State Rep. Frank LaGrotta – 5/4/05

This page was last updated on July 7, 2005.

Response to Felix Alfonso Peña column of April 24, 2005 in Reading Eagle; State Rep. Frank LaGrotta (D-10); May 4, 2005.

The purpose of this critique is not to defend Mr. Pena’s original column or its follow-up. Indeed, as I pointed out in a critique of Rep. Rohrer’s proposal, I oppose increasing the state’s interference in funding schools.

The purpose of this critique is to point out problems with Mr. LaGrotta’s self-described “guest op/ed column.”

I should note a couple of points. First, the Reading Eagle chose not to print Mr. LaGrotta’s opinion piece. Second, after I sent an e-mail note to Mr. LaGrotta asking him to clarify a claim in his piece, I learned he deleted the note without even reading it.

Below is a critique of the subject opinion piece.

“I must express my disappointment with Felix Alfonso Peña’s column of Sunday, April 24. In it, he managed to summarily dismiss years of work by pro-gam[bl]ing legislators, while at the same time casually ignoring the thousands of low-income Pennsylvanians who would become casualties of the Commonwealth Caucus’ $10 billion sales tax hike scheme.”

[RWC] Someone needs to fix Mr. LaGrotta’s spellchecker. He – and most gambling supporters – consistently misspells “gambling” as “gaming.” Seriously, though, if you believe you need to change the name of something you support, shouldn’t that set off your “spider senses?” This is the same as the pro-abortion crowd calling their position “pro-choice.”

“First, let’s clear up his misguided attacks on Act 72, and the school tax cuts that will be paid for by legalized slots. The vast majority of Pennsylvanians support legalized gam[bl]ing -- some polls show well over 60 percent. Even more people are looking forward to the school tax cuts that will result from it, as evidenced by the millions of homeowners who took the time to complete and mail their tax cut forms by the March deadline.”

[RWC] I’m willing to accept the fact that less than two out of three Pennsylvanians support additional legalized gambling, though Mr. LaGrotta didn’t provide references to validate his allegation. I have no problem with legalized gambling, though I don’t know why it must have such a huge tax. If there’s nothing inherently wrong with gambling, why should it not be taxed at the same rate as other entertainment? See “Local Representatives Target Young for Gambling” for more info.

I’m not so sure about the claim that “even more people are looking forward to the school tax cuts that will result from” gambling. I’ve found more than a few people who said it didn’t feel right to fund something as “good” as childhood education with a “sin tax.” It seems like the wrong message to send to kids.

The idea that people sending in forms is “evidence” of support is BS. For example, while I believe deductions and exemptions are wrong for income taxes, I still take them when I can because I don’t want to screw myself. The government already gets far more of my money than it needs.

“Maybe Mr. Peña didn’t actually read Act 72 before forming his opinions? That’s understandable, since most school board members haven’t read it either. If they did they’d understand that Act 72 is not intended to give school boards more money to spend. The goal of Act 72 is to help homeowners pay less school taxes!”

[RWC] Ah, if you aren’t in love with funding the education of children with gambling money, you are uninformed!

“(Question for school board members who oppose this idea: What planet are you living on?)”

[RWC] This is an ingenuous question and Mr. LaGrotta knows it. He knows full well why school board members don’t like the “slots for tots” bill. As soon as a school district opts in, they lose the ability to raise local taxes beyond the level required to keep pace with inflation without getting approval from the voters. This is the prime reason 1998’s Act 50 failed and it didn’t have the added baggage of gambling.

Before Mr. LaGrotta takes school boards to task, he needs to sponsor a bill that requires voters to approve all new state taxes and tax increases. I won’t hold my breath.

Given the inability of elected officials to control spending, I believe all tax increases – whether local or state – should require voter approval.

“Now, a fact check on the $10 billion sales tax boondoggle. Putting a 5 percent sales tax on food and clothing would be the largest tax increase in Pennsylvania history, and the brunt of it would be borne by low-income persons, working Pennsylvanians and large families.”

