taxation – Page 5 – monoblogue

Not enough to tax?

After raising the cigarette tax in 2008 and the alcohol tax last year, a public health advocate (read: lover of big government and the nanny state) wants to jack up taxes on cigars from their current 15 percent rate, according to a recent Washington Times story by David Hill. Vincent DeMarco also spearheaded the unnecessary alcohol tax increase which took effect earlier this year.

I find it interesting that the angle DeMarco uses to justify yet another sin tax is teen smoking. Apparently cigarettes are now too expensive for teens to purchase – thanks to the additional taxes – so they are embracing cigars instead. DeMarco is quoted in the Times, “Anything that is going to stop young people from smoking is a good thing.” Well, sir, I have news for you – raising taxes on cigars and other tobacco products won’t work for that intended purpose. But you’ll certainly extract more money out of those adults who choose to smoke.

Continue reading “Not enough to tax?”

Taxes and Keystone

So, President Obama wants to extend the payroll tax cut. Okay, said House Republicans, but we’re going to create a whole bunch of jobs with it by giving the green light to the Keystone XL pipeline.

I’ll let Andy Harris pick things up from here:

“Americans need the truly ‘shovel-ready’ jobs and economic investment that the Keystone XL Pipeline will provide,” said Rep. Andy Harris (MD-01). “The plan that the House majority has introduced is an excellent compromise that will extend tax cuts to the middle class, create tens of thousands of jobs, and will help secure America’s energy future. I am deeply disappointed that President Obama has promised to veto this bill to extend tax relief to our citizens over the Keystone pipeline provision that actually creates jobs without spending a dime of taxpayer money while lowering the price of gasoline and diesel as well.”

Yes, President Obama is threatening to veto the measure. So much for compromise.

Either one of the two points below would then be true. Come to think about it, maybe both are:

President Obama doesn’t really want to create jobs. Well, perhaps he doesn’t unless they happen to be either government jobs or positions in an industry he favors. But I have news for the President: there aren’t any green jobs; shoot, right now there aren’t many jobs period. Or:
President Obama really has no desire to cut taxes. To be honest, this tax cut he gave out was relatively insignificant to working families. But he certainly wants to lower the boom on more successful working families by increasing the taxes for couples that make over $200,000.

I’ll grant that the Keystone XL pipeline probably won’t do a whole lot for our local economy since it will run through several states in the Midwest. But the additional oil supply will help us in the long run by stabilizing gasoline prices, as Congressman Harris points out.

But if we do elect a new President next year, I hope Congressman Harris – assuming he’s re-elected, for which he’s an odds-on favorite at the moment – will begin to advocate solutions for our tax code which are more permanent and will begin the process of weaning the government off an income-based tax collection. Ramping up a consumption-based tax, as Herman Cain proposed with his economic plan, would serve this purpose.

Electing conservatives isn’t enough – we need to elect those who have the courage to act. Whether you like President Obama or despise his policies as much as I do, the one thing you can say is that he acted in trying to get his agenda done. We may only have four years to undo the damage he did, although I suspect that if a true conservative succeeds Obama he (or she) will have a full eight years to make a difference. But we’ll all have to roll up our sleeves and get to work – something sorely lacking with the Obama regime.

And now for something completely different:

The first of six opening round tilts in my best local blog poll is over, and the first semi-finalist will be Right Coast Conservative.

After a strong start, Julie Brewington’s site saw a rally from the Shorebirds’ blog which placed it ahead for a time. But much like their team’s performance in 2011, the Shorebirds site couldn’t hang on in the late innings as a strong push from RCC readers carried Julie’s site in the end. Right Coast Conservative received 143 votes and moves on, while the Delmarva Shorebirds Blog gathered 66. The Pocomoke Public Eye did not receive a vote.

The second round is up now, and it has an interesting draw to be sure.

Odds and ends number 36

Let’s begin with an item that only gets a couple paragraphs because of the circumstances. While I’m not at liberty to share the names of those who applied, I think I can safely say that we have no shortage of applicants to send four qualified prospects up to County Council in order to fill the District 4 seat made vacant by Bob Caldwell’s passing. Offoceseekers are both male and female, represent a broad spectrum of ages, and should be very interesting to screen. So that seat will be in good hands.

Now I could have had a great scoop in releasing the names but I respect the wishes of my Chair and the process too much to let any undue influence sway the decision, a circumstance which would certainly occur if the names were made public. Remember, this is not a typical political campaign because we as a Central Committee only make recommendations. The time for voting will be later and it will be done by County Council, not our committee.

