Nathan Benefield, senior vice president of the Commonwealth Foundation, commented:

“Pennsylvania should not have unconstitutional laws on its books. Nor should we use taxpayer-funded payroll systems to collect campaign cash. Correcting these problems will empower public employees and help ensure fairness in government. It’s encouraging to see House lawmakers moving to protect employees’ private data and shine the light of transparency on deals that cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”

The four reforms now eligible for a full House vote:

• House Bill 844 (Rep. David Rowe) protects public workers’ Social Security numbers, home addresses, home and personal telephone numbers, and personal email addresses from being shared in the collective bargaining process
• House Bill 845 (Rep. David Rowe) requires government officials to publicize any collective bargaining agreement 14 days in advance of enactment, including a cost estimate, either by newspaper or website
• House Bill 2042 (Rep. Kate Klunk), known as employee rights notification, requires public employers to annually notify new or returning employees of their right to join a union, or to not join and not pay union dues or fees. HB 2042 also eliminates Pennsylvania’s unconstitutional “fair share fee” law.
  • In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Janus v. AFSCME outlawed compulsory union fees for non-union member public employees. But Pennsylvania law still authorizes deductions for these so-called “fair share fees” from public employees’ wages. Though this issue is being litigated by retired teacher Jane Ladley, HB 2042 would eliminate unconstitutional “fair share fee” practices by aligning state law with the Janus ruling.
• House Bill 2048 (Rep. Ryan Mackenzie), known as paycheck protection, prevents public employers from deducting political action committee (PAC) contributions from public employees’ wages using public payroll systems
  • Government unions officials routinely use taxpayer-funded payroll systems to collect money earmarked for election politics. This unethical mixing of government resources and politics has been going on in unions including the PSEA, AFSCME, SEIU, and UFCW for decades. From 2007-2020, government unions spent $152 million on politics, including $67 million in PAC spending.

“It’s time to put power back into the hands of workers,” continued Benefield. “We encourage House lawmakers to pass these bills that end corruption, defend taxpayers, and restore workers’ rights.”

Commonwealth Foundation experts are available for comment. Please contact John Bouder at 570-490-1042 or jrb@commonwealthfoundation.org to schedule an interview.

# # #

The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.

Gov. Tom Wolf recently declared 2022 a “magical year” for the Pennsylvania budget, citing the possibility of a surplus. However, Pennsylvania’s Independent Fiscal Office (IFO) predicts this “magic” will not last long. The IFO’s latest Five Year Budget Outlook projects that the state will return to a deficit by fiscal year 2023-24.

That’s because our budget surplus didn’t result from a strong economy and growing tax base — it’s a counterfeit surplus partly driven by federal aid and debt. Rather than spending that money to expand government, lawmakers should consider the future and budget responsibly. Irresponsible spending has a clear consequence: our most productive residents will simply leave. New data from the United States Census Bureau indicates that many former Pennsylvanians already had enough of Wolf’s big government policies.

Read more in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 

A Pennsylvania court may strike down a labor law that is clearly unconstitutional, but elected officials shouldn’t wait on the legal system to rectify state law with Supreme Court precedent, the lead sponsor of pending legislation said in an interview.

Since the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is now expected to rule on the constitutionality of Pennsylvania’s “fair share fee” law, state Rep. Kate Klunk, a York County Republican, sees an opportunity for her colleagues in both parties to “end the confusion” without delay. In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Janus v. AFSCME that under the First Amendment government workers who are not union members cannot be forced to pay union fees.

The decision affected about 5 million workers in 22 states including Pennsylvania. But Klunk is concerned that too many public employees remain largely unaware of their rights despite the Supreme Court ruling. That’s why she’s sponsoring HB 2042, which would require public employers to notify nonunion members and new employees that they do not need to make financial contributions to a union as a condition of their employment.

Read more in the Delaware Valley Journal

Under Pennsylvania law, government agencies are permitted to use taxpayer resources to collect and distribute political campaign money on behalf of public employee unions.

There’s an obvious problem of ethics here since public resources that should be devoted to the public interest have instead been co-opted to advance partisan political activities.

But a proposed “paycheck protection” bill would end this practice by prohibiting school districts, and other public employers, from automatically deducting contributions to political action committees out of employee wages.

Read more at Broad + Liberty

Currently, caps on the programs cause 40,000 to 50,000 student scholarship applications to be denied each year. These caps also force the state to turn away $100 million in donations from businesses and individuals who want to contribute to the scholarship fund.

The committee voted 7-4 to advance the bill to the Senate floor. Members who voted “yes” include three gubernatorial candidates: Sens. Jake Corman, Doug Mastriano, and Scott Martin.

Commonwealth Foundation Senior Vice President Nathan Benefield issued the following statement:

"Families are seeking educational options now more than ever, and businesses are waiting to donate to support educational scholarships. This bill would allow these successful programs to keep up with demand and ensure students looking for help obtaining a high-quality education can find it."

SB 527 creates an “automatic escalator” that would raise limits on the Educational Improvement Tax Credit (EITC) and Opportunity Scholarship Tax Credit (OSTC) programs by 25 percent annually if 90 percent of the available tax credits are used by business donors in the previous year. Almost 62,000 scholarships were awarded in the 2019-2020 school year.

Automatic escalators are a proven policy, operating in four states: Arizona, Florida, Montana, and Utah. Click here for an in-depth analysis of Pennsylvania’s tax credit scholarship programs.

Commonwealth Foundation experts are available for comment. Please contact John Bouder 570-490-1042 or jrb@commonwealthfoundation.org to schedule an interview.

# # #

The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.

“Pennsylvania’s public education funding is out of step with most other states, because it is extraordinarily high,” said Nathan Benefield, senior vice president for the Commonwealth Foundation. “Only six states spend more on education than we do. Whether you’re looking at local, state, or federal funding, Pennsylvania exceeds the national average. The resources are there, but policymakers need to spend them more effectively.”

The U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics ranks Pennsylvania seventh in the nation in education funding in the 2018-2019 school year, with school districts receiving $19,000 per student. The national average was about $15,000 per student. Pennsylvania taxpayers spend nearly $4,200 more per student than the national average.

