header
Home | DIGITAL EDITION | Classified | Archives | Obituaries | Help Wanted | Reunions | Political Soapbox | Churches | Schools | Civic | Govt







Delegate J.B. Jennings (R - 7)
Lowe House Office Building, Room 319
6 Bladen St.
Annapolis, MD 21401 - 1991
(410) 841-3698
e-mail: jb.jennings@house.state.md.us


e-mail:


Illegal Immigrants Drivers in Maryland
- by Delegate J.B. Jennings  (R - 7) -
In the early morning hours of June 22, 2010, a tragic accident occurred on I-83 involving a drunk driver which resulted in the death of his passenger.  This is an accident which could have been prevented not only by the choices of the drunk driver, but also by the State of Maryland. Due to a recent law, Freddy Cortez Flores, an illegal immigrant was driving that night with a legally issued Maryland driver’s license.  The law that allows illegal immigrants to obtain legal driver’s licenses; it passed by the General Assembly and signed by the Governor in 2009.
This accident occurred only four years after a similar accident in Howard County during the 2006 Thanksgiving Holiday.  A United States Marine, at home on leave from serving in Iraq and the driver, were killed at a traffic light by a drunk driver who was also an illegal immigrant and had a blood alcohol content which was four times the legal limit.  Much like the recent accident, it is one which could have been prevented, as the driver was legally driving with a Maryland driver’s license. Yet, the Maryland General Assembly remained passive on this issue.
Again, assessing this recent tragic accident and its predecessor, it raises the question should illegal residents be allowed to obtain drivers licenses in the State of Maryland?  I believe the answer is absolutely NO.  Let me explain my reasons.  
In 2009, I, along with several of my other Republican colleagues, co-sponsored legislation (House Bill 387) that would have required Maryland to finally comply with the Federal Real ID Act passed in 2005.  Unfortunately, the original co-sponsors, including myself, removed our names from the bill subsequent to the Democratic opponents’ introduction of an amendment that would “grandfather” amnesty for illegal aliens who already have a Maryland driver’s license.  The passage of the “grandfather” clause is twofold.  It provides amnesty for those unlawfully present to renew their license every five years without proof of lawful presence (like the drivers involved in the two accidents I mentioned).  Secondly, it creates a two-tier system of licensing in Maryland that is not only confusing but continues to cost taxpayers and drives up MVA costs.  Because of this law a growing total of twelve states (12) including Arizona, do not accept a Maryland driver’s license as an accepted form of identification.  
As I mentioned, the original language of House Bill 387 was actually aimed at finally ending the debate, and resolving the question regarding the issuance of driver’s licenses and identification cards to illegal immigrants. The original legislation was resoundingly supported by a popular opinion poll which at the time was in agreement with the position of the original bill. The 2009 poll done by the Shaffer Center for Public Policy, University of Baltimore, February 2009 stated that 81% of Marylanders favored a single tier system   Despite the overwhelming opinion to not allow illegal immigrants to legally drive, the majority party had eliminated all language from the bill requiring the requisite of being a United States citizen and having proof of documentation with a Social Security Number to be considered eligible for a Maryland driver’s license.
The need for the Majority Party to enact legislation such as the two-tier system, is based on a decision by then Attorney General Joseph Curran who declared in 2003, “that the State cannot deny someone a license based solely on his or her inability to prove legal residence” (The Maryland Gazette, December 6, 2006)
A strong influence on the Majority Party’s position is an organization called Casa de Maryland. This organization is highly influential on lawmakers, especially their votes on critical pieces of legislation concerning illegal immigration.  Their committed efforts and strong hold on legislators in Annapolis are for the reason House Bill 387 was drastically modified. Similarly, it is the reason there are also proposed bills which would exempt illegal immigrants from paying non-resident tuition at public institutions of higher education in Maryland. Such bills are continually being introduced each General Session with the aid of Casa de Maryland. Moreover, Casa de Maryland continues to push their agenda on Maryland taxpayers by using taxpayer money to lobby the Majority Party’s approval for further funding in the State’s annual budget.  For example, Casa de Maryland recently received $200,000 in State funding for Fiscal year 2011.  In other words, our taxpayer money is going to fund an organization that supports illegal immigrants obtaining legal driver’s licenses, and influences the policy of the Majority Party concerning issues dealing with the status of illegal immigrants.    
