while we are raggin on PennDot ; )
a couple of other ideas here:
1 - a while ago (years), there were some experiments done incorporating
about 10% of ground, recycled tires into asphalt mixes. This
combination of materials supposedly, increased the durability
(resistance to weather), wear ability (lasted longer), and reduced
road/tire noise.
If this were done on Pa roads - we could save $ on old tire storage,
and decrease(?) costs of road surfacing materials.
2 - in many places, road construction crews use a pavement
grinder/surfacer. This machine grinds the surface off of the road (as
is done currently with asphalt), BUT in stead of sending the ground
asphalt to a truck to be hauled and stored somewhere in large piles, it
is IMMEDIATELY sent into a 'hopper' on the machine, a much smaller
amount of new asphalt material is added, and the old/new mixture is
IMMEDIATELY reapplied to the road surface. (Note this idea may be
incompatible with the above [1])
This would save $ in asphalt production/use/purchase, less new asphalt used.
This would also save on hauling. Less (no?) ground (old) asphalt to haul
away, less new asphalt to haul to the work site.
This would save on landfill costs, less (no?) landfill space required
for old asphalt.
The one down side? - Frick park would no longer have a source of trail
material ; )
3 - when building new roads, or doing major rebuilds - build them with
the idea of the Turnpike in mind. Make the roadway (and shoulder) wide
enough for at least 3 lanes.
This would allow (as on the turnpike) a significant % of repairs to be
completed without needing to stuff 4 lanes of traffic (on the
intestates) into 2 (one each way). Obviously this idea fails where
bridges are being replaced, or the entire roadway is being replaced.
This would save $, more directly, by reducing wasted gas while waiting
in mile(s) long traffic jams.
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 19:23:38 -0400, Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <3eff17ae.4721449@no-spam>,
> nospam@no-spam (Gary J. English) wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 09:07:10 -0400, Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3efb7a50.17662209@no-spam>,
>> > nospam@no-spam (Gary J. English) wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 26 Jun 2003 15:31:35 -0400, Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <3efb3c85.1841170@no-spam>,
>> >> > nospam@no-spam (Gary J. English) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As I had previously pointed out, it is about time the Legislature bite
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> bullet and tighten their own belts rather than foist more tax
>> >> >> proposals.
>> >> >> <repasted>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 1.) Reduce legislative salaries to 1995 levels
>> >> >> 2.) Contribute to health care insurance comparable to the private
>> >> >> sector
>> >> >> 3.) Eliminate the Legislative Car Lease Allowance and utilize the
>> >> >> State's fleet vehicles or option of mileage on personal vehicles
>> >> >> 4.) Eliminate unvouchered expense accounts altogether
>> >> >> 5.) Reduce funding of vouchered expense accounts
>> >> >> 6.) Eliminate the Legislative Grants known as WAM's
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I appreciate your reply and would like to hear some of your proposals.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your six proposals are definitely desirable, but I suspect their total
>> >> >value represents only a small portion of the money that needs to be cut
>> >> >from Pennsylvania's annual budget.
>> >>
>> >> I forgot one other proposal.......:
>> >>
>> >> 7.) trimming the Legislature by 60%. California's legislative make up
>> >> is 80 Representatives and 40 Senators with a considerably larger
>> >> population base than PA's with 253 legislators (203 reps / 50 sens)
>> >>
>> >> Though I don't have a dollar figure for each suggestion, it is a start.
>> >> The
>> >> Department of Community & Economic Development has a plethora of
>> >> government
>> >> programs. The DCED is linked on the state web site and you can see the
>> >> numerous
>> >> grants it offers beside the WAM's grants technically known as CRP's
>> >>
>> >> >A lot of hard choices need to be made
>> >> >and it looks like Rendell and the state legislator are headed in that
>> >> >direction, albeit, slowly.
>> >>
>> >> However, the choices seem to be tax increases and tax shifting rather than
>> >> the
>> >> needed tax cuts.
