BCT Editorial – 9/15/06

This page was last updated on September 21, 2006.

Street smart; Editorial; Beaver County Times; September 15, 2006. While in the print edition of the paper, this editorial was not posted on the Times website.

Remember the crocodile tears the Times cried over a lack of federalism in the editorial “Eroding?” Here’s another example showing the Times “believes” in federalism only when it can be used to in an effort to drive a wedge between conservatives and President Bush.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Harrisburg is a place where good ideas go to die.

“Let’s hope that doesn’t happen to House Speaker John Perzel’s plan to have the state spend $225 million to fund half the cost of hiring 10,000 new police officers in municipalities across Pennsylvania.

“Under the Philadelphia Republican’s plan, a municipality would pick up 20% of the cost and the county the remaining 30%. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports Perzel would fund his plan by taking money earmarked for state personnel in this year’s budget and not filling vacant nonessential jobs in the legislative and executive branches.”

[RWC] This paragraph is chock full of stuff to make a conservative scream.

First, that a Republican majority leader – or any Republican for that matter – would propose such a program is indicative of what is wrong with too many elected Republicans, and Republican “leaders” specifically. In general, conservatives believe those who spend the money should raise the money. In other words, if Center Township residents want to hire another police officer, Center residents should foot the bill. Doing otherwise promotes wasteful spending because you get to dump 80% of the bill on someone else.

Second, the “not filling nonessential jobs” applies only to this year’s budget. Future funding would require tax increases or offsetting spending cuts. Does anyone care to guess which one it will be?

Third, why the @#$% do we have “nonessential jobs in the legislative and executive branches?” Further, if we know they’re “nonessential,” why would we ever fill them?

Fourth, where’s the principle of federalism the Times allegedly cherishes when the locals pay only 20% of the bill? Here’s a prediction. If, heaven forbid, this thing ever passes, how long will it be before we read an editorial crying about the strings attached to the dollars from commonwealth and county taxpayers?

“This is a good idea. However, it is too important to push through in the lame-duck session that is coming up. If nothing else, county commissioners deserve to be heard because of the cost each hire would add to their budgets.

“Something else should be included in this legislation. Lawmakers must tell municipalities that now depend on the state police for protection to either form their own departments or start paying for that coverage.”

[RWC] At least the last paragraph makes sense, kind of. It’s the right thing to do, but it should be implemented without the rest of the legislation.