ShareThis Page
Few details on budget |

Few details on budget

| Tuesday, July 1, 2008 12:00 a.m

A proposed $28.2 billion state budget deal legislative leaders struck with Gov. Ed Rendell early Monday got mixed reviews from lawmakers awaiting details of the package.

Senate Republicans and Rendell administration officials released an outline of the agreement. The plan would boost basic education support to public schools by 3 percent and require borrowing about $2.8 billion to finance capital development, alternative energy and roads, dams, and water and sewer projects.

Some, like state Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless, welcomed the proposed budget. Others criticized debt levels, and still others complained that details of the package they will be asked to approve in several days are sketchy.

Orie said the budget’s 3.8 percent spending increase is well below this year’s 4.2 percent increase in the consumer price index. And she endorsed the plan to borrow $2.8 billion.

“The reality is, we are at a critical crossroads with regard to water, sewer, bridges, infrastructure. (Borrowing) will address things like the flooding we had in my district a while back,” Orie said.

“These are long-lasting improvements. We’re talking about dangerous bridges, water, sewers and dams. They are the kind of thing you’re supposed to borrow money for.”

But in the House, state Rep. Mike Turzai, R-McCandless, said he won’t support the proposed $2.8 billion in new debt.

“We get the benefit today and hold off the tax increase until tomorrow. We’re going to be paying it back with your kids’ and grandkids’ money,” Turzai said.

State Rep. David Levdansky, D-Forward, chairman of the House Finance Committee, said there are no changes or amendments to the tax code, which means no new taxes. But Levdansky said few specifics were available.

“There are no print-outs, no language, no summaries, no talking points. … We all have more questions than answers,” Levdansky said.

“They had a handshake agreement, a verbal commitment,” he said about the deal forged between legislative leaders and the Rendell administration. “Now, it’s a matter of translating that into writing.”

Preliminary information showed the state would issue bonds for:

– $800 million for dams and water and sewer facilities, backed by revenue from slot machine gambling;

– $500 million for alternative energy projects, backed by revenue from electric utility gross receipts tax revenue;

– $800 million for civic redevelopment projects, backed by general tax revenue;

– $350 million for repairs to about 400 of the state’s most dangerous bridges, backed by motorist fees and taxes.

Voters would be asked to approve $400 million in bonds for water and sewer projects.

Jake Haulk, president of the Allegheny Institute, a conservative policy group in Castle Shannon, questioned borrowing money during an economic slowdown.

He said lawmakers should have looked for spending reductions, instead of borrowing to pay for new programs.

Orie said spreading debt obligations among different revenue sources, spreading borrowing over several years, and including taxpayer approval for $400 million of the debt showed a balanced approach to meeting state needs.

Although lawmakers are days away from voting on the final budget and missed the June 30 deadline for budget approval, the tentative agreement meant state workers do not face a furlough. Lawmakers could vote before July 4.

“There is reason to think we will finish on Thursday, although it might be a day or two past that,” said Erik Arneson, communications and policy director for Senate Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi, R-Chester County.

Categories: News
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.