Apr 17, 2002 3 min read

Dear Editor, Pennsylvania is in a fiscal dilemma. There is an anticipated deficit of $777 million in the state coffers by the end of June 2002. Because of this deficit, Gov. Schweiker has proposed an austere budget.

The biggest impact will be the under funding of our public schools. They will only receive a 1 percent increase in basic education subsidies. This means that school districts will have to pay for state mandated expenses. Included will be an increase in the employer contribution rate to help fund the increases in the School Employee’s Pension Plan that the General Assembly enacted in May, 2001. This pension plan increase will cost some school districts hundreds of thousands of extra dollars, even if the lawmakers make a change in how investment returns are funded.

To help the state increase the funding for the public schools, why don’t the legislators forego all or part of their “Walking Around Money” for the new fiscal year? This money could be added to the subsidy money for the public schools.

An extra $50 to $70 million for school districts would go a long way in keeping local property taxes down. Besides, much of this money is “feel good money” that legislators use to ingratiate themselves with their constituents. However, at this point in time, taxpayers of the state would “feel better” if their property taxes were held down by this move.

Incidentally, this move would not have any impact on the current election as it is estimated that 90 percent of all incumbents win reelection. As a matter of fact, this move could aid most of them in getting reelected. Also, most of the legislators in my region are unopposed.

Will the governor and legislators step up to the plate and really make their constituents “feel good” by making this move? Are the taxpayers irritated enough to contact their legislators and nudge them in this direction? Let’s hope so.

Also, why doesn’t the governor take another $50 million from the “Rainy Day Fund” to support higher education, mass transit, human services, and some other necessary expenditures that are shortchanged in this budget? Another $50 million really won’t matter at this time because the incoming governor and state legislators will have to raise taxes next year, so they can fund state services. You can count on it.

George Reese

Ellwood City

Hiring tip offered

Dear Editor:

After watching the ruckus about the employee who appears not to possess the qualifications needed for the job, I have an idea on how to reduce these types of mistakes.

Why can’t the county partner with the Pa Career Link for at least the initial screening phase of all job applicants? It serves a two-fold purpose: first, have them check the application for the validity of all statements made, and secondly, it would serve no useful purpose for them to pass on an unqualified applicant.

The damage to their reputation wouldn’t be worth it, and anyone who actually does possess the required qualifications, should have a chance at an interview, regardless if they’re friends with an elected official or not.

It has another benefit. It allows those who are seeking employment the chance to see the great services they have available at the Career Link office for their use.

I think it’s an idea worth discussing, so as to avoid these problems in the future.

Craig McKee

Lemont Furnace