House and Senate conferees now in place

As we discussed yesterday, the state Senate and House of Delegates have each passed their own version of a budget plan. Now, it’s up to a conference committee to work out the differences. Actually, there are three conference committees, since three separate bills are needed to put next year’s budget into effect. 

Senate	House
Budget Bill (SB 150) Kasemeyer, Madaleno, DeGrange, Robey, Colburn Senate advisors: Jones-Rodwell, McFadden	Conway, Proctor, Bohanan, Gaines, Beitzel House advisors: James, Haynes, Guzzone
Reconciliation Act (SB 152) Kasemeyer, Madaleno, DeGrange, Robey, Colburn Senate advisors: Jones-Rodwell, McFadden	Conway, Hixson, Jones, Griffith, Hammen House advisors: Bohanan, G. Clagett, Gaines, Beitzel
Revenue Bill (SB 523) Kasemeyer, Robey, Madaleno, DeGrange, Jones-Rodwell Senate advisors: McFadden, Manno	Hixson, Frick, Barve, Rosenberg, Bohanan House advisors: Jones, Branch, Ross

“Advisors” participate in the conference committee’s discussions, but do not vote. A majority of members of the whole conference committee – Senate and House members – must approve a conference committee report for it to go back to the Senate and House for final approval.

Both versions include budget cuts, progressive revenue measures, and a shift of a portion of the cost of teachers’ retirement to local government budgets.

Significantly, the Senate has a larger revenue package, which would leave a smaller revenue shortfall in the 2013 and future sessions. The Senate package also leaves a larger fund balance at year end. In the event that Maryland’s finances are affected by an economic downturn or federal budget cuts, we are less likely to need mid-year budget cuts under the Senate proposal.

MBTPI recommends using the Senate’s tax rates, without the flat rate applying to taxpayers over $500,000. In addition, adopt the House plan to phase out personal exemption amounts for high-income filers. This proposal allows for a larger fund balance this year, reducing the likelihood of mid-year cuts, and it positions the state for a more manageable budget over the next two years.

The Senate scheduled the teacher retirement shift evenly over four years. The House version does it in just three years, and it’s “front-loaded:” passing ½ of the cost to counties in the first year. MBTPI supports the 4-year phase in of the teacher retirement shift. It will avoid an abrupt crisis for local government budgets and give them more time to adjust, and for local revenue sources to recover.

Both versions increase the tax on cigars to be more comparable with the tax on cigarettes. The House version includes a significant tax increase on chewing tobacco, whereas the Senate version increases chewing tobacco taxes only slightly. MBTPI supports a uniform 66% rate on cigars, chewing tobacco, and other non-cigarette tobacco products. (Retain the existing 15% rate only for premium cigars. They are not marketed to appeal to teens and young adults). This will substantially increase the cost of all tobacco products readily available to young people, effectively reducing tobacco use by youth. This proposal will retain a single rate for almost all non-cigarette tobacco products, and place all of them at a comparable tax rate with cigarettes. If the conferees do not support an increase in the rate on chewing tobacco to 66%, then we favor retaining the 70% rate on regular cigars in the House and Senate proposals.

Please call on legislators to tell the conference committee members to support these positions for a responsible budget that promotes education, health and Maryland’s sound future. You can also urge your representatives in the legislature to discuss these positions with conference committee members.

You can use this link to email a legislator.