HARRISBURG — Major issues in Pennsylvania’s budget impasse remained unresolved Thursday, with no consensus emerging on a tax package to pay for increased state spending and the postponement of a House plan to take up a public-pension bill that is part of the negotiations.
The 24 hours that House Republicans gave Gov. Tom Wolf to round up votes to pay for a budget passed by the Senate came and went. Mr. Wolf’s office had called the deadline “artificial” and said it was time for House Republicans to deliver, though his spokesman Jeffrey Sheridan said Thursday that the governor was meeting with rank-and-file members.
Asked how the House would proceed, Jay Ostrich, spokesman for House Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Marshall, referred to previous remarks in which Mr. Turzai said he would meet with colleagues in the Senate to discuss a path forward.
But Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman, R-Centre, said his chamber has no interest in a spending plan of less than 12 months, an alternative course of action House Republicans mentioned Wednesday.
“We’re not interested in a stopgap bill,” Mr. Corman said. “That just delays the argument for however long you do the stopgap. We’re hired essentially, elected, to do a job. Our job is to pass a budget. And we’re well past stopgap time. We’re in December. A budget needs to be completed.”
The Senate last week voted 43-7 for a $30.78 billion spending plan supported by Mr. Wolf, but House Republicans then voted in favor of a $30.26 billion alternative.
The House Thursday evening called up a pension bill, similar to one passed by the Senate, that would enroll future state and public school workers in a reduced version of a traditional pension along with a 401(k)-style defined-contribution plan. But the chamber left the floor and then decided not to return Thursday because members wanted to receive an analysis of potential amendments from the Public Employee Retirement Commission, said House Republican spokesman Steve Miskin.
After an afternoon meeting of the retirement commission on the main pension proposal, executive director James McAneny said the larger effect of the legislation would be to shift a portion of investment risk away from taxpayers.
“This bill, in my opinion, isn’t designed to save a lot of money,” he said. “It’s designed to shift risk.”
The savings the bill does contain, he said, are from changes to the benefits of current employees. The proposal would subject workers hired before a 2010 pensions law, like those hired after, to a risk-sharing provision. It also would change calculations of the benefits of members who withdraw their contributions upon retirement.
The president of the Pennsylvania State Education Association, Jerry Oleksiak, said in a statement that changes to the benefits of current workers “cut against longstanding constitutional legal precedent.”
“If this bill becomes law, PSEA is going to court to uphold the constitution,” he said.
The Pennsylvania School Boards Association, by contrast, said such changes would be “a significant move forward in protecting school districts and taxpayers from the fiscal stress of an unpredictable and costly pension system.”
Mr. Wolf has said he would accept the pension bill as part of a package along with budget and liquor bills passed by the Senate.
Karen Langley: klangley@post-gazette.com or 717-787-2141 or on Twitter @karen_langley
First Published: December 18, 2015, 5:00 a.m.
