 |
2019 Session:
Delegate Trent Kittleman - District 9A
Week Six
|
|
CONTENTS -- Money, money, money
|
Please forward this email to your family and friends, and encourage them to sign up to receive the weekly News from Annapolis by sending me an email at TrentKittleman@verizon.net.
|
|
Cl.
What's the Problem with Mandates?
|
|
Source:
Maryland Public Policy Institute,
"Maryland State Budget and Mandatory Spending,"
by Adam J. Hoffer, PH.D., 2017
|
|
Every year, Maryland's governor must struggle to balance the budget as a result, in part, of rigid revenue earmarks and mandatory spending requirements that restrict what over 80% of the budget can be spent on.
Federal funds are almost all restricted to certain programs and generally come with regulations telling the State exactly how to spend them.
Special funds are created by the State to ensure certain essential programs will be funded. The most well-known of these is the Transportation Trust Fund.
Entitlements are funding for promises made to Marylanders for current and future funding, similar to social security and medicare.
Mandates are somewhat different. "Mandates" are created by the legislature when a bill includes language such as, "every year, the Governor
shall include . . ." a certain spending amount. If such a bill passes, the amount of spending dictated by the bill becomes an untouchable
mandate.
Unfortunately, more and more bills are coming through with mandate language, to protect everything from providing lawyers to college students pursuing a title IX proceeding on campus to funds requiring the State Highway Department to design and build streets that will direct people to stores that sell healthy foods.
Below is a partial list of bills that have been filed and include a mandate.
Even if a few of the bills with high-dollar price tags (for example, the $15 minimum wage bill) pass, there is a fair chance that all of the newly required spending will
exceed
the state's revenues estimates for the following year.
Since the Maryland Constitution requires a balanced budget,
legislators must make cuts. Invariably, some mandates do NOT get funded that year. This can and does continue for a number of years, disappointing all the many constituents who were told by legislators that their program was protected by a "mandate."
|
| Bill Number |
Title
|
FY2021
Mandate Amount |
FY2022
|
FY2023
|
FY2024
|
| HB0082 |
Transportation - Complete Streets - Access to Healthy Food |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
| HB0084 |
Maryland Farms and Families Fund - Purpose, Use, Funding, and Grant Qualifications - Alterations |
100,000 |
100,000 |
100,000 |
100,000 |
| HB0117 |
Maryland Smart Growth Investment Fund |
7,000,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| HB0129 |
Mandated Appropriation - City of Annapolis - Services |
750,000 |
750,000 |
750,000 |
750,000 |
| HB0132 |
Education - Robotics Grant Program - Alterations |
250,000 |
250,000 |
250,000 |
250,000 |
| HB0153 |
Building Opportunity Act of 2019 |
125,000,000 |
125,000,000 |
125,000,000 |
125,000,000 |
| HB0156 |
Public Charter School Facility Fund |
36,800,000 |
36,800,000 |
36,800,000 |
36,800,000 |
| HB0166 |
Labor and Employment - Payment of Wages - Minimum Wage and Enforcement (Fight for Fifteen) |
83,900,000 |
124,910,000 |
168,180,000 |
227,450,000 |
| HB0248 |
Education - Child Care Subsidies - Mandatory Funding Level |
9,400,000 |
$3,687,673 |
0 |
0 |
| HB0338 |
Human Services - Food Supplements (Summer SNAP for Children Act) |
2,000,000 |
2,500,000 |
15,913,704 |
16,951,978 |
| HB0405 |
Natural Resources - State Lakes Protection and Restoration Fund - Mandatory Funding and Repeal of Termination Date |
2,000,000 |
2,000,000 |
2,000,000 |
2,000,000 |
| HB0415 |
Medical Assistance Employment Initiative Pilot Program |
250,000 |
250,000 |
250,000 |
250,000 |
| HB0428 |
Comprehensive Flood Management Grant Program - Awards for Flood Damage and Mandatory Funding |
5,000,000 |
5,000,000 |
5,000,000 |
5,000,000 |
| HB0485 |
Office of the Attorney General - Senior and Vulnerable Adult Asset Recovery Unit |
450,000 |
450,000 |
450,000 |
450,000 |
| HB0488 |
Forestry - Mel Noland Fellowship Program - Establishment |
50,000 |
50,000 |
50,000 |
50,000 |
| HB0513 |
County Boards of Education - Establishing Regional Career and Technical Education Schools - Authority and Funding |
11,100,000 |
11,100,000 |
11,100,000 |
11,100,000 |
| HB0520 |
Prenatal and Infant Care Coordination - Grant Funding and Task Force |
4,500,000 |
4,500,000 |
4,500,000 |
4,500,000 |
| HB0633 |