All right, now for something a lot different.

Continue reading “Odds and ends number 36”

‘Buffett Rule’ = unintended consequences

Really – how dumb does President Obama think we are? He’s playing that old tired class envy card again.

His latest scheme goes like this:

Middle-class families shouldn’t have to pay a higher tax rate than millionaires and billionaires.

So President Obama has proposed the “Buffett Rule,” which would require the wealthiest Americans to pay a tax rate at least as high as the middle class. Republicans are already calling this “class warfare,” and they will fight this plan with everything they have.

Yeah, that will do wonders for investment and job creation. So I don’t call it ‘class warfare’, I call it ‘sheer stupidity.’

Continue reading “‘Buffett Rule’ = unintended consequences”

The ‘war on the Shore’ – another shot fired across the bow

I’m not sure that our Congressman needs to be involved in this; then again I’m sure he’s going to be affected when his EZPass becomes more expensive.

But Andy Harris will be holding a press conference tomorrow afternoon in Stevensville to talk about “the proposed 320% Bay Bridge toll hike and other toll increases that will hurt Maryland families, Maryland businesses and job creators.” Included in that gabfest will be a number of Maryland legislators and local business owners who will be affected by the fee increases. I won’t be there, but it’s relatively predictable that Harris would come out against toll increases which may hit just about the same time the General Assembly is debating a gas tax hike.

Of course, the Maryland Transportation Authority defends the increases, citing an increased need for maintenance on aging infrastructure. But the problem is that we’ve been paying the tolls for years, yet Annapolis continues to raid the transportation funds to balance the overall budget – who says that trend won’t continue?

And this increase will affect three sets of people disproportionately:

Commuters in Baltimore will have to pay more to drive through the Harbor Tunnel or over the Key Bridge.
Tourists and north-south travelers along I-95 will be hit once they cross the Delaware line (or Susquehanna River.)
The Eastern Shore, as both main arteries crossing the Bay in Maryland will see a toll increase.

Obviously the third one concerns us, especially those who chose to live on the Eastern Shore yet commute to work in Annapolis, Baltimore, or Washington, D.C. While the increase will be blunted for those who have EZPass it will still be a much larger monthly outlay. On the other hand, the drive between Baltimore and D.C. will remain as it is – even the new Inter-County Connector will be spared a toll increase. If you want to stay in the center of the state, well, these toll increases aren’t hurting you a bit (but you may reap the benefits.)

And as for the one reason I would support a modest toll increase (as opposed to 320%) – a third Chesapeake Bay span, but one closer to Salisbury? Well, apparently that’s not on the table as MTA is just trying to hold serve with fixing the stuff it has.

This will also serve to isolate the Eastern Shore further from the rest of the state, because who really wants to pay $8 to get across the bridge when almost everything else is readily available on the other side of the Bay? While it may not make or break a trip to Ocean City, it will adversely affect businesses in Queen Anne’s County, and a sampling of those business people will be stating their case at tomorrow’s presser.

Before the tolls take effect, though, there will be a series of public hearings beginning next month. Expect an earful from Eastern Shore residents who are tired of being considered the state’s outhouse when it comes to public policy decisions.

MoCo first – Maryland next?

This came to me from a source at the Washington Post who occasionally feeds bloggers interesting items:

The Montgomery County Council approved a 5-cent bag tax Tuesday that will go into effect January 1, a move environmentalists hope will revive a stalled effort to pass a similar tax statewide. The tax will apply to paper and plastic bags at thousands of merchants. Among the few exceptions are paper bags from restaurants and pharmacy bags holding prescription drugs.

Officials say the tax will raise about $1 million a year, some of which will fund free reusable bags for the poor and elderly. The money will also help fund cleanups of streams and rivers, although backers expect bag use — and tax receipts — to drop quickly.

Sadly, all but one member of the MoCo County Council voted for the additional tax. The lone dissenter, Nancy Floreen, stated “It’s just another regressive tax that (adds) to the cost borne by our most vulnerable populations.” She’s right about that, and I’ll bet I’m right in asserting there will be jobs lost because of the tax, which won’t just apply to plastic bags but to paper as well. If you figure 8 to 10 plastic bags per grocery trip, it’s another 40 to 50 cents extracted from the pocket of MoCo shoppers.

I’ve already discussed the state’s most recent effort to enact a bag tax, and of course those tax sponsors were thrilled to see Montgomery County take the lead on the issue. They figured it would make it more likely the state will pass a similar measure, either in this fall’s Special Session or next year in the regular meeting.

