PA Republicans pass a Marcellus Shale tax bill

[phillyaggie]

So they are basically swallowing the recommendations of the "expert" panel that the legislature Republicans assembled which was majority made up of industry insiders. Looks like the bill will fall short on several major counts:

- won't raise as much money as other states do in taxing their oil and gas extraction industries, and probably not enough to fully abate all the environmental damages that will have cumulative impacts on things like rural roads, surface and underground waters, air quality, and permanent damage to state forest lands and wildlife habitats.

- even the money that is raised is going to be used for all sorts of purposes rather than for one or two set reasons (for example, Texas uses drilling on state lands to fund its flagship universities, A&M and UT). this money is going to get raided for all sorts of politically connected reasons, and that's a shame for PA.

- local townships and counties can't have stricter rules to mitigate local damage-- if they want to have access to the new money pot, they have to go along with the state. That's Big Brother and Big Business cutting a deal and leaving the average Pennsylvanian to fend for himself/herself.

Something tells me the Republicans are going to hate that they signed off on such a poor bill that is so blatantly pro-industry and not nearly protective of the commonwealth's best interests nor that of its citizens.

Pennsylvania Fracking Bill Sent To Governor Tom Corbett

[Hal]

Something tells me the Republicans are going to hate that they signed off on such a poor bill that is so blatantly pro-industry
and not nearly protective of the commonwealth's best interests nor that of its citizens.

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears

NPR begs to differ.

http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...e-gas-insight/

The argument over natural gas came to Philadelphia this week, the one Pennsylvania city that lies above no shale gas deposits.

Philadelphia Democrats To Back Impact Fee

Hughes, ... said ... I could not allow Philadelphia in any way shape or form to be cut out.

(so we get)

funding formulas that drove millions of dollars to ... Philadelphia, ..., where there’s no Marcellus Shale drilling.

{but}

drilling-heavy Washington County would only receive $256,000
....

So, they get environmental disaster, Philly legislators ensure cash payments...
Rank and file eco-democrats are going to hate Philadelphia's Democratic leaders for selling out pristine enviroment for inner-city-block-cleanups.


Fair? We MUST get a share of the money created by other citizen's suffering.


Hal

"Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot. Take thou what course thou wilt."

[phillyaggie]

The point still stands, that this is a Republican bill inspired and shaped by the industry-- some Democrats are fellow travelers, and I hope they all get busted at the next elections, D's and R's alike. I'm neither. I'm talking about this bill from a more objective perspective and not from a party point of view.

Alabama's super strict anti-immigration bill was passed through by local state Republicans, and now they're having second thoughts. It was a test bed for a new brand of conservative action that could be taken nationwide. This bill in PA kinda sounds similar-- practically everybody else was arrayed against it for many reasons, and yet it passed. There will be backlash from local governance/small government folks, from enviros, from small landowners who won't have a say in whether Range can bully its way into drilling in their backyard, and many others.

[Hal]

I'm talking about this bill from a more objective perspective and not from a party point of view.

But, the bill was not passed objectively. It passed along a party line - Replublicans and Philly Democrats voted yes, others no.


The "more objective perspective" isn't relevant, thus not defensible here.

From a "more objective perspective", is there a difference between Socrates "all men are mortal"
and Pol Pot or Stalin ("all men are mortal, they would have died anyway, it's not murder from an objective perspective")

Curious about that choice of perspective,
artfully selected as "balanced" and "non-partisan"
but this is a partisan (Replublican + Philly Dems) vote.

Query, would this bill have passed without Philly Democrats?
Did the Philly dems vote last (e.g. their vote actually determined the outcome?)


Hal

[phillyaggie]

I don't know. How many Philly Democrats are there? The bill passed by a margin of what, 11? You do the math, I don't have that info as I don't follow the party politics as closely as you do. I'm seeing this from a different perspective which is not about the state parties both of which seem downright corrupt and contemptible.

Please don't turn this into a partisan political bickering; I'm not interested. I'm interested in the environmental issues, the private property rights issues, local governance issues, etc.

