is still going to be collecting taxes whether the budget is passed or not.

Also at the meeting was Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Paul Panepinto who was seeking support for his independent run as a state Supreme Court judge. Judge Panepinto needs 17,000 signatures by July to get on the ballot. He recently made headlines for fining lawyer Nancy Raynor $1 million for her behavior during a medical malpractice case.

Wagner gave him a ringing endorsement calling him the “real deal”.

Scott Wagner Warns Ship Going Down 

 

 

 

 

 

McGarrigle Explains Opposition To Mary’s Law, Poorly

Sen. Tom McGarrigle (R-26) sent the following letter, March 9, in response to a constituent query regarding his opposition to Mary’s Law or SB 501: McGarrigle Explains Opposition To Mary's Law, Poorly

Dear Constituent:

Thank you for contacting my office to question why I voted against the legislation that would enact “Mary’s Law”, also known as paycheck protection.  This legislation has been introduced as Senate Bill 501.  To be accurate, I did not vote against Senate Bill 501.  On March 2, 2015, I voted against a proposed amendment to the bill.  Senate Bill 501 has not yet been advanced for a vote on final passage.  I do, however, intend to vote against the bill should that event occur.

I believe Senate Bill 501 unfairly singles out state and school employees.  Union members and non-members already enjoy a well-established legal right not to contribute to union political spending.  Unions cannot force employees to have money for representation or political activities automatically deducted from their paycheck without authorization. Paycheck-protection legislation does not provide workers’ with any rights they do not currently enjoy, but it deprives choice from workers who want a union with an effective political voice.  Finally, I cannot justify Senate Bill 501 on the rationale that it will save money, since payroll deduction has almost zero cost to taxpayers.

Thank you again for contacting me in regard to my position on this issue.
 
Sincerely,

Thomas J. McGarrigle, Senator

OK, some background. Mary’s Law is named for Mary Trometter, a professor at Pennsylvania College of Technology, in Williamsport and a 20-year member of the Pennsylvania State Education Association which is the state’s main teachers union.

Just days before the Nov. 4 election, leaders from the national and state teachers unions sent a letter to her husband, urging him to “Please join Mary in in voting for Tom Wolf for Governor.”

Mary had no plans on voting for Wolf. She initially ripped it up and threw it in the trash then started thinking about it.  She investigated and found out that the letter was sent using money from the  NEA Advocacy Fund.

Now, Sen. McGarrigle is correct in the sense that that state law says “no employe(e) organization shall make any contribution out of the funds of the employe(e) organization either directly or indirectly to any political party or organization or in support of any political candidate for public office.”

So, um, why did Mary’s husband get the letter? The union says the law doesn’t apply to communications with members of the union. LOL.

Mary also found that the PSEA publication The Voice, which is funded with union dues,  took a strong pro-Wolf stand. She thought that was kind of unfair as well as she obviously couldn’t stop her dues from being used to pay for the union’s newsletter.

How about Sen. McGarrigle, you do what’s really fair and just end the automatic deduction of dues from public employee paychecks? If the union actually provides value for its members it will do just fine. If not, well, look what happened in Wisconsin.

People not being made to pay for something they don’t believe is the definition of fairness.

Question Sen. McGarrigle: If Scott Walker is the Republican nominee will you campaign for him.

Here is Mary Trometter explaining Mary’s Law:

McGarrigle Explains Opposition To Mary’s Law, Poorly

Wagner Blasts Republicans Over Mary’s Law Failure

Sen. Scott Wagner (R-28) sent this email blast out March 3 concerning the failure to pass Mary’s Law i.e. SB 501 on March 2.  Wagner Blasts Republicans Over Mary's Law Failure
And it was a blast as he called out the five southeast Republican Senators voted no to the amendment — Sens. John Rafferty of Montgomery County, Stewart Greenleaf of Montgomery County, Tom McGarrigle of Delaware County, Robert “Tommy” Tomlinson of Bucks County, and Dominic Pileggi of Delaware County– being especially harsh concerning Pileggi and Rafferty.
Here is what Wagner wrote with the attached PennLive.com article by Jan Murphy that he references.

The purpose of this post is to give you an update on “Paycheck Protection” legislation.

At the end of my post is a story from Penn Live yesterday detailing the vote on this important reform in the PA State Senate.

An amendment was offered yesterday on the floor by Senator John Eichelberger to SB 501.

The amendment offered yesterday would have narrowed the restriction to only ban governments from deducting money that is used for political purposes while still allowing dues collection to support general union operations.

