Delegate Michael Hough

Leaders field gun control questions

Ted Dacey — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 16:15:25 +0000

By Cara R. Anthony News-Post Staff canthony@fredericknewspost.com | Posted: Friday, April 26, 2013 2:00 am

A standing-room-only crowd showed up armed with questions Thursday night as Republican delegates in Frederick County hosted a town hall meeting about state gun laws.

“I think everybody is confused, that’s why they are here … to get answers,” said Justin Shafer, of Frederick. “There were so many different versions of this bill and it got changed so many times.”

Hundreds of people packed the American Legion post on Taney Avenue, hoping to gain clarity on Maryland’s recently approved gun control bill.

The bill creates a handgun licensing system, limits magazine capacity to 10 rounds and bans assault rifles. It also includes provisions to keep firearms from the mentally ill.

Thursday’s meeting was organized by Kathy Afzali, Patrick Hogan, Michael Hough and Kelly Schulz. All four delegates thanked those in attendance for their support and asked them for their support to continue as they take the gun bill to court.

“We don’t think it is right for citizens to vote on a constitutional right,” said Afzali, R-District 4A. “Let’s take this to the Supreme Court.”

Afzali also told the crowd that she received 8,000 emails about the gun bill, and a third of the emails were from residents who were not registered to vote, she said.

Hogan, R-District 3A, defended the delegates during his address.

“I don’t want there to be the impression that we are turning a blind eye on gun violence,” Hogan said. “We were able to make a bad bill better.”

After remarks by Schulz praising Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins for his support in Annapolis, Delegate Michael Hough, R-District 3B, shared his sentiments with the crowd, calling the bill’s supporters “gun grabbers.”

“They don’t want you to have a gun,” Hough said.

He also said gun owners will be treated worse than immigrants who entered the U.S. illegally and criminals in some ways because of the new restrictions that will go into effect Oct. 1.

For example, in order to buy a handgun after Oct. 1 you must apply to the Maryland State Police for a handgun qualification license. Hough also made mention of added cost. The cost of initial licensing, fingerprinting, and a background check are estimated to be more than $100, he said.

On Thursday night Hough was accompanied by Shannon Alford, the Maryland state liaison for the National Rifle Association.

Alford gave a long list of tips and praised the fact that the addresses of gun owners would not be public record under the new bill. She also explained that guns already legally owned would be grandfathered into the bill, giving gun owners nothing to worry about.

Gun owners in the crowd then asked how they would prove their ownership if their gun is decades old or an heirloom.

“The best advice I can give to you is to go home and buy a copy of today’s newspaper and take a photo of yourself with that newspaper,” Alford said.

Another town hall meeting will be held from 10 a.m. to noon on Saturday at Urbana Regional Library, 9020 Amelung St. Panelists during that town hall meeting will include State Sens. Ron Young and Brian Frosh and State Delegate Galen Clagett, Vincent DeMarco, president of the Maryland Citizens’ Health Initiative.

The Party of Prison Reform

Ted Dacey — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:57:20 +0000

Conservatives lead the way.

Eli Lehrer

March 18, 2013, Vol. 18, No. 26

Michael Hough—a second-term Republican state legislator from Frederick County, Md.—is about as conservative as blue-state legislators come. He played a prominent role in opposing the state’s new gay marriage law, holds an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, and received a 100 percent score from the state’s business lobby.

The major focus of his legislative agenda, however, crushes any stereotypes that might come to mind, given his résumé. Hough wants to reform America’s prisons and help the more than 500,000 people who come home from correctional facilities every year.

In the past few years, he’s successfully pushed programs that offer well-behaved offenders the chance to significantly shorten their time under state supervision and that replace potentially long sentences with “swift and certain” stays in prison for failed drug tests and other slip ups. This year, he’s working to pass mental health reforms and to create a “certificate of rehabilitation” program that allows ex-offenders to present formal evidence that they’ve mended their ways.

