Blog for Equality Redux

Last year, I participated in "Blog for Equality Day" on this blog. While I have been blogging less regularly this year, equality is still near and dear to my heart.

Once again, the Pennsylvania State House is wasting time and taxpayer money on ridiculous pet projects. The state of Pennsylvania has repeatedly voted against re-defining marriage as between one man and one woman in a special constitutional amendment, but repeatedly our pathetic sniveling hypocritical house members keep leading the charge against equality.

House Bill 1434 is the latest iteration and was introduced on May 3, 2011 by Representative Darryl Metcalfe, a Republican from Butler county. He is also responsible for House Bill 934 which would require everyone to show a government-issued ID to vote and House Bill 2479, an Arizona-style immigration law, because Butler County and Pittsburgh are simply overrun by immigrants. If you live in Butler, please vote this clown out of office, so he is forced to stop merely pandering to his conservative constituents instead of fixing our broken legislature and economy.

Honestly, this bill has a long ways to go before it can do any damage. There are 3 steps to amending the state Constitution:
1) Pass the bill in House and Senate in year 1.
2) Publish it in newspapers around the state, then pass the bill in House and Senate in year 2.
3) Finally, there would be a statewide referendum.

The likelihood of all that happening is slim to none as cooler heads will prevail. But that doesn't mean that it's not a hateful joke of a bill. Read more outraged opinions here.

The Polls Are Open

It's a happy coincidence that I'm back in the country for election day. It's jet lag though not excitement that has me blogging this early in the morning.

Your Western Pennsylvania Election Run Down:

Governor

It's a toss-up for which is the most important election this year. Since I'm a proponent of all things local, I'm going to say the race for governor is the most important. Harrisburg once again recently showed that they are completely inept by failing to pass a Marcellus Shale drilling tax. Here in Pittsburgh, our pension crisis is coming to a head because of Harrisburg's inaction. Let's put someone in the governor's chair who actually has a chance of addressing those issues.

Tom Corbett:

"Tom Corbett may not be in a hurry to enact a severance tax on natural gas drillers, but if elected Pennsylvania’s next governor, the current attorney general will begin immediately to reform state government."

Do you really trust that he's going to change his tune after he's elected and in power? Judge the man on what he's actually done - not on his promises. Judge him on what he has done, such as joining the health care suit to overturn much needed health care reform in this country.

Dan Onorato:

I'll admit it that I flip-flop on Dan Onorato. He has certainly made choices locally that I disapprove of, but that will be the case with any candidate that you have detailed knowledge of. There is no perfect candidate, but there is a "best" candidate in this election. That is Dan Onorato. He has accomplished a lot (controversially) in his time as County Executive of Allegheny County. He's making the county more energy efficient, investing in our green space, and recently announced a major breakthrough of the Allegheny trail. As governor, he will be in the position to fix the property tax miasma throughout the state and maintain his hard line on limited tax increases.

Senator

Toomey:
From his site: "Throughout his time in Congress, Pat voted for legislation to protect innocent life, strengthen marriage, and protect the traditional values upon which this country was founded."
Would those be the same values that made black men slaves and denied women the right to vote? No thank you.

Toomey's cure for the economy: "cutting taxes and decreasing regulation." Really? Really? Haven't we had enough of short-term fixes that screw us in the end?

Sestak:
His grassroots campaign upset surprised us all in the Spring when he emerged victorious over Arlen Spector. He needs your help to do it again. For information on why you should vote for Sestak, see the Post-Gazette's endorsement of Sestak.

Get out and vote!

Full of Gas in Harrisburg

If there's one thing I've learned in my time in Pennsylvania, it's that you can rely on our State Legislators in Harrisburg to drag their feet. This is the same Legislature which in 2009 didn't pass its annual budget until almost 3 months after it was due.

Marcellus Shale (the huge rock formation containing huge amounts of hard-to-extract natural gas covering most of Western Pennsylvania) has been in the news for years. Companies have been ramping up operations to build wells and extract the lucrative gas since 2008. Now in the middle of a budget crisis in 2010 where our roads and public transportation options are facing severe cuts, the Legislators are finally proposing a tax on this process which is harmful to the environment and has already put billions of dollars in the pockets of investors.

