A Philadelphia Inquirer editorial urges optimism about the forthcoming state budget debate. It’s certainly well-warranted. Gov. Wolf and legislative leaders have repeatedly expressed interest in redesigning state government to avoid broad-based tax increases. This is a welcomed departure from past proposals to enact large tax hikes on working Pennsylvanians.
However, the governor still won’t completely rule out tax hikes. He’s likely to propose an energy tax to the delight of the Inquirer’s editorial board, which supports the tax as a way to make natural gas companies pay their “fair share.” This political slogan ignores all of the taxes natural gas companies already pay, including an impact fee, which effectively operates as a 6.9% severance tax.
The board also criticizes the tax relief extended to businesses, asserting this policy failed to stimulate job growth. Sure, businesses did see some relief through the elimination of the capital stock and franchise tax, but Pennsylvania’s overall tax burden ranks 15th highest in the nation. Weak job growth should be seen in light of the commonwealth’s broader tax and regulatory climate. The implication here is that a lower tax burden doesn't grow the economy. The evidence suggests just the opposite.
The editorial's assault on the state's tax structure continues:
Instead, the [tax] cuts lowered the public's quality of life by reducing revenue needed to educate children, fix roads, and provide other services. Business tax cuts account for about half the state's $600 million deficit.
These two sentences are plagued with problems. First, as CF has demonstrated in the past, more education spending does not necessarily lead to improved academic achievement. As a matter of fact, policymakers could improve the educational system while spending less on education if they embraced school choice.
Secondly, the state already has a dedicated source of funding to fix roads. That’s why the state’s gas tax jumped 8 cents to kick off the new year. If more money is needed for transportation, why not embrace public-private partnerships or repeal the prevailing wage mandate?
And third, placing blame for the deficit on tax cuts implies state government hasn’t taken enough out of the pockets of taxpayers. This flatly ignores the state’s overspending problem.
State spending has risen 46 of the last 47 years—climbing by $4,010 per person over that time. Had the state kept spending increases in line with inflation and population since 2000, it would have produced a budget surplus during this fiscal year. With spending increases possible each year, is it really reasonable to say Pennsylvania has a revenue problem?
Finally, the editorial suggests raising the minimum wage to improve residents’ quality of life and make Pennsylvania a destination state. But mandated wage hikes haven’t stop residents from fleeing other states. In fact, of the ten states that saw the biggest declines in state-to-state migration, nine had minimum wages exceeding the federal level. The only exception was Pennsylvania.
In contrast, of the ten states experiencing the largest increases in state-to-state migration, only half mandated wages above the federal minimum. The editorial board correctly identifies the importance of higher wages for Pennsylvania, but their policy prescription will ultimately undermine employment opportunities for the people who need it most.
Thankfully, Pennsylvania's dismal economic rankings are reversible. But turning the tide requires rejecting attempts to solve every problem with more government spending. What's the alternative? Robust economic growth driven by entrepreneurs and consumers pursuing their happiness.
Before the holidays, CF publicized the historic decline in Pennsylvania’s population. The state was one of only eight to see an absolute decline in its number of residents. Domestic migration—or the movement of people between states—drove this decline.
In a post early last year, we documented the population trends in twenty states. The ten states that experienced the greatest growth via domestic migration (“destination states”) had a lower average tax burden than the states that experienced the greatest declines (“deserted states”). After adding another year of population figures to the data set, the pattern remains the same.
The table below shows people fleeing high tax states and moving to low tax states.
The destination states imposed an average tax burden of 8.84 percent on residents, according to data from the Tax Foundation. The deserted states imposed an average tax burden of 11 percent—more than two percentage points above the destination states’ collective tax burden.
Of course, taxes aren’t the only obstacle government throws in the way of economic opportunity. It also imposes a variety of unnecessary regulations (licensure laws, compulsory unionism, etc.) on workers trying to pursue a decent living. Together, these restrictions affect the economic freedom of a state—a concept measured by the Fraser Institute in their annual Economic Freedom of North America report.
The report assigned an economic freedom score to each of the fifty states, some of which are included in the table above. As the table indicates, the destination states have a higher average economic freedom score than the deserted states. People want, and are willing to pursue, a better quality of life. And since economic freedom is tied to improvements in the quality of life, it makes sense for people to move to freer states.
If policymakers want to avoid the consequences of the coming demographic changes, they need to give people a reason to live and work in Pennsylvania. Adopting the recommendations in our new policy brief, Embracing Innovation in State Government, is a great start on the road to making Pennsylvania a destination state once again.
