MENU

Sections

  • Home
  • About
    • The Chestertown Spy
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising & Underwriting
      • Advertising Terms & Conditions
    • Editors & Writers
    • Dedication & Acknowledgements
    • Code of Ethics
    • Chestertown Spy Terms of Service
    • Technical FAQ
    • Privacy
  • The Arts and Design
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
  • Community Opinion
  • Donate to the Chestertown Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy

More

  • Support the Spy
  • About Spy Community Media
  • Advertising with the Spy
  • Subscribe
July 5, 2025

Chestertown Spy

Nonpartisan and Education-based News for Chestertown

  • Home
  • About
    • The Chestertown Spy
    • Contact Us
    • Advertising & Underwriting
      • Advertising Terms & Conditions
    • Editors & Writers
    • Dedication & Acknowledgements
    • Code of Ethics
    • Chestertown Spy Terms of Service
    • Technical FAQ
    • Privacy
  • The Arts and Design
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Public Affairs
    • Ecosystem
    • Education
    • Health
  • Community Opinion
  • Donate to the Chestertown Spy
  • Free Subscription
  • Talbot Spy
  • Cambridge Spy
News Maryland News

Democrats Slam Hogan’s Decision to End Expanded Unemployment Benefits, Look to Block Action

June 3, 2021 by Maryland Matters

Share

Alarmed at the prospect that needy families will be hurt by Gov. Lawrence J. Hogan Jr.’s decision to end supplemental unemployment benefits in early July, members of the General Assembly scrambled on Wednesday to blunt — and perhaps block — his action.

Legislative leaders sought advice from Attorney General Brian E. Frosh (D) about a possible special session — and a powerful committee chairman said he will introduce legislation to advance the effective date of Maryland’s $15-per-hour minimum wage law.

The flurry of activity was set in motion by Hogan’s decision to end the $300-per-week supplemental unemployment insurance benefit that some Marylanders have been collecting, effective July 3.

The state will also stop providing a $100-per-week payment that “mixed earners” — typically gig workers who have multiple sources of wage income — have been receiving.

In addition, people who have been out of work for more than 26 weeks will see their benefits end.

Congress approved enhanced payments last year in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

In announcing his actions, Hogan pointed to the state’s improving economy and the surge in the state’s supply of vaccines. Even though 70% of adults have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the governor said many employers are having trouble finding workers.

Two dozen Republican governors have taken similar steps, with many arguing that jobless benefits create a disincentive to seek work.

More than 175,000 Marylanders receiving Pandemic Unemployment Assistance — which expanded eligibility to the self-employed, independent contractors and gig workers — and those receiving payments after extended periods out of work — more than 86,000 people as of May 8 — would lose benefits entirely under Hogan’s action.

All Marylanders receiving unemployment would stop receiving an enhanced $300 payment. As of May 15, there were 42,895 continued unemployment claims in the state; an additional 8,625 new claims were filed in the week ending May 22.

In a letter to Hogan, Senate President Bill Ferguson (D-Baltimore City) and Unemployment Insurance Oversight Committee co-chairwoman Kathy Klausmeier (D-Baltimore County) wrote, “Solving problems requires more than buying into partisan narratives that ignore the very real plight of countless Marylanders facing complex futures.”

The lawmakers urged the governor to reconsider his actions and look at ways to incentivize people back into the labor force, such as those adopted by Colorado.

If Hogan fails to alter his position on supplemental unemployment benefits, the leaders wrote, ”our chamber will be forced to consider all other tools at our disposal to ensure our state’s prosperity.”

The fiscal year 2022 budget was approved by the General Assembly earlier this year — and lawmakers were unclear on Wednesday whether they have the power to force Hogan to reverse his stance. Lawmakers adjourned in April and are not scheduled to return to Annapolis until January.

Comptroller Peter V.R. Franchot (D) urged lawmakers to consider an emergency special session to insist that Hogan keep the payments flowing.

In an interview, Frosh said it would be a challenge for lawmakers to find a way to block Hogan immediately.

“It’s going to be tough to get it done right away, but it may be possible,” he said. “We’ll see.”

A former legislator from Montgomery County, Frosh hammered Hogan for ending federally-funded benefits at a time when many out-of-work residents have yet to find new jobs.