Today, the State House is finally voting on a bill to tax the shale deposits. The only questions are: how much and how? Do you tax on the quantity of the gas as it is extracted from the ground or on the market value once the gas is sold or a combination of the two (as Governor Rendell supports). The current bill will only tax the gas as it is extracted, but it is set to be one of the highest rates in the nation. Of course, this is in front of the House. Once (and if) the bill reaches the Republican-controlled Senate, they will inevitably compromise and lower the rate and/or change the methodology.

Finally, once they can agree on the tax, they need to agree where the money should go - a combination of State general fund and an environmental fund to counteract the damages imposed by drilling.

Needless to say the drilling companies have predicted doom and gloom if the bill is passed in Pennsylvania. And Legislators are hesitant to pass a law so close to an important mid-term election. Will they pass the law before they leave for campaigning break in mid-October? I'll wager my bus fare because if they don't pass the law, I won't be taking the bus anymore anyways.

As a note, all other 24 Marcellus Shale states have already passed a tax. Pennsylvania is dead last.

Steve Bland Not So Reluctant

On June 14, I blogged that Steve Bland CEO of Port Authority, was "reluctant to raise the $2 base fare for Zone 1 because that would hurt its lowest-income customers and affect routes that are the most cost-effective." Instead, he threatened to raise suburban bus fares upwards of $7 one-way.

Who protested? The lowest-income customers who are busy putting food on their table? Or the downtown workers from the suburbs who can afford an increase the most? The results are pretty clear. Both zone 1 and zone 2 fares are going to raise by a whopping $0.25. In case you're not keeping track at home, that's a 12.5% increase in fare for the lowest-income customers who were already paying their way. The customers out in the suburbs will only see a 9% increase.

Not that the suburbanites are getting off easy in this highly probable round of cuts.

Among the 50-plus communities that would be left with no service are East McKeesport, Franklin Park, Glassport, Hampton, Indiana Township, Liberty, Marshall, North Versailles, Pennsbury Village, Port Vue, South Park and Wall, and the city neighborhoods of Banksville and Spring Garden. Service to the Edgewood Towne Centre and Robinson Town Centre shopping complexes would be abolished, the agency said.

But honestly, why does the Port Authority continue to subsidize suburban living when city dwellers are over-paying their fare share (and then some)? This is yet another case of poor judgment for the Port Authority. If the Port Authority unveiled a plan to charge the actual cost for each bus route (since they now have that data), people would be unhappy but they would understand the logic. Instead, we have unfair, illogical bus fare increases and radical service cuts insuring that everyone is unhappy.

Obviously, Port Authority wants us all to be angry and yell at our state legislators to restore funding for public transportation (which you should). But if Steve Bland is just playing a massive chess game with the state legislature, I'm afraid he's going to lose, and the lowest-income customers will be the biggest losers. So go contact your state legislators, and while you're at it, give Port Authority a piece of your mind.

The Libraries versus the Cigars - or Money Talks

The Pennsylvania State Legislature pulled a marathon session last week to pass the state budget on time. They deserved to go out and celebrate this weekend. Maybe they smoked some cigars - the typical celebratory tobacco product? It would be especially fitting as once again, the State Legislature opted against taxing cigars.

Cigars are addictive and cause cancer. Cigars are an expensive, luxury product costing up to and over $1,000 each. Yet, we don't tax cigars. Cigar bars are exempt from the smoking ban. Why do we as a state continually choose to reward cigar smokers while having a hefty cigarette tax?

"Altria and Cigars International, also hired Harrisburg lobbyists to help them bring their message directly to policy-makers."

How much do you want to bet those lobbyists handed out cigars to lawmakers for the holiday weekend? Maybe if the Carnegie libraries wanted to avoid the 8.4% cut in library funding that also passed in this budget they should have created some hybrid cigar bar libraries.

Raising Bus Fares and other Taxes

Steve Bland, Port Authority's CEO, is facing some tough choices. An unexpected cut in state funding (due to the state's moronic dependence on inappropriately tolling Interstate 80) is forcing Port Authority to face $25 Million in less funding. The authority is pondering cutting routes, cutting service (including eliminating nights & weekends), and increasing fares.

