|
For Immediate
Release
1/25/07
CONTACT:
PA
Senate Republican Communications
(717) 787-6725
Armstrong: State Contract Costs Compound State Spending Problems
HARRISBURG -- The substantial
added costs wrapped up in the new contract for state employees conflict with the
demands of taxpayers for state spending control, according to Senate
Appropriations Chairman Gib Armstrong.
Pennsylvania taxpayers are going to be upset as they learn about the total cost
of this package and the impact it is going to have on a state budget that is, in
the view of many, already too spending-heavy," Armstrong said.
"The reported contract cost of more than $2 billion over the four years is a big
number. That translates into a 22.5% increase. If these were economically
robust times throughout Pennsylvania, and the state was flush with revenue,
perhaps there might be less concern. But this is one more indication to people
that state government continues heading in the wrong direction on spending
matters," he pointed out.
"Every branch of state government needs to pay attention to the message
delivered in the last election. When voters insisted on reform, they were not
expecting $1250 across-the-board signing bonuses for state employees. And the
voters made it abundantly clear that they do not like to see pay hikes granted
on top of cost-of-living increases, as will be the case here. That kind of
hidden cost has proved particularly objectionable to the public," Armstrong
stated.
"We are already staring at a $2 billion gap between anticipated revenues and
what state government is looking to spend, and this adds another layer of
spending on top of the problem. The budget situation is getting worse before
the Governor even delivers his budget address," he warned.
"I am not in any way diminishing the value of the many talented people in the
state workforce or the importance of effective state services to the lives of
many Pennsylvanians. And I realize that any Administration prefers to reach a
settlement before there is a threat of a strike or a disruption of services.
There are some positive things in the contract, such as the increased
contribution for health care, but that falls short of compensating for the
overall cost. The hard reality is that this contract is too generous for these
economic times, and it is contrary to what taxpayers think we should be doing,"
Armstrong concluded.
 Print this page
E-mail
this page
|
