Val Longhurst Scamming Clean Water Supporters?

This bonus post brought to you courtesy of the following song, which explains why I’m writing it:

Settle in, kids, this may take awhile.  Curiosity (I won’t insult your intelligence by claiming ‘intellectual curiosity’) got the best of me.  I start off with the realization that we really do have a clean water crisis. That has not changed. But I wanted to find out how we got here legislatively, and also just where ‘here’ is.  I suppose I could also post Neil Young’s ‘Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere’, but not everybody knows that that’s where we are. But we are, and now I’ll explain why.

So, back in the previous legislative session, the 149th, this bill was introduced in 2017.  HB 170(Mulrooney) had a very similar synopsis to HB 200(Longhurst), except that it provided a new revenue source to pay for the proposal. Specifically:

This Act creates a Clean Water Trust, supported by dedicating several existing revenue sources and a proposed new dedicated Clean Water Surcharge that will be levied on personal income tax payments and business license fees. The surcharge will be capped at $40 for individual tax filers, $80 for individuals filing a joint return, and $45 for business licenses. The Clean Water Surcharge will be used for capital projects, not to grow government; the allowance for administrative expenses is capped at 10% after the first 2 years and companion legislation creating a constitutionally protected “lock box” is being introduced to provide permanent protection against the fee being diverted for operating expenses. Total revenues from the surcharge are estimated to be approximately $20 million annually. The dedicated Clean Water Surcharge could leverage as much as $50 million in total financing annually for clean water investments and support more than 800 direct and indirect jobs per year.

The bill went nowhere, at least in part because John Carney and DNREC Secretary Shawn Garvin betrayed not even the least bit of interest in it:

In response to a query about whether DNREC officials believe the state is in good shape to adequately tackle the problem, Mr. Garvin said the issue should be considered in context. Gov. Carney has advocated for a thorough revenue and tax package as part of broad budgetary reforms, of which a clean water fee would be only a part.

Translation? Blahblahblah.

(Not so) Fast forward to this year.  On May 30, 2019 (remember that date), HB 200(Longhurst) is released via pre-file to much fanfare, including a public rally where Longhurst addresses an enthusiastic crowd of supporters. 

Did you remember that date? Here’s why it’s important. By May 30, the Joint Finance Committee had already wrapped up their budget deliberations for the year. In other words, the introduction of the bill came too late for consideration by the JFC.

Well, you might say, surely HB 200 provides for the additional funding needed for this huge undertaking. No, and don’t call me Shirley. Here’s where Val Longhurst is revealed once again to be a charlatan playing the role of hero.  Not only is there no such new funding in the bill, the proposed funding that IS in the bill would simply be taken from existing revenue sources. Meaning, it would open up spending shortfalls elsewhere.  Allow me to quote from HB 200’s fiscal note to demonstrate the primary source of the funding (BTW, HB 200, H2O, get it?):

1. The greater of 0.6% of annual Personal Income Tax revenue or $10,000,000, the greater of 2.0% of annual Gross Receipts tax revenue or $5,000,000, the greater of 3.5% of annual Realty Transfer Tax revenue or $5,000,000 and the greater of 3.0% of annual Corporate Income Tax revenue or $5,000,000.

To be sure, there are a couple of other revenue sources, some Federal EPA money and some water pollution fine money.  But $25 million, which is, pardon the expression, just a drop in the bucket, would be taken from other priorities in the annual budget. What would Val cut?

What Longhurst so proudly proclaimed as landmark legislation is, in fact, false advertising of the most cynical kind. Unless that $25 mill (and a whole lot more to meet the well over $500 mill that will be required to address the state’s clean water infrastructure), is replaced, other programs will suffer. Which brings me to the quote that Jason cited back in today’s Pre-Game Show:

Gov. John Carney (D) said he supports a higher top marginal rate and pushed for that two years ago, when the state had a shortfall. But he said the state has money right now and he opposes doing tax policy piecemeal.

“So basically the bottom line is that if we’re going to do tax reform and tax policy, we ought to do it in a comprehensive way when we need revenue,” he said.

If we’re going to provide clean water for our state, if we’re gonna provide support for home health care workers, we’re gonna need revenue. The entire General Assembly knows it. Especially Speaker Pete Schwartzkopf, who attended the public committee meeting on HB 200, lauded the goal of the bill, but said he couldn’t support it b/c there is no additional funding mechanism. Which, BTW, is why Speaker Pete reassigned HB 200 to the House Appropriations Committee, where it will languish until or unless a funding source can be identified. That’s not a detail, folks, that’s the crux of the matter. No new funding, no clean water.

Supporters of Clean Water: Don’t get discouraged and don’t blame yourselves. You are simply learning what long-time legislative watchers have known–Val Longhurst can only be trusted to place herself on a pedestal. It’s why she, yes, steals pretty much every important bill for herself, as long as there is a perceived political benefit for her. She makes herself the hero of her own narratives and then screws things up. If you’re looking for follow-through, you’ll need to look elsewhere.

My advice?: Look elsewhere.