Mr. Bland said the authority is reluctant to raise the $2 base fare for Zone 1 because that would hurt its lowest-income customers and affect routes that are the most cost-effective.

On some urban routes, the authority's cost per passenger is less than the $2 fare, he said. Meanwhile, on routes that serve outlying suburbs, the per-passenger cost is $7 or more and the fare just $2.75.

So what Mr Bland is saying is that lowest-income customers are actually helping to subsidize the outer zone customers? Sure, raise those outer zone fares. But keep in mind that if you make a round-trip bus fare on par with parking downtown, more people will drive and park downtown. Of course, if the state can get its act together and find some funding, most of these threats can be eliminated. From Marcellus Shale to chewing tobacco, there are lots of untapped revenue sources in this state. Unfortunately, legislators are afraid they'll lose their jobs if they raise the gas tax or find other tax sources. It's up to you to tell your legislator he or she will lose their job if they allow these massive public transportation cuts to happen.

Grand Jury has Grand Goals

Until yesterday, the sole job of 35 Salaried PennDOT employees was to handle legislative requests - to the tune of 246,000 requests per year. On the Democratic side of the state house, there are at least 10 "PennDOT Specialists" who submit those requests.

The House Republican spokesman, Steve Miskin is livid about the changes. The Tribune-Review quoted the following:

"You're saying the legislator, the vocal representative for that community, can't help their constituents out? That is their job. That is what they're supposed to do."

Steve, your job is to enable constituents to get what they need. It's not to bloat our government beyond repair. What's next? Does the state legislature have special PLCB (Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board) specialists that will place special orders for you when you can't figure out how to do it yourself? Honestly, if you can't figure out how to register your car or get a driver's license, you probably shouldn't be driving.

The grand jury investigated the entire state house and identified these easy pickings as the first steps in attempting to reform Harrisburg. The grand jury is also recommending reducing the size of the legislature, implementing term limits, eliminating per diem supplements, and increasing the term length from 2 years to 4 years. Those changes are pretty radical and will require a constitutional convention in Pennsylvania. These changes will only happen when pigs fly unless we put pressure on the state government. This is an election year for governor, so us voters have some sway this year. Both Onorato and Corbett claim that they want state-wide reform. Let's push our candidates to implement real reform this year and start to chip away at the country club that is our state Legislature.

Happy Primary Day

If you're registered for the Republican or Democratic party, today is the day to get out and vote. Read up on the issues including my run-down of the Governor and Senator candidates. Then make your own decision.

If you're not registered for a party, but you live in Pennsylvania's 12th District (Murtha's former district), then get out and vote because they are having a special election to replace the late Representative Murtha.

Then we can all breathe a sigh of relief as we get a short break from being bombarded with awful election commercials like this one.



Thanks to 2 political junkies for sharing this one.

Pennsylvania Governor Candidate Rundown

Since I'm officially registered as a democrat in Pennsylvania, I get the dubious honor of voting in the May 18 Democratic primary for Governor.

The Candidates:

1. Dan Onorato. Our very own chief executive is running for governor. Love him or hate him, he is a controversial fellow. Recently, Chris Potter has reported some highly questionable behavior in Dan's courting of both the pro-life and pro-choice constituents. Dan has accumulated a sizable war chest, so expect to see lots of him on TV in the near future.

2. Joe Hoeffel. Montgomery County Commissioner. Progressive. Joe has really reached out to everyone in the state during this race. I had the opportunity to meet him in Pittsburgh last Fall before I even knew who he was.

3. Jack Wagner. State Auditor General. This is a local boy from Beechview who's gone on to have a long career in state politics including stints as Pittsburgh Council president and State Senator.

4. Anthony "Tony" Williams. A State Senator. This businessman grew up in urban Philadelphia and turned to politics to save his community.

The Issues

In fact, it seems like the candidates agree on most issues. They all want to fight corruption in Harrisburg. During a debate last month, they were cordial and found little to disagree on. Today, in honor of Earth Day, the candidates released a joint statement agreeing on taxing the Marcellus Shale natural gas, renewing Rendell's green programs, and enforcing clean-air regulations.

Honestly, I'd like these candidates to try to differentiate themselves more from each other. At this point, it seems like a popularity contest. According to a recent poll, Dan Onorato has the lead with 20%, but Joe Hoeffel and Jack Wagner are not far behind with 15% and 13% respectively. However, there are still a whopping 47% undecided.