“As a fiscal conservative, it just made sense to me. We spend a lot on prisons,” he says. “On a human level, I know that people sometimes just get trapped in addiction.”

Hough isn’t alone. Around the country, dozens of political leaders with rock-solid conservative credentials have begun to take a new line on crime and, particularly, the issue of reintegrating ex-offenders into society. This loose movement represents a sea change in conservative thinking and, arguably, the largest social reform effort to emerge from the right in several decades.

The efforts have affected much of the country. Since 2007, conservatives have led the charge for major criminal justice reforms in Texas, Missouri, Florida, Kansas, South Carolina, Louisiana, South Dakota, and Georgia, among other states. Many conservatives have also supported efforts led by liberals in states like Michigan (under former governor Jennifer Granholm). “It’s at the point where we have critical mass. It’s a movement,” says Pat Nolan of Prison Fellowship Ministries. “It’s a conservative movement that focuses on being skeptical of bureaucracy and getting the most value out of the tax dollars we collect.”

While budgetary concerns have been the impetus for many of these efforts, relatively flush states like South Dakota—where Republican governor Dennis Daugaard signed sweeping legislation earlier this month—have embarked on reforms just as significant as fiscal basket-case California.

Judeo-Christian commandments to care for prisoners have no doubt been a significant part of the reform movement, as evidenced by the prominent role that Prison Fellowship Ministries has played in nearly all the efforts. The organization was founded by the late Charles Colson and counts a bevy of distinguished conservative pols (including Nolan, a former Republican leader in the California legislature) among its staff and supporters. But just as much passion has emanated from libertarians and “Main Street” conservatives worried about big, wasteful, and inefficient government, many of whom have joined the Right on Crime coalition spearheaded by the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF, which also counts many religiously motivated supporters).

In many ways, the changing attitudes toward offenders reflect conservative values. Hough, Nolan, and others like them note that drug treatment can hold offenders responsible; that making ex-offenders eligible for professional licenses represents a triumph of deregulation; and that keeping parents out of jail strengthens families.

“Everything we did was rooted in true conservative values of [being] pro-family, changing offender behavior, and saving money,” says Jim Seward, who served as Daugaard’s point man on the reforms in South Dakota.

The results, in both fiscal and human terms, are impressive. After climbing more or less steadily for the better part of four decades, per-capita incarceration rates began to level off after the first major reforms were implemented in the mid-2000s. Since peaking in 2008, the prison and jail population has been declining. Importantly, the decline has done nothing to reverse the falling crime rates that we’ve seen since the mid-1990s. In fact, states that have reduced their prison populations have seen crime decline at the same or greater rates than states that haven’t. Indeed, as measured by overall crime statistics, the United States is safer today than at any time since the 1960s and also safer than any other sizable developed Western country. (Homicide rates remain higher than in other rich nations.) Reports of victimization collected in telephone polls by the Bureau of Justice Statistics show an even deeper drop in crime.

But while the new approaches—fewer prisons, more drug treatment, more alternative sentences, a focus on community monitoring, reducing the number of offenses punishable by law, and a generally more lenient attitude towards people who have served their time—may well be consistent with conservative values and principles, they are, nonetheless, a break from orthodoxy.

Much of the best research offered in support of these approaches comes from liberal organizations like the Pew Center on the States and the Urban Institute, and they stand in stark contrast to the heavily punitive tough-on-crime stances taken by Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and even Joe Biden (the author of major crime-related legislation supported by both Reagan and Clinton).

So why have conservative attitudes changed?

First, and perhaps most important, the politics have changed. After serving as a major issue in every presidential election from 1960 to 1992, crime has more or less vanished from public debate. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney so much as mentioned it in his party convention address, or in any of the debates. In most of the country, politicians’ attitudes toward crime and criminals sway few votes. With elected leaders no longer fearful of the ballot box consequences of taking a superficially “soft” stance on crime (the actual policies are anything but soft), the voices of those who seek criminal justice reform have been strengthened.

