Skip to main content
Category

Blog Post

Speech by Marc Stier — Education Funding Rally at the Capitol

By Blog Post, Speech

The data is clear. The Courts have ruled. The defendants in the case didn’t appeal the decision.

This Commonwealth has systematically discriminated against kids in low-income, Black and brown communities for decades.

How can anyone look the kids and parents of this commonwealth in the eye and say, “I oppose fully and fairly funding your education?”

The only answer the opponents have given is that “we can’t afford it.”

Yet there is $14 billion in the state’s bank accounts that would cover at least the first four years of the program, while leaving billions in the rainy day fund.

To that, the opponents say we can’t use that money for recurring expenses.

Yet yesterday they voted for a proposal that would create a 2.7 billion reduction in recurring revenues and soon use up the entire surplus.

So now there is no debate about whether we have the money to fund the seven year plan fully and fairly fund our schools.

We do. Everyone, Democrat and Republican, now agree. We have the money.

The only question is whether we want to spend the money we already have on meeting our constitutional and moral obligation to fund our schools. Or whether we want to give more tax cuts to the richest Pennsylvanians.

To those who say we need tax cuts to secure economic growth, let me just point out we have reduced corporate taxes by $5 billion per year over the last 30 years–revenues that could pay for almost the entire 7 year plan. Yet those tax cuts have left us with the slow growth and declining population about which Republicans complain.

What will create economic and population growth is investing in our kids, the future workers of Pennsylvania. Educate our kids, give them the tools to succeed, and then you will see people and businesses flock to the state and our economy grow faster than ever.

This is the choice before us. We either fix our schools and give our kids and our economy a bright future. Or we continue down the path we have been on for 30 years and see our kids and our economy struggle in darkness.

Tell our legislators:

Choose light over darkness. Choose our kids.

Republicans Choose Tax Cuts for the Rich over Funding Education

By Blog Post, Press Statements

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman (R-41) introduced legislation to cut Pennsylvania’s personal income tax rate from the current 3.07% to 2.8%.

This legislation is both deeply cynical and totally revealing of the unfortunate priorities of Republicans in Harrisburg. For it shows us that, once again, they have chosen to cut taxes for the rich rather than fund education fully and fairly.

Ever since a majority of the Basic Education Funding Commission (BEFC), with the support of Governor Shapiro, embraced a seven-year plan to meet the constitutional obligation to fund our schools, the Republicans have had only one response: “We can’t afford it.” They did not appeal the Commonwealth Court decision, which declares that the current system of funding schools is unconstitutional. They did not propose an alternative to the BEFC plan. They just said, “We can’t afford it,” even though the state has more than a $14 billion surplus.

But while they say we can’t afford to fund our schools, it appears they believe we can afford to cut the state’s personal income tax (PIT) by almost $450 million per year by fiscal year 2028. And because the PIT is a flat tax, most of the benefit of the tax cut would flow to the richest Pennsylvanians. Our analysis shows that Pittman’s bill would, on average, reduce taxes for the top 1% of taxpayers, with an average income of $1.9 million, by $5,435 per year. It would reduce taxes for the middle 20% of families, with an average income of $67,100, by $181. And because of the tax forgiveness program, it would most likely not reduce taxes for people in the bottom 20% by more than $20 per year.

This is not the first time Republicans have chosen cutting taxes for the wealthy over funding education. Just two years ago, they forced Governor Wolf to accept a 60% reduction in the Corporate Net Income Tax (CNIT) to secure a small increase in school funding. That nearly $2 billion-per-year reduction in corporate tax revenues was in addition to the more than $4-billion-per-year reduction in corporate taxes over the last 20 years as a result of phasing out the Capital Stock and Transfer Tax and reducing the CNIT base under Governor Corbett.

These corporate tax cuts, along with our flat tax and overreliance on sales and property taxes, is why Pennsylvania has the fourth most regressive tax system of any state, in which the top 1% pay less than half the share of state and local taxes as families in the middle or bottom of the income distribution.

Moreover, if we compare the decline in share of tax revenues that comes from corporate taxes to the decline in the state share of funding for schools—the primary source of the deep and persistent inequity in school funding—you can see that these data series track one another almost perfectly.

The Republican insistence—sometimes with Democratic connivance—on cutting corporate and other taxes is the prime cause of the current education funding crisis.

Pittman’s bill is just one more instance of these same distorted priorities. And, they are especially problematic because there is no evidence that tax cuts for the rich have in the past, or would in the future, spur our economy or create more jobs at any reasonable cost. There is also a great deal of evidence that fairly funding our schools would lead to greater educational achievement for Pennsylvanians and both economic growth and job creation.

If the General Assembly wants to cut taxes now, there is a far better way to do so than a reduction in our flat tax. The state could adopt a variant of the Fair Share Tax plan the Pennsylvania Policy Center has been putting forward over the last five years. That plan would cut the tax rate on two classes of income wages and interest while raising the tax rate on what we call income from wealth: dividends, capital gains, business profits, royalties, estates, and gambling winnings. Since most income from wealth is earned by those at the top of the income distribution, 54% of any increase in revenues would come from the top 1% and another 24% from the next 4%. More than 60% of families would get a tax cut, and another 22% would see no change in their taxes. Only about 17% of families would pay more.

If the members of the General Assembly just want to provide some tax relief for working people, they could cut the tax rate on income from work to 2.5% and increase the tax rate on income from wealth to about 4.25%, leaving overall revenues unchanged.

Or, if our representatives and senators want to begin to repair our tax system while raising more revenue for education they could set the tax rate on income from wealth at 6.5%, which would raise about $2 billion in new revenues for the state.

Either of these proposals would be a reasonable way to improve our tax system without reducing revenues we need to fully and fairly fund education or increase those revenues by adopting the second plan.

These are the proposals that state legislators would be putting forward if they were ready to fix the immoral and unconstitutional education funding system in Pennsylvania.

Join Us for Our Online Tax Justice Conversation!

By Blog Post

Dear Friends –

At Pennsylvania Policy Center we are continuing our call to reverse our upside-down tax system, and demand corporations and the ultra-wealthy to pay their fair share!

Please join the PA Megaphone team and our Pennsylvanians Together campaign for another conversation about tax justice leading up to Tax Day!

Pennsylvanians work hard, day in and day out, to take care of their families—but many of us are struggling to make ends meet while wealthy corporations and the 1% get richer and richer.

Join us at 12:30 PM on Friday, April 12 for a special Tax Day organizing event.

We’ll hear from some special guest speakers, including a Patriotic Millionaire and an SEIU home care worker to discuss why we must make our tax system more fair for working families. Then, PA Megaphone and Pennsylvanians United will share ways we can join together to advocate for tax justice online and offline.

