PA. State Legislators Due Pay Raise Next Month

An Associated Press report by Peter Jackson featured in the Times Leader highlights the automatic pay raise scheduled for Pennsylvania solons next month.

HARRISBURG — Pennsylvania’s top state officials, including legislators and judges, can look forward to a cost-of-living pay raise of 1.7 percent, officials said Monday.

Newly elected and returning legislators will get the increases starting Dec. 1, when the new Legislature opens for business, even though they won’t be sworn in until January.

Rank-and-file legislators’ salaries will increase from $78,315 to $79,623, while salaries for the four legislative floor leaders will rise from $113,468 to $115,364, officials said.

The raises, authorized by a 1995 law, are based on changes in the federal government’s Consumer Price Index for the mid-Atlantic states.

At a time when people are running out of their unemployment benefits and others can't find a job here's the real problem with this pay raise.

During this election cycle a flyer was sent to voters outlining history of the legislative pay raise from 2003 to 2010. In 2003 the salary of Pennsylvania legislators was $59,364.55. Due to a law passed in 1995 the Pennsylvania legislature pegged its yearly scheduled raises to changes in the federal government’s Consumer Price Index for the mid-Atlantic states. As a result the salary for Pennsylvania legislators in 2010 was $78,314.64. However if one were to use the Bureau of Labor and Statistics inflation calculator the legislative salary for 2010 should be $70,563.48 based on the $59,364.55 salary in 2003 using the Consumer Price Index as a benchmark.

Legislators using the CPI for mid-Atlantic States received $7,751.16 or almost 10% more than if the overall CPI for the country was the multiplier. On top of that figure is another $163 dollars per day every day they are in Harrisburg as long as the legislator doesn't live within 50 miles of the Capitol. However those legislators living within 50 miles can still claim the per diem if they attend committee meetings elsewhere in the state.

As many seniors found out the rise in the overall Consumer Price Index is used to calculate their raises for Social Security.

The Pennsylvania legislature only repealed its excessive grab in 2005. The scheduled pay raise due to the CPI calcualtion has remained intact. Maybe its time for the legislature to join the ranks of the senior citizens and feel their pain.

It seems our Congress and our Legislature know how to take care of themselves and not the electorate.

Update On Eachus Travel Claims

In today's Times Leader Steve Mocarsky pens an article about House Majority Leader Todd Eachus's admission that he accepted a flight back and forth from Harrisburg to Hazleton on January 31, 2007. He attended the press conference announcing a proposal to build a cargo airport outside of Hazleton where now admitted felon Robert Powell was a partner. He made the claim that he had to return to Harrisburg to vote.

The round trip between Harrisburg and Hazleton was job-related, Eachus said, and he made it because it was the only way to make it back to Harrisburg in time to cast votes in the state House.

According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Legislative Journal report for Wednesday January 31, 2007 the House convened its proceedings at 11:00A.M. and adjourned at 11:02A.M.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The House convened at 11 a.m., e.s.t.

CALENDAR
RESOLUTIONS PASSED OVER
The SPEAKER. Without objection, any resolutions on
today's calendar will be passed over. The Chair hears no
objection.

ADJOURNMENT
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Chester, Representative McIlvaine Smith, who moves that
the House do now adjourn until 11 a.m., e.s.t., Thursday,
February 1, 2007, unless sooner recalled by the Speaker.
On the question,
Will the House agree to the motion?
Motion was agreed to, and at 11:02 a.m., e.s.t., the House
adjourned.

Previously SOP provied a link to House Actions on Wednesday January 31, 2007 that provided evidence there were no votes in the House on that date.

Mr. Eachus has created more questions than answers.  It should be noted that the press conference was held at 1:00P.M.  He flew back to Harrisburg after the adjournment for the day according to records.

The following information from this flight tracking site was obtained by SOP for N69WU, the tail number for Powell's Rockwell jet.

31-Jan-2007
SBR1/L Capital City (KCXY)
Allegheny Co (KAGC)
04:15PM EST 05:10PM EST 0:55

Legislators Need More Time To Campaign

Here is a memo posted on Grassrootspa.com.

Good afternoon,
Reps. McCall, Eachus & Dermody asked me to forward this memo to you concerning an update to the session schedule. If you need additional information please contact me.
TO: House Democratic Members
FROM: Keith R. McCall, Speaker
Todd A. Eachus, Majority Leader
Frank Dermody, Majority Whip

DATE: October 16, 2010
RE: SESSION SCHEDULE UPDATE
Monday, October 18 is now a non-voting session day.

No floor votes will be taken, and Members will not need to return to Harrisburg.

Our next scheduled voting session day remains November 8.

We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

How about apologizing to the citizens who you are taking advantage of by not giving them their money's worth?

That's what $78,314.00 per year gets the voters. Plus fully paid healthcare, plus pension, plus perdiem, plus car, plus $10,000 expenses, plus taxes up the wazooo. What is going on here is the fight of their lives in individual campaigns and the ability to fork the voters to ask for their vote to return them to Harrisburg. You know what happens to Pinnochio in the story right? Since Mr. McCall retired it appears Tarah Toohil has Todd Eachus really worried about his chances.

The History Of The Number of Representatives In Pennsylvania Government

The next time a state representative or senator talks about the size of the legislature here are some facts for consideration from the state website.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

In 1967, the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended to set the number of House members at 203.

When the House of Representatives first met in 1682, there were 42 members. By the early 1700s, that number dropped to 24 and then steadily increased to 76 by 1776.

In creating the Senate, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1790 stipulated that this body should be no smaller than one-fourth of the House of Representatives and no larger than one-third, but it set no maximum for the House. When the House reached 100 members in 1855, a constitutional amendment in 1857 set that as the limit.

The Constitution of 1873 increased the Senate (then at 33 members) to 50 and set the House at a minimum of 200. Every county was guaranteed at least one member, regardless of its population.

The House peaked at 210 members for five sessions from 1955 until 1963. In order to adhere to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of "one person, one vote," the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended to provide for 203 House members from districts "nearly equal in population." The first House to meet that standard convened in 1967.

John D. Forester Jr.'s Take On A Full Time Legislature

Yesterday, John D. Forester, Jr. penned this opinion in the Reading Eagle of the Pennsylvania legislature's claims to being a full time body.

I have a full-time job.

So far this year, I've taken one week of vacation and a few personal days, and I was off New Year's Day, Memorial Day and Independence Day. Not to mention weekends.

Still, I've managed to put in 130 workdays so far in 2010.

That's a full-time job.

State lawmakers also have full-time jobs.

So far this year, members of the House of Representatives have worked a total of 46 days, while members of the Senate have put in 44 workdays.

That's a full-time job?

State Senator Daylin Leach(leech of taxpayers money) tried to counter that opinion earlier this year with an op-ed column of his own. He blasted the Bonusgate Jury conclusion that Pennsylvania should return to a part time legislature. Yes, at one time Pennsylvania did have a part time legislature. In fact Pennsylvania only had 100 representatives in the 1800's.