Technology also plays a role. It is much easier today to treat and monitor potentially dangerous people outside of correctional institutions than it was in the past. In particular, GPS tracking devices allow police, parole, and probation officers to monitor offenders closely without actually locking them up. While relapse and recidivism rates remain high, new pharmaceuticals and other treatments have improved our ability to help those with mental illness and substance abuse problems. Restrictions have also been loosened to allow faith-based groups greater freedom to operate inside correctional facilities, giving many offenders new and effective pathways toward personal reform.

The justice system has also changed. In particular, new specialty courts—most prominently “drug courts”—have encouraged judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and social workers to work together to help offenders mend their ways rather than simply locking them up. The approach, pioneered in the late 1980s, has spread to almost all sizable jurisdictions in the United States and has shown some promise to deal with a variety of thorny issues including mental health and domestic abuse.

Other trends that are more difficult to measure also play a role. Recent years have seen tremendous growth in the number of African Americans employed as law enforcement officers and police chiefs. This has coincided both with a significant drop in crime rates among African Americans and with a general easing of “oppositional” tensions that led police forces to be viewed (sometimes correctly) as racist organizations in some black communities.

Just as important, however, conservatives have simply decided to change with the times.

“We don’t say conservatives were wrong in the 1980s and 1990s when they said ‘We need more prisons,’ ” explains Marc Levin, who heads the Right on Crime coalition for TPPF. “But as we expanded incarceration, we’ve swept in a lot of low-risk offenders and spent a lot of money.”

Nor is the new thinking a total reversal. Conservatives may work to end the criminalization of matters that should be left to regulators and the civil courts, like laws against taking oysters from unapproved beds or missing deadlines to file environmental paperwork. But longtime left-wing causes like decriminalizing possession of hard drugs and legalizing prostitution have gained adherents only among hardcore libertarians. Although they’re generally popular when conservative prison reformers talk amongst themselves, there have likewise been few public efforts to ease superficially “tough” policies that deny early release to the seriously ill and make it almost impossible for convicts to qualify for college financial aid. Even marijuana legalization efforts, which have some support among conservatives, have been disconnected from the broader movement toward prison reform. And notably, while U.S. incarceration rates are dropping, they remain the highest in the developed world.

Still, the changes in prison policy—and particularly the new emphasis on prisoner reentry—represent a significant evolution of the conservative movement. Times have changed, crime has changed, and conservatism has changed, too.

Eli Lehrer is president of R Street.

Hough, Afzali fight to water down gun legislation

Ted Dacey — Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:30:57 +0000

Originally published April 03, 2013
By Bethany Rodgers

ANNAPOLIS — State delegates Tuesday quashed attempts to dilute a sweeping gun control bill, including efforts by Frederick County legislators to eliminate handgun license requirements and prevent the AR-15 from becoming banned.

The suggested changes target two of the most hotly contested portions of the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, a bill that supporters say will combat gun violence across the state. Delegate Michael Hough asserted that the legislation will create a “de facto ban on buying a handgun” because the state doesn’t have the resources to process and issue new licenses. Delegate Kathy Afzali urged her colleagues not to ban the AR-15, a lightweight rifle that she said is ideal for petite women who want to protect themselves.

Their amendments joined a long line of failed proposals Tuesday night in the House of Delegates. By about 9 p.m., after several hours of ardent speeches on Second Amendment rights and public safety, the delegates were still debating changes. The meat of the legislation — the portions that have caused the most dismay to gun- rights advocates — was left intact.

Under the bill, prospective handgun buyers would have to complete a firearm safety course and be fingerprinted. But a shortage of shooting ranges and fingerprinting facilities in the state could result in huge backlogs, said Hough, R-District 3B, as he tried to persuade lawmakers to get rid of the licensing provision.

Delegate Kathleen Dumais said state officials are already preparing to expand their capabilities, and Gov. Martin O’Malley has allocated more than $4.6 million in the state’s supplemental budget to carry out the law.

