Jane M. Earll – 5/20/08

This page was last updated on May 20, 2008.

Fixing our infrastructure; State Sen. Jane M. Earll – R-49, Erie; Beaver County Times; May 20, 2008.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.

“In response to the editorial ‘Wasted effort: Revenue from slot machines should have been used for infrastructure needs:’

“Let me first say that I agree with those sentiments. In my district there are many municipalities dealing with water and sewer issues that require excessive funding to keep the improvements affordable for the ratepayers.”

[RWC] Note Ms. Earll doesn’t define “many municipalities,” “excessive funding,” or “affordable.”

“For this reason and others, I have introduced legislation to float a $750 million bond to help municipalities fund water or sewer, storm water, flood protection and dam safety projects.”

[RWC] Actually, Ms. Earll and 26 of her “closest friends” (2 Democrats, 24 Republicans) introduced SB2, though her name appears first on the list.

“The debt service on the bond will be paid back with gaming dollars that were set aside for economic development.”

[RWC] Why can’t some people bring themselves to call gambling what it is, gambling? For discussion at another time, what are Republicans doing throwing tax dollars at so-called “economic development” programs? <Howard Dean scream goes here.>

“These funds will not be available to Philadelphia County and Allegheny County for the next 10 years because economic development funding in those counties is funded directly in Act 71.

“While these are not the billions of dollars the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated in 2006 that would be needed to bring drinking water systems and waste water systems into compliance with current regulations, it is a start.

“Senate Bill 2 is moving swiftly through the Senate to help meet some of the infrastructure needs mentioned in the editorial.”

[RWC] The position stated in this letter illustrates yet another example of elected Republican representatives taking a non-conservative position on an issue. In this case, SB2 goes against the principle of limited government. Limited government is not just about minimizing government interference in our lives. Limited government also refers to legitimate government functions being carried out by the appropriate government level. In this case, local municipalities should be responsible for their own infrastructure, not the commonwealth.

An approach on this issue that would be consistent with the limited government principle would require local municipalities and their taxpayers/ratepayers to be responsible for their own infrastructure, not commonwealth taxpayers. County and then commonwealth taxpayers would be dragged into a situation only when a local municipality absolutely, positively couldn’t fulfill its responsibilities on its own and that failure would adversely affect neighboring municipalities. That’s not what SB2 does. SB2 builds yet another trough at which all municipalities can feed at commonwealth taxpayer expense.