Allegheny Institute Blog

The union representing firefighters wants to initiate a petition drive to cut the number of Pittsburgh’s City Council members from nine to seven, or possibly five, and impose a two-term limit on the office of Mayor. Mind you, they are not doing this to help the City reach fiscal austerity (cutting Council members would affect less than 1 percent of the $427 million budget).

The fact is they are doing it in response to City Council “failing” to push the state to release the City from Act 47 distressed status. Since Act 47 actually curtails some of the privileges that the fire union has won due to Act 111’s binding arbitration provisions, they want it gone. Since a majority of Council voted against it, the union wants to reshape Council.

This is not the first time the fire union has pushed to cut Council when members had the temerity to call for cuts to the fire department, and it probably won’t be the last. (They also tried to make an end-run around the recovery plan by calling for a referendum on response times to preserve their ranks). But City residents who might be asked to sign the petitions ought to ask themselves something: who runs Pittsburgh? Is it possible that a union representing around 700 employees will have the power to not only downsize Council, but also then be in charge of redistricting neighborhoods so they are guaranteed the ability to elect a majority of very sympathetic council members who will do their bidding?

If the petition comes to a vote, a defeat would send the message to the union leadership that the City will not be bullied and be held hostage to political hardball on the part of the fire union. It has gone on too long already, much to the detriment of the City.

In fact, the firefighters effort has the appearance of being a desperation move by a group that sees its power slipping. For the City’s sake, let’s hope that’s the case.

The head of Local 23 of the United Food and Commercial Workers was busy yesterday exhorting Wal-Mart to treat their employees with dignity and give them more compensation in the form of higher wages and more health care benefits. Not a surprise, that’s what union leaders do. However, the union head’s admonitions are not consistent with the consequences of his national union’s position on illegal aliens. The national leadership wants illegals to be given amnesty and a path toward full citizen rights.

The national union sees newly minted low income, unskilled citizens as the mother lode of new union members. Once they are in the union, they can receive all the wonderful wages and benefits that U.S. citizen members already enjoy. But a moment’s reflection would show just how fatuous such thinking is. Studies convincingly demonstrate that the flood of illegals in recent years has depressed wages and caused unemployment for America’s under-educated and unskilled workers. Then too, they put massive demands on social service, medical facilities and schools that are overwhelming local governments and taxpayers.

If they are granted amnesty and join the union, will everyone be magically made better off? No. Even if the union is able to improve the wages of the new citizens, the employers who are now hiring illegals, will turn to newly arriving illegals who will be pouring into the country to be eligible for the next round of amnesty. Moreover, the newly legalized residents will begin to work to get their relatives into the country, adding more unskilled workers to the mix. All we will have accomplished is to add millions of low income, low skilled workers to permanent residency and the flood of illegals will only grow larger.

The United Food and Commercial Workers are not just confused; they do their own existing American workers a disservice with their desire to expand membership rolls. Union members ought to question the motives of their leaders on the illegals issue.

On Friday April 21, 2006 something very enlightening happened. Pittsburgh’s teachers reversed an earlier vote that had rejected a proposed contract. And the second vote was not merely a reversal; it was an overwhelming 2 to 1 vote to accept the contract. The thing that makes this such an interesting development is the way the two votes were conducted. In the first vote, the teachers were assembled in an auditorium and voted at the site. For the second vote, the union members were allowed to fill out their ballots in private and mail them in.

The head of the teachers’ union, by calling for the mail-in vote, was able to get the vote he wanted. However, the mail-in vote reveals a weak spot in the union’s hold on its members. When members are free from the pressure of their more raucous and vocal compatriots they are able to better weigh how they will be affected by the outcome of a vote. Under the vehement exhortations of the hard-core members, voters may not calmly reflect on their best interests and have their vote swayed against their own best interest.

This is a tremendous lesson. We hear labor leaders who want to have unions be able to gain collective bargaining representation by simply having a majority of workers at a company or facility sign a card that asks for a vote. They claim that signing the card is the equivalent of an affirmative vote. But the Pittsburgh teacher situation demonstrates the influence that the presence of “true believers” can have on a vote. Thus, the urgings of union leaders desperate for new members through a change in the representation voting procedure must be rejected.

Instead, we should be going the other way. All union votes should be a truly secret ballot that can be filled out in privacy and mailed in. This would minimize or eliminate the fear of retribution or ostracization. Members and potential members ought to be free to cast their votes without being concerned about whether or not they voted the “right” way.