“The state police are ready to implement this,” said Dumais, D-Montgomery, who defended the bill on the House floor.

Moreover, many groups, such as police officers and people who have been honorably discharged from the military, are exempt from the licensing mandate, she said.

Delegates voted 83 to 51 to reject Hough’s suggested change.

Afzali’s attempt to exempt the AR-15 from an assault weapons ban failed by a 82-to-49 vote. The rifle attracted widespread notoriety after reports that it had been used by the gunman in the Aurora, Colo., theater shooting.

Although the firearm has an intimidating appearance, it is no more deadly than a handgun, said Afzali, R-District 4A.

“It looks ugly,” she said. “When a perpetrator comes into my house … I want my gun to look scary.”

She later said she doesn’t own an AR-15 rifle, but will soon.

Bill proponents didn’t speak against Afzali’s amendment, but had previously said the bill’s list of restricted firearms has been modeled after the federal assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

Hough also proffered an amendment that would strip the fingerprinting provision from the gun legislation, but it also failed after debate.

In addition to setting up a licensing system for handgun sales and banning a list of assault weapons, the bill would also place new gun ownership restrictions on people who have received certain types of mental health treatment.

The bill came to the House floor Tuesday after winning approval in a joint meeting of the Judiciary and Jealth and Government Operations committees.

After hours of debate, the committees voted 27 to 18 to advance the bill, with both Hough and Delegate Donald Elliott, R-District 4B, siding with the minority.

The Senate in late February passed a different version of the bill, but the two chambers must come to an agreement by next week if the proposal is to succeed this session.

Protecting children from abuse, cover-ups

Ted Dacey — Tue, 02 Apr 2013 18:23:00 +0000

Originally published April 02, 2013

Attempts to cover up misconduct or crimes can be as damaging, even more so, than the actions they attempt to hide. Child abuse is a prime example, because a successful cover-up may enable a serial offender — such as retired Pennsylvania State University football coach Jerry Sandusky — to strike again and again.

Recognizing and successfully dealing with child abuse can be a tricky matter. One complicating factor is that people in authority may try to squelch reporting of abuse by those designated as “mandatory reporters” — teachers, nurses, doctors, police officers.

For instance, the manager of a day care center could browbeat a teacher into not reporting suspected or known child abuse by another teacher or parent. Sadly, Maryland may be facilitating this kind of behavior, because under current state law it is not a crime for a mandatory reporter to fail to notify authorities.

Delegate Michael Hough, R-District 3B, has introduced legislation in the House of Delegates that would correct this obvious loophole in the law. Specifically, his bill would make it a misdemeanor for someone to deliberately interfere with mandatory reporting of alleged child abuse or neglect. While it is classified only as a misdemeanor, its stiff penalties — up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine — are certainly enough to give anyone considering it pause.

Hough’s bill would also make culpable anyone who neglects to act on allegations. This is an important part of the legislation, as last year’s scandal at Penn State clearly reveals. It’s critical to hold responsible any officials who fail to act when allegations of abuse are reported to them.

Both these provisions provide support for front-line mandatory reporters, because it puts more onus on superiors, who would be liable if they attempted to quash or ignore the information provided to them.

Hough and Sen. Christopher Shank, a Washington County Republican, who laid the original groundwork for this bill in the Senate, are also trying to create legislation that would require mandatory responders be trained in recognizing child abuse. This is an exacting and often delicate task, and solid training in all aspects of recognizing the myriad and sometimes subtle clues of child abuse/neglect, including sexual abuse, would be very helpful.

This legislation is past due. According to a 2012 legislative analysis, Maryland is one of only three states in the union without specific penalties for knowingly failing to report child abuse.

The Hough/Shank bill would help plug that obvious hole, and to that end, the sooner it becomes part of Maryland law, the better.

