ShareThis Page
Lavish spending caused state’s budget crisis |

Lavish spending caused state’s budget crisis

| Monday, March 17, 2003 12:00 a.m

Laissez Les Bon Temps Roulez. Let the good times roll. It was a favorite expression of former Democratic Gov. Edwin Edwards of Louisiana.

Harrisburg is a long way from Baton Rouge, but that hasn’t stopped lawmakers and governors of the Keystone State from engaging in a care-free philosophy about spending taxpayers’ hard earned dollars.

Pennsylvania’s state government’s per capita spending, accounting for inflation, increased 53 percent from 1986 to 2000, according to a recent study by the National Federation of Independent Business, which represents primarily small and medium sized businesses. The 1986-2000 period covers Democrat and Republican administrations.

The number cited in the study is virtually meaningless in a vacuum. But the average increase in spending of all states during the same time span was 41 percent –12 points less than Pennsylvania.

A lot of state policy makers, including Democratic Gov. Rendell and his aides, are taking solace in the fact that Pennsylvania’s $2.4 billion deficit is dwarfed by the huge deficits in California, New York and New Jersey, to name a few.

The NFIB study is worth a look, considering the propensity to make national comparisons about Pennsylvania’s deficit.

Pennsylvania’s spending is about $3,900 per person, according to the study.

.Only 13 states had higher per capita spending, adjusted for inflation, than Pennsylvania from 1986-2000. All were, obviously, above the 41 percent average increase: Connecticut, Mississippi, Arkansas, New Hampshire, North Carolina,, Missouri, Kentucky, Florida, Oregon, Delaware, Vermont, Tennessee, Indiana.

Pennsylvania’s state government spending increase was higher than all but one neighboring state, Delaware. The states of Ohio, New York, Maryland, West Virginia and New Jersey spent at a less rapid clip. All were below the national average, except for Ohio at 42 percent.

Keep in mind that each state’s needs and situations are different. Specific rankings would not be meaningful. But a broad view of the results — the states above and below the national average — provides a fair view of what’s going on.

Former aides of Republican Gov. Tom Ridge would argue that budgets were leaner and increases smaller during the eight years that Ridge and his successor, former Gov. Mark Schweiker, held office. However, a recent Commonwealth Foundation study found that there was not a whole lot of difference in total inflation-adjusted operating fund increases between the Ridge budgets and those of the late Democratic Gov. Robert P. Casey. Former Democratic Gov. Milton Shapp’s budgets, in relative dollars, grew by the largest percentage —nearly double the rate of former Republican Gov. Dick Thornburgh’s, this separate study said.

OK, why should we care• Because there may soon be a state tax hike, and big boosts in state spending, proposed by Rendell. He will portray any prospective tax increase as a trade-off for local property taxes and increased education spending. But critics say if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck — it’s a duck.

Rendell presented a no-tax-hike budget on March 4. It makes significant cuts in some areas and increases spending only 1.3 percent. But Rendell doesn’t want that budget. He presented it as a stopgap measure before his real spending plan is announced March 25.

The problem for Rendell: the GOP-controlled Legislature liked his first, austere budget plan a lot, and passed it. Now Rendell faces the prospect of whether he should veto his own budget.

Put in the context of the NFIB study, the cuts Rendell proposed in his first budget are only a nick in the overall growth rate of state spending since 1986.

“Pennsylvania’s state budget problem is the result of lavish spending —not low tax revenues,” said Kevin Shivers, the association’s Pennsylvania director. “For some bureaucrats, the thought of spending cuts are incomprehensible. The fact is these are the decisions made by families and small business owners all across the Commonwealth.”

The NFIB study was released March 3, on the eve of Rendell’s budget address. While Rendell’s first budget may have been lean, it was a product of decades of excess state spending.

Now there’s a staggering deficit, according to Rendell.

No one seems to be asking how we got to this point.

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.