>> >>
>> >> >Finding adequate funding for public schools is difficult. I support a
>> >> >reduction in real estate taxes and an increase in the goods that are
>> >> >charged a sales tax because it is the only equitable way to fund public
>> >> >schools. Families with many kids will pay more taxes toward public
>> >> >schools than small families. Those who have no kids in school will
>> >> >likely pay the least to support public education, which is reasonable.
>> >>
>> >> Is the answer increasing funding via tax increases?
>> >>
>> >> >This does create a problem with cross-border shopping,
>> >>
>> >> In the western half of the state, I don't think it will impact out of
>> >> state
>> >> shopping, as I believe Ohio, West Virginia and Maryland lack our current
>> >> exemptions on food and clothes. It will impact visitors to our outlet
>> >> malls.
>> >>
>> >> However, the eastern part of the state will be impacted, especially
>> >> Philadelphia
>> >> Philly borders the state of Delaware where there is no sales tax at all.
>> >> Already, many cross the border to Delaware to save 7%.
>> >
>> >I live close to the Delawre border. Very few people I know bother to
>> >cross the border from NJ or PA to buy tax free goods in DE. Hell, I have
>> >a few friends who happen to live in PA, but so close to the DE border
>> >and near a large DE shopping mall that they could walk there and they
>> >also do not go over the border just to save a few dollars on small
>> >purchases such as clothing and groceries.
>>
>> I doubt your experience is close to reality.
>>
>> On small purchases, the savings may be negated by the gasoline costs
>> traveling
>> 15 to 20 miles over the border.
>>
>> However, on a trip purchasing $100 in PA state taxable goods would be $7,
>> certainly a savings that outweighs gasoline costs.
>
>True, but that $7 represents a savings only to people who live very
>close to the Delaware border. Anyone who has to spend a half hour or
>more to drive to Delaware would probably not see a savings when the
>value of their time is factored in.
>
>> Buying jewelry, appliances, computers, building supplies or other large
>> ticket items, the savings can be substantial. If you have made a recent purchase,
>> factor in the $7 dollar per $100.
>
>True, but that's already the case. My proposal to tax clothing and food
>does not change that situation, except maybe for those with very large
>families or very expensive taste in food.
Each time you raise taxes, it encourages/motivates citizens to seek lower cost
alternatives. As I've cited, crossing the state line to shop in Delaware is one
such example.
Citizens of this Commonwealth are facing a plethora of tax increases. A final
alternative is called voting with thy feet. Leaving the Commonwealth. That is
why I have suggested several (seven) tax cuts, rather than raise taxes.
Eliminating exemptions on the sales tax, i.e. food and clothing as you have
proposed is just another tax increase.
>> It is not only a cost savings issue, but also a State Constitutional issue
>> regarding the uniformity of taxation, Article 8, Section 1. Currently, there
>> is a Commonwealth Court challenge on the local sales tax for Philly & Pgh To
>> learn more about it, the lawsuit is located at: http://voicepac.org/suit_intro.htm
>
>The litigants in this suit raise an interesting issue,
The Commonwealth
The legislators crafting an unconstitutional tax
The Office Of the Governor
For signing an unconstitutional tax into law
The Secretary of Revenue
For collecting an unconstitutional tax
The Office Of Treasurer
For dispursing an unconstitutional tax
Allegheny County Council
For crafting an administrative code inconsistent with the Home Rule Charter,
which prohibits a ballot initiative to repeal the unconstitutional tax.
>but it does not
>involve my proposal. My proposal is to tax new clothing and food across
>the entire state.
Okay, but as I've stated before, cut the pork rather than raise taxes.
>As such, the tax would be uniformly applied.
There's no disagreement on the uniformity, but I do not believe in the need for
your tax increase proposal. There's way too much pork in the budget. I've also
cited that while you propose this tax increase, our Legislooters have recieved 7
pay increases in 7 years.
>The crux
>of this litigation is that the local sales tax (by virtue of it being
>local) is not uniform across the state.
Close. It is not uniform upon the same class of subjects. In this case first
and second class county subjects.
