Tag Archives: pennsylvania

Moving Trucks are Headed To …

Posted on by
Reply

Sometimes the unscientific surveys provide the most interesting results. Why? Because you know not to fully accept what you find, but in more cases than not you also realize the conclusions are indicative of a bigger pattern or trend.

That’s one way to look at the annual migration results from United Van Lines. For 2010, it was based on more than 146,000 household moves between the 48 continental states.

A quick look at some of the findings:

  • Michigan was dethroned as the "outbound" (more than 55% of the moves being out of state) victim for the first time in five years by New Jersey. Not to worry, our northern neighbors were second in numbers fleeing for greener pastures.
  • Of the nine in the outbound category, Midwesterners Ohio, Illinois and Pennsylvania were also included.
  • The five "inbound" winners (at least 55% of the moves coming into the state) were, in order, the District of Columbia, Oregon (a top destination for 23 years of the 34-year report), North Carolina, Idaho and South Carolina.
  • Indiana, you ask? Among the 35 in the "balanced" category. But the 2,474 shipments out of the state compared to 2,076 inbound put it at the bottom of that category — 54.4% outbound.

But hey, we’ve got a lot of things going for us here in the Hoosier state. And we didn’t jack up our income taxes by 67% this week like our friends to the west. Just one of the many jokes is that action by the legislature after a contentious battle had to be "Ill nois(e)" to economic development officials and many others.

And it just might be enough to move to Illinois to the bottom of the moving list in 2011. 

Blame the Constitution for Capping House Size

Posted on by
Reply

I admit it. I’ve never given much thought to the number of people serving in the House of Representatives. I have no idea why there are 435, but that’s the way it’s been for the last century since Congress capped the size following the 1910 census. It all goes back to the Constitution, which specifies a maximum – but no minimum – total count.

As you can imagine, that’s caused some controversy over the years. Check out some of the details from Congress.org :

"The Constitution states that the number of representatives is one for every 30,000 people. How is it now limited to 435?" 

You’re right. The Constitution states that "the Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative."

With a current U.S. population of over 300 million, that would work out to about 10,000 representatives – not to mention the chiefs of staff, legislative analysts and spokesmen for each of them.

Until the 20th century, the size of the House increased after each census to reflect the growth in the country’s population. Over time, the growth in new states and the country’s population threatened to make the House too large to be a workable legislative body (insert your own joke here) in the views of many in D.C.

After the 1910 census, Congress fixed the size of the House at 435, where it remains today. Congress later made the cap official when it passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, which also established a procedure for automatically reapportioning seats after every census.

Under reapportionment, California’s delegation has grown from 11 members in the 1920s to 53 today. Florida, Texas and Arizona have also seen similar exponential jumps. Ohio, on the other hand, has gone from a high of 24 representatives to 18, while Pennsylvania has dropped from 36 to 19.

Appoint or Elect to Fill Senate Holes?

Posted on by
Reply

Indiana is among 36 states that fill what are seemingly rare U.S. Senate vacancies with gubernatorial appointments. The death of West Virginia’s Robert Byrd this week, however, means there will be six such non-elected senators serving in Congress. Several states have moved toward special elections. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

All these caretakers – representing Illinois, Delaware, New York, Colorado, and Florida – have reignited questions over whether a gubernatorial appointment, rather than a special election, is the best way to fill a vacant Senate seat. In particular, allegations of misbehavior in Illinois during the filling of President Obama’s former Senate seat spurred a move in some state legislatures to change the way vacancies are filled.

Historically, most states have given governors the right to appoint an interim senator in the case of a vacancy. But Illinois hasn’t been the only recent flash point: The awkward process by which New York Gov. David Paterson (D) went about filling the seat of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who resigned to become secretary of State, added fuel to the reform movement. Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President Kennedy, openly lobbied for the New York seat until she withdrew her name from contention.

