Dear Constituents,
Due to an oversight, I wanted to let you know my position on the bills I mentioned last week:
- Illegal immigrants and instate tuition for college students, SB 167 I will vote against this bill if it comes to the House Floor.
- Motor Vehicle Fuel Taxes, HB 1059 I will vote against this if it comes to the House Floor
- Texting while Driving, HB 196 I voted for this bill.
Increasing the Cost of Higher Education in Maryland – Fee or Tax?
When is a fee a tax? That was a question that has been answered on Governor O’Malley’s TV commercial as: “If more money comes out of my pocket, it is a tax”.
What responses would you expect to hear from parents and students who attend the University of Maryland System Schools if there was an increase in tuition? I bet it would be vocal and heated.
What if the education cost at University of Maryland was increased through the back door, not as an increase in tuition but through fees, would you notice? Would the increase in the cost of education concern you? It is true that tuition was frozen for four years and last year tuition increased 3%. If I told you that the fees are going to increase and you wouldn’t be aware of it until you paid your bill for your education, how would you deal with that?
This year the University of Maryland System wants to increase their debt capacity by $200,000,000.00 for a total of $1,400,000,000.00. This debt is not the debt of the State because it is backed by the auxiliary fees (fees and rents arising from the use of the auxiliary facility) and academic fees (tuition and student fees). We are increasing the cost of education for our college students, but not through tuition.
In order to keep the high ratings from the rating agencies, the system must have 55% of outstanding debt supported by a reserve fund. If the debt capacity is increased to $200,000,000.00. the System must keep a 55% reserve fund, which will make the increase closer to $300,000,000.00. for this additional increase. Students will have to pay this.
The question is: “Is a fee a tax”?
It will cost more to educate your student through hidden fees. I voted against House Bill 748 – Academic Facilities Bonding Authority
House Bill 234 – Alcoholic Beverages – Direct Wine Shipper’s Permit.
I have been a co-sponsor of this bill for the last three legislative sessions. Unfortunately, this bill has never made it out of the Economic Matters Committee and has failed
The bill requires that a person be permitted as a direct wine shipper by the Comptroller’s Office before engaging in direct wine shipping. To qualify for a direct wine shipper’s permit, the applicant must be (1) a person licensed outside of the State to engage in the manufacture of wine; (2) an authorized brand owner of wine, a U.S. importer of wine, or a designated Maryland agent of a brand owner or U.S. importer; (3) a holder of a State issued Class 3 manufacturer’s (winery) license or a Class 4 manufacturer’s (limited winery) license; or (4) a person licensed by the State or outside of the State to engage in the retail sale of wine for consumption off the premises. The direct wine shipper must ensure that all containers of wine shipped directly to a consumer in the State are conspicuously labeled with (1) the name of the direct wine shipper; (2) the name and address of the consumer who is the intended recipient; and (3) the words “Contains Alcohol; Signature of Person at Least 21 Years of Age Required for Delivery.” A direct wine shipper must also (1) report quarterly to the Comptroller’s Office the total amount of wine, by type, shipped in the State, the price charged, and the name and address of each purchaser; (2) file a quarterly alcoholic beverage tax return; (3) pay quarterly to the Comptroller’s Office all sales and excise taxes due on sales to personal consumers in the State, calculating the amount of the taxes as if the sale was made at the delivery location; (4) allow the Comptroller’s Office to audit the direct wine shipper’s records on request; and (5) consent to the jurisdiction of the Comptroller’s Office or other State unit and the State courts concerning enforcement. A direct wine shipper is prohibited from shipping more than 24 9-liter cases of wine annually to any one individual or delivering wine on Sunday to an address in the State. The Comptroller’s Office may adopt regulations for the issuance and enforcement of the provisions of this permit.
I am hopeful that this year this bill will make it out of committee and come to the House floor for a full vote. There are amendments being considered by the Economic Matters Committee on this bill. The sponsor, Delegate Ivey, indicated that it has not been voted on; however they have eliminated shipping directly to the retailers and will allow vineyards to direct ship to the consumer. One other aspect that is being considered is permitting the shipping of wine of the month clubs. We will keep you updated as things progress.
House Bill 940 – Counties – Kennel Licenses – Requirements for Breeders
This bill requires a person or breeder to obtain a kennel license if they own or have custody of 10 or more unspayed dogs over six months old and intends to breed and sell the offspring. By January 15 of each year, each county must report the information collected for the preceding year to the Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation (DLLR).
Under current law, there are no statewide license or fee requirements for dog breeders in Maryland. Dog owners must obtain a license for each dog kept in the State. Specific provisions related to the licensing of dogs vary from county to county. In most counties, the owner of a dog over six months old must apply for a one-year license on or before July 1 of each year. While many counties are authorized to set their own dog and kennel license fees, (and a few others are authorized to also set terms and/or forms for such licenses), in general, the fees for dog licenses are $1 for each male or spayed female dog, $2 for each unspayed female dog, $10 for a kennel license for owning or keeping up to 25 dogs, and $20 for a kennel license for keeping more than 25 dogs.
This bill requires that each county that does not currently license kennels must establish a licensing program and maintain records in a manner specified by the bill. Counties must train animal control officers to collect these records during routine inspections. Finally, the counties must compile records and submit them to DLLR by January 15 of each year. As a result, the bill may have an operational or fiscal effect on some counties. In turn, the counties may increase or establish additional kennel licensing fees to cover the costs of maintaining the records required by the bill.
I support this bill.
Update on Illegal Immigrants
The State of Maryland is currently breaking law. Maryland taxpayers have supported in- state tuition to illegal aliens who attend Montgomery Community College to the tune of $5.8. million dollars. The Federal Government states that illegal aliens are ineligible for state or local benefits including post secondary education benefits such as reduced tuition. Maryland’s current law requires the colleges to charge out of state tuition for non documented aliens.
Tuition and fees paid by students constitutes less than a quarter of the colleges revenue, the remaining three quarters are supported by state and federal funds, or taxpayer funded.
Non Documented aliens usually do not have the capacity to establish residency in Maryland as their illegal status makes them eligible for deportation at any time.
This bill reflects poor judgment that is why I do not support it.
We are heading into the final weeks of session. I appreciate your views and opinions on bills that come before the legislature.
Entries (RSS)