Message from the Chairman:  Battle of the Governors - O'Malley vs. Christie on State Pensions

The Maryland Public Policy Institute

Maryland Should Not Set Up Health Insurance Exchange

Originally published in the Baltimore Sun

By Marc Kilmer

January 28, 2011

Of all the dubious claims made in the editorial "Maryland's health care imperative" (Jan. 27) the idea that the state should move forward on implementing the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) in order to curb rising health care costs stands out as the most unsupportable. This legislation will not hold down health care costs and, in fact, where a similar plan has been tried in Massachusetts, costs to both health care consumers and the state government have increased dramatically.

Many health care experts doubt the federal legislation will reduce health care costs or even reduce their growth rate. The most recent expert to express his skepticism? Medicare's chief actuary, who in testimony before the House Budget Committee on January 26 said that this bill will not bring down unsustainable health care costs.

The Sun praises Massachusetts for its health care law, upon which the federal legislation is modeled. That law has failed to bring down health care spending in the Bay State, however. The cost of health insurance premiums in Massachusetts are rising more than the national average. Overall health care spending has increased by 23 percent, and the state government is paying $225 million more than it projected on the program.

Do we really, as the Sun's editors say, need "to set a course that will allow it to achieve those goals as well"? Our state will be better off if this federal law is repealed.

Marc Kilmer

The writer is a senior fellow at the Maryland Public Policy Institute.

Ronald Reagan's 100th Birthday Ball Celebrating His life and Legacy

The Maryland Republican Party Invites you to Ronald Reagan's 100th Birthday Ball Celebrating His life and Legacy

Cocktails, Hors D'oeuvres and Dancing to "The Reagan Years" Orchestra   

Saturday, February 5th, 2011
7:30pm to 10:30pm
Turf Valley Country Club
2700 Turf Valley Rd,
Ellicott City 21042

Sponsors:   

$5,000 The Reagan Cabinet- incudes 10 VIP Reception Tickets

$1,000 Friends of Reagan- includes 4 VIP Reception Tickets

2,550 Individual VIP Tickets VIP Tickets include access to the VIP Reception with Host Bar and Hors D'oeuvres

General Reception Ball:

$100 per person / $175 per couple   

Black Tie Optional-

The Maryland Public Policy Institute 

More than a dime's worth of tax

Originally Published on Gazette.Net

by Marc Kilmer

February 4, 2011 

The General Assembly is back in session. The talk of tax increases is in the air. Which taxes are going to be raised, though? If some lobbyists have their way, you'll be paying more every time you take a drink of alcohol. Senate President Mike Miller has labeled this tax hike proposal as "insanity." I don't often agree with Sen. Miller, but he may be on to something in this instance.

Why is an alcohol tax increase insane? After all, say advocates, it's only "a dime a drink." Don't let the smooth rhetoric fool you - this is a huge tax increase. This supposed "dime per drink" adds up to real money.

While supporters like to give the impression they are only pushing for a 10-cent increase, they are talking about a far more significant tax hike than that. In reality, their proposal would mean an 853 percent tax increase on liquor, a 640 percent increase on wine and a 1,188 percent increase on beer.

Unfortunately, most of the media coverage of this tax doesn't focus on its real impact. The failure to report this tax accurately has even happened at The Gazette. This tax increase would not, as The Gazette erroneously reported Jan. 5, "raise the per-gallon tax on beer by less than a penny and less than 2 cents on wine and spirits." It would, in fact, raise the tax on spirits by $8.53 (from $1.50 to $10.03) per gallon, on wine by $2.56 (from 40 cents to $2.96) per gallon and on beer by $1.07 (from 9 cents to $1.16) per gallon.

The real impact of this tax is something pro-tax advocates try to hide. They don't want you to know they are proposing a $10.03 tax on every gallon of liquor sold in the state. They don't want to admit that they are pushing to increase the tax on your six-pack of beer by 1,188 percent. They want to fool you into thinking they are only asking you for a thin dime.

This type of trickery is par for the course for The Health Care for All Coalition, the group pushing this tax hike. Its leaders say Maryland needs it in order to expand Medicaid. What they fail to say is that this coalition pushed for a tobacco tax hike in 2007 to accomplish this very same goal. When their tax hike was enacted, it failed to produce enough revenue to do what they said it would. Now the coalition is back again, conveniently silent on its past failures.

Perhaps Miller is right. Perhaps it's insanity to push for an $8.53-a-gallon tax increase by labeling it a "dime a drink." Perhaps it's insanity to use wildly inflated revenue claims. Perhaps it's insanity to make sweeping predictions about how this tax revenue would fund all kinds of new government programs when your other proposals haven't panned out.

Or, perhaps it's not insanity. Perhaps it's sly politics. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. If these high-tax advocates succeed, overtaxed Marylanders will be paying even more of their hard-earned money to the state government. It's almost enough to drive someone to drink.