This virtual event will take place as a Zoom webinar at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, April 12.
More details to be announced shortly! RSVP now to stay in the loop.
 

What is tax justice?

Tax justice means that ultra-rich individuals and wealthy corporations pay what they owe.

It means that their share of taxes enables us to provide the common goods we all need to create a growing, high-wage economy and a strong future for all of us.

And it means rejecting even more tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthy—tax cuts that create few jobs but undermine public education, the building and improvement of roads and bridges, and other public goods that create jobs.

Learn more about Pennsylvanians Together’s Tax Justice campaign here.

  • Dwayne Heisler, Campaign Director, Pennsylvanians Together

The Pennsylvania Policy Center aims, through its research and policy development, to create the tools that political officials, opinion leaders, grassroots organizations, and the people of PA need to expand our vibrant democracy, secure our freedom, and seek economic justice in Pennsylvania.

End Local Minimum Wage Preemption

By Blog Post

By Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center

As I documented in a previous blog post, there is no question that the minimum wage is worth less than it was at an earlier time in our history, even though we are a far more prosperous country today than in the past. Yet large numbers of people—more than 21% of all workers in Pennsylvania—earn less than $15 per hour or just above it.

And that’s why we need a minimum wage. It is one of the critical policies—like the right to form unions, the social safety net, and a tax system that asks the rich to pay at a higher rate than the poor—ensures we have an economy that works for all of us, not just the wealthy owners of huge corporations.

We show respect for the dignity of work by ensuring all workers are paid a decent wage that allows them to support themselves and their families. Opponents of a higher minimum wage want people to do the work but don’t care about their dignity. And, thanks to our tax dollars, they get the work—for we pay to subsidize wealthy corporations that fail to pay their workers a living wage thus forcing those workers to supplement their low wages with the benefits from social safety net programs.

But what is the proper level for the minimum wage? And where should it be set?

I’ve made the case for raising the minimum wage to at least $15 per hour in a previous blog post. Here I want to argue that, at least in some parts of the state, it’s time to raise the minimum wage above $15. Doing that requires Pennsylvania to repeal the preemption law preventing local governments from raising their minimum wage above the statewide level.

The rationale for a minimum wage higher than $15 per hour in at least some parts of Pennsylvania can be seen by looking at the table below, which provides data from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Living Wage Calculator in 2023. According to the authors, “A living wage is what one full-time worker must earn on an hourly basis to help cover the cost of their family’s minimum basic needs where they live while still being self-sufficient. The Living Wage Calculator’s estimate of a living wage includes eight typical expenses or basic needs: food, child care, health care, housing, transportation, civic engagement, broadband access, and other necessities.

Due to differences in the cost of living and employment conditions, a living wage varies from one region and one county to another.

You can see from the table that while a $15 minimum wage provides a living wage for single workers without children in some counties in Pennsylvania, a higher wage would be necessary to provide a living wage in 43 of Pennsylvania’s 67 counties. More than a $16.00 minimum wage would be necessary in 17 counties, including Allegheny County, and more than $17.00 in seven counties, including Philadelphia and all of its collar counties, as well as Centre and Pike Counties. At $18.31, Pike County has the highest living wage level of all counties in our state.

Factoring in the cost of providing for children, a living wage far exceeds $15 per hour in every county in the state. For a single parent it is over $30 in every county in the state. And even with two working parents it is over $17 in every county.

So, it is time to raise the statewide minimum wage to $15, along with an annual cost-of-living increase. It’s also time to allow counties to experiment with higher minimum wages adjusted for local economic conditions. While conditions may not currently allow for a minimum higher than $15 in every county in the state, it’s likely that some counties—or groups of counties in some areas such as Southeast Pennsylvania—would raise the minimum wage above $15 soon if given the option to do so. And ending preemption of local choice with regard to the minimum wage would not just move us closer to a living wage in many places in the state, it would enable the kind of experimentation that helps us improve minimum wage policy statewide.

See the MIT Living Wage Calculation for Pennsylvania Counties chart below:

(Click here to view the chart in a PDF reader or to download or print.)

It’s Long Past Time to Raise the Minimum Wage

By Blog Post

By Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center

I took my first regular paid job as a hotel bellhop in 1966 when I was eleven. It was hard work—in many ways harder than anything I do today. People came to stay for a week or three and that meant a summer of schlepping heavy bags, sometimes up two flights of stairs. The tips were sometimes good and sometimes not.

The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60. But when I got my first paycheck, I was astounded to see that my pay rate was only eighty cents per hour. This made no sense to me, so I went to speak to my boss.

I said, “Mom, why am I only getting paid half of the minimum wage?” She explained the tipped minimum wage to me that day and ever since I’ve opposed that policy, which makes employees dependent on the good will of customers for their sustenance.

However, the moral of this story is not just about the tipped minimum wage. It’s also about the relative value of the minimum wage over time.

After adjusting for inflation, a minimum wage of $1.60 in 1968 would be $14.18 today, which is far above our minimum wage of $7.25 in Pennsylvania. And adjusted for inflation, the minimum wage is now worth less than at any time since the mid-1950s.

Comparing the minimum wage in 1968 to the minimum wage today doesn’t just require an adjustment for inflation. Average labor productivity has increased by 176% since 1968—that is workers on average generate 176% more economic value today than in 1968. Working people, as well as the ultra-rich, should benefit from growing productivity, so we should adjust the minimum wage  to reflect both the increase in productivity increases and inflation. If we do that, an adjusted minimum wage of $1.60 in 1968 would be a minimum wage of $24.90 today.[1]

Here is another way to think about the decline in the value of the minimum wage. In 1968, a single person working full-time at the minimum wage would earn enough to lift a family of three above poverty.[2] Today, a single person working full time at Pennsylvania’s minimum wage of $7.25 barely keeps himself or herself above the poverty line.

And finally, one more way to think about the minimum wage in an historical context. When the minimum wage was created and set at 25 cents per hour in 1938, it was equal to 43% of the mean (average) wage in Pennsylvania. By 1968 when I took my first job, the minimum wage had reached 52% of the mean wage in Pennsylvania. Today it has fallen to about 25% of the mean wage. A $15 minimum wage would take us back to the level we reached in 1968, about 50% of the median wage.

It’s precisely because the national minimum wage of $7.25 is so inadequate that almost every state around us has raised its minimum wage far above it. The District of Columbia has a minimum wage of $17. Connecticut’s minimum wage is $15.69. New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts each have a $15 minimum wage. Delaware and Maryland will each have a $15 minimum wage by January 1, 2025. And Ohio’s minimum wage is $10.45. West Virginia’s is stuck at $8.75, but even that is still higher than Pennsylvania’s minimum wage of $7.25.