Recently, the Pennsylvania Bonusgate grand jury issued a report which has received a great deal of media attention. This report had nothing to do with the specific criminal charges against specific individuals it investigated. This report was an extremely rare supplemental grand pronouncement on the state of our government, along with numerous recommendations for restructuring the entire Legislature.

The methodology, conclusions and recommendations of the report are, in many respects, dead wrong.

But because the grand jury's methodology was incomplete given its self-appointed role as the re-inventor of state government, its members' factual findings were often inaccurate. And given that, the recommendations based upon those findings were, for the most part, ill-conceived.

They also say being a Pennsylvania legislator should not qualify as full-time work. Wrong again. Most legislators spend 70 to 80 hours per week, every week, at their jobs and still struggle to keep up.


Inaccurate information leads to poor recommendations. Sure, some of the technical suggestions, such as consolidating House printing offices, might have merit, but their broad policy suggestions would do great harm to our state if implemented.

For example, a part-time Legislature is a terrible idea. We make decisions affecting tens of billions of dollars in complicated policy areas such as transportation, health care, criminal justice and economic development. In some matters, such as abortion, the death penalty and access to medical care, our decisions literally have life and death consequences.

Of course Senator Leach is way off the mark with his comments.

Nathan Benefield, director of policy research for the Commonwealth Foundation wrote an Opinion in The Mercury making the case for a part time Pennsylvania legislature.

Ask Pennsylvanians what comes to mind when they hear the words "state government," and the responses will regularly include corruption, late budgets, cronyism, wasteful spending, and ineffectiveness. In a January Franklin & Marshall College poll, only 16 percent of Pennsylvania voters said the state legislature was doing a "good" job.

It's not surprising, then, that the idea of returning Pennsylvania's Legislature to part-time is gaining steam given the lack of trust in our elected officials.

With a price tag that's grown to $300 million, Pennsylvania's 253-member General Assembly is the most expensive (and second largest) state legislature in the country. It's also among the four most "professionalized" in the nation, with staff totaling nearly 3,000. For perspective, the legislatures of Illinois and Ohio — the states closest in population to Pennsylvania — have 1,023 and 465 staff, respectively.

The annual salary for rank-and-file Pennsylvania legislators ($78,314) is the fourth-highest in the country.

There is a direct link between our full-time Legislature and our state economy. A Commonwealth Foundation analysis shows a strong connection between legislative professionalization and higher spending per capita, a higher tax burden, and less economic freedom. Specifically, each increase in the level of professionalization results in an estimated $441 increase in spending per person, and a 0.4 percent increase in taxes as a percentage of income. For highly professionalized legislatures, like Pennsylvania's, the effect is five times those estimates.

In contrast, consider the case of Texas. The Lone Star State has twice the population of Pennsylvania and is four times the size of the Keystone State geographically. Yet, the Texas legislature meets once every two years for 140 days to produce a biennial budget. When Texas lawmakers need to deal with emergency situations or revise their budget, they return for a limited, special session. During its 2007 session, Texas' legislature passed 1,672 bills, while Pennsylvania's full-time General Assembly passed less than one-fifth that number.

Over the last two years, Texas has created more jobs than Pennsylvania and the other 48 states combined!

The Department of Justice gives Pennsylvania an "F" for its limited disclosure of legislators' assets, holdings, and related information. A December 2008 USA TODAY analysis of Department of Justice statistics ranks Pennsylvania tied with Florida as the 11th most corrupt state in the union (with 4.5 public officials convicted for every 100,000 residents).


Brad Bumsted of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review chimed in with his own Opinion this weekend.

In all, 27 legislators, former lawmakers and staffers have been accused of crimes since 2008. That counts the federally indicted Fumo and former state Rep. Frank LaGrotta, D-Lawrence County, sentenced to House arrest after pleading guilty to two felony counts of conflict of interest.

The Ories, DeWeese and Perzel maintain their innocence.

The surge in corruption cases, at least in the public's mind, hasn't yet reached critical mass. It will unfortunately take more charges before the public demands a complete and thorough overhaul of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

Legislators have used state tax money as their own, creating an Incumbency Protection Program that has perverted representative government and robbed Pennsylvanians of fair elections.

The title of Bumsted's Opinion says it all "When will enough be enough?"

The Arrogance Of Our Legislators

John Cole Scranton Times July 4

Comment left with cartoon.

What a bunch of buffoons.
Or maybe we’re the buffoons for allowing them to continue in their ways, year after year after year.

What Budget???

The Capitol Building in Harrisburg should be renamed the Spin Machine building.

From the Commonwealth Foundation:

Pennsylvania Education Spending

•Pennsylvania's education spending increased from $4 billion in 1980 to over $25 billion in 2009-a 133% increase in per-pupil spending (from $6,171 to $14,420, in 2010 dollars).
•Since 2000, enrollment has decreased by 26,960 while schools have hired 32,937 more staff members.
•School district fund reserves are almost eight times the amount of Gov. Rendell's proposed $354 million increase in state subsidies.

A Taxpayer's Budget 2010: Responsible Spending for Pennsylvania

A Taxpayer's Budget 2010: Responsible Spending for Pennsylvania identifies opportunities to cut over $4 billion in wasteful state spending in Gov. Rendell's proposed FY 2010-11 budget. The report also offers a series of recommendations for resolving the current revenue shortfall and reducing the size and burden of government on Pennsylvanians.

State government consumption and spending of taxpayer money have grown dramatically in recent years. Since 1970, Pennsylvania's total operating budget has increased from $4.2 billion to $65.9 billion, an inflation-adjusted increase of over 167%.[1] As a share of state personal income, Pennsylvania's operating budget rose from 8.8% in FY 1970-71 to an estimated 13.2% in FY 2009-10-an increase of more than 51%.[2]

The effect of this tax-borrow-and-spend agenda has not produced the promised economic revitalization, but stagnation. During Ed Rendell's tenure as governor, Pennsylvania ranks 32nd, 41st, and 39th in job, personal income, and population growth, respectively, among the 50 states.[3]

On October 9, 2009, after an unprecedented 101-day delay, the Pennsylvania General Assembly approved, and Governor Ed Rendell signed, a $27.8 billion General Fund Budget for FY 2009-2010. A revenue shortfall has since emerged, and politicians will be scrambling to fill a multi-billion dollar budget gap with rising pension contributions and the disappearance of federal "stimulus" dollars on the horizon. Against Commonwealth Foundation recommendations, the FY 2009-10 budget exhausted the state's "Rainy Day" fund and other one-time revenue sources. A Taxpayer's Budget 2010 offers budgetary and public policy alternatives to deal with this fiscal crisis.

A Taxpayer's Budget 2010 identifies wasteful and unnecessary programs in the state budget and off-budget agencies and offers recommendations for improving government services and reforming the budget process for greater efficiency. Our recommendations are organized into three sections:

•Eliminate Wasteful Spending: A Taxpayers Budget 2010 identifies $4.13 billion in spending cuts - $1.00 billion from the state General Fund Budget, $2.21 billion from other operating funds, and $926 million from the capital budget and off-budget programs.