It’s true that reliance on property taxes has created funding disparities between local school districts. However, the state has allocated generous spending to higher poverty districts. As a result, total funding for high poverty districts nearly matches the total funding for low poverty districts in Pennsylvania. As the chart below illustrates, state funding per student is already higher in districts with higher poverty rates.

Districts used as examples of underfunding, like Chester-Upland or William Penn, receive more than $19,000 and $18,000 per student, respectively. Per-student funding in Philadelphia is more than $19,000; in Pittsburgh, it tops $27,000. Each of these districts receive far more than the national average of $15,000 per student.

Advocates for higher state funding for public schools claim taxpayers are not spending enough, citing the “state share” of public-school funding compared to other states. In Pennsylvania, state government covers roughly 37 percent of the tab, compared to an average of 47 percent across the nation.

“The so-called ‘state share’ is a meaningless metric, as Pennsylvania delivers far more funding to school districts than most states,” said Benefield. “State government’s share is lower only because local funding is far higher than the national average, due to a lack of meaningful restrictions on school district tax increases.”

The brief also uses school district reserve fund trends to show healthy funding for districts. For the past 15 years, district reserves have risen, reaching nearly $5 billion in 2020.

“Facts are stubborn things,” said Benefield. “Pennsylvania school districts are not underfunded. To truly help students, we should examine how we are using existing resources. Many academic studies have concluded that education funding is unrelated to performance. But Lawmakers and the governor—not the courts—can improve results by allowing funding to follow students to their school of choice, rather than trapping funding in a zip-code-assigned district.

House Bill 1, which would expand tax credit scholarships, reform charter schools, and offer families state-funded accounts to spend on education needs, would have an immediate positive impact on students and families—especially those in high poverty areas.”

Commonwealth Foundation experts are available for comment. Please contact John Bouder at 570-490-1042 or jrb@commonwealthfoundation.org to schedule an interview.

# # #

The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.

With state and congressional redistricting underway in Harrisburg, many politicians have blamed “partisan gerrymandering” for past election losses. But this is another instance when the conventional wisdom gets it wrong. Redistricting-watchers fearing an electoral apocalypse and those hoping for a clear path to victory need a healthy dose of reality.

Voters care little about district lines — what they do care about is how public policy impacts their lives. The truth is, redistricting explains little in terms of electoral results, and many of the controversies surrounding the process are blown out of proportion.

Read more in York Daily Record

Used-car salesmen, members of Congress and telemarketers all rank near the bottom of least-trusted professions. The lowest, however, is lobbyist. For decades, media and good government advocates have railed against the influence of special-interest lobbyists and demanded lobbying reform.

Recently in Pennsylvania, House and Senate leaders rolled out a package of reforms aimed at addressing this mistrust of lobbyists. But reform isn’t just a matter of transparency — Sometimes it’s about eliminating conflicts of interest.

Read more in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette

• Pennsylvania has an overburdened probation system that delivers substandard results. The commonwealth’s recidivism rate is 41 percent—one of the highest in the nation.
• In contrast to almost all other states, Pennsylvania allows probation terms to run the full length of the statutory maximum for the offense committed. The result is abnormally long probation periods, which overburden and prevent probation officers from focusing more on the individuals with a high risk of reoffending.
• Between two thirds and three quarters of Pennsylvanian voters support probation reform.
• By right-sizing probation terms, Rep. Baker’s bipartisan comprehensive probation reform bill, SB 913, will improve public safety and produce millions of dollars in savings.

Pennsylvania can improve public safety and reduce incarceration. Between 2012 and 2018, the state’s crime rate fell by almost 30 percent, while its inmate population fell by 7.5 percent.^[1] The Commonwealth Foundation, along with groups from across the ideological spectrum, helped drive this trend by supporting “smart-on-crime” policies such as the Justice Reinvestment Initiative (passed in 2012) and clean slate legislation (enacted in 2018).^[2] Comprehensive probation reform, like Senate Bill 913 (SB 913), is the next step in effective criminal justice reform.

WHAT IS PROBATION?

Probation is a period of public supervision of a criminal offender, ordered by a judge in lieu of, or in addition to, a prison or jail sentence. The probation system is county-based and should not be confused with the state parole system.

Individuals are more likely to receive probation instead of a prison sentence if they are first-time offenders, or if they have committed non-violent crimes such as driving under the influence or illegal drug possession. The purposes of probation are to keep these individuals out of prison, to allow them to work and contribute to society, and to rehabilitate them so that they do not commit further crimes. Individuals convicted of Class A- and B-grade felonies are not eligible for probation.

At present, approximately 178,000 individuals are on probation in Pennsylvania.^[3] Statewide, the average probation sentence is two years, and probation officers have an average caseload of 105 probationers.^[4]

WHY THE PROBATION SYSTEM NEEDS REFORM

Pennsylvania’s overburdened probation system delivers substandard results. The commonwealth’s recidivism rate—that is, the percentage of convicted criminals who reoffend—is 41 percent. Of the 42 states for which data are available, only six have higher rates.^[5]

Pennsylvania is unusual in allowing probation terms to be as long as the statutory maximum for the offense committed. Offenders can remain on probation for 20 years, even while committing no additional offenses during that time. One alternative is to cap probation terms. Twenty-six states cap probation at five years for felonies, and nineteen states cap it at two years for misdemeanors.^[6]

Adding length to probation terms does not enhance deterrence.^[7] It may even have detrimental effects by increasing the likelihood of technical violations (e.g., missed meetings or minor traffic offenses), which extend probation and can result in re-confinement. Over 10 percent of prison admissions in Pennsylvania are due to probation violations.^[8]

The state must not ignore probation violations, but it also should not imprison individuals for technical violations. The latter is costly ($60,000 per inmate per year) and undermines rehabilitation.

Adding length to probation terms also burdens probation officers with difficult-to-manage caseloads. In Pennsylvania, the average caseload for probation officers (105) is more than twice the number (50) recommended by the American Probation and Parole Association.^[9] Excessive caseloads prevent probation officers from focusing their finite attention and energies on individuals with a high risk of reoffending.

