If Ronald Reagan were alive today his classic idiom would be aimed at Todd Eachus, "There he goes again." It is unbelievable the extent to which Eachus ignores his district.
Those of you following the saga on the pension issue facing the City of Hazleton may be unaware of the pension problems facing Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. House Bill 1828 was introduced to help out both cities but Pittsburgh doesn't like the idea of a Commonwealth takeover of its pension funds. So it is trying to amend the bill for an exemption. In the meantime Philadelphia needs the provision in HB 1828 for a 1% increase in its sales tax to curb its pension woes.
A reporter asking about this situation received the following comments from Brett Marcy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Todd Eachus.
"We know the bill is important to both Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as well as to other cities with pension problems, but we need to get this bill right,'' and so have delayed the House vote for at least two days, said Brett Marcy, an aide to House Majority Leader Todd Eachus.
Did anyone see Eachus's heedfulness for Hazleton in his spokesperson's comment? Once again Eachus's prime concern belies his efforts to convince voters in his district that they really matter.
9 comments:
Mr McGruff
you are making me work on the holiday weekend! your statement is misleading, i would hope not on purpose. if you read the Citizens Voice of Sept 5th you would have seen this quote
"The bill could save the City of Hazleton from repaying $2.5 million to its municipal employee pension fund.
The state auditor general had said the city was wrong to reserve extra pension tax money and pay employee benefits from its general fund. But recent changes to House Bill 1828, approved last week by the Senate, likely will absolve the city from repaying the money, if the Auditor General's Office sees the legislation as a satisfactory resolution.
Brett Marcy, communications director for Majority Leader state Rep. Todd Eachus, D-Butler Township, said the latest effort to change the bill, announced by House Democrats on Friday, will have little impact on Hazleton's case.
"There is nothing that we're looking at in this bill that would affect Hazleton one way or another," Marcy said. "Representative Eachus will not support a bill that doesn't address Hazleton's situation."
Now that sounds as if HE IS concerned and is looking out for Hazleton.
You need to play fair Mr McGruff.
so as far as your challenge to get 10% of the 250 million the 2.5 million got him a 10th of the way there.
i hope you are enjoying your weekend as you make me work. lol
Here is the real deal...
Senate Bill 961. Eachus kept it in committee after 49 Senators voted to YES on the bill. Levdansky was under orders not to move on that bill. I watched the PCN video of the hearing of August 18, 2008. Eachus didn't stand up and say one word. He didn't speak on Hazleton's behalf. Mario Scavello of Strousburg spoke but not Todd Eachus.
So let's be fair. It is you that takes the misleading path.
HB 1828 That bill originated in the House. When it was approved it was moved to the Senate. The amendment that would help Hazleton was added in the Senate, not the House. There were no provisions in the original House bill to help Hazleton.
Eachus tried to make the case that HB 1828 would add five extra years to the MMO so it would reduce Hazleton's burden by $625,000. What he didn't tell the public was that it also was requiring prefunding of the healthcare expenses. The MMO(minimum municipal obligaton) for Hazleton right now is $1.2 million. That provision would shoot Hazleton's MMO to over $4 million. A disaster was awaiting Hazleton with Eachus's House version.
To me it is very clear that Eachus is going out of his way to hurt Hazleton over his ridiculous partisan attitude.
Lets talk about Act 205. I remember Eachus making the statement that you couldn't create a law that affects one city. Explain this amendment for Philadelphia.
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/FN/2009/0/HB1874P2470.pdf
The provisions in the Third Class City Code 53 P.S. Section 895.102 page 152 and Act 205 define pension and post retirement benefits. The Pension Fund is defined as "The entity which is the repository for the assets amassed by a pension plan as reserved for present and future periodic retirement payments and benefits of active and retired members of the pension plan Similar language is in 205. Why do both pieces of legislation mention "benefits" if the money is not to be used for healthcare benefits? What "benefits" does it mean??
Most municipalities pay for post-retirement health care through a “pay-as-you-go” system whereby they simply make a payment each year for the premiums and other costs that their retirees incur.
Hazleton was using the provision for a levy in 205 to pay for post-retirement healthcare costs because those costs were coming out of the general fund and based on the wording in the law. That is the reason this matter ended up in court.
Eachus keeps stating that the money collected needs to be repaid to the pension fund. Says who? If the money needs to be returned it needs to be returned to the people who paid it in the first place. But again, who is looking out for the taxpayer? Why would it go to the pension fund when it was never removed from it in the first place? The money collected was for the benefits, not the pension fund.
