Reading Eagle Editorial and Response

On May 14, 2009, the Reading Eagle published an outrageous editorial titled "Sales tax is not the means to eliminate property tax" that strongly opposed the School Property Tax Elimination Act.

You can read the editorial on the Reading Eagle website here.

The editorial was damaging enough, but, even worse, the piece was loaded with false information from beginning to end - in fact, not one thing this editorial said was correct. If the Eagle wants to oppose the SPTEA that is their right but they could at least do it without resorting to false information to prove their point. What ever happened to journalistic integrity?

Who researched this for the Eagle editorial board? How could the Eagle editorial board get this so wrong? What is their agenda for printing so much incorrect information? It is obvious from the glaring errors that they knew nothing about the details of the SPTEA. It was irresponsible of the Eagle to not get the facts correct before taking such a slanted editorial stance.

The SPTEA prime sponsor, Representative Sam Rohrer (128-Berks), requested equal space for a rebuttal op-ed piece but was denied. Instead, he was told to submit his rebuttal as a 200 word letter to the editor; this is nowhere near the space required to fully correct the many errors. To allow Representative Rohrer the opportunity to completely rebut the editorial, we have posted his full version below.

If you would care to write your own letter to the editor regarding this, send it to letters@readingeagle.com.


Editorial Response

Your most recent editorial (“Sales tax is not the means to eliminate property tax,” Reading Eagle, May 14) called me “persistent.” In that spirit, I wish to respond to the editorial and respectfully disagree with your assessment.

First, briefly, I would like to point out that the 501 school districts do not levy a sales tax, but rather a property tax, which does indeed raise $9.9 billion.

“Widening the sales tax to cover some items that currently are not taxed very well could raise an additional $1.3 billion.”

In fact, based on the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue’s figures from the past few years, widening the sales tax can and will raise an additional $7 billion because we are now including many previously untaxed goods and most services. To ensure that we do not have to tax food and clothing, the plan also proposes taking a portion of the extraordinary proven future revenues raised by royalty payments located on state-owned Marcellus Shale natural gas fields.

“But remember that the money raised by the sales tax goes into the general fund...so the expanded sales tax would have to raise $18.5 billion in order to replace the real estate tax and to continue funding the things already funded by the sales tax.”

Currently, the sales tax does go into the General Fund but is essentially allocated for the purpose of funding education and does not need to be replaced as you claim. My plan does not take money away from the General Fund. Instead, it takes all the current sales tax revenue designated for education and moves it into a separate and protected Educational Operating Fund. As such, both the current sales tax and the new, expanded sales tax, would be protected from normal General Fund expenditures and reserved only for education—as it should be.

Since my plan does not take any money away from General Fund appropriations, the sales tax would only have to replace $7 billion in homestead/farmstead school property tax revenue—nowhere near the $18.5 billion that you claim.

“And one must take into account that in this economy, the sales tax is not raising as much money as it has in better times.”

It is indeed unfortunate that these economic times are stretching the resources of our citizens and businesses like few other times in our nation’s history. While the Eagle points out that cutting spending would necessitate cutting personnel or debt payments, the schools must first cut extracurricular and non-educational programs, where there is currently room. Second, I fully recognize the difficulties of school districts facing unfunded mandates from both the state and the federal government, and agree that these burdensome requirements need to be altered or funded as promised. The premise, however, is that schools and their programs are not sacred cows and in times of revenue shortfalls must reduce expenses just like all homeowners.

“We have long advocated an income tax to fill that role [of the property tax].”

Finally, please know that I am first and foremost concerned with the elimination of school property taxes. If we can find another way to do so, I will not hesitate to support any plan that frees homeowners from this onerous burden. In my sixteen years in office, however, I am firmly convinced that the plan we have formulated is in the best interests of education and the citizens of Pennsylvania. In this particular plan, I point to the same Department of Revenue April revenue figures the Eagle quoted: sales tax revenue is down 6.7%, but the income tax was down over 10%. The facts are clear: the sales tax is the most stable way to provide funding for our schools and it was begun in 1953 expressly for this purpose.

The bottom line is that no one wants to cut anything. This is not a political plan—this is a financial and fiscal plan. As an elected official, I have the responsibility to do what is legislatively and fiscally sound, even if it is not politically expedient. I am grateful for this opportunity to add significant facts to this debate, and welcome the continued public discussion.

Rep. Samuel Rohrer
128th District
Pennsylvania House of Representatives