PA budget-process reform proposal

Pennsylvania State Senator Lisa Baker
Posted 8/21/12

A serious, nasty, and debilitating budget deadlock that boils over into a second calendar year should be the catalyst for fundamental reforms of the state budget process. People argue about …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

PA budget-process reform proposal

Posted

A serious, nasty, and debilitating budget deadlock that boils over into a second calendar year should be the catalyst for fundamental reforms of the state budget process. People argue about everything these days, but that assertion is hard to refute.

The entrenched political, philosophical, and regional differences found across Pennsylvania mean the state budget process is unlikely to ever be straightforward and harmonious. Throw in negative economic and fiscal factors and the odds are against a healthy budget surplus easing the discord soon.... *

Fortunately, legislators have the power to fix this broken process, and just need to find the will.

Not long ago, taxpayers and some legislators said enough is enough. In 2009, the impasse over Gov. Rendell’s next-to-last state budget went past the 100-day mark. Unhappiness in local communities dictated that substantial repairs to the state budget process were needed.

Why no action then? Tom Corbett’s ability to deliver on-time budgets seemed to subtract from the sense of urgency. The arguments over the content of those budgets intensified, but at least the timetable was on track.

The current budget standoff dwarfs its predecessors in length and depth and disruption.... [It has produced] disruption for service providers, hardship for many who depend on state services, annoyance for taxpayers, diminished citizen confidence, suspended development projects and a sharp drop in financial standing.

The most effective remedy is to continue state funding when a new budget is not approved by July 1. Keep running the state under the old budget. To prevent overspending, set the funding rate at 80%, leaving room for deciding the ultimate spending and taxing levels. It is short enough of needs that the incentive remains for adoption of a full state budget.... This step reduces the potential for a bad budget done out of desperation. Put this carry-forward budget requirement in the state Constitution, so it is not ignored or suspended, as a law can be.

Complementary legislation sets a timeline for concrete steps legislators must take between the budget address and the budget deadline, to help compel action and avoid the recalcitrance that contributed to the 2009 deadlock. These proposals are essential, and additional reform measures advanced by other legislators could easily be folded in....

Governors generally believe they alone have statewide and long-range interests at heart. In their view, lose leverage, lose power, lose ability to force a productive result. However, the exercise of power in the name of leverage exhibited by Gov. Wolf’s veto of the entire state budget last June did not advance solutions and deepened the harm to Pennsylvania.

Bury a myth: split political control does not ordain a budget crisis. One of the worst occurred in 1977, when the Democrats controlled state government.

How about changing the players? Well, since 2009, there is a new governor, most of the legislative leadership has turned over, and many rank-and-file legislators are new. Must be the process itself is defective.

The overriding argument for reform is the realization that this budget crisis and those to come are different in cause and in consequence. For decades, budget crises occurred when recessions cut into state revenues and drove up spending obligations. Eventually, agreement would be reached on tax increases to tide things over until economic recovery revived revenue collections. Legislative leaders would then line up the votes to carry out the deal.

That formula is obsolete. Taxpayer resistance to tax hikes and insistence on spending cuts to deal with revenue shortfalls grows each year. In competitive times, relying on tax increases as a first resort is economically counterproductive. Discretionary money once used to secure votes has been done away with. Funding for the project pots used similarly has been diminished. Moderates who would support negotiated budgets are fewer in number. But the biggest difference today is that rising future costs, most notably pension contributions, outrace expected revenues....

The method for solving crises in the past has been rendered outmoded by irreversible economic and political changes. Pennsylvania has tried changing the players. The only option remaining is to reform the process itself.

[Lisa Baker is the Pennsylvania State Senator for District 20.

*This article has been edited to conform to our editorial page length limits. To see the full version, visit www.senatorbaker.com, click on “media center” and then “news releases.”]

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here