Higher Education - Legal Representation Fund for Title IX Proceedings - Established |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
| HB0657 |
Arts Education in Maryland Schools Alliance Grant |
600,000 |
600,000 |
600,000 |
600,000 |
| HB0664 |
State Department of Education - Nonprofit Youth Development Program - Established |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
| HB0665 |
Criminal Procedure - Family Law Services for Sustained Safety Fund |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
| HB0668 |
Public School Construction - Maryland Stadium Authority - Montgomery County and Other School Systems With Significant Enrollment Growth |
60,000,000 |
60,000,000 |
60,000,000 |
60,000,000 |
| HB0672 |
Housing - Local Housing Grant Program for Homeless Veterans and Survivors of Domestic Violence |
2,000,000 |
2,000,000 |
2,000,000 |
2,000,000 |
| HB0714 |
Community Colleges - Supplemental Services and Supports for Students With Disabilities Grant Program |
2,500,000 |
2,500,000 |
2,500,000 |
2,500,000 |
| HB0779 |
Higher Education - Historically Black Colleges and Universities - Funding |
66,640,000 |
66,640,000 |
66,640,000 |
66,640,000 |
| HB0916 |
Maryland National Guard - Tuition Assistance Program - Modifications |
200,000 |
200,000 |
200,000 |
200,000 |
| HB1064 |
Maryland Sign Language Interpreter Act |
100,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| HB1082 |
Local Health Services Funding - Modifications |
30,951,074 |
30,951,074 |
30,951,074 |
30,951,074 |
| HB1094 |
Community Safety and Strengthening Act |
9,500,000 |
9,500,000 |
14,500,000 |
14,500,000 |
| HB1115 |
Community Colleges - Workforce Readiness Grant Program - Established |
0 |
5,500,000 |
0 |
5,500,000 |
| HB1158 |
Clean Energy Jobs |
200,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
1,000,000 |
| HB1160 |
Public Health - Breathe Easy Pilot Program |
500,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| HB1167 |
Labor and Employment - Apprenticeship Career Training Pilot Program for Formerly Incarcerated Individuals - Establishment |
100,000 |
100,000 |
100,000 |
0 |
| HB1168 |
Education - Career and Technical Education Expansion Grant - Established |
2,000,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| HB1170 |
Behavioral Health Services Matching Grant Program for Service Members and Veterans - Establishment |
5,000,000 |
5,000,000 |
5,000,000 |
5,000,000 |
| HB1178 |
Department of Housing and Community Development - Social Housing Act of 2019 |
2,500,000,000 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| HB1206 |
Maryland Longitudinal Data System Center - Data Matching |
100,000 |
100,000 |
0 |
0 |
| HB1257 |
Maryland Transportation Public-Private Partnership Oversight Act |
20,000,000 |
20,000,000 |
20,000,000 |
20,000,000 |
| HB1266 |
National Capital Strategic Economic Development Program - Established |
7,200,000 |
7,200,000 |
7,200,000 |
7,200,000 |
| HB1272 |
Maryland Department of Health - Family Planning Program - Funding |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
1,000,000 |
| HB1281 |
Transportation - Bikeways Network Program - Funding |
4,500,000 |
5,300,000 |
6,100,000 |
6,900,000 |
| HB1293 |
Health - Professional and Volunteer Firefighter Innovative Cancer Screening Technologies Program |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
| HB1327 |
Small Business Development Center Network Fund - Minimum Appropriation |
550,000 |
1,050,000 |
1,550,000 |
2,050,000 |
| HB1348 |
Public Safety - Youth Crime Prevention and Diversion Parole Fund - Establishment |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
500,000 |
| HB1366 |
Maryland Association of Environmental and Outdoor Education Grant (Maryland Green Schools Act of 2019) |
300,000 |
309,000 |
318,500 |
328,850 |
|
|
|
Cl.
Why can't our kids read?
HB 690: A Good Bill
|
HB 690: Students with Reading Difficulties - Screenings and Interventions
During the last term, the Legislature passed "The Atticus Act," a bill I introduced that will help identify school children who may have
certain eye conditions that can adversely affect their ability to read and to learn. This year, we continue to realize that there are often unrecognized physical barriers that impede a child's ability to read which directly affects their ability to learn;
"Reading is fundamental to many life activities and is perhaps the most essential skill children learn in school."
HB 690
addresses that issue head-on.
|
|
The bill requires that "Beginning in the 2020-2021 school year, each local board shall ensure that a student is screened to identify in the student is at risk for reading difficulties."