  It is my position that Maryland cannot afford to continue to foster illegal immigrant drivers in our State. The Legislature’s 2009 bill and now law, is a testament to the Majority Party’s lack of will to take a monumental step forward on public safety and immigration enforcement under enacted federal law.  Instead, the current policy further substantiates my conclusion that this legislative body’s intention is to facilitate amnesty, not punishment.
In the 2011 General Session this issue should be re-examined with consideration of the current consequences of the law.  I will continue to take this issue to heart and I hope that my colleagues in both parties will agree. Otherwise, I believe political agendas will undermine the legislation of good public policy, and additional tragedies will be the result.

4/8-Delegate J.B. Jennings Endorses Ehrlich for Governor
Today, Marylanders finally received the answer they have been waiting for as former Governor Robert Ehrlich Jr. has officially entered the Gubernatorial Race. Delegate Jennings is emphatically supporting the former Governor in his endeavor.  For the past four years, the State of Maryland has reveled under the failed policies of Governor O’Malley.  Delegate Jennings is confident that Governor Ehrlich will appeal to numerous Marylanders who are tired of increased state taxes, government spending and broken promises.
Under Governor O’Malley’s leadership, Marylanders have watched the state fall from a one billion dollar surplus under Governor Ehrlich, to a $2 billion deficit (near $8 billion structural deficit) under Governor O’Malley. With promises severed, such as rising energy costs which Governor O’Malley assured would not happen, many are looking to our former Governor for answers in solving Maryland’s growing problems. Delegate Jennings is confident that Governor Ehrlich will rectify our state’s fiscal crisis just as he did in 2002 following the conclusion of the Glendenning Administration. He can attest this fact because he has known Governor Ehrlich for more than a decade which has lead to them to become close friends. Delegate Jennings speaks with such certainty, because he has witnessed Governor Ehrlich at work when he got his start in politics when then-Congressman Ehrlich hired him as a caseworker. It was Delegate Jennings’ experience working with Governor Ehrlich both on his Congressional staff and on the gubernatorial campaign in 2002, which inspired Delegate Jennings to launch himself into the political ring.
Delegate Jennings and Governor Ehrlich understand the problems facing our state, not only from inside the General Assembly, but also from constituents and from their own personal experiences. Delegate Jennings who is a business owner and a dairy farmer keeps in close contact with his constituents in District 7. His commitment towards keeping close relationships with constituents is a skill he acquired from working with then Representative Ehrlich during his term in the House of Representatives. This is as a testament to Governor Ehrlich’s character and his commitment to once again serve as the next Governor for the State of Maryland. Governor Ehrlich realizes the problems facing Maryland in these tough times because he has been speaking and listening to Marylander’s first hand since he left office.
In 2002, Delegate Jennings, in his own race for Delegate, also assisted Governor Ehrlich to win the Gubernatorial Election. Delegate Jennings stated, “I have known former Governor Ehrlich for more than decade, I am confident that if he is elected Governor again in our great state we will begin to see prosperity return to Maryland.”
Delegate Jennings will remain committed to helping his former boss and mentor attain the role of Governor again in this great state of Maryland. Jennings is running for State Senate for the District 7 (Baltimore & Harford Counties).        
3/18-Jennings Against Bill to Give Governor Power Over Return of National Guard Troops
House bill 1037 has been introduced to the State Legislature that would give the Governor the power and ability over the Federal Government as well as the President of the United States to request the return of National Guard Troops to the control of the State if the use of military force has expired or the Federal Control is no longer valid.
Delegate Jennings is staunchly opposed to this bill. Citing problems with the context of the bill, particularly in paragraph 3 in the preamble stating “Whereas, The maintenance of Maryland National Guard members in Iraq and Afghanistan, a mission for which they were not trained”. Delegate Jennings, serving in the Air National Guard as an E3 Airman first class, takes offense at the language over the assumed lack of training the members of the National Guard have had in preparing them for the battle fronts in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The training that the men and women serving in the National Guard receive is the same as any other instruction given in any branch of military service.
The question of bill’s constitutionality arises since in certain aspects it gives the Governor potential power and ability to transcend the power of the Federal Government as well as the President of the United States. For these reasons as well as those aforementioned, Delegates Jennings opposes House Bill 1037.
3/11-The Message: Lost in Translation
- by Delegate J.B. Jennings  (R - 7) -
It is truly remarkable what a difference four years can make. If we could journey back to 2006, Marylanders demanded a change in Annapolis. Despite a 60 percent approval rating of former Governor Ehrlich’s performance during his term, Marylanders elected a new administration with a message that promised to create new jobs and cut taxes for middle-income Marylanders.
