For Immediate Release
7/16/07

Senator Gib Armstrong
Floor Remarks – Budget Passage
July 16, 2007 

The first question most Pennsylvanians ask about a state budget is a simple and direct one – "Are my taxes going up?"  Because of our firm commitment to oppose tax increases, large, small, and hidden, the answer is crystal clear – "No tax increase."  Seven taxes proposed.  Zero approved.

In fact, the news is even better.  We preserved the tax cuts scheduled to take effect this year, designed to help job growth.

This budget was put together with a serious eye on the consequences next year.  It is really a two-year budget, because necessary precautions were taken to prevent tax increases next year.

There are other good signs.  We kept the Rainy Day Fund intact.  We put more money into it.  And we did not spend all the money available.  This is the kind of spending restraint too long absent in Harrisburg.

What a difference a year makes.  Last year, the debate was over how high spending would go.  This year, the debate is over how low we can hold spending.

Early in the process, we determined to show Pennsylvanians the dangers of uncontrolled state spending.  Budget increases of 6% to 9% over the next decade would swell the budget to staggering size.  We would crush taxpayers and cripple the economy.  That is why the target number of a cost-of-living increase was so important to us, and even more important to taxpayers.

This budget is not as generous as those who depend on state government wanted, nor is it as sparse as those suspicious of state government would prefer.  We proved a point.  It is possible to have state government live within its means and still provide for quality, necessary services.

We had to make choices on priorities.  There is not enough money to pay for every idea anyone can think of.  There is not enough money to pay for every good cause we get lobbied for.  And we know Pennsylvanians are tired of pedal-to-the-metal state spending.  Discretionary spending that groups and institutions have taken for granted is no longer guaranteed. 

In the past, spending increases were matched by other spending increases.  In the future, we need spending increases to be matched by spending cuts.  That process started in this budget, and we need to build on it in the budgets ahead.

To control spending, we must understand where the big increases are and what drives them.  The big increases this year are in education and welfare.  The rest of the budget actually shrinks from last year.  If we are going to continue adding new education programs to achieve improved student performance, we need to quit funding the approaches that are not working so well.  And while many of the welfare programs are entitlements, there are steps we can take to tighten up requirements, and we must do that.

Fiscal responsibility is also shown in the increased contribution to the retirement system, more than twice the amount that was required.  This important change in law is part of this package.

While the attention has been devoted to limitations on spending and where cuts were made, there are key places we have decided additional spending is worthwhile.  For farmers.  For veterans.  For seniors.  For autistic kids.  For families seeking educational options.  For medical services.  For job creation.

There are different philosophies wrapped in this budget.  The Governor is touting his new spending programs.  We are proud of the tax credit programs – the EITC expansion and the startup of REAP – that offer options and reward constructive effort.

Fiscal restraint does not end when the budget is signed into law.  We have to be careful in how much borrowing is committed to in coming months.  We have to exercise more oversight over state programs, where people doubt their cost-effectiveness and value.

Despite the apparent successes here, this budget has its detractors.  President Eisenhower once observed about the critics of agriculture that: "Farming is easy when your plow is a pencil and the nearest cornfield is a thousand miles away."  The corollary now could be that: "Budgeting is easy when you do not have to negotiate with anyone, when there are no competing constituencies you have to satisfy, and when you can wipe away commitments and contracts with the click of a mouse."

The people wanted no tax increases.  They wanted limited spending.  They wanted a budget that was not laced with surprises.  So that is the product we deliver.  No tax increases.  Spending held to a cost-of-living increase.  And none of the fiscal foolery that could blow up next year's budget.  This is reasonable, it is responsible, and it is right for taxpayers and for the economy.

  Print this page

 E-mail this page

Back