Tucked in at the bottom of a Tribune-Review story about the City of Pittsburgh floating $46.6 million in capital improvement bonds was this little ditty:
“If a federal coronavirus relief package isn’t approved by July, the city faces a general fund shortfall of $26 million and would have to cut 600 jobs. But Senate negotiations on a $1.9 trillion relief package continued Wednesday with the expectation a package would be passed soon.”
Indeed, the information is not new. But it is worth reiterating the below assessment:
While Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto has talked, in general terms, of “belt-tightening,” we’ve heard nothing publicly of the city laying off any employees over the past 12 months to better make ends meet.
We often hear of public aid for individuals being “means-tested” as a condition of the amount of government aid received, if any. It’s past time for government jurisdictions seeking federal bailout dollars to first show an expansive “economizing-tested” record of cutting all unnecessary expenditures as a condition of receiving federal bailout dollars — if any.
Speaking of that $1.9 trillion pandemic relief package, the Post-Gazette reports that at least one Pittsburgh area company is looking forward to benefiting from a host of public works projects the money likely will fund.
L.B. Foster Co. of Green Tree says the money is expected to spur projects ranging from those involving public transit to others involving national parks. We’re sure numerous other Pittsburgh companies are licking their chops at the prospects.
Of course, you can bet whatever the projects are, their labor costs will be unnecessarily inflated because of prevailing wage laws. And it’s indicative of what government does worst:
Distributing taxpayer dollars for this project or that (some of which might be dubious to begin with), then tying the hands of economy with artificial wage floors that are anything but open market-based because they are the union-set.
It’s a continuous shakedown racket that serves the organized labor cartel at the expense of the tax-paying public. As per usual.
The Associated Press reports that Philadelphia and three other Pennsylvania municipalities sued the state Wednesday claiming “a covert abuse of legislative power” to block local bans or taxes on plastic bags that retailers give out to customers.
Such cities and towns are suffering the health, environmental, aesthetic and financial implications of plastic bag litter and pollution, the plaintiffs say. Environmental advocates have pushed for bans to relieve pressure on landfills, limit the pollution of oceans, waterways and forests and prevent harm to wildlife, the AP reports.
Never mind the growing body of scholarly research that debunks many of the concerns over plastic bags (never mind that they are the bane of many consumers who deal with everything from grocery-filled bags breaking and/or spilling all over their vehicle trunks and back seats. Ahem).
Among that research is a study conducted by the state Legislative Budget and Finance Committee, which concluded that plastic bags weren’t a big source of pollution to Pennsylvania’s municipalities.
And as the AP further reports, another study, by the state’s Independent Fiscal Office, found that while the ban would shrink demand for light-weight plastic bags by 1.6 billion a year, retailers “would shift to paper bags or heavier-weight plastic bags, while some consumers would buy more trash bags and ultimately spend $70 million more.”
But the real bottom line here is that the banning of plastic shopping bags remains based on junk science.
“Bad data make bad policy,” reminded H. Sterling Burnett, a Ph.D. senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.
“The evidence shows that plastic bags are a minuscule waste problem and that every city that bans plastic bags costs its shoppers, businesses, the city government and workers across the nation with little or no benefit for the environment or economy.”
There is that, eh?
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
