UPDATED (6:32 p.m.)—Gov. Martin O'Malley Wednesday presented his budget plan for the coming year that he called "a jobs budget."
The budget contains no tax increases though O'Malley declined to discuss the possibility of a tax for transportation projects.
"These have been challenging times to say the least," O'Malley said. He was referencing the seventh budget of his tenure as governor at the same time that the state has weathered one of the most severe economic downturns in history.
O'Malley said Maryland taxpayers "expect their government to do more with less."
The proposed $37.3 billion spending plan is for the 2014 fiscal year, which begins July 1.
The governor's proposed budget contains $325 million in spending cuts even though the budget grows by 4 percent over the current year's nearly $35.8 billion spending.
About $50 million of what O'Malley called cuts come from the delay of a payment to the local government trust fund. Another $30 million comes from the use of special funds to pay for ongoing government operations rather than using general fund dollars.
A 'Jobs Budget'
O'Malley said his proposed capital budget contains funding that supports more than 43,000 jobs including those for schools renovation and construction, rental housing, bay restoration and transportation projects.
"If there is one thing this economic downturn has taught us is there is no recovery without a job," O'Malley said
Larry Hogan, chairman of Change Maryland, said in a statement that O'Malley's budget "does nothing more than continue the spend-and-tax governing that Martin O'Malley feels will further his political objectives.
"Missing is any understanding whatsoever on how to bring jobs and businesses back to Maryland," Hogan continued. "Over 6500 small business have left Maryland during his term and the number of Fortune 500 companies is down to just three - some of the worst declines in this region. Maryland's manufacturing sector has likewise been decimated."
No New Taxes But Gas Tax Lingers
Funding for transportation projects remains a problem.
State aid to local governments for highway projects over the last five years has been cut by as much as 90 percent.
The backlog of projects has led to a discussion of possible increases in the sales or gas tax.
O'Malley said his budget does not contain any proposal for such a tax but the idea is under discussion with legislative leaders.
Overall, transportation funding to local governments proposed in O'Malley's budget increases by $22.5 million or 13.4 percent to a total of $190.1 million.
The lion's share of that, about $134.4 million of highway users funds. goes to Baltimore City. That figure represents about 71 percent of all highway user fund aid to local governments and 80 percent of all transportation funds sent to the 23 counties and Baltimore City.
Spending on transportation projects in the state's 157 incorporated cities and towns is projected to increase by $23 million.
“Cities and towns throughout Maryland have endured five years of almost no state funding for critical municipal transportation projects,” said Maryland Municipal League president and Greenbelt Mayor Judith F. “J” Davis, in an emailed statement. “The Governor’s inclusion today of $23 million in the budget is an important step in the right direction, moving us closer toward full restoration of our share of state highway user revenues to repair and maintain our roads.”
Where The Money Goes
About 83 percent of all state spending in the proposed budget goes to just three areas:
- Education including K-12 and higher education spending accounts for 47 percent of all operation budget spending.
- Healthcare-related spending is about 25 percent of the budget.
- Public safety spending accounts for 11 percent of the budget.
Preparing for 'The Harakiri Congress'
The budget also includes increases in the state's so-called rainy day fund.
The proposed increase would take the fund to $921 million or 6 percent of the total proposed budget. State law requires the fund be maintained at a minimum of 5 percent of the budget.
The proposal also contains nearly $1.2 billion in cash reserves.
The governor called the rainy day fund increase and cash reserves "a safe guard against the harakiri congress down the street and what they might do to our economy because of ideology."
O'Malley and others are concerned that severe cuts to the federal budget in the next two months could result in the loss of thousands of jobs in Maryland.
Hogan said O'Malley is blaming Republicans in congress for wanting to tighten federal spending.
"Martin O'Malley also showed again today in the budget briefing slide show for reporters why he is the most partisan governor in America, lauding the president for wanting to raise the debt ceiling and blaming in advance the U.S. House of Representatives for any largess that may not come Maryland's way," Hogan said.
MD has done relatively well as America sinks. This is because the economy of MD is largely based on forcible takings from producers in other states (people who produce things that others willingly buy). There are relatively few producers in MD. There are some, but not nearly enough. And sadly, a lot of the economy is consumer-based, and even those who do real work (plumbers, roofers, etc) are selling their services to people whose income comes from forcible taking. So, we have more "real" workers than we should for the number of true producers we have. We are rapidly approaching the point where there will be little left to take away from the producers. Some time after we get there, MD will suddenly make depressed areas like Michigan look like Detroit. Unbelievable amount of borrowing (and mostly counterfeiting) have staved this off longer than one might think possible. And it will continue, for a while. But the longer we wait to reduce the number of takers, and increase the number of producers, the more painful and violent the change will be. Sadly, so many of the the people of MD are takers instead of producers that it is not likely to go well, here, or nationally. But here will be very bad and the smart move is to leave MD. The smartest and most able are already gone or going.