 Source: Keystone Research Center

Pennsylvania workers have fallen behind because the state hasn’t raised the minimum wage in more than 13 years.

According to the Keystone Research Center, only about 60,000 Pennsylvania workers earn an hourly wage that is at or below the minimum wage of $7.25. But 1.34 million additional Pennsylvania workers would see their wages rise with a $15 per hour minimum wage by January 2026. Almost 776,000 who make less than $15 per hour (including 60,000 making below $7.25 and hour and 716,000 making between $7.25 and $15 per hour) would see their wages go up to $15. Another 568,000 who make just above $15 an hour would see a wage increase as pay scales are adjusted upward in response to a higher minimum wage. A total of more than 21% of Pennsylvania’s workforce would see their wages go up.[3]

That kind of increase in buying power would not only help low-income workers but it would give our economy a boost, especially for local small businesses.

It’s long past time for Pennsylvania to join the rest of the region—and much of the country—in setting a minimum wage that works for today, not long ago.

[1] Data on the growth in labor productivity can be found here: Joni Sweet, “How Labor Productivity Has Changed Since 1950,” Stacker, March 20, 2024, https://stacker.com/business-economy/how-us-labor-productivity-has-changed-1950. We relied on the full data set found here: FRED: Federal Reserve Economic Data, “Nonfarm Business Sector: Labor Productivity (Output per Hour), https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB.

[2] Stephen Herzenberg, Claire Kovach, and Maisum Murtaza, “2023 State of Working Pennsylvania,” Keystone Research Center, August 30, 2023.

[3] Claire Kovach, “Who Benefits? The Demographic Impact of a Minimum Wage Increase in Pennsylvania,” Keystone Research Center, February 1, 2024, https://keystoneresearch.org/research_publication/who-benefits-the-demographic-impact-of-a-minimum-wage-increase-in-pennsylvania/.

Seven Myths About Raising the Minimum Wage—Debunked (2024 update)

By Blog Post

Note This is an updated version of a piece I wrote while I was director of the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center. It was published in the Penn Capital–Star on October 3, 2019. A few things have changed since then—and I’ve added a sixth and seventh myth to supplement the original five—but most of the arguments I made at that time not only remain true but are supported by new evidence.

Raising the minimum wage in Pennsylvania is long overdue. Yet even though the Pennsylvania House of Representatives passed a good minimum wage bill in 2023 that was actually modeled on one introduced in the Senate, Pennsylvania’s Senate Republican leadership continues to refuse to hold a hearing or bring it up for a vote where, we believe, it would almost certainly pass.

Some legislators remain apprehensive about raising the minimum wage because they believe some of the myths about its economic consequences are doing so. Others are using these myths as an excuse for opposing the minimum wage. They need an excuse because the Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business groups that give them campaign contributions oppose the minimum wage.

Why do these business groups oppose raising the minimum wage? It’s because they understand what this issue is about. It’s not just about more money going into the pockets of working people, although that is critical. The minimum wage is part of the effort to change the rules of our economy so that working people do better. In addition to raising the minimum wage his also means strengthening the right to organize unions and fixing a tax system that takes a higher percentage of the income of the poor than the rich. Raising the minimum wage is one step toward reversing the trends of the last 40 years in which a greater share of our income and wealth has gone to the very rich. A minimum wage increase would help benefit all working people and help expand the middle class.

We aren’t going to convince those who believe the rules of our economy should be tilted in favor of the ultra-rich and wealthy corporations that the minimum wage is no threat to them. It is such a threat. But we can show that it’s not a threat to anyone else by refuting the myths about the so-called “dangers of raising the minimum wage.”

MYTH ONE: “The minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. It’s primarily for young people starting out.” FALSE.

The minimum wage was established to ensure that jobs pay enough to support families. At its inception in 1938 it was set at about 50% of the wage paid to a typical (median) worker. But both the national minimum wage and Pennsylvania’s have fallen so low that they pay only 25% of a typical worker’s hourly earnings.

Today, more than 12% of the Pennsylvania workforce makes less than $15 per hour—that’s about 776,000 workers. That’s too many jobs to all be training jobs held by teenagers. In Pennsylvania, 1.34 million workers—21% of all workers—would have higher wages because of a $15-per-hour minimum wage. This includes the 776,000 who currently make less than $15 per hour and the 568,000 who currently make $15 or slightly more now and would see their wages rise because businesses don’t want to lose experienced workers About 84% of them are adults, 69% are white, more than 60% are women, 25.6% have some college education, 28% have children living with them, and a majority work full time.[1]

All these workers are critical to Pennsylvania businesses which in turn provide the goods and services we need. We owe essential workers a decent life and to get it we must adjust the minimum wage back to about half of a typical worker’s wage—around $15.

MYTH TWO: “Raising the minimum wage just increases the price of goods across the board.” FALSE.

An increase in the minimum wage may lead to a small increase in prices, but it would be far less than the increase in wages for three reasons: (1) Labor is only part of the cost of producing goods and services. (2) A higher wage reduces turnover and training costs for businesses, which saves them money. (3) A higher wage improves worker morale and productivity, which also saves them money.

A recent study in California found that a 25% minimum wage increase raised restaurant prices by only 1.45% in a state where tipped workers (waitresses, servers, etc.) get the same minimum wage as other workers.

State legislators who oppose the minimum wage are fond of talking about their friends who own pizza shops who say that they would have to drastically raise prices if the minimum wage were $15, which would force them to go out of business. Many even claim that the benefits of an increase in the minimum wage would be wiped out by the higher cost of pizza.

These pizza shop owners forget two things. First, even if they have to raise their prices a bit, other pizza shop owners—as well as the owners of other competing businesses—would have to as well, so they wouldn’t be at a competitive disadvantage. And second, they forget that wages are only part of the cost of doing business. There is also the cost of pizza boxes, ovens and the electricity to run them, and the raw materials of pizza. So, the increase in prices would be far less than the increase in wages.

We have tested this hypothesis. Every state around us has a higher minimum wage than Pennsylvania. Yet as we can see from the table below, though the average minimum wage in those states is 84% higher than Pennsylvania’s minimum wage, the price of a standard Domino’s pizza in those states’ capital cities averages only 8% higher than the price in Harrisburg. As of January 1 of this year, New York and New Jersey already have a $15.00 minimum wage, and Washington, DC’s minimum wage is $17.00. Yet the same Domino’s pizza is no more expensive in New Jersey and is only a dollar (or 9%) more in Washington, DC. It is $2 or 18% more in Albany, New York, than in Harrisburg. But New York’s minimum wage is 107% higher than Pennsylvania’s. Low-income New Yorkers are clearly ahead of those in Pennsylvania.

