I’ll tell you what’s wrong with late Pa. budgets. First some background.
Every Pennsylvanian with minimal awareness of state government and politics knows budgets here tend to be late. It’s sort of our thing.
Take this year. The state’s spending plan — how to use roughly $50 billion of your taxes — was supposed to be settled by June 30. It wasn’t. It still hasn’t been.
Or maybe it has. I’m not certain. I long ago stopped hard-focusing on late budget fiascos once I learned two things: there will be a budget; until then, it’s just a parade of protests and promises.
Predictable, too. Democrats want to spend more. Republicans want to spend less. But as for inspiring innovations? Bold reforms? Most of these players would rather go home than go big.
And it’s not like whatever they do or don’t do puts them at political risk. Our Legislature’s incumbent reelection rates run well above 90% (last year it was 100%). And we’re talking about OUR Legislature.
And, yes, budget delays cause anxiety. They force local governments, non-profits, some school districts to borrow money or put off hirings.
This year’s delay is causing fiscally-fragile mass transit systems in Philly and Pittsburgh to use infrastructure money instead of operating funds to avoid service cuts and fare hikes. But budget delays have become routine, even expected: 13 late budgets in the last 20 years.
Why? No incentive to get a budget on time. Courts have ruled budget or no, Pennsylvania stays open, operating and paying its employees and lawmakers.
Want on-time budgets? Do as Michigan does. If it misses its annual Oct. 1 deadline, everything shuts down. It’s happened a couple times. And each shutdown lasted just a few hours. So, I’m betting that while, like us, Michigan has a divided legislature and, like us, has a governor (Gretchen Whitmer) who’s a possible 2028 presidential candidate, its budget gets done by Oct. 1. Or within hours after the deadline.
Might not be a bad model to follow. Except that would represent reform and change, dual anathemas in Harrisburg. Plus, we already have a way to do budgets: badly; with no reason to be on time.
“It’s simply embedded in the culture of our state capitol,” says Nathan Benefield, chief policy officer of the conservative Commonwealth Foundation, “No one seems to care about getting a budget done on time anymore…It makes it seem like the budget proposal and negotiations are just about performance theater aimed at the next election, rather than substantive policy debate.”
We could maybe cut down on the “aimed-at-the-next-election” factor. Join 19 other states that do two-year budgets. And have the second year be an odd-numbered year with no legislative elections. That could help (at least delay delays for a year). Which, of course, means it’ll get zero consideration.
Marc Stier, executive director of the liberal Pennsylvania Policy Center, says, “We like to think the process makes a difference. Sadly, most people do not. If they did, budgets wouldn’t be late…I wish people would be more upset.”
When I suggest a government’s routine failure to do the one thing — and the most important thing — it has to do each year can further erode public trust in government as a vehicle for progress, or as anything helpful to the average person, Stier says, “Over the long term that would be true.”
So, that’s what’s wrong with late Pa. budgets. They do not serve the people who pay for them. And they underscore the state’s hard partisan, gridlock-causing split. They reaffirm the notion that people, policies and proposals cannot be judged on merit, but solely on affiliation, even remotely, with either political party.
And they showcase Pennsylvania’s void in leadership, common sense and public service, justifying its label as the Land of Low Expectations.
John Baer may be reached at baer.columnist@gmail.com.