BCT Editorial – 8/14/07

This page was last updated on August 28, 2007.

Welfare queens; Editorial; Beaver County Times; August 14, 2007.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Bashing Philadelphia and, to a lesser extent, Pittsburgh is a surefire way for politicians in the rural parts of Pennsylvania to score easy points with their constituents.

“But when they blindly ignore reality, they go too far.

“That is what U.S. Reps. John Peterson, R-5, and Philip English, R-3, are doing when they charge that their constituents should not be forced (via tolls on Interstate 80) to fund mass transit systems in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

“But what Peterson and English conveniently overlook is that the rural parts of this state - the vaunted Republican T - are the real welfare queens of Pennsylvania.

“That’s especially true for roads and schools.

“The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that when revenues generated by Allegheny County are combined with the five-county Philadelphia area - Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia - these six counties generate about 33 percent of all transportation money that is shared with the other 61 counties.

“In addition to that, the paper reported that I-80 alone eats up 22 percent of all federal interstate maintenance money allocated to the state. The statewide total last year was $211.9 million.

“English and Peterson also skip over the fact that Gov. Ed Rendell has said the state plans to design I-80 tolls so that short-distance travelers won’t have to pay.

“Ignoring reality also applies to taxes that support public education. Our July 29 editorial noted that Allegheny, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties accounted for about 48 percent of the state’s total taxable income. The personal income tax produces 37 percent of the state’s revenue.

“The sales tax generates 34 percent of revenue for the state, and these six counties accounted for a little more than one-third of it in 2004 (37 percent).

“Here’s an example of rural parts of the state gorging at the public trough.

“In 2004, the Center Area School District had per pupil revenue of $7,718 from state ($2,073) and local sources ($5,645). Meanwhile, the Harmony Area School District in Clearfield County, which is in Peterson’s district, had per pupil revenue of almost $10,000 from those two sources - $7,493 from the state and $2,449 from local sources.

“Look at those numbers again. Harmony Area gets $225 less in per pupil revenue from the state ($7,493) than Center Area receives from both sources ($7,718). That comes out to $2,224 more in per pupil revenue for Harmony Area, which gets 75 percent of its revenue from the state. Center Area receives 27 percent.

“In anyone has a complaint about not getting their fair share, it’s the commonwealth’s wealthiest and most populated counties because it’s their tax dollars that are supporting the welfare-queen counties in the rural parts of Republican T.”

[RWC] Note how the editorial referred to “the commonwealth’s wealthiest and most populated counties” instead of school districts. Here’s the reason. If you focus on school districts, you have to concede you have local “welfare queens.” Since that doesn’t fit the editorial’s action line the editorial goes with counties, not school districts.

When I commented on the editorial “Revenue gap” (7/29/07) I wrote, “you should also feel free to check the editorial’s data. For example, the editorial said the state taxpayer revenue allocated to Center was $2,073. The SchoolMatters website says it was $2,873.” At the time, I assumed it was a typographical error. Now I’m not so sure. First, I don’t believe the Times published a correction. Second, over two weeks later, and after having the error identified for them, the Times continues to use this erroneous data in its editorials. Is there a reason the Times wants to understate the revenue from state taxpayers by 28%? Don’t take my word for it. You can check the data for yourself at the SchoolMatters website.

This time, though, the Times compounded the error by using the bad data in calculations. As a result, the second and third paragraphs from the end of the editorial are factually wrong. Who knows? Perhaps the other data cited in the editorial is also defective.

By the way, so we don’t overlook local “[w]elfare queens,” consider Aliquippa and New Brighton. Aliquippa taxpayers provide only 32% of their $13,053 per student and New Brighton taxpayers provide only 30% of their $9,223 per student.

For the record, I advocate everyone paying their own way regardless of where they live.

To be consistent with this piece, shouldn’t the Times publish an editorial complaining that high-income earners pay a disproportionate share of income taxes to subsidize low-income earners? I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it.