Deficits, Taxes, and Beyond - The Paradox of the Republican Social Worker

by Sandy Tuttle 

Such is the paradox of being a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, who is a registered Republican and living in liberal Montgomery County, Maryland.   Social Workers who are Republicans, are an unlikely combination, but one that may be very quietly growing among those in this profession.   Steadily increasing taxes, further dependence upon government to inefficiently and ineffectively solve all of society's  problems and a pervasive sense of entitlement is a shared concern.  Simply put, the trajectory we are on is unsustainable.

Being a Social Worker for the past eleven years has altered my outlook on government social services and the people served.  I have witnessed, firsthand, the system wide abuse, inefficiency and ineffectiveness of many social service programs.   Over the years, I have turned to the private sector for help when working with clients.  What I have found, is that when businesses are doing well financially, they are more likely to give back to their local community - often efficiently, effectively and quickly.   This cannot be said of most government programs.

Recently I assisted a client who had a stroke. Ultimately, she did not qualify for Medicaid, but desperately needed physical therapy.   The bureaucratic red tape had been cumbersome and overwhelming, leading me to seek other options.  Within several hours, I had a private therapist agree to perform the initial assessment for free, and ultimately the therapist ended up working with my client twice  a week, pro bono.  Months later, she is still in physical therapy and progressing well.   A success story, that was not government run.

In another instance, I connected a family with a nearby church to get assistance for utilities.  This family had lost their son, who had committed suicide after serving his country.  Devastated, the family began to experience other difficulties, as well.   The pastor of the church and the family began to develop a mutually beneficial  and personal relationship - one that the government could never provide.

We have lost sight, as a nation, the philosophy established by President Grover Cleveland, who stated the government should be supported by the people, not the government supporting the people.   The role of our government should be to promote policies and incentives which encourage local communities, businesses, churches and by extension, individuals to have a vested interest and shared sense of responsibility with those who are less fortunate or in need  in their communities.  Having said that, I think there will always be a need for a "safety-net" for that segment of society,  who are truly struggling and for which there are no other options.

To that end, however, the state of Maryland must improve its relationships with individuals and businesses to create a healthy economic environment with more jobs, less bureaucratic regulations and lower taxes.  For example, Maryland's business tax rate is 8.2%, while Virginia's is only 6%.   It was no surprise to see why Northrop Grumman crossed the Potomac last year.  Even Maryland Senator Madaleno seemed more concerned about health benefits for civil unions rather than creating jobs and a better business climate.  I wonder about the ripple effect of that move on other smaller businesses in Maryland and by extension, the effect upon my clients?

As Maryland taxpayers anticipate a $1.6 billion FY 2012 deficit, there will be no Obama stimulus money to save us this year.  While Governor O'Malley has publically said no new taxes, privately, he will allow state legislators to increase taxes without resistance.  There is discussion of increasing fuel tax by 7 cents a gallon.  This increase, while seemingly modest, will adversely affect those who can least afford it.  The trickle-down effect will impact food prices, which will impact the families I work with, who are already struggling to put food on the table, in a way that I've never seen before.

Many in the Social Work field, predict an increased stream of "new customers" to government run program.   Creating a bigger government which is inherently inefficient, that increase taxes is not the answer.  We cannot spend our way out of this problem.

Creating legislation to reduce the size of government, regulations and lower taxes would be politically incorrect for the misguided left and painful for all legislators seeking re-elections to become "professional" or career politicians.  To quote President Ronald Reagan, "Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.

Perhaps it is naïve on my part, being a Social Worker and not an Economist, to think that we should make every effort to return to smaller government, which promotes business growth and individual prosperity, that will, by extension, help those  who are truly in need in our communities.

Sandy Tuttle  can bre reached at s.alexandratuttle@gmail.com

 Sen. Chris Shank: "Fine Print" of New AFSCME Contract Hurts State Employee Paychecks

Some State Employees will soon be taking home smaller paychecks if the new contract negotiated by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) is approved by state employees. 

The new contract, for the first time in Maryland, would mandate collection of union service fees from all state employees regardless of their union membership status.  About 12,000 employees, who are currently not due paying members of AFSCME, would see their bi-weekly paychecks drop as service fees are deducted.

The contract is the result of the "Fair Share" legislation (Senate Bill 264) that passed through the General Assembly on a partisan vote on the last day of the 2009 Session.  The public service union AFSCME lobbied for passage of the legislation as it would mean millions of more dollars they would be able to collect directly out of the pockets of hard working State employees.

Employees have until January 31, 2011 in order to cast their vote on the new contract.  If the majority of employees vote in favor, the new contract would take effect July 1, 2011.

It is estimated that this service fee could be as much as $400 per year deducted directly from State employee paychecks.

Senator Christopher B. Shank (R-WashingtonCounty) commented on the contract; "I have heard from numerous state employees ever since the 'Fair Share' act was passed concerned about when the service fees were scheduled to be deducted."

Senator Shank continued, "The information about state employees being subject to these new service fees is a significant provision of this deal, yet it is buried in the fine print of the contract.  It is reprehensible of AFSCME to advocate for ratification of this contract by state employees and then try and hide what impact this will have for them.  As if this is not bad enough, it also begs the question - 'What else are they hiding?'"

"I hope that before employees vote on this contract, they look past the self-serving propaganda propagated by AFSCME and get the real facts on how it will affect their jobs and paycheck."