Editorials from around Pennsylvania

Editorials from around Pennsylvania:

___

PA. TURNPIKE FACES NEVER-ENDING TOLL HIKES, EVERLASTING DEBT

April 21

How is it that Pennsylvania’s biggest cash cow, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, raises tolls every year and still amasses a debt that threatens its existence?

Good question.

In most parts of the public economy, toll collection is the closest thing to government immortality - increasing rates as needed to maintain the status quo and support a patronage-laden workforce. The Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission is a case in point. And yet the bridge commission seems a paragon of austerity and financial security compared to the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission.

A few weeks ago Pennsylvania Auditor General Eugene DePasquale addressed the turnpike commission’s shaky financial situation, raising this specter: How many times can the turnpike raise tolls in successive years (now averaging 6% a year) before it prices itself out of its own captive market? Before people just avoid it?

“Right now, the cash price for a family driving across Pennsylvania is $56.50,” DePasquale said. “For truck drivers who use the Turnpike to get goods to the stores for us to buy, the cash price now is $183.50 one way.”

DePasquale said the Turnpike Commission is carrying a staggering $11.8 billion in debt, even though it has boosted tolls each year for more than a decade. He called on the Legislature to act.

He described the turnpike’s future as a “fragile balance” that faces several potential threats - resistance and avoidance from truckers and other drivers, along with uncontrollable factors such as gas price surges and economic downturns.

Here’s the kicker: Even though the turnpike commission is a bureaucracy in need of belt-tightening, the huge debt load isn’t really the commission’s doing.

In 2007, the state Legislature enacted, and Gov. Ed Rendell signed, Act 44 - a law mandating that the Turnpike Commission hand over $450 million a year to fund other items in the state budget, including mass transit systems. This “remedy” came after the state’s failed attempt to place tolls on Interstate 80. Before then, there had been only five toll hikes since the turnpike’s opening in 1940.

The turnpike’s stability is also threatened by a lawsuit brought by commercial trucking groups, demanding that $6 billion in tolls diverted to non-turnpike needs be returned to the tollpayers. If Act 44 were tossed by the courts, Pennsylvania’s transportation budgets would be gutted, even with two wholesale fuel tax hikes since 2012.

Transportation Secretary Leslie Richards says PennDOT couldn’t begin to repay $6 billion - not without “catastrophic” consequences to road, bridge and mass transit programs across the state.

So what’s Pennsylvania’s solution to its transportation Ponzi scheme? The Legislature has milked the turnpike’s cash cow for too long. A judge might conclude it’s time to sell the farm.

Painful as it may be, Pennsylvania lawmakers have to find a pay-as-you-go transportation funding vehicle, without foisting debt on a third party. Let the turnpike pay down its debt without fleecing its users.

__ The Easton Express-Times

__ Online: https://bit.ly/2IHPHzt

___

HARNESS LAKE ERIE’S WIND ENERGY

April 24

The Erie region is reappraising its native assets to deploy them to their highest, best use in a world that has little use for older ways of doing business - dirty, siloed or low-tech.

That is true of efforts to marshal local capital to strengthen the downtown core. It’s evidenced in the collaborative efforts of local universities, industries and government to craft a new economy based on innovation.

It should also be true of Lake Erie, no longer a dumping ground, but a resource for tourism and environmental treasure. As reporter Matthew Rink’s story on Monday reminds us, there is untapped potential - clean, safe and lucrative - in the wind that blows across its waters.

Wind farms are commonly seen, especially in the Great Plains. An early push to introduce wind energy in Pennsylvania peaked with a couple of dozen wind farms, mostly atop mountains to the east. But Erie lawmakers’ proposals, the most recent of which would allow the leasing of state-owned land submerged in Lake Erie for wind energy systems with some of the revenues being returned to Erie County, have gone nowhere for more than a decade.

As Rink detailed, ambitious offshore wind projects with the potential to generate copious amounts of energy along the Atlantic coast are gearing up, thanks to the successful completion of one off the coast of Rhode Island.

The Lake Erie Energy Development Corp. hopes to construct the first freshwater installation to the west of us off the shore of Cleveland. It has just received a key construction permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for its proposed Icebreaker Wind project - six wind turbines eight miles out in Lake Erie.

Erie County Executive Kathy Dahlkemper, long a proponent of wind energy, sits on LEEDCo.’s board and rightly is calling renewed attention to the many ways this industry could benefit Erie County. As she notes, local manufacturers could serve the construction supply chain. Donjon Shipbuilding & Repair, for example, already has discussed with LEEDCo. building turbine foundations and helping transport material to the construction site.

Care must be taken, of course, to vigilantly protect migratory birds and lake vistas. It is encouraging that the Sierra Club Lake Erie Group has in the past voiced support for offshore wind energy production. And as Rink detailed, the federal review of the Icebreaker project found it would have no significant environmental impact.

