|
THE CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else
desire to speak in favor of the amendment?
Delegate Clagett?
DELEGATE CLAGETT: Mr. Chairman,
I think it will be of some interest to the
Committee of the Whole to know that with
respect to this particular amendment, the
vote of the Committee was in favor eleven
to seven, and it carried along that course
until cross currents entered into the pic-
ture. The cross currents came from the
State Finance Committee, and even there
this amendment was very nearly the joint
approach adopted by the two committees,
except again for other currents which need
not be explained any further here on this
floor. I simply point out to you that you
have no minority report coming out of the
Local Government Committee. You have a
degree of unanimity insofar as the ap-
proach of the final product, which is here
on the floor. That did not come nor was it
accomplished easily. It was accomplished
only by compromise, and this idea was one
of the areas where compromise resulted in
the cross currents succeeding successfully
in washing down and away a very good
and basic idea.
The basic idea is to permit initiative and
action on the part of local governments to
carry out their programs through financ-
ing, as well as preserving the fiscal stabil-
ity which we all regard as important.
The mere fact that this is a little more
difficult to comprehend, if you will, appre-
ciate than merely saying the tax power is
excluded should not be cause for defeating
this good idea. It permits psychological
initiative to be in the picture, along with
sound financial stability.
I urge that you carefully consider and
cast your vote in support of this good
amendment.
THE CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate
desire to speak in opposition?
Delegate Weidemeyer?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: Mr. Pres-
ident, I must oppose this amendment.
As the matter is now drafted in 7.05,
the wording, "county may exercise tax
powers as may be granted to it by law,"
clearly means that the legislature may give
them taxing powers in certain areas. There
is nothing here to prevent any county coun-
cil or administrative body from petitioning
the legislature or passing a resolution.
If there were anything in the draftvpro-
hibiting the counties from acting, I might
|
then say that this amendment had merit.
All this amendment says that they can do,
they already have the right to do, and
therefore I think it is unnecessary verbiage
and should be defeated.
THE CHAIRMAN: The Chair recog-
nizes Delegate Mentzer to speak in favor of
the amendment.
DELEGATE MENTZNER: If the dele-
gates have had time to read SF-3 from
Taxation and Finance, they will notice that
nearly all the objections were to the
blanket grant of taxing powers to the
counties.
I would like to speak in favor of this
amendment because I think it focuses
county attention on county needs, and the
ability within the county to meet their
needs.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Carson, do
you desire to speak in opposition?
DELEGATE CARSON: Yes, Mr. Chair-
man.
The Committee on Local Government
considered this area for a considerable
time, perhaps two weeks in all, although
not every moment of that time to be sure.
After full deliberation, the Committee voted
eleven to seven to vote against such a de-
vice, thinking that at best it was useless
and sterile, and at worst, it was an im-
pediment to both the local governments and
to the state.
It is my understanding that the state,
particularly the Committee on State Tax
and Finance, with perhaps only one vote
missing, was against this. I think we should
be against it here. I think it is useless; I
think it is sterile, at best, and at worst a
hopeless Rube Goldberg device.
THE CHAIRMAN: Doe? any delegate
desire to speak in favor?
Delegate Hanson?
DELEGATE HANSON: Mr. Chairman,
I am not under the delusion that after the
last vote this proposal falls on receptive
ears. I have, however, been defeated enough
times to know that the majority is not
always right. I think there is considerable
merit in this approach. I would have pre-
ferred to see section 7.05 leave to the
counties the full initiative in areas of taxa-
tion because I think with the shared powers
doctrine, the state would have taken such
action in this field as it felt necessary and
prohibited county action where it would
have been necessary in such fields as
nuisance taxes, et cetera.
|
