Governor Proposes 50% Cut in U. Pitt Funding

<p>^^ I took quakerstake’s comment as sarcasm to a previous post.</p>

<p>The real problem with job growth/business siting in PA? The policital culture. The multiple layers of governement all duplicating one another - that, and that our elected representatives aren’t spending our money on essentials. Me? I happen to think education is essential. Lawmakers? Apparently bibles and flags are essential.
[Team</a> 4: Thousands Spent On Bibles, Flags Unnecessary For State Lawmakers? - Pittsburgh News Story - WTAE Pittsburgh](<a href=“http://www.wtae.com/news/27138292/detail.html]Team”>Pittsburgh PA News, Weather and Sports - WTAE-TV Pittsburgh Action News 4)</p>

<p>If spending needs to be cut (which I do not disagree) then the pain should be shared equally by all offices across government. Every office - top to bottom - needs to reduced by X%. WAMs/DCED goodies - eliminate. Since we seem to be entrenched in our quagmire of multiple layers of government, then why should a municipality (such as Hempfield Township) be provided with PA state police service and patrol and they don’t have to pay extra for that? If the governor wants to hire more state police, then those townships that rely on PSP for patrols should have to pony up for that service and pay the salary, benefits, vehicle maintenance, gasoline, etc, for each officer and vehicle.</p>

<p>Tax policy and business environment consists of more than just the personal income tax rate which for some reason you compared to Florida. What is the “most important” factor for attracting business to both invest/reinvest in PA and to start new businesses here?</p>

<p>Most important? Quality of life. Clean air, clean water. Open spaces. Quality education. You know, places where people want to live and raise their children.</p>

<p>

At least you now admit that the “real” problem with business growth and job creation is not the need for an edcuated workforce or making education a priority. Does your latest post mean that Gov. Corbett is not a hypocrite?</p>

<p>Nope. Tom is, without a doubt, a hypocrite. My opinion on that won’t change. But if you want job growth - if you want businesses to locate here - you need an educated workforce. When you slash spending to the extent that he proposes, you are seriously depleting the available pool of educated/skilled workers. We aren’t working in factories anymore. We need a highly educated and skilled workforce.</p>

<p>

Wow! And that explains why so many businesses have left both PA and the US for Mexico, China and other garden spots where people want to raise their children?</p>

<p>No, they go to Mexico, China and other depressed areas because they can exploit the workforce and environment. I don’t want to live where my children have to drink from contaminated water sources, or where I have no sewers, or where I live (in my squalid hut) next to a toxic e-waste dump.</p>

<p>So to recap:
You now agree that the “real” problem with business growth and job creation in PA is not the need for an educated workforce, or making education a priority, clean air, clean water. and open spaces. So is it the “political culture” or something you haven’t mentioned yet that is hurting business growth and job creation in PA?</p>

<p>aglages: I was trying to keep it simple by referring only to personal taxes (particularly with FL being at zero) rather than doing a tax policy memo on this site. Overall, Florida has the 5th lowest business tax burden, Pennsylvania is 26th. PA’s unemployment rate is significantly lower than FL’s. Again, taxes are only one factor in the business location decision. Other factors are education, transportation, access to skilled workers, real estate costs, access to markets, cost of living, quality of life for employees…</p>

<p>aglages - we need to have a beer! ha! </p>

<p>This is a multi-faceted issue. Problems include: political culture (which includes not only the Harrisburg pay-for-play - ie, campaign contributions and lobbyists but also multiple layers of government performing duplicate services), taxation issues, quality of life (poor air quality due to lax enforcement), aging infrastructure…and the lists goes on and on. BUT, if we want to attract “green” businesses, if we want to attract research for newer technologies and energy sources, if we want to attract responsible businesses that want to enhance the community and not pollute it, then an educated workforce is critical. It won’t happen without that. And an educated workforce won’t happen unless there is affordable education.</p>

<p>

And as mentioned in a previous post…the cost of labor, materials and energy. Although quite a few PA residents might retire to Florida, I’m not sure how many businesses we lose to that state. </p>

<p>How is Florida doing with funding secondary education? They must have close to as many seniors as PA. I understand they chose to use their lottery proceeds to fund a program called Bright Futures and yet don’t have a personal income tax. Certainly PA could take the money from the casinos or from our lottery profits and use it the same way without increasing taxes.</p>

<p>Check this out: <a href=“http://www.postgazette.com/pg/pdf/201103/20110311budgetcuts_taxes.pdf[/url]”>http://www.postgazette.com/pg/pdf/201103/20110311budgetcuts_taxes.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>If you know Allegheny County, then the targets become clear. Compare the size and the impacts of the cut in Mt. Lebanon or Fox Chapel vs. Wilkinsburg, McKeesport, or Pittsburgh. This is one example of what I mean by “selfish”. Even Andrew Carnegie, reviled by many, built public libraries.</p>

<p>The people proposing these cuts do so only AFTER their own education has been paid for and subsidized, and they still expect the younger generation to carry the economy and the military. That is also “selfish”. Sure we can go back to the Gilded Age, but it will be a different sort of society than we have now.</p>

<p>By the way, I run a business in Pennsylvania myself and taxes are a relatively small factor. The ability to hire is far more important. Pitt and CMU are huge factors keeping business here.</p>

<p>The “targets”? </p>

<p>The basic education funding program is the state effort that provides subsidies to school districts based on their local tax base and the income of the people who live in the school district. The state subsidies are a smaller portion of the budget for districts that have a good property tax base.</p>

<p>Not too surprising that Mt. Lebanon would see a smaller cut considering their school district isn’t using as much of the state funds that have been reduced. Perhaps the taxpayers of Mt. Lebanon are contributing more money to their school district than the taxpayers of Wilkinsburg?

I’m missing your point here. Are you suggesting that when our elected officials went to college that economic times (and education funding) were different? Of course. So now they should vote for tax increases to better fund education because their situation was different 30 years ago? Should they roll back cigarette taxes? DUI changes? Driver license laws for 16/17 year olds? After all 30 years ago you could smoke in your office and drive home drunk with very few repercussions…why should our state legislatures deprive the current generation of the advantages they had? I think the legislatures in this state have to represent the will of the current taxpayers and address the major economic issues we have in this state.

And this is different from which previous generation? Every generation expects the younger generation to carry the military and to provide a new work force for the “economy”.</p>

<p>So is it appropriate that school districts with smaller tax bases that require the educational subsidies will see theirs cut? Is it appropriate to exacerbate the problems of the poorer school districts?</p>

<p>Getting back to the main topic of interest to participants in this board, what is the likelihood that the proposed cuts to Pitt’s funding will pass? Is the proposal just a starting point (though an extreme starting point) in negotiating the budget and is a more reasonable end result expected? How would Pitt offset the funding loss? What effect will the cuts have on tuition (in-state, out-of-state), financial aid, educational programs?</p>

<p>Can anyone say anything definitive, or is any comment just speculation?</p>

<p>

From an earlier post in this thread:

Any comment would just be an opinion/speculation.</p>

<p>[Pennsylvania</a> is 38th in Higher Educational Spending Per Student - Before Corbett’s Cuts - Democratic Underground](<a href=“Democratic Underground Forums - Request error”>http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=175x18205)</p>

<p>19% cut looks like it will the PA legislature according to the Post-Gazette.</p>

<p>[Pitt</a>, Penn State to get 19% funding cuts](<a href=“http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11175/1155974-100.stm]Pitt”>http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/11175/1155974-100.stm)</p>