Written by Roberta Biros
It seems that all we hear about in the news are the ways that government wants to spend money. I find it disturbing that we aren’t hearing anything about how to cut costs and save a buck or two. I was delighted to receive an automated email message from Representative Brad Roae (a fiscal conservative Legislator from neighboring Crawford County) that outlines ways that our own State Legislature might tighten their belt.
I received the email on February 13, so I first have to apologize for my delay in responding . . . I’ve been a little busy lately. Anyway, in his newsletter [read the full text HERE], he announces four bills that he has introduced in an effort “to cut legislative spending by $4 million per year”. I like the idea, but I have some opinions regarding each of the proposed bills that I’ll outline in detail below:
House Bill 167
This Bill mandates that only vehicles that meet a suggested retail price of less than $20,000 and with a fuel economy rating of at least 30 miles per gallon could be provided to a legislator who uses a state-provided car.
Rep. Roae states “about half the legislators use state furnished cars and the vehicles are mostly large sport utility vehicles (SUV) and high-end sedans”. He also states “Driving a $40,000 SUV to Harrisburg that only gets 15 miles per gallon does not make sense”.
My Comments:
I applaud the suggestion of Rep. Roae to set a requirement regarding the cost and MPG of state-provided vehicles. The idea is wonderful. Unfortunately, I think the specifics that he has set makes the Bill unrealistic.
I agree that Legislators should be forced to select “affordable vehicles” as well as ones that are fuel efficient. However, the 30MPG and $20,000 price tag limitation is a difficult one to meet.
When I purchased my own vehicle, I was concerned about fuel efficiency and cost. My extensive research put me into a 4-cylinder Saturn Vue. It was everything that I needed plus good gas mileage and a low price. My vehicle selection was not a “luxury vehicle” by any means, but it still did not meet the criteria of Rep. Roae’s Bill. My Saturn Vue had a suggested retail of roughly $22K and a stated MPG of approximately 27 Highway.
In being realistic, I understand that some Legislators may be forced to spend 10 or more hours in their vehicle on a round trip visit to Harrisburg. I’ve done my fair share of traveling, and I wouldn’t ask anyone to make that trip without a few not-so-extravagant accessories (AC, power windows, automatic transmission, cruise control, etc.). If you spend any amount of time on long drives, you realize that these options are not “luxury”, but a matter of safety and comfort. I want Legislators to be limited to affordable vehicles, but I don’t expect them to ride around like “Fred Flintstone” in the process.
It is my opinion that such tight restrictions make the Bill seem utterly unrealistic. Looser restrictions like a $25K price tag and a minimum of 25MPG would be a better first attempt, and would give the Bill a chance for acceptance.
The bigger question is, which option saves the State more money . . . State-provided vehicles or the use of personal vehicles. Which ever option is more cost efficient should be the one that is used across the board for all Legislators.
House Bill 170
This bill would “move unspent money from individual legislators’ expense accounts and transfer it to the state’s General Fund.”
As per Rep. Roae, “When my first term ended, I had $19,000 I did not spend left in my legislative account and House rules prevented me from transferring it to the General Fund. There is currently more than $200 million in the leadership-controlled legislative surplus account and this is where the $19,000 went. The money I saved for the taxpayers may be given to another legislator to spend.”
My Comments:
Again, a great idea . . . but unrealistic. Allow me to make an analogy or two to explain . . .
Years ago I worked for a company that had a “sick day” policy that allowed for 5 sick days each calendar year. If you did not use the sick days before December 31, you lost them and started with 5 fresh days on January 1. My experience showed that employees RARELY had sick days left on December 31, and, oddly enough, there were lots of folks “not feeling well” in the month of December.
The “use it or lose it” rule generally backfires. Few Legislators would be willing to “lose the money” from their expense accounts, so they would find a way to spend it. In an effort to provide “the other side of the coin” allow me to outline another analogy:
I once worked for a company that provided 5 sick days per calendar year. At the end of the year, employees were paid the equivalent of one-day’s salary for every two sick days that were left unused. Employees had an incentive to not use their sick days because they got something for it at the end of the year. The same “incentive” should be used in House Bill 170.
Instead of ALL of the unused money being put into the General Fund, perhaps half could go to the general fund with the remaining half going into the “rainy day fund”. It may not seem as lucrative, but the end result would be more successful. It is simply a matter of taking human nature into account. Allow the “rainy day fund” to exist, but, at some point, address the maximum allowable balance that can be kept in the fund before monies are then transferred out to the General Fund
House Bill 165
House Bill 165 would put a one-year moratorium on public service announcements (PSA) that taxpayers pay for. Some legislators spend more than $60,000 a year on PSAs, and they are usually used when members are involved in difficult reelection campaigns. “The legislature spends approximately $1 million a year on these self-promoting PSAs,” Roae said.
My Comments:
Excellent. No further comment required.
House Bill Unknown – COLA Repeal
The Repeal of Act 51 COLAs is an issue that I’ve been following since early December of 2008, and I’ve been hopeful that a responsible Legislator would grab this cost saving measure and push for its passage. It is good to know that such a “responsible Legislator” exists in our neighboring County of Crawford.
I caught word of this particular bill through the office of Representative Michele Brooks. I was told that the bill existed (and that Rep. Brooks was supporting it), but I had no explanation of the “angle” by which the raises would be eliminated. I was waiting to see something in writing before getting too excited. The bill has not yet been assigned a number as Roae will introduce the Bill when House sessions resume in March, but Rep. Roae describes the bill as, “Whatever the salary is when a person decides to run for an office is what it should be for that term in office”. In the proposed bill, the salary would be set prior to the first day petitions are circulated to seek the office. Roae states “This is similar to how it is done on the county level”.
My Comments:
Bravo! This rethinking of the “raise process” is something that should be executed across the board in all elected offices. Regardless of a term length, I think that all elected positions should be for a stated salary for the entire term. Raises should be assigned prior to each election cycle. You would only “qualify” for the raise if your “contract is renewed” by the voting public through re-election.
I like it.
In Closing
Overall, I think that these House Bills are great attempts at saving money in Harrisburg. I’ve supplied my comments and suggested improvements as a way to give “my two cents”, but I still applaud the efforts of Representative Brad Roae. It is refreshing to see a Legislator that is actually making an honest effort to change the way things are done in Harrisburg. He has taken the time to author Legislation that makes an impact. I am hopeful that his hard work will pay off!
As always, just my opinion.
~Roberta Biros, Mercer County Conservatives
Mercer County Conservatives 