Of the 12 states that considered legislation to fill Senate vacancies by special election, Connecticut and Rhode Island were the only ones that passed it in 2009, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. It also passed in Kansas but was vetoed by the governor. Legislation is still alive in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

California Still Not Learning Hard Lessons on Education

Posted on by
Reply

Oh, California. You gave us good wine, the Grateful Dead, and Reggie Miller. We should probably be a little kinder to you than we are. But you don’t make it easy. The Heartland Institute asserts the Golden State just isn’t getting it when it comes to education, throwing money at a failing system instead of letting the system work for the kids. Here’s an excerpt: 

Frustrated by some tough budget years, California public school officials want a court to declare the state’s Byzantine school finance system unconstitutional. The stated goal of the lawsuit is to circumvent lawmakers (and reality) by asking a judge to force billions of dollars in unaffordable education spending increases.

But the system isn’t "unconstitutional" so much as unworkable. The way to achieve an equitable and affordable public school system in the Golden State isn’t more funding to prop up a bloated bureaucracy. The answer is to fund all children equally by letting the funding follow the child. The answer is choice.

This is hardly a radical idea. Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania, for example, offer tax credits to corporations and individuals who finance scholarships for children from low-income families. Even Sweden lets families choose the school they want, public or private, backed by a tax-subsidized scholarship…

The education establishment views the case as a bureaucracy preservation problem, which evades the real problem – the failure of that bureaucracy to educate California’s children. Students only enter the equation as a pretext for propping up the salaries and benefits of public employees.

The fact is, court-ordered school spending has never translated to academic success. A federal court judge ruled in 1985 that school officials in Kansas City, Mo., had to double local property taxes to fund $2 billion aimed at improving performance in low-income and mostly minority schools. In the blizzard of spending that followed over the next two decades, students got state-of-the-art science facilities, Olympic-size swimming pools, small classes – and no measurable improvement in academic outcomes.

Voters’ efforts to boost school funding haven’t translated to success either. Proposition 98, which Californians passed in 1988, locked California into a budget-busting mandate directing at least 40 percent of the state budget toward elementary and secondary education. Since its passage, California has seen negligible gains in academic outcomes and lagged well behind mediocre national trends.

What the California case needs is a second group of plaintiffs to intervene and argue the only workable way to secure the fundamental right to an education in a truly equitable fashion is to fund every child equally. The court certainly could declare the entire system unconstitutional – and then insist that funding follow the child to any school that meets California’s content standards.

Lasting reform requires shifting from the stifling chaos of the current "bureaucracy-based" system to the spontaneous order that will unfold as we fund the child. That’s the only system that comports with the spirit and the letter of the "equal protection" clause in any constitution.

Specter to Become a Spectator?

Posted on by
1

While Congressional races in Indiana drew attention two weeks ago, a brighter national spotlight is shining on Senate primary votes Tuesday in Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky. Part of the intrigue is whether a couple of Democratic incumbents will become lame ducks.

The focus is on senators Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas (challenged by Lt. Gov. Bill Halter) and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (facing Rep. Joe Sestak).

Runoffs are possible for both parties in Arkansas as a third candidate could keep Lincoln or Halter from getting 50% of the vote. On the Republican side, Rep. John Boozman is the favorite but there are eight other candidates on the ballot and he was polling below the 50% mark.

Those polls place Boozman ahead of both Democrats in general election matchups, but Lincoln has a huge advantage in cash on hand.

Specter’s much-publicized departure from the GOP came, at least in part, because he believed he wouldn’t win a primary battle against former Rep. Pat Toomey. Now he is in a close battle against Sestak, who has successfully used the message that he is the real Democrat in the race. The two Democrats and Toomey also have substanial bankrolls for the fall.

Kentucky features a pair of close battles. Ophthalmologist Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, is leading Republican establisment favorite Trey Grayson (current secretary of state). On the Democrat side, two current top state officials — Attorney General Jack Conway and Lt. Gov. Daniel Mongiardo, are in a dead heat.

Two incumbent primary victims thus far have been Sen. Bob. Bennett (R-Utah) and Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-West Virginia). I’ll take a guess that Specter might just joing them. Either way, Tuesday will be another lesson about the anti-incumbent mood among voters.