Hazleton was superfunding its pension plans with one portion of the Act 205 levy so the extra money was not needed to meet the MMO. Hazleton was meeting its obligation for post retirement healthcare benefits (negotiated away by another Democrat) with the rest of the levy. If SB 961 was passed there would have been no ther economic impact to the property owners.
Act 205 could have been amended to allow use of the levy for post retirement healthcare benefits on the pay as you go system. The levy was on wages, not property. Its economic impact was spread across a much broader base of payors. Removing that ability now hurts Hazleton property owners who may be forced to pay higher taxes to fund the pension obligation.
Now you want to convince me that Eachus is really worried about Hazleton. Sounds like he arrived real late to the party. I do applaud him finally seeing the light though.
This issue has been looming for over 2 years. The legislature screwed up Act 205 in the first place. The right to tax starts in the legislature, not the local level. Why is it taking so long for the House Majority Leader to find a solution for his district?
Would there be a solution without Philadelphia and Pittsburgh's mess? He didn't introduce anything specifically for Hazleton. Now he wants to portend his efforts are on behalf of Hazleton. Pleasee....
Senate Bill 961 should have been passed so Hazleton property owners were not saddled with a needless burden. It never made it to the floor for a vote.
James Mcaneny, Executive Director of the Public Employee Retirement Commission gave this conclusion on page 5 in his testimony before the House Finance Committee on August 18, 2008.
"We believe that Senate Bill Number 961 provides a better way to provide for Hazleton's financial need than the method currently being employed." PERC supports Senate Bill 961.
Go to this post about the AG supporting 961 and the timeline proving how long this issue has been around. http://sightsonpennsylvania.blogspot.com/2009/07/eachus-are-you-misleading-public-about.html
If Hazleton needs to pay the money back why didn't Eachus pay back the pay raise that was repealed? He was not entitled to it so why did he keep it?
http://www.toddeachus.com/blog?key=1448
In a phone interview on Wednesday, Eachus called Barletta’s initial decision to use the pension funds for retiree health benefits “a gamble” and criticized Barletta for continuing the practice after Wagner’s ruling “when he knew it was illegal and improper.
Didn't Eachus know it was improper to keep the pay raise? What did he tell Don Pachence? "Down here improper means illegal."
you really have such a shallow argument once we get past your initial charge.
it was Barletta that stated in the media that he "rolled the dice" hence the reference to gambling.
and now you are putting words in Wagners mouth, he never at least what i have seen said it was illegal. but i will take your word on this one. so now what Barletta did wasn't only improper but ILLEGAL!!!!!!!
Will the Mayor be charged for this illegal activity? are you aware of any indictments coming down on barletta for this illegal activity>
wow, you are on to something here Mr McGruff....
Patriot News, August 31st
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/08/school_districts_now_short_13.html
"The rest of the $300 million Rendell increase or $200 million is unevenly distributed across the rest of the 499 PA school districts. In fact - more than 75 districts would get a mere 2% increase while Rep Eachus' Hazleton district will get a 20% increase in state funding."
another example of Eachus bringing back to the GREATER Hazleton area. i know, Lou doesn't get his hands on it, but I am sure no one is complaining about this!
you need to read more Mr McGruff
Again mincing words. Hazleton Area School District is not the City of Hazleton. Where did I state what Barletta did was illegal? That comment is from Todd Eachus's blog, not me or is that too hard for you to comprehend. I'll type it slooooweeerrrr if you want.
You posted a post by a blogger and pretended it to be part of a news article.. Are you really that desparate?
Here is the link to the files you should be looking at if you want to make a claim
http://www.pde.state.pa.us/proptax/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=125387
Hazleton Area got $2,710,213.37 out of $613,200,000.00 or about four tenths of one percent not 20% as you posted from the other post.
Next, we are being sold that this money is property tax relief. What is the difference between this money, sans its source in casinos, or the state aid school districts have received for years?
Couldn't they say that the state aid was property tax relief.
When you open the files look at what other districts got when compared to Hazleton Area? Some are triple and quadruple what Hazleton Area received.
Look at what happened state wide to funding education while excessive legislative staff and lawyers are hired by each caucus.
http://www.goodschoolspa.org/pdf/news_articles/Lehighton%20Times%20News%206-26-08.pdf
"The state share of total education spending has fallen from 55 percent in 1975 to 36 percent today," said Baruch Kintisch, staff attorney at Education Law Center. "The current funding system also distributes
resources so that some communities can annually spend more than $17,000 per student while others spend $7,000. The pending proposals for education funding reforms should be adopted as part of the 2008-2009 budget, so that Pennsylvania can fulfill its promise to give every child a quality education."
Post a Comment