Personally, I'm leaning towards Joe Hoeffel. His outreach campaign has impressed me, and he isn't afraid to speak strongly and clearly about his socially progressive leanings from health care to his pro-choice stance to the environment.

If you're registered as a Democrat, don't forget to vote on May 18.

Blog For Equality

Tomorrow, with very little fanfare, the Pennsylvania State Senate Judiciary Committee is voting on Senate Bill 707:

A Joint Resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, providing for marriage between one man and one woman.

Area State Senators Jane Orie, Wayne D. Fontana, and Jay Costa are on the Judiciary Committee. Please contact them and spread the word that this amendment is a pathetic waste of time and discriminatory to our fellow GLBT Pennsylvania residents.

As Philly.com says:

How about a constitutional amendment to require lawmakers to pass a budget on time? Or to shrink the size and cost of the Legislature? How about updating the state's antiquated tax code or campaign finance reform? All of these would be better than a constitutional amendment about gay marriage.

Beer Revolutions

I'm all for relaxing liquor laws and restricting the PLCB, so at first glance State Sen. John Rafferty's proposed new bill to expand beer sales sounds great. But even I have to blink an eye and hold on a minute when I read this:

'A crowd of about 150 people, many from the Sheetz store chain, held signs calling for a "Beer Revolution" in Pennsylvania, with others reading "I Drink and I Vote," "Free My Beer" and "Get Your Hands Off My 6 Pack."'

Sheetz is involved in this proposed beer legislation in a very heavy-handed way. And this multi-state chain is involved because they see a lot of dollar bills in their future, not because they truly believe in the freedom of beer sales.

When Sheetz is the business writing the bill, the beer distributors are going to be hurt. According to the Post-Gazette:

Currently, most beer is sold by state-licensed beer distributors, and only by the case or keg; under the new bill, they also would be able to sell one or two six-packs.

At least this is a start, but to get the beer distributors on board, a crucial piece of any beer law change puzzle, Sheetz Senator Rafferty is going to have to offer them a lot more.

And this "revolutionary" new law doesn't actually fundamentally change our antiquated system of limited beer licenses, it merely changes which business entities can buy which licenses.

Pennsylvania, it's time for a real beer revolution by the people and for the people - not a Sheetz gas station revolution. If Sheetz can be the motivator that's great, but let's have our state legislators actually tackle this issue in a fair and balanced way.

To Table Games Or Not

"Some think live table games are a bad hand." Some think over-legislation is bull shit. In particular, me. Either make live table games legal and tax them, or don't. Don't make certain live table games legal and others illegal so that an electronics game vendor can make an extra buck.

Not surprisingly, Rich Orlando, President of TDN Money Systems, "the largest supplier of electronic table games to the state's nine casinos", does not want live table games.

But Mr. Orlando also believes the demise of electronic table games could end up costing the state money. He argues that the games -- in essence slot machines -- produce on average more revenue than will the live versions, which are more labor intensive and will have a far lower tax rate.

Let's debunk this:
1) Table games are more labor intensive. Therefore, they require more people to be working at the casino? They generate more jobs? Which generate more taxes?

2) If casinos will make more money by having electronic table games than live table games, they will have more electronic table games. That's a free market. Let's not shackle yet another free market. Pennsylvania already does that enough (*ahem* PLCB).

I have 2 questions:
1) Why are table games being taxed less than electronic games?
2) Why is the Post-Gazette giving Mr Orlando the time of day?

4 Tuition Tax Myths and 1 Suggestion

I feel the need to dispel some myths regarding the "fair share" tax.

1. Income tax, property tax, and sales tax are not sin taxes. Don't we still tax text books?

'Councilman William Peduto took the same tack, saying that taxes are often placed on "sin" products, like alcohol or tobacco -- but not on self-improvement. "Why would we ever tax education, where somebody is trying to better themselves?" he asked.'

2. College students are not the only ones who pay the drink tax. Many, many non-college students visit the many bars and restaurants throughout the county and share this burden. It is also important to mention here that the aforementioned drink tax is a county tax.

