News for Immediate Release
Jan. 4, 2012
Governor Corbett Orders Freeze of Nearly $160 Million in State Spending
Harrisburg – With commonwealth revenues continuing to come in below estimate for the 2011-12 fiscal year, Governor Tom Corbett has directed his Budget Office to freeze nearly $160 million in state spending.
The governor also has asked government entities not under his jurisdiction to reduce their spending by nearly $66 million.
“Until revenue collections improve, we must take precautions to ensure that the commonwealth budget remains in balance,” Governor Corbett said.
Midway through the state’s fiscal year, revenues are $486.8 million below estimate, the state Department of Revenue reported Tuesday.
Governor Corbett has directed most agencies to reduce their overall 2011-12 spending by 3 percent. Some individual appropriations will see spending reductions of up to 10 percent.
The state-related universities – Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh, Temple and Lincoln universities – will see a reduction of 5 percent, or $25.7 million, in state funding.
Public safety agencies, such as State Police and the Department of Corrections, will freeze approximately 1 percent of their spending. The Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency is not being directed to freeze any funds because of the numerous disaster-related emergency response activities that agency has coordinated this fiscal year, the governor said.
Basic education subsidy funds paid to school districts will not be affected, and the Department of Public Welfare will see a spending reduction of less than 1 percent, or $55 million.
The funds being placed into budgetary reserve across all agencies represent less than 1 percent of the total $27.2 billion General Fund budget.
“We did not make the decision to freeze these funds lightly. If the revenue picture improves in the months ahead and we determine these funds no longer need to remain frozen, we may be able to free up some or perhaps even all of the funds we are now placing into budgetary reserve,” Corbett said.
For a list of funds placed into budgetary reserve, please visit the Current and Proposed Commonwealth Budgets section of the Office of the Budget website at www.budget.state.pa.us.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Governor Corbett Orders Freeze of Nearly $160 Million in State Spending
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
Clink the blue link at the bottom of Elaine’s post, then click the link to the
2011-2012 Mid-Year Budget Briefing :
On page 15 of the posted state budget document see the Revised Total Expenditures for 2011-2012 of $27.149-Billion dollars for the state budget. Now page forward to page 19 and in the box at the top of the page you will see the Public School Employees Retirement System has an unfunded Pension liability of $26.5-Billion. In other words the unfunded liabilities in the School Employees Retirement System is almost as big as the state budget dollars available for a whole year’s state expenditures.
The school boards and the state government are being told by the school unions that the taxpayers should make-up the investment losses in the union Pension System. Is anyone convinced that taxpayers can suffer their own losses and pay the union pension losses too?
If the stock market doesn’t move up I don’t think folks can bear that burden. As I said in my Letter to the Editor, “If you are not a Retired Teacher, Be Afraid of the State Budget.” The union Pension System may never be repaired.
John
Someone sent me these two quotes which are about two years apart. Thought I would post them under your comment, John. And no, they were not sent by John.
Posted on Reallebo.com
"Do the Real Lebo folks know something that the rest of us don't? Have the final design drawings, cost estimates and payment plans been hand delivered to the Real Lebo headquarters such that the rest of us not worry about how we're going to pull this off? Are you here to assure us that the tax bill associated with this project - when combined with the Municipality's obvious need for more tax revenues - won't make Mt. Lebanon unaffordable? How will my property value be impacted when I can't sell me $250,000 house because of an $18,000 tax bill?"
-- Dave Franklin, January 1, 2010
On Lebocitizens.blogspot.com
"So, 11 months later, I stand by my comment. Lebo has long been expensive. All things being equal, I still think that others would choose to live here if it was more affordable, but I don't think most of us would feel the same about our community if it suddenly became more affordable."
-- Dave Franklin, December 29, 2011 4:44 PM
What changed your mind, Dave? Are we relying on any state money for the renovation project?
Elaine
I agree with Mr. Franklin's first comment to Reallebo that the combined tax bills "will make Mt. Lebanon unaffordable."
Or I'm thinking, at the very least the tax bills will have an unfavorable impact on the number of people MTL will attract. Therefore driving property values down.
Which counters the case the pro-HS and pro-ball field people have been making that we have to tax ourselves to death to keep property values high and Mt. Lebanon attractive.