The PA State Senate had a tie vote of 24 to 24 which resulted in the amendment to SB 501 failing to pass.

It was disappointing but not a surprise that five southeast Republican Senators voted no to the amendment.

It was also not a surprise to me that Senator John Rafferty voted no on the amendment – in the ten months I have served in the PA State Senate I have found Senator Rafferty to be the most disingenuous member of the Republican Caucus.

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.

Senator Dominic Pilleggi is another issue – since losing his leadership post he is a bitter person and will do anything to undermine the PA State Senate’s new leadership – the good news is that Senator Pilleggi is running as a judicial candidate for Common Pleas Court in Delaware County – the sooner that Senator Pileggi is gone from the PA State Senate the better for everyone.

I can assure you that our PA State Senate leadership and conservative members will continue to push to pass this important reform.

To achieve our many goals to move Pennsylvania forward it is critical that we elect additional conservative Republican members to the PA State Senate.

It is my personal goal to add a minimum of four additional conservative Republicans to the PA State Senate in 2016 so that we can advance the right agenda for Pennsylvania.

Bill restricting union dues collection fails but not dead yet in Pa. Senate

By Jan Murphy | jmurphy@pennlive.com The Patriot-News
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on March 02, 2015 at 7:05 PM, updated March 03, 2015 at 11:58 AM

http://www.pennlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/03/bill_restricting_union_dues_co.html

An attempt to pass a controversial amendment to a bill that would restrict union dues collection from state and school employees’ paychecks narrowly failed in the state Senate on Monday.

But most likely, we haven’t seen the last of this amendment to this so-called paycheck protection bill.

The Senate voted 24-24 to defeat the amendment. A short time later, it voted 29-19 to reconsider the amendment at a later time, keeping it alive.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. John Eichelberger, R-Blair County, would have made it illegal for government to deduct union dues from state and school employees’ paychecks. The amendment offered on Monday narrowed that restriction to only ban governments from deducting money for unions that is used for political purposes while still allowing dues collection to support for general union operations.
“I think that legislation is not the answer.” Lt. Gov. Mike Stack

The amendment was crucial to winning the support of Republican Sen. Chuck McIlhinney of Bucks County, who indicated last week he would be a no vote without that change.

Every Republican vote the amendment could muster was needed to pass since Democrats voted as a block to oppose the bill along with five Republican senators from the southeastern corner of the state – Sens. John Rafferty of Montgomery County, Stewart Greenleaf of Montgomery County, Tom McGarrigle of Delaware County, Robert “Tommy” Tomlinson of Bucks County, and Dominic Pileggi of Delaware County.

When the vote on the amendment ended in a 24-24 tie, Lt. Gov. Mike Stack cast a vote against the proposal although Senate staff said later that the tie vote had already ensured its defeat.

Afterward, Stack seemed pleased he had the chance to cast a vote against this particular amendment, even though it turns out it wasn’t necessary.

“I just think it’s anti-labor and it’s designed to take away the ability of unions to organize and I’m one of those people who believe we have a middle class here in Pennsylvania because of the worker unions,” he said. “They are not perfect and no organization is perfect but I think that legislation is not the answer.”

*This story was updated to reflect the fact that the tie vote on the amendment resulted in its defeat and Lt. Gov. Mike Stack’s vote didn’t break the tie.

Wagner Blasts Republicans Over Mary’s Law Failure

Pa Liquor Importation Ban Battled

Tri State Liquor Pa Liquor Importation Ban Battled
Shame upon shame if you know where this is. Rumor has it that the deals are better here than at the more yuppified Total Wine.

Pennsylvania State Rep. Joe Hackett (R-161) and Sen. Dominic Pileggi (R-9) have introduced bills that would end the penalty for bringing into the Keystone State liquor, wine and beer purchased elsewhere.

The law now provides for fines of $25 per bottle, cost of prosecution and 90 days in jail.

Both men represent constituencies on or very near the Delaware border and we suspect many, if not most, of their constituents know the address of Total Wine and Tri-State Liquors.

Pileggi notes that  attempt is not connected to the attempts to de-communize the Commonwealth’s liquor distribution system — which he describes as facing a “fundamental disagreement” in the legislature — and expects it to pass.

Still, Wendell Young IV, the well-paid head  of United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1776 who inherited his $292,765 job from his father, Wendell Young III, has come out against it so don’t expect a slam dunk.

Local 1776’s fiefdom includes the proles in the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board distribution system.

 Pa Liquor Importation Ban Battled