If you have read the entire suit, you will recognize that the Courts are in a
"catch 22" situation. Should the Courts rule the tax "unconstitutional" these
two counties stand to lose $150 to $200 million in local tax revenue each year.
On the upside, it would restore uniformity and the citizens would not be
burdened with this taxation.
Should the courts rule the tax to be "constitutional", our legislators will be
forced to pay back taxes interest and penalty dating back to 1994 in Allegheny
County and 1991 in Philadelphia County for their failure to pay the local sales
tax on campaign expenses. Those costs going back over a decade would hefty and
there is no defense for ignorance of the law, especially one they created.
Regards,
Gary J. English
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 09:47:26 -0400, "Fetch, Rover, Fetch"
<Fun_Fur@no-spam> wrote:
>Me wrote:
>> In article <3f059926.2716211@no-spam>,
>> nospam@no-spam (Gary J. English) wrote:
>>
>>>Should the courts rule the tax to be "constitutional", our legislators will
>>>be forced to pay back taxes interest and penalty dating back to 1994 in
>>>Allegheny County and 1991 in Philadelphia County for their failure to pay
>>>the local sales tax on campaign expenses. Those costs going back over a
>>>decade would hefty and there is no defense for ignorance of the law,
>>>especially one they created.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, how could the government officials in
>> Philadelphia and Allegheny counties pay back sales tax money to
>> consumers? How would the tax refund money be divided among the consumers
>> who originally paid it? How would the individual consumers who paid the
>> unjust sales tax even be identified?
>
>I would suggest a REDUCTION in the sales tax in the affected counties to
>5% for the exact duration of the 7% sales tax.
That is a most excellent idea!!! It might even spur a little more commerce in
Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.....
Regards,
Gary J. English
On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 08:44:27 -0400, Me <srhi@no-spam> wrote:
>In article <3f059926.2716211@no-spam>,
> nospam@no-spam (Gary J. English) wrote:
>>
>> Should the courts rule the tax to be "constitutional", our legislators will
>> be forced to pay back taxes interest and penalty dating back to 1994 in
>> Allegheny County and 1991 in Philadelphia County for their failure to pay
>> the local sales tax on campaign expenses. Those costs going back over a
>> decade would hefty and there is no defense for ignorance of the law,
>> especially one they created.
>
>Just out of curiosity, how could the government officials in
>Philadelphia and Allegheny counties pay back sales tax money to
>consumers? How would the tax refund money be divided among the consumers
>who originally paid it? How would the individual consumers who paid the
>unjust sales tax even be identified?
As posted, I believe "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" aka K-9's idea of lowering the tax to
5% for the same time period the 7% was in place is a most excellent idea.
>Speaking as a single person with no children, what I find most
>objectionable about public school funding is that the more children
>a family has in public schools, the less money they pay for those
>schools. The people who pay the most are single people who own real
>estate. The people who pay the least are those with large families.
>That just seems wrong to me. I agree that everyone has an obligation
>to help support public education, but families with children in the
>public school system ought to be paying more for their kids' education
>than those of us who have no kids. My sales tax idea was an attempt at
>reconsiling that inequity, but I do see your point that it opens up
>too many problems.
>
>I agree that reducing government waste as much as possible has to be
>done,
I had previously posted, I pointed out 7 areas of trimming the pork in govern-
ment. In today's (7-6-03) Tribune-Review, State Capitol Reporter, Brad Bumsted
wrote about the Legislative "reserve" accounts that total $141 million. See:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/bumsted/s_143291.html
Trying to dig back in my rolodex of memory, there's also the Capitol Barber Shop
at taxpayer expense. Not that this comes with a big price tag, but it's
illustrative of the large amount of pork that exists in our state government.
Paul Martino of KDKA-tv also runs a series called, "You paid for it", covering
government waste and pork.
>but I also think it is important to develop a funding stream for
>public schools that puts the greatest financial responsibility on those
>who use the system the most and the least responsiblity on those who
>use it the least.
That's not how government works. The same goes for your federal tax returns, as
there is a deduction for each of the dependents in your family. Remember,
taxation is the price we pay for a civilized society.
Regards,
Gary J. English