State House Candidate Mike Schlossberg Discusses His Race ... and the NIZ

Photo credit: Kim Cressman

Mike Schlossberg, who's running for Jennifer Mann's seat in Allentown, has answered a few questions I sent his way concerning corporate income tax, his race, the NIZ and lobbyists. Although I disagree completely with his take on Allentown's tax grab, I appreciate his willingness to take a position he knows I'll dislike.

If I determined who I support based solely on the issues, I'd soon find myself unable to vote for anyone. Aside from the issues, I look for other things. Mike is responsive, hard-working, transparent and accountable. I'd say he was smart, too, but he blew that by talking to me.

Mike filed his nomination petition on Monday. He needed 300 signatures. He had 520 on Sunday.

Q) Although the Delaware loophole certainly is a problem, don't Pennsylvania corporations already have among the highest income taxes in this country? Don't you think that plays a role in businesses leaving the Commonwealth? - Yes, absolutely. Pennsylvania has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the country, and I believe that this has significant repercussions on our competitiveness. A top priority for job growth in Pennsylvania should be lowering the CNI, and I believe the best way to do this is by closing the Delaware tax loophole and then dedicated a portion of the recovered tax revenue to a gradual decrease of the CNI. There is currently a bipartisan legislative effort in the State House by Rep. Dave Reed & Rep. Eugene DePasquale to do just this, and if elected, I will join them in their efforts.

Q) With all the redistricting and judicial decisions, do you know whether you even have an opponent at this point? - Not a clue. I am running in the "old" version of the 132. We'll find out Thursday or Friday who else is running.

Q) As a state representative, would you support legislation that authorizes an authority like the NIZ Board to take EIT from people who live in part of your district, and divert it elsewhere, without notifying the municipalities affected? - If I was a member of the legislature, I would have voted for the NIZ legislation. I believe that this funding mechanism will make a massive redevelopment of Allentown possible. That being said, the biggest problem with the arena project and NIZ so far has been the confusion and the lack of communication on certain areas related to the issue. The confusion is a byproduct of the uniqueness of the NIZ funding mechanism; when you have something this new, concerns will exist. The issue over EIT is both unfortunate and regrettable, and I do wish that the Department of Revenue had informed the surrounding municipalities about this change sooner to give them a chance to better adjust their budgets. I'm also looking forward to seeing data on just how much money is involved so we can get a better handle of how much of a problem this really is. Regardless, if I'm elected, I'll work with the Department of Revenue to try to get these payments sped up, as I know Senator Browne and the Mayor will do.

Q) Can you explain why you declined to table a vote on the NIZ Board, when the nominees were selected in part by a State Senator whose wife works for a lobbying firm that represents three of the biggest NIZ beneficiaries? - My honest thoughts were that the nominees had been thoroughly vetted (actually, much more so than usual). The nine appointees came from a variety of backgrounds; legal, real estate, non-profit, education, legislative, etc. They also were put through some pretty serious background checks, including taxes, fees, permits, criminal, etc. In my mind, the nine people selected will provide the necessary leadership for this board; regardless of Senator Browne's role, or that of his wife's, I think we have the right people.

Q) Would you support legislation to require elected officials to resign if a member of their immediate family becomes employed as a lobbyist? - No. First, let me say that I would support legislation and policies to address perceived and potential conflicts of interests on a case-by-case basis to ensure public trust through transparency, and to prevent actual conflicts of interest from occurring. I think this type of approach would get to the root of the issue, investigating and mitigating conflicts of interests, rather than making a broad statement based on someone’s relationship.

I believe that the legislation that you describe is simultaneously too broad and would not cover many potential conflicts. If a lobbyist and elected official are married, that doesn't automatically imply a conflict – there are, after all, hundreds of legislators and lobbyists that have never interacted in Harrisburg. If this type of legislation went into effect, it wouldn't address a variety of scenarios that could exist. Say a couple isn't married but they are dating; no forced resignation would occur. What about siblings? Parent/child? Heck, what if you have a gay couple that has been together for years - one is an elected and one is a lobbyist. They can't marry, and under this scenario, there’d be no problem. That’s why I prefer my approach; I believe it cuts more to the root of an issue, which is investigating and mitigating potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis, rather than making a blanket statement based on a relationship.