[RWC] Let’s look at this alleged “fact check.”

The “largest tax increase in Pennsylvania history” claim is BS because it ignores the fact that school property and Act 511 taxes are to be eliminated so the overall effect is supposed to be revenue neutral.

I love the “working Pennsylvanians” group. Are we to believe the vast majority of working-age Pennsylvanians doesn’t work or didn’t work to earn their retirement income?

Why was the obligatory elderly group omitted? Was it intentional or an oversight? <g>

Finally, which do you believe spends more, a low-income family or a high-income family? Assuming you correctly answered “high-income family,” here is the question for all the marbles. Which family would – and already does – pay more sales tax dollars?

Some “fact check.”

“Got some kids who want new clothes for school? Get ready to have your clothing budget busted! Have a family that insists on eating dinner EVERY night? Get ready to have your food budget shoot up. Need disposable diapers for the new arrival? Or over-the-counter headache medicine if the little one cries all night? Want a Bible for your family, or an American Flag for your front lawn? Get ready to open your wallet even more, since all of those things that are NOT taxed now, will suddenly cost 5 percent more under the proposed tax hike. Oh, and if you’re dreaming about owning your own home, the Commonwealth Caucus has a surprise for you: Their plan triples the realty transfer tax from 1 percent to 3 percent of the total sale price, making it all the more difficult to buy a new home, or sell your old one.”

[RWC] Oh boo-hoo; cry me a river!

I’m sure it was an honest oversight, but Mr. LaGrotta forgot to factor in the extra money in your pocket from the eliminated school taxes and that eliminating school taxes should result in some price reductions because businesses would no longer need to add the cost of school property taxes to the price of their products and services.

“Want a Bible for your family, or an American Flag for your front lawn?” This sounds like something recommended from a 2004 post-election focus group to address the perceived Democrat values deficit.

Regarding the realty tax increase, I’ll pull a “LaGrotta” and look at it in isolation. Let’s say you buy a $100,000 house in a school district with a 50-mill school property tax and property is appraised at 50% of market value for tax purposes. The house price will increase by a one-time $2,000, but your school property tax will drop by $500/year. Which would you rather have, $2,000 for one year or $500/year for 40 years ($20,000 excluding interest compounding and the fact that your house appraisal and tax rate would increase over time)? Indeed, the lower annual property tax bill may allow you to afford a better house than you expected and/or allow you to make more improvements than you could previously.

“Thus far we have the largest tax increase in Pennsylvania history and a big, bloated new state bureaucracy to collect it. And what do we get in return?”

[RWC] The last time I checked, Pennsylvania already has a sales tax and the Democrat-run “bloated … state bureaucracy to collect it.” Are we to believe the bureaucracy will become even more bloated just by changing the list of items taxed? Besides, it’s hard to believe any politician – whether Democrat or Republican – when he expresses concern about a “bloated bureaucracy.”

“Nobody knows.

“That’s right. Nobody knows what will happen because the Commonwealth Caucus won’t share their $90,000 study, paid for by the taxpayers, which they claim proves the largest tax increase in state history will be the greatest thing since sliced bread -- with a five percent sales tax on every slice no less!”

[RWC] I believe Mr. LaGrotta is wrong. From what I can tell, the final study report - along with an update - by Fishkind & Associates is posted at http://www.samrohrer.org/plan-presentations.htm and has been there for almost one year.

I sent a note to Mr. LaGrotta – with copies to Reps. Vince Biancucci (D-15) and Sam Rohrer (R-128) – asking him if the above report was indeed what he was talking about. I copied Mr. Biancucci because he’s my state rep. I copied Mr. Rohrer because he’s leading the efforts of the Commonwealth Caucus. As I noted above, I learned Mr. LaGrotta deleted my note without even reading it.

“What we DO know is that the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue released a study on April 20, 2005, that says the plan will not generate enough revenue to replace the total school taxes collected in 2004. It may fall short by as much as $3 billion in the first year. Does that mean 5 percent will become 6...or 7...or…?”