While the stated aim of the tax is to reduce the amount of bags available to clutter up the landscape, it wouldn’t be a MoCo measure without a wealth redistribution effort, as part of the proceeds will go to securing cloth bags for the poor and elderly. Do the elderly get carts to carry these heavier, larger bags too?

This will be a boon for one group, though – grocers and retailers in areas close by Montgomery County. That’s why the push will be on to make this tax statewide; we can’t have people escape taxation by moving around to more advantageous locations for shopping. It may not raise nearly as much as the recently-passed alcohol sales tax or the proposed gasoline tax, but again government wants to reach into our wallets and essentially make a loser out of a politically incorrect industry which serves a need.

Don’t forget: our local government may be thinking about a different revenue grab than the nickel per hundred property tax debated Tuesday night. Speed cameras are on their agenda next month so let me remind you what they’re really looking for. It’s all about our Benjamins, baby.

The hidden tax

My latest for PJM:

We all know what last Monday was. As many of us paid Uncle Sam’s toll – mine was almost a wash, which worked out about how I wanted it – one had either a sour mood in knowing that Fedzilla took more of our hard-earned salary or, conversely, that giddy feeling of having absconded with free money because a refund was due. (In many cases, though, that was just the money loaned to Beltway bureaucrats – interest free! Try finding a bank who will give you those terms!)

Yet we forget there’s a hidden tax which gnaws at our pocketbooks and the economy at large every day. It was pointed out by the Competitive Enterprise Institute in a report timed for release last Monday called ‘Ten Thousand Commandments.’

(Continued at Pajamas Media…)

The tax calculation

It’s a handy-dandy way to figure out just how much more the county will take out of your pocket.

On Thursday Wicomico County Executive Rick Pollitt announced through his spokesman Jim Fineran that county property owners now have a calculator to figure out how much more they’ll pay in property taxes next year.

In presenting the proposed Fiscal Year 2012 Budget to the Wicomico County Council on April 19th, County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., promised that a “tax calculator” to measure the suggested nickel tax increase would be on the county website “as soon as possible.” Mr. Pollitt announced today that, “It is up and running.”

The Wicomico County website is http://www.wicomicocounty.org/. On the homepage, there is a column on the right called “What’s New?” At the top of that column is a link titled “Proposed Tax Rate Comparison Calculator.” Users are advised to click on that link to go to the calculator.

There are two steps. If you do not know your most recent assessment value, the first is a link to the State of Maryland Real Property Database where users can access that information. County officials urge users to follow the directions carefully when they reach the link. The second is the calculator. Users may simply enter their assessment value, click on “calculate” and the device will provide specific numbers of the impact of the proposed nickel increase on the user.

In announcing the calculator, Mr. Pollitt said that, “I want to take the guess work out of this for our tax payers. I have proposed a nickel tax increase to maintain vital county services. I want the property owner to know exactly how much this is going to cost.”

The calculator does not take into effect changes in assessment from year-to-year or effects of the Homestead Credit. It is intended merely to define the effect of a nickel tax increase.

Actually, I can do the math pretty easily – for every $10,000 your property is worth, it’s going to cost you an extra $5. Someone with a modest $100,000 house will be on the hook for an extra $50, while a residence in Nithsdale or Tony Tank might see a $200 per year jump.

But, more importantly, the key question is where the extra money would be going. Pollitt claims that we’re just staying in place because assessed value in the county dropped by $300 million from last year to this year. Obviously those who were reassessed this year saw a decline of up to 1/3 in their rates, so a nickel increase may not necessarily hurt them but instead just cut into their savings.

(For example, a house assessed at $150,000 under the old rate would pay $1,138.50 in taxes, but dropping the assessment to $100,000 at the new rate makes the taxation $809.00. That’s over $300 in the homeowner’s pocket despite the increase.)

But those who didn’t get the benefit of the changes yet will have to bear the increase described above. And the increase stayed ahead of what would be considered constant yield, which is a departure from Pollitt’s previous practices. Of the five-cent increase, about 3.8 cents is constant yield while the other 1.2 cents is allowed under the revenue cap – and thank goodness for that, because otherwise we could have seen rates go up a full dime or 15 cents per hundred dollars of valuation.