PROBATION REFORMS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC SAFETY

Pennsylvania lawmakers should institute better guidelines for probation terms. Rep. Baker’s SB 913 does this. The bill right-sizes probation sentences to ensure that probation officers are not overburdened, and that offenders pay for their crimes but do not face undue barriers to societal reentry. Specifically, the bill:

• Instructs officers to conduct automatic probation review conferences after three years of probation for misdemeanors and after five years for felonies, unless the defendant has committed a serious violation of probation terms (e.g., a technical violation involving violence, multiple technical violations, or a felony or misdemeanor).
• Stipulates that these conferences result in the termination of probation “unless the court finds” that the defendant’s conduct “creates an identifiable threat to public safety,” the defendant has not completed required treatment, or the defendant has failed to pay full restitution.
• Allows the review to take place earlier than scheduled if the defendant meets educational, employment, or other goals.
• Permits the waiving of the review if all stakeholders approve.

Similar policies have had “great success” in York County and succeeded in other states.^[10] In 2012, Missouri instituted a policy known as “earned discharge,” which allows defendants to serve shorter terms if they comply with conditions.^[11] As a result, 36,000 probationers and parolees have received term reductions averaging fourteen months, and officer caseloads have fallen by 18 percent. More recently, Georgia’s legislature passed a bill last March that allows defendants to end their probation terms early if they comply with conditions. Probationers are already taking advantage of this benefit.^[12]

In addition to enhancing public safety, probation reform, by reducing caseloads and preventing recidivism, will produce roughly $6 million dollars in annual savings for the commonwealth and its counties.^[13]

Recent polling shows that between two thirds and three quarters of Pennsylvanian voters support probation reform.^[14]

Pennsylvania’s long probation sentences are costly. Moreover, they do not contribute to—and may undermine—public safety. SB 913 would help protect Pennsylvania’s communities while saving taxpayer dollars and facilitating offenders’ reentry into society.

^[1]“Department of Corrections Budget Testimony,” Pa. Department of Corrections (February 2020), https://www.cor.pa.gov/About%20Us/Statistics/Documents/Budget%20Documents/Budget%20Testimony%202020-21.pdf.

^[2]Jessica Barnett, “Does Justice Reinvestment Work?” Commonwealth Foundation (July 2019), https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/does-justice-reinvestment-work. Charles Mitchell and Sen. Anthony Williams, “Can Criminal Justice Reform Unite America?” Commonwealth Foundation (February 2019), https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/can-criminal-justice-reform-unite-america.

^[3]PennLive Editorial Board, “It’s Time to Fix Pennsylvania’s Probation System,” PennLive (January 2020), https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2020/01/its-time-to-fix-pennsylvanias-probation-system-pennlive-editorial.html.

^[4]Dave Sunday, Testimony for Senate Judiciary Committee, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association (September 2021), https://judiciary.pasenategop.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2021/09/David-Sunday-York-Co-DA-Probation-Reform-Testimony-9-20-21.pdf. April Billet-Barclay, “The Pa. Legislature must do better on probation reform next session,” Pennsylvania Capital-Star (October 2020), https://www.penncapital-star.com/criminal-justice/the-pa-legislature-must-do-better-on-probation-reform-next-session-opinion/.

^[5]World Population Review, “Recidivism Rates by State 2021,” https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/recidivism-rates-by-state.

^[6]Ron Southwick, “Pa. Lawmakers Push Again to Change Probation System, But Can They Get It Done?” PennLive (October 2021), https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/pa-lawmakers-push-again-to-change-probation-system-but-can-they-get-it-done.html.

^[7]Columbia University Justice Lab, “Less is More in New York: An Examination of the Impact of State Parole Violations on Prison and Jail Populations,” (January 2018), https://justicelab.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/Less_is_More_in_New_York_Report_FINAL.pdf.

^[8]Council for State Governments, “Confined and Costly: How Supervision Violations are Filling up Prisons and Burdening Budgets,” (June 2019), https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/confined-costly/?usState=PA#primary.

^[9]Ron Southwick, “Pa. Lawmakers Push Again to Change Probation System, But Can They Get It Done?” PennLive (October 2021), https://www.pennlive.com/news/2021/10/pa-lawmakers-push-again-to-change-probation-system-but-can-they-get-it-done.html.

^[10]Dave Sunday, Testimony for Senate Judiciary Committee, Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association (September 2021), https://judiciary.pasenategop.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2021/09/David-Sunday-York-Co-DA-Probation-Reform-Testimony-9-20-21.pdf.

^[11]Pew Trusts, “Missouri Policy Shortens Probation and Parole Terms, Protects Public Safety” (August 2016), https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2016/08/missouri-policy-shortens-probation-and-parole-terms-protects-public-safety.

^[12]Erika Curtis, “Achieving Criminal Justice Reform in the South,” Saporta Report (July 2021), https://saportareport.com/achieving-criminal-justice-reform-in-the-south-georgia-justice-project-and-sb-105/thought-leadership/community-foundation-for-greater-atlanta/. Senate Bill 105, 2021-2022 Regular Session, Georgia General Assembly, https://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/59433.

^[13]Fiscal Note Senate Bill 14 of 2019, Pennsylvania General Assembly, https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/BI/SFN/2019/0/SB0014P1834.pdf.

^[14]Pennsylvania Statewide Reform Alliance, “Key Findings Memo,” Harper Polling (January 2020), https://www.scribd.com/document/443508956/20-01-PA-Statewide-Reform-Alliance-Key-Findings-Memo-1. Justice Action Network, “Pennsylvania Statewide Poll Results,” Public Opinion Strategies (September 2019), https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docLib/20200522_JusticeActionNetworkCJRPoll2019.pdf?t=5/22/2020%2010:28:29%20AM.

It’s hard to imagine a more perfect name for the First Step Act. It’s not a complete cure for the problems of our criminal justice system, but it was never meant to be. Instead, it was just that: a “First Step.”

Three years ago, Democrats and Republicans worked together (yes, it’s possible!) to pass the most impactful federal sentencing and prison reform in 30 years. When President Donald Trump signed it into law, it had the widest range of support in recent memory, from left-wing commentator Van Jones to the National Fraternal Order of Police.