According to newspaper reports, the North Shore Connector is still showing signs of life. Unbelievable as it sounds, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) might be ready to sign a full-funding agreement to get the tunnels underway. The Port Authority board could approve the contract bid at its meeting in late May, which would then trigger a Congressional review period. From all indications the $393 million price tag will be obliterated.

It is critically important that Congress take more than a casual second look at the project. It should be anything but a “bureaucratic formality”. Recall that to reduce costs PAT deleted the link to the Convention Center, a link that provided a substantial portion of the project’s new ridership. To repeat, this change to the Connector is not simply a paperwork issue; it changes the very nature of the project. If only the tunnels under the river are built as currently planned, the per passenger operating and capital costs will make the cost-benefit ratio of the project unacceptable even by the most liberal standards.

And as we have demonstrated on many occasions, the benefits are minimal and have been wildly overstated by PAT.

It is therefore incumbent on the state’s Congressional delegation and Senators to recognize the impact the tunnels are going to have not only on Federal spending, but also on the state and Allegheny County, both of whom will have to provide large sums in the almost certain case of substantial cost overruns.

It is too bad that the Federal government—or whoever is pushing for the Federal money for the project—has taken a “hands off” approach to the Connector. The County does not want to put in more money than it has already committed, but the FTA is apparently willing to adjust because the cost of construction materials has jumped up. Even PAT rejected the first round of bids as too high and the second round were well above engineering estimates. Nevertheless, no regional elected or appointed official, PAT board member, PAT manager, or local business leader has come out against the project.

Thanks to this acquiescence by those who could prevent this boondoggle, it appears the Big Dig of Pittsburgh is inching toward finding sufficient Federal dollars to launch the project. If that happens, it will be one of the most shameful episodes of powerful interests getting their way in Pittsburgh’s history, which, of course, is replete with examples of egregiously wasted tax dollars.

Let us take another opportunity to restate the facts about Pittsburgh’s Stadium Authority, many of them provided by a report prepared for the State oversight board last year:

• The authority’s purpose was to own and manage Three Rivers Stadium, which was demolished five years ago
• Day-to-day operations are handled by two employees of the Sports and Exhibition Authority
• It collects parking proceeds from stadium area lots, receives interest on loans, receives proceeds from the sale of land between the two new stadiums, receives proceeds from a RAD grant, pays two bond issues through that RAD grant, and has a lease with PennDOT

The audit noted that “operationally, the Stadium Authority could be operated by another city authority”. Despite this recommendation, this shadow authority continues to exist, counting a former mayor, a city councilman, and a state representative among its board members. Its all too cozy relationship of having its chairman also serve as chair of the SEA is gone, following that member’s departure from both boards. However, a new chair will be named when the board reorganizes at the start of its fiscal year.

Ironically, one never hears any of the region’s advocates of streamlined government address the question of why this extraneous, shadowy entity still exists. So much for their commitment to transparent and accountable government.

There is no valid reason to have the Authority’s life extended. Its purpose for being has been eliminated. Its revenues and assets can be transferred to the Sports and Exhibition Authority and its small remaining bond debt paid off this year. Which begs the question; “Why is the Mayor so reluctant to ask the Board to vote to terminate themselves?”

The so-called experts who keep telling us we need to recruit immigrants from Latin America (and other places) to take jobs in western Pennsylvania and Allegheny County should take a look at recent Census migration data. Between 2000 and 2005, the County saw a net outflow of over 40,000 residents to other counties and states. Many of the movers were younger people looking for good job opportunities.

Once again we find that conventional wisdom held by much of the County’s civic leadership is nothing more than empty-headed rhetoric that, repeated often enough, comes to be accepted as true. Like those who sold stadiums as the key to renewed prosperity and as attractions to young people, the new “immigration” crowd is hopelessly off track.

The real and hard truth is that the County must solve its anti-business, anti-capitalist mentality wherein unions, especially public sector unions, get anything and everything they want and the taxpayers get the bill. Many of those taxpayers are business owners who have the option of not staying or not expanding in the County. Thus, fewer job opportunities and more out migration by County residents.

So the charade and the misbegotten policy recommendations continue. If we cannot deal with real problems, let’s try to create growth by chasing mindless schemes that will not work but at least create the appearance that we are doing something.

