ShareThis Page
Luke’s bad timing |

Luke’s bad timing

As we know from Ecclesiastes, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under heaven; a time to be born and a time to die, a time to plant and a time to uproot.”

There is even an appointed time for City of Pittsburgh officials to approach the Pennsylvania Legislature for new taxing authority.

But this is not that time.

Still, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl is proposing a graduated scale for what the city calls a local services tax but what is essentially an income tax of 0.3 percent on salaries and wages earned within city limits.

This is the latest scheme in what looks like a strategy of throw a lot of stuff against the wall and see if anything sticks. Ravenstahl previously suggested taxes on college and trade-school tuition and on sugary drinks. His administration also is considering the sale of Pittsburgh’s parking facilities to private investors.

What is behind this frantic search for more money• Ravenstahl is trying desperately to raise enough money to keep the state from taking over the city’s grossly underfunded pension system. The system has about $1 billion in obligations and only about a third of that cash on hand.

Anyone who now works in Pittsburgh pays a flat rate of $52 per year for city services. And while this is a pittance for the value of services provided, the timing of the 0.3 percent proposal could not be worse. Half of the state senators and all of the state representatives are up for re-election and most politicians will be loath to create a new tax for Pittsburgh.

Even without the elections, there is little likelihood that suburban Allegheny County legislators would vote for a new tax on their borough and township constituents for the sole benefit of the City of Pittsburgh. Of the 22 House members from Allegheny County, only two represent districts that are completely within the city, putting the other 20 at risk.

In less strident times, hard votes for new taxes often took place in lame-duck sessions after the November elections and before a new Legislature convened in January. But even if the votes would be there for this new tax, the scuttlebutt around the Capitol is that the Senate might not return for a lame-duck session at the end of this year.

And another common tactic — getting legislators who are far removed from Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to support the urban agenda — might no longer be possible amidst political jitters.

Some Democrats remember the veteran northeastern legislator who was always willing to put up a vote for pro-Philadelphia bills, figuring no one in his district would care, since Philly was so far away. He was defeated when his opponent suggested that he cared more about Philadelphia than his own rural district.

Just as Rome was not built in a day, a solution to Pittsburgh’s fiscal problems will require long-range planning, coalition-building and legislation that will help all struggling municipalities across the state.

And it wouldn’t hurt if Luke Ravenstahl followed the lead of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, who spends so much time in Harrisburg lobbying legislators that he greets them by name when they pass in the hall.

But most importantly, Ravenstahl must remember that in politics, as in life, timing is everything.

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.