[Hal]

Query, would this bill have passed without Philly Democrats?
Did the Philly dems vote last (e.g. their vote actually determined the outcome?)

I don't know.

The bill passed by a margin of what, 11? You do the math, I don't have that info as I don't follow the party politics as closely as you do.

Wrong.

Please don't turn this into a partisan political bickering; I'm not interested.

I'm interested in the environmental issues, the private property rights issues, local governance issues, etc.

No you're not interested in those things.
You didn't mention them until challenged.
You made a purely partisan blame argument-

PA Republicans pass a Marcellus Shale tax bill

...

The point still stands, that this is a Republican bill inspired and shaped by the industry

So, you blame Republicans, but you're not partisan?


Now, once you've chosen to focus on Party Politics, don't back down now.
You you chose to blame 1 of 2 parties for passing a particular bill, (ignoring the swing votes from your own party),
you've pretty much abandoned any claim of objectivity.

You talk about Republicans passing a bill, but when asked for facts, you retract that.

You claim that you're only talking about environment, property and governance? But, you did not bother to mention
environment, property or governance but repeatedly rail against republicans so, your defense is clearly false.

I think that you are are only trying to change your position NOW,
because you did not expect to be challenged on the underlying facts about Democratic support from Philadephia legislators.

When you're blaming replublicans for voting YES, you've got facts, but
when you're asked about democrats voting YES, suddenly you're got amnesia?

So, when you wrote PA Republicans pass a Marcellus Shale tax bill; were you being consciously misleading

(Story #1)
You misleadinly omitted the critical fact that this bill was passed with Philly Democrat's support?

or,

(Story #2)
You don't know anything about what you've been posting?

Did the Philly dems vote last (e.g. their vote actually determined the outcome?)

I don't know.
How many Philly Democrats are there?

Um, you do know!

The bill passed by a margin of what, 11?
... I don't have that info as I don't follow the party politics as closely as you do.

So, you know (or can guess off the cuff) what margin the bill passed by?
Clearly, you DO follow party politics.
I think you're lying, , who but a party politician would know that a state bill passed by a margin of 11 votes?


Hal

[phillyaggie]

WTF is wrong with you?!

The article I linked clearly tells the margin with which the bill passed, and said it was voted up and down mostly along the party lines. Guess which party is in charge right now, dufus. Did you even read the linked article posted? I couldn't even tell you off the top of my head how many seats are in the legislature, what the Philly portion of it is and how many of the Philly contingent are Dems. Get that through your thick skull. All I know is the history of this bill, its main pushers being Republicans. If you can't own up to those facts then so be it but don't make this thread into something it isn't.

I clearly laid down the 3 points of my interest in the very first post. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, mr. online laywer dude.

And indeed this is a Republican bill... to not own up to what the majority passes in a premeditated manner would make it seem blind to the obviousness of the matter. That does not make my point partisan. I couldn't care less about how Philly contingent voted and certainly don't give a damn--they would not have a flawed bill to vote if the Republican majority had not pushed it down everyone's collective throats.

Seems to me that you only care to write about partisan political point and counterpoint-- while completely ignoring the foci of the thread which started off with the ways this bill is flawed. If you don't care to discuss the environmental issues at hand then GTFO.

[Hal]

The article I linked clearly tells the margin with which the bill passed, and said it was voted up and down mostly along the party lines.
Guess which party is in charge right now, dufus.

The one that determines which way the vote goes.

Democrats.

7 Democrats Break Party Resolution to Support a Severance Tax on Fracking

Here are the Democrats who chose to send a different message to the voters. The message they sent was “you can’t get tougher fracking policy by electing more Democrats.”

All of these guys need a primary challenge.

House:

Thomas R. Caltagirone (127th District)

Marc J. Gergely (135th District)

Senate:

Vincent Hughes (7th District)

Rich Kasunic (32nd District)

Tim Solobay (46th District)

Anthony Williams (8th District)

John Wozniak (35th District)

A 101 to 90 vote is close, eleven votes
So, with only 6 democratic swing, votes, they control the decision.


