BLOG
Site
Blog Posts:
August 24, 2010, 12:49 AM
Here is another blog post from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This one details exactly what the federal healthcare bill demands of small businesses as far as new 1099 reporting requirements.
Reading this article will easily demonstrate why Obamacare was such a job-killer.
My opponent has been a vocal supporter of the healthcare bill. He even went so far as to sign on to a letter dated March 25, 2010 asking Attorney General (and current candidate for Governor) Tom Corbett to "remove his name from the lawsuit" Corbett filed to prevent the imposition of these job-crushing business requirements.
How can small businesses hire anyone if they need to allocate so much time and money to these onerous new reporting requirements?
How could anyone go into business knowing these types of requirements will be imposed on them for doing so?
How could my opponent support such measures when so many people are out of work and we need to focus on ways to create jobs?
Reading this article will easily demonstrate why Obamacare was such a job-killer.
My opponent has been a vocal supporter of the healthcare bill. He even went so far as to sign on to a letter dated March 25, 2010 asking Attorney General (and current candidate for Governor) Tom Corbett to "remove his name from the lawsuit" Corbett filed to prevent the imposition of these job-crushing business requirements.
How can small businesses hire anyone if they need to allocate so much time and money to these onerous new reporting requirements?
How could anyone go into business knowing these types of requirements will be imposed on them for doing so?
How could my opponent support such measures when so many people are out of work and we need to focus on ways to create jobs?
Health Reform's 1099 Headache...
August 22, 2010, 10:30 PM
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an interesting post on their blog concerning the damage the national healthcare bill will have on small businesses.
In a nutshell, “This expansion of information reporting may prove to be so burdensome to small businesses that we believe it will significantly contribute to the hurdles to growth and formation that businesses face.”
The blog goes on to detail the onerous reporting requirements the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imposes on America's businesses at a time when we need to do all we can to help nurture and grow our business community.
My opponent has been a vocal supporter of the healthcare bill. He even went so far as to sign on to a letter dated March 25, 2010 asking Attorney General (and current candidate for Governor) Tom Corbett to "remove his name from the lawsuit" Corbett filed to prevent the imposition of these job-crushing business requirements.
Just one more way Rick Taylor is bad for business.
In a nutshell, “This expansion of information reporting may prove to be so burdensome to small businesses that we believe it will significantly contribute to the hurdles to growth and formation that businesses face.”
The blog goes on to detail the onerous reporting requirements the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act imposes on America's businesses at a time when we need to do all we can to help nurture and grow our business community.
My opponent has been a vocal supporter of the healthcare bill. He even went so far as to sign on to a letter dated March 25, 2010 asking Attorney General (and current candidate for Governor) Tom Corbett to "remove his name from the lawsuit" Corbett filed to prevent the imposition of these job-crushing business requirements.
Just one more way Rick Taylor is bad for business.
CPAs on HCRs 1099 Reporting Mandate
by Brad Peck
At WebCPA Roger Russell looks at the 1099 reporting mandate in the health care bill, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants take on it:
August 21, 2010, 12:29 PM
Unfortunately the latest unemployment data from Pennsylvania shows that unemployment rose again in July. We've been struggling with declining employment numbers since 2008 - just more evidence we need a new direction here in Pennsylvania.
We can't continue the abysmal business climate and expect businesses to want to locate or exand their operations here. Its time for real, pro-business leadership in Harrisburg.
With your support I'll be there to fight for more jobs through a better business climate!
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
August 19, 2010
Pa. jobless rate rises to 9.3 precent in July
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Unemployment increased in Pennsylvania to 9.3 percent in July.
The state Labor and Industry Department said Thursday the statewide rate was up slightly from 9.2 percent in June but a full percentage point higher than the July 2009 rate. It remained below last month's national rate of 9.5 percent.
The department says statewide employment declined by 45,000 residents to 5.8 million, while the ranks of unemployed Pennsylvanians swelled by 1,000 to 592,000.
The state lost 7,000 jobs in July, due largely to the elimination of temporary census jobs. The biggest increase was in the leisure and hospitality sector, as casinos ramped up to offer table games.
Associated Press
We can't continue the abysmal business climate and expect businesses to want to locate or exand their operations here. Its time for real, pro-business leadership in Harrisburg.
