Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Future cuts to Md. budget in works after latest round
Washington Times ^ | 10-20-08 | Brian Witte

Posted on 10/20/2008 11:04:33 AM PDT by JZelle

ANNAPOLIS Before Maryland officials cut hundreds of millions last week from the state budget, they were already talking about future reductions.

"How do you get out of a hole of that magnitude, given the downturn which everyone ... is saying is going to be relatively severe and long term," Comptroller Peter Franchot asked at meeting Wednesday before the cuts were approved.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, estimates his administration has reduced spending plans by roughly $2.2 billion since taking office last year, but the national economic meltdown has slowed state revenues, forcing more cuts just to balance this year's books.

Maryland also is facing a budget shortfall of hundreds of millions in fiscal 2010, and shortfalls in the neighborhood of $1 billion appear to be on the horizon for coming years.

Maryland Budget and Management Secretary T. Eloise Foster said the governor will have to take a comprehensive look at "everything in every agency" and that agency officials must "come up to the plate to make additional reductions to their budgets."

When revenue estimates last month showed $432 million less than expected, state agencies were asked to submit a plan for 5 percent in budget reductions and a second plan for an additional round of cuts.

Mr. O'Malley said imposing tax increases would be difficult after the $1.4 billion in increases last year.

"I don't think I could get three members of the General Assembly to vote for a tax on anything," he said.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; US: Maryland
KEYWORDS: budgetcuts; taxes
I'm sure Cuffy will make these cuts painful, especially if slots fail. He'll make sure it hurts so bad the sheeple will beg for tax increases.
1 posted on 10/20/2008 11:04:33 AM PDT by JZelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JZelle
Mr. O'Malley said imposing tax increases would be difficult after the $1.4 billion in increases last year.

So much for over $2 billion in spending cuts
2 posted on 10/20/2008 11:06:30 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (`Pontius Pilate voted "Present")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

Blue State Blues continue.


3 posted on 10/20/2008 11:07:14 AM PDT by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stocksthatgoup
They need to cut taxes. What the heck is wrong with Maryland Democrats?

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

4 posted on 10/20/2008 11:12:25 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AU72
"has reduced spending plans by roughly $2.2 billion

Hmmm, you mean Government can still operate in MD by spending 2.2 billion less than planned?

5 posted on 10/20/2008 11:14:02 AM PDT by icwhatudo (PALIN VID=========>>>>>http://www.overstream.net/view.php?oid=n1ronxelmtin<++++++++)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

What cheeses me off is that when the economy was on fire in the late 90’s and tax revenues were through the roof states had two sensible options:

1) Pay down debt or save up for bad times
2) Use the excess only for capital improvements not for reoccurring budget items. You can build a bridge or fix a road on a good year and create little spending burden for future bad years.

Instead they went ahead and increased funding on non capital projects.


6 posted on 10/20/2008 11:17:20 AM PDT by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AU72
No kidding. Cut the taxes already. Md is one of the most heavily taxed stated. Period. Cut the spending. More liberal whining over the irrefutable evidence their economic policies DO NOT WORK!
7 posted on 10/20/2008 11:28:08 AM PDT by Heartland Mom (Those who would give up liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Abundy; Albion Wilde; AlwaysFree; AnnaSASsyFR; bayliving; BFM; cindy-true-supporter; ...

Maryland “Freak State” PING!


9 posted on 10/21/2008 7:08:03 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Obamao for President! I won't settle for the lesser evil any longer!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

It is going to get worse for the counties...one of the “cuts” is no funding to the Public Defender’s Office for panel attorneys. The Public Defender is pushing back by saying to people “you are entitled to our representation, but we have an internal conflict with your case and will not represent you.”
(normally a private attorney is then assigned as a PD panel attorney and paid by the PD’s office)

They put that in a letter and tell the person to give a copy to the judge at their initial appearance.

There is a divided opinion as to what happens next...

There is no question that the criminal case cannot proceed against the defendant if they tell the Court they want an attorney, cannot afford one, have applied to the PD’s office and been told they meet the requirements for representation (below a certain income level) but the PD’s office can’t represent them due to a conflict.

There is no question that the Court can order any private attorney to represent the defendant and the attorney cannot refuse. (I have a problem with that Constitutionally)

However there is a difference of opinion of who pays the attorney once ordered by the Court to represent the defendant.

The State’s (via the Public Defender’s Office) position is that the local county government must fork over the $ to the attorney.

There also appears to be an AG’s opinion the county doesn’t have to pay the attorney.

Seems to me this is an unfunded mandate, that the State government is obligated to undertake, that is now being passed on to the local governments. And make no mistake, the attorneys will be appointed and they will get paid, it is just a question of by which level of government.

So part of O’Malley’s “cuts” aren’t really cuts at all - he just keeps his State taxes high, and shifts some of the line item expenses down to the counties...which actually is a tax increase since your State taxes are supposed to be paying this particular expense.

God I hate Maryland and the socialists running this State.


10 posted on 10/22/2008 3:19:59 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson