Wow, has Governor O’Malley been working out? That’s quite a lead balloon he launched by proposing an increase to the sales tax. Obviously that proposal was political cover for legislators who will be rolling out a cocktail of other tax and fee increases. All the while, the same legislators can lay claim to shooting down the Governor’s sales tax increase.
The Eastern Shore treats every session of the General Assembly as a roller coaster ride. There is that first big hill that has you clutching your harness. Then you let go and think “this isn’t so bad.” Finally, after one hill too many, all you can think is, “Alright that’s quite enough.” For some reason, when it’s over, you have this desire to go through all of it again.
The notable points of contention of the prior session were an increase in the alcohol tax and a recommendation to move forward with toll increases. The toll increase was explained as an overdue increase to a user fee. That seems stomachable until one starts talking about the debt service for building MD 200 (more on that road to follow). The alcohol tax was supposed to fund health initiatives. This is also a worthy endeavor until one realizes that the proceeds are now being used to install artificial turf at a school whose football team is 29-53 over the last eight years. This would be wrong if the team were 53-29.
This tax and spend proposal comes less than two years after the shuttering of the Upper Shore Mental Health Center. Michael Busch, who presides over the Delegates, justifies this sequence of events by declaring that Senator EJ Pipkin voted against the tax; therefore, he is declining the revenue it generates. What never occurred to Speaker Busch was that Senator Pipkin may have seen this act before, and thought that Hammond High School did not require artificial turf. Every session begins with “Woe is us. How do we plug this hole?” and ends with the supposed solution being used for artificial turf.
This opposition is seen as inadequate representation of the region. Another way to put it is that Senator Pipkin has a philosophical difference with Speaker Busch on the functions of government. This being a representative democracy, our delegate has a right to vote against taxes levied upon his constituents. On occasion, those votes will impact all citizens of the State. If voting for a tax increase is the criterion for receiving proportional funding from the tax, then could we argue that a vote against the tax does not compel the Upper Shore’s vendors to collect the tax on behalf of the State? I am quite certain that some citizens of Anne Arundel and Worcester Counties voted against slots. Certainly those citizens’ schools will still be funded. The State of Texas voted for John McCain in 2008. Does this exempt it from the provisions of the Affordable Care Act? (More on that to follow.)
After seeing all of the proposed tax increases, the region seems to have avoided another sales tax increase; however, the rest of the session will probably require us to clean our seats afterwards (a cost that will also be passed to the counties). While it is easy to blame petty politics for the constant proposals that adversely affect our region, our delegation should not be let off the hook.
In the business sense, delegation is the act of assigning someone to a task for which you are ultimately responsible. Delegation is usually viewed as busy work. Effective delegation typically requires a “what and why” statement. One must provide an ideal outcome and convey why that outcome is beneficial to all who are involved.
In the government sense, a good Delegation possesses the ability to convey a “what and why” statement to constituents and colleagues. It is one thing to declare opposition to a sales tax increase. It is quite another to explain how raising the sales tax only widens the trade deficit between the Eastern Shore and the State of Delaware. Moreover, it is altogether different to convey the benefits of a lower rate tax that is applied across the board, thus evenly spreading the tax burden across all commerce. And that is where I split from my support of our Delegation. It is perfectly fine to be against this tangled web of governance, but if we’re not talking about things that the leadership might be for, then every session will be a rubber stamp.
We are reaching two years since the phrase “speak Democrat” entered the region’s lexicon. For those who despise this slice of bandwidth, you can blame its orginator (and the proprietor of this establishment). I obviously reject pay for play governance. Unfortunately, our Delegates have fallen into the “party of no” trap that has been set for them. We must convey the what and why of our beliefs before the Eastern Shore is dotted with silver signs explaining to “reach the beaches” where towns used to be.
Troup’s Corner Non-Sequitur – Searching for the Legal Tender: I recently experienced driving on MD 200, Maryland’s only all electronic toll road! I also had to use the Dulles toll road in Virginia. As I stared at my colleague’s dollar while we waited our turn to pay and get the expense receipt, I was reminded of the note borne by US currency: “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private.” If the State builds a road using taxes and fees (ahem, Bay Bridge) paid by its citizens, shouldn’t the State be obligated to accept US currency without compelling its citizens to enter into a contract with a private entity?
Where have I heard that phrase before? Oh…
Troup’s Corner Non-Sequitur – Speaking of Forced Contracts: A major point of contention with the Affordable Care Act is that it compels people to engage in a specific act of commerce. Proponents of the measure tout the fact that this is not a unique concept. Very well, that’s a debate for another time. The most commonly cited example of this type of contract is car insurance. Again, casting aside the “driving is optional, breathing isn’t” argument, car insurance contracts come with a variety of options such as deductible, amounts of coverage, and miscellaneous options (“Cadillac plans” if one likes puns). While the ACA guarantees 30 million new customers for the insurance companies, the act mandates what must be covered (e.g. preventive care at 100 percent).
Opponents of the act refer to it as “government-run health care.” This phrase won Politifacts “lie of the year” honor in 2010. Now comes news that the Department of Health and Human Services will invoke a rule under the ACA that compels church-based organizations requiring their affiliated groups to provide a range of services, from implanted contraceptive devices to the morning-after pill for its employees. One must know that when one enters into employment at Adventist HealthCare, Sinai, or Catholic Charities that benefits afforded to employees will be in line with their value system. If these health services mean that much to an employee, they could reject the employer-based plan and purchase a plan off the shelf.
The separation of church and state should cut both ways. In any event, what is the threshold of rules and other mandates that must be crossed before we no longer dance around the idea of “government run health care?” I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Norman Thomas: “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism,’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program.”
Next time:They’re turning me into a Newt.
Gren Whitman says
As Mr. Troup notes, “proponents of the measure tout the fact that this is not a unique concept.”
Bingo! And here’s another example of government “forcing” a private purchase. The State of Maryland requires Joe Harley to select, buy, and wear a protective helmet, and thereby “compels people to engage in a specific act of commerce.” But there’s no constitutional crisis here, and Joe’s been complying for years … indeed, for decades!
Michael Troup says
ABATE begs to differ 🙂
Gren Whitman says
Of course “ABATE” disagrees; it’s a biker group.
My point is that the helmet law for bikers has met the constitutional test in Maryland (and other states) and, with this as an example, it’s likely the must-have-insurance requirement in the Affordable Care Act will be judged constitutional as well.
Michael Troup says
Chill out, I’m having some fun with ya. If you keep messing with bikers and the law, Dick Gelfman might have to make an appearance!
Now onto serious matters…you do have a knack for makng sweeping declarations that certain things are settled matters, and not up for debate. If I recall, one of those settled matters is the separation of church and state. So it’s settled, religous based organizations should not have to comply with this specific provision of the ACA.
See what I did there ;-)?
Steve Payne says
The HHS ruling only applies to religious facilities that are basically public facilities. Like a Catholic hospital or college that hires or accepts patients without regard to religion. Churches and religious organizations that are operating a religious activity can still claim the conscientious exemption.
Gren Whitman says
What do biker members of “ABATE” think of Los Angeles Mayor Villaraigosa signing a law that requires porn actors to wear condoms.
Is that constitutional? What if the movie depicts nurses and doctors and patients all cavorting in a Catholic hospital?
Gee, this separation-of-church-and-state stuff sure is complicated!