“The fact is, if you’re looking to help the economy and help businesses, the best thing you can do is put money in the hands of low-income families, because it goes right back out the door,” he said. “They spend it.”

Frosh called the supplemental payments “a lifeline for folks who are unemployed” — and he said GOP claims that benefits discourage job-seeking are “fallacious.”

Although the unemployment rate has dropped since the height of the pandemic, the attorney general said many jobs don’t pay enough for people to make ends meet, a claim echoed by Del. Dereck E. Davis (D-Prince George’s), the chairman of the Economic Matters Committee.

Davis told Maryland Matters he will introduce legislation in January to move up the effective date of Maryland’s $15-an-hour minimum wage law by 2 1/2 years.

Under his proposal, employers with 15 or more workers would be required to pay at least $15/hour effective on July 1, 2022, instead of January 1, 2025.

Employers with fewer than 15 employees would have to boost pay starting on July 1, 2023, instead of January 1, 2026.

“I don’t think we need to take away the benefits. I think we need to increase the wages,” Davis said. “It’s simple economics.”

Davis said he was motivated to offer the legislation in response to Hogan’s actions on Tuesday.

Legislative Black Caucus Chairman Darryl Barnes (D-Prince George’s) will co-sponsor the measure, which has the support of Speaker Adrienne A. Jones (D-Baltimore County).

“If this is strictly dollars and cents, what that tells me is that they’re not paying enough,” Davis said.

Senate Minority Leader Bryan W. Simonaire (R-Anne Arundel) said Davis’s proposal buttresses his belief that the General Assembly is lurching to the left.

“It’s a constant attack on small business, without the balance,” he said. “This is just another way they can redistribute wealth. … Thank God we have Hogan in office to provide a little balance to the legislature.”

Davis said he will pre-file his bill — and he intends to hold a hearing on it at 2 p.m. on the first day of the 2022 session.

The state’s top fiscal officers also hammered Hogan for ending supplemental benefits.

Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp (D) said the move will cause the most harm to single women with children or older dependents, who will now live in “greater misery.”

Franchot, a candidate for governor, noted that the supplemental federal benefits are set to expire on Sept. 6. He said pandemic-era stimulus payments to individuals and businesses have helped the state’s economy weather the pandemic because they are “economic multipliers.”

“We’re giving up, voluntarily, $1.5 billion in additional economic stimulus,” he said. “And it’s not even our money. It’s coming from Washington.”

“This is about compassion for those who are suffering through no fault of their own,” Franchot added. “The end of the pandemic is in sight. We owe them a bridge to it.”

Del. Kathy Szeliga (R-Baltimore and Harford counties) applauded Hogan’s action.

“With so many businesses unable to fully operate because they cannot find workers, it makes sense,” she said. “There are ‘help wanted’ signs everywhere. Americans are logical. If you pay them to stay home, they will. It’s time to get people back in the labor market and working for a brighter future for themselves and their families.”

An organization representing small business owners also said it welcomed Hogan’s decision.

“Small business owners have been among the hardest hit by the COVID-19 crisis. While they are seeing their sales grow amidst a steady economic recovery, a record 44% of owners reported job openings that could not be filled in NFIB’s latest jobs report,” said Mike O’Halloran, the head of NFIB-Maryland.

“The Governor is right to call this a ‘critical problem.’ Now that capacity restrictions and closings are behind us, we’re hopeful these jobs will quickly be filled as the summer is unofficially underway.”

Even if lawmakers don’t return to Annapolis, they hope to pressure him to allow benefits to flow an additional month — until early August — to give jobless Marylanders more time to find work.

“It’s not like he’s saving the state money by doing this,” Montgomery County Executive Marc B. Elrich (D) said.

Late on Wednesday, the nine Democratic members of Maryland’s congressional delegation issued a statement urging Hogan to reconsider cutting off the benefits.

“…The governor unnecessarily bowed to partisan pressure and ignored the needs of struggling workers and families. We urge the governor to reconsider this decision, which will cost our state money in the long run — and wastes federal resources we fought hard to secure,” the lawmakers wrote. “Marylanders are anxious to get back to work, but this pandemic is not over and many unemployed Marylanders are still suffering.”

By Bruce DePuyt and Danielle E. Gaines

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: Maryland News Tagged With: benefits, business, Economy, Gov. Larry Hogan, jobless, Maryland, Minimum Wage, supplemental, unemployment, wages

There’s No Wage Like the Minimum Wage

January 24, 2020 by Maryland Matters

Share

On March 27, 2019 Maryland faced financial Armageddon.

The disaster Hogan saw looming was a bill the legislature had approved that would gradually raise the minimum wage from $10.10 to $15 per hour by 2025.

As disasters go, it qualifies as a Bigfoot: often rumored but never confirmed.

However, in Hogan’s defense, he was upholding the classical economic theory that when prices rise demand drops. If businesses were forced to pay more to their workers, the classical model says they would have to lay off some of their workforce to remain competitive. Or, alternatively, they could raise their prices. But that would put them at a competitive disadvantage with nearby states like Virginia, which has a $7.25 minimum wage. Disaster ensues.

But is the classical theory accurate?

When it comes to child hunger, it is a key question. Raise the minimum wage and people will have more money to buy food. This is especially true in Maryland, where the current minimum wage of $11 means a person would earn $22,880 a year. That is far below the $60,000 that MIT has said a family of one child and one parent would need to survive in Anne Arundel County.

And, as disasters go, it is Maryland’s reluctance to substantially raise its minimum wage that seems more pressing. In places like Anne Arundel County there has been a sharp rise in the number of children eligible for free school lunches over the last decade.

It was precisely the question of the minimum wage that interested David Card and Alan Krueger, two Princeton University economists, in the early 1990s.

On April 1, 1992 the New Jersey legislature did something that appeared to be pretty unremarkable at the time: it raised the state minimum wage from $4.25 to $5.05 per hour.

What Krueger and Card realized was that New Jersey had set up the perfect natural experiment in economics. While New Jersey had raised its minimum wage, the adjoining state of Pennsylvania had not. Its minimum wage was still $4.25.

If the classical theory was correct, unemployment would go up in New Jersey where labor costs had risen and, conversely, businesses would move to Pennsylvania to take advantage of the lower minimum wage there. In other words, New Jersey would be the test group and Pennsylvania the control group.

Before the minimum wage hike took place, the two men started collecting data on employment, wages and prices at 410 fast food restaurants in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. And after the increase they revisited the same restaurants to see what happened.

Much to the researchers’ surprise, employment didn’t drop in New Jersey. In fact, it went up slightly.

“Contrary to the central prediction of the textbook model … we find no evidence that the rise in New Jersey’s minimum wage reduced employment at fast-food restaurants in the state,” the professors concluded.

That would seem to have settled the question. But as one anonymous wag once noted, “If all the economists were laid end to end, they would never reach a conclusion.” And, indeed, subsequent studies have both confirmed and disputed the 1993 paper.

A paper by three researchers at the University of British Columbia said that if the Princeton economists had followed labor trends a bit longer, they would have eventually seen minimum wage workers losing their jobs. On the other hand, a study by four economists who investigated 139 minimum wage hikes over a nearly 40-year period argued that Krueger and Card were right.

And so, the debate continues.

That was why at a February 2019 hearing in Annapolis, Pat McElroy, vice president of Tim’s Automotive Services in Baltimore County, warned, “Our employees suffer if the minimum wage goes up. People in Maryland suffer. We have been in business for 31 years. We’re Marylanders. We aren’t moving. But our employees are victims themselves.”

McElroy’s argument is not new. In fact, it is eerily similar to what was said in another debate a century earlier, over child labor.

In 1916, while Congress debated a bill to restrict child labor, Rep. J. J. Britt (R) of North Carolina said he opposed the bill in part because, “it would take the children’s jobs away and ruin their chances of becoming useful citizens by throwing them out on the streets to loaf.” At the time, children as young as 12 were working 10-hour shifts in textile mills.

The same refrain is also heard when Randy Hargrove, the official Walmart spokesman, tries to defend his company’s low wages. Walmart is actually mentoring its employees, Hargrove says. “It’s not where you start. It’s where you end up. It’s the opportunities you have. Beyond anything else, we offer opportunity.”

And Hargrove’s argument echoes that of former North Carolina Gov. William W. Kitchin (D) in 1916. Kitchin defended child labor saying, “There are orphans, children of widows, and dependents who must work in order to live. A cotton mill pays him more wages than he can get anywhere else in the South … he lives in a better home, has better clothing and better food in 99 cases out of 100 than he had before his parents came to the mill.”

Child labor offers opportunity!

These arguments all use the same trope. Whether defending a 12-year old working 10 hours a day in a factory or paying a worker a salary he can’t possibly live on, it is all being done in the best interests of the person being exploited.

The net result of the political debate at the national level is gridlock. While 29 states have increased their minimum wage, the federal minimum wage is stuck at $7.25 and it has been stuck there since 2009.

The truth may be that the political debate over the minimum wage may not be moored to any kind of reality.

Opponents of any minimum wage increase ignore at the very least such things as inflation and productivity growth. If $7.25 was acceptable in 2009, why would it be a disaster to at least increase it by the rate of inflation?

There has also been productivity growth over the decade. A person who was able to produce one widget in 2009 is now able to produce three widgets thanks to technological innovations. Why shouldn’t workers share in this increased productivity?

This is precisely the argument of Benjamin Orr, executive director of the Maryland Center on Economic Policy. “For much of our history wages and productivity moved in tandem. Then in the 1970s, we saw it divide,” Orr said. “When you look at where our minimum wage would be if we had kept pace with productivity and accounting for inflation, it’s much higher than any of the proposals out there. As of last year, it would be $20.34.”

Those on the other side of the debate have seized on the idea that $15 per hour is a living wage. When the cry for a $15 minimum wage first went up seven years ago in New York City, it came from disgruntled workers in the city’s fast food restaurants. “Many of these workers have to rely on government assistance because they’re being paid poverty wages,” one of the protestors explained.

Now the rallying cry for those who want to raise the minimum wage is $15 an hour.

But that claim runs headlong into the broken yardsticks we use to measure what a living wage is. A $15 minimum wage works out to be $31,200 per year. If we use the federal threshold of $12,490, the person seems to have experienced a windfall.

But the federal measure of poverty is so discredited that, when calculating federal benefits, government typically bumps up that number. For example, to be eligible for food stamps in Maryland you can earn up to 130% of the federal poverty level.

The $15 figure also does not consider how many people must depend on that paycheck. The MIT Living Wage calculator says that if the wage earner has one child, the living wage in Anne Arundel County is $60,000. But add a few more children to the equation and now the MIT calculator says the family income must be over $80,000 to stave off poverty.

“I believe in Maryland there is no jurisdiction in the state where the minimum wage is enough to support a family of four,” said Orr. “People think about the minimum wage as a kind of starter job for high school students. In fact, who makes the minimum wage has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. These are career tracks that people get stuck on at minimum wage or close to minimum wage level.”

If raising the minimum wage is not a panacea, the legislature decided it is also not an impending disaster. The day after the governor vetoed the increase, the legislature overrode the veto.

We now await the arrival of Bigfoot.

COMING MONDAY: The final installment

Read the whole series so far:

Part one: Meet the Food Stamp Firms of Maryland, plus Bum Blockade: How We Got the Food Stamp Data

Part two: All About the Hunger Industry, plus The Tax Deduction Recipe That Feeds Hunger

Part three: Measuring Hunger: One Size Does Not Fit All, plus Calculating How to Go Hungry

Part four: The No Man’s Land of Childhood Hunger

Part five: When the Floor Becomes the Ceiling

Elliot Jaspin is a Pulitzer prize-winning journalist who has worked for over 40 years at newspapers in Pennsylvania, Maine, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C. He has also taught journalism at the University of Missouri and the University of Maryland.

Jaspin founded the National Institute for Computer-Assisted Reporting and was honored for his computer work by the National Press Foundation in 1994. In addition, he is the author of “Buried In The Bitter Waters: The Hidden History Of Racial Cleansing In America.” He lives in Annapolis and can be reached at [email protected].

 

The Spy Newspapers may periodically employ the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance the clarity and accuracy of our content.

Filed Under: Archives, Maryland News, News Tagged With: Economy, Minimum Wage

Copyright © 2025

Affiliated News

  • The Cambridge Spy
  • The Talbot Spy

Sections

  • Arts
  • Culture
  • Ecosystem
  • Education
  • Health
  • Local Life and Culture
  • Spy Senior Nation

Spy Community Media

  • About
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Underwriting

Copyright © 2025 · Spy Community Media Child Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in