An intimidating budget shortfall this year and next has state leaders calling for a change to the status quo. That is: surging state spending. Governor Wolf is pulling back on corporate welfare programs, like Keystone Opportunity Zone tax breaks, while legislative leaders have called for "restructuring" state government. The economic evidence backs this up.
This year's Economic Freedom of North America report from the Fraser Institute shows Pennsylvania's record high spending is undeniably linked with less economic opportunity.
The state ranks a disappointing 30th when it comes to controlling state spending and an abysmal 37th in income and payroll tax revenue as a percent of personal income. In other words, Pennsylvanians have seen their tax burden increase and economic opportunity decrease as state debt and state spending continues to climb.
Overall, this year's index, including data from 1984 to 2014, ranks Pennsylvania 18th among the states.
The report emphasizes a lesson Pennsylvania desperately needs to learn: Unrestrained government spending doesn’t create economic growth—it kills it. But responsible spending growth will allow lawmakers to ease the tax burden for everyone. That’s how you create an environment of opportunity and economic growth for all Pennsylvanians
For the first time in 31 years, Pennsylvania's population is shrinking. The Census Bureau reports Pennsylvania’s total population fell by more than 7,600 last year. In state-to-state migration, one Pennsylvanian left the commonwealth every 11.5 minutes—that's a loss of 46,000 from July 2015 to July 2016.
Nationwide, Pennsylvania is an outlier. We are one of just eight states that lost population. In contrast, many states seeing population growth—including Texas, Florida, North Carolina, Nevada, and Idaho—have lower tax burdens than the commonwealth.
A Gallup poll conducted last year found residents in states with higher state and local tax burdens are more likely to want to leave than those in lower-tax states.
Lower taxes starts with limiting government spending. Had Harrisburg limited spending growth to inflation and population since 2000, Pennsylvanians would be saving nearly $22.2 billion in taxes, or $6,952 per family of four.
Without bold steps to spend responsibly and lighten the tax burden, we'll continue to see fellow Pennsylvanians flee to friendlier tax climates.
The political landscape has experienced a seismic shift, and it isn't centered in Washington DC. This past weekend Kyle Peterson of the Wall Street Journal highlighted Pennsylvania and six other states poised to transform their state and, in turn, our nation.
"The dynamic has shifted considerably," CF president & CEO Charles Mitchell says in Peterson's article, The Spoils of the Republican State Conquest.
Charles notes issues like meaningful pension reform are not only possible in the upcoming legislative session but probable. And paycheck protection—while once "laughed out of the room"—may land on the governor's desk.
Four of the seven states briefly profiled focus on labor reform as a necessary component of restoring economic opportunity. Any labor reform that prevents union executives from imposing their will on workers is essential to putting Pennsylvania back on the path to prosperity.
Tax reform was also a recurring theme in the article. In Pennsylvania, pension reform is, in many ways, a tax reform issue. After all, surging pension costs are a key driver of rising property taxes and yearly budget shortfalls that lead to tax hikes. So any effort to reform the tax code will likely require spending restraint.
Overall, the WSJ's highlight of CF as a frontline fighter for free-markets is an incredible endorsement of our mission and a compliment to every lawmaker working to pass the reforms that will improve the lives of all Pennsylvanians.
Lagging job growth, rising taxes and coercive union tactics created an appetite for labor reform throughout Rust Belt states.
Transforming Labor, our latest policy report, ranks states on their progress towards reforms that can produce budget savings, shield taxpayers from overspending, and guarantee greater protections of individual workers’ freedom of association.
The report also recounts recent reforms. Nowhere did labor reform make a bigger impact than Wisconsin.
Wisconsin’s Act 10 of 2011 made sweeping changes by limiting collective bargaining for public sector workers to base wages and requiring employees to contribute more toward their health and pension benefits. According to the MacIver Institute, state retirement savings alone amounted to $3.36 billion from 2011 to 2016, and Milwaukee Public Schools alone saved $1.3 billion in long-term pension liabilities. That’s a big win for taxpayers.
In 2012, Michigan, the historical home of unionization, passed a right-to-work law.
The Michigan Education Association (MEA) quickly moved to enforce its “maintenance of membership” or opt-out clause for public school teachers who wanted to leave the union: The teachers could do so only in August. Many teachers were unaware of the obscure union resignation window and missed the opening. With the help of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation, frustrated educators filed an unfair labor practice charge asserting that the MEA’s opt-out window violated the state’s right-to-work protections against forced union association.
In September 2015, the Michigan Employment Relations Commission ruled in favor of the teachers (a decision later upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals), forcing the MEA to change its rules and bylaws. Michigan teachers may now leave the union whenever they please, a major victory for educator freedom across the state.