If the screening indicates a potential problem, the school must conduct an "informal diagnostic assessment of the student to determine the specific areas of instructional need for supplemental reading instruction; provide supplemental reading instruction, as appropriate; and provide a notification letter to the student's parent as specified."
In an unusual show of solidarity, 17 Republicans joined with 69 Democrats as co-sponsors of the bill. With a very low "fiscal note," HB 690 looks like a winner.
|
|
Cl.
More on the Minimum Wage Bill
|
|
Testimony given in the February 8th House of Delegates hearing revealed an interesting,
hidden message. There were 140 witnesses who testified, half testifying as proponents of the bill and half testifying in opposition.
It's not so much what they said, but rather
who they were or who they represented that told the story.
The Opponents
Among the 70 Opponents, 43 of them were actual business owners. They were people who would be
personally and
directly affected by this bill. A few examples:
Phillips Seafood in Baltimore,
Roy Rogers in Frederick,
Attaway Cafe in Montgomery,
Galway Bay in Annapolis,
Little Caesar's in Salisbury, an
auto parts stores in St. Mary's,
a manufacturing business on the Eastern Shore,
Patrick's Pub in Cumberland,
Dairy Queen in Allegany,
Trader's Coffee House in Deep Creek Lake . . .
They came from all over the state -- as far away as Allegany and St. Mary's counties -- taking a full day away from their businesses.
|
|
The Proponents
Among the 70 Proponents, only
four of them were people
directly affected. That is, someone making less than $15 per hour; someone telling a hardship story; someone making the problem
real
to us.
So who did testify?
Of course, there were a number of activist groups, union representatives, and other policy and lobbying groups.
But the testimony heard most came from representatives of the health services industry. Representatives of home care associations, hospitals (including Johns Hopkins), developmental disabilities, behavioral healthcare, counseling and support services, and the mental health associations spoke in support of the increase to the minimum wage --
but with one caveat!
"Raise our wages," they said, "but the State must also increase the rates it pays for our services!" Virtually all of the varied health care services are dependent upon state reimbursement; that is their revenue stream. Without an increase in revenue, they can't pay higher wage. A true conundrum.
Amend the Bill!
The testimony on the bill suggests two clear outcomes:
1) Private enterprise cannot absorb any further regulatory increases in the minimum wage without serious consequences to the smaller businesses. For business, the overwhelming use of the "minimum wage" is as a starting wage to give young people an opportunity to experience real "work," and learn what they need to know to go on to better jobs and opportunities.
2)
The State, on the other hand, uses low and minimum wages as a permanent wage for workers in the social and health care services industries.
Let's amend HB 166 and focus on the real wage unfairness.
And let's not destroy the small business economy in Maryland with reckless regulation.
|
|
The Future of higher minimum wages . . .
.
|
|
The story below may be true; the names have been changed to protect the innocent.
|
|
The Shoemaker and the King
Once upon a time, there was a place called Happyland. Happyland was run by a benevolent King who cared very much for his people. The people of Happyland lived in 24 boroughs which were named Borough 1 through Borough 24 and were governed by 24 Dukes.
In Borough 1 there lived a Mr. Shoemaker along with his wife and children. Mr. Shoemaker made shoes. He worked from 8 am until 5 pm every day from Monday to Friday, just as his father and grandfather before him, and weekends, he spent with his family.
Meanwhile, Borough 24, which was much larger than Borough 1-- was having problems. The Duke of Borough 24 went to the King and said:
"Mr. King. You must help us. The people in my Borough have no shoes. Without shoes, they cannot go to work -- or school -- or to the malls. You must get us some shoes."
|
|
The King felt very sorry for the poor people of Boro
ugh 24 who had no shoes, and he asked the Duke, "What kind of shoes do you need, and how many, and what sizes."
"Don't worry, Mr. King. We just passed the Borough 24 Shoe Replacement Program which will tell us how to fit our people with shoes," replied Duke #24.
So the King
went to Mr. Shoemaker who lived in Borough 1
and said, "We must have shoes for the people of Borough 24. Henceforth, you will send me 10% of all the shoes you make each year."
The Shoemaker was happy to help the shoe-less people of Borough 24. So the Shoemaker began working until 8 pm at night, and opening his shop on Saturday mornings so he could make the extra shoes for the needy people in Borough 24, which he sent to the King.
When the King received the shoes he kept 10% of the shoes for executive expenses, and sent the rest to Duke 24 to distribute to the people.
When Duke 24 got the shoes, he kept 10% for managerial expenses, and gave the rest to his knights and squires to distribute to the people. The knights and squires each kept 5% of the shoes for distributive expenses and gave the rest of the shoes to those who were needy and shoe-less.