In a continuation of the “Largesse Tour”, the Governor was in western Pennsylvania handing out checks written on the taxpayers’ account. What a great election year campaign tool. As companies accept checks to move within the state or across the street, the management and employees cheer the arrival of the money and are no doubt very grateful to the Governor.

For example, on Wednesday, April 19, the Governor handed a check for $487,000 to a call center company that is moving 50 employees from the Union Trust Building to Three Mellon Center—literally just across the street. The company is expected to add 20 jobs through a relocation from out of state and hopes to add 88 more over the next five years. In other words, the confirmed new jobs are costing taxpayers $24,000 each. Assuming these jobs pay $35,000 per year, the state will collect about a thousand dollars in additional revenue from each new worker. The interest on $24,000 at 5 percent is $1,200. In all likelihood, the state would have been far better off investing the money in bonds and it would still have the $24,000 in assets. The 20 jobs will never repay the taxpayers’ subsidy.

According to the Pittsburgh manager of the company, one of the reasons they elected to stay in the City is Pennsylvania’s strong public sector investments in business development. What a sad thing for a businessman to say. But it is becoming more and more the modus operandi in the business community. The state assistance will undoubtedly help pay the City’s payroll preparation tax.

The only question is, “how long will it be before every company in the state lines up for a handout?” After all, why should companies pay taxes and never get anything back when so many others are sidling up for the dole?

Despite years of this kind of hefty taxpayer subsidy for companies who move within the state while promising to add workers, Pennsylvania remains among the slowest job growth states in the country. The reason? The added cost these programs generate must be covered by dollars that should have been left in private hands to begin with.

The Gaming Control Board is in town to listen to the proposals being laid out by the three applicants for the Pittsburgh license. All three, Harrah’s, Isle of Capri, and PITG Gaming, are each offering development packages in excess of $1 billion—all for the rights to buy a $50 million slots license.

These packages confirm our assertion that the Governor and the Legislature should have auctioned off the license to the highest bidder. Had they done so, the price could have easily topped $400 million. Imagine what the City could do with $400 million? Reduce debt, fund the pension plan, or cut taxes. All things that are desperately needed to help the City out of its distressed status.

However, the casino debate has been hijacked by the focus on a new arena for the Penguins. Obviously the concept of opportunity cost eludes those who are pushing the casino applicants to fund a new hockey facility. If the license winner is required to direct funds to a new arena, that money, estimated to be between $225 and $290 million, cannot be used to help the City. Pittsburgh is saddled with more than $900 million in debt and the money being sought for an arena could pay down a third of the City’s obligations.

What of the elaborate development packages being touted by the applicants? Currently they are only promises. No one knows how much revenue will be generated by the City’s casino, and estimates from the three applicants vary. If reality falls short of predictions, will these development projects be put on hold or will the casino look to government for a subsidy? As Mayor O’Connor stated in his testimony: “gaming could become another cost our city does not want at this time.”

Just when you thought union arrogance in Pittsburgh could not get any worse, along comes Port Authority bus drivers to prove there is no limit to their chutzpah. The Amalgamated Transit Workers Local 85 is in court challenging the Port Authority’s order for express buses on the system’s busways to make unscheduled stops to pick up passengers. These are passengers who are otherwise forced to wait for non-express buses with room for them to board.

The drivers are arguing that under their contract, seniority allows them to choose the cushiest routes and the Port Authority is changing the nature of the routes by asking them to make extra stops.

Thus, an effort by the Port Authority to improve the convenience of the service provided to its customers—a service that is very heavily subsidized by taxpayers—is viewed by drivers as an infringement on their rights. They are not being asked to work longer hours for no extra pay and it is stupefying to believe that making a few more stops during the day is physically or mentally taxing. No, it is about showing Port Authority management, the taxpayers, the riders, and government officials who is boss and who really runs mass transit in Pittsburgh.

It’s all about the sacrosanct contract which unions always wave in the face of anyone challenging them. But in the case of PAT drivers it must be remembered that their contract was agreed upon under the threat of a strike that would have seriously disrupted travel in the region. So while the union congratulates itself on its ability to get ridiculous provisions in their contract, they should thank the government in Harrisburg that cannot bring itself to work for the public’s interest but instead continuously kowtows to public sector unions.

