David R. Busang – 9/18/06

This page was last updated on September 18, 2006.

Don’t blame Casey on pay hike; David R. Busang; Beaver County Times; September 18, 2006.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“It is ironic that U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum criticized Treasurer Bob Casey’s signing Legislature’s paychecks representing the 2005 pay raises while at the same time supporting President Bush’s unconstitutional wiretapping program.

“While Casey may be open for criticism on other issues, the infamous 2005 pay raise is not one of them.

“Article II, paragraph 8 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution reads, ‘The members of the General Assembly shall receive such salary and mileage for regular and special sessions as shall be fixed by law, and no other compensation whatever, whether for service upon committee or otherwise. No member of either House shall during the term for which he may have been elected, receive any increase of salary, or mileage, under any law passed during such term.’

“It is inconceivable how anyone could possibly think that the legislative pay raise of 2005 did not violate the Constitution. Nevertheless, according to Sally Ann Ulrich, chief counsel of Treasury Department, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in a series of decisions dating from the 1980s, has held that unvouchered expense allowances are valid under the state constitution.

“Ulrich further stated that in a separate case now before the court, Casey took the position that the Legislature’s use of such allowances violated the state constitution and that the payments made under the pay raise act of 2005 should be returned.”

[RWC] Mr. Busang neglected to mention Mr. Casey issued the checks despite the fact he believed the pay raise to be unconstitutional. Mr. Busang also neglected to tell us Mr. Casey’s court testimony came months after the General Assembly rescinded the raise. Mr. Casey’s first public opposition didn’t come until about three month’s after the GA passed and Gov. Rendell passed the pay raise, long after public outcries made a repeal nearly a certainty.

“He further urged the court to overrule their prior decisions relating to unvouchered expense allowances.”

[RWC] Last week the PA Supreme Court ruled unvouchered expenses violate the PA Constitution.

“If anyone should be criticized for the 2005 pay raises, it should be the legislative leadership for passing the bill, Gov. Ed Rendell for signing the bill into law, and the state Supreme Court for allowing the legislative and executive branch to violate the state constitution with the use of unvouchered expense allowances.”

[RWC] I agree with the final paragraph.

Did Mr. Casey really believe from the beginning the pay raise was illegal? I don’t know.

I believe the politician in Mr. Casey got the better of him, however. He knew the raise was incredibly unpopular and figured simply being silent on the subject would be interpreted as supporting the raises. As a result, eventually Mr. Casey issued statements opposing the raises.

Herein lies the problem. Upon taking office, Mr. Casey took the following oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity.”

By engaging in an activity (issuing the checks) he believed violated the state Constitution, he violated his oath of office. He would have been better off saying he believed the pay raise to be legal.