Pay raise-plank-Casey

==Media==
===Casey's Achilles' heel?===
: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/columnists/bumsted/s_469657.html
: By Brad Bumsted, STATE CAPITOL REPORTER, Sunday, September 10, 2006
HARRISBURG
U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is drawing blood on the issue
of the state pay grab.
In recent public appearances including his first
debate with Democrat challenger Robert P. Casey Jr. on
national TV, Santorum, R-Penn Hills, has effectively
hammered state Treasurer Casey for signing the
lawmakers' pay-jacking paychecks last year.
For four months, members of the General Assembly
received higher pay through the constitutionally
suspect unvouchered expenses.
The raise, which hiked lawmakers' pay by 16-54
percent, was repealed last November in response to a
storm of protest from taxpayers. A lawsuit filed by
citizen-activist Gene Stilp is pending before the
state Supreme Court.
The Legislature approved the pay hike at 2 a.m. on
July 7, 2005, without public notice or debate. It
included a provision sidestepping the state's
constitutional prohibition against midterm salary
increases by allowing lawmakers to take money right
away as "unvouchered expenses" in lieu of "salary."
Casey joined the lawsuit against the pay raise last
March. It was an unusual step because as treasurer he
was a defendant in the pay-hike lawsuit.
Santorum has gone after the pay issue as if it were
Casey's Achilles' heel.
"He (Casey) signed the checks for the pay raise,
signed them all and sent them out for months, until
after the (2005) election," Santorum recently told the
Pennsylvania Press Club.
"Where was he (Casey) when it counted? Where was he
when the wind was blowing the other way? Where was he
when it would be politically tough to stand up and
say, 'You know what? This is an unconstitutional pay
raise. I'm not signing the checks,'" Santorum said.
Larry Smar, Casey's spokesman, contends Casey would
have been "thrown out of office" if he had refused to
sign the checks.
Really?
It's a total stretch to think that in the political
atmosphere of the fall of 2005 Casey would have been
impeached if he had stopped signing the checks. He
would have been sued, but he also would have been a
hero.
"Let me be clear on my opposition to this pay raise,"
Casey wrote in an op-ed article earlier this year. "I
did not vote for it. I did not lobby for it. I did not
support it. But as state treasurer, I could not stop
it." Casey officially went on record against the pay
grab with a news release last October and had earlier
expressed his opposition in interviews as early as
August 2005.
Casey said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had
previously ruled that unvouchered expenses "do not
violate the prohibition against midterm salary
increases." He said he could not "substitute my
judgment for that of the judiciary and directly defy a
series of Supreme Court rulings."
All of this raises a key question about the role of
the state treasurer.
Some argue that it would be a scary precedent for a
state treasurer to simply stop signing checks on an
issue he or she feels strongly about.
On the other hand, doesn't the treasurer -- as a
constitutional officer -- have a duty to stop payment
on checks he or she thinks were issued in violation of
the law?
In fairness, Casey would have been accused of blatant
politicking if he had stopped the checks.
Whether he should have taken that risk as a matter of
principle is an issue for the voters on Nov. 7.
==Links==
* Bob Casey