Referendum Time!

From the Maryland Daily Record

Tea party'ers across Maryland are saying the referendum effort to repeal newly passed legislation allowing illegal immigrants to receive in-state college tuition rates is exactly the fight they’ve been waiting for.

“There’s no question we are going to be involved,” said Potomac tea party blogger Ann Corcoran. “And it goes beyond the in-state issue. This is an opportunity to broaden our reach to Democrats, independents and those who see this as a fairness issue, and we see this as a fabulous opportunity to organize conservatives across the state of Maryland in preparation for 2012.”

The referendum drive has been spearheaded by Del. Neil Parrott, R-Washington, a former Hagerstown tea party leader. Parrott and Del. Pat McDonough, R-Baltimore and Harford, say they plan to collect the 55,736 signatures needed by June 30.

Much like the structure of the national tea party, there is no single leader or group in charge of the referendum efforts in Maryland. There are at least 30 identifiable Maryland tea party groups representing thousands of members across the state.

One of the larger groups participating in the referendum process, Maryland Society of Patriots, has more than 1,700 Facebook followers and about 1,000 email addresses of people from Montgomery County, Baltimore County and the Eastern Shore.

“We are planning on aiding as much as we can in the referendum effort,” said founder Sam Hale. “We are planning on holding a meeting in Montgomery County on May 5 to rejuvenate and reorganize our activists.”

Dave Wallace, an organizer for Restore America’s Mission, has helped bus hundreds of Marylanders to tea party events in Washington. His group, which has about 700 “activists,” will also help to collect signatures for the referendum.

“It’s a responsibility that government not go and help finance lawbreakers, and that’s exactly what this is,” Wallace said. “This is the wrong direction,”

The Department of Legislative Services estimated the tuition discounts will cost taxpayers $750,000 in 2014 and increase to $3.5 million by 2016. But the cost could be significantly higher than that since it is based only on the experience of Montgomery College.

While dozens of tea party groups across the state are gearing up for the signature drive, the Republican Party has taken a less aggressive stance. Maryland GOP spokesman Ryan Mahoney said the party will not take a lead role in the signature collection drive.

“This is an effort that is going to be led by Del. Parrott,” Mahoney said. “It’s bigger than any one political party, but with any legislation that’s damaging to Maryland taxpayers, the Republican party is here to provide logistical support and resources to insure Maryland has laws that are moving us in the right direction, not backward.”

Americans for Prosperity, a national conservative group that helped organize some initial tea party events in Maryland, will have no role.

McDonough told Fox 45 TV he may pursue legal action against the Maryland State Board of Elections for delaying the approval of signature petition language. Final petition language was approved April 21, eight days after it was first filed by Parrott.

State elections board spokeswoman Donna Duncan said the bill summary text was originally ruled insufficient by Assistant Attorney General Jeff Darsie, and the board fully complied with its requirements during the approval process.

The state board of elections has five business days from the time it receives an application request to make a determination, and an additional two business days to notify the sponsor of its response, Duncan said, quoting from the election law handbook.

Whether the signatures collected prior to the April 21 petition approval will be counted is another story. Duncan said it would be depend on what was on the back of the petition. It is supposed to include “the full text of the Act; or a fair and accurate summary of the substantive provisions of the Act, which has been approved by the Attorney General,” according to the election board regulations.

“We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it,” Duncan said.

The in-state tuition bill was originally scheduled to be signed on Monday by Gov. Martin O’Malley, but due to the funeral for former Gov. William Donald Schaefer, the signing was delayed and is now expected to take place May 10. Undocumented high school graduates would be eligible to receive the tuition discount at community colleges beginning next fall.

One of the bills lead sponsors, Sen. Roger Manno, D-Montgomery, criticized the repeal efforts.

“The referendum to overturn the bill is a distraction from the major challenges facing the state — namely, getting people back to work, fixing the budget, and maintaining our investments in providing the best K-12 education in the nation,” Manno said. “This referendum effort could cost taxpayers millions of dollars.”

Democrats in Massachusetts Throw the Public Unions Under the Bus?

from the Boston Globe

House lawmakers (in Massachusettes) voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.
The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

Unions fought hard to stop the bill, launching a radio ad that assailed the plan and warning legislators that if they voted for the measure, they could lose their union backing in the next election. After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.

“It’s pretty stunning,’’ said Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO. “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. The same Democrats who tell us over and over again that they’re with us, that they believe in collective bargaining, that they believe in unions. . . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.’’

“We are going to fight this thing to the bitter end,’’ he added. “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.’’

The battle now turns to the Senate, where President Therese Murray has indicated that she is reluctant to strip workers of their right to bargain over their health care plans.

DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

Last night, as union leaders lobbied against the plan, DeLeo offered two concessions intended to shore up support from wavering legislators.

The first concession gives public employees 30 days to discuss changes to their health plans with local officials, instead of allowing the officials to act without any input from union members. But local officials would still, at the end of that period, be able to impose their changes unilaterally.

The second concession gives union members 20 percent of the savings from any health care changes for one year, if the unions object to changes imposed by local officials. The original bill gave the unions 10 percent of the savings for one year.