Pollitt also promises to change the homestead exemption from 10 percent to zero, beginning next fiscal year. Of course, I’m not sure if that enables the tax paid to go down if an assessment is lower. Since those who were last assessed in 2009, just before the bottom really dropped out of the local housing maket, have their turn next year, will that affect them adversely? And how much more will Pollitt raise rates next year to make up for the change in homestead exemption? These questions won’t be addressed in this year’s budget – unlike the federal government, we don’t make long-term projections.

Yet if you look at the new operating budget, the largest increases seem to be in the personnel benefits, along with $200,000 devoted to a ‘time and motion study’ in the ‘Administration/Executive Function’ budget. Even without that, the executive branch didn’t suffer the cuts much of the remaining budget was forced to endure.

According to Pollitt’s budget guide, each penny in property tax brings in roughly $750,000. So in order to simply maintain the constant yield rate increase of 3.8 cents per $100 of assessed value, the County Council would have to shave about $1 million from the budget. It’s probably doable, but look for everyone potentially affected to scream bloody murder when the public hearing is held. Out of a budget of a little over $110 million, we’re actually talking about less than 1 percent cuts.

But, as I mentioned, cuts are just fine when they come out of someone else’s hide. Look for the victim card to be played early and often over the next couple months. In the end, the victims may be those homeowners who haven’t seen their assessments retreat downward to reflect the market just yet.

Maybe that will make you choke on your Easter ham, but it’s an upcoming fight we need to gird for.

Update: I wrote this last night, before Greg Latshaw at the Daily Times had his take.

Ramping up

Over the last several years, I have done the monoblogue Accountability Project. It’s an effort to identify how all 188 state legislators fared on a series of key floor (and, beginning in 2010, committee) votes based on a conservative point of view.

Generally the hardest step in the process, which takes many hours of research, is to determine just which bills are the most important ones to log. I’m going to return to that point later, but I wanted to go through some of the other parameters I’m going to include beginning this year for the second cycle of the mAP:

I’m going to limit the number of votes to 25 each in the House and Senate. It’s not an arbitrary limit, though: since I base my point system on factors besides voting such as absences, skipping votes, or House members changing votes (all these factors can incrementally step down a score) I wanted a number I could easily divide into fourths yet remain a whole number, making the score easier to understand. So 100/25=4 points for each vote.
Ideally, I’d like an even number of committee votes and that will be the hardest part since some committees vote on more important bills than others. I may consider committee votes as bonus points if I can’t rustle up enough votes out of certain committees and use 25 floor votes. I’d like to use between three and five committee votes as part of my 25, with the most likely result being three.
There will definitely be a format change. Instead of grouping by district (1 through 47) I plan on doing the 2011 mAP by county – obviously MoCo will be a huge page while Somerset County would have just two legislators to deal with. But I think this is better for the end user who may not know just what number his or her district is.
I also have to consider the Special Session this fall to deal with redistricting and any votes which come from that before dealing out legislative honors.

This is where you come in. I would love to have your assistance in identifying bills which are near and dear to your heart AND deal with statewide issues (so, for example, I wouldn’t work with our school board election bill since it only affects our county.) All I need is the bill number and I’ll take it from there.

Obviously I already know some of the biggies like the in-state tuition for illegal immigrants, the gay marriage bill, raising the sales tax on alcohol, and the three budget bills (budget, BRFA, and bond bill.) But there are other key bills and amendments I’d like to be able to consider – the hardest part is pruning to 25 votes!

So here is your chance for input on the monoblogue Accountability Project – popular demand will help me prioritize. Simply leave a comment below or e-mail me – ttownjotes (at) yahoo.com. My goal as always is to have this finished by July 4th.

Is there anything they won’t tax?

This just plain says it all, from the Maryland Senate Republican caucus:

For your full consideration, here is a condensed list of fees (which are the same as taxes) proposed by O’Malley and Democrat legislators to increase the tax burden of every Maryland citizen:

BUDGET RECONCILIATION & FINANCING ACT – O’MALLEY ADMINISTRATION

The BRFA of 2011 contains several fee increases where an assumption of additional special funds is accompanied by a general fund reduction.

