Transportation in a Crunch

By Marc Korman.

A recent Gazette comic, reproduced below, sums up the recent action by the General Assembly when it comes to transportation. A big loser in this year’s session, and a potential loser in future years, is the state’s transportation funding.


Coverage of the General Assembly’s repeal of the 6% computer services sales tax mostly ignored the negative effect on transportation and instead focused on the new millionaire’s surcharge, really just a new tax bracket, that taxes earnings over $1 million at 6.25%. Far less attention was paid to the $50 million cut from the state’s Transportation Trust Fund for each of the next five years. Just a few months ago, the General Assembly and the Governor received much earned praise for adding $420 million in new annual revenue for transportation.

The opponents of the computer services tax repeal proposed even deeper cuts to transportation, with Senator Madaleno proposing a $150 million annual cut to the Transportation Trust Fund. In a posting to Free State Politics and republished here at MPW, Senator Madaleno justified his proposal by noting that it would still leave in place a $300 million increase from prior to the Special Session. Senator Madaleno also stated that the projects slated to be funded were not good uses of the state’s money. Given the state’s transportation needs, I find the argument a bit curious because the idea that the local transportation projects have no validity because they will only improve “traffic flow in the immediate vicinity of these intersections” begs the question of why they are being funded at all. If Senator Madaleno’s claims are true, and these projects are of such low priority and value, then perhaps our legislators need to convince the Department of Transportation to pick better projects instead of deciding to cut funds.

But the real point for all of those proposing transportation funding cuts of any size is that the needs are real and we need more funds, not less. Even if individual legislators do not support all of the projects on the list of needs, surely each individual Senator supports a majority of these and numerous others. Some of the needs are:

1. The Inter County Connector-$2.4 billion
2. The Purple Line-$105 million to $1.685 billion (depending on the method selected)
3. Corridor Cities Transitway-$850 million estimate
4. BRAC Enhancements in Bethesda-$70 million estimate
5. Georgia Avenue and Forest Glen Road Crossing - Cost unknown, but I put it in to avoid the wrath of MPW’s writers.

Instead of searching for ways to meet these needs, everyone is proposing cuts. If we are not going to raise the gas tax, the least we can do is stop raiding the Transportation Trust Fund. As I said, it was only a few months ago that we were praising the $420 million increase. It was just a year before that we were criticizing Bob Ehrlich for raiding the Transportation Trust Fund. In 2010, I do not want the Democrats to be accused of the same transportation policy failures.

A Note of Concurrence from Adam Pagnucco

Marc Korman's argument is even more powerful than he originally stated. The fact is that Maryland's Transportation Trust Fund (TTF) is already under assault.

First, the revenues devoted to the fund are endangered by the poor economy. The major sources for the TTF are gas taxes, motor vehicle titling taxes and fees (like registrations and licenses), operating revenues (like tolls) and a portion of corporate income tax receipts. All of these revenues will probably record shortfalls in the coming year.

Second, construction material prices are soaring. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, national wholesale prices have skyrocketed by 31% for ready-mixed concrete, 73% for gasoline and 78% for asphalt between 2004 and 2007. The situation is exacerbated by an ever-weakening U.S. dollar and rising commodity demand from India, China and other developing countries. These price increases threaten the financial solvency of some construction contractors and will stretch already scarce dollars at MDOT.

Of the $400+ million transportation increase approved by the General Assembly’s special session, $150 million was planned for new projects such as the ones listed above by Marc. The loss of $50 million from the computer tax repeal, the slowdown of TTF revenue sources and rising commodity prices will greatly reduce the amount of money left for new projects. As a matter of fact, if the state protects tens of millions of dollars in planning money for mass transit projects (like Baltimore’s Red Line and MoCo’s Purple Line and CCT), it is entirely possible that all other new work aside from the ICC will be deferred. That means that if the legislature attempts to raid the TTF – as Governor Ehrlich did repeatedly – there may be little left to plunder.

There is another possibility. The legislature could choose to defer system maintenance, which was supposed to receive an extra $250 million per year. The state prioritized system maintenance in the wake of the I-35 bridge collapse in Minnesota. If the state does cut maintenance and a major infrastructure failure occurs, the political consequences will be cataclysmic.

On Progressive Taxation and Property Taxes

David Lublin raised a number of good points on the property tax increase that deserve a response. Let’s take them in order.

(1) Lots of people have lived in homes for a long time that have appreciated substantially. Particularly for retirees on a fixed income, an increase of over $1000 (very easy to hit in SoMoCo) can be tough even if they live in a high-value home. Even if economic theory says they can borrow against their homes, people really hate that idea for understandable reasons. In any case, this market isn't the best one for realizing the profit.

