RSS FEEDSAUGUST 11, 2011
Which Government Structure Reforms will Benefit Taxpayers?
This week, the Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held a hearing on bills to reduce the size of the General Assembly (i.e., the number of legislators). While CF did not testify on this particular hearing, we have written on this and related issues in the past.
Earlier this year, I spoke to a Pennsylvania Bar Association Commission on structural reforms to the legislature; that presentation is below.
Our conclusion is that, absent other reforms, simply reducing the number of legislators may not generate cost savings or improve transparency and accountability in government. Nor is there any link between legislative size and policy outcomes: taxes, spending or economic freedom.
However, other substantive reforms, including term limits and the "professionalization" (full-time vs. part-time, salary and benefits, and number of staff) do correlate with policy outcomes.
Pennsylvania Government Structural Reforms
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 05:59 PM | 0 comment
JANUARY 13, 2011
Good Government Reforms Stall
In November, many legislative candidates campaigned on cutting costs in the legislature through specific, commonsense reforms. Ending the frequent abuse of per diems and requiring receipts for expenses topped the list, along with ending the leasing of state vehicles, and requiring health care insurance contributions from state representatives (state senators currently contribute 1 percent of their salary). While these reforms are not big-ticket items capable of balancing the budget on their own, they would help trim the costs of the most expensive legislature in the country.
Leaders held a Bipartisan Management Committee meeting, but nothing was decided in the first meeting. The difficulty of convincing elected officials to even submit receipts for travel expenses speaks to the need for broader reforms, like transitioning to a part-time legislature or establishing spending limits. These reforms are unlikely unless citizens have the ability to propose and repeal laws through Initiative & Referendum.
Let's hope the new legislature achieves and builds on these reforms as a prelude to transparency and accountability in government.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 03:29 PM | 0 comment
JANUARY 7, 2011
Are Freshmen Lawmakers Bad for State Legislatures?
Governing magazine looks at the disadvantages to term limits, focusing on the constant turnover in state legislatures. Recognizing the inexperience of lawmakers, states like Michigan and California are setting up boot camps and mentoring programs to ensure it doesn't take years to understand the legislative process.
The inconveniences of term limits is a small price to pay for the absence of entrenched lawmakers that make careers out of political service and forge deep alliances with special interest groups—preventing principled and fiscally responsible decision making.
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.
Term limits are just one of many government reforms. Initiative & Referendum, returning to a part-time legislature and more spending transparency also have the potential to move the culture in Harrisburg away from legacy building.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 02:15 PM | 0 comment
JUNE 21, 2010
Are All Lawmakers Crooks?
This past Friday, former State Rep. Mike Veon, who had served as PA House Democrat Whip, was sentenced to 6 to 14 years in prison for his role in the ongoing public corruption case. Under indictment, but still to face trial, are former Pennsylvania Speakers of the House Bill DeWeese (D) and John Perzel (R), and former Representatives Brett Feese (R) and Steve Stetler (D).
On the same day, the FBI and IRS raided PA State Senator Bob Mellow's home and office (Mellow is the Senate Democrat Leader). This becomes the fourth high-profile case on that side of the Capitol, following an FBI raid of Sen. Ray Musto (D), the indictment of Sen. Jane Orie (R), and the conviction of former Senator Vince Fumo.
The leading spokesman for those opposing legislative reform, Sen. Daylin Leach, is certain to repeat his chorus that not all legislators are corrupt. But the crime rate in the Pennsylvania Capitol must be higher than any city in America. And Sen Leach and the vast majority of his colleagues sat around and did nothing, said nothing, or saw nothing while this corruption was taking place. In fact, most of the lawmakers who have been convicted, indicted, or are under investigation for corruption were elected to positions of leadership by their peers.
So I think we can move past the idea Pennsylvania does not need drastic reform in our legislature. Noting that most of those convicted or facing charges are among the longest serving members (indeed, several were first elected during the 1970s), term limits should be among the top priorities. Likewise, restoring the Pennsylvania General Assembly to a citizen legislature - as most other states have - is a necessity.