Hough bill would criminalize abuse cover-ups

Ted Dacey — Sat, 30 Mar 2013 21:19:04 +0000

Originally published March 30, 2013
By Bethany Rodgers

ANNAPOLIS — In the wake of the scandal at Pennsylvania State University, a Frederick County lawmaker wants to intensify Maryland’s laws against child abuse cover-ups.Delegate Michael Hough’s bill would make it a crime to intentionally block mandatory reporting of child abuse or neglect allegations. With the legislation, someone who interferes with flagging abuse would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could get up to five years’ imprisonment or a $10,000 fine.

“Penn State is just a perfect example,” said Hough, R-District 3B. “In that case, they allowed somebody who was a sexual predator for years and years to operate with immunity on their college (campus). If we ever have a situation like that in Maryland, we want to make sure that we can punish those people.”

State law already requires certain people known as “mandatory reporters” — including nurses, doctors, teachers and police officers — to notify authorities of suspected abuse, but failure to do so is not a crime. Licensing boards for some of these professions can pass down sanctions for staying silent, according to legislative analysts.

Hough’s bill would target people in positions of authority who intentionally pressure mandatory reporters to keep a lid on abuse allegations. He said he thinks the bill strikes a good balance by preventing sexual abuse from going undetected without putting teachers and health care workers in constant fear of prosecution.

The legislation has earned praise from a number of child advocacy groups, and no one submitted testimony against the bill when it came before the House Judiciary Committee.

Lisae Jordan, counsel for the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault and Maryland Children’s Alliance, said the legislation protects people who want to do the right thing by pointing out suspected abuse. Cases in which school officials have concealed wrongdoing demonstrate the need for the provision, she said.

“This provides support for mandatory reporters,” she said.

The proposal passed unanimously in the House and is now in the Senate, where it has won approval from the Judicial Proceedings Committee. The Senate has already passed the same bill sponsored by Sen. Christopher Shank, who Hough said got the ball rolling on the issue.

Melissa Rock, child welfare director of Advocates for Children and Youth, also supports the change, but believes it has a limited scope. The greater need is for more rigorous training of mandatory reporters.

“I don’t think this bill will do harm, but it misses the mark a bit,” she said.

Hough and Shank, R-Washington, also introduced legislation that would have required mandatory reporters to complete training in recognizing child abuse. The bill has not moved out of committee in either the House or Senate.

All 50 states and Washington, D.C., have laws requiring certain people to flag suspected child maltreatment, and in most places, breaking these rules is a misdemeanor, according to a legislative analysis on a 2012 bill.

Only Maryland, Wyoming and North Carolina do not have any penalties for knowingly failing to report child abuse, the analysis stated.

Lawmakers Consider Giving Driver’s Licenses to Illegal Immigrants

Ted Dacey — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 16:46:38 +0000

By: Dawn White

Updated: March 27, 2013

ANNAPOLIS, MD - Should illegal immigrants be able to get Maryland driver’s licenses? That’s what the Maryland General assembly is considering.

“What part of illegal don’t they understand? It’s illegal. They’re not here lawfully. They have an unlawful presence, so why should we give them driver’s licenses,” says Del. Wendell Beitzel, (R) – Garrett and Allegany Counties.

This is something lawmakers in the Maryland House of Delegates are considering.

“Basically, what we’re saying to the rest of the world is come to Maryland. You don’t have to be legal. We’re going to give you a lot of benefits, and we’re not going to require that much of you. We’re not going to enforce out laws that are existing federal laws,” says Del. Neil Parrott, (R) -Washington County.

Most western Maryland delegates don’t like the idea, including Delegate Michael Hough, who says he has many issues with the bill.

“There’s basically no criminal background checks for people we’re going to give these driver’s licenses to, so while the state senate passed a bill to fingerprint all law-abiding gun owners, we’re saying to people who are illegal immigrants that we’re not going to check if you come to this country and were deported before for human trafficking, for drive-by shootings, for DUI,” says Hough, (R) – Frederick and Washington Counties.

The Maryland Senate approved the bill with a 29-18 vote last Friday.

Senator Ron Young was the only western Maryland senator to vote for the bill. He believes giving illegal immigrants driver’s licenses is important for public safety.

“I listened to the department of transportation and others who realized that a lot of those people are on the road and untrained without licenses, and they feel that they would have better control if they had a license,” says Young, (D), Frederick & Washington Counties.

Those licenses would show the cardholders aren’t U.S. citizens.

“Many of them are driving anyhow, and at least with the license, they can be traced,” Young says. “They have to pass the driving exam. They have to get proper insurance.”

The Maryland House of Delegates could begin debating the bill as early as the end of this week.

“We don’t require any level of English proficiency before we give them these licenses to make sure they can read signs and can communicate with someone during an accident,” says Hough.

The majority of the western Maryland’s 14 delegates say they’ll vote “no” on the bill. The only one who’s considering it is Frederick County Delegate Galen Clagett (D). His office says he’s still undecided about the idea.

GOP lawmakers fight to keep death penalty for mass murder

pmontaner — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:30:05 +0000

Originally published March 14, 2013

ANNAPOLIS — Frederick County lawmakers labored in vain to reshape a state death penalty repeal bill Wednesday night, as they fought to permit execution in cases of mass murder or deny certain inmates access to libraries, televisions and visitors.

The proposals defended by delegates Patrick Hogan and Kathy Afzali were part of a mostly Republican barrage of amendments, which failed one after another during the floor fight about the legislation. The bill is now headed for a final vote in the House after passing a second reading Wednesday.

Hogan, R-District 3A, argued that inmates serving sentences of life without parole should not enjoy the privileges of television, Internet, educational services, libraries and visitors. Perpetrators of the state’s worst crimes should experience suffering, even if they no longer have to fear execution, Hogan said.

“I debated whether to include the last restriction on visitation in this amendment and then I thought about the families of victims. They no longer have the opportunity to visit their lost loved ones; they can only visit a grave,” Hogan said.

Delegate Samuel Rosenberg, D-Baltimore city, said lawmakers should oppose Hogan’s amendment because current law already provides appropriate restrictions on inmates. The House rejected Hogan’s proposal 50-86.

Afzali, R-District 4A, rose in support of Delegate Patrick McDonough’s amendment to allow executions in cases of mass murder. She said being a mother influenced her thinking about horrible crimes, as she watched other parents lose their children to murderous rampages. People capable of such actions should face the death penalty, she said.

“There are some people in this world that are so evil that they would take a child from their mother,” she said.

The amendment offered by McDonough, R-Baltimore, failed by a vote of 78 to 57.

Delegate Galen Clagett was the only Frederick County legislator to oppose the changes brought to the floor Wednesday evening. Before the debate, he said he would rebuff all attempts to provide exceptions to a repeal of capital punishment.

“The question is: How do you feel about killing another human being? I’m not opposed to punishment, but I think we go one step beyond that when we choose to kill somebody,” said Clagett, D-District 3A.

The repeal bill ended up change-free at about 8:45 p.m. after lawmakers batted down 18 amendments during more than two hours of floor debate.

Many of the amendments mirrored those that have surfaced earlier in the death penalty debate. When the Maryland Judiciary Committee took up the bill, Delegate Michael Hough, R-District 3B, tried to change it so that the death penalty would be on the table when someone serving life without the possibility of parole commits another first-degree murder. Allowing executions in these cases can deter inmates from killing other inmates or correctional guards, Hough said.

However, his amendment didn’t succeed in committee.

Sen. David Brinkley, R-District 4, proposed several changes to the bill when it came before his chamber. He suggested allowing the death penalty for serial killers, pointing to the D.C. sniper attacks as an example of a case in which it should be an option.

“There are truly monsters among us, and as abhorrent as the whole concept of having a death penalty, what these individuals have done is truly abhorrent,” Brinkley said Wednesday.

