so.... think any of this money will actually go towards what it is "intended" for?

Who is the heck knows.

The government said's one thing and does another.

Like the saying goes, The more you make, The more they take.

I'd like to know what the budget would look like if they held next years spending to the same as this year's; and if there were a 3% cut, 5% cut, etc. But Heaven forbid they look at spending!

I certainly agree that there are things that money is spent on that are not the best use of funds. But simply saying hold this year's spending to last year's level creates a lot of problems itself. For example, let's look at the Maryland Department of Transportation. Their first dollar goes toward maintaining what they already have. That certainly makes sense. But, if you hold the same spending level at last year you won't get the same maintainence simply because a dollar buys less this year than last year. So already you're in a hole for your existing infrastructure and there still isn't any money for new transportation projects which a lot of the public hope to see funded. I saw a presentation recently from MDOT that said in the last few years the prices of concrete, steel, asphalt and gasoline has increased dramatically.

New revenues must be generated somehow to pay for our existing infrastructure as well as new projects. Deferred maintainance will cost the state (and us) even more in the future if these needs aren't addressed now. Where those additional funds come from can certainly be discussed and debated but in my opinion, holding spending to previous levels in many instances is not the approrpriate course of action. In the example I outlined above, the state will be continually chasing its tail trying to maintain existing infrastructure and develop new projects. In short, Maryland's roads will be more like Pennsylvania's in no time.

Well, then government should do what the taxpayer has to do when income drops, shift funds as needed, but cut overall spending. The taxpayer is not an unlimited source of revenue.

The government sure think so.

Agree with Snoopy only to add that Scrambler keeps adding new projects to all his examples. If we are in a deficit, new projects need to be under very tight scrutiny. Need and want are very different things.

Well all of you people who just have O'Malley in there ... I told you so!!!! You all couldn't be satisfied with a Governor like Erlich. We had a deficit before he came in and now he is gone we have deficits and taxes going up. We should have stayed with him.

I personally didn't vote for the s.o.b.

Erlich was my pick, he sure would have did a better job then this these fool.

Neither one is worth a shyte.

Your probably right.

I'm just tired of everytime I turn around something going up.
The more I make, the more someone else's take. I know that goes for a lot of people.

Whether it's the Government, the City of Hagerstown, Gasoline Company's or whoever, darn.

I'm working to make everyone else rich, it seems to me.
Because I'm sure not getting ahead no matter how many hours I put in.

It's going to put a hurting on the Senior's, they have a rough time as it is.

I'm not sure what I kept "adding". I only gave one example. And I think you missed my main point which is that if spending levels remain the SAME, the level of service/maintainance will drop because of the increase in price of materials. You still need new revenues to pay for the same thing you've always gotten. Adding in new projects was just an example to show how that even compounds the problem further. And "new revenues" could mean shifting funds from one thing to another as well as new fees or taxes.

And it was worth every "penny".


You guys still don't get it. We (independents) knew the deal going in.