But it is becoming increasingly obvious legislators will not reform their own house, and it is high time citizens take control of their state government by demanding a Constitutional Convention or Initiative and Referendum.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:19 AM | 0 comment
JUNE 2, 2010
Accurate Information About a Part-Time Legislature
Senator Daylin Leach opined in the Post-Gazette over the weekend, defending the legislature he serves in (previously as a House member) against the Grand Jury report calling for major reforms. Leach defends lawmakers, saying most aren't crooks. This is certainly true, though most lawmakers sat idly by saying nothing (either out of ignorance or out of deference to the culture of Harrisburg) while their colleagues were committing felonies defrauding taxpayers.
Leach goes on to attack the idea of a part-time legislature:
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.
Do you really want people making these decisions who just dropped by on their way to taking a deposition or after their shift at Macy's? Shouldn't we demand our legislators actually take the time to read about issues, go to hearings, meet with advocates, tour facilities and do all of things that require a full-time commitment?
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 08:18 AM | 0 comment
MAY 28, 2010
On Partisan Legislative Staffers
One recommendation of the Grand Jury report release this week was that the Pennsylvania General Assembly should move from hiring partisan staff for each caucus to having a centralized nonpartisan hiring office and giving each lawmaker a budget for their own office staff.
Hogwash, Sen. Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi says:
"It's not something unique to Pennsylvania or unique in American history. You'd be hard-pressed to find a general assembly in a large state that does not operate along party caucuses," Pileggi said.
Tribune Review reporter Mike Wereschagin, however, was not at all hard-pressed, but rather easily dismantled Pileggi's claim with actual facts from other states:
Most [state legislatures], however, handle such things as hiring, legal analysis and computer services through a central, nonpartisan office, according to an analysis by the National Conference on State Legislatures. In Pennsylvania, caucus leaders hire employees and dole them out to lawmakers.
California, which has three times as many residents as Pennsylvania and 800 fewer legislative staffers, has smaller caucus staffs and allows each lawmaker an equal number of workers. Texas has no caucus staff and gives each member the same monthly budget for staff.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:15 AM | 0 comment
MAY 25, 2010
Grand Jury Demands Legislative Reform
The long-awaited grand jury report written in response to the Bonusgate trials has declared that the grossly inefficient Pennsylvania legislature needs an overhaul. The grand jury wrote, "The current hierarchy of the House is designed to bestow the vast majority of the power on a select few, to the detriment of the other members of the House, as well as the public." Presiding Judge Feudale wrote of the citizen jury, "This grand jury will not be satisfied with non substantive window dressing and/or sound byte utterances; regarding the concerns set forth in their report."
A Lancaster Online report summarizes some of the grand jury's recommendations for legislative reform:
- Eliminating taxpayer-funded political caucuses.
- Conducting a routine full, independent audit of all legislative expenses and providing results to the public.
- Becoming a true part-time legislature, with commensurate reductions in legislative salaries, staff, and staff salaries.
- Prohibiting legislative staffers working on campaigns from receiving legislative money, including pay, benefits, or contribution to retirement plan.
- Creating a standardized, annually updated written ethics policy for the entire General Assembly.
- Making the budget planning process open and transparent.
- Returning all unused budget money to the state treasury.
The report mirrors many recommendation the Commonwealth Foundation has been championing for years - such as the merit of a part-time legislature, the necessity of state spending transparency, the elimination of incumbent protection plans, and a limited constitutional convention.
posted by LEAH ACHOR | 02:25 PM | 0 comment
MARCH 22, 2010
An Annual or Biennial Pennsylvania Budget?
Cross Posted at The Triadvocate
House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans (D-Philadelphia) argues that "a two-year budget is impractical in our modern world" and that the current annual budget cycle serves "to better allow government to react to an unpredictable economy." How's that working for us?
Of course, a two-year budget is no panacea for state government's taxing, borrowing and spending too much. In fact, even budgeting monthly will not work when the state's outgo is higher than its income-as it has been for the last two years. Yet the claim that annual budgeting permits government to respond to changes in the economy is invalid.