•Adopt Market-Based Delivery of Government Services: Spending on public education, benefits for state workers, and Medicaid is growing far beyond taxpayers' ability to pay. By adopting market-based reforms in the delivery of services, state government can not only reduce costs, but improve quality.

•Adopt Spending and Budgetary Transparency Reforms: Transparency in government spending and instituting performance-based budgeting would help identify and eliminate wasteful expenditures, as shown in other states.
Before imposing tax increases on working Pennsylvanians and job creators, Harrisburg policymakers need to prioritize spending, justify all $66 billion in state spending, and cut waste from state government.

Pennsylvania ran up a $3 billion loan to the U.S. government that will need to be repaid back starting the end of this year according to this article by LARA BRENCKLE of The Patriot-News.

The submitted budget document relies on $850 million coming from the federal government for Medical Assistance that has not been passed by Congress or the Senate yet.

Pileggi warned that even if a new budget is approved by the deadline, a state revenue deficit in the range of $4 billion to $5 billion will await the new governor-elected in November

Finally the fiscal bill that must accompany the budget that spells out where the revenues will come from that are delineated in the budget has not been passed. Legislators will tell you that budget is in place

In recent days, House and Senate leaders expressed a determination to enact a on-time budget for the first time during Mr. Rendell's tenure. But this feat will likely be accomplished by leaving action on the fiscal bill, which is normally part of the budget package until later in the week. The fiscal bill is important because it spells out where the revenues originate. The agreement doesn't provide for a tax on smokeless tobacco and cigars or a hike in the state cigarette tax, as Mr. Rendell had sought.

It's like writing checks out of a checkbook but not calling the bank to find out if the funds are there or not. This budget is nothing but a political document so incumbents can make a "claim" they got it done on time. In reality it is a misrepresentation of a failed effort to meet their obligation and the duties of their office. Inflated figures, bogus income, and maintenance of per diems don't qualify Rendell to call this a "conservative" budget.

The Budget -Another Day Closer And Deeper In Debt

It's another year in the life of Pennsylvania and it's the same old song. We won't have a budget passed on time. Lack of leadership to reach across the aisle and convince all to do what is right for Pennsylvania seems to be a character flaw in Harrisburg. In today's Times Leader Andrew Seder informs us that meeting a deadline imposed by Harrisburg lawmkers upon themselves is nearly impossible at this point. Gov. Rendell's legacy will point to a record of never getting a budget passed on time during his tenure.

With the November election five months away and with voter anger still simmering from last year’s 101-day budget impasse, state legislators are trying to balance the fine line of fiscal responsibility and political expediency as they try to approve a state budget before Wednesday’s 11:59 p.m. deadline.

That deadline, said some local legislators, will not be made. But there’s no way the stalemate will last 101 days and probably not even 10 days.

If these solons were employed in the private sector and missed their deadline year after year there would be so many pink slips issued with justification. Maybe the voters should keep that in mind come November.

Speaking of lack of leadership House Majority Leader Todd Eachus must have a problem facing the public or a severe case of political laryngitis. In this article he had David Georges, a campaign spokesperson, speak for him. In this article which appeared in the Allentown Call June 17th about the budget Brett Marcy responded as spokesman for House Majority Leader Todd Eachus. If Eachus could talk for himself he could save taxpayers alot of money. It seems almost a flagrant abuse of power that a campaign spokesperson would be responding to a legislative issue when there is a legislative staff specifically hired to do just that.

To make my point read the Times Leader article. Rep. John Yudichak who will go on to be a Pennsylvania Senator this November,(yes I am calling it now) doesn't hide behind spokespeople. It points to the reason Yudichak won his primary so handily. He's a hands on people person. Mr. Eachus is the type who talks down to his constituents, that is when he is willing to face them one on one.

Karen Boback is quoted in the article, heck even Senator Bob Mellow was out front and center.

But the coup de tat behind the scenes is the fact that when the stimulus money disappears Pennsylvania's budget will be between $4 billion to 5 billion in the hole according to Senator Dominic Pileggi. Unless spending is decreased taxes are going to rise for all of us.

The Democratic leadership politicians in Harrisburg have to get serious about decreasing spending. With the impending pension funding crisis upon us it is time for their culture to change and in a severe way. Taxpayers can no longer support a legislative staff that is only there for political purposes.

Pennsylvania Corruption Begs For Election Reform

In the ongoing federal probe it has been reported that an aide to Senator Mellow had his home searched. The Philadelphia Inquirer carried the story yesterday but newspapers in Northeastern PA are just catching up.


FBI and IRS agents investigating Pennsylvania's highest-ranking state Senate Democrat, Robert J. Mellow of Lackawanna County, have searched the home of a longtime aide tied to a property the senator co-owned and rented to himself, sources close to the investigation said.

Federal agents, the sources said, are scrutinizing a deal in which Mellow located his district office in the building owned at various times by aide Gabriel J. Giordano; the aide's wife, Celestine P. Giordano; the senator's wife; and ultimately the senator himself.

The Senate spent more than $200,000 in taxpayer dollars in rent, The Inquirer revealed last year.

In 1990, the Giordanos bought a two-story property on Main Street in Peckville for $90,000. Months later, Mellow moved his district office there.

In 2001, Celeste Giordano and Mellow's then-wife, Diane, formed a corporation called Brad Inc. that purchased the Main Street property for $1.

Diane Mellow, who has since been interviewed by the FBI, has said that Brad Inc. and the Main Street property purchase were something of a mystery to her. "I just signed what [the senator] put in front of me," the former wife told The Inquirer last year.

The Pennsylvania State Ethics Commission has been investigating the sweetheart deal regarding the rent but has yet to render a decision. Mellow has been maintaining innocence through both ordeals.

Brad Bumsted over at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review penned this article about the rash of arrests and convictions among Pennsylvania legislators and staffers.

"We're among the top four or five states, certainly, in public corruption," said G. Terry Madonna, political science professor at Franklin & Marshall College. Illinois, Louisiana and Tennessee are frequent competitors for the top spot, according to surveys and analyses over the past two years.

What needs to be changed "is how business is done in Harrisburg," said Montgomery County lawyer Mark Schwartz, a former aide to the late House Speaker Leroy Irvis. "I don't see any leadership in Harrisburg," he said. His comment reflects poorly on House Majority Leader Todd Eachus who keeps telling his constituents he is the best thing since apple pie.

Speaking of election reform look at this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer concerning the campaign of Senator Anthony Williams who ran for the Democratic nomination for governor.

No one had ever donated anywhere close to this much cash for a political campaign in Pennsylvania.
Previous reports showed that a trio of executives at Susquehanna International Group in Bala Cynwyd already had ventured far into historic territory by giving at least $3 million to support State Sen. Anthony Hardy Williams' Democratic primary race for governor.

Postprimary reports are now in, and they reveal that the number was actually higher. A lot higher: $5,385,000.

Joel Greenberg gave $2.07 million. Jeffrey Yass contributed $1.86 million. Arthur Dantchik chipped in $1.45 million.

Not counting a few cases in which a wealthy candidate has financed his own campaign - Philadelphia mayoral contender Tom Knox spent $11 million on his primary in 2007 - these sums far exceeded all Pennsylvania benchmarks, veteran analysts said.

