The Herald-Standard of Uniontown reports that some local governments have been forced to tighten their belts because less shale gas drilling has resulted in lower “impact fee” receipts.
But wouldn’t less drilling also result in fewer “impacts” in need of amelioration?
What appears to be in play here, as the state Auditor General’s Office exposed last year, is that some local jurisdictions have been using impact fee dollars for things that have no relation to shale gas drilling.
Of the 10 counties audited, the AG found 29 percent of impact fee spending went for things that drilling had not impacted. Of the 20 municipalities audited, 4 percent of the spending was dubious.
Local jurisdictions have said the guidelines are vague. The AG says the guidelines should be tightened. It’s past time to eliminate the wiggle room that flouts the original intent of the law.
Gov. Tom Wolf has proposed strict new rules for Pennsylvania companies receiving taxpayer subsidies to make sure they keep their jobs in the Keystone State.
First, companies failing to create the jobs they promised in return for public money must fully reimburse the state.
Second, any public subsidy recipient that moves operations from Penn’s Wood must repay the money and a 10 percent premium.
Third, public subsidy recipients must commit to those jobs for at least five years. Operations must be kept in the commonwealth for at least eight years.
That’s all well and good, it can be supposed. But the better course of action would be to lower onerous taxes and odoriferous excessive regulation. That way, companies wouldn’t need public subsidies in their attempt to conduct business here.
That said, there would be no need for such a subsidy/performance regulation if state government abided by the Pennsylvania Constitution. From Article VIII, Section 8:
“The credit of the commonwealth shall not be pledged or loaned to any individual, company, corporation of association nor shall the commonwealth become a joint owner or stockholder in any company, corporation of association.”
That admonition should leave no wiggle room for the kinds of public subsidies doled out for decades, corporate wealthfare that has improperly turned taxpayers into venture capitalists .
That so many in state government — and of every political persuasion — consistently pooh-pooh the notion of this constitutional stricture is a civic tragedy, if not government nonfeasance.
Public policies often are confusing. They can become especially so when attempting to navigate the differing policies among the several states.
For years, that was especially true of concealed carry gun laws: what states honored another’s concealed carry gun permits and/or engaged in full reciprocity.
It’s critical to know such things, especially for travelers who carry guns across state lines. For the purpose of simplicity, below are the states that honor Pennsylvania concealed carry firearms licenses:
Alabama; Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; Colorado; Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Iowa; Kentucky; Louisiana; Michigan; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana; New Hampshire; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma;
South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Vermont; Virginia; Wisconsin; Wyoming.
If you are traveling, into or through these states, it remains a good idea to check their respective carry laws to make certain you are not tripped up by some nuance not addressed herein. (More information can be found at usacarry.com.)
It was Aristotle who said that “Law is a pledge that the citizens of a state will do justice to one another.” But the law also should be a pledge that states will do justice to one another.
Honoring other states’ concealed carry permits, if not full reciprocity, is an important way to honor that precept and a good example of sound public policy.
Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
