Hogan vetoes kirwin tax increases
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Except that those roads will be used primarily by MoCo residents and people doing business in MoCo. MoCo absolutely derives a benefit from that, even if a small number of people are just passing through. Society as a whole benefits from educated children, but MoCo derives no particular benefit from an educated child that lives elsewhere. |
Anonymous
If you think there is a choice, where, praytell, do you intend to get the money for creating such a program? It's really easy to make a choice but how do you plan to pay for it? The state no longer has reserves, they've spent that on pandemic response. The state is going to have significantly decreased income next year. Where do you plan to get the money to pay for this program when every agency and department will be taking cuts to their annual budget to account for the revenue shortfall? It's all well and fine to say we've made a choice, but the choice was made by the circumstances. You can't create an expensive program when you have no money to pay for it. |
Anonymous
| Liberal Democrat here. I supported Kirwan. I am also fine with Hogan vetoing it. Incredibly difficult budget choices are looming. Highest unemployment since the Depression = not the time to enact new programs. Much as I wanted Kirwan (and universal PreK), we simply cannot afford them. |
Anonymous
That's why the Kirwan bill, which Hogan vetoed, explicitly stated that if state revenues drop by 7.5% in a given year, the Kirwan plans would be put on hold and increases to education spending would be limited to the rate of inflation. I.e., the General Assembly passed a bill that says no Kirwan when there's a budget shortfall, and then Hogan vetoed it on grounds that...there's a budget shortfall. The reality is that he would have vetoed it even if state revenue had been projected to double next year. He was always going to veto it, regardless. |
Anonymous
BS. Don't blame your problems on illegals. Illegals contribute substantially to the local economy. |
Anonymous
MoCo is becoming less so. Wealthy seniors are fleeing MoCo due to taxes. Heck. You can live in DC or VA, and save on taxes. You do not even need to move to DE or FL. |
Anonymous
The state budget is approximately $44B. By that measure, if the state revenue fell by $2.5B (or about 6% of the budget), that we would have to pay out $4B annually for the Kirwan recommendations. Frankly at this point, virtually all of the states cash reserves are gone to pay for the pandemic response, UI, and additional costs. If the state revenues dip below the current year at all, then the state cannot afford the Kirwan recommendations. Assuming the state revenue stays the same, the only way to implement the Kirwan recommendations is to cut $4B or 9% of the total state budget from other departments and agencies. If the state revenue drops between 7.4% then the other departments of the state could be forced to cut their budgets up to an additional $3.25B or up to $7.25B per year. The Kirwan commission recommendations can be put on hold until the state returns to solvency and has cash reserves built up again. After we have recovered economically, it can be put back on the table for consideration, but to try to pass it now, when we are financially unstable and insecure, it is foolish to pass a law that would require the state to spend that kind of money even at a revenue loss of up to 7.5%. I'm always astounded that so many high income earners are so fiscally irresponsible. |
Anonymous
| Pandemic aside, Maryland spends in top 15 on education for NAEP scores in the thirties for reading and math. Half the children in MCPS read below grade level. Kirwan is the definition of insanity - giving more to a system that’s failing our kids. I don’t know the answer but more money ain’t it. These jokers already take 3 billion a year and no Inspector General. That’s an insane amount of deferred compensation - pensions, healthcare, obscene admin salaries, free travel cards, free graduate degrees...and I repeat - half children can’t read at grade level in MCPS. Kirwan is a union jobs hook up. It was never intended to help educate kids. |
Anonymous
|
We can't afford NOT to fund Kirwan. The schools are in trouble. You want businesses (and I'm not talking about the retail-on-the-bottom of condos businesses, I'm talking Fortune 500 or 1000 businesses) to move to Montgomery County? The schools must improve. Otherwise, no business is coming here.
It's a lot less expensive to educate a child, then put them in jail later. Not to mention, a good education leads to a good job, which leads to those same children paying more in taxes as an adult. Their Kirwan Bill had a stopgap if the county collections dropped. This is why Hogan, the "moderate" Republican, sucks. He may be a great leader during this pandemic, but I hate every one of his policy decisions. |
Anonymous
A year of pre-k will not save a bad apple from jail. Come on, get serious |
Anonymous
Yes of course I want my community (not MoCo BTW) to have excellent schools. Why would I be irritated children in my own community are getting the resources they need thanks to my taxes? |
Anonymous
That’s ridiculous. Schools are not the reason that businesses are not coming to MoCo. It is the regulatory and tax environment. MD, and even more so MoCo, have rules and taxes that make it difficult and expensive to operate here. The business climate in VA and DC, to say nothing of other parts of the country, is much more friendly. Despite griping here (and some legit problems) MoCo still has better schools than the vast majority of the country. They are better than DC and at least on par with VA. It is not schools that are causing the lack of jobs. Sorry, if that fact doesn’t fit your political agenda. |
Anonymous
People keep asserting that, including on DCUM, but I haven't seen any data to support the assertion. |
Anonymous
Exactly. The bill has a specific, explicit provision for major drops in tax revenue. But Hogan didn't let that stop him from vetoing the bill on grounds that there will be a major drop in tax revenue. If the pandemic hadn't happened, and tax revenue had increased, he would still have vetoed the bill. |
Anonymous
The problem with the bill is that the "specific explicit provision for major drops in tax revenue" is far too liberal. 7.5%? That means if revenue drops as much as $3.25B, we are still on the hook for $4B of expenses. That means in a year that we are earning $3.25B less in taxes we would be spending $7.25B MORE that year. So, where is that money supposed to come from? Where do you conjure up $7.25B of money? Do you stop funding the police? Stop road construction? How about making red light cameras cost $500 and speed cameras cost $750? At this point, the state has no cash reserves to pay even $4M let alone $4B of additional expenses beyond tax revenue. We've spent it on pandemic response. Raise taxes? You have got to be kidding. There are hundreds or thousands of small businesses that will not be reopening ever again because their owners cannot afford to eat the cost of the closures. I've seen restaurants with signs up thanking their patrons but announcing that they are closed for good, not until reopening, but for good. I've heard from friends who are shuttering their private 1-2 person businesses and looking for jobs. And I know a few small business owners who laid off all of their employees and have enough money to keep their businesses afloat until X date and after that, they will shutter the business. If we don't reopen by that date, they are done. All those businesses that will not be paying taxes. And many others that are on the brink of the same disaster and cannot afford an increase in taxes or they WILL fold. The state workforce was approximately 2.8M in February before the closures. There are currently almost 500K filing for unemployment, almost 18% of the workforce. And more are filing every week. The last week an additional 110K filed for unemployment. All of those workers will need to find something after July. Many of them are in extreme debt and will be paying back large amounts of revolving debt after their UI expires. How can you increase taxes on them? That means it will take even longer for them to pay down their revolving debt. If anyone can come up with a revenue source that will pay for the increases, then we can consider the Kiriwan recommendations. If not, table them until the states finances are restored. But to put a HUGE cost on the state at this point, one that is nearly 10% of the annual budget and to include that it has to be spent even if we lost up to 7.5% of the state revenue is fiscally suicidal. At least Elizabeth Warren always showed where she was going to generate the revenue for her costly programs when she had them in the platform. Until someone in MD can actually show a revenue source that will be available to pay for this, we can't afford it. |