Not even Gov. Rendell, the most prolific fund-raiser in state history, ever had million-dollar donors.

There has never been a greater time in this century for election reform. The problem is that our legisaltors are self-serving. In a recent confrontationt between Todd Eachus and one of his constituents he was attacked over per diems. His response was that the money he took was legal. What Mr Eachus is not being honest with his constituents in his answer is the fact that he and his Harrisburg cronies made the rules up to make it legal. The taxpayers had no say in the practice. Is it ethical to stand behind the "legal" label without letting the public know your own role in making the rules? Stock analysts must disclose their holdings if they talk about stocks they own. Eachus and the rest of the legislature should have to disclose each and every time they talk on this subject that they were the ones who made the rules.

Immigtation Bills Gaining Momentum in Pennsylvania

Much has been written in the blogosphere about Lou Barletta and his stance against illegal immigration, both pro and con. However the same veracity of reaction doesn't seem to be occuring over the Pennsylvania legislature's latest attempt to attack illegal immigration in the Commonwealth.

It seems most of the major newspapers are reporting on two bills cleared the Pennsylvania House last week with wide support that aim to keep illegal immigrants from working on public and private construction projects.

Current state law already forbids using illegal-immigrant labor, but local legislators believe the new measures are needed to ensure only legal residents can get well-paying construction jobs.

"These bills protect hard-working Pennsylvanians," Goodman said in a press release this week. "Illegal immigrants who skirt the system and avoid paying taxes push Pennsylvanians off payrolls and onto the unemployment roles."

Seip said the bills confront "important issues related to illegal immigration in the commonwealth" and remove obstacles for businesses operate by the book.

Representative Todd Eachus voted for the bills however there was a time in the past when he said illegal immigration was a federal issue. Last time I checked he is the Pennsylvania legislature, not Congress so how does he explain his support now. Back to the campaign contributions.

A student in high school asked about the corruption of Luzerne County judges. Eachus said the events have been “embarrassing to every citizen” living in the county.

When the same student asked about illegal immigration, Eachus pointed out that the federal government, not the state House majority leader, makes those decisions.

But he ended his answer with a plea for unity among students. Alluding to immigrant miners of different nationalities who marched together into the massacre at Lattimer in 1897, Eachus implored students not to let the community become divided.

“I’m asking you to stand together,” he said. Mr. Eachus didn't understand that everyone of those immigrant miners waited in line, were examined, and received papers that had to carry with them to enter the country. Some immigrants never made it into the country. There was no Social Security nor Medical Assistance. They had to get a job to make it in this country. Different time and wrong argument on this issue.

Guess he finally saw the light or was it the campaign contributions from organized labor that influenced his decision. Just like the donations from Robert Powell, admitted felon, money is priority one.

Although embedding has been disabled you may want to view this Youtube video capturing a public hearing on immigration in the Commonwealth in 2007. Representative Curtis Smith states that in 2006 there were 500 bills introduced in states concernining immigration. In 2007 it jumped to over 1400 bills, a number of them signed into law.

Many in the blogosphere try to say that Hazleton's oconcerning a rdinance is unconstitutional because Judge Munley said so. He has yet to have his decision upheld by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals where its review been sitting for over 19 months waiting for a decision. If Judge Munley's ruling was that solid why didn't they dismiss the case sooner?

Only six or seven members out of 203 in the House voted against these measures. Where is the battle cry denoucing their votes?

Tax Loophole Puts Money In Legislator's Pocket

Todd Eachus was recently quoted in an article authored by Robert Swift of the Times-Shamrock as stating "I think the culture of Harrisburg is changing." Swift penned a series about the need to address the excesses of the Pennsylvania Legislature. In the investigative video above Dave Bohman of WNEP highlights another tax break for Pennsylvania legislators that is absolutely not illegal but certainly demonstrates that the culture to take advantage of taxpayer's money is more than alive.

Pennsylvania's Legislature Needs To Go On A Diet

Back in October, 2009 SOP highlighted a petition drive to reduce the size of Pennsylvania's legislature. In February, 2009 SOP opined in this piece Can We Really Afford The Pennsylvania Legislature Staffing

With the May primary coming soon Robert Swift of the Standard Speaker Harrisburg Bureau filed this report today Pennsylvania near top of lists for largest, most costly legislatures. SOP used data from IssuesPa.com for its posts but the data was from 2005. Swift brings us closer to today's cost using 2008 data although some are more current.

The NCSL report shows that Pennsylvania, while sixth in population, has a legislative branch of 253 lawmakers and 2,918 support staff, dwarfing those of larger, more populous states.

No other state even comes close to the size of its legislative operation.

And the cost shows.

Only California outspent Pennsylvania on its legislature in 2008-09, said the NCSL, which used 2008 U.S. Census data for its report. Even then, it wasn't by much.

With 120 lawmakers and 2,067 legislative staffers, California spent $336 million on its legislative branch, compared to Pennsylvania's $319 million. But California, the most populous state in the nation, had 36.5 million people in 2008. Pennsylvania had 12.5 million.

And the drop-off in cost after Pennsylvania is dramatic.

The nation's third most expensive full-time legislature, New York, has 212 lawmakers and a support staff of 2,676. It spent $216 million in 2008-09, more than $100 million less than Pennsylvania, the NCSL reports.

The fourth, Florida, has only 160 lawmakers with a support staff of 1,457, the NCSL reports. It spent $175 million in 2008-09. Florida's population was 18.4 million in 2008, the NCSL noted. New York had 19.4 million people.

States with populations closer to Pennsylvania, like Ohio at 11.5 million and Illinois at 12.8 million, spent far less on their legislatures. Illinois spent $71 million; Ohio, $48 million. Illinois has 177 lawmakers and 980 staffers. Ohio has 132 legislators and 465 staffers.

The difference between full-time and part-time legislatures is even more stark.

Texas, for instance, with a 2008 population of 24.3 million, has the largest of all part-time legislatures in the country with 181 lawmakers and a legislative staff of 2,090. It spent $126 million in 2008-09, according to the NCSL.

Officially, New Hampshire has the largest state assembly in the country with a delegation of 424 lawmakers. But it, too, is part-time. With a support staff of only 147 people, it spent only $14 million on its legislature in 2008-09.

Only 10 of the country's 50 legislatures are considered full time.

The NCSL defines a part-time legislature as one in which delegates spend 50 percent or less of a work week on their legislative duties. In Pennsylvania, lawmakers spend an average of 80 percent of their work week in Harrisburg or their home offices, it says.

Legislative leaders took the recommendation and, beginning in the 1970s, the public began electing candidates who promised to be full-time legislators. Part of the consequences is that the legislative bureaucracy swelled from 532 staffers in 1969, to 1,700 in 1984 and close to 3,000 in 2003 while the number of lawmakers remains fixed at 203 House members and 50 senators.

By 2008, the legislative expense involved translated into a cost of $25.40 a year for every man, woman and child in the state. It was the third highest per capita cost in the nation, behind Alaska at $57.72 and Rhode Island at $26.79.