David rightly points out that some people on fixed income could potentially receive a $1,000 property tax increase under County Executive Ike Leggett’s proposal. Under the formula in my previous post, a home receiving a county property tax increase of $1,000 would have a net assessment of $891,789 (and a much higher gross assessment and market value if the homestead credit applied). But the county provides residential property owners of at least 70 years in age a “senior property tax credit” of 25% of their combined state and county homestead credits. So a senior would be allowed to own an even more valuable home than a non-senior before being subject to a $1,000 property tax increase – perhaps even a home approaching $1 million in market value.

But no one will want to pay that amount of property tax increase. So suppose we relieve the tax increase on seniors with homes approaching a million dollars in market value. If there is to be a property tax increase at all, someone will have to pay more as a result – perhaps seniors occupying homes worth $300,000. But suppose we relieve them too from the extra taxes. Then the burden will fall on young families – a group with substantially less wealth than seniors and significantly less retirement security. Where should the burden fall?

Progressive taxation, a bedrock principle of progressive economic philosophy, holds that tax burdens should advance with income levels. Recent events suggest that principle may be out of fashion in Montgomery County.

(2) Focusing just on the millionaires tax is a mistake. Don't forget all those sales and income taxes raised during the special session. Also don't forget all those fees which were jacked up under Gov. Ehrlich. The voters won't. All things being equal, Americans like having more disposable income. If this is done to maintain services, it will need to be convincingly explained--not necessarily an easy sell though it can be done.

I am not about to forget the tax package from the special session. Because it relied primarily on sales taxes, it was regressive. To quote once again the analysis by the Maryland Budget and Policy Institute:

The poorest 1/5 of taxpayers will pay nearly 0.8% more of their income in taxes. The middle 1/5 will pay half that percentage: just over 0.4%. The wealthiest 1/5 will pay between 0.3% and 0.5% of their incomes in increased taxes. This overall regressive distribution occurs because the regressive nature of the sales tax increase overwhelms the progressive features of the income tax changes.

The County Executive’s property tax proposal is progressive and may, in conjunction with the new state millionaire tax, flatten the tax burden. These two progressive tax proposals, which together total $238 million, have attracted immense opposition from a substantial portion of Montgomery’s political leadership. But the $700+ million regressive state sales tax hike passed without a whimper. That is a chilling but instructive development in this county’s political environment.

In any case, I agree that any tax hike, no matter its character, must be explained to voters. The public employee unions are not in the best position to do this since most people will perceive their defense of public services as a defense of their memberships, which is of course their role. It is the responsibility of the politicians to explain why county services are worthy of a tax increase if that is what they believe. That is especially true of politicians who were eager to accept the support and aid of labor during the last election campaign. For the most part, that defense has yet to begin.

(3) The debate has been cast as an either/or debate with no middle ground. Either taxes go up a great deal or services are cut substantially. Like all money issues, this one can be negotiated to all sorts of points inbetween. Both sides know this but are posturing right now is my guess.

I suspect the County Council will have to settle somewhere in the middle. Such is the way of legislative bodies. But the decision to surpass the charter limit truly is an either/or decision. If the council rejects the County Executive’s tax proposal, they will have to cut the budget by a further $128 million.

There is another option. As Delegate Al Carr pointed out in a comment on an earlier post, the County Council is considering increasing taxes on electricity and natural gas. This is a far more regressive option than the County Executive’s property tax hike and it does not need a super-majority to pass. The shade of Annapolis may be descending on Rockville.

(4) The recession may just be starting with next year's budget looking even more grim. As at the state level, the chances of getting both budget cuts and tax increases over the course of several years are starting to look pretty good.

A recession is a distinct possibility as we recently reported. People on the lowest rung of the income ladder, not those earning one million dollars a year, are on the leading edge of the downturn. The residents at the bottom will be sure to bear the brunt of any spending cuts. They should not also bear the brunt of the tax increases. Under the County Executive’s property tax proposal, many working-class people are indeed spared further tax hikes after their setbacks in the last special session. They will not be spared the lash of a home fuel tax hike.

I completely agree with David's judgement that the tax and budgetary choices are going to get tougher at both the state and county levels, not easier, in coming years.

None of this has any bearing on some key questions other have raised: (1) does labor deserve the pay increases, (2) does MoCo need to pay them to maintain quality services, and (3) can MoCo afford the pay increases. The first is a morality, not a market, question. The second is largely market driven. The third is driven by the tax base, economic needs, and taxpayer willingness to pay. I haven't thought much about any of these questions so I won't weigh in just yet.

On point (1):

Speaking as someone who has been involved in several union organizing campaigns, the notion of what a worker “deserves” is a very explosive question. Many public employees are starting to believe that their leaders think they are paid too much. This argument has been stated, or at least hinted at, by more than one of the Democratic candidates in the District 4 County Council race. Economic arguments can be conducted rationally but the question of what a worker “deserves” is a question for the heart. Right now, hearts are pounding inside the public sector workforce.

On point (2):

In a recent survey of county employee compensation, we learned that Montgomery faces potential problems competing for labor in the region. Fair-to-middling (at best) pay levels, a lack of defined benefit pensions and high housing costs may deter top talent from coming here in the future. The existing workforce, originally recruited in times when the county’s housing stock was more affordable, is still known for its excellence. But the entry level talent will gradually erode unless the county keeps up with its neighbors.

On point (3):

In 2006, Montgomery County reported the 8th-highest median household income of all 3,077 counties in the United States. The County Executive’s proposal taxes the median assessed household an extra 38 cents per day. Readers can form their own opinions on whether we can afford that.

But there is a much larger argument here: where does the county’s economic competitiveness come from? Montgomery is perceived to be one of the higher-cost jurisdictions for residents and businesses in the region. So why are people willing to pay those costs? One reason is the excellent reputation of the schools and public services. As a former resident of the District of Columbia and a rural area in upstate New York, I have a meaningful standard of comparison for the county’s service quality.

But Montgomery’s true competitors are jurisdictions like Fairfax – counties that also have good schools and abundant resources. We are never going to compete with Virginia by matching them on tax rates. Instead, we will have to equal or surpass them in our quality of education, planning, parks, police and other public services. Those services comprise a valuable, productive asset that preserves our standard of living, maintains our property values and protects our economic edge. The money we spend on the public sector is an investment, not money thrown down a black hole. Any investment has to be evaluated not merely on its cost but also on the return it generates for its holders. Why are we hearing so much about the cost but so little about the return?

In Defense of Taxing Millionaires

The current battle over whether to replace the hated computer services tax with an income tax surcharge on millionaires has become a defining ideological struggle among Maryland state legislators, especially those from Montgomery County. Many MoCo Democrats, including a few really good ones, argue that millionaires pay enough. Today I take up the banner for the rest of us.

The best case for the other side has been presented by David Lublin, founder and owner of this blog. His central arguments are budgetary and geographic. David points out that millionaires pay a lot of taxes. He does not want them to move out because if they do it will hurt our capacity to fund programs we need. He also describes both the computer tax and the millionaire surcharge as targeting MoCo because both affect lots of people who live in the county. “You're replacing one tax which targets Montgomery County with another that does exactly the same,” he writes.

David’s argument is logical and pragmatic, and I respect it. But a millionaire surcharge is a worthy alternative to the computer tax for three reasons.

First, let’s examine how people who earn a million dollars in a year get their money. I will bet that the majority of them do not earn a million dollars every single year. Rather, many of them will earn in the mid-to-upper-six digits in most years but then obtain an occasional spike. That spike may be from a payout in a lucrative lawsuit settlement, a capital gain or an inheritance. Would people in this category really move out of the state because they had to pay a couple extra thousand dollars in a year when they got lucky?

As for the super-rich, those who do earn a million dollars in every single year, they already can park their compensation in tax-deferred vehicles like 1031 exchanges or establish part-year residency in no-income-tax states like Florida and Nevada.

The Washington Post reports that 6,150 Maryland residents reported at least one million dollars in income in 2005 and 2,535 lived in MoCo. How many of those residents earned a million dollars in every single year over the last five years and would therefore be really tempted to move? Possibly several hundred, but only the Comptroller’s office would know for sure. Are these several hundred people really worth the colossal amount of political capital that MoCo’s state legislators are expending on their behalf?

Second, anyone who believes that the economic well-being of our county is a linear function of the number of millionaires who live here does not understand the source of our prosperity. Montgomery County’s vitality comes from its excellent schools, the entrepreneurialism of its small businesses (including those in the tech sector), its highly-educated and diverse population, its attractive neighborhoods and, of course, federal spending. Millionaires live here for those reasons just like the rest of us do. If tax rates were the sole determinant of their residency, they would all have moved to Virginia long ago.

Third, Maryland’s working and middle classes have already paid their share. Just last fall the legislature’s special session passed a regressive tax package. Last October, I calculated that the Governor’s original $1.7 billion proposal derived 61% of its revenues from regressive sources like the sales tax hike. The package that was ultimately passed was worse. The Maryland Budget and Policy Institute analyzed the session’s product and found:

The poorest 1/5 of taxpayers will pay nearly 0.8% more of their income in taxes. The middle 1/5 will pay half that percentage: just over 0.4%. The wealthiest 1/5 will pay between 0.3% and 0.5% of their incomes in increased taxes. This overall regressive distribution occurs because the regressive nature of the sales tax increase overwhelms the progressive features of the income tax changes.

Now I am not opposing all regressive taxes. The cigarette tax, for example, saves lives. The gas tax encourages mass transit use and fuel efficiency. But when a billion-dollar-plus tax package is comprised primarily of regressive measures, that sends a message about the legislature’s priorities. And the principal reason for relying on regressive taxes like the sales tax was the desire by some legislators – including some from MoCo – to limit income tax increases for the rich. Now some of these legislators are talking about cutting transportation funding as an alternative to the surcharge.

Isn’t relieving traffic congestion also a high priority for this county? If the rest of MoCo’s residents sit in gridlock to protect the rich from paying more taxes, isn’t that an example of replacing one measure that targets Montgomery with another, as David says? MoCo Democrats rightly criticized Governor Ehrlich when he diverted transportation funding to avoid raising taxes. And we should not forget how Virginia has suffered for its inability to finance its transportation infrastructure.

Furthermore, let’s recall the unholy moment in which the computer tax was spawned. The creature was conjured from the abyss by the Maryland Senate for the sole purpose of not raising taxes on millionaires to the extent that the Governor originally recommended. Interestingly, no member of the Senate’s Budget and Taxation Committee will admit to fathering the wailing beast in whatever dark corner of the Senate chamber such acts are usually committed. If the Senate had adopted the Governor’s admittedly imperfect proposal, we would never have the computer tax or the current row over the millionaire surcharge.

I once blamed Senate President Mike Miller for the computer tax and the regressive special session tax package, but he proved me wrong. Back in January, I reported the following from our now-legendary blogger interview with him:

Regular readers will recall how I criticized the Senate President for the regressive character of the special session tax package. Leaping into the jaws of the lion, I asked him the following question:

“The tax package that was passed by the special session collected the majority of its revenues from raising the regressive sales tax. If you could have that one back and do it over, would you have taxed the rich a bit more to give the working people a break?”

Miller did not back down from the sales tax. He described it as “the most regressive but also the most acceptable” of the taxes, claiming that he received little protest on it. “But I wish I could have had more from the income tax.” Miller noted, accurately, that part of the Montgomery County delegation, backed by their County Executive, pushed back against the Governor’s rate increase for the top income tax brackets, thereby limiting the legislature’s ability to raise them. “You need 24 votes to pass something through the Senate and I didn’t have the votes to spare!”

And so Mike Miller is actually to the left of a good part of the MoCo statehouse delegation on this issue. That’s right readers, print those bumper stickers: MIKE MILLER: TOO LIBERAL FOR MOCO.

Is the Computer Tax Here to Stay? (Updated)

The Washington Post reports that Maryland’s Senate has not reached a consensus on how, or whether, to replace the much-despised computer sales tax. But Maryland Politics Watch readers have seen this coming.

Remember the now-legendary blogger interview of Senate President Mike Miller back in January? When we asked him about the computer tax, the Senate President answered, "The computer tax is not a good tax, but it’s $200 million and I’m going to fight to keep it... No one can agree on a replacement." And here’s our report on House Majority Leader Kumar Barve's comments:

"The House got rid of the computer sales tax but it came back. It’s bad public policy. It’s unwise to tax businesses that are mobile," Barve stated. "But unless we’re willing to find $200 million in extra revenues, it will be very difficult to get rid of." And why was the computer industry vulnerable? "In politics, when something unpleasant has to be done, it’s usually done to whoever squirms around the least!" Barve noted that Senator Rob Garagiola (D-15, MoCo) had a proposal to replace it with a gas tax, "but that is a non-starter." Added to Mike Miller’s comments, Barve’s opinion indicates that the computer tax is not going anywhere because there is no other way to raise the money.

Mr. Miller’s and Mr. Barve’s political predictions have been proven correct. When the Republicans proposed spending cuts and tapping "unallocated funds" to pay for a repeal, the Senate rejected it. When Senate Democrats proposed an income tax surcharge on the rich, Montgomery County officials opposed it. Time is running out: the current session has less than a month left and the computer tax is due to take effect this summer.

The tragedy is that it didn’t have to be this way. Governor O’Malley never proposed this tax. The House of Delegates did not propose it. And there were other ways to raise the money. An extra point hike in the corporate income tax could have raised at least $100 million and Maryland’s rate would still have been lower than Pennsylvania and D.C., equal to New Jersey and barely higher than West Virginia and Delaware. Combined reporting on corporate income taxes could have raised $25 million. Progressive Maryland believes it could have been worth $100 million. The legislature could have kept the Governor’s original higher income tax rates on individuals making $150,000, raising perhaps tens of millions more. And the legislature could have aggressively gone after tax-cheating employers but so far has not done so.

Instead, we are left with a looming, devastating tax on a knowledge-based industry critical to the state’s future. Everyone hates it. But no one has figured out how to get rid of it. Surely the Democrats in Annapolis can do better than this.

Update: The Sun reports that a surtax on millionaires is gaining ground. Democratic Senator Verna Jones's (D44-Baltimore City) proposal would raise $230 million by instituting a surcharge rate of 6% on incomes between $750,000 and $1 million and 6.5% on incomes above $1 million. But Montgomery County Executive Ike Leggett has written in opposition to the plan.

Update 2: The Governor has come out in favor of replacing the computer tax with the surcharge. However, Democratic Senator Robert Zirkin (D11-Baltimore County) has proposed to repeal the computer tax if the slots referendum passes. He also favors cutting transportation projects.

Senator Zirkin, I know my Montgomery County delegation is split on taxing the wealthy. But I would hope that all of them would stick together on opposing transportation cuts. All they hear is how horrible traffic congestion is from both their constituents and our County Council. Good luck in getting our eight State Senators to cut State Highway and transit projects in our county.

Former District 39 Delegate Slams Tax Hikes

Joan F. Stern of North Potomac, a Democrat who served in the House of Delegates from 1999 to 2007, attacked the state's recently-passed tax package in a letter to the Gazette.

In the letter, Stern rages against her former Democratic colleagues, thundering, "County and state officials need to rethink their philosophy and understand that most people are no longer willing to put up with elected officials who keep increasing their taxes, especially when services are being cut. I have seen the light. How about the rest of you?"

After complaining about "expensive new mandates in a declining economy," Stern concludes, "No wonder Maryland had a net loss of 35,000 people to other states. It is time for a reality check."

Stern was not included on District 39's incumbent slate in the 2006 election. Nor did she make the Montgomery County Education Association's Apple Ballot. As a result, newcomer and MCEA-backed Saqib Ali defeated her by 1,238 votes. Are Stern's complaints about taxes a prelude to an attempted comeback?

The Governor Pays the Price for Miller's Advice

According to the Baltimore Sun, Governor O’Malley now suffers a 35% approval rating, the lowest since the end of the Glendening administration. Why? Two words: tax hikes. And another two words: Mike Miller.

Reacting to the state’s $1.7 billion general fund deficit, the Governor proposed a tax hike and spending cut plan prior to last fall’s special session. While, as David Lublin points out, no one enjoys either tax hikes or spending cuts, some parts of the plan were more unpopular than others. The features enjoying the most voter support were tobacco tax hikes (69% in a 9/28/07 Washington Post poll), slots (68%), corporate income tax hikes (66%) and income tax increases on the rich (62%). The feature with the least support was the sales tax hike (29%). The Governor tried to soften the tax hikes with a property tax cut.

But Senate President Mike Miller had other ideas. The Senate junked combined reporting, a corporate tax reform that would have made it more difficult for corporations to reduce Maryland taxable income by assigning it to other states. The Senate reduced the top rates in the Governor’s income tax proposal, thereby making it less progressive. And the Senate eliminated the Governor’s property tax cut. So three of the Governor’s most popular reforms were reduced or taken off the table. While the final package was a compromise with the House that restored some of the top income tax rate increases, the contribution of the Senate ensured that the outcome was less progressive than it otherwise could have been.

The result? The hugely unpopular sales tax increase accounted for more than $700 million of the final $1.3 billion tax package, the primary reason cited by the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute in labeling it regressive. And Baltimore Sun poll respondents labeled the tax package “unfair” by a margin of 51-33%.

Now I was not a big fan of the Governor’s original proposal but in retrospect, it was far superior to the Senate's proposal. Unfortunately for the well-meaning but embattled Governor, the price of following Mr. Miller’s advice is the good will of the Maryland voter.

Adam Pagnucco on the Budget: Part III

Part Three: Are There Any Alternatives?

Some politicians would like to repeal the 1997 income tax cut. Others suggest higher taxes on alcohol or other “sin” products. The Republicans would like to avoid new taxes by dramatically cutting education spending. Senator Rich Madaleno reports that as many as 80 bills may be filed by legislators for the special session, many of them related to the budget problem. Here’s my idea.

Your correspondent is a researcher for the United Brotherhood of Carpenters. One of the issues we encounter on many construction job sites is worker misclassification as independent contractors. Under state and federal tax laws, workers are supposed to be classified as employees when they operate under an employer’s direction (such as under established hours of work), use tools and equipment owned by the employer and do not bear business risk. Employers are required to withhold income, Social Security and Medicare taxes and pay premiums for workers compensation and unemployment insurance for their employees. However, many employers misclassify workers as independent contractors and pay none of the above. Workers may (or may not) receive Form 1099 to report income as independent contractors, but these forms are often discarded. This problem is especially severe in construction but also afflicts trucking, janitorial services and other industries.

Employers have a huge incentive to misclassify. FICA payments (Social Security and Medicare) account for 7.65% of an employer’s payroll costs. In Maryland, state unemployment insurance premiums average 7.5% of payroll. Workers compensation premiums can range into the double digits depending on the occupation. All told, cheating contractors can shave 16% off their labor costs – not including workers compensation – when they misclassify. That is a huge advantage in an ultra-competitive industry like construction. Law-abiding employers face a grim choice between holding the line on compensation, cheating themselves or leaving the industry entirely.

State governments can lose massive amounts of unemployment insurance premiums and income taxes due to misclassification. A 2004 Harvard study found that Massachusetts was losing $12.6-35 million per year in unemployment insurance premiums and $91-152 million per year in income taxes. A 2006 University of Missouri-Kansas City study found that Illinois lost $53.7 million in unemployment insurance premiums and $149-248 million in income taxes in 2005. A 2007 Cornell University study found that New York was losing $176 million in unemployment insurance premiums alone per year.

Some states are finally cracking down to recover these lost revenues. Connecticut, New Jersey and Illinois all passed anti-misclassification laws in 2007. Connecticut’s law allows its Labor Department to issue stop-work orders for construction projects with misclassification. New Jersey’s law would send some cheating employers to prison. New York and Washington state both have task forces to assist enforcement efforts. And the Internal Revenue Service has formed partnerships with state authorities in California, Michigan, New Jersey and North Carolina to track down misclassifying employers.

How much money is Maryland losing due to misclassification? No one knows. Peter Franchot told the Mid-Atlantic Regional Council of Carpenters when he was a candidate for Comptroller last year, “Misclassification costs the State of Maryland millions, maybe billions of dollars.” If Harvard found that Massachusetts (a state with a similar population size as Maryland’s) was losing $104-187 million per year, it is conceivable that Maryland’s losses are in the same neighborhood. Why wouldn’t every politician in the state want to have a hard estimate of these losses, especially before voting on tax increases?

Even if Maryland could recover its losses due to misclassification, that would not raise close to the amount of money that a sales tax increase could. But a serious effort to crack down on cheating employers would show the public that their elected leaders understand that tax enforcement is at least as high a priority as tax hikes. And if the state ever did get the problem under control, perhaps the more regressive elements of the current deficit reduction plan could be scaled back over time.

Adam Pagnucco is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and has been employed in the labor movement since 1994. The views in this column are his alone and do not represent official statements from the union.

Adam Pagnucco on the Budget: Part II

Part Two: Is the Governor’s Plan Progressive or Regressive?

First, let’s finish looking at the remaining elements in the Governor’s proposal. Then we will be able to determine the plan’s relative reliance on progressive and regressive measures.

Corporate Income Tax

The Governor proposes to increase Maryland’s corporate income tax rate from 7% to 8%, raising $110 million in FY 2009. The new higher rate would still be lower than Pennsylvania (9.99%), the District (9.975%), New Jersey (9%), West Virginia (8.75%), and Delaware (8.7%), but higher than North Carolina (6.9%) and Virginia (6%). Given the facts that Maryland could easily raise its corporate income tax even more and still be close to most of its neighbors and that 66% of Post poll respondents approved of this hike, the state’s business community should be relieved that the increase is not larger.

Corporate Income Tax: Progressive, 7% of Package

Expansion of Sales Tax Base

Maryland’s sales tax does not apply to most services. According to the Federation of Tax Administrators, of 168 potential services to be taxed, Maryland taxes just 39. The District of Columbia taxes 70 and Virginia taxes 18. The Governor proposes to apply the sales tax to tanning salons, health club membership, massage services and real estate management, bringing in $74 million in FY 2009.

Because there are well over 100 types of services that would still be untaxed, there are vast opportunities for more revenue in this category. Jeffrey Birnbaum and Alan Murray’s brilliant book Showdown at Gucci Gulch (which should be required reading for all tax policy-makers) tells the story of how Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, Senator Bill Bradley and the Reagan Administration teamed up to lower marginal income tax rates by closing loopholes and exemptions in 1986. A similar approach to the sales tax might at least partially ameliorate a rate increase.

While real estate management might be passed on partly to renters, it is hard to say that the other services are used disproportionately by the poor. Overall, I assign this a neutral impact.

Expansion of Sales Tax: Neutral, 4% of Package

Property Tax and Sales Tax Relief

The Governor actually cuts two taxes in his proposal, losing revenues for the state. He proposes reducing the property tax rate by 3 cents per $100, costing $54 million in FY 2009 (and much more in later years). He also offers two sales tax-free weeks on clothes and two tax-free weekends on energy efficient appliances, costing $13 million per year.

The property tax decrease will disproportionately benefit people whose wealth is concentrated in their homes, many of whom are seniors or middle class. The tax-free periods will tend to benefit the poor and middle class. Since both measures cost the government money rather than raise it, I list them as offsets to the regressive features of the proposal.

Property Tax and Sales Tax Relief: Regressive Reduction of 4% of Package

Corporate Loopholes

The Governor would like to close two corporate loopholes. First, he would like to implement “combined reporting,” which would make it more difficult for corporations to reduce Maryland taxable income by assigning it to other states. Second, he would like to do away with commercial real estate owners’ use of shell companies to sell property without paying transfer taxes. Both measures are expected to raise a combined $36 million each year.

Corporate Loopholes: Progressive, 2% of Package

Slots

The Governor originally proposed a slots plan which he said would be loosely modeled on a bill passed by the House of Delegates in 2005, which would have authorized 9,500 machines. He estimated the plan would produce just $27 million of revenue in FY 2009 but would eventually bring in $550 million by FY 2012.

Opponents depict slots as regressive, alleging that poor people would gamble higher proportions of their income than the rich. Is it possible to have “progressive” gambling? Instead of relying on slots, the state could sell licenses for table games to luxury hotels requiring fifty dollar minimum bets. Wealthy gamblers could be seduced by endless champagne, sushi and Godiva chocolates. Some might even come in from Pennsylvania and Virginia which (so far) do not have table games. But such a proposal would fail because it would not generate as much revenue as the “one-armed bandits” and slots opponents tend to oppose all gambling, not just machines.

There is now a chance that the legislature will propose a slots referendum to be voted on next year rather than a slots bill. If that happens, there may be even more machines (perhaps 15,000) to compensate for the delay in the revenue stream. Sixty-eight percent of Post poll respondents supported slots, giving any referendum a fair chance of passage. If the referendum fails, state politicians may have to consider more taxes and/or cuts in 2009, something none of them wants to do so close to an election year. In any case, slots produce more money in out years than in the near term.

Slots: Regressive, 2% of Package (Rising to 24% of Package in FY 2012)

How Progressive is the Package?

Our calculations of the Governor’s deficit reduction proposal in FY 2009 are:

Amount in $ millions (Percentage)

Progressive Measures

Income Tax Restructuring: $162 (10%)
Corporate Income Tax Hike: 110 (7)
Closing Corporate Loopholes: 36 (2)

Total Progressive: $308 (18%)

Neutral Measures

Budget Cuts (non-education): $268 (16%)
Sales Tax Expansion: 74 (4)

Total Neutral: $342 (20%)

Regressive Measures

Sales Tax Hike: $730 (43%)
Tobacco Tax Hike: 170 (10)
Lower Education Spending Growth: 169 (10)
Slots: 27 (2)
Offsets for Property Tax,
Sales Tax Relief: -67 (-4)


Total Regressive: $1,029 (61%)

Total, All Measures: $1,679


The deficit reduction package is primarily regressive, principally because of its heavy reliance on the sales tax. The situation would be worse in FY 2012 as slots rise to 24% of the deficit reduction package, making it 70% regressive overall.

In Part Three, I propose an alternative revenue raiser that could be used to reduce the plan’s reliance on regressive solutions.

Adam Pagnucco is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and has been employed in the labor movement since 1994. The views in this column are his alone and do not represent official statements from the union.

Adam Pagnucco on the Budget: Part I

Foreword

I produced this series in response to Senator Richard Madaleno’s budget briefing for a group of bloggers, including myself, on 10/29/07. While the mainstream media has churned out many articles on the drama of the state budget battle, speculating about Governor Martin O’Malley’s political fate and the relationship between the Senate President and the Speaker of the House, they have often overlooked more substantive issues. Senator Madaleno deserves high praise for his efforts to educate the blogosphere about the largest budget crisis to face the state in more than a decade.

Time now for a bit of disclosure. I have been a researcher in the labor movement for my entire adult career and write from that perspective. I am also a resident of Madaleno’s district and have contributed to his campaign fund in the past. That said, my conclusions are my own and do not reflect the views of Senator Madaleno, my union or the rest of the labor movement.

Part One of this series begins to outline the Governor’s proposal for eliminating the state’s budget deficit. Part Two finishes detailing the Governor’s proposal and examines its reliance on progressive and regressive measures. Part Three proposes an alternative for relieving some of the plan’s more regressive elements.


Part One: The Governor’s Plan to Eliminate Maryland’s Deficit

Upon taking office, Governor O’Malley inherited a structural state budget deficit. Simply put, the state was on track to spend $1.10 for every $1 in tax revenue for two principal reasons: a 10% income tax cut in 1997 and billions of additional spending on education (commonly called the Thornton Plan) started in 2002. The Governor balanced his fiscal year (FY) 2008 budget primarily by relying on reserves, but now faces a $1.7 billion general fund deficit in 2009. Unlike the free-spending federal government, the state is required to balance its budget.

Over the last couple months, the Governor proposed a budget reduction and revenue package totaling $1.679 billion to fix the deficit in FY 2009. He would also increase spending on education, transportation and health insurance by $328 million while drawing on left-over money from FY 2008 of $316 million. The Governor has now called a Special Session of the General Assembly to fix the deficit and his plan will be used as a starting point by the legislators.

Mainstream media coverage has reported on the items in the Governor’s proposal and the accompanying political tumult, but has largely omitted a very important question: is the proposal fair? For those of us on the left, fairness in tax policy is often defined in terms of whether taxes are “progressive” or “regressive.” Progressive taxes fall disproportionately on the wealthy. Examples include rising income tax rates at higher income brackets and taxes on capital gains, dividends and inheritances. Regressive taxes fall disproportionately on the poor. Examples include sales taxes and lotteries.

Progressivity is a paramount question for many people who voted for the Governor. Most left-wing activists worked very hard to elect him because they viewed him as caring much more about working-class economic interests than his predecessor. How does his deficit reduction package deliver for the Left’s priorities?

I investigate this question by examining each item in the Governor’s proposal and characterizing it as progressive, regressive or neutral. At the end, I add up the revenue in each of the three categories to determine their relative composition. Let’s look at what the Governor is proposing.

Sales Tax

The Governor proposes to raise Maryland’s sales tax from 5% to 6%. The new rate would equal that of Pennsylvania and West Virginia and exceed that of the District (5.75%) and Virginia (5%). The sales tax increase is by far the largest single element in the Governor’s plan, accounting for 43% of his package in FY 2009.

Sales taxes tend to be regressive since wealthier people generally devote less of their income to consumption than do poorer people. Maryland residents overwhelmingly disapprove of any increase – it drew only 29% support in a Washington Post poll released on 10/24/07. But the sales tax has three big virtues: it is simple to change, raises revenues immediately, and generates huge amounts of money. Those factors make the sales tax a budget component that may be impossible for legislators to resist.

Sales Tax: Regressive, 43% of Package

Budget Cuts

The Governor has proposed $437 million of budget reductions in FY 2009 but has supplied few details. The Washington Post reported on 9/28/07 that the Governor intended to realize $169 million in savings in FY 2009 by lowering increases in the state’s education spending formula. (He would still increase education spending by $119 million.) Because the education spending formula would provide for smaller increases, the state’s savings would grow larger each year. The remaining cuts, comprising $268 million, are unspecified.

Since poor people depend more heavily on public schools than the rich, reduced increases in education spending would be regressive. Without more detail, it is impossible to determine the impact of the remaining reductions. For now, I classify them as neutral.

Education: Regressive, 10% of Package

Remaining Cuts: Neutral, 16% of Package

Tobacco Taxes

The Governor would hike tobacco taxes by one dollar a pack, raising $170 million in FY 2009. At least part of the money would be dedicated to expanded health insurance. While there is ample justification for raising the tobacco tax – especially if the money is used for health care – it is a regressive tax. Interestingly, the additional revenues are projected to fall over time, leaving future revenue for health care an open question. Wide public approval (69% in the Post’s poll) guarantees passage.

Tobacco Tax: Regressive, 10% of Package

Income Tax

The Governor would add two higher-rate income brackets at $150,000 in income ($200,000 for couples) and $500,000 in income. At the same time, he would decrease the rates on the first $15,000 in income ($22,500 for couples), expand the earned income credit and increase the personal exemption for seniors. The net revenue increase would be $162 million in FY 2009.

A few Montgomery County politicians have questioned this restructuring, fearful that rich people would have an incentive to live in Virginia. But this measure is one of the most progressive features of the Governor’s plan and is favored by 62% of respondents to the Post’s poll.

Income Tax: Progressive, 10% of Package

In Part Two, I finish examining the Governor’s proposal and calculate its reliance on progressive and regressive measures.

Adam Pagnucco is the Assistant to the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and has been employed in the labor movement since 1994. The views in this column are his alone and do not represent official statements from the union.