Of course, as long as the voters don’t demand something different, the legislature will feel no urgency to do anything about the fact that public sector unions can have whatever they want.

The Governor skated into town with a plan to build a new arena the Penguins claim is vital to their staying in Pittsburgh. The plan relies on contributions from whoever wins the slots license in the City as well as from the money from the Commonwealth’s share of slots revenues. However, the team objects to the proposal claiming it has “too many holes.”

While the team may be legitimately concerned about the contributions from both the state and local casino operator, what they are most concerned about is their own contribution. As Penguins CEO Ken Sawyer notes, “It had better be right or we won’t have the resources to put on a competitive team… we have to make sure the deal works for everybody involved.” Anyone who has been following the team’s cries for a new arena over the past five years knows that the team is concerned about themselves, certainly not the taxpayers of Pittsburgh or Pennsylvania.

We have been told time and time again that a new arena is not only vital to the success of the franchise, but to the resurgence of Pittsburgh. And again, we ask, “What is so magical about a new arena that it can boost the City’s economy?” Two new taxpayer subsidized stadiums and a convention center have not been able to save the City from financial distress. Nor is there any evidence from other cities that publicly funded arenas have provided a return for taxpayers.

It seems entirely fair and appropriate that since the team would gain the greatest benefits from a new facility, they should be willing to shoulder a share of the construction costs. After all, hockey arenas around the country have been built with private money or have been built with arena-generated funds. Instead, the team has resisted every plan that calls for them to make a significant contribution. They have rejected plans from Sports and Exhibition Authority, the Allegheny Institute, and now the Governor.

The reason? Each plan has called for the team to contribute either directly or indirectly through the use of borrowing against future arena-generated revenues. The Governor’s plan calls for the team to pay $8.5 million up front and pay $4.1 million per year after that. To put it into perspective, the Penguins’ Sergei Gonchar makes $5 million per year. So, for the price of the one player, the team could have a new arena.

The team is adamant about not spending any of their own money. They want taxpayers to fund it, either outright or by foregoing gambling money that could be used to lower taxes. The taxpayers should reject the Pens’ objections and let them know they are skating on thin ice.

In another expansion into the real estate business, Pittsburgh banking giant PNC is going to invest $24.5 million into the Eastside development in East Liberty. They will loan the development part of the money ($14 million) while granting the remainder ($10.5 from the community development arm of the bank).

The development is “not philanthropy” according to one official of PNC, because they will “get a real return” from the development.

Too bad the same can’t be said for taxpayers and their investment in PNC’s other development, a Downtown skyscraper called PNC Three. The building will house retail, offices, a luxury hotel, and condos that will sell for hundreds of thousands of dollars. This is projected to come online at a time period when vacancy rates for office space in Downtown are climbing, and there could be a glut of condos as the “gold rush” for getting people to live in town escalates.

Oh, and then there is the fact that the City, County, and School District will forego a portion of real estate and parking taxes for twenty years while that money goes to retire a tax increment finance bond for $18 million. In addition, the state got into the act and offered $30 million from its sources for the project.

Why not fully fund the office tower itself? Or seek outside private investors the way PNC has leapt in to help Eastside? That would take away the issue of having to pay prevailing wage and get rid of the appearance of a bank getting involved in real estate development.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06102/681315-28.stm

Gambling money as the funding source for a multitude of public goods and services—think property tax relief, convention center hotel, convention center operations, Pittsburgh International Airport, a new hockey arena, just to name a few in this corner of the state—just had another potential use tacked on. That’s because the City police union wants to use $5 million of the $50 million license fee to hire 100 police officers to get a jump on the criminal maladies sure to arise from putting a casino in the City.

It is dubious to believe that $5 million would cover the cost of all the officers for several reasons. One is because the cost of putting an officer on the street is well above $50,000. And since the state decided to allow these valuable licenses sell for the one-time price of $50 million, the $5 million would only cover one year of police service, even if the number were below 100 officers. Of course, the union plan calls for gaming tax revenue to cover future years, thus getting us further away from the original intent of using gaming money to reduce property taxes.

Additionally, a preliminary report from the Gaming Board submitted to the General Assembly states that the Pennsylvania State Police will handle “criminal investigation and enforcement…at licensed gaming facilities”. Since that appears to cover related crime that happens outside the casino, it raises questions about the City union’s plan for targeted enforcement because of gambling. The legislation does guarantee a portion of the money to go to Pittsburgh, but that money will likely compete with needs like debt reduction or tax cuts instead of adding more police.