New Jersey to Public Workers: You Want Our Money? We Want Your Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

It sounds good on paper, but personally I’m not buying it. In this case, "it" is a New Jersey proposal that says if the state is going to give you your paycheck, you have to live within its borders.

With our capital’s geographic presence in the middle of the state, I can’t imagine too many are commuting from Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky or Michigan to Indy. But state workers are not confined to the big city. The New Jersey bill would impact teachers, police officers and firefighters as well as all city and county government employees.

There are strong Indiana connections to Cincinnati, Chicago and Louisville in addition to numerous other areas in the four neighboring locales. I grew up in Dearborn County, a lot closer to Cincy than Indy, and a tri-state ingredient seems to be active in all four corners of the state.

The full New Jersey article is here. Below is a quick summary:

State Sen. Donald Norcross (D., Camden), the sponsor of the bill, said, "It is very simple. If you want a paycheck from New Jersey taxpayers, you should have to live here, pay your taxes here and be part of your community."

Norcross, who also leads the 85,000-member South Jersey AFL-CIO Central Labor Council, said an estimated 10,000 public employees live out of state, costing the state about $22 million in income taxes.

"What really gets me is when I look at the mass exodus every night out of Trenton to Pennsylvania," Senate President Stephen Sweeney said. "If it’s good enough to work for the state, it should be good enough to live in the state of New Jersey," he added.

Public employee unions said that while relatively few of their members work out of state, they strongly oppose the measure for those who do.

"I think it’s a ridiculous proposal," said Bob Master, regional political director for the Communication Workers of America. "It will have no meaningful impact in the long run on the state’s budget problems and it will cause completely unnecessary hardship for our members."

Master said that if New Jersey’s neighboring states were to adopt similar tactics, the results would not be pretty.

What to Do About Online Sales and Sales Tax

Posted on by
Reply

What should be done with online retailers and sales tax? The story is the same in most states – they’re not required to pay and most consumers don’t volunteer for the "use tax" in place in many areas. With state fiscal challenges and online sales both growing, don’t expect this issue to go away soon. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writes:

If you buy Christmas gifts online this year, you may be saving money on your end, but you might also be costing the state treasury its fair share of sales tax revenue.

State revenue departments across the country have complained for years that big online retailers aren’t remitting their share of sales taxes. At stake are the hundreds of millions of dollars that Pennsylvania and other states are losing when a shopper buys a CD, book or television online, instead of in a bricks-and-mortar store.

In Pennsylvania, the Department of Revenue estimates that the state is missing out on nearly $300 million in sales tax every year.

"Pennsylvania is not the only state in this boat," said Stephanie Weyant, spokeswoman for the revenue department.

Every year since Internet shopping began being measured, the amount spent online has increased annually. On Cyber Monday alone — the Monday after Thanksgiving — about $900 million was spent online this year, either at stores that operate exclusively in the cybersphere, such as Amazon.com, or at the online divisions of actual stores, such as Best Buy.

Online retailers that do not maintain a physical presence in Pennsylvania are not required to remit a sales tax (though some do so voluntarily), thanks to a 1992 court decision that predates the era of Internet shopping. In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that a retailer or purveyor of goods couldn’t be forced to remit sales taxes to another state unless it had some kind of "nexus" there, a physical presence such as a store or warehouse.

For years, Congress has been debating federal legislation requiring all retailers to figure out how to remit the sales tax to the appropriate state, but so far, the law has gained little traction and has been opposed by Amazon.com, considered to be the biggest cyber-fish out there.

While Congress has been inactive on the issue, New York has been proactive, passing a law that requires Amazon.com and other Internet retailers to collect sales taxes on transactions with New York customers. Amazon challenged the law, lost in January, and now a New York appeals court is expected to issue its own ruling soon, according to a report in The New York Times. If the law stands, other state legislatures would be tempted to follow the same legislative path, especially given the depleted condition of many state treasuries.

There’s No “R” in Specter: Senator Changes Parties

Posted on by
Reply

Many national outlets are reporting that moderate U.S. Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has switched parties and is now part of the Democrat majority. No doubt, this is a major story and has significant implications for this Congress and the agenda going forward as the Democratic Party is now one seat closer to the magical number of 60.

