Stop the yearly Pa. budget madness

Why is it that Pennsylvania’s $32 billion budget can barely get done on time? Almost every year! And then legislators pat themselves on the back. What arrogance! With a $2.2 billion deficit (including a $1.5 billion shortfall from last year), there is nothing to celebrate.

Our legislators still have no revenue source in place to cover the shortage, and now they have the audacity to adjourn (“Break Leaves Budget Without Funding,” July 12). How is this allowed to happen?

The governor is clueless and useless. The state Legislature is worse, because its members still get paid while not finishing their jobs.

Come 2018, Gov. Tom Wolf has to go! And there has to be a clean sweep of the House and Senate members the next time they are up for re-election.

Stop the madness! We don’t want to be another Illinois! DAN TROTTER

Shaler ignoring the tax cut for the wealthy, he is creating his own “myth” that it is not in there by immediately putting the focus on a different issue.

Elsewhere, he has tried to create myths of his own, such as: Medicaid “is contributing to” 70 percent of the federal deficit, and he blames Obamacare. PolitiFact has labeled this mostly false because the same misleading math has defense spending at 113 percent, other discretionary spending 100 percent, and so on until you are up over 300 percent. He is ignoring the fact that the tax increase on the wealthiest 4 percent and other taxes were put in place to offset the known jump in Medicaid spending.

Given the budget deficit that we still would have, this tax should remain in place. It would be most appropriate to use it to make up for some of the $50 billion annual cost to the taxpayer for Medicare Part D. JOHN AIKEN

Monroeville

We welcome your opinion

but that’s one likely outcome if they succeed.

Eliminating gerrymandering will also make elections more expensive. Candidates don’t campaign much in districts that heavily favor one party. But ending gerrymandering would make most districts competitive. Candidates of both parties will spend more on campaigning and advertising, meaning they will have to raise more money and please more special interests.

Another consideration is that congressmen from gerrymandered districts are more likely to be re-elected. Re-election means seniority, which means influence in Congress. If Pennsylvania stops gerrymandering but other states don’t, then our congressmen will be at a disadvantage in the competition for federal contracts and money for highways, bridges and dams, etc.

Mr. Baker clearly outlines the benefits of eliminating gerrymandering. But there are costs as well, and whether or not they outweigh the benefits, they shouldbe taken into account. THOMAS GILLOOLY

Forest Hills