RSS FEEDS
Recent Research
MARCH 11, 2010 | Policy Brief by NATHAN BENEFIELD, ELIZABETH BRYAN
The Case for a Citizen Legislature
The operating cost of the Pennsylvania General Assembly has steadily increased, while Pennsylvania's economy has been stagnant. The Keystone State's burden of state and local taxes is among the heaviest in the country, while it ranks near the bottom in economic growth and freedom. This reality can be addressed by a number of reforms that woul
DECEMBER 14, 2009 | Testimony by JOE STERNS
Qualifications for Governor (HB 2083)
House Bill 2083 begs us to consider whether or not an Attorney General longing to be Governor would be inclined to abuse his power to achieve his political goals, and further, whether or not there should be a four-year hiatus between an Attorney General's transition to Governor. House Bill 2083 doesn't apply the logic of its premise to the spect
NOVEMBER 23, 2009 | Commentary by MATTHEW BROUILLETTE, TIM POTTS, BARRY KAUFFMAN, OLIVIA THORNE
Every Generation Needs A Revolution
Pennsylvania's government is a prime exhibition of Lord Acton's well-known admonition that "power corrupts."
Recent Blog Posts
MARCH 8, 2010
Debating a Constitutional Convention
Following Jack Wagner's announcement that he supports a Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention (he is, I believe, the only candidate for PA Governor to yet endorse a Con Con) has cause some debate on the "Pandora's Box" of a Constitutional Convention.
Joseph Collins, who blogs at Alabama in Between as well as PA Water Cooler, suggests that a convention could result in the loss of gun rights and a California-style "loose" initiative and referendum. Rep. Gordon Denlinger fears the creation of a progressive income tax and elimination of a balanced budget requirement; he also suggests there is no way to limit a convention.
Let me offer a few facts:
First, it is possible to limit a convention - the 1967-1968 PA Constitutional Convention was so limited. And there are ways to enforce such a limit, as is covered in pages 83-86 of the report Pennsylvania Citizens' Guide to a Constitutional Convention.
Second, all current proposals call for a limited constitutional conventions. The most sweeping convention legislation, Senator Folmer's SB 340, would take Article I, the Declaration of Rights, off the table. The other convention bills have even stricter limits over what may be discussed.
SB 340 would require first a vote of the people to call a convention, would elect 3 delegates per state senatorial district (thus might expect similar representation), would require two-thirds of delegates to support any change to the Constitution, and then would require voter approval of the revised Constitution.
With those limits and processes in place, it is unlikely to result in the drastic changes those on the right or on the left fear. Gun rights would be taken off the table for a convention to address, and I don't know that many of the other changes identified would get support of two-thirds of the delegates to support (and I would add that the "balanced budget provision" has little value, being as the state borrows for the capital budget, including corporate welfare, is borrowing to pay unemployment benefits, and can even borrow short term to pay its bills).
In fact, it is more likely that a Constitutional Convention would be too limited and too constrained to result in meaningful change.
Let me also address the issue of Initiative and Referendum. Mr. Collins, as do many others, cite California as an example of what to fear from I&R. But 24 states have citizen-led initiative and referendum processes, and California is only a model of what not to do. I&R would empower citizens to serve as a check on legislators.
In fact, I&R is tied to lower spending per capita and is the likely the only way things conservatives have pushed for - like term limits, a marriage amendment, spending limits and Rep. Denlinger's own part-time legislature proposal - will ever come to fruition. And for those on the left - I&R has been used for education funding reform, environmental laws, and redistricting reform.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:16 AM | 0 comment
MARCH 5, 2010
State Office Deal Highlights Rendell's Cronyism
The Pittsburgh Tribune Review has a story about the state paying to lease office space, even though they've closed the office. But the more interesting part of the is the shading dealings surrounding selling the state office building and leasing space - ostensibly to save money.
Millcraft Industries Inc., owners of Piatt Place -- the former Lazarus building renovated with a $2.1 million assist from the state -- bought the State Office Building for $4.6 million, or about half of its appraised value. Millcraft, owned by Jack and Lucas Piatt, was sole bidder for the building.
The sale occurred despite Auditor General Jack Wagner's objections that it would cost less to renovate the State Office Building. ...
Although most of the state's Pittsburgh offices relocated to Piatt Place, where the state is leasing 165,500 square feet of space at a cost of $3.1 million a year, some operations are in the Chamber of Commerce Building and an office building at 11 Stanwix St.
Just to summarize:
- The state gave a $2.1 million grant to fix up Piatt Place.
- Gov. Rendell sold the state building to the owners of Piatt Place for half its value ($4.6 million) in another sole-bid deal.
- The state now pays $3.1 million in rent for the space in Piatt Place.
By sheer coincidence, Jack Piatt gave $75,000 to Rendell's campaign, and Lucas Piatt another $10,000, in 2006.
This is why we need to raise taxes.
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 09:13 AM | 0 comment
FEBRUARY 22, 2010
Lower Legislative Pay = Better Government
A new study of state legislative pay and party competition in the American Political Science Review, finds that, in addition to greater party competition, modest pay for legislators leads to a reduction in "regionalism" (i.e. legislation to benefit a lawmakers district, like pork-barrel projects) and a focus on statewide issues:
Along with one-party dominance, higher lawmaker salaries are linked to policies targeted to a particular local interest, the study of 13 states reveals. The effect of more lucrative pay is surprising, Gamm points out, because good government advocates have long argued that professionalizing state legislatures — increasing the length of legislative sessions and providing hefty salaries — would give lawmakers the time and financial freedom needed to focus on broad legislation, bills that often require study and expertise to understand and coalition building to pass.
Why then do larger salaries lead to more narrowly-focused laws instead? "By paying people more and making them really want to keep their job, you are motivating them to respond to voters in the most direct and transparent way possible. That often means district legislation," explains Kousser.
Is it time for Pennsylvania to move back to a part-time legislature?
posted by NATHAN BENEFIELD | 10:35 AM | 0 comment
