At a recent Kent County Commissioners meeting, an eyewitness mentioned that State Senate President Miller told Senator Pipkin that when the 36th District delegation voted against an increase in the alcohol tax, the leadership in Annapolis was given the impression that the revenue wasn't needed in the 36th and therefore much of the region's share was distributed elsewhere. Were the votes against the tax by the 36th delegation justified because of its potential harm on the Eastern Shore? Should the 36th delegation go along with the majority in order to get the funding? Is the practice of withholding funding to the 36th due to the opposition of the tax a sign that partisan politics trumps acting for the good of all Maryland citizens? 
 


Comments

John Morony
01/17/2012 10:40

Shame on you for not getting your facts straight on this. The facts are that it is not only the 36th District that will receive a pittance of the alcohol tax revenues, it is every district outside of Baltimore City, Prince George's County, and Montgomery County that is getting shafted. A sanitized account of the event was published by the Maryland Public Policy Institute. (http://www.mdpolicy.org/research/pubID.629/pub_detail.asp)

The reality of the situation is that the liberals are in full control of the State, they have no shame, and it really doesn't matter if anyone dares to offer an opinion to the contrary. The liberals will strong-arm any agenda they see fit through the legislature and that is all there is to it.

John Morony
Queen Anne's County

Reply
WCTR
01/18/2012 03:00

John, thanks for the reply. I don't think our facts are incorrect as we're simply passing along what was a topic of conversation at the Commissioners meeting. The debate was centered around whether or not having a Democratic led 36th delegation would mean getting more services for the area. We tend to think it doesn't matter who goes to Annapolis and that the Eastern Shore needs to be more self sufficient.

Reply
John Morony
01/20/2012 07:17

What you "passed along" was hearsay from someone who may or may not have heard a conversation at a commissioners meeting in Kent County. You don't quote Sens. Pipkin or Miller, rather an unnamed "eyewitness" who may or may not be recalling facts or embellishing the story. How this qualifies as blog-worthy is beyond me especially when this particular issue has been so thoroughly documented by so many reputable, named, sources.

Reply
WCTR
01/23/2012 01:26

John, what we passed along was reported by an attendee of the Commissioners meeting, and was discussed by the Commissioners and one of them contends that the 36th delegation should not be complaining about the district not getting its fair share of the benefits when they're not voting with the majority on the taxes that would fund them. The concept of whether or not voters should send delegates to Annapolis who have the ability to "speak Democrat" was an issue during the election with voters apparently making the decision it wasn't. Recent events have brought the issue to the fore and the debate has exploded on the blogosphere here, and therefore it is blogworthy for our listeners.

Reply



Leave a Reply

    Author

    Let your voice be heard.  The WCTR Blog is for you to participate in, with comments about things going on in our communities.  We look forward to hearing what you have to say, and others respond.

    Archives

    January 2012
    October 2011

    Categories

    All