 

This evidence also shows that other factors besides the minimum wage affect pizza prices. A Domino’s pizza cost the same in Trenton, New Jersey, as it does in Harrisburg despite New Jersey’s much higher minimum wage. And it’s 18% less than the cost of pizza in Albany, New York, despite the two states having the same minimum wage.

There is also no evidence that the minimum wage has led to a pizza shortage in New York, New Jersey or Washington, DC. No one is crossing the border from New York or New Jersey to Pennsylvania in search of pizza at a lower price. And you can still buy a slice of pizza in New York Cit for $1.

But many Pennsylvanians are crossing the border to New York and New Jersey in search of higher wages. And, no doubt, some of them are buying groceries or pizza before they return to our state.

Finally, while the minimum wage would increase wages for 21% of Pennsylvania workers the small increase in prices would be concentrated in industries that mostly employ low-wage workers. Other sectors may also increase prices slightly as the prices they pay for goods produced by minimum wage workers would increase a bit.  But since the increase in prices in industries that pay the minimum wage will be small, and the goods they produce are likely to be a small part of the costs of others businesses, the overall prices level would barely budge.

MYTH THREE: “Raising the minimum wage will hurt people earning $12, $15, $18 per hour right now.” FALSE

As I pointed out above, if the minimum wage goes up, those making just above the new minimum wage would see their salaries go up as well. So, those workers would also benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. And, ultimately, most other workers would too. In fact, an increase in the minimum wage would add a total of $5 billion to the wages of allPennsylvanians in the short term. And because all of those additional wages would result in new consumption, in the long term there would be a strong increase in business activity in the state. So, business activity would expand, unemployment would go down, and the wages of other workers would increase as well. Everyone would benefit, despite the slight increase in prices in limited sectors of the economy.

MYTH FOUR: “Raising the minimum wage will destroy small businesses.” FALSE.

Minimum wage workers work for big and small businesses, so a higher minimum wage in no way disadvantages small businesses—it establishes a level playing field.

A higher minimum wage can also benefit small businesses by reducing turnover and training costs and increasing worker productivity.

In addition, at a time when many small businesses can’t hire enough employees, raising the minimum wage would actually help not hurt them. When one business raises its wages to hire more workers, it might fear being put at a competitive disadvantage. However, if all businesses in a sector raise their wages, no one business would suffer, and they would all have a better chance of hiring more employees.

And finally, as the chair of the executive committee of the U.S. Chamber recently pointed out, when workers are paid more, they can spend more, which helps local small businesses.

And keep in mind that that small businesses, as well as workers, are harmed by the ability of the few wealthy corporations that dominate so many markets to hold down not just wages but what they pay small businesses. (Large corporations in concentrated industries are, to use the technical term, monopsonists Raising the minimum wage would thus help small businesses to counter the impact of the power larges businesses have over their prices. (And since that increase in prices comes out to the economic rents large corporations secure by means of their monopsony power, they will not be able to pass on the price increase to their own customers.) Again, this effect is small

MYTH FIVE: “Raising the minimum wage will lead to job loss.” FALSE.

There is no question that at some level, at, say, $30 or $40 per hour, raising the minimum wage would cost jobs. But no one is proposing such an increase. A great deal of recent research is consistent with earlier research showing that raising the minimum wage doesn’t reduce jobs—in fact, it often creates new ones by increasing consumption in local communities that in turn creates jobs.

A  new study (see also here) by UC Berkeley economists of more than 750 counties found that increasing the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2024 would likely boost incomes but would not lead to significant job losses. The radical economists (sic) at the N.Y. Federal Reserve found that when New York raised its minimum wage, but Pennsylvania did not, both wages and employment increased faster on the New York side of the state border than on the Pennsylvania side. The Keystone Research Center replicated that research for more recent years and found the same results.

Other studies and research analyzing data going back to 1979 have found a higher minimum wage has little or no impact on jobs. And, while some older studies and reports, such as those the Independent Fiscal Office relies on, reach different conclusions, a review by the Keystone Research Center points out that scholars’ consensus firmly supports the now large body of research that refutes these claims.

Given that a higher minimum wage doesn’t hurt businesses or lead to significantly higher prices, it’s no surprise that research shows a wage increase has little or no effect on employment.

Finally, we want to point out that the current low-unemployment economy, in which businesses are struggling to hire workers, is the best possible time to raise the minimum wage. Anyone who does lose a job would likely get another one quickly—and at higher pay.

MYTH SIX: Raising the minimum wage would push low-income workers off a benefit cliff leaving them even worse off. FALSE.

It’s a bit rich when the folks who have long fought against any program that helps working people or those with low incomes oppose raising the minimum wage on the grounds that it will make them worse off because their incomes would be too high to qualify for social safety net programs like SNAP (“food stamps”), Medicaid or Child Care Works. They never respond to that concern with the obvious answer: raise income limits.

Research by the Pennsylvania Budget and Policy Center in 2019 shows that very few families with low incomes would be worse off because an increase in the minimum wage would reduce their safety net benefits, and our recent update demonstrates that the obvious solution has been adopted. Recent changes to eligibility requirements for SNAP and Child Care Works have eliminated the benefit cliff problem. And of course, the expansion of those programs was enacted by supported of the minimum wage not opponents of it.

Here, as with the other five myths, the arguments of opponents of the minimum wage have become more implausible the more we learn about how the minimum wage works.

MYTH SEVEN: No one cares about the minimum wage any more. FALSE.

A May 2022 poll commissioned by the State Innovation Exchange found that 73% of Pennsylvanians support putting the state on a path to a $15-per-hour minimum wage. A majority of Pennsylvanians in every state House and Senate district, including the most Republican districts, agree.

CONCLUSION

Myths abound about the minimum wage because, like all myths, they serve the interests of the myth-makers. Unfortunately the influence of the vast majority of Pennsylvania workers are directly contrary to those of the myth makers.  For the sake of the vast majority of working people in Pennsylvania, it’s time for the Pennsylvania Senate to follow the House and put Pennsylvania on a path to a $15 minimum wage.

[1] These data are from Claire Kovach, Who Benefits? The Demographic Impact of a Higher Minimum Wage in Pennsylvania, Keystone Research Center, February 1, 2024, https://keystoneresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/WhoBenefits_15by2026.pdf.

There’s a Crucial Need for OSHA Regulations in Safeguarding Public Sector Workers

By Blog Post

In Pennsylvania, OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) regulations apply to most private sector employers and employees. However, public sector employees, including those working for “Section (3)(5) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 specifically excludes Federal OSHA’s authority over employees of State and local government. The Act provides for States to assume responsibility for occupational safety and health programs under the state’s own plan, which must be approved by the U.S. Department of Labor.”