With your support I'll be there to fight for more jobs through a better business climate!
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
August 19, 2010
Pa. jobless rate rises to 9.3 precent in July
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — Unemployment increased in Pennsylvania to 9.3 percent in July.
The state Labor and Industry Department said Thursday the statewide rate was up slightly from 9.2 percent in June but a full percentage point higher than the July 2009 rate. It remained below last month's national rate of 9.5 percent.
The department says statewide employment declined by 45,000 residents to 5.8 million, while the ranks of unemployed Pennsylvanians swelled by 1,000 to 592,000.
The state lost 7,000 jobs in July, due largely to the elimination of temporary census jobs. The biggest increase was in the leisure and hospitality sector, as casinos ramped up to offer table games.
Associated Press
August 15, 2010, 10:16 PM
You would think that since each State House district includes the same number of people each Representative would be allocated roughly the same amount of money for their district office and staff. Sure, it makes sense there may be some deviation to compensate for rural House districts where more than one office might be required or where the cost of living is higher and therefore salaries need to be higher to reflect the different circumstances. All in all though someone shoud be able to come up with a formula that contemplates the cost of living and the square miles of the district so taxpayers in each district are treated equally.
Not so in Pennsylvania. The amount each State Representative can spend on their district office and staff is completely arbitrary and set by the leadership in each caucus. This leads to tremendous disparities between members of the same caucus and even greater disparities between State Representatives from different caucuses. As the front page of today's Philadelphia Inquirer points out State Rep. Dwight Evans spends $820,000 on his local district office staff in Philadelphia while his colleague, State Representative Vanessa Lowery Brown - also in Philadelphia, just nine miles away - only receives $63,000 to spend on her local district office staff.
If one State Representative can staff her office with only $63,000 it seems to me we could trim some of the $820,000 Representative Evans is spending on his staff! This line item accounts for $100 million afterall so perhaps this would be a good place to start cutting.
The problem with this arbitrary system is that the taxpayers should be treated fairly. Moreover, the leadership in the House shouldn't be able to punish members for their votes by withholding staff or reducing the salary for staff members. Its simply not fair to the staff, the State Representative or the taxpayers.
Here is what The Philadelphia Inquirer had to say...
Wide disparity in Pennsylvania House staffing
Sun, Aug. 15, 2010
By Angela Couloumbis and Amy Worden
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau
In his Northwest Philadelphia district office, State Rep. Dwight Evans employs 12 staffers to deal with constituents and organize community projects. Two pull in six-figure salaries, helping to tip his district staff budget just over $820,000 - the highest in the General Assembly.
Evans' Harrisburg office staffing budget is even higher, at $1.4 million, bringing the cost of his personal and committee staff to $2.2 million.
Just over nine miles away in West Philadelphia, a Democratic colleague, Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown, has just four staff members in her district office - two of them part-timers earning $5,200 or less - and a staff budget of $63,000.
Beyond the obvious disparity among lawmakers, records and interviews show that legislators' personal staffs will cost taxpayers more than $100 million in 2010.
"There is no rhyme or reason to the system," said Tim Potts, a former legislative aide and cofounder of the activist group Democracy Rising. "It's all based on persona...
Not so in Pennsylvania. The amount each State Representative can spend on their district office and staff is completely arbitrary and set by the leadership in each caucus. This leads to tremendous disparities between members of the same caucus and even greater disparities between State Representatives from different caucuses. As the front page of today's Philadelphia Inquirer points out State Rep. Dwight Evans spends $820,000 on his local district office staff in Philadelphia while his colleague, State Representative Vanessa Lowery Brown - also in Philadelphia, just nine miles away - only receives $63,000 to spend on her local district office staff.
If one State Representative can staff her office with only $63,000 it seems to me we could trim some of the $820,000 Representative Evans is spending on his staff! This line item accounts for $100 million afterall so perhaps this would be a good place to start cutting.
The problem with this arbitrary system is that the taxpayers should be treated fairly. Moreover, the leadership in the House shouldn't be able to punish members for their votes by withholding staff or reducing the salary for staff members. Its simply not fair to the staff, the State Representative or the taxpayers.
Here is what The Philadelphia Inquirer had to say...