·         Payroll garnishment fee of $2 per payroll transaction; $50,000 contingent general fund reduction
·         MHEC to charge fees to public and private institutions for academic program approvals; $253,208 contingent general fund reduction
·         Nursing facility quality assessment increase from 4.0 to 5.5% of revenue; fee generates $35.1 million — $11.8 million (matched with $11.8 million in federal funds) is used to hold nursing home providers harmless for that portion of the assessment based on revenue from serving Medicaid clients; $10.3 million (match with $10.3 million in federal funds) to support an estimated 1.6% reimbursement rate increase; and $13 million to offset a contingent general fund reduction

·         Hospital assessment increases – to support Medicaid expansion (averted uncompensated care) and for general Medicaid operations, expected to generate $254 million in additional revenues; a $225 million special fund appropriation in Medicaid is contingent on the BRFA

The BRFA also institutes new and increased fees which are simply general fund revenues:

·         Increase in the fee charged for the supervision of persons on probation (estimated by DLS to generate $2.8 million)
·         Repealing IWIF’s exemption from paying the premium tax (estimated by DLS to generate $1.9 million)
·         Levying a charge on drivers with a certain number of points against their license (estimated by DLS to generate $3.8 million)

O’Malley fee increases as “revenue enhancements” already assumed in the O’Malley budget:

·         Raising the cap on the user fees that are charged by the Health Services Cost Review Commission from $5.5 million to $7.0 million; the budget assumes an additional $0.4 million in spending in fiscal 2012
·         Raising fees for court costs; the budget for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund increases by $2.0 million accordingly.

TRANSPORTATION TAXES/FEES

            Gas Tax

·         10¢ per gallon increase
·         Increases state gasoline tax from 23.5¢ to 33.5¢ per gallon, 38% increase
·         Indexes tax to Consumer Price Index (CPI) in 2013

            Vehicle Registration Fee

·         Doubles current vehicle registration fees
·         Car/Truck vehicle registration increase from $128 bi-annually to $178.50
·         Motorcycle registration increase from $97 bi-annually to $132.00

            Bad Driver Fees – O’MALLEY ADMINISTRATION

·         $1, 500 fine for driver convicted of driving 85mph or higher, twice in 2 yrs. This is in addition to the $1,080 already imposed for the same conviction.
·         $100 per point over 5 points, charged for three years
·         $500 additional charge per year for three years, for drunk driver convictions

Tolls – O’MALLEY ADMINISTRATION

·         MdTA has announced they will be raising fees on Maryland’s bridges, highways and tunnels by the end of the summer.

SIN TAXES

            Alcohol Tax

·         Tax on Beer: From .09 to $1.16 per gallon = 1,189% increase
·         Tax on Wine: From .40 to $2.96 per gallon = 640% increase
·         Tax on Spirits: From $1.50 to $10.03 per gallon = 569% increase

            Tobacco Tax

·         $1 increase on a pack of cigarettes from current tax of $2 to $3 per pack
·         $3 tax per cigar – a new tax

            Snack Tax

·         Expands State sales & use tax rate of 6% to snacks – Potato chips, Pretzels, Cheese Puffs, Corn Chips, Pork Rinds, Nuts & Seeds

ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES/FEES

            Wind Tax – O’MALLEY ADMINISTRATION

·         Monthly increase to residential and commercial electric customers between $1.44 & $8.70

            Electricity Tax

·         Charge per kilowatt for electricity consumption beyond 1000kwh
·         $2.99 additional charge for average consumption of 1,230 kwh per month

Bag Tax

·         5¢ per disposable carryout bag a store provides to customer
·         5¢ credit for each bag provided by the customer

This is pretty useful because it summarizes, for the most part, what the majority party in Annapolis is trying to do to all of us. It wouldn’t surprise me if the total impact wasn’t over $1,000 a year on a typical working Maryland family. And what is the money being spent on? Certainly not primary functions of government:

Schools aren’t safe and just because Maryland is considered the best school system in the country; well, being the best of a bad lot isn’t much to brag about.

The roads are falling apart and traffic is terrible in many parts of the state.

Crime is rampant, Salisbury is a prime example.

One has to ask why taxes need to be raised so much when we could take the opposite tack, cut taxes, and allow increased business and job development to create revenue. Seems to me that worked for some guy named Reagan about a quarter-century ago. Even when he raised taxes a bit (while having faith that the other side would enact spending cuts which never happened) we still prospered because we were still ahead of the curve.

This time O’Malley’s not calling for the Special Session, but didn’t we tell you that 2011 would be the year of tax raising? I think we did…remember, fees are taxes too.

Saving jobs by not raising taxes

Tomorrow begins the hearing process for a piece of legislation dubbed the Lorraine Sheehan Health and Community Services Act of 2011. But if there were truth in advertising, the bill would be called the Vast Alcohol Tax Increase Act of 2011 And Beyond.