These protections implement lifesaving health and safety standards in the workplace as well as avenues to report violations and receive assistance. Amongst other protections, OSHA standards require private employers to: provide fall protection, ensure the safety of workers who are in confined spaces, provide protection against infectious diseases, and prevent exposure to harmful substances like asbestos or lead. Without regulation, all public employees are left vulnerable to dangers in their workplaces.

Public sector workers are essential to the functioning of society, providing vital services such as maintaining public infrastructure and ensuring public safety and health. Despite their crucial roles, these workers face myriad occupational hazards that can compromise their well-being. Public schools are a strong example of why health and safety regulations are necessary. Because school funding primarily relies on local taxes, lower-income communities are often left with severely underfunded public schools. Without OSHA protections, adequate funding to maintain building safety for employees and students is often overlooked in favor of other essential expenditures. Private school teachers can submit a complaint and request an OSHA inspection, but public school teachers cannot. That is wrong.

On the national level, state and local public sector employees are 64% more likely to be injured on the job than private sector employees.

Several workers’ unions have continued to push for legislative change via an OSHA-approved state plan that includes public employees and employers. Twenty-six U.S. states have already done so, including New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia. In the coming months, Pennsylvania state lawmakers will decide whether these valuable protections will be extended to public employees and employers.

In Pennsylvania, legislation passed the House (HB 299) with bipartisan support. Legislation has been introduced in the Senate but has not moved.

It is time for Pennsylvania to enact workplace safety legislation to protect all workers!

Read more:

Ockerman, Emma. “Worker injuries and deaths are still far too common: Americans are still dying from injuries on the job — but some workers are more impacted than others.” Market Watch. May 1, 2022. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/american-workers-are-still-dying-from-injuries-on-the-job-heres-who-is-most-impacted-11651016484.

Schmidt, Sophia. “Could PA finally extend OSHA protections to public school teachers and trash collectors?” WHYY.org. April 21, 2022. https://whyy.org/articles/could-pa-public-employees-finally-get-osha-protections/.

Website for Pennsylvania House Democrats. “House passes Harkins bill to bring OSHA safety protections to public workers,” by Rep. Patrick J. Harkins. www.pahouse.com. May 2, 2023. https://www.pahouse.com/Harkins/InTheNews/NewsRelease/?id=128804.

Henderson, David. “Every Pennsylvania worker deserves strong workplace safety protections.” Penn Capital-Star. May 3, 2023. https://penncapital-star.com/commentary/every-pennsylvania-worker-deserves-strong-workplace-safety-protections-opinion/.

 

Syringe Services Programs Would Save the Lives of Thousands in PA

By Blog Post

The Pennsylvania Legislature needs to pass HB 1245, legislation that would legalize syringe services programs across the Commonwealth.

Pennsylvania families and communities are being devastated by the loss of loved ones. Opioid overdose deaths are entirely preventable, yet we lost more than 5,100 of our neighbors to drug overdose in Pennsylvania in 2022.

The number of overdoses in Pennsylvania, as well as the rate of increase, has long been among the highest in the nation, yet we are one of only about ten states that do not allow statewide syringe services programs (SSPs). Syringe services programs are a critically important tool in the fight to reduce overdose deaths and prevent the spread of injection-related diseases like HIV and hepatitis C. The programs also serve as distribution points of naloxone (Narcan), and they provide overdose reversal trainings to communities. With only two legal SSPs in Pennsylvania, most of the state is left uncovered or reliant on the few unofficial programs we have, which are under-resourced.

Syringe services programs benefit everyone. They not only provide caring centers where people can access social services and treatment but also

  • decrease reliance on emergency services.
  • dramatically reduce the spread of bloodborne diseases such as hepatitis C and HIV.
  • decrease public needle trash.
  • reduce healthcare costs in local municipalities.
  • increase success rates of drug treatment and housing programs.

An estimated 85% of Pennsylvanians who meet the criteria for having a substance use disorder and need drug treatment do not receive it. Making treatment more accessible is critical, and research shows that new users of SSPs are both five times more likely to enter drug treatment and about three times more likely to stop using drugs than those who don’t use the programs. Legalizing SSPs would provide more effective paths to successful, long-term treatment, and it would save lives.

The overdose crisis affects communities across our commonwealth, crossing boundaries of city, town, race, age, economic status, and gender. Drug overdoses are a public health crisis. We have seen time and time again that drug war policies and criminalizing harm reduction strategies have not resulted in reduced rates of overdose death or drug use — in fact, they have led to the opposite.

Passing HB 1245 should be an easy, commonsense decision. It’s a long-overdue step forward in preventing the spread of HIV and other communicable diseases, helping people with substance use disorders access the services and treatment they need, and saving lives.

All Pennsylvanians deserve access to life-saving interventions and care. We strongly urge members of the House Judiciary Committee to vote YES on HB1245. It’s time to join the majority of other states in the nation by legalizing syringe services programs.

Statement on Federal Child Tax Credit Expansion

By Blog Post, Press Statements

STATEMENT on Child Tax Credit Expansion – Marc Stier, Executive Director, Pennsylvania Policy Center

The House Ways and Means Committee today voted in favor of bipartisan tax legislation that includes an expansion of the child tax credit along with the restoration of some expired business tax credits. The legislation is the product of negotiations between the chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, Jason Smith (R-MO) and the chair of the Senate Finance Committee, Ron Wyden (D-OR).

This legislation would benefit 19 million children in low-income families, or 1 in 5 of children under 17, including 506,000 children in Pennsylvania. It would especially help Black, Latino, and Asian children, whose parents are overrepresented in low-paying jobs due to structural barriers to opportunity.

In the first year, the expansion of the child tax credit would lift 400,000 children nationwide—and roughly 16,000 kids in Pennsylvania—out of poverty. Additionally, another 3 million kids nationwide, and 120,000 in Pennsylvania, will be made less poor.

The child tax credit gives families a refundable credit of 15% of their earnings above $2,500—which means that the family receives a cash benefit if they have no federal tax liability.  The law makes three important changes in the child tax credit that provides additional benefits to low-income families.

At present, 19 million children in the country receive less than the full credit because of the current “refundability cap” that limits benefits to families with incomes below $40,000. This legislation lifts the cap from the current limit of $1,600 per child to $1,800 per child for tax year 2023 and $1,900 per child in tax year 2024. In 2025, the cap would be lifted entirely and the maximum credit of $2,000 will be available to all families.