This week the Detroit Free Press wrote:
Workers must be willing — even in the face of intimidation and fear — to withdraw their union membership and stop funding their union’s political prejudices. It is the only tool they have to protect themselves from the political bias of the people who claim to have their best interest at heart
The same discontent is now creating momentum for labor reform in Pennsylvania. This session, Governor Wolf signed contract transparency legislation, Pennsylvania finally outlawed stalking and harassment during labor disputes and paycheck protection cleared the state Senate.
Pennsylvania still has a long way to go. Transforming Labor gives Pennsylvania’s public sector labor laws a D. In comparison, Wisconsin earned an A, and Michigan a B.
Labor reform isn't just critical for economic resurgence, it has election consequences too.
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania all turned out to be a critical factor in the presidential election. Politico noted organized labor’s historically low support for the Democrat nominee. The Fairness Center's Right on Labor blog documents the historic shift in voting patterns.
However, the gap between union leaders and their members shouldn't come as a surprise. Pennsylvania union households overwhelmingly favor reforms, like paycheck protection, that their leaders vehemently oppose.
The wave of union reform moving through the states shows taxpayers, union members and non-union members alike, understand worker freedom is a key ingredient to restoring prosperity.
From celebration to soul-searching, post-election analysis is everywhere.
While top-of-the-ballot results dominate headlines and your news feed, don’t miss the dramatic shift that occurred last night in Pennsylvania.
Republicans achieved historic majorities in both chambers. In the state House, Republicans will control 60 percent of the seats for the first time in 70 years. In the Senate, Republicans will field the largest majority of any party in 68 years. But that's only part of story.
For years, we’ve talked about the Taxpayer Party vs. the Big Government Party in Harrisburg. Partisan labels aside, the real question is whether a lawmaker represents taxpayers’ interests or toes the government union leaders’ line.
While the Taxpayer Party has grown over the years, it couldn’t always overcome the strength of the Big Government Party. We saw this last month. Pension reform legislation fell three votes short in the House.
Last night in Pennsylvania and around the nation, the Taxpayer Party saw significant gains in state legislatures. Election results in states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan showed the political benefit of taking on powerful government union interests to protect taxpayers from tax hikes and special political privileges.
It is no coincidence that over the past five years, Wisconsin and Michigan took bold steps to strengthen the Taxpayer Party, including limiting collective bargaining and passing right-to-reelect and right-to-work legislation.
Similarly, as the Taxpayer Party has grown in Pennsylvania, we’ve begun to see results. For example, Governor Wolf signed contract transparency legislation, and paycheck protection cleared the state Senate. These steps are critical to address rising government spending that's consistently driven by the Big Government party.
Yet, despite the gains of the Taxpayer Party in the General Assembly, divided government will continue in Harrisburg. That's an opportunity.
With an extremely tough budget on the horizon in 2017, the newly minted Legislature must work quickly to address the underlying problems that drive budget debates: surging pensions costs and a broken and expensive welfare system.
What’s more, the strengthened Taxpayer Party has an unprecedented chance to seize opportunities like expanding access to quality education choices and finally removing the state from the booze business.
This will require immense effort and continued vigilance. We’re excited to work towards implementing these ideas to build a stronger, more prosperous Pennsylvania.
Dwight K. Schrute is an employee at Dunder Mifflin—a fictional Scranton paper company featured in NBC’s The Office. And he just may be the key to overcoming the city’s very real economic decline.
But before offering a way forward for Scranton, it’s important to understand why the city is struggling. A new paper from the Mercatus Center does an excellent job detailing the source of Scranton’s troubles.
The authors—Adam Millsap and Eileen Norcross—identify Scranton’s inability to adapt to changing economic conditions as one of the main reasons for the city’s economic and fiscal problems.
They specifically cite economist Ed Glaeser who wrote, “In the coal towns of central Pennsylvania, exodus, not innovation, was a more common response.” Glaeser's rhetoric matches reality. In 1930, the city’s population was 143,433. In 2014, it was just 75,281.
Regrettably, government policies only made things worse. Spending and taxes rose—forcing fewer taxpayers to pay for bloated budgets driven by public sector benefits. Millsap and Norcross cite the inflexibility of Pennsylvania’s collective bargaining process as the main culprit:
Act 111 is intended to give police and firefighters’ unions binding arbitration in exchange for a prohibition against striking.  However, the law evolved to “give uniformed employees the upper hand when it comes to collective bargaining.”  When negotiations between the city and unions break down, an arbitration panel of three people is selected. Municipalities are required to pay the full cost of arbitration, regardless of ability to pay. Arbitration sessions are not open to the public. The municipality has limited ability to appeal the panel’s decisions.
The chart below illustrates spending growth for police and fire services—a product of the state’s broken collective bargaining process.