The people were very happy, at first. But the happiness didn't last. The shoes were mismatched; sizes came in "too big" and "too small." There weren't enough work shoes for workers, or children's shoes for the children, or slippers for the sleepy.
|
|
After a while, the people in Borough 24 wore out almost all of the shoes, trying to make do.
Once again, Duke 24 went again to the King and said, "Mr. King. You must help us. The people in Borough #24 have no shoes. We weren't give enough shoes last
time. You must get us more shoes."
Once again the King went to Mr. Shoemaker and said, "We must have more shoes for the people of Borough 24, who weren't given enough last year. Henceforth, you will send me 20% of all the shoes you make each year."
The Shoemaker told the King he was willing to help the shoeless people of Borough 24. But this time, the Shoemaker had extend his hours in the shop to 10 pm, and have his wife and his two sons come work in the shop to make enough shoes to provide for himself, his family, and Borough 24.
|
|
When the King received the shoes summoned the Duke, and (after taking his cut) said, "You should have plenty of shoes for your people now, Mr. Duke."
Duke 24 returned home and, after keeping his cut, he gave them to his knights and squires, who distributed them to the people after taking their cut.
The people were not as happy this time and, sure enough, the shoes were mismatched; sizes came in "too big" and "too small," and there weren't enough of the right kind of shoes. This time, the people
in Borough 24 wore out most of the shoes, trying to make do, but not trying quite as hard.
Back again, to the King went Duke 24 and said, "You must help us. The people in Borough 24 have no shoes. We weren't give enough shoes last time. You must get us more shoes."
The King was puzzled. He asked, "Mr. Duke, I think maybe your Shoe Replacement Program is not working. We have sent many, many shoes to you and still there are those without shoes."
|
|
|
"That is not so!" the D
uke responded quite loudly. "No, Mr. King. Our Shoe Replacement Program is working quite well. You just have not sent us enough shoes! We must have more!"
So the King, who could not blame the poor shoe-less people of Borough 24, went again to see Mr. Shoemaker.
But this time, the shop was closed and Mr. Shoemaker wasn't there. A sign on the door said, "Closed for good" and neither Mr. Shoemaker nor his family could be found anywhere in Happyland.
The King sadly told the Duke there would be no more shoes, and the Duke told his people there would be no more shoes for them.
And his people went back to being unhappy and shoe-less.
Although no one knows for sure where Mr. Shoemaker and his family went, it is rumored that they moved to a Borough in the land of Pennsylvirgin, where Mr. Shoemaker started over, established Shoemaker & Sons Shoe Emporium, and made a nice living, working from 8 am to 5 pm, and spending the weekends with his family.
|
|
Cl.
District News
|
|
For both Carroll and Howard Counties
Bond Initiatives Hearing
Saturday, March 9 -- 9:00 am
Monday, March 11 -- 9:00 am
Joint Hearing Room
Here is the process that will be followed for the Legislative Bond Initiative (LBI) Hearings.
- All cross-filed LBIs will be heard by the both the Senate Budget and Taxation and the House Appropriations Committees, jointly, on Saturday, March 1.
- Any non-cross-filed LBIs will be heard separately in the Senate and House
- Written testimony is discouraged
- Testimony must take no more than two minutes
- Delegate and Senate Sponsors will sit at the witness table for their bill
- The Project Representative will sit in the row of chairs placed directly behind the witness table.
- Sponsors will introduce the project and its representative
- Project representatives will stand and testify
- A wireless microphone will be provided
If you have any questions regarding the Legislative Bond Initiative Hearings, your best resource is
Cherie Warehime (410-841-3407). As always, please feel free to call my office (410-841-3556)
|
|
Cl.
Delegate Trent M. Kittleman Scholarship
|
College students
and
college-bound seniors
(and/or parents thereof)
If you live in Legislative District 9-A
(
western Howard County and southern Carroll County)
I Invite you to apply for one of my legislative scholarships.
|
|
District 9-A Residents:
Current high school seniors and full-time or part-time, degree-seeking undergraduate students, graduate students and students attending a private career school may apply.
.
For questions regardi
ng the a
pplication process, please call my Annapolis office and ask to speak with Chelsea Leigh Murphy at 410-841-3556.
Please be sure to have your completed application postmarked by April 5, 2019.
|
Delegate Trent Kittleman
District 9A, Western Howard County and Southern Carroll County (Sykesville)
Room 202, Lowe House Office Building
6 Bladen Street, Annapolis, MD 21401
Interim Office
3000 Kittleman Lane, West Friendship, MD 21794
Administrative Aide: Chelsea Leigh Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