In addition, under current law, many low-income families with two or three children receive the same credit as a family with one child at the same earning level. The legislation would allow a credit for each child in a family as is now the case for higher-income families. So, for example, a single parent with two children who earns $13,000 working part time as home health aide currently receives a refundable tax credit of $1575, which is 15% of their earnings above the $2,500. Under the new law, the family would receive $1,575 per child or a total of $3,150.

Finally, the proposed legislation adopts a lookback provision that allows families whose earnings decline in a year to use the prior year’s income to calculate their tax credit. This would help families who experience a temporary drop in their income from also suffering a drop in their child tax credit. This is especially important because of the volatile nature of the low-income job market.

A number of business tax credits are restored as part of the compromise legislation. While we at the Pennsylvania Policy Center have some doubts about the usefulness of these provisions, we welcome this compromise because the benefits to low-income children are so important.

The expansion of the child tax credit under the American Rescue Plan was much larger than under this proposal—and we fervently hope that a similar program will be enacted in the future. Democrats recently put forward a slightly bigger program that would have increased the tax credit for low-income families even more, by ending the exemption of the first $2500 in earnings in the calculation of the credit, and by raising the 15% phase-in rate. But this current legislation, which is rightly targeted to benefit the lowest income families, is a necessary and promising first step in that direction.

The entire program is, rightly, paid for by making administrative and enforcement changes to the Employee Retention Credit, a provision added to the tax code during COVID that has been abused.

Statement in response to the Basic Education Funding Commission Report

By Blog Post, Policy Statement

The adoption of the Basic Education Funding Commission Report yesterday is a major step forward in meeting our constitutional and moral responsibility to fund education fully and fairly in Pennsylvania.

The first step in this process was a Court decision by a Republican judge holding that our current system of funding education is not constitutional.

Yesterday, the state took a second step. We are grateful that a majority of the Commission, including the Governor and the members of the General Assembly, provided a detailed and specific plan to meet the constitutional and moral requirement of adequately and equitably funding our schools—a plan we believe is fair.

The plan comes very close to meeting our expectations. It sets a plausible and defensible standard for evaluating the adequacy of funding in every school district. By that standard, we need $5.4 billion per year in new funding to close the adequacy gap in a majority of the state’s five hundred school districts. The plan calls for a minimum of $200 million per year in additional basic education funds to account for inflation, which will flow through a slightly revised and improved fair funding formula And it calls for $900 million in funding to reduce the tax burden in school districts that have been taxing themselves heavily due to insufficient funding for education from the state.

The $6.3 billion in new, yearly funding will be phased in over seven years. While this is a bit slower than we had hoped, the delay is understandable. Given Pennsylvania’s severe shortage in teachers, it is not clear that school districts could spend much more in the initial years of the plan than the almost $800 million in new funding the proposal. Giving school districts a long-term plan with assured funding will enable them, and the institutions in the state that train teachers, the time to recruit a new generation of educators for our kids.

While not every member of the Commission supported this proposal, the Republican  members did accept the court ruling “that the evidence presented in the case showed that resources — whether monetary or otherwise — were not adequate to meet the needs of the students.” The minority Republican report also identified best practices for education that we fully support but that cannot be put in place without new funding. And the minority report rightly said that it is up to the General Assembly to meet those needs.

So, the next steps are for the Governor to present, and the General Assembly to accept, a budget proposal that will implement the first year of this bold program.

We believe that a majority of Senate and House members will eventually do that because their districts’ families, as well as the areas’ businesses, recognize that adequately and equitably funding education is critical to providing opportunity for their kids and a strong economy for their communities.

We are grateful that Governor Shapiro and members of the General Assembly are leading the way to a better future for our kids and our Commonwealth.  As advocates for education, we will spend the upcoming months collaborating with them to amplify the voices of Pennsylvania’s kids, families, and businesses in support of implementing the plan that was proposed yesterday. We believe that those voices will ultimately carry the day and that this year we will put in place a path to full and fair funding of K-12 education in PA.  We encourage everyone listening today to join us.

ITEP Report: Tax Fairness in Pennsylvania

By Blog Post

Every few years, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy releases its survey of taxes in the states, “Who Pays?” Click here to read the seventh edition, released on January 9, 2024. 

A summary of the data for Pennsylvania is found below.

This year’s report continues to tell the same story that we have seen for decades. Taxes in Pennsylvania are among the most upside-down in the entire country.

The report shows that

  • The lowest-income 20 percent of taxpayers face a state and local tax rate that is 152 percent higher than the top 1 percent of households. The average effective state and local tax rate is 15.1 percent for the lowest-income 20 percent of individuals and families, 11.4 percent for the middle 20 percent, and 6 percent for the top 1 percent.
  • Pennsylvania has the highest tax rate on low-income families in the entire country at 15.1%.
  • Pennsylvania has the 4th-most regressive tax system in the nation.
  • Pennsylvania is one of 42 states that tax the top 1 percent less than every other income group, and it’s one of 35 states that taxes its poorest residents at a higher rate than any other group.

A tax system that places a much higher burden on those with low incomes than those with high incomes undermines the common good in three ways.

First, it is unfair. The tax burden is far greater when people’s incomes are lower. People with low and moderate incomes use all their income to pay for necessities. People with high incomes use far more of their income for luxuries or for savings.

Second, people and corporations with high incomes typically are able to earn those incomes in part because of government spending on education; research and development; transportation; and other infrastructure. Higher tax rates are a way for them to “give back” to the community for the benefits they receive.
And, third, progressive taxation is necessary for equality of opportunity—that is to allow those with low and moderate incomes to make the best use of their talents and abilities, not just for themselves but for the community as a whole.

It’s time for the state of Pennsylvania to adopt common sense solutions to repair our unfair tax system, including the fair share tax system, which would replace our flat income tax; corporate tax reform; and a severance tax on natural gas drilling. We will be updating these three proposals in the next few months.

Click here to print or read ITEP’s Pennsylvania report full-screen.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://pennpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/itep-whopays7-Pennsylvania.pdf”]

Pennsylvania Voters Believe Wealthy Individuals and Profitable Corporations Are Not Paying Their Fair Share

By Blog Post

Income and wealth are highly concentrated at the top in Pennsylvania, a situation that has worsened greatly in recent decades. Pennsylvania voters rightly believe that corporations and wealthy individuals aren’t paying their fair share to fund the government services and infrastructure we all depend on.

In November and December of 2022, Data for Progress conducted a survey of registered voters nationally to gauge voter support towards state action to ensure that profitable corporations and the wealthy are paying their fair share of taxes. The national survey was then used to estimate opinion at the state level for Pennsylvania, using a machine learning model trained on nationally representative survey responses linked to a commercial voter file.