Read more at The Daily Caller

This new research pulls back the curtain on the scope taxpayer-funded lobbying—the harmful process by which state agencies and local governments spend public money to lobby other government entities, growing the size and cost of government.

“Taxpayers should be outraged that their money is being used against them,” said Nathan Benefield, Commonwealth Foundation’s senior vice president. “Taxpayer-funded lobbying is a vicious cycle that harms everyone—except the lobbying industry and the bureaucracy.”

Taxpayer-funded lobbying occurs when government entities—including boroughs, cities, counties, school districts, and state agencies—hire contract lobbyists or pay dues to lobbying groups to lobby other areas of government. These lobbyists and associations use this public funding to advocate for more government spending, which leads directly to the need for tax hikes.

View or download the reports:

How Pa. Governments Use Tax Dollars to Pay Associations to Lobby

• Finds 619 local governments spent $24.1 million on lobbying associations (2017–2020)

How Pa. Governments Use Tax Dollars to Pay Contract Lobbyists

• Finds 26 government entities spent $18 million on contract lobbyists (2007–2020)

Below is a partial list of agencies and local governments that spent the most tax dollars on lobbying, according to open records responses and the Pennsylvania Department of State online lobbying database.

Click here for the full, searchable list.

Methodology: Commonwealth Foundation Senior Fellow Jessica Barnett used Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know law to request information about taxpayer-funded lobbying from 1,518 local government entities from 2017 to 2020. These requests received an abysmal 40% response rate, which implies that actual lobbying expenditures were much higher. The Pennsylvania Department of State lobbying database provided additional, though limited, records going back to 2007. The reports also highlight errors and misreporting in government responses to Right-to-Know requests which suggest an even greater fiscal impact.

Federal lobbying expenses—incurred when Pennsylvania hires contract lobbyists to lobby the federal government—were not analyzed in these reports but reached $3 million from 2017 to 2020, according to OpenSecrets.

Solutions: Taxpayer-funded lobbying is not unique to Pennsylvania. Thirty-five other states have not restricted the practice either, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, but the issue is a growing concern. Recently, the Texas Legislature introduced a comprehensive bill (Senate Bill 10) to ban state government from using public money to pay lobbying expenses or hire lobbyists and prohibits any public funds from going to public associations. The governors of Arizona and Utah have limited taxpayer-funded lobbying via executive order in 2016 and 2018, respectively.

“Now is the perfect time for a comprehensive bill to ban taxpayer-funded lobbying in Pennsylvania,” said Benefield. “Taxpayer-funded lobbying is a clear conflict of interest that flies in the face of transparency and ethics.”

In Pennsylvania, two bills would prohibit taxpayer-funded lobbying contracts:

• HB 1607, sponsored by Rep. Russ Diamond, prohibits any commonwealth entity from hiring an outside lobbyist or consultant to influence the Legislature, executive branch, or judiciary.
• SB 802, sponsored by Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill, also limits a commonwealth entity—specifically including local governments and state agencies—from hiring a lobbyist or political consultant to influence the decision-making process of another commonwealth entity or agency.

To see the full list of state and local government spending on taxpayer-funded lobbying, visit: https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/taxpayer-funded-lobbying

Commonwealth Foundation experts are available for comment. Please contact John Bouder at 570-490-1042 or jrb@commonwealthfoundation.org to schedule an interview.

# # #

The Commonwealth Foundation transforms free-market ideas into public policies so all Pennsylvanians can flourish.

A Pennsylvania public school teacher who sued a teachers union for attempting to charge him dues despite no longer being a member entered into a settlement this fall that reaffirms the constitutional rights of government workers who do not want to subsidize political activism they do not support.

Until recently, those rights had been subjugated to the commonwealth’s labor laws, which allow unions to charge nonmembers “fair share fees” as a condition of their employment. The Pennsylvania statute also allows government unions to establish “maintenance of membership” provisos that prevent public employees from resigning from their union anytime outside of an approximately two-week window at the end of a collective bargaining agreement. What this meant in practice was that unions could compel workers to maintain their membership and continue to pay dues against their will, in some cases for years on end.

Read more at The Federalist

Pennsylvania’s public education system is broken, according to a lawyer in the historic education-funding lawsuit currently underway in the state’s Commonwealth Court. Greater Johnstown School District is one of six districts suing Pennsylvania because the state is not meeting its constitutional obligation to provide a “thorough and efficient system of public education.” The suit also claims equal protection violations due to funding disparities between school districts.

Some parents, however, have a different take on the situation. “I agree our education system is broken,” says Johnstown parent Kelly Fetzko. “My local district spends more than $17,000 per student per year and is suing the state for more money. The solution isn’t to give the system more money. It’s to let funding follow students to schools that work for them.”

Read more at RealClearEducation

• Under current Pennsylvania law, local governments and government agencies use tax dollars to support associations that, among other activities, engage in lobbying, often for policies that grow the size and cost of state and federal governments. This is a clear conflict of interest.
• Right-to-Know (RTK) requests show local governments paid at least $24.1 million in tax dollars to membership associations that actively engaged in lobbying from 2017 to 2020.
• These findings are a mere glimpse of total taxpayer-funded lobbying, due to incomplete lobbying records and incomplete responses records requests. Just 40% of local governments responded to RTK requests.
• Prohibiting local governments and government agencies from diverting public funds to these associations would increase transparency and prevent taxpayers’ dollars from funding lobbying harmful to taxpayers.

METHODOLOGY

To understand the scope of taxpayer-funded lobbying, the Commonwealth Foundation submitted a series of RTK requests, according to Pennsylvania’s Right-to-Know Law, to local governments and government agencies across the commonwealth¹

The Commonwealth Foundation reviewed local governments, including boroughs, cities, counties, and school districts, along with state and regional agencies. The agencies examined include the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), The Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA), the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (RAAC), the Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh, the Allegheny County Airport Authority, and the Schuylkill County Municipal Authority. The requests asked for records “showing the hiring of lobbying organization[s] since 2017…[and] the amount of money the agency transmits to the organization[s].”²

Roughly 40% of local government and government agencies responded to email requests.³ The Commonwealth Foundation combined records received via RTK requests with the Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS) online lobbying database that contains records going back to 2007.