New York's per capita cost, meanwhile, came to $11.11 in 2008 while California, by virtue of its large population, came to $9.19

The base salary for legislators in both houses of Pennsylvania's General Assembly is $78,314 a year, fourth highest in the nation, behind California at $95,291, Michigan at $79,650 and New York at $79,500.

Salaries, however, are only a part of the actual costs. Factoring in health and pension benefits and other expenses, the real cost of the average legislator climbs to $125,000 to $150,000, depending on how much a legislator claims in reimbursements

In 2006 the League of Women Voters testified before the House State Government Committee supporting a reduction in the size of the legislature. The Commonwealth Foundation testified before the same committee in 2008. Newstalk Radio 1240 discussed this issue on its airwaves. This editorial appeared in the Delco Times calling for a reduction in the size of the legislature.

The voters should share some blame for this out of control spending. When will the taxpayer backlash and anger reach a height like the pay raise scandal to toss out the incumbents and force reform to reduce the size of the legislture? If there was only a "Jenny Craig" for government. Maybe the "fat cats" living high off the hog will finally get the message.

Rendell Loses In Money Shuffle- Taxpayers Will Pay The Consequence

In a feeble attempt to balance the budget the Legislature along with Governor Rendell raided the physician malpractice premium subsidy fund, MCare, to the tune of $800 million this year. The fund is used to subsidize premiums especially for high risk physicians to keep them from leaving Pennsylvania. MCare began in 2003 when premiums surged by double-digit percentages annually, although they have stabilized in recent years.

Rendell wanted to use the money to expand a state health insurance program for uninsured adults. Rendell issued a press release in 2008 annnouncing the assault on the Health Care Provider Retention Account to fund the "Cover All Pennsylvanians" initiative.

Pennsylvania's physician and hospitals sued the state over the diverted monies put in the General Fund. Commonwealth Court issued an order requiring Pennsylvania to return the $800 million to the malpractice premium subsidy fund.

The order will cause chaos in an out of control spending Legislature in Harrisburg. It will only add to the taxpayers' burden over a 50% pension grab by greedy solons.

Senator Jake Corman- $1 Billion Deficit By July

Pa. lawmaker says $1B deficit is possible by July By MARC LEVY (Associated Press) Published: March 31, 2010 in the Times-Tribune

Back in February Todd Eachus made the claim that there shouldn't be any budget problems this year. He projected an approximate $500,000.00 shortfall in the 2010-11 budget.

One problem. As previously reported he skipped over this year's budget problems.

The Pennsylvania House announced three days ago that it approved a roughly $29 billion budget 100 days ahead of time as written in this report on PennLive.com by Kari Andersen. That press release was really only a symbolic gesture since the Senate won't take it up until next month after it sees how this year's budget is fairing out.

As the first headline indicates Pennsylvania is headed toward a $1 billion dollar deficit this year. If that figure comes to fruition it will signal a necessity to cut heavily in next year's budget if the salons want to exercise fiduciary responsiblity in spending taxpayer dollars. A dismal outcome could point to a $27 billion budget, not $29 billion.

Eliminate per diems, eliminate cell phones, eliminate travel expense, have legislatures pay towards their health care costs, eliminate franking, reduce legislative staff, consolidate legislative districts...cut, cut, and cut. The chance of those actions happening, slim to none.

Bill Goldsworthy Press Release HB2279

Bill Goldsworthy
For State Representative, 120th District


PRESS RELEASE
For more information: 570-237-1810


On March 23, 2010 the State House of Representatives passed HB2279, the General Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2010-2011. The price tag: $29 billion, a $1.2 billion increase over the current year. At the same time, Gov. Rendell is projecting a $525 million shortfall this year.

Because of last year’s budget debacle, lawmakers are trying to avoid the embarrassment of going 101 days without a budget by this early passage of a spending plan.

But doing it early is not the same as doing it responsibly. This is more of a spending plan than a budget. A budget requires a serious calculation of revenues and the common-sense approach of spending within one’s means – just like Pennsylvanians must do when they work on their own household and business budgets.

This $29 billion spending plan includes federal stimulus revenues of $2.76 billion. That’s a one-time gift. What happens next year? And the year after that? Relying on stimulus money to support future state budgets sets up Pennsylvanians for some serious financial problems. Once these funds are depleted, the state will be forced to deal with a multi-billion-dollar funding gap.

We all are aware of the looming state pension fiasco. Any responsible budget should address this problem by creating a reserve fund. It does not address the problem at all; lawmakers are just delaying the inevitable. Putting this issue on the backburner means an even bigger financial burden down the line for taxpayers.

So why did Phyllis Mundy vote for this $29 billion disaster? Does she think voting on a budget early makes up for doing so irresponsibly and without regard for the future?

Now more than ever, we need a responsible spending plan. We need lawmakers who are committed to representing the taxpayers and looking out for Pennsylvania citizens now and in the future. We need to bring spending under control and stop ignoring the looming pension crisis. It’s not going to go away just because we refuse to address it.

We need to avoid duplication of services and we need to eliminate per diems. We need elected officials who will work to lower taxes.

We need better than what we have right now. But most of all, we deserve better than what we are getting.

Per Diems- The Hot Button This Election Season

One hot button issue this election season in Pennsylvania will most certainly be per diems paid to state legislators. The abuse starts with their House Rules. As you will read during the course of this post legislators get to play by different rules than the rest of the state employees.

When legislators passed their rules they made a choice. They most certainly could have chosen different wording when they wrote the rules. But just like parents talking to their children the taxpayers are trying to tell them what is not acceptable. But as you will see the legislators have the audacity to "tell us" what we don't understand. If you are a parent this post will resonate oh so ever loudly. In the next post the IRS will speak regarding their per diem payments. It may be time for legislators to rewrite the rules so they don't owe a slew of backtaxes.

The biggest audacity is a legislator who makes $78,314.00 per year as base pay but tells the taxpayers "If you want me to go to Harrisburg and represent this district (which is the reason I ran for this office) you need to pay me another $163.00 per day to do it, no questions allowed."

State lawmakers make most of per diems
By BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (Staff Writer)
Published: February 21, 2010

Most summers, when the Legislature is not in session, lawmakers still must cover their mortgage payments, she noted. Typically, the legislature is in session from January to June and September to November.

- Eachus, D-116, and his wife, Ellen, own a two-story brick townhouse listed as commercial property with apartments at 225 South St., near the Capitol building.

They bought it for $125,000 on Aug. 30, 2005, and have a $100,000, 30-year mortgage on it. The previous owner paid $82,000 for it at a 1996 sheriff's sale. The property is also listed as a source of income on Eachus' 2008 financial interest statement.

Efforts to reach Eachus were unsuccessful, but his spokesman, Brett Marcy, said House rules do not distinguish among types of lodging.

"He incurs food and lodging expenses so he deserves to be reimbursed for those expenses," he said.

"What you are getting at is whether this is permissible," he added. "The next question is whether it's right. We meet the threshold of whether it is permissible. He's following the rules."