"Let's face it, we [college students] are the ones that pay the drink tax"- graduate student, Mackenzie Farone

3. Non-profits are not totally exempt from all taxes everywhere. Just like when I donate to a non-profit, and I can deduct that donation at the Federal level but not at the city level, cities and states (within their own laws) can decide how to tax institutions. Non-profit is simply a Federal status granted after an application to the IRS. I don't know exactly how the city of Pittsburgh's laws are worded or the state of Pennsylvania, but as far as I can see, there is nothing at the Federal level stopping Pennsylvania or Pittsburgh from enacting their own tax laws regarding non-profits.

4. College students do cost the city money. From the extra police for couch-burning Super Bowl bonanzas to the general paving of roads on which they drive and sidewalks on which they walk. Yes, college students also contribute to the city through the property tax paid on their rented abodes. But no one should claim that those benefits outweigh the city's expenses without an extensive study to the contrary. Considering that the universities would benefit from such a study if it were in their favor, and the universities are the source of every major local study, I'm going to jump to the conclusion that it would not be beneficial for them to perform this study.

For more myth debunking, check out PGH Comet. For the words of the college students, watch this video.

Suggestion:

If you owe income tax to the city of Pittsburgh, you can deduct the amount you paid on your tuition tax against your income tax. This would serve city residents in two ways. First, it would prevent any ridiculous double-taxing and calm fears of anyone working their way through college while living in the city that they will be taken advantage of. Second, it might encourage city dwellers to take a class at a local university with the inherent 1% discount. Not much of a discount, you say? Not much of a tax, I say, but every little bit helps.

Summary:

No one wants to pay taxes, but the city is desperately running out of money and is running out of methods they can use to tax because of antiquated state laws. The city would love to tax non-residents who work in the city, like New York City and many other cities, but the state of Pennsylvania won't allow it. The city would love to slap a property tax on non-profit buildings, but once again the state won't allow it. Heck. The state will probably crack down on this tax as well, but the city has to keep trying to come up with innovative solutions in a hostile environment.

What can I say? I love this city, and I don't want it to run out of money. I want to keep all of our libraries open. I want our roads to be paved and our trash to be collected, and most importantly I want all the police officers and other city workers who have put their time in over the years, to continue to have their pensions paid. So if we need to come up with creative taxes that don't further stress our residents, I'm for it. Because when it comes down to it, if it's a choice between me paying 4% on my income tax or the college students coughing up another 1% on their $50,000 per year education, you're not going to find too many residents (who also manage to pay property taxes and income taxes and county taxes and state taxes) shedding a tear for the college students.

Request:

Can someone actually figure out if this tax is legal or not, so we don't have to waste any more time debating it?

One of these Taxes Is Not Like the Other

"These tax increases, if they come to fruition, would be very bad news for Pennsylvania," contended Matthew Brouillette of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative group.

---

Democratic Tax Proposals

• Cigars and Chewing Tobacco
• Increase in Tax on proposed table games at Casinos
• Marcellus Shale Drilling tax
  

Republican Tax Proposals

• Non-profit arts groups
• Small games of chance (i.e. Fire Department Bingo)
  

I can only imagine that the "conservative group" is siding with the Democrats. Or they have some serious explaining to do as to why they are siding with tobacco, casino, and gas companies instead of non-profit charity organizations.

If the tax on chewing tobacco is too high, maybe some people will quit that cancer-causing habit. If the tax on table games is too high, the casinos won't open table games. If the tax on drilling for gas is too high, ROFL.

But, if the tax on bingo is too high, volunteer fire departments will not be able to afford a new truck. And if the tax on the zoo and theater is too high, school programs will be cut, jobs will be lost, and we will all suffer for a lack of arts in our lives.

Transparency in Lobbying

Who says that we don't have transparency in government?

In Pennsylvania, once again, it's shown to be all too clear who controls the purse-strings of the state. The corporations. It's only fitting that the G20 will be based in Pittsburgh this week.

Latest moronic poor budget patch?

Adding sales tax to your ballet, opera, musical, play, zoo, and museum tickets. At first glance, this doesn't seem so bad. Then, you realize who the state is leaving in exempt status - movie theaters and sporting events.