Pennsylvania’s formidable fossil fuel heritage likely complicates the politics here. It should not. The potential to extract clean energy from a relatively short stretch of shoreline, generate revenues for Erie County and the state, and create new manufacturing opportunities should merit bipartisan support from lawmakers.

Pennsylvania should lead, not trip in this race.

__ The Erie Times-News

__ Online: https://bit.ly/2VoKItA

___

NO “DOOM AND GLOOM,” BUT A CHALLENGING TRANSITION FOR LOCAL FARMING

April 19

The numbers from the latest five-year census by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which captured data through February 2018, offer more evidence of the ongoing transition - painful at times - for farming in Lancaster County. “Poultry has dethroned dairy, and the growing gap may already be reshaping the landscape, as in smaller farms with more greenhouses,” LNP’s Jeff Hawkes wrote in last weekend’s Sunday LNP. Hawkes reported that the new census numbers also show a significant overall loss in the number of farms and amount of farmland in Lancaster County; some local officials disputed the extent of those losses.

“Farming has never been for the faint of heart,” Hawkes writes. Indeed, the vital, noble profession of providing sustenance for our nation has always been accompanied by more headaches than accolades.

And the latest data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture provided some insight into the newest challenges faced by county farmers.

It is an industry in transition. But also an industry rising to write a new chapter.

“There is no reason, yet, for doom and gloom,” Hawkes notes. The census, he writes, shows that “net cash farm income” in Lancaster County grew by 33% to $478.7 million. And the average per-farm income was $93,709 - an increase of 47.4% since the last census. Those are heartening figures. But the per-farm income hike came in conjunction with a notable drop in total Lancaster County farms.

About those numbers: The census finds that Lancaster County has lost 549 farms, a decline of nearly 10%, since the 2012 report. Its numbers also say that the land here devoted to farming has fallen by more than 45,000 acres, a decline of just over 10%. Those figures, however, drew pushback from officials at Lancaster Farmland Trust and the Lancaster County Planning Commission. The Lancaster Farmland Trust believes that farmland losses here have been only about 1,200 acres per year over the past half-decade, “far below the 9,100 acres a year the census documented,” Hawkes writes.

Whatever the numbers, there’s no argument that it’s more difficult to make a family or small-business farm profitable in the 21st century. And that could be at the heart of why some are abandoning agriculture and/or selling their land to developers. It’s not hard to see why some want out. Philip Gruber of Lancaster Farming notes that “nationwide, the largest 1% of farms make 35% of sales, while the smallest three-quarters make just 3% of sales.”

Needed transition

All of agriculture must adapt to the changing wishes of consumers, who these days want to know more about how their food is produced and want to mold products to their specific desires. Many longtime farmers aren’t used to that level of interaction. They’re producers, not marketers. And so these headwinds will pit the most innovative producers against those who want to do the same old, same old.

The type of farming that’s been taking the biggest hit - here and nationwide - is dairy. LNP’s Ad Crable wrote last year of “the long, proud tradition of Lancaster County as the state’s dairy capital” suffering from a multiyear downward spiral in milk prices. He noted that “the exits are expected to be mainly by younger dairy farmers and those renting farms who don’t have the equity built up to weather the storm any longer.”

The new census figures emphasize this challenge for dairy. The value of milk sold has fallen by 2.6% since 2012. The number of Lancaster County farms with cows is down 14.1% since 2012. And struggling dairy farmers, Hawkes notes, “also face the same challenges as other farmers: more regulation, rising property taxes, manpower shortages and higher prices for machinery and land.”

Joining dairy in this downturn, per the census data, are corn and soybeans.

And so “adapt or perish” becomes a necessary mantra. Or, to be more specific, “diversify or perish.” Locally, some farmers are changing gears or diversifying with eggs, organic vegetables, meat goats and the fledgling market for industrial hemp.

Chicken farming, specifically, is a promising area of expansion for local agriculture, though the cost of startup infrastructure can be daunting. “Sales of poultry and eggs (have) surged by 23.8% to $580.6 million since 2012,” Hawkes writes of the census data, adding, “Lancaster County sold 55.6 million broilers in 2017, up 3.8%.”

Regarding industrial hemp, LNP’s Heather Stauffer noted in January that the state Department of Agriculture is allowing more opportunities and loosening restrictions on growing that crop commercially. Industrial hemp could become a $20 billion industry nationally by 2022 now that it’s been legalized - though in a strictly regulated fashion - by the federal government. (The cultivation of industrial hemp was banned nationally in 1937 because of its similarity to marijuana - though hemp has only minuscule amounts of the psychoactive properties for which marijuana is known - until the federal farm bills in 2014 and then 2018 paved the way for research programs and then commercial growing, respectively.) Industrial hemp is used in textiles, paper, foods, beverages and other products, and its emergence as a crop could help area farmers diversify their bottom lines.

