This page was last updated on June 17, 2004.

Forum: A bold plan for Pennsylvania's future; State Rep. Sam Rohrer (R-128); Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; March 14, 2004.

Rep. Rohrer's opinion piece promotes a plan in which local government school property taxes would be replaced by revising the state sales tax.  In summary, everything would become subject to the sales tax but the tax rate would be reduced from six to four percent.

I disagree with this proposal and the text of my letter to Mr. Rohrer is below.

Mr. Rohrer replied to my letter and tried to defend the proposal.  Though we still disagree, I have to give Mr. Rohrer credit for providing a responsible reply to my letter.  Whether he or someone on his staff wrote it, the four-page reply addressed the issues I outlined point by point in a professional manner.  Given my communication experience with elected officials, this was a breath of fresh air.  I would include Mr. Rohrer's reply, but it was on paper -- as was my letter to him -- and I'm too lazy to transcribe four pages.

Dear Rep. Rohrer,

I could not believe a Republican wrote A Bold Plan for Pennsylvania’s Future in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette of March 14, 2004.  This article could have come straight out of Gov. Rendell’s Plan for a Rust Belt Pennsylvania.

Instead of placing funding responsibility where it belongs, in the hands of local voters, your proposal is a leap backward for Pennsylvania.  A successful plan would include the following points.

1. Place the primary financial responsibility for public education on local taxpayers.  This is the only way to make sure the needs and wants of the school district match the willingness and ability of the residents to pay.  In those rare cases where the school district cannot raise sufficient funds without imposing unbearably on its residents, the Commonwealth would contribute supplemental funding sufficient to maintain academics at an acceptable level.
2. The voters of each municipality/school district should decide which package of taxes (income, property, et cetera) is best for their unique demographics.  A tax strategy that makes sense for a rural school district may be completely wrong for an urban district.  School districts should have the ability to use any combination of local taxes (income, property, sales, wage, et cetera), fees, tuition, donations, et cetera for funding without undue restrictions.
3. School district voters must vote upon all changes in tax types, rate increases, and decisions to incur debt.
4. Prohibit the Commonwealth and school districts from accepting federal financial assistance.  Our schools belong to the citizens of the school district, but accepting one dollar of federal funding means playing by the feds’ rules.
5. Encourage school districts to charge tuition based on ability to pay and the number of children enrolled.  Families with lower incomes and/or more children enrolled would pay less per child.  In no case would tuition be expected to pay the full bill for a child’s education.
6. Tied to point 5, provide incentives to parents and students for academic achievement.  Harrisburg proposals tend to provide incentives to everyone except the persons most responsible for achievement.
7. Provide public education choice by implementing a responsible voucher program.  Competition is one of the keys to improving academic results and lowering costs.  We need to stop thinking that publicly funded education mandates public schools.

Please stop using liberalspeak.  The property tax is not regressive; it’s proportional, as are the income and sales taxes.  Also, calling the sales tax a “consumer choice” tax is sad, and no more true than claiming the property tax is a consumer choice tax.  After all, can’t the consumer choose how much property tax he pays by choosing where he lives and/or the value of the property he owns?  What’s next, calling the income tax a “worker’s choice” tax because a worker can choose to earn less so he can pay less taxes?

To keep the letter brief, I addressed only the K-12 education portion of the Commonwealth Caucus plan.  Unfortunately, the rest of the plan also has serious flaws.

Yours truly

© 2004 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.