EXAMPLES OF PENNSYLVANIA GOVERNMENTS USING TAX DOLLARS TO PAY ASSOCIATIONS TO LOBBY

Records obtained from 619 local governments (about 25% of all local governments) uncovered $24.1 million in association dues to membership organizations from 2017 to 2020 that lobby state government. These groups use their public funding to advocate for additional state funding and to influence public policy. In essence, taxpayer money is being used to lobby for higher taxes.

While records do not separate lobbying and other activities, lobbying is a major role of these associations, as revealed by their lobbying reports and employment of lobbyists. The following section shows how tax dollars fund associations that lobby state government.

Pennsylvania Counties

• Thirty five of sixty-seven counties responded to records requests. They reported paying $11.8 million to membership organizations. The largest county contributors to associations that lobby include Bucks ($2.8 million) and Allegheny ($1.5 million).⁴
• The largest organization representing counties is the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania (CCAP). CCAP is an affiliate of the National Association of Counties, a $45.7 million organization with 41 employees. CCAP and its affiliates received $11.5 million from Pennsylvania counties, according to RTK records.⁵
• CCAP has lobbied for many state tax and spending increases, including the creation of a local earned income tax and sales tax, and imposing a county realty and sales tax.⁶ In addition, CCAP opposes the Taxpayer Protection Act (TPA), which limits the growth of state spending.⁷

Municipal Government

• Of Pennsylvania’s 56 cities, nine reported paying more than $142,000 in total to membership associations.⁸
• According to available records, approximately half of Pennsylvania’s 956 boroughs paid a total of $2.1 million to associations.
• The two largest associations lobbying on behalf of municipalities are the Pennsylvania Municipal League (PML) and the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs (PSAB).
  • PML reports $4.8 million in revenue with a staff of 28 employees, including four registered lobbyists. PML received $138,505 in membership dues from cities and more than $250,000 from boroughs.
  • PML represents municipal government interests with state and federal government officials and regulatory agencies, analyzing legislation and promoting legislative action, for instance, lobbying to change municipal law and to access federal funds for municipalities.⁹
  • The Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs (PSAB) maintains a full-time staff of 19 employees, including four registered lobbyists.¹⁰ The association and affiliates received $1.5 million from boroughs, according to RTK records.
  • PSAB engages in advocacy for the express purpose to gain access to programs, funding, and educational resources.¹¹

School Districts

• The 105 of 500 school districts that responded reported $10.1 million paid to membership associations.
• The largest association representing school officials is the Pennsylvania School Boards Association (PSBA). PSBA is a $9 million organization with nine registered lobbyists, funded by $7.2 million in taxpayer-funded dues.¹² RTK requests identified about $4.3 million in payments from individual school districts to PSBA, nearly half of all reported payments from school districts to associations.
• PSBA’s lobbying priorities include slashing charter school funding, limiting educational choice, stricter charter school and school choice regulations, increasing funding for public schools, and a statewide teachers’ contract.¹³
• Additional educational associations receiving tax dollars include: the Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials ($735,000), the Pennsylvania Association of School Administrators ($490,000), the Pennsylvania Principals’ Association ($150,000), and the Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools ($94,000).

SOLUTION: PROHIBIT GOVERNMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM USING TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO FUND MEMBER ASSOCIATIONS

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Pennsylvania was among 35 states without restrictions on using tax dollars for lobbying.

In Texas, legislators introduced a comprehensive bill to prohibit government-funded lobbying. Senate Bill 10 bans the government from using public money to pay lobbying expenses or hire lobbyists and prohibits any public funds from going to public associations. Instead, cross-agency government interactions would remain in-house.¹⁴

This legislation came to the forefront after a report found Texas municipalities spent $41 million on lobbying, or 11% of total lobbying in 2020.¹⁵ Polling commissioned by the Texas Public Policy Foundation found that 91% of Texas opposed taxpayer-funded lobbying, including 80% who strongly opposed it.¹⁶

In Pennsylvania, there are bills to prohibit taxpayer-funded lobbying via contracts with hired lobbyists.¹⁷. However, there is no legislation to limit the ability of local governments to divert tax dollars from services to membership associations that lobby state government.¹⁸ Lawmakers should consider legislation to prohibit the practice of using tax dollars to pay associations that turn around and lobby government, or legislation that requires the public disclosure of all tax dollars sent to membership organizations that employ lobbyists. This legislation would limit the ability of governments to divert tax dollars from their intended use and create greater transparency, while still allowing local governments to advocate for their interests in Harrisburg.

LIMITED RECORDS AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

The lack of RTK responses and required reporting of lobbying activities prevented the authors from presenting a comprehensive accounting of all taxpayer-funded lobbying contracts despite follow up RTK requests when government records conflicted with records available on the DOS lobbying database.

For example, the PTC denied possessing any records of hired lobbyists. However, the DOS lobbying database shows they retained five contract lobbyists since 2007, with expenditures only reported from 2007–2010.

On the other hand, Schuylkill County Municipal Authority provided records of paying $876,000 to Bob Allen & Associates, yet the DOS lobbying database shows $0 reported.

Other obstacles are the limitations in the law. Specifically, the law exempts reporting for any individual not compensated for lobbying, any lobbyists, firm, or principal who lobby less than 20 hours over 3 months, and any individual receiving less than $2,500 for lobbying services over 3 months.

To see the full list of expenditures where taxpayers’ money was used to pay lobbyists, visit here: https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/policyblog/detail/taxpayer-resources-spent-on-lobbying.

¹There are approximately 2,500 local governments in Pennsylvania excluding townships and fire or police departments. Act of Feb. 14, 2008, P.L. 6, No. 3, https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/Documents/RTKL/PA_Right-To-Know_Law.pdf.

²Pennsylvania Department of State, “Lobbying Services,” (Accessed October 2021), https://www.palobbyingservices.pa.gov/Public/wfSearch.aspx#BOTTOM.