Here's the actual house vote-
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives - Roll Call.

Dems -

Burns,
Caltagirone
Daley
Gergely
Gibbons
Petrarca
Wheatly


As for the Senate

Why didn't you mention Vince Hughes, or Anthony Williams?

Bias?

Fracking With Pennsylvania: The Marcellus Shale Debate - Philadelphia Magazine - phillymag.com


Fracking With Pennsylvania: The Marcellus Shale Debate

A few of my smug New York neighbors have dubbed my home state “Pennsyltucky,” a dig at what they see as the hickish gullibility with which state officials opened the portals to gas companies.

I thought they were being unfair until I saw an interview on YouTube with
Camille “Bud” George, the Pennsylvania state representative and Democratic chair of the legislature’s environmental resources and energy committee.
In it, George says repeatedly, “I’m not agin’ the gas,” like a character out of To Kill a Mockingbird.

• Drilling Pollutes Home and Groundwater - YouTube
  Drilling Pollutes Home and Groundwater
  
  Pa. State Representatives Mike Hanna and Camille "Bud" George say Pennsylvania needs a fair and reasonable severance tax.

Hal

[thoth]

I'm pretty sure Hal is one of those spambots that gets onto the forum to post random links to news stories and covert ads for Cialis. I don't know why the admins have let it go for this long...

WTF is wrong with you?!

The article I linked clearly tells the margin with which the bill passed, and said it was voted up and down mostly along the party lines. Guess which party is in charge right now, dufus. Did you even read the linked article posted? I couldn't even tell you off the top of my head how many seats are in the legislature, what the Philly portion of it is and how many of the Philly contingent are Dems. Get that through your thick skull. All I know is the history of this bill, its main pushers being Republicans. If you can't own up to those facts then so be it but don't make this thread into something it isn't.

I clearly laid down the 3 points of my interest in the very first post. You seem to have a reading comprehension problem, mr. online laywer dude.

And indeed this is a Republican bill... to not own up to what the majority passes in a premeditated manner would make it seem blind to the obviousness of the matter. That does not make my point partisan. I couldn't care less about how Philly contingent voted and certainly don't give a damn--they would not have a flawed bill to vote if the Republican majority had not pushed it down everyone's collective throats.

Seems to me that you only care to write about partisan political point and counterpoint-- while completely ignoring the foci of the thread which started off with the ways this bill is flawed. If you don't care to discuss the environmental issues at hand then GTFO.

[Hal]

I'm pretty sure Hal is one of those spambots that gets onto the forum to post random links to news stories and covert ads for Cialis.
I don't know why the admins have let it go for this long...

So, you've got nothing to add for actual discussion or facts, you're simply going to rely on ad hominum arguments and personal attacks?


Point being going with the argument that "one party passes tax bill" isn't correct.

A bit of simple math shows that the bill would not have passed without democratic support.

The involvement of Philly's contingent has been very high profile.

C'mon, you two are better than that.

Your message "we must blame republicans" -
is loosing out to such investigative powerhouses as "Philadephia Magazine" and YouTube"

Fracking With Pennsylvania: The Marcellus Shale Debate - Philadelphia Magazine - phillymag.com

I thought they were being unfair until I saw an interview on YouTube with Camille “Bud” George,
the Pennsylvania state representative and Democratic chair of the legislature’s environmental resources and energy committee.

In it, George says repeatedly, “I’m not agin’ the gas,” like a character out of To Kill a Mockingbird.

You both do put up some good comments

to not own up to what the majority passes in a premeditated manner would make it seem blind to the obviousness of the matter.

But, that argument doesn't work when
(A) the bill needed the minority vote to pass, and would be blocked by the Democrats, but wasn't.

(B) the "premediation" goes back to the Democratic State Chair for the environmental committee.


Hal

Go ahead, jump the shark, next you compare me to Hitler.

