HARRISBURG — Hours after the state Senate approved a plan to balance Pennsylvania's $32 billion budget with new taxes, the measure was criticized by Republicans in both chambers of the General Assembly.

State Sen. Elder Vogel, R-47th, said he voted against the revenue package “based on the wishes of the constituents in my district.”

“The tax increases will impact individuals and families in Pennsylvania who are already struggling to meet their own financial obligations,” Vogel said in an emailed statement. “Asking that they pay even higher taxes for basic necessities like electricity and heat will only make those struggles worse.”

Underscoring the politics surrounding the Senate's package, even senators who ended up supporting the bill said they were doing so with reservations.

State Sen. Don White, R-41st, said Thursday before the vote that he was conflicted over whether to support the legislation, citing misgivings over the package's reliance on increasing gross receipt taxes for things like natural gas consumption, phone service and electric bills.

“I think in the end we're basically nickel-and-diming our constituents back home with all these taxes,” White said. “(But) leadership is making a good case that this is the only alternative we have.”

He ultimately voted in favor of the bill, which passed a narrow Senate floor vote of 26 to 24 on Thursday morning and almost immediately met with resistance from House members who criticized both its reliance on tax increases and the Senate's unwillingness to use revenue from expansions of gambling and liquor sales to help close a budget gap of more than $2 billion.

Rep. Brian Ellis, R-11th, said he was “shocked” by the revenue package.

“I'm extremely disappointed in the Senate,” Ellis said. “My initial reaction is that I would be hard-pressed to imagine myself voting for this as it stands.”

Rep. Jeff Pyle, R-60th, who sits on the House Appropriations Committee, called the natural gas extraction tax — something the Senate estimates will raise $100 million per year — a measure that will hamper the development of an industry that has, in previous years, already rolled back drilling activity because of plunging natural gas prices.

“I think this is going to stymie local job growth, cut into local prosperity and slow our ability to develop peripheral industries around the gas — and our area is rich in gas,” said Pyle.

In addition to imposing the extraction tax, the Senate revenue package also makes changes to permitting that would benefit shale drillers, giving the companies more clearly-defined turnaround times and creating a new advisory committee that would have the power to reject moves environmental regulators are making to limit methane emissions associated with the industry.

But the industry appeared nonplussed Thursday by those offerings, with Marcellus Shale Coalition President David Spigelmyer calling the extraction tax a job killer.

“This proposal ... will erode the Commonwealth's competitive advantage that can revitalize our manufacturing base and spur other critical downstream opportunities,” Spigelmyer said.

The Senate's decision to eschew House proposals on gambling and liquor expansion as sources of revenue was also criticized Thursday.

“We sent them valid revenue generators with video gaming terminals and expanded beer sales, and they didn't even look at it twice,” Pyle said. “That part I just don't understand.”

The Senate's proposal was so poorly-received by some members of the House that it resulted in at least one call for a leadership shake-up in the chamber.

Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, R-12th, was among the most strident critics of the revenue package, calling it “irresponsible and callous,” and a move that “violate(s) the trust of the voters who put a veto-proof majority of Republicans in the Senate.”

Metcalfe called on voters to urge members of the chamber to hold leadership votes after the revenue package passed and to reject the current Republican leaders.

He also repeated arguments circulating in email exchanges within the House Republican caucus to reject the Senate package outright, and said legislators should instead pass legislation to reduce spending levels in the $32 billion state budget that lawmakers approved on June 30, shortly before the deadline on the state's fiscal year expired.

“I think that's the real answer,” Metcalfe said. “We need to go back and pass legislation that's going to reduce spending across the board.”

Sen. Scott Hutchinson did not return messages left seeking comment for this report.