Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/15/06

This page was last updated on December 16, 2006.

House divided: Fighting over Westinghouse undercuts regionalism; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 15, 2006.

In general, I oppose all government “incentives” given to a business to locate somewhere. It’s an example of government interference in the free market. If we’re going to give a specific business tax cuts to locate somewhere, those cuts should be given to all businesses. The purpose of this critique is to show the inconsistency of the PG position.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Some Pittsburghers are better at losing jobs than gaining them. While leaders in southwestern Pennsylvania typically join forces when an employer thinks about leaving the region, that ‘one-for-all, all-for-one’ spirit is the first casualty when new business tries to choose between local sites.

“Just look at what’s happening between Monroeville and Cranberry.

“Westinghouse Electric Corp. decided to put its 2,000-job expansion in this region, on top of some 3,000 jobs the firm already has primarily in Monroeville. That touched off a struggle between local political delegations. State Sen. Sean Logan, a Monroeville Democrat, is leading the team that’s fighting to keep Westinghouse’s workers (and tax revenue) in Monroeville, while Sen. Jane Orie, a McCandless Republican, is part of a Butler County group that wants to lure the company to a new office park in Cranberry.

“We say let Westinghouse decide where it can best do business locally, now that it has rejected Charlotte, N.C. Having won 2,000 new jobs that will pay up to $100,000 each, greater Pittsburgh hardly needs to fight about whether they are housed in Monroeville or Cranberry.”

[RWC] “We say let Westinghouse decide where it can best do business?” Why was that not the mantra when Westinghouse was choosing between Western PA and Charlotte? Using the PG’s logic, should we not have been happy Westinghouse was locating in the U.S. and not overseas, or in the eastern U.S. and not in the West?

“Sure, the Gateway School District and Monroeville would take a hit on tax revenue if the company were to pull up stakes for Cranberry, but it’s not as if Monroeville is short on taxpaying businesses.”

[RWC] I oppose business taxes because they are simply a means to hide taxes on us individuals. As with the critique overall, my following comments are to show the problem with the PG’s “logic.”

Let’s assume it’s true “Monroeville is [not] short on taxpaying businesses.” If Westinghouse leaves Monroeville, won’t Monroeville have to find a way to make up for the lost tax revenue? Among the options are luring replacement businesses, increasing taxes on both businesses and individuals, and spending cuts.

“This fight is unseemly and not worthy of people who profess to support regionalism. After all, what good is regionalism if it’s only as big as one’s backyard?”

[RWC] Why is it “unseemly and not worthy” for one local municipality to try and lure a business from another, but it’s OK for Pennsylvania to lure a business from North Carolina? Such is the hypocrisy and inconsistency of liberalism.

I wonder if we’d have seen this editorial if it were the City of Pittsburgh trying to lure Westinghouse downtown.