|
of the 15-year limitation. Montgomery
County has used it only sparingly and,
indeed, the governor's own chief fiscal ex-
pert has worked up a memorandum show-
ing in Montgomery County to use the state
program would cost that county much more
money than it would if it sold its own bonds
at a 25-year limit.
Fourthly, perhaps as important as any
of the points I have already made, a 25-
year limit will give the state fiscal experts
the opportunity to make a more meaningful
fiscal mix. By that I mean a more meaning-
ful fiscal planning can be achieved if 25
years is used in conjunction with 20 years,
15 years, and perhaps even 10 years. As it
stands now, the State is in a virtual
straitjacket. It must issue for 15 years. To
my certain knowledge it has never issued
for anything less. If 25 years were the rule
it could issue something- less in certain in-
stances. This is borne out by the record in
Montgomery County, for example, where
a number of bond issues have been issued
for 12 years but a number more have been
issued for 25.
Fifthly, perhaps even more important
than the four points I have already made,
is the fact that knowledgeable people in
the field have recommended to me in writ-
ing that with a 25-year bond maturity limit
the State's financial situation would have
more flexibility and that having move flexi-
bility, the State would have a greater
chance to retain the credit rating it now
has than if it sticks to 15-year limitation.
I cannot overemphasize this point to you,
ladies and gentlemen. People who know this
subject say that in the future if the limit
goes to 25 years, the State's chances of re-
taining its triple A credit rating are
greater than if the State retains a rigid
15-year limitation.
THE CHAIRMAN: You have one-half
minute, Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I would like to say
to you that the letter I spoke to you about
was sent to all of the rating agencies,
the principal rating agency, Standard and
Poors, wrote me the following: "Dear Mr.
Case: Your letter to the editor of the Bal-
timore Sun was an excellent dissertation
and one in which we concur."
So it stands on the record, and these
letters are available for anybody to look
at, that the rating agencies agree that the
25-year limitation is one which we should
adopt.
Mr. Chairman, may I have an extension
of my time?
|
THE CHAIRMAN: If Delegate Sherbow
allows it.
DELEGATE SHERBOW: I will extend
it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Case.
DELEGATE CASE: I should now like
to turn to the points made by the minority
spokesman. He admits out of hand that
the change in and of itself will not affect
the State's credit rating. This is a point
which was made by the so-called, by the
fiscal experts and by the legislative leaders
who came before us. This now is out of
the case. It is admitted that this change in
and of itself will not affect the State's
credit rating.
What the minority spokesman says to
you is that the legislature will bow to pres-
sure of debt financing and that there will
be a proliferation of state debt and prolif-
eration of state debt will in time erode the
State's credit rating. This point is true
whether you make it 25 years or leave it
at 15. The fact of the matter is that the
more debts you have as related to your as-
sessable base, the less likely you are to
have a good credit rating. I say to you,
ladies and gentlemen, we have been here
now almost three months and one of the
themes we have heard during all this time
is we must put our faith in the legislature.
We are strengthening the legislature and I
say to you I think the legislature is able
to cope with this problem.
Using again Delegate Stern's own county
here is a county which has an unlimited
period of time in which to issue its bonds.
During the last 10 years this county has
issued $144 million in bond indebtedness.
They have all been 25 years. This is the
norm throughout the State. I suggest to
you that is the proper thing for the State
to have.
The final point Delegate Stern made was
that if you issue a bond for 25 years you
are going to pay more interest than you
do for 15. This, of course, is true by simple
mathematics but do not forget you are
having the use of the money longer. Inter-
est is only the wages of money. The longer
you have the use of the money the longer
you pay the wages of that use. Hence it
follows mathematically you are going to
pay more but on the side the point is you
have had the use of the money longer.
Finally, it has been suggested the fiscal
experts in the State have suggested that
15 years is the only criterion. Again, I
must respectfully dissent from the state-
|