There is no question that Pennsylvania’s voters are supportive of statewide policies that require those at the top to pay their fair share. Voters are looking to Pennsylvania’s elected leaders to hold corporations accountable and create a system of equity in transparency in how much they actually pay in taxes. Pennsylvanians want public services, and especially fairly and fully funded schools, to be funded throughout the state and believe that wealthy Pennsylvanians should be paying their fair share to provide them.

Statewide Results: Percentage of Pennsylvania voters who agree with the following statements:

Profitable corporations and wealthy individuals are not paying enough in state taxes ……………82%
State lawmakers should do more to hold accountable corporations who avoid paying taxes. Corporate profits have skyrocketed and taxpayers need transparency about how much profit corporations make and whether they pay their fair share of taxes………………………………………………………84%

 

Click here for estimates of registered voter support for profitable corporations and wealthy individuals paying more in taxes by state House district.

Click here for estimates of registered voter support for profitable corporations and wealthy individuals paying more in taxes by state Senate district.  

Click here for estimates of registered voter support for profitable corporations and wealthy individuals paying more in taxes by US House District.

Survey Results: Support for Higher Taxes on Profitable Corporations and Wealthy Individuals by PA Senate District

By Blog Post

In November and December of 2022, Data for Progress conducted a survey of registered voters nationally to gauge voter support towards state action to hold profitable corporations and the wealthy accountable to pay their fair share of taxes. The national survey was then used to estimate opinion at the state level for Pennsylvania using a machine learning model trained on nationally representative survey responses linked to a commercial voter file. In addition, estimates were made of public support in each state House and Senate district.

Click here for state-wide results.

Perhaps surprisingly, the differences between Senate districts held by Democratic and Republican legislators are not all that great. Registered voters in both Democratic and Republican districts overwhelmingly support increasing taxes on profitable corporations and wealthy individuals.

The highest support percentage in Democratic districts was 92%, the lowest was 82%. The average support percentage in Democratic districts was 86%. The highest support percentage in Republican districts was 84%, the lowest was 75%. The average support percentage in Republican districts was 80%.

Support for Higher Taxes on Profitable Corporations and Wealthy Individuals by Senate District

wdt_ID DISTRICT Senator Support % Party
1 1 Nikil Saval 91% D
2 2 Christine Tartaglione 88% D
3 3 Sharif Street 89% D
4 4 Art Haywood 89% D
5 5 James Dillon 85% D
6 6 Frank Farry 81% R
7 7 Vincent Hughes 90% D
8 8 Anthony Williams 89% D
9 9 John Kane 83% D
10 10 Steven Santarsiero 83% D
DISTRICT Senator Support % Party

Survey Results: Levels of Support for Higher Taxes on Profitable Corporations and Wealthy Individuals by PA House District

By Blog Post

In November and December of 2022, Data for Progress conducted a national survey of registered voters to gauge voter support towards state action to hold profitable corporations and the wealthy accountable to pay their fair share of taxes. The national survey was then used to estimate opinion at the state level for Pennsylvania using a machine learning model trained on nationally representative survey responses linked to a commercial voter file. In addition, estimates were made of public support in each state House and Senate district.

Click here for state-wide results.

Perhaps surprisingly, the differences between PA House districts held by Democratic and Republican legislators are not all that great. Registered voters in both Democratic and Republican districts overwhelmingly support tax increases on profitable corporations and wealthy individuals.

The highest support percentage in Democratic districts was 92%, the lowest was 81%. The average support percentage in Democratic districts was 86%. The highest support percentage in Republican districts was 84%, and the lowest was 71%. The average support percentage in Republican districts was 78%.

Support for Higher Taxes on Profitable Corporations and Wealthy Individuals by House District

wdt_ID House District Represenative Support % Party
1 1 Patrick Harkins 87% D
2 2 Robert Merski 84% D
3 3 Ryan Bizzarro 83% D
4 4 Jacob Banta 81% R
5 5 Barry Jozwiak 77% R
6 6 Brad Roae 77% R
7 7 Parke Wentling 83% R
8 8 Aaron Bernstine 75% R
9 9 Marla Brown 80% R
10 10 Amen Brown 90% D
House District Represenative Support % Party

Survey Results: Support for Higher Taxes on Profitable Corporations and Wealthy Individuals by PA Congressional District

By Blog Post

In November and December of 2022, Data for Progress conducted a survey of registered voters nationally to gauge voter support towards state action to hold profitable corporations and the wealthy accountable to pay their fair share of taxes. The national survey was then used to estimate opinion at the state level for Pennsylvania using a machine learning model trained on nationally representative survey responses linked to a commercial voter file. In addition, estimates were made of public support in each Pennsylvanian Congressional districts as well as state House and Senate districts

Click here for state-wide results.

Here we report data for two questions.

Taxing Wealthy Individuals & Profitable Corporations

When thinking about taxes in your state which fund public services, which of the following statements comes closest to your view, even if neither is exactly right?

Percent Agee: Profitable corporations and wealthy individuals are not paying enough in state taxes.

Corporate Tax Transparency

When thinking about state lawmakers requiring corporations to disclose their profits and how much they pay in taxes in your state, which of the following comes closest to your view, even if neither is exactly right?

Percent agree: Lawmakers should do more to hold corporations who avoid paying taxes accountable. Corporate profits have skyrocketed and taxpayers need transparency about how much profit corporations make and whether they pay their fair share of taxes.

The Results

Perhaps surprisingly, the differences between Pennsylvania Congressional  districts held by Democratic and Republican legislators are not all that great. Registered voters in both Democratic and Republican districts overwhelmingly support increasing taxes on profitable corporations and wealthy individuals.

The highest support percentage  districts for asking  profitable corporations and the wealthy individuals to pay more was 91%,  lowest was 80%. Support in Democratic districts ranged from 84% to 91%. Support in Republican districts ranged from 80% to 85%.

The highest support percentage  districts for requiring corporate transparency was 93%, the lowest was 80%,  Support in Democratic districts ranged from 84% to 93%. Support in Republican districts ranged from 80% to 85%.