Mr. Franklin's later comment on Elaine's blog leaves me befuddled. Let me see if I understand it. Is this what Dave's saying?
OTHERS would choose to here if it was more AFFORDABLE.
(That makes sense! If buyers perceive something is a good value, they to tend to desire it. Then through the laws of supply and demand - prices remain stable or rise if demand outpaces supply. The supply of homes in Lebo is basically fixed, so home values would have rise due to demand!)
But we wouldn't feel that way if it SUDDENLY became MORE AFFORDABLE.
(This thought baffles me!
What????? We'd all run away if the amenities we love about Mt. Lebanon suddenly became cheaper!? People wouldn't want to move here because the taxes were - too low!?
Hmmm, if they lowered the price [i/e. taxes/fees] to play at the golf course, skate at the rink, use the library, swim at the pool, send our kids to good schoola, live in our nice homes, stroll on Washington Road, we wouldn't desire them any more?)
Gee Dave, me thinks you've actually settled the debate amonst economist over the esistance of Giffeen Good. Somebody quick, call Nobel, there should be a prize in economics with his name on it!
And you also settled the issue that Old Gif' does live in Mt. Lebanon.
Definition of 'Giffen Good'
"A consumer good for which demand rises when the price increases, and demand falls when the price decreases.
This phenomenon is notable because it VIOLATES the law of demand, whereby demand should increase as price falls and decrease as price rises. To be a Giffen good, the item must lack easy subsitutes and it must be an inferior good, or a good for which demand declines as the level of income in the economy increases. Economists disagree on whether Giffen goods exist and how common they are."
Guess Who!
Since Elaine (the champion of full disclosure) elected not to post my first non-offensive, non-confrontational response, I will now answer The anonymous Mr. Good's question. I guess its okay to "go after" me anonymously, but not Mr Ewing et al.
Mr. Good, my second comment was intended to suggest that if we cut amenities/services to make Mt. Lebanon more affordable (so that we don't have to raise taxes) we will lose much of what we like about Mt. Lebanon. No wants higher taxes, so the only solution would then be to cut amenities. Not many of us would like to see that happen. I was not suggesting that the same amenities would be cheaper.
PS: I didn't save my first response so if you want to read it ask Elaine.
Dave Franklin
First of all Mr. Franklin, believe it or not, I do agree with many of your thoughts. But I think in your last response you make several flagrant errors. I'll try to address them in your statement. You wrote:
#1) "Mr. Good, my second comment was intended to suggest that if we cut amenities/services to make Mt. Lebanon more affordable (so that we don't have to raise taxes) we will lose much of what we like about Mt. Lebanon.
(No one is suggesting we cut amenities/services aimlessly just so we don't raise taxes. The people that I side with are looking for efficient ways not to make cuts, maybe, or are trying to find ways to make departments more efficient!
Here's an example: why tear up nice tennis courts and a much needed ballfield to-- ta da "build a beautiful athletic facility -- ta da again -- for the kids!?"
Why not look for ways to enhance what you already have in place while keeping amenities already in place?)
#2) No [one]wants higher taxes, so the only solution would then be to cut amenities.
(Why is that the only solution? In the business world companies are always striving for efficiencies. The goal being to keep product or service quality high, while keeping cost low. The municipality/SD can't do this??? Once something is in place its cast in stone, never to be re-evaluated?
If you have two government offices doing pretty much the same job via Morgans & Bowmen - is it possible to consolidate them and eliminate overhead.
When exactly did the school district create a PIO? Who did the job prior to that? Same with the municipality?
The military's downsizing, the state's doing it, the feds are doing it. Laying off thousands. We can't even discuss it here in lil' ol' Mt. Lebanon without being accused of blasphemy! WHy?
How about selling off one or both of the house discussed here and getting them back on the tax roles? That's not cutting amenities, most residents never go near them!
I like to paraphrase of this George Gernard Shaw qoute from Back To Methuselah: "“You see things; and you say, ‘Why?’
But I dream things and I say, ‘Why not?’")
Okay, WHY are you asking me? If my first response had been posted, you would see that I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of this high school project. As for downsizing, go talk to your commissioner and have at it. I happen to like to magazine but I couldn't care less where its staff sits. Squaking at me isn't going to do anything. Remember, it was Elaine (for whatever reason) who dragged me into this one. I'm flattered, I really am, but for heavens sake, why does my opinion matter so much - especially if you're going to ask for it and then not post it? And why does my opinion matter so much if I'm the one who has got it all wrong?