By raising taxes what they claim would be a “dime a drink” a group of General Assembly Democrats claim they can raise over $215 million for mental health services. In truth, they’re attempting to raise taxes nearly sevenfold on distilled spirits, over sevenfold on wine, and by a factor of almost thirteen on beer. If they indeed raise the beer tax from 9 cents to $1.16 per gallon it raises the price of a 12-pack by over a dollar. Since most people buy their alcoholic beverages in the form of multiple drinks (such as a case of beer or a fifth of whiskey) the price change would be much more than a dime.

Moreover, the proceeds would be spread out over a number of funds, including the General Fund. (A portion is even earmarked for tobacco cessation.) But here’s the real reason we “need” this extra tax:

The 2007 Governor’s Working Families and Small Business Health Care Coverage Act has expanded health care to over 52,000 parents but has not been implemented for tens of thousands of childless adults because of lack of funds.

Yet I thought that’s what the 2007 Special Session tax increases were for! I guess they found out they hadn’t extorted enough from working Maryland families.

There is a new website up to combat this tax increase called Save My Maryland Job. It claims that the crossfiled HB121/SB168 would cost the state 8,300 jobs in the hospitality industry. This would hit the local tourism industry hard, since Ocean City’s “family resort” certainly has a number of establishments which sell alcohol. “Our state’s hospitality industry contributes more than $4.55 billion in economic activity and employs 2.2% of the state’s workforce,” they claim.

It always seems the solution to Democrats is to raise taxes. So far this session there are proposals to raise taxes on booze, increase the gas tax, charge a fee for using plastic grocery bags, jack up the cigarette tax again, and so on. (That was just from a quick one-minute perusal of bills under the category of revenue and taxes.)

But we are tapped out, and instead of backing off the process of taking over our lives it appears the majority in the General Assembly might insist on doubling down. Haven’t they done enough damage?

The Senate bill will be heard tomorrow at 1 p.m. If other hearings are a guide, look for a number of so-called victims to be trotted out while opponents get short shrift.

A new face leads a perennial movement

It’s been tried at least twice before in the previous two sessions, but a new leader has emerged in the fight to repeal the 2007 O’Malley sales tax increase.

With the ascension of J.B. Jennings to the Maryland Senate, a similar bill to the one he introduced in 2009 and 2010 is now being spearheaded by freshman Delegate Justin Ready of Carroll County. (Introduced today, the bill is HB465.) A good sign of progress is that Ready has gathered 32 other sponsors to the bill, a group made bipartisan by the inclusion of Democratic Delegate John F. Wood, Jr.

In a statement, Ready pointed out that Maryland is a state with relatively close borders. Thanks to the increased sales tax, “businesses in Carroll County are really taking it on the chin because of our close proximity to Pennsylvania,” said Ready.

However, Pennsylvania’s sales tax is 6 percent like Maryland’s – the key difference is in the services covered. In fact, three of the five states (or districts) surrounding Maryland match the state’s 6% rate – Virginia has a 5% rate and, of course, as we all know Delaware has no sales tax. So that portion of Ready’s argument vis-a-vis Pennsylvania may not hold water, but any advantage we can get here on the Eastern Shore means something to us.

A somewhat moderating feature of Ready’s plan is that we’d have to wait two years for tax relief, as the rate wouldn’t go into effect until 2013 – presumably the economy will be on more solid ground.

Passing sales tax relief will let Maryland families know that help is on the way while also giving the state three budget years to get our fiscal house in order. Taxpayers have sacrificed repeatedly over the past few years with higher taxes and fees. The sales tax hits poor and lower middle class people hardest of all. Now is the time for government to sacrifice some spending and provide relief for our families and businesses.

(Yeesh…”help is on the way” – where have we heard this before? Obviously Justin doesn’t make the trip down here much or he’d know to avoid that phrase.)

Obviously I’m for the tax decrease, although the same idea didn’t do much to help Bob Ehrlich out. Still, I’m dismayed to see that two local representatives aren’t yet onboard as cosponsors. While Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio has lent her name to 32 bills thus far this session and cohort Delegate Charles Otto ten, neither have lent their backing to this common-sense bill as a cosponsor. One would assume they’d vote for the bill if it ever proceeds past the hearing stage (unlike the two predecessor bills) but I think that the party leadership – including the Minority Leader, Delegate Tony O’Donnell – needs to get behind this. So far he, too, is conspicuous in his absence.

If past history is any indication, the bill will get a hearing toward the end of the session in March and then be locked in the desk drawer of Ways and Means Committee head Sheila Hixson. It’s time to change that formula and give real tax relief to working Maryland families.