[RWC] Let’s remember that Gov. Rendell appointees run the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (PDR) while the Commonwealth Caucus proposal support comes primarily from Republicans.

When I could not find the PDR study on the PDR website, the Taxpayer Service & Information Center directed me to the PDR press office. The press office told me the “study” was not a study after all. The woman I spoke with said it was merely a letter from the PDR to a House committee.

Through a “Right to Know” request, I was able to review the memo to which Mr. LaGrotta referred. I’ll be generous and merely state that he misrepresented the memo. The seven-page memo did not say what Mr. LaGrotta alleges, not even close.¹

“However, let’s assume they do collect enough money. The Department of Education has no idea how it will be distributed. Will the state simply give each school district the same amount of money it presently collects in property taxes with no provision for equity? Will that result in a better, more equitable system of education? The way I see it, the rich districts would stay rich and the poor people would wind up paying for it.”

[RWC] I’ve disproved the rich and poor district funding myth several times before. Here is only one example. Intentionally or unknowingly, Mr. LaGrotta is advancing a falsehood.

“Then there’s the question of local control of education. Curriculum? Activities? Faculty? Class sizes? Does anyone really believe this big, new state bureaucracy is will [sic] really going to divvy up $10 billion a year and NOT dictate how it’s spent. [sic]”

[RWC] Again, what new bureaucracy? The commonwealth already has a bureaucracy 1) to divvy up state taxpayer dollars given to school districts and 2) to tell school districts how to spend their money.

The local control question is not credible, especially coming from a Democrat. Remember, local control runs counter to the Democrat position that central government control is best. To be fair, some wayward Republicans – especially in the General Assembly – share this position.

“As a final note, I notice that Mr. Peña is a ‘lifestyle reporter and editor of the travel section.’ I’m sure he realizes that Pennsylvania’s second-largest industry is travel and tourism. He also must know that among the most popular destinations are the outlets in and around Berks County. The $10 billion sales tax hike takes aim squarely at that industry -- and at Berks County -- taking away our competitive advantage over surrounding states. Sales will plummet and jobs will be lost.”

[RWC] “The $10 billion sales tax hike takes aim squarely at that industry [travel and tourism].” Wait a second. Above we read the “brunt of it [sales tax changes] would be borne by low-income persons, working Pennsylvanians and large families” buying food, clothing, disposable diapers, “over-the-counter headache medicine if the little one cries all night,” Bibles, and American flags. Which is it?

I might take the “competitive advantage” argument seriously if Mr. LaGrotta just this year hadn’t proposed increasing the PA minimum wage and supported an increase in the Corporate Net Income tax.

“Then again, maybe he sees that as a positive since it will create more low-income people to pick up the tab for everyone else.

“Respectfully,”

[RWC] I probably shouldn’t be one to talk, but I don’t consider the tone of this opinion piece to be respectful of anyone.

“Frank LaGrotta

“State Representative

“10th District

“Chairman, Tourism and Recreational Development Committee”

[RWC] Mr. LaGrotta is not chairman of this committee, Robert Godshall (R-Montgomery County) is. As a member of the minority party, Mr. LaGrotta is simply the minority leader of this committee. In fairness, I suspect Republicans also engaged in title inflation when they were the minority party in the House.

1. I should note the following about the document provided by the PDR. First, it took the PDR over five weeks to respond to my written request of May 13, 2005. Even then it came only after I prodded the PDR with a follow-up phone call. Right-to-know requests are to be fulfilled or denied within 10 working days, not 24+. The right-to-know law states a response “shall not exceed ten business days from the date the written request is received.”

Second, the document faxed to me by the PDR is neither dated nor signed. All I have is the word of the PDR press secretary – Steve Kniley – that the document provided was the document I requested. As a result, it is possible – but not probable – that the document I received is not the one to which Mr. LaGrotta referred.

I would have posted the document on the website, but it’s a little big at 200 kB. I can send a copy if requested.