However, senators voted down Brinkley’s suggested change.

Abolishing the death penalty has long been a priority for Gov. Martin O’Malley, but past repeal efforts have floundered in the Legislature. This session, O’Malley’s bill has made it over historical hurdles, narrowly winning approval in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in February. The Senate passed the measure March 6 by a vote of 27 to 20.

O’Malley’s Gas Tax Proposal

pmontaner — Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:28:30 +0000

O’Malley’s Maryland gas tax proposal unpopular with Washington County legislators

March 24, 2013|By KAUSTUV BASU | kaustuv.basu@herald-mail.com

A proposal backed by Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley that would raise the state gas tax in July by 3.8 cents per gallon remains unpopular with many Washington County legislators.

Under the proposal, the gas tax would increase to 27.3 cents per gallon, the first increase in the tax since 1992. The current gas tax in Maryland is 23.5 cents per gallon.

Under the measure, which cleared the House of Delegates on Friday by a vote of 76-63 and now heads to the Senate, motorists also would be subject to an additional estimated half a penny tax increase per gallon on July 1, 2014, according to the Associated Press.

The tax would increase again on Jan. 1, 2015, by an estimated 3.7 more cents and in July of that year by another 4.1 cents for a total state gas tax increase of 12.1 cents, according to the Associated Press.

There is potential for another increase of 8.1 cents in 2016, but that only will happen if federal Internet sales tax legislation does not pass.

According to the Maryland Department of Transportation, the measure is expected to bring in $4.4 billion for transportation projects from fiscal year 2014 to 2019.

The bill now be taken up by the Senate.

Delegates speak out

Del. Andrew A. Serafini, chairman of the Washington County delegation to the Maryland General Assembly who has spoken out against the measure, contends that not only would the price of gas increase, but so would the prices of other goods and services.

The cost of gas is going to be the same for someone who makes $20,000 per year and someone who makes $200,000 per year, said Serafini, R-Washington.

“This is a regressive tax,” Serafini said last week. “As a percentage of their disposable income, it’s going to really create problems for those that are (the) working poor. People that are trying to better themselves, that are trying to come out of difficulty, that are struggling to make their bills now.”

“Something needs to be done, but before mass transit is done, it needs to be allocated to roads and bridges that, like it or not, is the system that most of us use most frequently,” he said.

According to figures Serafini cited from the U.S Census Bureau, 83.4 percent of Marylanders drive alone or carpool for commuting, while mass transit is used by 8.80 percent of commuters.

Del. John P. Donoghue, D-Washington, who was the only delegate among the five Washington County delegation members in the House to vote for the bill Friday, said before the vote last week that the measure was going to pass, and the best he could do was try to ensure that Hagerstown gets its fair share of revenue.

“I don’t want to sit back and watch all the other jurisdictions in the state take our share of the money,” he said. “Nobody likes to pay for anything, but none of these projects are free … we have to do it … you just can’t build a road and then let it sit there for the next 20 years.”

The bill was called a “21st century infrastructure investment plan” in a statement Friday by O’Malley.

“The investment plan the House passed today is balanced, fiscally responsible and will support 44,000 jobs over the next five years,” O’Malley said in the statement.

Expressing skepticism

But Del. Michael J. Hough, R-Frederick/Washington, expressed skepticism about how much of the additional money raised through the measure would be used on roads.

“I know they want more money for the Purple Line (between Prince George’s and Montgomery counties) and the Red Line (in Baltimore),” he said.

“This (the gas tax bill) is going to break the back of taxpayers …” he said.

Del. LeRoy E. Myers Jr., R-Washington/Allegany, said many of his constituents drive between 60 and 100 miles one way for their jobs.

In areas such as Allegany County, Myers said, residents drive longer distances because they live in a rural area of the state.

