Mike's Memo

2008-2009 Budget Perspective: Controlling Spending is an Ongoing Battle

The "Promise to Pennsylvania" was the foundation of my run for State Senate, and it continues to be my guiding principle – especially relating to fiscal reform. I have experienced the negotiation of two state budgets, opposing one and supporting the other.

When Governor Rendell took office in 2003, General Fund spending was around $20 billion.  When I arrived in 2007, that figure ballooned to over $26 billion – a 27 percent increase in just four years,  or about 7 percent growth per year.

I opposed the 2007 – 2008 state budget because it added another billion dollars to General Fund spending, marking yet another increase far in excess of the combined rates of inflation and population growth. To me, this continued recklessness was maddening, but I was the one labeled "certifiable" by the governor for opposing his spendthrift fiscal blueprint.

This year, we reached a watershed with the Governor: he agreed to compromise on a General Fund spending increase below the rate of inflation (around 4 percent). I was able to support the final budget because I believe it is a considerable step in the right direction.

We must, however, continue the battle to control state spending. We need to continually ask how to make the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.  We need to question what government programs work and which ones don’t, and take appropriate action.

We must also oppose higher taxes and fees, and need an honest assessment of the benefits and dangers of borrowing.  I believe that infrastructure – especially water and sewer – is a fundamental responsibility of government.  That's why I supported legislation to authorize the borrowing of $400 million for water and sewer system repairs (the measure would need approval by voters). I also supported a measure known as H2O PA, which uses revenue generated from slot machines to repay debt incurred from enhancement to water and sewer systems, storm-water management, flood control and high-hazard dam repairs.

I was not able to support politicized borrowing initiatives, including $500 million for selected energy projects and mandated alternative fuel sources preferred by Rendell Administration environmentalists; I also could not support $2 billion in borrowing for Capital Budget and infrastructure projects.

Continued borrowing and spending increases reinforces the need for my Taxpayer Protection Act (SB 707), which would limit state spending to personal income growth or the combined rates of inflation and population growth (whichever figure is lower).

If we are ever going to cut taxes that are killing jobs and squeezing out the middle class, we must control government spending.  While we made some progress this year, more needs to be done.  It’s an ongoing battle.