Complete per diem records for 2009 were not immediately available. The latest records cover the period from July 1 to Oct. 9, 2009, which includes the Legislature's 101-day budget standoff, which resulted in unusual summer sessions.

During the standoff, Eachus collected $10,611 in 67 per diems, all at the full rates for lodging and meals.

So the first argument to the taxpayers is that they followed their rules. Its easy to do that when you slant them in your favor. The real question here is not whether the rules were followed. The real question is why did you think that slanting the rules in your favor would not go unnoticed or be tolerated by taxpayers, especially in this dire economic time.

As for the flat rate payment read about the IRS guidelines in the next post.

Brad Bumsted STATE CAPITOL REPORTER
Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The taxpayers' costs for per diems would not be incurred if a budget was completed by June 30, as required by law. In the past, the Legislature recessed for 2 1/2 months, starting on or about July 1. They have approved budgets late for the seven years under Gov. Ed Rendell, resulting in some July per diems. But the costs during this budget impasse are the highest since at least the 1970s.

The payments to legislators during the budget impasse "make me sick," said Judy Kandel, 67, a Canonsburg retiree.

"I think since they are getting their pay, they don't give a hoot. They're looking out for themselves, not the people," she said.

The House records cover per diems submitted as of Sept. 8; the Senate records, through Aug. 31. Not all legislators claimed their per diems for the two-month period.

Brett Marcy, a spokesman for Eachus, defended the payments as a cost of getting the budget done.

"These have been difficult times for all Pennsylvanians, but Rep. Eachus and House Democrats refuse to give up until the commonwealth has a fiscally responsible budget that remembers those who need help the most," Marcy said. "We're happy to report that we're very close to finalizing that budget. The per diems were reimbursements for expenses incurred during the course of that work."

Now we are being told the per diems are the cost of getting legislation
finished. Excuse me for a second. I thought getting legislation passed was in your job description. Where does it say that it can't happen unless a per diem is paid? The difficult times mentioned obviously isn't with our legislators. Their base salary is $78,314.00.

BY ROBERT SWIFT (HARRISBURG BUREAU CHIEF rswift@timesshamrock.com)
Published: November 22, 2009

The payments, called per diems, are collected in addition to a state lawmaker's annual base salary of $78,314. The purpose of per diems is to reimburse lawmakers for lodging, meals and other expenses incurred while being away from home at the Capitol or attending a committee meeting in other parts of the state.

Twenty-five of the region's 30 senators and House members collected per diems from July 1, when the budget was due for the new state fiscal year, until Oct. 9, when the $27.8 billion budget was enacted, according to records provided by the House and Senate chief clerk's offices in response to a Times-Shamrock request under the state's Right-to-Know Law.

The total of per diems claimed is still rising because not all per diem payments for lawmakers have been processed.

If legislators had passed a budget by the June 30 deadline and gone on their traditional summer recess until mid-September, they would have had no or fewer opportunities to collect per diems.

Instead, lawmakers were able to claim a per diem up to $158 per day without needing receipts for much of the stalemate.

On Oct. 1, the Internal Revenue Service established a higher maximum per diem of $163 for the new federal fiscal year.

The founder of a Carlisle-based political reform group is critical of per diems, comparing them to a second salary for lawmakers.

"Under this second salary, they don't even have to pay taxes for the most part," said Tim Potts of Democracy Rising.

Eachus: $10,611

Among the Northeast delegation, House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-116, Hazleton, and House Speaker Keith McCall, D-122 Summit Hill, led the pack, taking $10,611 and $7,988 in per diems respectively.

As lead budget negotiators, both men were in Harrisburg many days during the impasse, including two holiday weekends.

Eachus said it was his responsibility as a leader to engage in the negotiations with Gov. Ed Rendell and Senate leaders and work out the compromises needed to pass the budget. While it took a long time to resolve, Eachus said the final budget came together in the way he hoped by maintaining health care for children, distributing additional money for education and providing enough recurring revenues so Pennsylvania doesn't have to reopen its budget like some states are doing this fall.

"We ought to be able to get through the next two years without a revenue increase," he said.

Eachus pointed out that lawmakers - unlike the governor - don't have a taxpayer-funded residence to stay in when they are in Harrisburg.

"These (per diems) are real expenses," he added. "It's a federally allowable expense. Many people think it's income, but it's not."

It may be an allowable expense if you follow their guidelines. There is also a huge question on whether it is income. Look what happened in Massachusetts. Finally, any legislator who talks like he is "entitled" to something including taxpayer funded residences is no longer representing the taxpayers' interests. It could be said "It's all about me."

Rules concerning per diems need to be rewritten
Published: February 25, 2010

As if any further proof were necessary, some state lawmakers helpfully have added to the case that their flat rate daily expense payments should be eliminated.

Lawmakers from districts outside the capital area receive per diem, or daily flat-rate payments that are meant to reimburse them for their expenses while in Harrisburg. That flat daily rate is $163, the maximum allowed by the Internal Revenue Service. Since the money technically is for expense reimbursement, it is not taxable.

It is an open secret, however, that the reimbursements add to the income of lawmakers who do not spend anywhere near daily $163 on expenses but collect that maximum amount without having to prove that they spent so much as a penny.

Borys Krawczeniuk of The Times-Tribune reported Sunday, for example, that at least five lawmakers from Northeast Pennsylvania - Reps. Jim Wansacz, Todd Eachus, Mario Scavello, John Yudichak, and Michael Peifer - own properties in and around Harrisburg where they stay while in the capital on business.

Yet they also collect per diem expenses that are meant to cover housing.

Some of the properties are mortgaged, but reimbursement for expenses cannot be intended to cover mortgage payments. If the money is used for that purpose it becomes a different animal because it builds the owner's equity in the property and would contribute to his profit when the building is sold. Other costs related to property ownership, including utility payments, property taxes and insurance, are not reimbursable expenses by even an expansive definition.

In some cases the lawmakers can rent apartments in their buildings, and sometimes do so to other legislators. That makes the property a business. Taxpayers should not have to contribute to lawmakers' businesses under the guise of paying their expenses.

All of this is permissible by House rules. Those rules, of course, are written by House members.

Lawmakers who wish to be Harrisburg landlords have every right to be just that. But in order to ensure that taxpayers are reimbursing them for their expenses rather than helping them to pay off mortgages or cover their extracurricular business expenses, lawmakers should rewrite the rules to provide reimbursements based on actual receipts for valid expenses.

The House Rules beg for overhaul. At least one lawmaker, Rep. John Yudicahk sees the light. It is a shame more weren't by his side.

Pa. legislators play by different rules on expenses
BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER bkrawczeniuk@timesshamrock.com)
Published: March 1, 2010

When it comes to getting expenses reimbursed, Pennsylvania's legislators play by different rules than everyone else.

If you work for one of 48 state departments, agencies or offices directly under Gov. Ed Rendell's control, you have to have receipts to back up expenses when traveling on state-related business.

No state employee can skip providing receipts and still get up to $163 a day for lodging, meals and incidental expenses.

But a state legislator can.

The $163 a day is the federally established per diem rate - $111 for lodging and $52 for meals and incidental expenses.