We appreciate those who focus on helping farmers through this transition. We found plenty to cheer in the federal farm bill, including money for the promotion of farmers markets, organic produce research, farm subsidies and crop insurance (especially crucial in the wake of last year’s record rainfall and soggy fields in Lancaster County). It is also good to have Harrisburg lawmakers such as Republican House Majority Leader Bryan Cutler, of Peach Bottom, on our side. He has spoken about the need to reform the agricultural permitting process to help farmers who wish to shift more easily to other crops or livestock.

All of this help is welcome, though none of it makes the choices our farmers face easier.

But resiliency is in their nature.

“Agriculture has been here before,” George Cook, a Lancaster attorney with expertise in farming issues, told Hawkes.

“The early 1980s was another difficult time, but … the work ethic is strong in our county.”

Indeed it is.

__ LNP

__ Online: https://bit.ly/2XFGniY

___

AN UNKNOWN TOLL: U.S. DRONE PROGRAM NEEDS TRANSPARENCY, HONESTY

April 23

President Donald Trump last month rescinded an Obama-era executive order that required an annual public report on the U.S. drone program, including the number of civilian casualties.

This decision, made without an explanation, was met with widespread criticism. Limiting transparency, particularly on a military concern as important as drone warfare, is rarely seen as a good thing.

These fears are understandable, but Mr. Trump’s decision to rescind the order is not as consequential as people may fear. It must be asked: What purpose did Mr. Obama’s original order serve?

It was intended to promote transparency, sure, but being transparent is not necessarily the same as being honest. And the Obama administration’s published statistics on drone strikes were far from honest, as the numbers of civilian casualties were routinely misrepresented, according to data from independent organizations like Amnesty International and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

For instance, the BIJ collaborated with the nonpartisan New America think tank and the Long War Journal on an analysis of civilians killed by U.S. drones between 2009 and 2015. The Obama administration had estimated that 473 strikes had killed between 2,372 and 2,581 combatants and between 64 and 116 “noncombatants” during this period. The independent analysts, however, found records of 528 strikes that killed 4,189 people and approximately 474 civilians.

A major reason for the statistical discrepancy is dubious operational definitions. For example, the U.S. government classifies all “military-aged males” killed by a drone strike as enemy combatants unless and until posthumous evidence proves otherwise. So virtually any man or boy between the ages of 13 and 65 could be considered to be a terrorist under this definition. It is not hard to see how such rules could minimize the reported rate of civilian casualties.

The Trump administration ignored the reporting requirement deadline in 2018, facing no consequences for this inaction. Mr. Obama’s executive order would seem to be toothless.

None of this is to say that Mr. Trump’s handling of the drone program is acceptable - quite the opposite, in fact. But an executive order was never the right tool to achieve accountability with these deadly weapons.

Congress, so often absent from its oversight duties nowadays, must reassert itself and demand both transparency and honesty in regard to the U.S. drone program. For far too long, this program has been allowed to operate in the shadows, free from the judgment of the American people. But citizens have a right to know what their military is doing and who it is killing.

Congress receives its own report on civilian casualties from the Pentagon and it should make that report public. The numbers may not be wholly accurate, but it would be a more concrete path toward accountability.

Symbolic though it may be, Mr. Trump’s decision to rescind the Obama-era order is a step in the wrong direction. But hopefully it motivates Congress to finally move on this issue of deadly importance.

__ The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

__ Online: https://bit.ly/2UTYEw5

___

ALL WORKERS SHOULD HAVE SAVING OPTION

April 24

Social Security always was intended as a bulwark against poverty in retirement rather than as a comprehensive retirement plan, and the program faces challenges to meet even that low bar.

Yet, more than a third of workers in Pennsylvania, 2.1 million out of a workforce of 5.9 million, do not have access through work to retirement savings accounts or pension plans to be less dependent on the safety net.

Almost all of those people work for small companies that do not offer retirement benefits.

Under a bipartisan plan promoted by Democratic state Treasurer Joe Torsella with support from House Finance Committee Chairman Rep. Michael Peifer, a Pike County Republican, those workers would be able to build toward retirement security through a program overseen by the state Treasury Department.

The proposal would be similar to 401(k) accounts. Workers would make tax-deferred contributions to individual accounts that would stay with them if they change jobs. Employers could but would not be required to contribute.

As with a state-run college savings plan that has assets of $5 billion, the Treasury Department would oversee the plan but would hire a private contractor to manage the accounts, which would be paid from the plans’ earnings.

When legislation is developed to create the program, it should include two crucial features. Employers will not be required to contribute but they should be required to participate so that the plan will be available to all workers. And workers automatically should be enrolled, with the option to opt out, to ensure the broadest possible participation.

Six other states have adopted similar programs, led by Oregon. Since 2017, according to the Associated Press, OregonSaves has enrolled 76,500 workers and accumulated more than $17.5 million in assets.

A Pennsylvania program would help retirees and all state taxpayers by creating more self-sufficient retirees and reducing pressure on publicly funded safety-net programs.

The Legislature should move quickly to establish the retirement savings plan.

__ The Citizens’ Voice

__ Online: https://bit.ly/2IJ89HQ