So our Pennsylvania tax dollars are subsidizing AMC Loews Theaters and Regal Entertainment Group - companies that make hundreds of millions of dollars per year. Our tax dollars are subsidizing the Heinz family and the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Philadelphia Flyers (yet again). Yet the state house wants to take away this subsidy for the City Theater, for Bricolage, for Quantum Theater, for the Carnegie Museums, for the Pittsburgh Zoo, for all these arts companies barely staying afloat and enriching our lives in un-measurable ways. Ridiculous.

Perhaps next, we'll have a fee on withdrawing library books? And exempt the sales tax for Barnes and Noble?

2 State Bills You Should Be Paying Attention To

The Pennsylvania State House may not be able to pass a budget, but they can sure screw over the residents of Allegheny County. Yesterday, 2 very important bills passed some of their final tests.

1.) The Property Re-Assessment Bill. The State Supreme Court ordered a re-assessment of Allegheny County. Dan Onorato with the support of lots of other sniveling counties in the state, have pushed the state house and senate to put this court-ordered re-assessment on hold for 18 months. The Senate could have their final vote on this one as early as tomorrow. Then it's in the hands of Rendell.

Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, said he had serious doubts about the bill, which has already passed the House, but voted for it yesterday "to keep the process moving.'' He said it may be unconstitutional for the Legislature to tell counties to ignore court orders on reassessment.

Yes, we are moving forward by not moving anywhere for the next 18 months. Is that enough time for Mr Onorato to get elected governor and think of a smarmy way out of this sticky mess?

2.) The Pension Bill - which also determines Pittsburgh's parking taxes. Here the state wants to take over the city's pension funding as well as any other city or municipality facing less than 50% funded. Pittsburgh's pensions are funded at an abysmal 28%. In theory, it sounds like a great idea to out-source this responsibility because clearly Pittsburgh has been failing at it in an unprecedented manner. But at the same time, is the State really any more responsible with their money? And why the micro-managing? Why does this bill include over-arching wording about the parking tax? It should be either a pension bill or a parking tax bill. Luckily, after the Senate votes on this one, it will be lobbed back to the House.

The Squeaky Wheel Gets Lower Taxes

What is it with this state and unfair taxes? Pennsylvania, at the state and county level, continuously finds way to tax its poor unjustly in spite of State Supreme Court rulings to the contrary.

1) The state income tax is not progressive. Everybody (unless you make less than a measly $6,500) gets charged the same 3.07% or if Governor Rendell has his way 3.57%. How about we increase the income tax to 3.57% only if you are making more than $100,000 per year? $200,000? Can't we take a page out of Obama's playbook? Of course, no legislature wants to bite the hand that feeds them donations.

2) To avoid raising property taxes (where you theoretically pay more if you have a more expensive house), the state is attempting to allow counties to raise their sales tax, which is a patently regressive tax, affecting the poor more than the wealthy.

3) Where they have to rely on property taxes, they do so in a patently unjust manner, freezing property values and punishing those who live in depressed neighborhoods.

And why do we put up with it? Because the people who have the time to complain are not the people working minimum wage jobs trying to put food on the table. Some people might say charging progressive taxes is against the state Constitution which says: "All taxes shall be uniform upon the same class of subjects ...," But I say, what's one more bent rule?

East Vs West

Pennsylvania is a funny state. I've heard it described as "Pittsburgh and Philadelphia with Alabama in the middle", a joke I'm sure that Harrisburg (and Alabama) hates. But the fact of the matter is there's a lot of nothing in between the two major Pennsylvania cities, except its capital. So it totally makes sense to have high-speed rail with few stops connecting these cities.

What do we have?

Philadelphia to Harrisburg

• 204 miles
• 90 minutes by train
• Train runs 14 times per day

Harrisburg to Pittsburgh

• 311 miles
• 5+ hours by train
• Train runs once per day
  

Why the difference? Historically, Pittsburgh's gotten the shaft?

At this point, Pennsylvania (and Pittsburgh) government has shown so little initiative that Congressman Altmire is instead hopping on board with Ohio's plans to connect Pittsburgh and Cleveland. And I don't blame him. As R2P writer, Jim Russell, has been espousing for years, we need to stop thinking of Cleveland as the enemy and instead build a mega-rust-belt-region to promote all of us. The first step to that collaboration might as well be a frequent and convenient train between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. If Cleveland can eventually have a smooth connection to Chicago via train and we're a hop-skip to Cleveland, you'd better believe that PennDOT and the PA governor would be banging on the door to let in a better train from Harrisburg.

