Perhaps lost in the raging debate over Pennsylvania Senate Bill 383 is what the bill actually says.
The measure, sponsored by Sen. Don White, an Indiana County Republican, would allow local school boards to decide if they want to allow trained and vetted school personnel – including teachers – to voluntarily be armed on school grounds.
The bill passed the Republican-controlled Senate 28-22 and moves on to the GOP-led state House. But Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, says he would veto it.
No board would be required to adopt the policy. No school personnel would be required to carry. But quickly out of the box, the opposition – led by, but not limited to, a teacher’s union –acted as if the law would mandate such a thing.
It. Would. Not.
Perhaps also lost in the debate is that the original intent of White’s legislation was to give more rural school districts, without police protection minutes away, a better chance to defend against a Sandy Hook-like attack.
And the idea, in general, hardly is on the outlier of rational thinking. As Fox News reported on June 29, 18 states now allow “adults to carry a loaded gun on school grounds, with certain permissions.”
Again, the key to SB 383 is that it gives local school district another option to protect students. There will be plenty of time for debate at the local level should the measure become law.
But for opponents to work so hard — and sometimes misleadingly – to even deny local school districts the opportunity to consider such an option, is anathema to formulating public policy.
Yet another study concludes what fundamental economics dictates: The more you raise the cost of labor, the less you get of it. It should be an object lesson for Greater Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania policy makers entertaining the idea of raising the minimum wage.
Scholars at the University of Washington say Seattle’s government-mandated minimum hourly wage — $13 now and soon to be $15 –has led to a 9 percent reduction in hours worked. That correlates to a loss of about $125 monthly for lower-wage workers, no small sum to be sure.
But just as troubling is the conclusion that Seattle would have about 5,000 more low-wage jobs without the wage floor diktat.
City government commissioned the study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a private nonprofit research organization founded nearly a century ago.
As National Review’s Kevin Williamson succinctly summed up the findings:
“You can pass a law saying you have to pay low-wage workers more, but you cannot pass a law that says you have to hire them in the first place, or that you cannot cut back on hours when the price of labor goes up.”
Stories continue to be published around Western Pennsylvania (and statewide) about the current glut of milk. The latest came June 28 in The Times of Beaver County.
The story says two county dairy farms have closed. Other dairy farmers say they’ve been forced to pay closer attention to their bottom lines.
The Times also cites statistics from the Center for Dairy Excellence, which confirms the number of Pennsylvania dairy farms are declining.
The center, based in Harrisburg, says the Keystone State ranks second only to Wisconsin for the number of dairy farms (6,650) and sixth nationally (though other statistics rank it fifth) for milk production (10.8 billion pounds of milk annually).
It also says Pennsylvania lost 120 dairy farms in 2016. Nonetheless, milk production has been increasing.
But the simple fact remains that there’s far too much milk heading to market, fueled by too many dairy cattle and/or dairy farms, and emboldened by price supports that, perversely, only encourage continued excessive production.
Some are sure to argue that such a situation is a warrant for more government intervention. Actually, it’s an alarm bell signaling excessive government “help.” And the more the marketplace is perverted, the more likely the milk glut will be exacerbated.
Colin McNickle is a senior fellow and media specialist at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