The Mayor appears to be committed to holding the current level of officers to see if Pittsburgh can do more with less. That’s the right approach in this time of financial recovery to ensure the City gets better. That approach ought not to be abandoned because of the promise of slots money.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06101/681139-53.stm

February’s job numbers for the Pittsburgh region suggest that something very odd is happening. Even though there was a pickup in the pace from January’s year over year gain, the increase was accounted for almost entirely by two sectors, one being education and health and the other, leisure and hospitality. Indeed, 10,500 of the total 11,500-service job rise were in those two categories, with an astonishing 6,100 in leisure and hospitality alone, representing a 12-month growth rate for that sector of 6.3 percent. Another 4,400 jobs were added by health and education, a more modest but still robust 12-month gain of 3.3 percent.

All other private service sectors combined managed to post a tiny 1,000-job gain, which represents a meager 0.2 percent rise from the year earlier figure. Goods production employment was unchanged.

While any job growth is obviously welcome, it is not very reassuring to learn that eating and drinking establishments account for a large fraction of the gain. After all the average pay in that industry is among the very lowest of any sector.

Nationally the two sectors, which showed such amazing growth in Pittsburgh, rose much more modestly—2.4 percent for education and health and 1.9 percent in leisure and hospitality. Obviously these are very good numbers, but even so their combined growth amounted to only 30 percent of the national increase, more in line with the fact that they represent about 25 percent of all employment.

In Pittsburgh, the two sectors account for about 29 percent of total employment yet they represent 90 percent of job growth in February. One is constrained to ask, what is going on? These numbers are so odd as to call into question their accuracy. In all likelihood, we will have to wait for a few more months’ data to learn whether the odd job picture is confirmed or turns out to be a short-term anomaly.

Actor Michael Keaton, famous for playing the Caped Crusader, in a serious breach of etiquette, scolded his host while still in the host’s home. His gaffe? As an honored guest invited to throw out the first pitch at the Pirates home opener, he leveled criticism at Pirates’ owners for not spending enough money to field a more competitive team and that it is disrespectful to fans to keep offering a poor quality product. Predictably, his comments have caused quite a stir.

But, here’s the real issue. Was Keaton’s premise correct? Logic says it is not. Why would the Pirates opt to spend significantly more money, say $10 million-- most of which would have to come from investors rather than ballpark related revenues-- when that would still leave them as the lowest payroll team in their own division and $30 - 40 millions below the Cubs, Cardinals, and Astros? And would 10 million more produce a pennant winning team, or even a 0.500 winning record? Unlikely. And even if the team managed to close in on a winning season for the first time in 14 years, it is highly improbable that attendance would rise enough to produce $10 million more in revenue.

So, here we are six years into play at the new ballpark, which, the team and its civic and corporate boosters promised was the magic ingredient needed to turn the Pirates into a competitive team. As yet, evidence that a competitive team has been developed is very sparse indeed. And while modesty should prevent our saying it, we cannot resist the opportunity to remind those folks that the Institute warned that the hype and promises were unlikely to be matched by reality. No revenue sharing and no effective salary cap still make also-rans out of the smaller market teams. It was true then and it is true now.

But Keaton’s premise is wrong on another score as well. Why would the Pirates owners feel compelled to spend more money to attract fans when attendance seems to be holding fairly steady at an acceptable level as it is? This is a business after all and the owners are simply operating in a way to protect their investment and get the most return-- or the least loss--they can. Winning is a luxury they are simply not willing to bankroll.

In a remarkably swift action, the Governor has set aside a recent ruling from the Department of Labor and Industry that had overturned a decades-long practice of not requiring prevailing wages to be paid on road maintenance projects. Responding to outrage from municipal officials whose entire maintenance programs were being thrown into disarray because of the additional 20 to 30 percent costs they were facing under the Department’s ruling, the Governor decided wisely to put the Department’s decision on hold while it undergoes a thorough review. Maybe in the meantime, the Legislature will act to make sure there is never again any question about paying prevailing wages on maintenance projects. Otherwise, there is the possibility the Governor’s review will uphold the Department’s ruling.