Officials have tried to improve Scranton’s finances with a combination of tax increases, cost cutting, and asset sales but costs, thanks to pensions, continue to soar. They’ve also utilized government-subsidized development projects to boost economic growth but to no avail. Government-centric solutions simply aren't working.
To truly turn Scranton around, dramatic changes to state and local policies are necessary. At the local level, Millsap and Norcross recommend improving the city’s business climate by reducing the overall tax burden. Controlling spending is critical too. Officials can do this by privatizing government functions—the city's parking authority is one possible option, according to the report.
At the state level, officials must reform the collective bargaining process to help distressed cities get control of their budgets. As it stands now, collective bargaining law imposes costs on cities without taking into account their ability to pay. By giving local officials more autonomy to negotiate with unions, they can better protect local taxpayers.
Back to Dwight Schrute. If you know the character, he has a reputation for being entrepreneurial and hardworking (also, a little quirky). If distressed places like Scranton and Uniontown are going to experience a revitalization, that's exactly the kind of people they'll need to attract.
Ultimately, government can only lay the foundation for an economic turnaround. But if that foundation is strong, innovative, educated, and hardworking people can and will build upon it.
Americans finally got a raise! That's the gist of recent headlines hailing significant economic growth in 2015, but in Pennsylvania the economy is still struggling.
From 1991 to 2015, Pennsylvania ranked 46th in job growth, 45th in personal income growth, and 46th in population growth while the size and scope of state government grew dramatically.
Consider the state's unemployment problem:
- Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate rose again in August—the fourth time in the last six months.
- The unemployment rate now sits at 5.7 percent, which is nearly 1 percentage point above the national average.
- Of all 50 states, Pennsylvania experienced the second largest increase in the unemployment rate over the last year.
So what’s the solution to the state’s decades-long stagnation? Some have proposed government mandates like a minimum wage hike and raising taxes to pay for more government spending.
Neither will solve our economic challenges.
Let’s take the minimum wage first. In practice, it harms the very people it intends to help.
For example, Chicago restaurant owners Mark Robertson and Mike Sullivan recently closed their Mexican restaurant because of the city’s wage mandate. The owners stated,
Unfortunately, the rapidly changing labor market for the hospitality industry has resulted in immediate, substantial increases in payroll expenses that we could not absorb through price increases” … “In the last two years, we have seen a 27 percent increase in the base minimum wage, a 60 percent increase in kitchen wages, and a national shortage of skilled culinary workers.
Increasing government spending is another popular proposal that harms the economy. States with the highest tax rates experience slower income growth and job growth than states with the lowest tax rates.
The commonwealth must head in a new direction.
The first step is restraining government spending—starting with $800 million in corporate welfare—and lowering taxes to put more money in the pockets of working people.
Another critical step is improving the quality of education. Increasing school choice options—such as expanding tax credit scholarships is critical to creating a society where all Pennsylvanians can seize economic opportunities.
Together, these solutions will empower Pennsylvanians and reinvigorate the state's economy.
posted by ANDREW RYAN | 10:31 AM | Comments
Last year, nearly 42,000 Pennsylvanians left the state to pursue their dreams elsewhere—that's one person every 12 and a half minutes. Why is money walking out of Pennsylvania?
That’s the topic of the second episode of Commonwealth Insight, our new, bi-weekly podcast featuring state and national entrepreneurs, policy makers, and thought leaders tackling issues critical to Pennsylvania's economic future.
First, we talk with Travis Brown, Forbes contributor and author of How Money Walks, who says Pennsylvanians are “voting with their feet and taking their wallets” to states like Florida, North Carolina, and Arizona because of our state’s tax burden.
He explains that states compete with each other to attract investment and residents:
Just like the Steeler Nation would look competitively across state lines and do the scouting and reporting to see how we can be better and better next year against the New England Patriots, every competitor would look to the North and say: How can we attract these residents and how do we keep the residents we have?
Travis says there are three major policy areas Pennsylvania can change to be more competitive: regulation, taxation, and litigation.
To reverse out-migration and make Pennsylvania attractive to families and businesses, we must avoid higher taxes, more government spending, and greater regulation.
We also talk with Bob Dick, senior policy analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation, about how the Pennsylvania state budget works—and doesn’t work. Bob says state spending is growing beyond its citizens' ability to fund it, resulting in tax hikes that kill jobs and slow private sector growth. The politically unpopular, but fiscally responsible, solution is to control spending.
posted by DOUGLAS BAKER | 01:57 PM | Comments
Total Records: 280
Who are We?
The Commonwealth Foundation is Pennsylvania's free-market think tank. The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.