In many states, governors are being faced with the difficult choice of cutting services or raising taxes on its residents. As you can imagine, it’s not a politically easy decision. In most cases, it’s a matter of taking from one pocket (cutting services) or another (raising income, sales or property taxes on individuals), both of which directly affect the bottom line for taxpayers.
But what if it were easier than that? What if the proposal to cut services could be offset by a popular tax, one that the majority of taxpayers preferred over cuts? What if the new tax would not affect most individual taxpayers directly? And what if the state was one of only a handful of states in the country not currently imposing such a tax?
In Pennsylvania, the governor still says no.
Gov. Tom Corbett (R) has put forth a budget for the coming year that significantly cuts services, including deep cuts to education. A whopping 50% cut was dealt to higher education, the highest such cut in the country. A majority of residents oppose to the cuts – and that’s a big deal in a state that tends to bleed blue, Penn State blue. In fact, more than 70% of residents surveyed in the poll (conducted by Franklin & Marshall University) opposed the cuts.
In contrast, a majority of residents favor a new extraction tax on natural gas. Recently finds in the state (particularly concentrated in the northeast) have resulted in significant rounds of drilling. Feelings on the drillings are mixed: ask any one in Pennsylvania about Marcellus Shale and they’ll have an opinion about it. It’s the new “gold rush” in the state. Whether it’s good for the environment or the economy may be debatable but what’s not in question is this: Pennsylvania does not charge a gas extraction tax on the drilling. It is one of a handful of states that doesn’t do so and the largest natural gas-producing state without a gas extraction tax. Despite public support for such a tax, the governor continues to oppose any measure to tax the industry.
The governor’s spokesman, Kevin Harley, seems to think that the governor doesn’t need to worry about polls. Harley said, about the latest poll:
The governor was elected to make difficult decisions. That’s what leadership is about. That’s what he’s providing. He’s not governed by polls but by policy.
I would beg to differ. While it may not make sense to govern strictly on popularity, popularity is what keeps you in office. Gov. Corbett could well be on his way to one term as governor. Less than one third of those surveyed believe that Corbett is doing a job that could be considered “good” or “excellent” – and he’s just been in office three months.
But it does raise an interesting policy question: what do you tax (or cut) when budgets are tight? How much say should taxpayers have in the matter? Should it be policy driven – or driven by the populace? What do you think?
To me, it’s not even about what is popular. Why would you choose to cut funding for education, an investment in the future success of our country, when you could instead tax something that not only raises environmental concerns, but will not cease to occur if the tax were t
o be implemented.
Yeah, maybe the Gov. has something there. We’ve been told all our lives that paying high taxes to fund public education would be a great “investment” in the future and all we got was a hoard of lib. arts majors who have no skills to offer the world. Yet we have productive members of society in Penn. drilling for gas, creating jobs, and paying a myriad of taxes. But hey, why not just lob one extra tax on an unpopular minority to pay our bills. Best education for all the higher educated is to get their first paycheck after college and realize how much “uncle sam” gets right off the bat.
The problem with higher education as an investment for a state, is that the higher tax inflow from those subsidized diplomas, never materializes. Many of the welfare diplomas, leave the state and pay higher taxes elsewhere. Others stay in state, but pick government jobs and there is no net tax benefit since they are paid with tax dollars. Higher education should stand on its own – without taxpayer subsidies; they have endowments, tuition and alumni to rely on.
I’m going to assume Jimmy Pete is a troll, because I’m sure it takes quite a few engineers, business administrators, and even people like truck drivers who went for training at the local community college for training to work in the gas drilling. I’m sure the majority of the went to school in-state.