Pattye Benson

Community Matters

Marcellus Shale

Is the Answer to Pennsylvania’s Budget . . . Robbing Peter to Pay Paul?

All eyes are on Harrisburg as the clock ticks down to the June 30 state budget deadline. Some say that to reach next week’s deadline would require a final budget in place by the end of today. At this point, Gov. Corbett appears intent on meeting the June 30 deadline . . . that by itself will mark a change from the past administration. I don’t recall if Ed Rendell’s budget was late all eight years of his administration but certainly most years.

There are some hurdles for Corbett’s budget before it is finalized. Some sticking points include whether the $300 million in Tobacco Settlement Fund revenue remains in the general fund as Corbett proposed in his preliminary budget. In the past, the tobacco fund revenue was not included in the general fund but helped fund social and welfare programs. There was a claim in March by Pennsylvania’s Auditor General Jack Wagner that over the past few years, over a $1 billion has quietly diverted from the Tobacco Settlement Fund to the general fund to help balance the state’s budget. You know the saying, ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’.

If the $300 million revenue from the Tobacco Settlement Fund were to come out of the general fund, it is possible that some of the spending cuts to basic and higher education and welfare programs could be restored. If you recall, Corbett’s preliminary budget announcement back in March indicated excess tax revenue of $78 million but to date, he has refused to increase spending. The state tax revenue in March and April of this year was higher than expected so it would seem to suggest that Corbett could afford to restore some of the education and welfare spending cuts.

Will Corbett’s final budget package include a Marcellus shale impact fee? My guess . . . highly unlikely. But the real question is why is the state not charging an extraction tax or impact fee to the drilling companies? It defies logic; I absolutely do not understand why the opposition to charging the companies– especially given the current and potential future damage to the environment and roads caused by the gas drilling.

I certainly do not claim to be any political guru; but when you look around this country and see that every other state is charging some form of a drilling tax, impact fee, or whatever you want to call it; it does beg the question, why doesn’t Pennsylvania? Is the answer so that Corbett can stand on his campaign promise of no new tax increase? Is the administration’s reluctance to impose a Marcellus shale fee have anything to do with campaign financing support? I wonder how much revenue the state has already lost and will continue to lose by not imposing a Marcellus shale impact fee.

As school districts across the state are challenged to balance their own budgets and taxpayers face property tax increases – again I have to ask, why not tax the Marcellus shale drilling companies.

“When is a tax not a tax? When it’s a fee.”

“When is a tax not a tax. When it’s a fee.” is the opening line in an article in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer, New Pa. GOP leaders eye a fee on natural gas instead of a tax (click here for article)

Terminology may be significant for the newly elected Pennsylvania Governor. The debate continues on whether ‘fees’ on Marcellus Shale gas drilling would break Tom Corbett’s no-tax pledge. Now that Corbett has won the election for governor and will be confronted with a $5 billion budget deficit, will he most likely be OK with a ‘fee’ on the gas drilling.

But is calling it a fee rather than a tax just a matter of semantics? Will Corbett’s no-tax pledge still stand with the institution of a fee based schedule? During his campaign, Corbett stated that fees were included in his no-tax pledge. Has the newly elected governor backed himself in to a corner over Marcellus Shale?

A leading opponent of taxes on Pennsylvania’s emerging shale-gas industry, it is interesting to note that Corbett collected over $800,000 in campaign contributions from that industry, according to a study by two civic groups, Common Cause and Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania. Corbett’s total campaign contributions from the shale-gas industry represented more than all other Pennsylvania candidates combined. Do we think these campaign dollars will influence Corbett’s decisions about Marcellus Shale taxing?

Pennsylvania is now the only state with substantial mineral resources that does not levy a severance tax or fee, according to the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center, a nonpartisan research agency based in Harrisburg.

Community Matters © 2024 Frontier Theme