By a 17-6 vote, the Montgomery County Delegation defeated the CARR bill, which would have given the Montgomery County government the ability to levy different property tax rates on residential and commercial property. Because the county delegation defeated it, the bill will not pass the General Assembly.
Supporters of the bill cite the historical shift of property taxes towards homeowners, the fact that the bill would only grant tax-raising authority and would not itself directly raise taxes, and the desperate condition of county revenues. Opponents question the wisdom of raising taxes on businesses that create jobs in the middle of a recession. The bill enjoyed support from many labor organizations but not the County Council, which took no position on it.
Voting in Favor:
Al Carr (D-18), the lead sponsor
Karen Montgomery (D-14), a co-sponsor
Jeff Waldstreicher (D-18), a co-sponsor
Saqib Ali (D-39)
Susan Lee (D-16)
Herman Taylor (D-14)
Voting Against:
Charles Barkley (D-39)
Kumar Barve (D-17)
Bill Bronrott (D-16)
Kathleen Dumais (D-15)
Brian Feldman (D-15)
Bill Frick (D-16)
Jim Gilchrist (D-17)
Henry Heller (D-19)
Sheila Hixson (D-20)
Tom Hucker (D-20)
Anne Kaiser (D-14)
Ben Kramer (D-19)
Heather Mizeur (D-20)
Roger Manno (D-19)
Kirill Reznik (D-39)
Craig Rice (D-15)
Luiz Simmons (D-17)
Delegate Ana Sol Gutierrez (D-18), a co-sponsor, did not vote.
Many of the Delegates who voted against the bill have outstanding labor records, especially Hucker, Manno, Mizeur, Kaiser and Hixson. Manno was a former co-sponsor of the bill.
Friday, February 13, 2009
MoCo House Delegation Votes Down CARR Bill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Adam,
I disagree with your assessment that the unions wanted this because they have too many advocates if this was their legislative priority. Union supported measures don't lose by a wide margin if they are dear to their heart.
I do not know the full merits of the bill in question but I do have to say that I seriously doubt that if the labor unions really wanted this bill -- if this bill was a legislative priority for them -- then they would have made a few calls up to their friends in Rockville and their advocates in Annapolis and this bill would have won by the same large margin that it failed.
Since the Council did not ask for it and the unions did not ask for it you have to ask who really wanted it?
Kevin, perhaps you have not been reading our material. Representatives from MGCEO, MCEA and Progressive Maryland testified for this bill and MCEA President Bonnie Cullison specifically mentioned it at MCEA's recent Legislative Breakfast.
You may be right that labor had higher priorities (like teacher pensions), but they did advocate for this bill.
Maybe so but after talking with a few legislators they told me that they did not get asked about this bill.
And the lack of direction from the Council, the CoExecutive and the unions led to a 6-17 loss.
If they wanted this bill then there should have been a greater effort. There wasn't which means that the union priorities were elsewhere.
Shifting taxes onto homeowners isn't helpful, nor is shifting taxes onto businesses.
If you want to talk about "progressive", consider "progressive taxation".
Robin Hood called that "steal from the rich and give to the poor", and that's how it has been here in MoCo for many years now.
We need to find new sources of revenue, that's for sure, or we need to give up the idea of giving raises based on time passing, rather than on performance achieved.
Perhaps a tax based on "luxuries". Indeed, I think that we should have a "Yuppie Tax". We should increase taxes proportionately on the basis of debt; this will teach people to keep cash on deposit in banks rather than to keep credit balances on the books. Deposits in banks are progressive because loans at interest fund development and industry, and debit on books is retrogressive because the interest amounts to cash-flow that is already a tax and can't reasonably be taxed... or could it be taxed? -a "yuppie tax" would both add additional interest rate points to dissuade from living on borrowings and dragging banks down into the smelly bogs of insolvency or creative bookkeeping; also it would bring revenue as after all MoCo is overrun with Yuppies living mostly on revolving credit. The tax revenues are potentially astounding and could easily solve all of our budget problems with a stroke of the pen. After all, if these people can spend a thousand dollars on each suit that they wear only one day of the week, they can easily afford an additional twenty dollars for every suit they buy on credit, as well as a ten-percent tax on every single instance of dry-cleaning.
Seriously, do the math. Tax the Yuppies for living like they do, and all of our problems are solved.
Post a Comment