[thoth]

so, you've got nothing to add for actual discussion or facts, you're simply going to rely on ad hominum arguments and personal attacks?

i learned it by watching youuuuu!!!!!!!!

[eldondre]

it's a good step in the right direction, I'm glad it passed. I'm convinced phillyaggie isn't really from the far east but the northeast, his negadelphian credentials are impeccable.

[five apples]

it's a good step in the right direction, I'm glad it passed. I'm convinced phillyaggie isn't really from the far east but the northeast, his negadelphian credentials are impeccable.

How did any of what he says make him a negadelphian? Attacking a state bill he doesn't agree with.

The bill was driven by the industry, but if Corbett had his way we would have had zero taxes or fees period, so I actually give the Republicans in the legislature some credit for actually passing something at all.

[3rd&Brown]

I'm with PhillyAggie on this one. I think the bill should have been passed with a flat "tax" which should have been diverted in descending order (of importance to me) to the following:

1. decreasing our corporate income tax rates to make the state more competitive
2. infrastructure maintenance/investment
3. funding universities, including the founding of a state school in Philadelphia (i.e. not Temple)

The bill as passed is a bomb. I only hope that the next time we have a Democratic governor...it's not too complicated to undo/revise.

[mixiboi]

I wonder how Pittsburg voted, as they are closer to the death zone. I'm not surprised that Philly elected officials voted yes, if they didn't the only thing we need less of is $$$......So fighting this would been noble, but would end up like the casino issue..just less $$$ for us....

[Naveen]

I'm with PhillyAggie on this one. I think the bill should have been passed with a flat "tax" which should have been diverted in descending order (of importance to me) to the following:

1. decreasing our corporate income tax rates to make the state more competitive
2. infrastructure maintenance/investment
3. funding universities, including the founding of a state school in Philadelphia (i.e. not Temple)

I like this. One argument I've heard from opponents of a severance tax is that PA's corporate rate is already high. So when you look at overall tax burden, it's equal to what other states tax their fossil fuel extractors. However, could have a higher severance tax on natural gas, offset by an overall reduction in the corporate tax? After all, unlike other businesses, the gas is in the ground. They have to come here to get it. It's the other businesses we have to worry about, and our corporate tax rate is high.

[raider.adam]

I'm with PhillyAggie on this one. I think the bill should have been passed with a flat "tax" which should have been diverted in descending order (of importance to me) to the following:

1. decreasing our corporate income tax rates to make the state more competitive
2. infrastructure maintenance/investment
3. funding universities, including the founding of a state school in Philadelphia (i.e. not Temple)

The bill as passed is a bomb. I only hope that the next time we have a Democratic governor...it's not too complicated to undo/revise.

I like this. One argument I've heard from opponents of a severance tax is that PA's corporate rate is already high. So when you look at overall tax burden, it's equal to what other states tax their fossil fuel extractors. However, could have a higher severance tax on natural gas, offset by an overall reduction in the corporate tax? After all, unlike other businesses, the gas is in the ground. They have to come here to get it. It's the other businesses we have to worry about, and our corporate tax rate is high.

Here is the interesting thing. A lot of people I have spoken too, including Republicans, don't have objections to an extraction tax. They are perfectly fine with the idea of charging for something that can't be replaced. The issue is that they don't think it should be "found money". They want it to be, as mentioned in 3rd&Brown's #1 idea, to offset other taxes. That is where the sticking point is with the Dems in Harrisburg and other activists. They want the revenues to increase the level of spending in PA as opposed to lowering the overall tax structure to make PA more competitive.

As mentioned, PA has a high corporate tax structure currently. A heavy excise tax on top of it would harm the industry, especially with how cheap natural gas is right now. Offsetting corporate taxes with the revenue would be less burdensome and would help other markets as well.

As an aside, I would be ok with extra revenue raised to cover environmental protection.

On #2, I would actually prefer if they addressed transportation funding through other means as recommended in the committee study. Increased registration fees, gas tax, etc. That way it can be a permanently sustainable set of revenue.