BCT Editorial – 5/20/07

This page was last updated on May 20, 2007.

Two-way street; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 20, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Rural lawmakers should be careful when it comes to opposing Gov. Ed Rendell’s proposal to provide more funding for the state’s public transit systems.

“One of the many ambitious proposals made by Rendell that has stalled in the Legislature is his effort to provide a broad-based, dedicated funding source for the commonwealth’s 73 transit agencies.”

[RWC] Have you noticed Times editorials call increased spending by President Bush “irresponsible,” but increased spending and taxation by Mr. Rendell is “ambitious?”

“The main reason it has gone nowhere legislatively is taxes. Rendell has proposed a 6.17 percent tax on oil corporations’ gross profits to generate $760 million a year for public transit. With Republicans solidly in control of the state Senate and Democrats skittishly holding a one-seat margin in the state House, very few lawmakers want to push taxes.”

[RWC] Ignoring the approach is wrong on its face, what happens when oil company profits aren’t very good and the goose has few golden eggs to lay? As a reminder, historically the oil business has been cyclical. As a 23-year veteran of Texaco, I lost track of how many times we implemented austerity programs (layoffs, spending cuts, et cetera) during that time because of poor profitability cycles.

Oh, by the way, just as all taxes on businesses, the “6.17 percent tax on oil corporations’ gross profits” would find its way to you via the price of gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil, et cetera.

“But another factor that comes into play is the ‘there’s nothing in this for us’ attitude on the part of lawmakers from rural parts of the state. They look at public transit as an urban and suburban issue. Why should their constituents’ taxes go toward services that they’ll never use?”

[RWC] Sounds right to me. People should pay their own way. Like it or not, people tend to spend money more wisely when they know it’s coming from their own pocket. History shows us what we consider “needs” when we believe someone else is paying magically become luxuries when we know the money is coming from our own pocket.

“That’s shortsighted. For instance, if urban and suburban lawmakers took the same approach on education, rural school districts in Pennsylvania would be in a world of hurt. Without massive amounts of state aid, largely supplied by wealthy communities in southeastern and southwestern Pennsylvania, these districts could not operate.”

[RWC] I don’t buy this conclusion because the Times is stuck in the “school district equals bricks and mortar” mentality, but let’s go with it for the sake of discussion.

Families with school age kids would have several options. They include cyber charter schools, private schools (many are cheaper than public schools), home schooling, and moving to areas with public schools. Remember, if an area really didn’t have a school district, there would be no local school property taxes. Families with school age kids could use that savings to pay tuition for education alternatives.

Regardless of where a person lives, he has no right to expect taxpayers to subsidize his chosen lifestyle. That’s also true for folks who don’t own cars; they have no right to expect me to subsidize their choice. Charities would take care of those people unable to operate a car.

“For instance, the Curwensville Area School District in Clearfield County had revenue of $9,400 per pupil in 2004. (All figures cited are taken from Standard and Poor’s SchoolMatters Web site.) Of the $9,400, only $2,810 was generated locally. The state kicked in $6,127 and the federal government $463.”

[RWC] Kudos to the author for citing his data source.

“Locally, the Beaver Area School District had per pupil revenue of $9,256 in 2004. Of that, only $3,227 came from the state. Meanwhile, local property owners and wage earners contributed $5,771 in per-pupil revenue.

“The Smethport Area School District in McKean County had per-pupil revenue of $11,550 in 2004, while the Moon Area School District had per-pupil revenue of $11,267. Moon Area taxpayers ponied up $8,577 of the $11,267, while Smethport Area taxpayers provided $3,980 per pupil. Moon Area got $2,389 from the state and Smethport Area received $7,073.”

[RWC] The editorial wants us to believe it’s only rural school districts that have this problem. In Beaver County alone we have at least four urban/suburban districts (Aliquippa, Big Beaver Falls, New Brighton, Rochester) in the same situation as the allegedly rural districts the editorial cited.

“What if lawmakers representing the well-to-do parts of the state decided they should take the money they now send to Harrisburg to help fund public education across Pennsylvania and keep it to fund public transit systems in their part of the state?”

[RWC] That should be up to the voters. Personally, I don’t subscribe to the “Robin Hood” philosophy of spending taxpayer dollars.

“No one would sanction that because rural (and largely poor) school districts would lose their major source of funding.”

[RWC] Wrong, I would sanction that for the reasons I noted above.

“Public transit deserves the same kind of statewide support that education receives. It’s a two-way street. The sooner rural lawmakers understand that the better it will be.”

[RWC] Neither education nor government-run transit systems deserve state/federal taxpayer dollars.