Legislative per diems have long been controversial in Harrisburg because they do not require proof an expense was incurred. Legislators are eligible for the full amount simply for being in Harrisburg on state-related business.

By contrast, agencies under the governor's office treat the $163 as a maximum possible reimbursement, and employees are only reimbursed for actual expenses when they produce receipts, said Mia DeVane, a spokeswoman for Rendell

Per diems are allowed by the federal government and reflect real expenses incurred by lawmakers, House Majority Leader Todd Eachus, D-116, Hazleton, told the Scranton Sunday Times recently.

Lawmakers - unlike the governor - don't have a public residence to stay in when they are in Harrisburg, added Eachus.

The House rules on per diems follow the internal revenue code and can cover expenses beyond food and lodging that come from spending three or four days at a stretch in Harrisburg, said Stephen Miskin, spokesman for House Minority Leader Sam Smith, R-66, Punxutawney.

He said any effort to change per diem rules would probably come when the House adopts rules for the next legislative session starting in January.

Per diems rarely used as intended
Published: November 29, 2009

Sen. Lisa Baker of Luzerne County, for example, could have received per diem payments totaling $5,500. Instead, she filed for reimbursement of her actual expenses - $2,083 for lodging and food. Her actual expenses were just 38 percent of the allowable flat rate.

Rep. Todd Eachus, the House majority leader from Hazleton, claimed that the public has a misconception about flat rate per diem payments: "Many people think it's income, but it's not."

What, then, to call the $3,417 difference between what Ms. Baker actually collected and what she could have received from the flat rate?

Well, perhaps Ms. Baker is unusually frugal. But that's another advantage of keeping receipts, as business travelers know. They force you to keep your expenses down.

Credit goes to Ms. Baker and a few other lawmakers who accept reimbursements only for their proven expenses. Their conduct should become the model for new House and Senate rules requiring specific receipts for claimed expenses. The "per diem" rate should be, as intended by the IRS, the maximum daily reimbursement rather than the standard flat rate.

Editorial From WMGH October 8 and 9, 2009

IF YOU'RE A SENIOR CITIZEN ON A FIXED INCOME YOU MUST BE APPALLED WHEN YOU HEARvELECTED LEADERS GETTING OVER $7,400 FOR JUST 2 MONTHS. THAT'S $7,400 OVER & ABOVE BASE SALARIES EXCEEDING $68,000 A YEAR. AND HERE YOU ARE WITH YOUR MONTHLY SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK OF JUST A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS. WHAT'S MORE APPALLING-- WE ARE MORE THAN ONE-FOURTH INTO THE FISCAL YEAR & WE STILL DON'T HAVE A BUDGET.

MANY SOCIAL PROGRAMS THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO HELP SENIORS HAVE BEEN AFFECTED.
500 PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS HAVE MISSED 3 STATE CHECKS. MANY DISTRICTS ARE TALKING ABOUT TAKING OUT LOANS. INTEREST ON THOSE LOANS WILL BE PAID FOR BY TAXPAYERS, WHILE THE STATE CONTINUES TO ACCUMULATE INTEREST ON BILLIONS OF DOLLARS SITTING IN THE BANK. $532,585 IN PER DIEMS PAID FOR 2 MONTHS. SEPTEMBER & EARLY OCTOBER ARE NOT INCLUDED. WHILE LAWMAKERS POCKET MONEY FOR FOOD & LODGING, MANY CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR HIGHER TAXES & FEES. THE FACT WE STILL DON'T HAVE A BUDGET IS AN OUTRAGE.

LAWMAKERS ADD INSULT TO INJURY WITH PER DIEMS FOR FOOD & LODGING. IT'S SOMETHING VOTERS SHOULD REMEMBER WHEN GOING TO THE POLLS NEXT YEAR.

I'M MARK MAREK WITH THIS WEEK'S OLDIES 1410 WLSH EDITORIAL.

"The House rules are the foundation upon which all legislation is built. Better House rules will mean better laws for all Pennsylvanians."

SOP Recognizes The Supreme Court's Wisdom?? Well Interpretations Anyway

In a prior post Article II Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution was cited as reason for unjust compensation to our legislators. After reviewing this decision by the Supreme Court we stand almost corrected.

What is meant by that statement? It is clear in their decision that the right of the voters to correct language that seems to be clear to Mom and Pop rests at the ballot box. Legislators in Harrisburg are using the system and decisions of the court to validate their actions to ingratiate themselves. It is up to the voters to correct their actions at election time.

Witness this article relating to those elected legialtors who didn't survive the midnight raid attempt at increasing their salaries.

That means at least 62 of the 119 representatives and 16 of 27 senators who voted for the ill-fated 2005 pay raise legislation will no longer be holding those seats. The House has 203 members; the Senate, 50.

Exercise your right this election cycle to send a clear message to the legislature and the courts about ignoring the citizens' pocketbook.

Per Diems- Legislators Abuse The System And Flaunt It

If any Pennsylvania legislator wanted to peer into the future read the comments posted at this Times Tribune atricle concerning their use of per diem payments to fund second home purchases in Harrisburg. This issue portends to be a hot topic this election season.

Here is an article that appeared in the Tribune Democrat highlighting the fact that Senator John Wozniak received almost $38,000.00 in per diem payments from January, 2008 through October, 2009. He received that amount on top of his $78,314.00 salary. It is amazing that any legislator can receive that amount of money without a requirement to produce ONE receipt. As the article points out there are no checks and balances.

In this Opinion from The Mercury of Pottstown the editor makes a point that our legislators can collect the per diem for any "day" they are in Harrisburg on state business — even if that "day" is one minute within the city limits. And they can claim "reimbursement" even though they don't need to produce receipts. If they say they paid for breakfast, they get reimbursed for breakfast — even if some lobbyist actually paid for breakfast. They can attend lobbyist receptions at night and never spend a dime on dinner but get reimbursed.

It appears Harrisburg is a free for all money grab as far as our legislators are concerned. Legislators claim their practices are legal. However, what is the impact to the state?

If the legislators were required to rent a hotel room and purchase meals which is what a true per diem is meant to reimburse how many jobs would be saved? The front desk clerk, the cleaning lady, the linen service, the coffee service, the grounds maintenance, the building maintenance, the chef, the waiter or waitress, the bus boy, the food vendor personnel, the kitchen equipment personnel- all depend on the room bookings and restaurant operations.

Instead legislators are trying to tell us it is okay for them to receive an unaccountable per diem, purchase a second home with the money, rent it out to fellow legislators, sell the home and make a profit that only benefits one person. Talk about abuse of the system.

As far as what the $158 per diem rate can purchase read this editorial by Chris Kelly of the Times-Tribune from last year. At least some homeless and families who are struggling benefited unlike our carnivorous legislators who wine and dine on only the finest.

Ohh,,,lest we forget..the legislators received the per diem the whole time they didn't pass a budget..I mean didn't do their job. During the budget impasse lawmakers racked up $532,000.00 in per diem payments according to the Tribune Review....in just the months of July and August. The payments to legislators during the budget impasse "make me sick," said Judy Kandel, 67, a Canonsburg retiree.