The modifications bring the House bill closer to a plan introduced by Governor Deval Patrick in January. The governor, like Murray, has said he wants workers to have some say in altering their health plans, but does not want unions to have the power to block changes.

But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers’ rights, unthinkable in a state that has long been a bastion of union support. Some Democrats accused DeLeo of following the lead of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republicans who have targeted public employee benefits. “In the bigger world out there, this fits into a very bad movement to disempower labor unions,’’ said Representative Denise Provost, a Somerville Democrat who opposed the bill.

Under the legislation, mayors and other local officials would be given unfettered authority to set copayments and deductibles for their employees, after the 30-day discussion period with unions. Only the share of premiums paid by employees would remain on the health care bargaining table.

Geoff Beckwith, executive director of the Massachusetts Municipal Association, said that, even if the bill becomes law, municipal workers would still have more bargaining power over their health care plans than state employees. “It’s a fair, balanced, strong, effective and meaningful reform,’’ he said.

Unions lobbied to derail the speaker’s plan in favor of a labor-backed proposal that would preserve collective bargaining, and would let an arbitrator decide changes to employee health plans if local officials and unions deadlock after 45 days. Labor leaders initially persuaded 50 lawmakers, including six members of DeLeo’s leadership team, to back their plan last week. But DeLeo peeled off some of the labor support in the final vote.

Representative Martin J. Walsh, a Dorchester Democrat who is secretary-treasurer of the Boston Building Trades Council, led the fight against the speaker’s plan. In a speech that was more wistful than angry, he recalled growing up in a union household that had health care benefits generous enough to help him overcome cancer in 1974. He said collective bargaining rights helped build the middle class.

“Municipal workers aren’t the bad guys here,’’ he said. “They’re not the ones who caused the financial crisis. Banks and investment companies got a slap on the wrist for their wrongdoing, but public employees are losing their benefits.’’

The timing of the vote was significant. Union leaders plan today to unleash a major lobbying blitz with police officers, firefighters, and other workers flooding the State House. Taking the vote last night at 11:30 allowed lawmakers to avoid a potentially tense confrontation with those workers, and vote when the marble halls of the House were all but empty.

This is all a DNC sponsored ploy to turn out the base. There isn't a snowballs chance in Hell that this could pass the Massachusetts state Senate. Idiotic union members will still likely be turning out in droves in 2012, but will they pull the levers for Democrats once they realize that this was all a ploy orchestrated by Democrats to begin with? You can bet your sweet *ss they will.

Taxing the Rich so that Illegals Can Pay Less

from the Washington Examiner

Allowing Maryland's illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition to attend the state's public universities is expected to cost at least $3.5 million in five years.

Fiscal analysts expect that expense to grow annually, though, as more students become eligible for the lower rates. But they don't know how much since it's so difficult to track illegal immigrants.

Budget analysts estimate the measure will cost nearly $1 million by fiscal 2014, the year the state will begin contributing tuition money to illegal immigrants who enroll in a community college in fall 2011.

The estimate assumes roughly 370 undocumented students will enroll, costing the state at least $778,400 in fiscal 2014.

Some lawmakers say the cost estimates are too low, however, with census figures estimating that at least 300,000 illegal immigrants live in Maryland.

The state pays about $2,100 for every community college student who qualifies for in-state tuition. Community college tuition is two to three times less expensive for in-state students.

But the costs don't end there.

Illegal immigrants can transfer to a four-year university and pay in-state rates if they have completed two years at a community college, under the law passed by the Maryland General Assembly and expected to be signed by Gov. Martin O'Malley.

Lawmakers passed a last-minute amendment to ensure that Maryland citizens

will not have to compete with undocumented students for in-state slots. Therefore, out-of-state students -- who drive tuition revenues by paying much higher rates -- will be competing with undocumented students.

The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition rates at Maryland's four-year universities averages more than $10,000 for a single semester, with the gap about $8,200 at the University of Maryland.

Universities will be forced to adjust their enrollment numbers to account for the loss in tuition revenues, analysts say.

If roughly 50 undocumented students transfer to the University of Maryland under the new law, the school would lose roughly $820,800 in tuition revenues for a single year without adjusting enrollment numbers.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle voiced skepticism over the murky cost estimates up until the bill was passed fewer than four hours before the end of the 2011 legislative session.

"We would love to have these people educated but ... the issue is who pays for it," said Sen. David R. Brinkley, R-Carroll and Frederick counties. "It either comes from the taxpayer or it comes from other students at the school because it gets passed along in the form of fees."

Meanwhile, a conservative lawmaker is trying to muster up the support to bring a lawsuit against the Maryland legislation.

Del. Pat McDonough, R-Baltimore County, says he is talking to two "major national legal foundations" about overturning the law.

"Maryland has become a Disneyland for illegal immigrants, providing attraction and free rides and is costing taxpayers billions of dollars," McDonough said. "The in-state tuition act will make things much worse, attracting more illegal immigrants."

But the legal precedents aren't promising for McDonough, less than a year after California's Supreme Court upheld a similar state law.