In the meantime, I'd really like to see some local initiative on all public transportation fronts. Let's here Onorato and Ravenstahl step up and say that they will pursue city-wide light rail, regional commuter rail, and inter-city high speed rail. All of these options are vital for the region in terms of generating jobs, attractiveness to immigrants, and general congestion.

Act 47 = Higher Taxes?

The most important thing going on in the city of Pittsburgh right now is the Act 47 plan which will determine how we fare financially for the next 5 years.

Of course, it's also the thing the city has the least control over.

Kinda frustrating.

State overseers give us a 300 page book detailing all the things we can and can not do. City Council has until June 30 to approve it. If council doesn't approve it, they need the approval of the state overseers to change it.

But the main problem (as I've ranted previously) is that many of these guidelines involve changes to state law, and the state lawmakers have repeatedly spoken against any new taxes:

State Rep. Dan Frankel, D-Squirrel Hill, said there will "need to be some adjustments to the Act 47 plan," but that legislative approval for such changes "will be a difficult challenge."

"I don't think it's rhetoric, I think it's a proposal legislators should be vetting," said Sen. Sean Logan, D-Plum. "We need to take another look at the city's finances." Logan said the city must demonstrate it has shed as much fat from its budget as possible before it can make a compelling case for additional tax money.

"If he thinks taxes are the first option, he's delusional, in this economy," said state Sen. Jane Orie, R-McCandless. "If you think other legislators across the state are going to agree to raise the city of Pittsburgh's occupational tax to $145, you're out of touch."

And what happened last time?

"The suburbs don't want to carry the burden for what's happened in the past in the city of Pittsburgh," said Sen. Wayne Fontana, D-Brookline.

That sentiment pushed state lawmakers in 2004 to strip the first five-year recovery plan of provisions that would have taxed city nonprofits and pegged the EMS -- then known as the occupation tax -- at $145, said Councilman Bill Peduto, the council finance committee chairman.

Such dramatic tax increases failed then, and they're likely to fail this time, he said. City Council has scheduled the first of two public meetings about the recovery plan for 1:30 p.m. today. A vote on it could happen by the end of June.

So, if just like last time, the state refuses to give the city the ability to raise taxes on parking, commuters, and non-profits, who does that leave paying the taxes?

City residents. Welcome to Taxburgh. The question we need to ask Harrisburg: Are the commuters really that much more hard up than the residents of the city? And are they really only getting $52 in benefit from working in the city? I understand the sentiment to punish the people who made the mistakes to get the city into this mess, but a lot of those people now live in the suburbs. And a lot of city residents (including myself) only moved to Pittsburgh in the last few years. So give us a break.

And where's the mayor? On vacation. I'm glad I'm not an elected councilor right now. That's because unless a miracle happens in Harrisburg (or we can sell off the parking garages), the plan calls for default tax increases in the city over the next 5 years. And you can bet after 5 years of taxes, we'll have a whole new set of councilors.

Silver Lined Economic Clouds

Right now, at the state level, serious debates are occurring over funding for everything from entrepreneurial initiatives to arts programs to museums to public television. Almost daily, I get an email imploring me to contact my state representative and fight for money to save all of these valuable state donations.

Back in March, I read in the Post-Gazette that the Fort Pitt Museum was on the chopping block. They reported that the state spends $500,000 per year to run the museum. This month, many organizations have stepped up to say they can run the museum for half as much state funding, thus saving tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars per year. Why wasn't this done years ago? That's a serious question for which I would like someone to be accountable. But clearly, it took an economic crisis for us to rethink how our taxpayer money is spent. Maybe we need one of these crises every few years because our legislators can't be bothered to keep themselves in check.

I hope over the next month, as the state budget process unfolds, we find more of these public-private partnerships to save the state money and run our facilities more efficiently. (I'm sure someone can come up with an idea for the state liquor stores.) Making decisions which will save us money now and in the future will only help the city and state. It's just a shame that it takes a downturn for us to make some smart decisions.