Dave Franklin
Oh Dave. You crack me up. You know why I am not publishing your first comment.
Elaine
The municipality commissioned an efficiency study back in 2008. Overall found that services were being provided in a highly efficient manner (especially the library and the fire department). Some things have been adopted. Others were not because they cut services. The municipality then put out a policy that would offer a sizable bonus to any staff member that came up with a way to provide services more efficiently without cutting them. Don’t recall all the details of it but I know no one has come forward with a way to do it. We had one commissioner in particular who said efficiency this and efficiency that, and then voted against the consolidation of the parking authority- which has already increased municipal revenues and put more revenues aside for the parking enterprise fund (and more coming in 2013). I think “low hanging fruit” was another catch phrase used that really went no where. Kinda like the tech corridor and business incubator thing. The school and the town used to do more public information together- the magazine was a joint publication. Until the school district pulled out. The school district now refuses to meet with the commission unless the public is excluded from sitting in the room. I like the magazine and believe that it does a good job of promoting and informing our town and that it mostly pays for itself. The town then did a strategic plan that showed that the vast majority of respondents wanted to keep existing services levels- even if it meant taxes were raised. The #1 item to cut was- “nothing.”
Governor Corbett has asked government entities to reduce their spending. The only thing frozen here will be the ground on January 26.
Elaine
Dave you ask: "why does my opinion matter so much?" You tells us, you're offering it!
Personally, I think it counts, as does Elaine's, Ewing's, Papke's Gradner's. Posti's, Lewis's, Stephenson's. They all count.
I'm curious as to why feathers get ruffled when someone makes a comment they don't agree with?
Giffen Good
Then Anon 11:15 the only answer is we have to pay for itm I suppose.
I hope then that Mt. Lebanon is indeed a Giffen Good!
This phenomenon is notable because it VIOLATES the law of demand, whereby demand should increase as price falls and decrease as price rises. Taxes are the PRICE you pay to live in Mt. Lebanon. so I guess unless we violate the law of demand, our home values should be falling in the future.
The cure for high taxes is high taxes.
Rick Rule
Elaine, why don't you tell everyone? All of your followers on this site seem to agree that full disclosure and the free exchange of ideas is the best for everyone. That's what you demand from our elected officials, our paid staff and everyone else. I have no idea why you haven't posted it. I was not rude and took the time to answer questions that you directed to me. Please let us know. Thanks.
Dave Franklin
Nice try, Dave. It was deleted.
Elaine
My "Brumfield Stormwater Fee Bill" arrived this morning.
I suppose my church will get their $6816 bill too and Brumfield's church will get their fee too.
Thanks Brumfield!
John Ewing
I am hoping that they lost my address since I never get my mtl Magazine.
Elaine
Elaine,
Maybe you can get them to deduct your undelivered MTL magazine(s) cost from your non-tax deductible "Brumfield Stormwater Fee."
John
And of course by "Brumfield Stormwater Fee" you actually mean "Brumfield, Kluck and Raja Stormwater Fee." If you are upset by it at least be fair/correct. All three of them created it.
Dave, I wouldn't get too big a head. The google search that uncovered your comment on Reallebo did so only by coincidence.
Just seemed funny that you'd worry the school taxes would make MTL unaffordable and impact your ability to sell your $250,000 house.
But on the other hand, you argue that we must spend more (thus raisng taxes) on the municipal side for ball fields and parks, because the amenities will increase your home value!
Curious dichotomy, tis all!
By the way I thought you disliked anonymity!
Actually Anon 2:40, my concern in 2010 was the cost of the high school project (which I think many people agree is too much). As others have also suggested, it's that project that is handcuffing the municipality with respect to other initiatives. Spending less on the high school would certainly make the municipality less wary of spending money on other amenities.
It would have all made sense if my earlier comment had been posted. Must be nice to be in Elaine's Circle of Trust . . .
Dave Franklin
So Dave, we agree - the school district is spending too much!
And if they weren't... there might be more funds available on the municipal side!
So how do we address this? We've petitioned, written letters, emailed, cajoled, insulted, disparaged, pleaded, begged and offered alternatives to the district so they would not proceed with their plans.