³Contact information were identified via the state Office of Open Records (OOR) online database, however, this list was incomplete and outdated..“Find Agency Open Records Officers,” Office of Open Records (Accessed February 2020), https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/RTKL/AOROSearch.cfm.

⁴Information obtained via RTK requests filed by the Commonwealth Foundation. The 35 responsive counties were Allegheny, Beaver, Berks, Bradford, Bucks, Centre, Chester, Clarion, Clearfield, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Fayette, Forest, Franklin, Fulton, Greene, Huntington, Lackawanna, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lehigh, Luzerne, Perry, Potter, Schuylkill, Snyder, Sullivan, Tioga, Union, Venango, Warren, Washington, Wayne, Wyoming. Some counties distinguished between dues, conference costs, and insurance premiums.

⁵“CCAP affiliates include Pennsylvania Association of County Administrators of Mental Health and Development, Pennsylvania Children and Youth Administrators, Pennsylvania Association of County Drug and Alcohol Administrators, Pennsylvania Association of County Human Services Administrators, and County Planning Directors' Association of Pennsylvania.

⁶“CCAP 2020 Priorities Status Report,” County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, (November 2020) https://www.pacounties.org/GR/Documents/CCAPPrioritiesStatusReportNovember2020.pdf. Robert Postal, “Testimony on House Transportation Task Force Bill Package,” County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, (August 2020), https://www.pacounties.org/GR/Documents/20200819HouseTransportationTFHouseTransportationTestimony.pdf.

⁷Opposition to HB 1316 from October 2019 emails sent to lawmakers.

⁸According to RTK requests filed by the Commonwealth Foundation, the cities are Allentown, Altoona, Carbondale, Harrisburg, Hazelton, Lancaster, Lebanon, Lock Haven, New Castle, and St. Mary’s.

⁹Advocacy Overview,” Pennsylvania Municipal League, https://www.pml.org/advocacy/advocacy-overview/; “Advocacy Success: American Rescue Plan,” Pennsylvania Municipal League, https://www.pml.org/advocacy-success-american-rescue-plan/.

¹⁰PSAB affiliates include Assoc. of Mayors of Boroughs of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Municipal Administrators, Pennsylvania Borough Solicitors Association, Pennsylvania Borough Councils Association, Pennsylvania Association of Council of Governments, and Capital Region Council of Governments.

¹¹“Legislative Priorities & Resolutions Process,” The Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs, https://boroughs.org/subpage.php?link=Resolutions%20Process.

¹²PSBA Form 990,Guidestar, https://pdf.guidestar.org/PDF_Images/2019/236/003/2019-236003238-17179096-9O.pdf?_gl=1*zoeg4b*_ga*MzU3ODk4OTguMTYxNDE4NjY5MQ..*_ga_0H865XH5JK*MTYxNTgzMTE1Ni4xMi4xLjE2MTU4MzEyMDQuMA..*_ga_5W8PXYYGBX*MTYxNTgzMTE1Ni4xMi4xLjE2MTU4MzEyMDQuMA..&_ga=2.12243508.1895164656.1615831156-35789898.1614186691. RTK requests revealed far less in membership dues than the $7.2 million reported in their 990 due to differing definitions of membership dues and a lack of responses from school districts.

¹³“Positions & Testimony,” Pennsylvania School Boards Association, https://www.psba.org/advocacy-and-news/issues/positions-testimony/.

¹⁴This legislation would further allow for injunctive relief and legal fees recovery in the event a political subdivision persists in funding prohibited lobbying activity with taxpayer funds and allows.

¹⁵“Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying,” Texas Public Policy Foundation (September 24, 2020), https://www.texaspolicy.com/legetaxpayerlobby/.

¹⁶Patrick Gleason, “Texas Lawmakers Are Poised To End Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying In 2021 And Other States Are Likely To Follow Suit,” Forbes (December 7, 2020), https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2020/12/07/texas-is-poised-to-end-taxpayer-funded-lobbying-in-2021-and-other-states-are-likely-to-follow-suit/?sh=6a9188a95e3a.

¹⁷HB 1607 and SB 802.

¹⁸“House Republicans Introduce New Rules for Lobbyists,” Representative Cutler (June 11, 2021), http://www.repcutler.com/News/19919/Latest-News/House-Republicans-Introduce-New-Rules-for-Lobbyists; “Lobbyist Disclosure Reform Package,” Pennsylvania State Senate Co-Sponsor Memorandum, (October 2021), https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=S&SPick=20210&cosponId=35655.

• Current Pennsylvania law allows local governments and public agencies to hire contract lobbyists, using taxpayer dollars, to lobby state and federal governments—often for more taxpayer dollars.
• Right-to-Know (RTK) requests and lobbying records revealed 26 local governments and agencies spent $18 million in tax dollars to hire contract lobbyists.
• These findings are a mere glimpse of total taxpayer-funded lobbying due to incomplete lobbying records and limited responses to RTK requests.
• Prohibiting local governments and public agencies from hiring contract lobbyists would increase transparency and prevent the diversion of tax dollars from public services to lobbying activities that harm taxpayers.

METHODOLOGY

To understand the scope of taxpayer-funded lobbying, the Commonwealth Foundation submitted a series of RTK requests, per the state Right-to-Know Law, to local governments and regional government authorities across the commonwealth.¹

The Commonwealth Foundation examined local governments including boroughs, cities, counties, school districts, along with state and regional agencies. The agencies and authorities studied included the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission (PTC), the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), The Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA), the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, the Redevelopment Authority of Allegheny County (RAAC), the Public Parking Authority of Pittsburgh, the Allegheny County Airport Authority, and the Schuylkill County Municipal Authority. The requests asked for records “showing the hiring of lobbying organization[s] since 2017…[and] the amount of money the agency transmits to the organization[s].”²

Roughly 40% of local government and government agencies responded to email requests.³ The Commonwealth Foundation combined records received via RTK requests with the Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS) online lobbying database that has records going back to 2007.

