Crisis taxation: Time for discipline |

Crisis taxation: Time for discipline

As Democrats and Republicans argue over how best to tax Pennsylvania to good health, the clock is ticking for school districts.

What better way to force a statewide tax gouge — and to justify it in next year’s elections — than with a good, old-fashioned crisis stemming from the logjam over the state’s education funding.

Some districts already are running on fumes. Others say they can stick it out for a month or so without knowing what they’ll get from the state. But eventually the alarm will sound, and the Legislature will have to do something , which inevitably will cost John and Jane Q. Public plenty.

It was Gov. Ed Rendell, in a fit of stubbornness spawned by his legislative naivete, who vetoed more than $4 billion in education funding. Why• Because Fast Eddy didn’t get his way. He wants to force the Republican-controlled Legislature to pay for $560 million in new education initiatives, some quite dubious.

Never mind that public school tax revenue from state and local sources outpaced inflation by 102 and 133 percent, respectively, from 1988 to 2000, according to the Commonwealth Foundation.

The last thing the state needs is to hike the 2.8 percent personal income tax, as Democrats suggest. Nor are new sales taxes envisioned by Republicans going to boost Pennsylvania’s economy.

What the commonwealth needs is the fiscal discipline, and leadership , to live within its means.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.