Support for Taxing the Ultra-rich and Wealthy Corporations

wdt_ID PA Congressional District Member of Congress Party Corporations and Wealthy Should Pay More Support: More Corporate Transparency
1 1 Brian Fitzpatrick R 84% 83%
2 2 Brendan Boyle D 89% 88%
3 3 Dwight Evans D 93% 91%
4 4 Madeleine Dean D 86% 83%
5 5 Mary Gay Scanlon D 87% 84%
6 6 Chrissy Houlahan D 85% 83%
7 7 Susan Wild D 84% 82%
8 8 Matt Cartwright D 85% 83%
9 9 Daniel Meuser R 80% 76%
10 10 Scott Perry R 82% 79%
PA Congressional District Member of Congress Party Corporations and Wealthy Should Pay More Support: More Corporate Transparency

 

We Can’t Fix Education By Shuffling The Deck

By Blog Post

In February 2023, Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer called for a new funding system in Pennsylvania to fulfill the state’s obligation to provide a thorough and efficient education for its children. But, opponents of increased education funding cite the state’s high per-student spending, compared to other states, as a reason not to increase our total spending on K-12 schools.

The comparison to other states’ spending per student is misleading in multiple ways.

To begin with, it does not consider variations in the cost of living and education expenses. Pennsylvania’s education spending per student is below the average of the 11 New England and other Mid-Atlantic states that are closest to Pennsylvania with regard to the costs of education.

In addition, overall levels of funding skirt the core issue in Judge Jubelirer’s decision—that in Pennsylvania, school funding is highly inequitable from one school district to another. The evidence presented to Judge Jubelirer, and confirmed by multiple research studies, shows that

  • the state’s share of K-12 education spending is among the lowest in the country.
  • Pennsylvania school districts thus must rely on funds raised by local taxes.
  • the state’s few, relatively wealthy school districts can provide far more funding for schools, even at low and moderate local tax rates, than the many relatively less wealthy school districts can provide with high local tax rates.
  • as a result, school funding in relatively less wealthy school-districts, which disproportionately teach students from low-income families, as well as Black and brown students, are drastically underfunded and provide an inadequate education.

The high level of spending in a few districts pushes up our state average, but the majority of our kids are still left behind.

Finally, national funding comparisons are irrelevant because the goal required by the constitution is not to provide an education that meets national achievement averages—which are not high—but an education that enables every child to receive a “comprehensive, effective, and contemporary system of public education.” Studies comparing education in the United States to that in other advanced countries cast doubt on of students’ achievement levels in the United States. We should demand our kids get an education in Pennsylvania that is as good as the best in the world—not as good as the average level found in the United States today.

Some legislators suggest reallocating funds from well-funded districts to meet this goal—but this approach is both impractical and impolitic. It is impractical because the funds that push some school wealthy districts to the top are not state funds but their own locally raised revenues. And it is impolitic because no General Assembly majority can be formed that eliminates all state funding to wealthier school districts or that shifts the revenues those districts raise locally to other districts.

So how do we rectify this problem? The Basic Education Funding Commission must

  • use the spending of high-achieving schools as a model to estimate how much each school district should spend per student—also known as adequacy targets—adjusting spending levels for various kinds of students that, on average, may cost more to adequately educate than other students. These adequacy targets must be comprehensive in including the costs of pre-K, special education, and mandated state costs.
  • set a goal for new state funding that increases the state share of K-12 expenses to ensure that every underfunded district receives the resources needed to provide an adequate education that meets state standards.
  • create realistic expectations about what level of funding local school districts must provide and mechanisms to encourage school boards to meet them.
  • develop a comprehensive plan that the General Assembly can implement over five years to provide every school district with the funding it needs to meet the all-inclusive adequacy targets.

Education, Democracy, and Economic Growth

By Blog Post

A year ago, Judge Renée Cohn Jubelirer ruled that Pennsylvania violates its constitutional obligation to create a “thorough and efficient” system of school funding. In response, legislative leaders and Governor Shapiro have charged the Basic Education Funding Commission with providing a blueprint for General Assembly action that would meet our constitutional obligation.

As the Basic Education Funding Commission moves from fact-finding to the decision-making phase of its work, this is a good time to recognize that we all have a stake in its deliberations. The best way to do that is to review the reasons that Pennsylvania’s Constitution has an education provision at all. Why, in other words, did those who wrote our Constitution believe that K-12 education is so important?

The ultimate source of the provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution that underlies Judge Jubelirer’s decision are the ideas of great statesmen of the past who recognized that the health of our democracy and economy ultimately rests on a “thorough and efficient” system of K-12 education. And the leader in the effort to create a public school system in Pennsylvania was Thaddeus Stevens. Before he was called the “great liberator,” for authoring constitutional amendments ending slavery as a member of the US House of Representatives, Thaddeus Stevens was known as the “great educator.” As a member of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives he was a champion of public education. His famous 1835 speech opposing repeal of the common school law he had previous help create sets out the fundamental reasons that K-12 education is so important. Stevens said, “If an elective republic is to endure for any great length of time every elector must have sufficient information, not only to accumulate wealth and take care of his pecuniary concerns, but to direct wisely the Legislature, the Ambassadors, and the Executive of the nation.” The themes of democracy and prosperity are found elsewhere in his speech and in the public statements of those who added the education clause to the Pennsylvania Constitution in 1874 and revised it in 1968.

If the importance of K-12 education was just based on 19th-century ideas, we might pause at investing more state funds in our schools. However, the educational ideals of Stevens and the founders of our Constitution are supported by two decades of research showing that better K-12 education contributes to the vigor of both our democracy and economy.

A recent comprehensive report that summarizes a great deal of research shows that quality civic education leads to greater knowledge about the way our democracy works, stronger skills in critical thinking and collaborative action, greater respect for democratic norms and the rights of others, a greater sense of trust in one another and our political system, and higher rates of participation in public life.

The evidence for the positive impact of good public education on our economy is even broader.

Cross-national comparisons show that both additional years of schooling and higher quality schooling, as measured by standardized tests, leads to a higher productivity workforce and thus higher per capita gross domestic product. The increase in education levels since the 19th century has been estimated to account for between one-fifth and one-third of economic growth in the United States.

Cross-state research confirms these findings. High-wage, and thus high-prosperity, states are those with a well-educated workforce. And school achievement levels are highly correlated—and are likely the cause of—faster economic growth in the states.

Sadly, partly because of our failure to adequately fund K-12 education (but also because we underfund workforce training and higher education), Pennsylvania falls at about the middle of the 50 states in GDP per capita. This is a sad decline from our early 20th century position as one of the economic engines, not just of the United States but the world. But new investment in K-12 education could reverse this decline. The best evidence we have suggests that if academic achievement in Pennsylvania matched that of the highest-ranked state in the country, Minnesota, in two generations our state’s GDP per capita would be roughly 225% higherthan it would be with our current levels of academic achievement.

The great leaders who founded our public education system were prescient. The path they set us on is largely responsible for our preserving our democracy and enhancing our prosperity and democracy. We who reaped the benefits of their decisions must emulate them now. We must ensure that the education we provide our children and grandchildren protects our democracy and creates an economy even more prosperous than today.