Up until the Governor’s action on the prevailing wage decision, the Administration was fully engaged in giving unions whatever they want. For example, transit workers have been exempted from having to participate in lowering the extravagant operating costs in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia by having highway money diverted to cover salaries and benefits. Pittsburgh’s firefighters were able to obtain a five-year contract against massive evidence that the needed reductions in staffing, working hours and compensation had not yet been achieved. The Act 47 team, following Administration’s wishes, did not object to the granting of a five-year contract, something that should never happen in a distressed City.

Since then teachers have threatened to strike during the school year and obtained essentially all they were asking for. The belief among public sector labor seems to be that as long as taxpayers have a dime and are not yet in full rebellion, keep making demands.

Thus, in this environment, it cannot be considered a total shock that the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry issued a ruling that reclassified road “maintenance” to be construction so that prevailing wages must be paid for the work. According to newspaper accounts this ruling would have added $200 million a year to road maintenance. And since municipal and county taxpayers fund much of the work, the extra 20 to 30 percent higher cost would have meant higher taxes or less roadwork or both.

Defending the decision, the Department says that it was only enforcing the law as it is written. Still, at the very least, a ruling of this magnitude with its far-reaching consequences should have been brought in advance to the attention of parties that would be affected as well as the Legislature.

Obviously, the Governor got it right in his quick action to put a hold on the ruling. Nonetheless, much more needs to be done to loosen the union stranglehold on Pennsylvania’s economy, especially that of the public sector unions. While it might be politically advantageous to pander to unions, the constant bowing and scraping does not help repair the state’s terrible image among companies thinking about a start up or relocation. Where unions are strong, public sector unions will be even stronger and more demanding. In those communities, the per capita cost of government will rise, inefficiencies will abound while taxpayers, including businesses, are ill served.

Sadly, however, as long as Commonwealth officials run around the state handing out large taxpayer funded checks to selected “economic development” projects, the illusion of progress will be enough to keep the public from demanding a better strategy.

Through the first quarter of 2006, Pennsylvania expended $363 million—an average of $4 million per day—on so-called economic development projects. At that pace, the state will spend $1.4 billion in 2006 in addition to the $1.2 billion it has expended from 2003 through the end of 2005.

As we pointed out in our 2006 report on economic development spending in the Commonwealth, the money comes from a lot of sources and goes to a lot of recipients. Unfortunately, we don’t see improved results in terms of job gains in the industries receiving the taxpayer-funded largesse. Then too, the metro areas that have received the most money showed no discernibly faster growth than metro areas receiving lesser amounts. Indeed, a large fraction of the job gains in the state and western Pennsylvania have occurred in eating and drinking establishments along with health care and education. Job gains that are driven by their own special demand factors and not Gubernatorial check writing.

From January through March of this year, Allegheny County received $26 million (7 percent). One-third of it came in the form of an allocation to Rockpointe Airport from an Aviation Capital Grant. There was also an allocation made to the African American Cultural Museum for $5 million from the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program. The seven-county metro area reaped $103 million in total.

As campaign season heats up, look for the allocations to possibly become larger and more frequent. And that is very unfortunate. Imagine if the administration and the General Assembly committed to returning that expenditure to the taxpayers in the form of a tax cut instead of doling it out to the selected lucky recipients. But the reality is that the insanity of pursuing the handout growth strategy will persist because there is no political will to stop it.

The Pennsylvania legislature is now entering its umpteenth year of saying it means to do something about property taxes. The wrangling continues. Plan after plan gets presented, dumped on, and slides into oblivion. The problem of course is that there are too many constituents on too many sides of the issue. Virtually every plan involves lowering property tax by shifting to some other tax and that means some groups are made worse off while others benefit. So, the debate becomes sterile and unending.

Here’s a better idea. Let’s go to the cause of high property taxes and do something about that. First, the legislature should require every budget, bond issue, and tax increase to be submitted to voters in a referendum. Then it will be up to the local taxpayers to decide how much they are willing to spend. That will, to a large extent, move the issue off the legislators’ plate. If district or municipality voters continually vote for tax increases, those who live there and don’t like the taxes will simply have to move elsewhere.

Second, eliminate the right of teachers and other school employees to strike. There is no better way to get control of spending than to create more balance in the labor negotiations process. At the very least, the legislature should adopt something like New York’s plan that takes away two days pay and benefits for each day teachers are out of the classroom due to a strike.