Don't expect MD politics to get better. As a jurisdiction populated by the highest ratio of takers to producers (short of DC perhaps, and arguably, NY for those who understand the massive hidden theft by the Federal Reserve bankers and financial system that thrives on them), MD is not likely to want to lay off takers and force people to become producers. It simply isn't in the interest of many people here. MD thrives off both the welfare AND warfare industries. This is becoming a very, very dangerous place.
You might want to get started now, it could take a while.
Joe, that's exactly what Brian was responding to. Try to keep up, kid.
This is hardly a reckless prediction if one studies history. But to label it "conspiracy theory" is not only to understand what I am saying and how likely it is, but also is to fail to understand the very DEFINITION of conspiracy theory. But here's your chance to prove me wrong. What't the "conspiracy" in my theory, and who is doing the conspiring?
"..... massive hidden theft by the Federal Reserve bankers and financial system that thrives on them" More of the same.
Steve, where's the "conspiracy" in what you have labeled "conspiracy theory?" My comments are virtually all just verifiable facts. The only part that one could label as opinion is the consequence I have predicted: namely that piling takers onto the backs of producers will not end well, rather, that it risks being ugly and violent. This is hardly a reckless prediction if one studies history. But to label it "conspiracy theory" is not only to fail to understand what I am saying and how likely it is, but also to fail to understand the very DEFINITION of conspiracy theory. But here's your chance to prove me wrong. What is the "conspiracy" in my theory, and who is doing the conspiring?
"It's a false premise. "Takers" is just more dog whistle code speak. "..... massive hidden theft by the Federal Reserve bankers and financial system that thrives on them" More of the same." Steve, I'm not sure what "code speak" means in this instance, but it doesn't really matter. Some people produce things that are willingly bought, such as food. Likewise, private schoolteachers are chosen and paid by willing customers. Many other jobs are paid for by money collected by force. Public schoolteachers, for example. One must pay for them regardless of one's opinion of their worth and whether one uses their services. Drone strikes are the same way. Foreign aid to prop up dictators. Ethanol and big ag subsidies. These are all funded by FORCE rather than from a set of willing customers. Nothing false about that, it's indisputable. The theft by the Federal Reserve is sneakier, but very real. They create fiat money out of thin air. This devalues every other dollar anyone holds, worldwide. It is counterfeiting, and it is theft, and it is undeniable except by the ignorant who are unaware, the fools who do not understand, or the charlatans who wish to keep it misunderstood. Nothing false, these are all VERY verifiable. Why is the dollar losing value as the money supply increases? Same reason it would do so if you printed trillions in your basement. Only in the Fed's case, that is theft made legal.
First, this is a strawman. It is arguing against something I have never claimed. I don't know if Ayn Rand was a "welfare queen" or not, but the link you present disproves nothing from my comments. Further, when a system takes your money by force and offers some of it back, there is no sin in taking back what you can, in whatever form you can. So long as you work and vote to end that system, you are simply working within the system rather than taking up arms and becoming a violent revolutionary. If a thief points a gun at you and demands your wallet and watch, there is no crime in picking up your watch again if he drops it while running off.
And do you know what deflation is and why it should be avoided at all costs?" Do you mean the true rate of inflation, or the nonsense rate cited by the government? (Which ignores things like energy costs, but includes housing prices that were determined in the past and don't reset downward for anyone who already bought and is locked into a mortgage payment?) It is a garbage statistic, much like "unemployment," which strips people off the stat if jobs are so scarce that they didn't get one in two years. If nobody had a job for two years, the government's approach to measuring would declare unemployment fell to ZERO. The inflation/deflation mess is very real. The argument to try to keep the bubble inflated is a bit like this. You jump off a bench, but you fear the fall. So you move the ground down 10 feet, buying time. Only the problem is now worse. So you move the ground down 10 more feet. Feels good now, but now the landing might break your leg. Keep doing it and the impact is getting really bad. So, you keep kicking the can down the road until you simply cannot. Crash is unavoidable, it is a matter of time. Dealing with the pain of deflation is taking your medicine today so you don't get even sicker. Yes, it's awful. The only thing worse, however, is what you create by postponing it. It CANNOT be avoided.
Ask the Romans about kicking the can down the road. Or any other debaser of currency. History is VERY clear on this. The problem is, people don't know much history.
Not surprising that your understanding of history is 7th grade public-school textbook pablum...the history written by the rich winners: the Keynesians, who make predictions to the public that don't come to pass, but who get richer from the behavior the duped public engages in based on those predictions. As opposed to the Austrian economists, who make predictions that come true, but are historically ignored by the media outlets controlled by the rich. Until the Internet made it possible for more people to sidestep those media and discover that while Keynesians like Greenspan said we had no housing bubble (only to have it burst a few short years later), the Austrians said we did, and prepare for a crash. The Great Depression shows what happens if you play by Keynesian rules--it lasts a LONG time. The Crash of 1920-21 is forgotten history because natural market forces were allowed to fix it within two years. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/#axzz2IIplyZOB
In fact, no, good catch, I switched them. Even depressed areas of MI will make MD look like Detroit [by comparison]. MD will collapse BADLY if free market forces ever are allowed to let the rest of the country heal.
