Smucker Votes "No" On Latest State Budget Plan And Tax Package; Opposes Gambling Expansion

Based upon the overwhelming views of area residents, the long-term needs of the area, and my conservative principles, I voted against the latest state budget proposal and the tax increases that will be used to support even this lower spending level. I also oppose the expansion of gambling through table games.

The combination of a record $3.25 billion budget deficit and Governor Rendell's insistence on substantial spending increases for education have made this a very difficult budget to reach agreement on. I deeply regret the hardships experienced by community organizations and families because of the indefensible delay in getting a state budget. If this plan proves to be the final budget, there will be relief that the disruptive impasse is ended, but it will not erase the negative impact felt by service providers and by those depending on services the state helps fund.

Public input in our area has been passionate and consistent. Cut spending. Eliminate programs less than necessary. Roll back costly mandates. No more taxes. No more gambling. So this in a way is missed opportunity, for there may never be stronger fiscal and taxpayer imperatives to contain state spending.

Again, this budget contains an overall spending level substantially less than what Governor Rendell recommended and lower than the spending last year, a notable accomplishment that is attributable to the reduced spending budgets passed earlier this year by Senate Republicans. Without question, this budget is far more fiscally responsible than the big spending budgets approved every other year under the Rendell Administration.

But tax increases are still required. Fortunately, this plan avoids the big, broad-based tax increases that were imposed during previous budget crises. Governor Rendell tried the tax route, first pushing for an increase in the state personal income tax, and then seeking to extend the state sales tax. Neither effort generated anywhere near the needed legislative support. One piece of the package I did push is tax amnesty, because we should do everything possible to collect taxes already owed before imposing higher taxes.

In seeking office, and in serving as state Senator, I pledged to concentrate on spending cuts as the way to balance the budget. In a terrible economy, with families being hit hard by higher costs every way they turn, I cannot justify a tax increase, irrespective of what product or service is being taxed or who pays those taxes. The effects of higher spending and higher taxes are felt by everyone, even those who may not be paying directly.

As a matter of principle, I oppose legalized gambling. But there is a strong practical argument against it as well. In tough economic times, it is less justifiable to expand gambling, when the emphasis for families and governments should be on greater fiscal discipline. Too, Pennsylvania still lacks some reforms needed to ensure ethical decisionmaking, proper security, and sufficient oversight for slots.

The bottom line on the state budget is this – the spending reduction is greater and the tax increases less than what happened in other budget crises. Nevertheless, the economic consequences of tax hikes will be felt, as will the social costs of more accessible gambling at a time when people are particularly feeling desperate. Additionally, there are risks of budget troubles ahead, unless the economy does a dramatic turnaround and state revenues come in much higher than anticipated.