EXAMPLES OF TAXPAYER-FUNDED HIRING OF CONTRACT LOBBYISTS

Eight counties spent $5.2 million hiring contract lobbyists from 2007–2020.⁴

• Beaver County paid more than $250,000 to Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney from 2009–2016 to lobby the state for federal stimulus money—securing “nearly $300,000 in state funding” in the first year.⁵
• Greene County retained lobbying firm Delta Development Group for over $2 million from 2007–2020 to secure funds for economic development projects, such as a public airport, and studies on transportation and the local housing market.⁶ 
• Luzerne County paid Maverick Strategies $95,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2019–2020. During that time, they secured a $1 million state grant. However, several county council members resisted hiring a lobbying firm, with one member saying, “it’s kind of a sad day to see that government is looking at a lobbyist to lobby the government.”⁷ The county chose not to renew the contract in 2021, citing $60,000 in savings.⁸

Seven cities spent at least $2.8 million hiring contract lobbyists.⁹

• Lancaster and, briefly, York City hired Pugliese Associates for $304,000 from 2012–2020. They successfully lobbied to create a Community Revitalization and Improvement Zone (CRIZ), or special tax breaks for developers in Lancaster. Lancaster City records also show they retained Pugliese to acquire $3.5 million in Regional Assistance Capital Program (RACP) funding for two new firehouses in 2019–2020 and supported a program allowing the city to access taxing authority under Act 47.¹⁰ 
• Philadelphia hired five lobbying firms at overlapping times for $2 million between 2008–2020, according to the DOS lobbying database records. In addition, Philadelphia City Council spent $90,000 from 2015–2018 hiring Triad Strategies.

At least eight school districts also hire contract lobbyists.

• Pittsburgh School District paid $552,075 to Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney from 2013–2020. Though the district provided contracts dating back to 2008, they did not have a record of payments. A search of the DOS lobbying database shows the district spent an added $293,467 for lobbying from April 2008–December 2012.

Public Agencies engage in contract lobbying.

• The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) retained six lobbying firms and is slated to spend $3.82 million between 2015–January 2022. The lobbying firms include American Continental Group ($700,000), Duane Morris LLP ($1 million), SBL Strategies ($480,000), TJC Strategic Advisors/Wanner Associates ($600,000), Long Nyquist/Emerald Strategies ($540,000), and Paul Dlugolecki/S.R. Wojdak & Associates ($420,00).
• The Philadelphia Parking Authority (PPA) spent $177,000 on lobbyists from 2017–2019. PPA paid Gray & Oscar $44,000 from 2017–2019 and paid $64,000 to Cohen & Grigsby and Bellevue Strategies for six months in 2018–2019. Bellevue Strategies is a principal lobbyist defending the Philadelphia Beverage Tax.¹¹ Provided records show that the PPA paid Fareed Ahmed $69,000 from 2016–2018 for general lobbying and consulting. However, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported in July 2018 that Ahmed had collected $3,000 a month for 17 years ($639,000 total), despite not being a registered lobbyist and providing few details of his services.¹² 
• The Allegheny County Airport Authority (ACAA) retained three lobbying firms for almost $2.1 million from 2009–2020. ACAA paid Malady & Wooten $210,000 (2009–2013), Cohen & Grigsby $1.25 million (2013–2020), and Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney $626,000 (2009–2020). ACAA manages two regional airports—via a board appointed by the Allegheny County Chief Executive. The Allegheny County Controller Chelsa Wagner threatened to sue ACAA for not complying with requests to examine their contracting processes in 2015.¹³ She also investigated the board members for conflicts of interest in 2018 after two members invested in an airline that received ACAA funding. Set to begin a $1 billion project, Wagner said it presented ample opportunity for “self-dealing and favoritism.”¹⁴

POLICY SOLUTION: PROHIBIT GOVERNMENTS FROM HIRING CONTRACT LOBBYISTS

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), Pennsylvania is among 35 states without restrictions on using tax dollars for lobbying. Banning public agencies from hiring contract lobbyists, as done in Arizona and Utah, would increase transparency and limit the ability of governments to divert tax dollars from services to lobbying activities designed to get more tax dollars.

• Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed an executive order in 2016 banning contract lobbyists from working for taxpayer-funded agencies and boards unless they receive permission from the Department of Administration.¹⁵ Experience with lobbyists blocking attempts to reduce occupational licensing requirements and a survey of state boards and commissions that reported spending $1 million on lobbyists the prior year prompted the executive order. The initial executive order ended the contracts of 10 lobbyists.¹⁶ The legislature codified the move in 2017.¹⁷
• Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed an executive order in 2018 banning executive branch employees, public university employees, the Utah National Guard, and the state parole board from retaining contract lobbyists. Utah still permits its state agencies to appoint two legislative affairs personnel (instead of contract lobbyists) and allows division directors, deputy directors, and legislative liaisons to communicate with lawmakers. Attempts to codify this order in 2018 were unsuccessful.¹⁸ 

Local governments and public agencies should maintain their responsibility to directly engage with other government agencies and steward their services to taxpayers.

In Pennsylvania, there are two bills to prohibit taxpayer-funded lobbying contracts.

• HB 1607, sponsored by Rep. Russ Diamond, prohibits any Commonwealth entity from hiring an outside lobbyist or consultant to influence the legislature, executive branch, or judiciary.
• SB 802, sponsored by Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill, also limits a Commonwealth entity—specifically including local governments and state agencies--from hiring a lobbyist or political consultant to influence the decision-making process of another Commonwealth entity or agency.

Both are part of larger lobbying reform packages in their respective chambers.¹⁹

LIMITED RECORDS AND LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

The lack of adequate responses to our RTK requests and neglect by several agencies to report lobbying activities to the Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS) prevented the authors from presenting a comprehensive accounting of all taxpayer-funded lobbying contracts. Despite follow up RTK requests when government records conflicted with records available on the ’DOS’s online lobbying database, some agencies still refused to be transparent.

For example, the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission denied possessing any records of hired lobbyists. However, the state lobbying database shows they retained five contract lobbyists since 2007, with expenditures only reported from 2007–2010.

On the other hand, Schuylkill County Municipal Authority provided records of paying $876,000 to Bob Allen & Associates, yet $0 was reported to the state lobbying database.