"I think since they are getting their pay, they don't give a hoot. They're looking out for themselves, not the people," she said.

Brett Marcy is great on putting spin on this issue for Todd Eachus.

"I never take them," said Sen. Kim Ward, R-Hempfield, who said she claims actual reimbursement for a $62 hotel room and mileage but no meals.

"I ran on a platform of accountability and being careful with tax dollars," Ward said. "I wanted to live up to those words. Don't let anyone kid you; you don't have to buy a meal in Harrisburg."

Brett Marcy, a spokesman for Eachus, defended the payments as a cost of getting the budget done.

"These have been difficult times for all Pennsylvanians, but Rep. Eachus and House Democrats refuse to give up until the commonwealth has a fiscally responsible budget that remembers those who need help the most," Marcy said. "We're happy to report that we're very close to finalizing that budget. The per diems were reimbursements for expenses incurred during the course of that work."

It never dawned on Mr. Marcy that if they didn't receive the reimbursements maybe that would have reached their epiphany on the budget sooner. BTW, Brett, the ones who needed it most were the homeless and struggling families, just in case you forgot them.


A similar practice is occuring out west in California so it isn't just our legislators who lost touch.

As Natahan Benefield suggests over at Commomwealth Foundation why doesn't the state build a dormitory for lawmakers?

Total Missed Votes By Pennsylvania Legislators

From the site Pennsylvania Votes.org below are the top legislators who missed votes while collecting pay from Pennsylvania taxpayers.

Representatives:
Legislator                    Total Missed Votes* Total Roll Calls

Rep. Scott Perry (R)                    543/ 545

Rep. Nick Miccarelli (R)              542 545

Rep. Bryan R. Lentz (D)              310 545

Rep. Robert E. Belfanti, Jr. (D)    238 545

Rep. Chelsa Wagner (D)              201 545

Rep. Angel Cruz (D)                     98 545

Rep. Sam Rohrer (R)                    80 545

Rep. Dennis M. O'Brien (R)          78 545

Rep. Nick Kotik (D)                     75 545

Rep. Daniel J. Deasy, Jr. (D)         70 545

Rep. Peter J. Daley (D)                 62 545

Rep. Susan C. Helm (R)                58 545

Rep. Daryl D. Metcalfe (R)            57 545

Rep. Katie True (R)                       57 545

Rep. Frank Dermody (D)              56 545

Rep. Craig A. Dally (R)                53 545

Rep. Nicholas A. Micozzie (R)     52 545

Rep. Mario J. Civera, Jr. (R)        51 545

Rep. T. Mark Mustio (R)             50 545

Senators:




Legislator                     Total Missed Votes* Total Roll Calls

Sen. Lisa Baker (R)                    22 /202

Sen. Lawrence Farnese (D)         15 202

Sen. Michael W. Brubaker (R)    14 202

Sen. Robert C. Wonderling (R)    13 131

Sen. Michael J. Stack (D)            12 202

Sen. Kim Ward (R)                     12 202

Sen. Mary Jo White (R)               10 202

Sen. John R. Gordner (R)              9 202

Sen. Jeffrey E. Piccola (R)             8 202

Sen. Daylin Leach (D)                   7 202

Sen. Jane Clare Orie (R)               5 202

Sen. Donald C. White (R)             5 202

Sen. Jane M. Earll (R)                  4 202

Sen. Barry J. Stout (D)                 4 202

Sen. David G. Argall (R)              3 202

Sen. Lisa M. Boscola (D)            3 202

Not In The Cards

Half way through the fiscal year, state budget still isn't finished

By Lowman S. Henry
Who would have thought that half-way through the state's fiscal year the budget would still not be a completed document?

Our "full time" Pennsylvania General Assembly took a big chunk of the last three months of the year off, presumably to rest after the epic 101-day budget stalemate. True to form, one of the highest paid legislatures in the nation departed the capitol on Christmas break leaving a major component of the 2009-2010 budget still unresolved.

To end the budget deadlock of last summer and fall the governor and the legislature resorted to sleight of hand and included in the revenue projections $200 million from a source that did not - and to this day does not - exist. That would be fees and tax revenue from table games at the casinos which now dot the landscape of Penn's Woods.

The theory was that soon after passage of the budget the General Assembly would pass legislation legalizing table gaming and the commonwealth would rake in a windfall of $200 million in licensing fees. To keep things temporarily balanced, the legislature held off on approving funding for state-related universities, leaving them in a state of continued uncertainty.

That might have worked if the legislature had stayed in town to finish the job. But it didn't. Legislative leaders immediately closed up shop and headed home on a six week vacation that extended into mid-November. After putting in nominal effort prior to Thanksgiving, the "full time" legislature again adjourned to eat turkey and hunt deer. The $200 million revenue hole persisted, and students continued to wait for their funding.

With turkey in their bellies and venison in their freezers lawmakers returned to session. The state House finally did pass a bill legalizing table gaming, and so did the Senate. One small snag though: the bills were not the same. All of this was just too much for House Speaker Keith McCall and Senate President Pro Tempore Joe Scarnati, who decided it was time to take a break to celebrate the holidays (Christmas having been banned from the public square).

And so here we are, six months - half way - into the fiscal year and still $200 million short of the funds needed to balance the state budget.
That, however, is only part of the problem. Setting aside the revenue component of legalizing table gaming, the casino industry in Pennsylvania has been beset by a multitude of problems including but not limited to corruption, financial malpractice, and the failure to even get a casino up and running in Philadelphia.

The initial law legalizing slots casinos was one of those typically Pennsylvania pieces of legislation that was passed under pressure from leadership and without the inclusion of needed safeguards. Worse, promised property tax relief fell woefully short of expectations as lawmakers siphoned off tax revenue generated by the casinos for pet projects.

The current effort to expand gambling to include table gaming is shaping up as a rerun. Neither version of the expansion bill addressed the many serious deficiencies of the initial law. If gambling is to be expanded, it only makes sense to remedy the problems that have become evident over the past few years. In particular, there must be more oversight by law enforcement agencies over the activities of the casinos and their operators.

Keeping in mind revenue from the legalization of table gaming is supposed to plug a budget hole, media reports indicate lawmakers are now trying to stick their pet projects into the legislation. This means massive new government spending for projects that didn't have enough support to get into the state budget. Thus a new pot of WAM - Walking Around Money - will have been created with the ultimate impact being to fund projects that further legislators' re-election chances rather than address the state's revenue shortfall.

This is the Pennsylvania legislature at its worst. State employees have been laid off, a school for veterans' children has been closed, libraries and museums are cutting hours; but lawmakers are still grabbing fistfuls of our tax dollars to achieve the most important goal of all - re-election. It is important to understand that not all legislators are acting in this manner. But all too many are, and they apparently are the ones in control of the process.

The bottom line: Pennsylvania still does not have a completed state budget. State employees had their Christmas, er, holidays, ruined by Governor Ed Rendell threatening to lay-off 1,000 of them if the legislature doesn't deal with the budget shortfall by early January.

They better hurry up and get busy; after all, the Groundhog Day break is just around the corner.


(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)