About Janet Greenip
Home Legislative Wrap-Up VIDEO 2/7/08 Interview On The Issues Volunteer Bills Sponsored Links District 33 Map Are you a good steward or just an environmentalist? × close Concerned about our children?	April 8, 2007 Dear Friends, The 2008 Legislative Session concluded yesterday. During this busy session, the Senate considered 1014 bills and the House of Delegates considered over 1600 bills on a wide variety of topics affecting nearly every aspect of life in Maryland. From my perspective, my job is not only to pass good legislation, but to defeat legislation that would be detrimental for the state. I therefore spend a lot of my time working to amend or change flawed bills so that they positively benefit our state’s citizens and economy. The Budget – The 2008 budget of $31.2 billion includes a 3.7% increase in spending. The overall increase includes a 3.6% increase in education funding, as well as a 9% increase in higher education. Other significant increases include more money for environmental funding and Medicaid expenditures. As a member of the General Assembly for the past fourteen years (eight in the House of Delegates and six in the Senate) I have consistently opposed higher taxes and called for restrained spending. The General Assembly passed the largest tax increase in Maryland’s history during the 2007 Special Session. Excessive spending is the reason for our deficits – not insufficient revenues. As a legislator, I believe that it is my responsibility to ensure that your money is spent wisely. Computer Tax – Perhaps the most cumbersome measure to come out of the November special session was the new computer service tax. It does not make sense to tax an industry that can easily relocate, nor one that creates thousands of professional jobs. I opposed it vigorously. The entire 2008 session was spent debating how to repeal this tax. On this issue there was good news and some bad news. The good news: the General Assembly repealed the computer tax. The bad news: Rather than reducing budget growth to cover the revenue lost from the computer tax repeal, the General Assembly also increased income taxes on persons earning more than $1 million annually to cover the loss in revenue. Many of these individuals are small business owners. By passing this tax increase, the General Assembly raised income taxes for the second time in five months. With our economy struggling, now is not the time to raise taxes on anyone, particularly entrepreneurs and small business owners who are trying to create jobs. I voted against the income tax increase but was proud to support the computer tax repeal. Illegal Aliens with Driver’s Licenses – The legislative session began in January with great news on this front. Governor O’Malley announced that he would be reversing the state’s policy of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. The MVA receives nearly 2,000 out-of-country applicants a week, many of whom are not legally present in the United States. For too long, Maryland has been a destination state for illegal immigrants. My plan is to remain vigilant in ensuring that the O’Malley administration follows through on this promise. People who are breaking the law should not have the privileges and benefits of those who are here legally. In 2007, I filed a bill to ban Maryland’s Motor Vehicle Administration from giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. This year, I co-sponsored identical legislation filed by one of my colleagues. A 2005 Federal law, the REAL ID Act, states that individuals who apply for driver’s licenses must submit documentation to prove that they are in the country legally. If our state does not require legal presence for license applicants, then we will not be in compliance with REAL ID. If that happens, Maryland residents would not be able to use their driver’s licenses as valid, federal identification when traveling to other states. Simple transactions such as purchasing plane tickets could become a tremendous problem. If the O’Malley administration sticks with the change, the path is clear for Maryland to get into compliance. Critical Areas Legislation – One of the most important and far-reaching issues we tackled in the 2008 session was legislation affecting our Critical Areas. HB 1253/SB 844 gives the Maryland Critical Area Commission final authority over all critical area decision-making. Before this legislation, counties had to seek the Commission’s advice and counsel for variance approvals; however, local authorities could still make the final decision. Under the new legislation, the Commission is the final authority. While observing critical area restrictions and cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries are important, I had a lot of concerns about this legislation. In my view, it is unwise to take away final decision-making authority from the counties and give it to an unelected, quasi-state agency. Another one of my main concerns in the past has been the lack of enforcement of Critical Area laws. However, under County Executive Leopold there has been a renewed, vigilant focus on protecting our Critical Areas in Anne Arundel County. Marriage – Last year Maryland’s highest court affirmed that marriage involves both a man and a woman. Their decision generated a flurry of legislation. I sponsored Maryland’s Marriage Protection Act. The bill stated that marriage is between one man and one woman, that the Maryland Constitution should be amended to state this, and that the voters should have the opportunity to decide this via referendum. Unfortunately, the bill was held in the committee without a vote and did not make it to the Senate floor. On the other side, legislation was also introduced to legalize gay marriage. This too did not come up for committee vote. Several other bills sought to alter the meaning and uniqueness of marriage. Two bills giving special benefits to non-married couples passed this year. SB 566’s stated purpose was to give domestic partners visitation rights in the hospital and the right to make medical decisions for their partner. I believe that this is unnecessary because these rights are already available. SB 566 also defined domestic partners as being any two individuals, age 18 or above, who can prove a relationship of “mutual interdependence.” This proof can include such documents as an affidavit declaring their relationship and at least one other form of identification such as a co-signed renter’s lease showing that they are together. SB 597 allowed these domestic partners to avoid traditional tax laws when transferring property. I opposed both measures. My greatest concern is that some life-and-death decisions could be made by a young person in a dating relationship, instead of immediate family. Furthermore, the state should not give unwarranted benefits to unmarried individuals. In closing, it has been a privilege to serve you for the last six years in the State Senate. Thank you for the trust you have shown in me. My Annapolis office is open all year. Please contact me by phone at (410) 841-3568 or e-mail at janet.greenip@senate.state.md.us if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Janet Greenip Senator, Legislative District 33

Copyright © 2008 Senator Janet Greenip,
By Authority Edward L. Maddox, Treasurer