Wednesday, July 19, 2006
If Maine Can Do It, Why Can’t We?
If a proposed ballot initiative to limit government spending growth passes this November, Maine will be the latest state to institute Tax and Expenditure limitations to control the growth of state and local government. If successful, the state and its local units, including school districts, will have to adhere to population growth and inflation as the limit for spending increases. And all increases to taxes and fees will have to be submitted to the voters for approval.
Could Pennsylvania ever benefit from such a proposal. Of course, voters of the “Pine Tree State” could petition for the measure, whereas we do not enjoy the same privilege. It would take an act of the General Assembly to permit such a vote, and the collective breath was long ago let out on that hope.
The usual opponents have lined up against the measure—the Maine AFL-CIO, the Maine Education Association, and the Municipal Association. They feel that “drastic cuts” are soon to follow and that “anyone who cares about students, programs, and schools” will oppose the measure.
What nonsense. As we well know here in Pennsylvania, unchecked expenditures have done little to improve student performance and have led to tax increases that are driving people out of their homes and to low tax locations. How about some control for the taxpayers, who not only have to pay exorbitant taxes but have to contend with work stoppages by teachers? Entrusting school boards and other elected officials has not worked thus far, and Pennsylvania would take a giant leap forward by adopting a tax and spending limit.
As was pointed out in an earlier AI blog, a spending limit at the state level would mean that instead of spending $26 billion this year, the total expenditure would be closer to $24.6 billion. The state spends enough on wasteful and duplicative programs that it could find the savings if it were law. Putting the same onus on local governing units and school districts would bring some sanity and fairness to the presently unworkable situation.
Could Pennsylvania ever benefit from such a proposal. Of course, voters of the “Pine Tree State” could petition for the measure, whereas we do not enjoy the same privilege. It would take an act of the General Assembly to permit such a vote, and the collective breath was long ago let out on that hope.
The usual opponents have lined up against the measure—the Maine AFL-CIO, the Maine Education Association, and the Municipal Association. They feel that “drastic cuts” are soon to follow and that “anyone who cares about students, programs, and schools” will oppose the measure.
What nonsense. As we well know here in Pennsylvania, unchecked expenditures have done little to improve student performance and have led to tax increases that are driving people out of their homes and to low tax locations. How about some control for the taxpayers, who not only have to pay exorbitant taxes but have to contend with work stoppages by teachers? Entrusting school boards and other elected officials has not worked thus far, and Pennsylvania would take a giant leap forward by adopting a tax and spending limit.
As was pointed out in an earlier AI blog, a spending limit at the state level would mean that instead of spending $26 billion this year, the total expenditure would be closer to $24.6 billion. The state spends enough on wasteful and duplicative programs that it could find the savings if it were law. Putting the same onus on local governing units and school districts would bring some sanity and fairness to the presently unworkable situation.
