In 2009, Pennsylvania\u2019s Supreme Court made a ruling in the case of Council 13, AFSCME v. Commonwealth that, it could be argued, has done citizens the disservice of encouraging budget delays in Pennsylvania.<\/p>\n
In short, justices found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act superseded the state Constitution, requiring that state workers continue to receive pay for services rendered, even when the General Assembly has not approved a budget. In a legal sense, perhaps it\u2019s a sound ruling, based on the most established tenets of law. In a practical sense, perhaps it is also a necessary ruling \u2014 there are plenty of state workers who provide essential services to constituents even as the budgets are bantered about in Harrisburg, and those serving citizens by working in the state\u2019s parks, DMVs and prisons deserve their honest day\u2019s pay for an honest day\u2019s work.<\/p>\n
In a realistic sense though, the ruling hasn\u2019t benefitted Pennsylvania, especially during times of budget contention like we\u2019re experiencing in the commonwealth now.<\/p>\n
As the state\u2019s budget impasse hits the 115-day mark Thursday, grasp that while counties consider taking out loans to make ends meet<\/a> with the state failing to make billions of dollars worth of payments promised to keep local governments running\u2026 and nonprofits that provide vital services<\/a> like pre-K, day care and support for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse consider a steep, struggle to stave off painful cuts to those services\u2026 and public school districts try to make do without millions in subsidies<\/a> the state provides to protect the most vital services taxpayers fund, the proper education of our children\u2026 the lawmakers tasked with coming up with solutions largely aren\u2019t dealing with the same financial struggles.<\/p>\n As state employees affected by that Supreme Court decision, they\u2019re still collecting paychecks, after all.<\/p>\n Presented with an opportunity to put a pause on their paychecks for the duration of the impasse earlier this summer, only 10 members of Pennsylvania\u2019s General Assembly \u2014 all from the 203-member House of Representatives \u2014 elected to do so. While some have decided not to cash at least one check during the stalemate, it\u2019s still somewhat stunning that 96% of the assembly are at least keeping their options open to accept pay, per diems and expenses associated with their positions.<\/p>\n Add into the equation that our legislators make at least $110,000 per year<\/a>, and that Pennsylvania has the second-largest state legislature in the country<\/a> \u2014 one more member than California and Ohio combined \u2014 and it gets easier to understand taxpayer frustration. That\u2019s a lot of funds dedicated to a governing body tasked with compromising on a budget, and going on four months of failure to get that job done. With no end in sight. With little sign of meaningful compromise between the Democrat-controlled House and Republican-controlled Senate in the offing.<\/p>\n At one time years ago, there was a check against this: If they didn\u2019t go above and beyond to negotiate budget compromises, lawmakers didn\u2019t get paid. The 2009 Supreme Court ruling changed that within Pennsylvania\u2019s borders and led to legitimate questions about the incentives lawmakers have to go all-in on across-the-aisle negotiations.<\/p>\n When legislators have no financial skin in the game, taxpayers are not incorrect to surmise that it\u2019s easier for them to dig their heels in on party-line politics over the type of diligent compromise needed to get budgets passed.<\/p>\n