Reports are also indicating that the main, or at least a major, reason why Specter is switching parties is that he feels he stands a better chance to be re-elected as a Democratic candidate than a Republican candidate does. If this is true, outrage should follow by the citizens of Pennsylvania. Putting his own selfish political interest ahead of what is best for his state and country in these tough economic times is exactly why so many Americans are incredibly fed up with the politics coming out of Washington D.C.

Now, if Specter’s reason is based solely on his philosophy and belief he is now a Democratic legislator and should thus be recognized as such, fine. However, to make a switch late in the fifth of a six-year term on the heels of what is expected to be a tough re-election effort smells of the self-preserving attitude that has become far too common among many elected officials.

If this politically calculated, self-interested attitude is driving this decision, I hope that someone — a Republican or Democratic candidate — replaces Sen. Specter in 2010 and will serve the good people of Pennsylvania and the country with the wishes of the taxpayer first.

Feel free to add your comments and start a discussion on the topic of elected officials switching parties.

Editor’s note: Here’s a list of some other well-known political party switcheroos.

2010 Numbers Matter — for the Next 10 Years: Congressional Lines Redrawn

Posted on by
Reply

For those politically inclined, the work on the next election often begins before the current one takes place. In other words, while November 2008 was drawing plenty of attention at this time last year, there were at least some looking ahead to 2010. That is especially true when the "next" period ends with the number zero.

The every-10-year-period means a new census, a reapportionment of House seats in Congress and new maps for both legislative and congressional districts. There will be a great deal of time to discuss the politics of drawing the lines. For now, the early projections are in place on which states will be winners and losers in the amount of representation they have in Washington.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has its reapportionment outlook. Remember, they are only estimates at this point, but Indiana’s nine seats appear safe. The state, of course, came up short after the 2000 and 1980 population counts — losing a spot in the House each time. (Indiana once had 13 districts before dropping one each after the 1940 and 1930 censuses).

So who wins and who loses in 2011? The big, big winner, according to NCSL, is Texas with the potential of gaining three seats. The South and West also look to benefit from one additional seat for Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah.

On the other side, eight states stand to lose one seat each. They are Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Side notes: If the estimate holds, California would not increase its congressional power for the first time since becoming a state in 1850. Also, pending legislation would increase the size of the House from 435 to 437 — giving the District of Columbia its first vote and allowing one more state to add a seat. (Utah would gain the additional representative, for now, if the legislation passes this year.)

Specter’s Change of Heart Throws Wrench in EFCA (Eyes Now Turn to Bayh)

Posted on by
Reply

The Employee Free Choice Act, a bill that would modify existing labor law to eliminate the secret ballot in union-organizing elections and impose mandatory arbitration on parties to labor disputes, fortunately suffered a hiccup in the Senate last week.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) took to the floor and announced that – unlike in years’ past – he would not support the EFCA or even a cloture vote to debate this legislation. A key moderate vote in the Senate, Specter’s change of heart (perhaps triggered by home-state polls showing him down double digits in the primary) effectively derailed the EFCA in the Senate. However, rumors of potential “compromise” on the legislation began surfacing and it could still move in the House.

The Indiana Chamber forcefully opposes this bill, which would overturn nearly 70 years of labor law and place businesses at a distinct disadvantage in any union-organizing effort. This is labor’s top priority this Congress, but many centrist Democrats are running scared from the bill because it would stifle new jobs and business investment during a profound economic recession – reasons cited by Sen. Specter in his floor speech. Like Specter, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh (D) will be a critical vote on this issue, and the Indiana Chamber, among others, has informed Sen. Bayh of our strong opposition to the bill. While some speak of compromise, the elimination of the secret ballot in union elections and binding arbitration language in this bill are completely unacceptable to business.

Call to Action: Contact Sen. Bayh at (202) 224-5623 or send a letter through www.indianaprosperity.org to urge him to oppose the EFCA and vote against any cloture motion in the Senate concerning this bill. Also, let your representative know your position on the EFCA and urge him or her to also oppose it.