For the third consecutive year, Pennsylvania is ranked among the top states on a list that should be seen by every official in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania's top ranking on this list is well-established. In fact, this state can claim a dubious three-peat record in the annual ranking of "high-outbound" states — states where the people leaving outnumber the new arrivals.

A recent newsletter from the Pennsylvania Manufacturer's Association points to statistics accumulated by United Van Lines (UVL) about relocations around the nation.

UVL's figures rank Pennsylvania as tied with New York in the sixth position among "high-outbound" states. Last year's other top-ranked "moving out" states wereMichigan, North Dakota, Louisiana (due to hurricane Katrina), New Jersey and Indiana.

As the PMA notes, this troubling outflow trend threatens the state's future and should be matched by constrained government spending. With more than half of all United's moving vans here leaving the state, Pennsylvania is suffering not only a brain drain, but also a revenue drain.

The moving van statistic is not a scientific measure, but it is probably representative. Though not startling news, the outmigration is disturbing — and must be addressed.

In the PMAnewsletter, executive director David Taylor pointed to a related problem by noting that "Pennsylvania's state and local governments continue to spend money faster than taxpayers earn it, stifling the economy."

The outmigration can be seen as people voting with their feet. And with a majority of moving vans leaving the state, the exodus can be seen as a vote of "no-confidence" in state political leadership as well as economic conditions in the commonwealth.

The PMA newsletter concludes that this economic and demographic crisis as a "silent killer" — with "chronic overspending in Harrisburg resulting in high taxes that stifle job and wage growth, send young people out of state, and leave fewer people in their productive years to bear a larger (tax) burden."

The solutions to these problems are not simple. One positive and common sense step would be for state officials to slow the growth of government spending.

Across the country, other states have addressed this problem by putting legal constraints on government spending. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 30 stateshave some form of tax or expenditure limitation (TEL). These limits are usually tied to population grown rates and inflation. Other states limit government spending increases to the percentage growth in the personal income of residents.

Had such limits been in place in Pennsylvania, state spending would be well below where it is today — and the burden on all state taxpayers would be lower.

A recent Commonwealth Foundation report reveals that government spending in Pennsylvania has risen 98 percent since the 1991-92 fiscal year — a growth rate more than double the rate of inflation.

If Pennsylvania lawmakers were operating under constraints similar to the TELs in 30 other states, the tax burden on residents of this state would be lower, and it is possible that fewer people would be leaving.

The consistent outflow of people from Pennsylvania is a troubling trend that must be reversed. But equally troubling is the fact that state government spending has escalated as if the state were growing.

Pennsylvania taxpayers should demand that state government grow at a rate that reflects the realities in this state — stagnant population growth and modest gains in personal income.

As the November election approaches, voters should press all candidates for the state legislature to find out which ones are prepared to control state spending — to a rate in line with the state's population growth and income.

If government spending continues to escalate, forcing taxes ever higher, the outbound population trend cannot be reversed. Harrisburg has a critical role to play in dealing with this issue — and controlling spending is the first step.