For example, in his 2008-09 mid-fiscal year briefing, Gov. Rendell estimated a $1.6 billion shortfall (the final shortfall wound up double that amount). But at that time, Gov. Rendell proclaimed the need to reduce state spending, suggesting $500 million in cuts. He later identified the need for additional cuts. However, the cuts were never fully implemented, and the final spending for FY 2008-09 was $70 million higher than what was enacted!
This fiscal year is no different, as the Commonwealth is headed toward another massive deficit while the General Assembly and Governor do nothing to substantively address it. In fact, a budget is currently being shepherded through the House that not only fails to adjust the state's current fiscal year spending to its income but also spends even more money next year that we don't have.
What is needed to enact timely and fiscally responsible budgets are reforms that will both protect taxpayers and fund core government functions.
The greatest budget challenges have always come when state revenues fall short of projections. This fiscal problem is further compounded when the Governor and General Assembly fail to adjust spending downward accordingly. There is a relatively simple remedy-one that every family and business uses when their revenues drop: reduce your spending to match your income.
Instead of waiting until the end of the fiscal year to both enact a new budget and figure out how to pay for the previous year's over-spending, lawmakers should be required to maintain a constitutionally balanced budget throughout the fiscal year. Article VIII, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution already requires that "Operating budget appropriations made by the General Assembly shall not exceed the actual and estimated revenues and surplus in the same fiscal year."
But mid-year corrections are rarely and often inadequately made. Indeed, despite this "balanced budget" requirement, the General Assembly and Governor failed last year, and are failing again this year, to stop their overspending.
Therefore, the Governor and General Assembly should be required to make quarterly adjustments to appropriations if tax collections fall below projections. In the final quarter of the fiscal year (April through June) appropriations should be adjusted monthly if revenues fall short, ensuring spending never exceeds available funds.
In addition, if the Governor and General Assembly fail to enact a budget for the next fiscal year, appropriations should continue at the same level as the previous fiscal year. This would end the politicians' ability to use state workers and taxpayer-funded programs and services, as leverage in negotiations.
At the end of the day, an annual or biennial budget will not prevent the Governor and General Assembly from holding people and programs hostage. Only substantive reforms will protect taxpayers and fund the core government functions.
posted by MATTHEW BROUILLETTE | 08:24 AM | 0 comment
MARCH 16, 2010
When Will These Guys Learn?
Pennsylvania Independent reports on two PA House contracts for voter lists, costing taxpayers over $225,000. Readers will recognize that this sounds quite a bit like the actions of former Republican speaker John Perzel, who was indicted for using taxpayer funds for data mining, to win elections.
Of course, this time they tell us its OK, because its "bipartisan", and for legitimate legislative expenses - like sending mailers to constituents (segment by how often they voted) with fancy photos of lawmakers appearing in parades.
But even if one was naive enough to believe that voter lists were the only way to reach constituents, or that the mailings lawmakers send out are important information that constituents could not do without, this is still and exorbitant waste of taxpayer dollars. The PA Department of State sells the entire statewide voter lists for a whopping 20 bucks! And with the nation's largest legislative staff, you'd think someone would be able to use that database.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:11 AM | 0 comment
FEBRUARY 22, 2010
PA Lawmakers Use Per Diems to Buy Houses
I have often remarked that the exorbitant costs of Pennsylvania legislators' per diems (see Tribune Review and ABC 27 stories) - that they receive to pay for food and lodging, albeit without receipts - was more than enough to cover rent or a mortgage payment.
Turns out, many legislators have indeed bought homes in Harrisburg, while continuing to collect per diems for their lodging. The Scranton Times finds that state Reps. Wansacz , Eachus, Peifer, Scavello, and Yudichak (who represent parts of Northeastern PA) all uses per diems to pay their mortgages on homes in Harrisburg.
Does it matter that they used the money to buy a home rather than rent a room in the Hilton? No. But the value of per diems is excessive for taxpayers, especially given the fact lawmakers need not actually spend that money, but could pocket it. I would also note that per diems are not mentioned in the PA Constitution, when it says lawmakers shall receive "salary and mileage...and no other compensation whatever" That would seem to include a new house.
Here is a modest proposal - instead of paying per diems, taxpayers would save by building (or buying) a dormitory for lawmakers.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 01:56 PM | 1 comment
PolicyBlog
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