Wide disparity in Pennsylvania House staffing
Sun, Aug. 15, 2010
By Angela Couloumbis and Amy Worden
Inquirer Harrisburg Bureau
In his Northwest Philadelphia district office, State Rep. Dwight Evans employs 12 staffers to deal with constituents and organize community projects. Two pull in six-figure salaries, helping to tip his district staff budget just over $820,000 - the highest in the General Assembly.
Evans' Harrisburg office staffing budget is even higher, at $1.4 million, bringing the cost of his personal and committee staff to $2.2 million.
Just over nine miles away in West Philadelphia, a Democratic colleague, Rep. Vanessa Lowery Brown, has just four staff members in her district office - two of them part-timers earning $5,200 or less - and a staff budget of $63,000.
Beyond the obvious disparity among lawmakers, records and interviews show that legislators' personal staffs will cost taxpayers more than $100 million in 2010.
"There is no rhyme or reason to the system," said Tim Potts, a former legislative aide and cofounder of the activist group Democracy Rising. "It's all based on persona...
August 15, 2010, 09:58 PM
WAM's or "Walking Around Money", Pennsylvania's version of pork-barrell spending, reappeared in the state budget this year - to the tune of $100 million by some estimates. Let's begin there...should we still be talking about estimates? I mean its been over a month since the budget passed. Shouldn't the lawmakers know exactly how much of our taxmoney has been allocated for legislators' pet projects by now? Or have they become so disconnected from us they no longer even know how they are spending our money?
If you are not sure if you've ever seen a WAM all you have to do is think about the last taxpayer funded mailer you received from your State Representative or Senator. It probably featured a picture of him or her presenting a big cardboard check to some group. That's probably a WAM.
There grants are not obtained competitively where needy groups submit applications and those applications are compared with other applications to determine which project is most worthwhile or which organization is most needy.
Instead they are simply doled out by the leadership in the House and Senate to reward (or withheld to punish) lawmakers who don't follow the party line.
Eliminating $100 million from one of the few line items to INCREASE in this year's budget...legislative spending...is a no-brainer if you ask me.
Here's a Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on the subject...
Editorial: Easier money
Sun, Aug. 15, 2010
There's a better way to cut the state budget than Gov. Rendell's proposal to trim nearly 2 percent from most state agencies - slash the legislature's accounts instead.
Leaders of both parties in the House and Senate have stashed up to $200 million of taxpayers' money in secretive slush funds. They also resurrected their cherished habit of doling out millions in discretionary grants for hometown projects in an election year.
In the meantime, budget winter has arrived early.
Due to weak tax collections, the annual state budget completed in July contains cuts to many programs. Even so, Gov. Rendell and the legislature "balanced" this budget only by anticipating an extra $850 million in federal aid.
When Congress acted last week, Pennsylvania received about $600 million. So the state needs to trim $250 million from its current budget of $28 billion...
If you are not sure if you've ever seen a WAM all you have to do is think about the last taxpayer funded mailer you received from your State Representative or Senator. It probably featured a picture of him or her presenting a big cardboard check to some group. That's probably a WAM.
There grants are not obtained competitively where needy groups submit applications and those applications are compared with other applications to determine which project is most worthwhile or which organization is most needy.
Instead they are simply doled out by the leadership in the House and Senate to reward (or withheld to punish) lawmakers who don't follow the party line.
Eliminating $100 million from one of the few line items to INCREASE in this year's budget...legislative spending...is a no-brainer if you ask me.
Here's a Philadelphia Inquirer Editorial on the subject...
Editorial: Easier money
Sun, Aug. 15, 2010
There's a better way to cut the state budget than Gov. Rendell's proposal to trim nearly 2 percent from most state agencies - slash the legislature's accounts instead.
Leaders of both parties in the House and Senate have stashed up to $200 million of taxpayers' money in secretive slush funds. They also resurrected their cherished habit of doling out millions in discretionary grants for hometown projects in an election year.
In the meantime, budget winter has arrived early.
Due to weak tax collections, the annual state budget completed in July contains cuts to many programs. Even so, Gov. Rendell and the legislature "balanced" this budget only by anticipating an extra $850 million in federal aid.
When Congress acted last week, Pennsylvania received about $600 million. So the state needs to trim $250 million from its current budget of $28 billion...
