I've got another story coming up Sunday about the state budget debates. Be sure to read it. It's going to ROCK your world! (Assuming your world is easily rocked.)
Today, I was interviewing state Rep. Eugene DePasquale, D-West Manchester, about it, and he said something which I thought served as a pretty good summation of the Democrats' arguments: "Just because the state doesn't spend the money, doesn't mean it won't be spent."
His point was that taxpayers may still end up footing the bill for services cut from the state budget. And they may pay more in the long run.
For example, many opponents of a budget plan from the Senate Republicans argue that a proposed $1 billion cut in education funding ultimately won't save money, because Pennsylvanians would just have to make up the difference with their property taxes.
Then again, DePasquale's district includes the city of York, which usually does pretty well when it comes to state funding -- being a relatively poor school district. I've heard people from more affluent suburban districts complain about state education funding formulas because they always end up taking a loss.
And there's the underlying question regarding the very nature of taxation that goes back to the dawn of civilization, and will probably never be resolved. To what extent are you responsible for others?
On the one hand, that's your money the taxing authority is taking. What right do they have to take your money for something that never benefits you?
On the other hand, take that reasoning to its logical extreme and you could be asking: Why should my tax dollars pay for the fire department? MY house has never caught fire!
But when DePasquale was discussing the short-term vs. the long-term costs of cutting education funding, he pointed out something rather disturbing. Though Gov. Ed Rendell and the Senate Republicans diverge in many ways on their respective budget plans, they both agree that Pennsylvania urgently needs to increase spending in one area. More prisons.
Leave a comment