Archive

Pa. House speaker says overriding Wolf’s budget veto ‘an option’ | TribLIVE.com
Local News

Pa. House speaker says overriding Wolf’s budget veto ‘an option’

HARRISBURG — House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Marshall, said Monday that overriding Gov. Tom Wolf's veto of a no-tax-hike state budget is an option for the House to consider.

Democrats said they'll stand firmly behind Wolf.

Tuesday marks the 28th day of a budget impasse. Turzai told the Pennsylvania Press Club that Wolf has no more than 30 Democratic votes for his proposed $5 billion tax increase. He said afterward that he has spoken with Democratic members about trying to overturn Wolf's July 1 budget veto.

Wolf also vetoed a GOP-sponsored liquor divestiture bill and a bill to ban guaranteed pensions for future state and school employees.

“We haven't done any count” of Democrats willing to join Republicans, Turzai said. He said some Democrats told him the GOP-crafted $30.1 billion budget is reasonable. It spends $150 million more on K-12 schools, Turzai said.

An override is “not going to happen,” said Rep. Dom Costa, D-Stanton Heights, chairman of the Allegheny County delegation. “Our members are not going to bow to pressure.” It would be a mistake by the GOP majority to think they can “wait it out,” Costa said.

Budget negotiations between Wolf and legislative leaders continue, and leaders aren't ready to press for an override, Turzai said.

“I can assure you my Democratic colleagues are not interested in Gov. Wolf's tax package,” Turzai said. An override, he said, is “a direction we'd consider, and it has to be an option.”

House Majority Leader Dave Reed, R-Indiana, put it differently. “It's probably an avenue of last resort, just by the nature of progressing with it,” Reed said. “If it gets to that, I guess it gets to that.”

Reed said he knows there are Democrats who “would welcome the opportunity to work together on something that would balance the budget in a reasonable fashion.”

House Democratic spokesman Bill Patton said an attempt to override the veto “would be fruitless and counterproductive. Other Republican leaders know that, and they have reached out to the governor and Democratic leaders for more substantive budget talks.”

Wolf's spokesman, Jeffrey Sheridan, said Turzai “continues to stand with oil and gas companies instead of our children and our schools” by opposing Wolf's proposed 5 percent severance tax on natural gas extraction. Sheridan said “irresponsible budgeting has led to struggling schools, soaring property taxes, multiple credit downgrades and a multibillion-dollar deficit.”

Wolf, a York County Democrat, proposed increasing income, sales and cigarette taxes. He would offset those increases with property tax reductions.

Republicans contend Wolf's package would raise revenue beyond any tax trade-off. The GOP budget relies on $220 million a year from selling the state liquor stores and privatizing wine and liquor sales.

Veto overrides are “very, very rare,” said John Milliron, a lobbyist and former legislator. Since 1990, nine veto overrides were attempted by the House or Senate. Two were successful during the tenure of the late Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey, legislative staff said.

It takes a two-thirds majority in the House and Senate, rather than a simple majority vote, to reinstate a law a governor vetoes. That would require 132 votes in the House and 33 in the Senate. There's no time limit for proposing an override vote, and no limit on how many times an override can be attempted.

Brad Bumsted is Trib Total Media's state Capitol reporter. He can be reached at 717-787-1405 or [email protected].


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.