“I think we need to do all we can to take care of our roads and bridges and so forth …” Myers said, but he reiterated a concern of many Republican legislators from the area, saying he suspected that the majority of the new revenue raised would end up funding mass transit projects in the state.

Del. Neil C. Parrott, R-Washington, said he shared in the disappointment of some of his colleagues from the area.

“The effect on Washington County is going to be dramatic,” Parrott said. “This is going to affect us disproportionately because we drive longer distances.”

He said the overall effect of the bill would be to make Maryland a “business-unfriendly” state.

“More businesses are going to migrate to other states,” Parrott said.

Wanting something back

Sen. Ronald N. Young, D-Frederick/Washington, said last week that he remained unsure of whether he would vote for the measure.

“I know it’s probably going to pass, and I know we need the money,” he said. “I feel like I keep giving votes to help, but I want something back for my district occasionally.”

Young said he really wanted to have some money designated for roads and other money designated for mass transit projects, “but it’s not going to happen with this bill.”

“I know it has to be done, but they keep pushing it down the road,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Charter Equals Bad Laws and Higher Taxes

pmontaner — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 23:30:52 +0000

Originally published October 07, 2012, Frederick News Post

On Nov. 6, when you go to your polling place, you will face a large number of decisions on different candidates and statewide ballot questions. Here in FrederickCounty you will have to vote on whether to accept charter government or not. I will be voting against charter government, as I believe it will lead to higher taxes and more laws and regulations that restrict our freedoms.

Currently, Frederick County has a commissioner form of government, which means five individuals are elected at-large to make decisions on behalf of the county. There is a check and balance in the commissioner form of government because legislation passed by the county has to also be approved by your FrederickCounty state delegates and senators. If charter government is approved, this check and balance will be eliminated.

Over the years, your Frederick County state delegates and senators in Annapolis have prevented a number of bad laws from taking effect after being passed by the commissioners. For example, the previous board under Commissioners President Jan Gardner requested legislation to create a new tax on the resale of homes — fortunately, the state delegation defeated this legislation. The previous board also requested legislation to create trash franchise districts, which would have put small trash haulers out of business. The state delegation correctly defeated this anti-small-business legislation. These are just two examples of many of when the check and balance between the state and county was used effectively to prevent the passage of bad legislation in FrederickCounty.

Recently, Virginia’s speaker of the House stated in The Business Monthly magazine that one of the reasons that Maryland is more unfriendly to businesses is the use of home-rule government by counties, which leads to the passage of more unnecessary regulations. One doesn’t have to look far for examples of bloated charter governments that are fleecing taxpayers. Both Prince George’s and Montgomery counties, which have charter governments, are facing multimillion-dollar deficits and have tax rates much higher than FrederickCounty’s.

Finally, the proposed charter government replaces our five at-large commissioners with five council members elected from districts and two elected at-large. I believe this will lead to gerrymandered districts, pork-barrel politics and less representation for taxpayers. Currently, every commissioner is held accountable by every single voter in the county. Under charter government, a council member will still vote on the entire county budget, but only be held accountable by voters in one region of the county. Council members will be incentivized to bring pork and tax dollars back to their particular district at the expense of the entire county. One only has to look down the road to Congress to see this type of earmark politics in action. Speaking of Congress, whenever you have districts you have the opportunity for gerrymandered districts. I believe the odds of political gerrymandering are high because the charter calls for members of the local Democratic and Republican central committees to appoint members to redraw district lines every 10 years.

Frederick County has been served well by our current commissioner form of government, and charter government will lead to less representation for Frederick County citizens and to the passage of more bad laws and higher taxes. Our current form of commissioner government creates a good system of checks and balances, and division of powers that should not be so hastily disregarded.

Delegate Hough Debate on News Channel 8

pmontaner — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 22:59:16 +0000

Watch my debate on News Channel on Question 5 and Charter Government. We debate you decide: http://www.wjla.com/blogs/news-talk/2012/10/redistricting-frederick-charter-amendment-dc-ethics-17014.html