RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
FEBRUARY 6, 2012 | Policy Points by COMMONWEALTH FOUNDATION
Pennsylvania State Budget Toolkit
2012 Budget Resources
The FY 2011-12 total operating budget of $63.4 billion, which included $27.1 billion in General Fund spending, represented the first year-to-year reduction in state spending in at least 40 years. However, as the economy continues to struggle out of a recession and with increasing costs in public welfare, corrections, pensions, and debt, the FY 2
FEBRUARY 2, 2012 | Commentary by RICHARD DREYFUSS
Will our Grandchildren be Budget Losers?
As the Governor's state budget address approaches, there is no shortage of speculation surrounding various fiscal austerity proposals and which departments and programs will likely be the ultimate budgetary "winners and losers."
JANUARY 24, 2012 | Commentary by ELIZABETH STELLE, JAY OSTRICH
Welfare Reforms Protect Poor, Taxpayers
Regardless of where you stand on taxpayer-funded entitlements, few Americans argue against the maintenance of temporary safety nets or modifications aimed at ending welfare fraud, waste and abuse.
Recent Blog Posts
FEBRUARY 2, 2012
Is State Corrections Spending Sustainable?
The chart below shows the unsustainable growth in Pennsylvania state corrections spending and inmate population.
The criminal justice system's goal shouldn't be to simply lock up as many people as possible, but also to ensure offenders are rehabilitated before reentering society. When the Pew Center on the States looked at prisoners released in Pennsylvania between 1999-2002 and 2004-2007, it found the rate of prisoners returning to prisons increased.
As we mentioned yesterday, we need to replace ineffective correction policies with those that lower crime rates, reduce re-offending, and control spending. To learn more about correction reforms, see our criminal justice recommendations.
posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 03:16 PM | 0 comment
FEBRUARY 1, 2012
Criminal Justice Reforms to Reduce Spending & Crime
Change is on the horizon for Pennsylvania's Department of Corrections - now the third-largest state agency in the General Fund budget - which along with state debt, pensions and welfare threatens to bankrupt the state if left unchecked.
Last week, Gov. Corbett launched Pennsylvania's Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI), a working group tasked with controlling correction costs while maximizing public safety and reducing recidivism. The new panel has support from the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Pew Center on the States; both experienced at helping states develop meaningful criminal justice reforms.
The JRI is a step in the right direction for the commonwealth, which needs to replace ineffective policies with those that lower crime rates, reduce re-offending, and control spending. To learn more about correction reforms, see our see our criminal justice recommendations.
posted by KATRINA CURRIE | 08:00 AM | 0 comment
JANUARY 31, 2012
The "Facts" on Food Stamps
City Paper contributor Daniel Denvir tries to diminish the impact of our Philadelphia Inquirer column on food stamps by offering "facts" in rebuttal. Unfortunately, most of these "facts" are merely matters of opinion or simply wrong.
The first "fact" claims that we shouldn't worry about food stamp growth because most of the money is "federal dollars." But federal funds are not free money, and yes, residents of Pennsylvania pay federal taxes. The high cost of federal spending on food stamps—and costs are growing rapidly—should worry taxpayers. In just eight fiscal years, total costs for food stamps (formally called SNAP) have more than doubled in Pennsylvania. The national picture is even worse, with food stamp spending doubling since 2008.
Denvir then cites an Inquirer reporter citing advocates citing a federal report that the "fraud rate" (really referring to the error rate) is 0.1 percent. Except this isn't true—the reported error rate is at actually 40 times higher. According to the USDA, the latest SNAP payment error rate for Pennsylvania is 3.93 percent. Twenty-two states have better error rates, and Pennsylvania's rate is slightly above the national average of 3.81 percent.
Another "fact" cited is that there must not be errors, because the Inspector General has a unit to look at fraud and waste. But eliminating the asset test and other eligibility limits was a deliberate decision to reduce the official error rate-you can't make an eligibility error when everyone is eligible. On top of broadening eligibility, the Rendell administration cut in half the number of fraud referrals to the Inspector General. In 2002, approximately 47,000 cases of suspected welfare fraud were referred annually to the Inspector General. However, by 2010 the Inspector General received only 27,645 referrals, even though caseloads had dramatically increased. Is it any surprise the state won awards for low error rates when so few cases were investigated?
Finally, the City Paper claims there is only one known millionaire who collected food stamps, so this really is all unnecessary. This is a straw man argument. While the savings from an asset test may be small in the scope of government spending, and there may be only a few cases of millionaires receiving benefits, Pennsylvanians with adequate resources should not be allowed to abuse the system. Reinstating an asset test is not about punishing the poor, but protecting the truly needy at a time when taxpayers are stretched thin.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE, NATHAN BENEFIELD | 11:10 AM | 0 comment
