A ‘Virtuous’ Plan to Make PA Budgets Worse Than They Already Are
Bear with me here. These numbers are important:
Pennsylvania’s governor is paid an annual salary of $213,026.00. Governors are limited to two four-year terms.
The 253 members of the State Legislature are paid $102,844.00 per year, plus per diems. House members serve two-year, senators four-year terms. Neither are term-limited.
While in office, former Governor Tom Wolf, a wealthy Democrat, did not accept a salary, nor did he reside in Pennsylvania’s lavish Governor’s Mansion.
Online search results estimate current Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro’s net worth at an impressive $5 to $7 million.
The legislature contains some people of means, too, but, at nearly $103,000, many legislators have the best job they’ve ever had, and, for some, the best job they will ever have. In fact, more than a few have spent nearly their entire adult lives sucking at the public teat.
Accordingly, too many legislators are eager, even desperate to hang onto their cozy sinecures.
For context, in October, 2023, a CNBC survey found that 61 percent of Americans, including many making six figures, are living paycheck to paycheck, and 74 percent “are stressed about finances.”
Surely, some of Pennsylvania’s legislators are among them.
Ask yourself, which of Pennsylvania’s elected officials would be hurt most by losing their salaries for a few months? And which ones would be more likely to make lousy “compromises” to preserve their incomes?
If you said legislators, you’re correct.
Recently, in mid-January, an old “budgetary incentive” idea was resurrected, one that deserves the same fate it suffered the last time – inaction.
Here’s the background:
Pennsylvania has a constitutional June 30 budget deadline.
Back in 2015, then-Governor Tom Wolf vetoed the legislature’s on-time budget authorization. The impasse drug out into 2016 when more-fiscally-responsible legislators finally managed to accumulate enough leverage among antsy Democrats to outlast Gov. Wolf’s demands for massive spending increases and substantial tax hikes.
The delay benefitted Pennsylvania’s citizens and taxpayers.
Then, after the impasse was resolved, a one-term state senator, a Democrat who enjoyed a lucrative side gig with a prominent Harrisburg lobbying firm, proposed a bill specifying that failure to pass a budget by the deadline would require withholding the governor’s and legislators’ salaries until a budget was approved.
He conveniently overlooked that, in 2015, the legislature had done its job by passing a budget pre-deadline, that only the governor (not coincidentally one of his own party) was in violation. Had that senator’s “virtuous” bill passed, a wealthy governor who didn’t take a state salary would have been able to financially-coerce enough legislators into passing his preferred budget, including massive new and increased taxes.
Recently, following final approval of another late budget, Rep. Jill Cooper (R-Westmoreland County), who, “virtuously,” didn’t take a paycheck she apparently didn’t need during the six-month impasse, introduced House Bill 1935 that would suspend paychecks for lawmakers, the governor, and the lieutenant governor during another budget impasse, starting from the missed deadline until a budget is signed.
Emphasis on “signed.”
By refusing to sign, a governor – Republican or Democrat – can stonewall the will of the people’s representatives who, currently, at least, face a difficult process: Pennsylvania’s legislative chambers are split, and the majorities in both are slim.
Under Rep. Cooper’s plan, the budgetary process would mean exactly nothing if a wealthy governor obstinately and repeatedly says “no” beyond a June 30 constitutional deadline.
Cooper’s proposal to deny pay to legislators after June 30 would allow just one official, the governor, to delay and then coopt enough “paycheck-to-paycheck” legislators into passing budgets containing spending excesses and higher taxes.
Passing a state budget requires negotiations between the legislative and executive branches of the government. Although deadlines are fine for kids’ homework, in negotiations, all imposed, even constitutional deadlines are irrational and often counterproductive. Deadlines can be and are used as “artificial” negotiating leverage.
No sober business professional ever opened a critical, high-stakes negotiation by announcing, “Let’s get this over with. I have a 1:00 tee time.”
Responsible professionals commit all the time necessary to reach outcomes that get their stakeholders the best terms possible. They never encourage the opposition to run out the clock.
It didn’t when Governor Wolf attempted it in 2015-16, but, if HB1935 passes, stonewalling will work for future governors.
Legislators would be foolish to add “financial coercion” to any Pennsylvania governor’s budgetary negotiating toolkit.