Candidates even stepped up (granted a little last minute)in a desperate attempt to change the course of the board's spending spree.
Which was met with evil, despeccable and "illegal" comments. Who would've thought we see that from a group that -- how does Ms. Posti put it? "Those of us who love our community understand the concept of living in community."
I'm wondering whom is she referring too when she says "US"?
And how come "US" are the only people here that "understand" the concept of living in community?
Mt. Lebanon has an amazing amount of churches. Generous volunteers for practically every need and activity. From supporting the troops/vets to feeding and clothing those less fortunate. Look at the MTL Relay for Life turnout.
Are all those people "US"?
Or is the only way into the "The Understanding Community, We're Not Disagreeable, YOU ARE" club by Ms. Posti's invitation only?
Which brings us back to, Dave.
How do we protect the value of our homes from run away school district expenditures, and get you some of the things you want in the parks?
That's why I'm here, hope that's why you are too!
Anon 3:46 PM is referring to Josephine Posti's blog post, "Thanks Dan" where she appears to be thanking Dan Rothschild.
Anon 3:46, not sure. I fought for the Rec bond to improve the pool and field space but was opposed by Elaine, Ewing et al. They argued everything from location, to public safety, to mosquitos to defeat the proposal. Oddly, cost wasn't really their leading argument. Maybe they have the answers as to how we do it.
Dave Franklin
Sure, Dave, I'll try to come up with something.
Elaine
Just off the top of my head, Dave, what about a school district consolidation? Read this article in the PG from 2009.
26 school districts, 26 municipalities
That would address the location argument. Tbink of how many fields and pools you would have!
Elaine
*Think
Elaine
I showed you mine, Dave. Now you show me yours. ;>)
Elaine
Before I get on with my day, Dave, you do realize you are setting yourself up for another D.A.S. comment from Ewing, don't you?
We have had excellent suggestions on this blog for cutting spending. Governor Corbett would be proud. Thanks, folks.
Elaine
Elaine, did you see the proposed adhoc Sports priority group on the Commission Discussion Agenda? Mr. Franklin doesn't need to show you his.
Dave, there are those that seem to oppose absolutely everything the municipality or the school district proposes.
Then on the other side of the coin you have those that take the position, if either governing body says we should do it, its gospel and not to be opposed.
Then we have those governing that say things like... "Those of us who love our community....."
Dave, you opposed the massive spending on the high school, does that mean you don't love Mt. Lebanon?
Maybe, because you want more fields they think you "like" Mt. Lebanon therefore you're... um, OK.
But Elaine, Cannon, Bonjouno, Stephenson and Wertheim that had ideas different from theirs I guess must be "haters." That's the message I read and that is a scary thought! Also doesn't seem to me to be a path towards disagreeing while not being disagreeable.
So here, you and I have found some common ground, I support your contention that we need to maintain the amenities we already have- even improve or add to them when fiscally prudent. Only diffence is I don't think this is the time to go all in. We also agree on maintaining the high school improving it in a fiscally responsible manner.
Does make me a lover or hater!
It is ironic that Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden - countries not heretofore known for their "conservative" approaches to public finance, have, in recent years, taken action to slash government spending and restore health to their economies. Dr. Stephen Davies of the Institute of Economic Affairs has a short and informative video on the subject - click HERE to watch it.
Gov. Corbett's spending "freeze" does not go far enough to address the real problem in Harrisburg, which Mr. Ewing correctly adduces as the Public School Employees Retirement System. Nationally, we have the same illusions, with mythical "cuts" in the federal budget being nothing but minuscule reductions in the rate of growth in spending.
Meanwhile, in Mt. Lebanon we debate such things as what to do about too many deer, whether a new sports complex will increase property values, and traffic flow at the new high school edifice. Undoubtedly, all of those things are important; but pressing our state representatives to, in the words of a young woman friend of mine, "put on a pair of pants" and address the Commonwealth's spending binge is just as important, if not more so.
But Richard, aren't these things inter-related?
If the district reduces the high school renovation then the state's reimbursement most likely will be reduced.
If the district reduces teachers salaries or at least the rate on raises then the pension hole shrinks or at least doesn't grow more rapidly.
These topics aren't mutually exclusive.
Post a Comment