Scarnati, Pileggi Defend Leftist Agenda
The Senate Republican Caucus continues to pursue common-sense conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government, despite claims made in a recent column distributed by the Lincoln Institute which described recent legislative action by the Senate as "leftist" in nature. It is an absurd accusation.
The column lists seven specific issues in support of its "leftist" labeling. We will address each one.
Perhaps most ridiculous is the Institute’s rant against our proposal to create an Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) in Pennsylvania. Any rational observer of Pennsylvania’s budget process in recent years knows that the system is broken.
The IFO would, for the first time in history, ensure that our state budget is built on economically sound fiscal projections – not politically influenced projections slanted toward the goals of the governor or legislature.
Creating an IFO, akin to the well-respected Congressional Budget Office, is an idea with broad support. The conservative Commonwealth Foundation has said that creating the IFO "would be a victory for transparency."
Thirty-six other states already have some form of a fiscal office. Pennsylvania is behind the curve on this issue, and we are mystified by the Institute’s misguided opposition.
Second, the Institute mentions House Bill 2246, which was amended by the House to include a provision which would have allowed attorneys to argue for specific "pain and suffering" damages in front of juries. That bill passed the House less than a week after the "arguing damages" provisions were inserted.
In the Senate, we removed those provisions. Our action was praised by business organizations and others who had raised concerns.
Far from "pushing" this legislation, we took a calculated and methodical approach. HB 2246 was passed by the House on May 3, 117 to 72 with 18 Republicans voting yes. The Senate did not vote on the bill until September 28 (when the amendment to remove the objectionable provisions was adopted) and September 29 (on final passage) – nearly five months later.
Additionally, the Senate Banking and Insurance Committee held a public hearing to give all sides a fair chance to let their views be known on that bill.
Our methodical process is what resulted in the portion of the bill objected to by the Institute being removed. The column points out that the removal happened after a "lobbying campaign by business, taxpayer and Tea Party organizations" – apparently, and perplexingly, criticizing Senate Republicans for listening to and responding to the concerns raised by our constituents.
Third, regarding the severance tax to be enacted on natural gas extraction, Senate Republicans have forcefully and consistently said that Pennsylvania’s tax rate must be competitive with other states – development of the natural resource in the Marcellus Shale formation is a once-in-a-lifetime economic opportunity. This industry is the only real bright spot in our economy, and we will not agree to any proposal that kills its job-creating potential.
Being competitive with other states – an approach that numerous of the affected companies support – obviously requires that we bear in mind Pennsylvania’s other corporate taxes when the rate of a severance tax is established. The Institute’s implication that we are not doing so is simply false. For the past three months, our caucus has led a series of meetings with representatives of the drilling companies, local governments, and environmental groups to forge a sensible plan.
We support a tax rate that allows companies to recoup capital investments in the early years of a well’s live, along with a distribution plan that provides ample funding to the local areas where infrastructure is being stressed and to necessary environmental projects.
Fourth, two years ago, a completely new Right-to-Know Law went into effect. No caucus supported that effort more than the Senate Republicans. (In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that it would not have become law without our caucus pushing it.) Over time, it has become clear that that the law needs to be strengthened in some areas, and in other areas there have been unintended consequences.
Our effort to amend the law is designed to address those situations. In several cases, the changes would make more records available to the public. For example, it would require government agencies to release documents which are discussed at public meetings. (Remarkably, some agencies have public discussions about documents which they then claim are "drafts" and refuse to release.)
The bill, Senate Bill 1469, would also improve the appeals process for requestors who are denied records. The head of the Office of Open Records has requested many of these changes after seeing government agencies try to game the system.
One of the unintended consequences of the current law is that courts have determined that volunteer fire companies and other volunteer emergency responders are subject to the law. This was never intended, and it makes no sense for our already strapped volunteer fire companies to be burdened with requests under this law.
Fifth, contrary to the Institute’s claims that House Bill 400 would increase construction costs, it will actually create a level playing field for construction firms when bidding on potential work. By prohibiting the misclassification of employees as independent contractors, all firms will have to provide the same level of coverage for employees that may currently be misclassified to avoid unemployment compensation assessments, workers’ compensation premiums, and other employee expenses.
Perhaps the Institute supports tax cheating; we do not.
HB 400 passed the House with the support of 25 Republicans. In the Senate, we once again refused to rush the bill forward. Like HB 2246, this bill was passed by the House in early May and not taken up in the Senate until late September.
During that time, the Senate Labor and Industry Committee held a series of lengthy negotiations with all of the interested parties, making sure anyone who wanted to argue for or against the bill was heard.
After those months of work, an amendment was adopted to limit the scope of the bill to construction contractors (removing provisions inserted by the House which would have included companies which do maintenance-type work).
We are still working to advance additional language supported by the Chamber of Business & Industry and the National Federation of Independent Business, among others, to allow all independent contractors, including sole proprietors, in the construction industry to purchase workers’ compensation coverage through State Workers’ Insurance Fund (SWIF) or a private insurer. This coverage is now available only through SWIF.
Sixth, the Institute describes efforts to increase the use of renewable energy in Pennsylvania as part of "the radical environmental movement." That is a catchy phrase, but in this case it is nothing but a red herring.
Presumably, the commentary is referencing House Bill 1128 – which was approved unanimously, 195-0, in June by the state House and is now in the Senate Appropriations Committee and which has not been scheduled for a vote in the Senate.
This bill would slowly, over time, increase the amount of renewable and alternative energy used in Pennsylvania up to at least 9 percent in 2021 – a decade from now. A subset of that requirement (1.5 percent in 2021) is for solar energy.
Independent polls show that a vast majority of people support moving to renewable sources of energy. We believe the shift to renewable sources is integral to the overall strategy of reducing our country’s reliance on foreign oil, a key to ensuring America’s continued economic supremacy in the coming decades.
Finally, on the topic of state spending: because of the unrelenting fiscal conservatism of the Senate Republican Caucus, the current state budget (fiscal year 2010-11) actually spends less than the state budget of two years ago (fiscal year 2008-09).
That is unprecedented in modern times, and it is a result made all the more remarkable considering that we were negotiating with Democratic Governor Ed Rendell, who enjoys spending money more than any previous governor, and a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives.
We are proud of our record as leaders of the Senate Republican Caucus, and we are eager to more aggressively advance Republican ideas next year by playing offense – rather than defense – working with what we hope will be a Republican governor and a Republican-led House of Representatives to advance common-sense conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and limited government.
###