Right Steve. One must be a tinfoil-hat-wearing nut to think that a problem created by borrowing and malinvestment won't be fixed by more borrowing and malinvestment. It's plum crazy. Again, it's quite telling that your approach is never to offer any logic or reason, and instead to lob insults and roll your eyes.
"Further, when a system takes your money by force and offers some of it back, there is no sin in taking back what you can, in whatever form you can."
That's quite a bit of spin as stated, and almost certainly not an original thought, but one taken from a list of spin talking points. Hayek was a staunch advocate of free markets, including in healthcare. He said it was possible to have social safety nets for those few who were essentially helpless. (As opposed to planned, centralized, socialized medicine for the masses.) Which is not only far different from Obamacare, but also is far different from the grossly-government-distorted healthcare market which existed BEFORE Obamacare. The statement "Hayek said that healthcare was a legitimate function of government" blurs the distinction by avoiding Hayek's notion of safety for the few truly helpless, and extends it implicitly (and utterly falsely) to socialized healthcare for all. Any attempt to posit an interpretation that Hayek would support the market distortions we have, both before and after Obamacare, is patently absurd to anyone who is both honest and knowledgeable about Hayek. Your claim can come only from failing to understand Hayek, or deliberately attempting to mislead others about his teachings. This spin you cite is an oft-perpetuated nonsense talking-point created to fool the ignorant. This is discussed halfway-reasonably here: http://lonelylibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/07/misreading-hayek-and-more-on-health.html
The clue that you shouldn't even try to present an argument, and instead should stick to insults and eye-rolling? True, they're far safer bets when facing reason. They don't expose the weakness of your argument other than implicitly, which is less damaging than explicit examination would be.
The clue that you shouldn't even try to present an argument, and instead should stick to insults and eye-rolling? True, they're far safer bets when facing reason. They don't expose the weakness of your argument other than implicitly, which is less damaging than explicit examination would be.
My point being, it would be hypocritical to say one was against social programs but to VOTE and otherwise work for them, while collecting benefits. HOWEVER, if one truly votes and works for elimination of such redistribution programs, taking some of one's confiscated resources back in the form of benefits is no sin whatsoever, for they are resources to be used in the political fight against the unjust policy. Until one takes up arms, this is just the peaceful course of resistance. Your half-quote leaves open the very sort of hypocrisy that my actual quote had PROACTIVELY ruled out.
That's all you will get from these clowns like Frank, Steve, FIFA, etc. i wish you could cue background music when you clicked on a comment. I would assign circus music for Frank. The real joke is he thinks he mainstream. Then again he is on the Bethesda Patch. I'm sure that many far left folks there think they are mainstream.
You need to see that there is a homeostasis being worked out here. We have over-consumed and turned over-consumption into a habit. It cannot go on forever. Your dichotomy of "producers" and "takers" is a false dichotomy. The existence of one is a precondition of the other. Incidentally, smart as you are and sophisticated (viz. sophistry) as you are, we have one thing in common: we are both mere dots--pixels--in the big picture.
Don't be so boringly literal. Dag!
How so? ALL financial transactions are either WILLING agreement by both parties or they are not, meaning, there is FORCE involved. The latter category is a TAKING, pure and simple. There is no false dichotomy there whatsoever. That said, where things are far muddier (part of the reason for the stubborness of the mess we have) is that plenty of people are real free-market producers, properly at the mercy of the market and their own performance, BUT whose customer base exists largely because of FORCIBLE TAKiNG from others. For instance, consider a lot of restaurants/builders/whatever who serve the greater DC area. They are restaurants/builders/etc like any others, except the demand for their services only exists because there is a large collection of government TAKERS in their area. A similar phenomenon exists in NYC, a hub of much sneakier taking based on debasement of the dollar. Most people understand the DC example but very few understand the NYC case, which is FAR better hidden. This is why DC and NYC barely slowed their growth (DC even more so) as the rest of the country suffers badly. It's not sustainable, of course, because eventually the parasitic forces become so large relative to the host that the host dies. Which is where we are heading. Soon, there must be a big swing, or much greater force will be required to sustain the taking a while longer.
Hmmm. I don't see this in my statement above jag. Actually, I hate people like yourself. Smug, arrogant people like you who are oblivious to what the government's role should be. Smacking sense into your head , all be it futile, would bring to me a great "sense" of satisfaction. I've learned by now that intelligent debate among conservatives like myself and liberal morons like you is impossible. Eventually, the debate boils down to you calling me names and labeling me as a racist. Therefore, I've "cut to the chase" if you will, and brought my comments regarding you down to your level and even a step further by implying I would like to physically wollup you across the side of your head solely for my satisfaction. Does that mean I've won the debate on liberal terms? I think yes.