• Home
• Issues
• Action
• PA Economy
• PA AFL-CIO
• Media

Automatic Spending Caps Would Mean Cuts in State Police, Education, Public Health and More . . .

While the public has been distracted by the pay-raise issue, the Pennsylvania House and Senate have passed different pieces (HB 2067, HB 2082, SB 4, SB 884) of legislation that would require the Commonwealth to limit spending automatically without deliberation, debate or discussion.

If finally passed into law House Bill 2067 would:

Force the legislature to make deep cuts year after year in the most fundamental public services, such as K-12 education, higher education, senior citizen programs, transportation and health care.

Make it harder for the legislature to roll back tax breaks for corporations that haven’t created promised jobs.

Do nothing to create more accountability in the legislature or guarantee that the priorities set by the legislature are the right ones for Pennsylvania’s working families.

So far the House and Senate have not held a single public hearing on any spending cap proposal. They have already taken votes on these important legislative proposals without a single opportunity for the public to comment on or question the cap proposals! Hearings would allow the Administration and citizens affected by state programs to discuss the impact that caps could have on the state’s goals to increase educational attainment, accelerate economic growth, enhance environmental protection, and protect public health.

Please contact your state legislators today and tell them you are opposed to spending caps and want a full public hearing on the issue.

To learn more about the potential impact on automatic spending caps in Pennsylvania, take a look at 17 Questions and Answers About Spending Caps in Pennsylvania, or visit The Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center's web site.

What Has Happened in Other States?

Colorado

About 12 years ago Colorado adopted spending caps in a so-called "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" (also known as TABOR). On November 2, 2005, the voters of Colorado voted in a state-wide referendum to suspend TABOR 52% to 48%.

Why?

In 1992, Colorado spent close to the national average on higher education, but by 2004 it spent just 57 percent of the national average, forcing double digit tuition hikes for students at the University of Colorado this fall.

Under TABOR, Colorado declined from 35th to 49th in the nation in K-12 spending as a share of personal income.   Colorado now ranks 48th in high school drop outs.

Under TABOR, Colorado dropped from 24th to 43rd in the nation in the share of children receiving their full vaccinations, fell to last place in the number of poor children without health insurance, and now ranks 48th in pre-natal care.

Crime prevention has suffered as caseloads for CO parole officers now stand at nearly twice the national average.

Colorado business and community leaders view TABOR as deeply flawed.  As Neil Westergaard, Editor of the Denver Business Journal recently noted, “[Business leaders] have figured out that no business would survive if it were run like the TABOR faithful say Colorado should be run -- with withering tax support for college and universities, under funded public schools and a future of crumbling roads and bridges.”

California

In California voters soundly rejected a proposal to set state spending caps in their state referendum of November 8, 2005. The proposal failed by a margin of 62% to 38%.

 

All site content ©2004-5 by Pennsylvania AFL-CIO or others. Tools you may need to get the most out of this Web site.