Posted on 11/08/2005 1:21:45 PM PST by Tribune7
Pennsylvania has been growing slowly for decades. The Brookings Institution's report, Back to Prosperity, says urban sprawl and too many local government units are the problem. They could not be more wrong.
Slow growth has afflicted the Frost Belt of the Northeast and Midwest since World War II. Warmer weather and lower business costs have attracted most growth to the Sun Belt of the South and West. The problem is not unique to Pennsylvania; it is regional.
Metropolitan Philadelphia's job growth has been better than average in the Frost Belt -better than larger New York and Chicago. Of course, things have been worse in areas like Pittsburgh and Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, but anyone who believes that sprawl or government's "fragmentation" has been a factor, needs a reality check
(Excerpt) Read more at countypressonline.com ...
ping
ping
Horsecrap! So now its the weather that makes their economies not as dynamic as ones in the south? Do tell, why was it not like this before?
The lower cost of business is important, but the friendlier business environment with out the punitive taxes and restrictive regulations put on by oppressive liberals of the northern blue states.
I actually give credit to Rendell for cutting taxes.
Let's sum it up in a nutshell. The population of Pennsylvania has remained pretty steady over the years. The population of Philadelphia has been cut by 50% after people voted with their feet after 60 years of socialist democrat rule. The suburbs have grown by leaps and bounds.
The bottom line. You want to stop sprawl? Make the cities desirable to live in. How to do that - kick out the democrats with their high priced socialist programs...
What taxes might that be? He raised the income tax by 10% and raised tolls on the PA Turnpike by 40%...
"Lower business costs" are very much affected by government. I'm puzzled that the author seems to think the cost of doing business in a location is a naturally-occurring phenomenon, like the weather.
Does Pennsylvania's local/township/county government structure contribute to high costs? I don't know, but it's a question that could be answered by researching the cost of local taxes and other policies, including factors that drive up the cost of labor.
And three magic words "right to work".
The problem in Pa. is that when that happens they are replaced with Republicans with high priced socialist programs.
Yes in the cities. No in the townships.
Philly's government contributes mega-much to the cost of business. Regulation is not too bad in the townships which are smaller and have government more accountable to the residents.
My fault. For some reason I think I am mixing Rendell up with Richardson of NM. Yes, Rendell raised everybody's taxes 10% with PIT. And we wonder why blue state growth is bad?
That's good for business IF the residents are pro-business, anti-regulation, free-market, etc. This is not always true, irrespective of the size of the municipality. Small-town and particularly suburban voters can be just as bad for the business climate as inner cities.
Good points, but government where the councilman/supervisor/commissioner is dependent on just a few hundred votes is a barrier to the corruption and waste rampant in places like Philly. And corruption and waste inevitably leads to over-regulation, just to make a reason to ask for bribes, and to fees, just to put friends and family on the public payroll.
That is true, to an extent. My own municipality hasn't totally avoided corruption and waste, but it's certainly an improvement over the county seat! And it's usually easier to vote the turkeys out in a small election ... although when your Alderman's relatives and in-laws are a majority of the voters, you can be stuck forever!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.