Another obstacle are the limitations in the law. Specifically, the law exempts reporting for any individual who is not compensated for lobbying, any lobbyists, firm, or principal lobbying less than 20 hours over 3 months and any individual receiving less than $2,500 for lobbying services over 3 months.

Finally, this research does not take into consideration the scope of “in-house” lobbying or how often government employees engage in lobbying other parts of government. In other words, local governments and public agencies choose to hire lobbyists in addition to lobbyists they may have on staff.

To see the full list of taxpayer-funded lobbying visit here.

¹There are approximately 2,500 local governments in Pennsylvania excluding townships and fire or police departments. Act of Feb. 14, 2008, P.L. 6, No. 3, https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/Documents/RTKL/PA_Right-To-Know_Law.pdf.

²Pennsylvania Department of State, “Lobbying Services,” (Accessed October 2021), https://www.palobbyingservices.pa.gov/Public/wfSearch.aspx#BOTTOM.

³Contact information were identified via the state Office of Open Records (OOR) online database, however, this list was incomplete and outdated..“Find Agency Open Records Officers,” Office of Open Records (Accessed February 2020), https://www.openrecords.pa.gov/RTKL/AOROSearch.cfm.

⁴The eight counties were: Beaver, Dauphin, Delaware, Erie, Greene, Luzerne, Tioga, and Warren. 

⁵Buchanan’s State Government Relations Group Noted in Beaver County Times for Helping Raise Nearly $300,000 in State Funding,” Buchanan, Ingersoll & Rooney, (April 2011), https://www.bipc.com/buchanans-state-government-relations-group-noted-in-beaver-county-times-for-helping-raise-nearly-$300,000-in-state-funding.

⁶“An Assessment of the Dynamics of the Greene County Housing Market,” Delta Development Group, (September 2014), https://www.co.greene.pa.us/resources/1163.

⁷Eric Mark, “County Council Approves Contract with Lobbying Firm,” Associated Press, (April 2019), https://apnews.com/article/c3f885d2a80d442697ca30ad246e677d.

⁸Eric Mark, “Luzerne County Will Not Renew Lobbyist Contract Next Year,” Associated Press, (October 2020), https://www.standardspeaker.com/news/luzerne-county-will-not-renew-lobbyist-contract-next-year/article_511b2192-1eff-527d-ba23-1cf0dca18026.html.

⁹The cities were: Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster, Philadelphia, Philadelphia City Council (they file separate from the city), Pittsburgh, and York.

¹⁰Case Studies,” Pugliese Associations, https://puglieseassociates.com/clients/case-studies/.

¹¹“Ryan Briggs, “Ethics Board Cites Lobbying Groups Linked to Philly Soda Tax Push,” City & State Pennsylvania, (July 2018), https://www.cityandstatepa.com/content/board-ethics-cites-lobbying-groups-linked-philly-soda-tax-push.

¹²William Bender, “PPA Lobbyist Paid $3,000 a Month. For What?” Philadelphia Inquirer, (July 2018), https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/fareed-ahmed-philadelphia-parking-authority-consultant-lobbyist-20180720.html.

¹³Michael Lynch, “County Controller Threatens to Take Four Authorities to Court,” WESA (January 2015), https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2015-01-28/county-controller-threatens-to-take-four-authorities-to-court.

¹⁴This legislation would further allow for injunctive relief and legal fees recovery in the event a political subdivision persists in funding prohibited lobbying activity with taxpayer funds and allows.

¹⁵““Executive Order 2016-05 State Governmental Units; Professional Lobbyist Contracts, Prohibition” State of Arizona (June 29, 2016), https://azgovernor.gov/sites/default/files/state_governmental_units_professional_lobbyist_contracts_prohibition_eo.pdf.

¹⁶Yvonne Wingett Sanchez, “Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey Fires State’s Contract Lobbyists,” AZCentral.com (June 29, 2016), https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2016/06/29/gov-doug-ducey-fires-arizona-contract-lobbyists/86526768/.

¹⁷“Governor Ducey Signs Taxpayer-Funded Lobbying Ban into Law,” Office of the Governor (April 10, 2017), https://azgovernor.gov/governor/news/2017/04/governor-ducey-signs-taxpayer-funded-lobbying-ban-law.

¹⁸“Benjamin Wood, “Utah Gov. Gary Herbert Orders Executive Branch Staff to Stop Lobbying on Capitol Hill After Lawmakers Debate A Ban,” Salt Lake Tribune (February 27, 2018), https://www.sltrib.com/news/education/2018/02/28/lawmaker-wants-to-promote-good-information-by-restricting-public-employees-including-elected-school-board-members-from-talking-to-lawmakers/.

¹⁹“House Republicans Introduce New Rules for Lobbyists,” Representative Cutler (June 11, 2021), http://www.repcutler.com/News/19919/Latest-News/House-Republicans-Introduce-New-Rules-for-Lobbyists; “Lobbyist Disclosure Reform Package,” Pennsylvania State Senate Co-Sponsor Memorandum, (October 2021), https://www.legis.state.pa.us//cfdocs/Legis/CSM/showMemoPublic.cfm?chamber=S&SPick=20210&cosponId=35655.

Commonwealth Foundation's Executive Vice President Jennifer Stefano discusses ongoing supply chain issues on Newsmax's Wake Up America.

Even before the House passed a nearly $2 trillion social spending bill last week, President Biden had promised that inflation would be a temporary problem. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen played down inflation concerns, assuring consumers in June that inflation would peak at 3 percent and that the spike would be “transitory.” Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, endorsed a view from a far-left economist that inflation and supply chain issues are “high-class problems.”

I say working families are high-class people — and we know how to do the math. Our budgets show us that the money we earn, even from all the extra hours we’re working because of the government-funded labor shortage, isn’t buying as much.

Read more at The Hill

Here is what Pennsylvania taxpayers can expect from Harrisburg over the next two years: overspending and massive deficits. That’s according to the latest Independent Fiscal Office forecast of state revenue and spending.

The prediction includes annual deficits of nearly $2 billion beginning in fiscal year 2023-2024, caused by lower revenue (and higher inflation). Meanwhile, state government spending is set to grow nearly $4 billion over the next two years.

Read more at The Morning Call