It’s time to get serious about spending and give the local officials and voters direct control of taxation. The reason taxpayers are outraged is that everyone passes the buck.

Yesterday could be characterized as a “banner day” on Grant Street. That’s because both City Council and County Council made moves that show that maybe, just maybe, the light of good government is shining on them.

First, City Council voted to kill its request to end the recovery process under Act 47. In Policy Brief #10, we noted that it was much too premature for DCED to lift Act 47. The statute clearly sets out the criteria that must be examined in order to make that decision, obviously relating to the financial footing of the City. That footing is not yet secure.

Not surprisingly, the push to end Act 47 came from the public sector unions, many of whom have seen their bargaining power curtailed. One union official said that the state should give a firm date when Act 47 will be removed. It does not work that way. Only the City, through working to remove the causes of its distress, can determine when Act 47 will be gone.

As such, City Council is to be saluted for withdrawing an ill-advised resolution to seek release from Act 47.

Second, County Council unanimously passed a motion “urging the Steelers to finance club seating in its entirety”. The Steelers are planning to add 700 new club seats to the publicly-financed Heinz Field at a cost of $4.3 million. Under the terms of the stadium lease, the City-County Sports and Exhibition Authority is contributing a share from a capital reserve fund to help build the seats. That’s money that could better be used elsewhere. The public’s contributions to Heinz Field have greatly increased the wealth and revenues of the Steelers. It is up to them to show some degree of gratitude and pay for their own seats.

Although these actions by City Council and County Council are to be applauded, we wonder if they are harbingers of further steps toward good governance.

http://legistar.county.allegheny.pa.us/detailreport/matter.aspx?key=3191

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06095/679416-53.stm

The Port Authority is having a major case of “mission creep”. It has gone from being the County’s mass transit provider into a developer of real estate, specifically parking facilities, and even more specifically, pay parking garages. They must be trying to imitate their friends at the Pittsburgh Parking Authority.

After seeing the results of the failed South Hills parking garage (lots of unused spaces and parking fares not coming anywhere near the break even point), some board members are having second thoughts on building a similar garage in Robinson Township. Like the South Hills garage, this facility will be situated next to free parking. Any guess as to where people will park?

So now there is ambivalence based on the reality facing the South Hills garage.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the board took that same logic and applied it to the biggest boondoggle ever considered by PAT, the North Shore Connector? Consider: there are other options for people to get to the stadiums, to the North Shore for other attractions, that the Connector won’t serve people coming from the north, east, or west, and that the service will never come close to covering the operating costs. Even with these facts staring them in the face, they are too hypnotized by the promise of “free” Federal money and the demands of unions who want the work.

So, when the chairman, referring to the Robinson garage, said “I’d like to see it [succeed], but I don’t see it working out that way”, he could have just as easily been talking about the Connector.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/trib/pittsburgh/s_439772.html

There is a significant likelihood the U.S. has already lost the war against illegal immigration. There are simply too many interest groups who want them here and too many elected officials who either want them or do not have the spine to take a strong stand against the invasion that swells every day.

But there is something that can be done to shine the light of day on the sham arguments offered by apologists for the status quo. We need to ask those who are opposed to seriously defending our borders and those who fight against deportation why they are not proposing legislation to fully open the borders and remove the border controls to allow unimpeded entry to any and all who wish to come. And while they are at it, they can remove the penalties for hiring those who are here illegally since the term will no longer apply.

So what if criminals and terrorists come in, it’s happening everyday now despite the government’s limp wrested attempts to curb the activity. At least we could save the money being spent for border guards and employment law enforcers.

Finally, the supporters of unlimited immigration and open borders should offer legislation requiring that all government documents be printed in Spanish and that all public officials become bi-lingual. The legislation should also mandate that government identification cards be provided free of charge to all who ask for one, no questions asked. We need to be sensitive and allow these folks a government issued ID card. After all it is demeaning to be forced to use forged documents to get a driver’s license or job.

Sound ridiculous? That is where we are inevitably headed if we don’t do something very soon to deal sternly and consistently with the issue. Those who fight to prevent such actions need to reveal their true colors and have the courage to offer the legislation described above. Of course they won’t. They are cowards hiding behind their ability to denigrate and name call to try to silence proponents of bringing some order to the chaos that now exists while affirming and protecting U.S. sovereignty. They like being able to pretend they care about the issue while doing everything possible to prevent anything being done about it.