Now, four years later and under the Leadership of Governor O’Malley, Maryland received a “change”. Unfortunately, Governor O’Malley has delivered a “change” - unexpected and undesirable to Marylander’s expectations. In only his first term, Governor O’Malley, in an unprecedented decision, raised the corporate income tax, personal income tax, and the sales tax.
According to Governor O’Malley, the purpose for these tax increases, were to resolve a decade long structural state deficit.  It was the message contained in Governor O’Malley’s Executive Order that “this structural deficit has been 10 years in the making”. A structural deficit occurs from a negative balance between the sum of the State’s ongoing spending obligations and its ongoing revenues. 
Contrary to the Governor’s position, State Comptroller Peter Franchot submitted a letter that stated a structural deficit could not have occurred when the State of Maryland completed the fiscal year on June 30, 2007 with an undesignated balance of $193 million.  This balance was the result of actual revenues exceeding the estimates by $75.0 million or 0.06 percent.  Moreover, State agencies returned $51.9 million in unspent funds, which represented $17.6 million dollars more than the estimate. Furthermore, the Revenue Stabilization Account, otherwise known as the “Rainy Day” Fund, closed with a balance of $1.4 billion.   
These facts clearly refuted Governor O’Malley’s position and further substantiated that Maryland’s structural deficit is not the result of diminished revenues, but rather an exercise in egregious spending and governmental growth. 
Whether Governor O’Malley intentionally eschewed from Comptroller Franchot’s opinion is irrelevant and moot at this point because the State of Maryland suffered the largest tax increase in its history ($1.4 billion, with the most tax categories ever raised in a single legislative session). Governor O’Malley was confident that his tax reform package would cure the state’s budget shortfalls. Unfortunately, the Governor was wrong. 
Under Governor O’Malley’s Tax Reform Legislation, he claimed to modernize Maryland’s sales tax by increasing it from the current 5 percent to 6 percent. According to the Governor, Maryland ranked 42nd in the nation for the lowest sales tax rate. He believed that increasing Maryland’s sales tax to 6 percent will keep the state “competitive” with Pennsylvania (6 percent), Virginia (5 percent) and Washington D.C. (5.75 percent).  At the risk of stating the obvious, expectations for Maryland to become more “competitive” by an increase of state sale tax is ludicrous when our neighboring states of Delaware’s sale tax rate is zero percent and Pennsylvania’s sales tax does not apply to textbooks, food or clothes. 
In an open letter, dated December of 2007, I cautioned my constituents and the citizens of Maryland that the approval of these measures would create a draconian impact for all Maryland households and businesses. It comes with great despair that my warning has become a reality to every business and household in this state. 
According to a study conducted by The Tax Foundation in ‘2007’, Maryland ranked 24th best in business competitiveness.  With the implementation of the new tax increases, Maryland fell to 43rd best. The Tax Foundation considered Maryland’s neighboring states: Delaware, Virginia, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New Jersey. In those comparisons, Maryland has the fifth of sixth worst business climate index ranking, the second highest tax burden, and the highest income tax rate. 
Not withstanding the obvious facts above, a study was prepared by Ernst and Young, LLP, entitled “Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis of Maryland Tax Policy Options” that calculated the taxes’ negative fiscal impacts on Maryland’s businesses and households. It was estimated that businesses would pay 40 percent ($273 million) of the total sales tax increase, while households would pay the majority, 60 percent ($419 million). Maryland employment, including state government jobs, will decrease by 8,334 jobs in 2012 and will further decrease to 9,274 jobs by 2017. The largest job reductions in 2012 are in wholesale and retail trade (2,341), and accommodation and food services (1,238). Furthermore, the decrease in employment will also reduce the personal income received by Maryland residents by $461 million in 2012 and $65 million in 2017. Lastly, the sales increases are projected to decrease real investment in business machinery, equipment, structures, and other capital assets-the reductions will reach to $152 million dollars by 2017.  
These projections were solidified last year wherein employers in Maryland eliminated approximately 44,000 jobs –these numbers topped job losses in 2008, which stood at 43,500.   
Understanding that by lowering the tax rate would not only increase state revenue but it would truly enhance Maryland to become more “competitive” with surrounding states, I introduced legislation in 2009 that would have reverted the state’s sales tax rate from 6 to 5 percent. The reduction would potentially support new business growth while sustaining those already in existence by reducing Marylanders from crossing state lines to lower sales tax states.
The Maryland Department of Legislative Services’ (DLS) fiscal note estimated that the enactment of my legislation would have decreased sales tax revenues by $620.5 million in FY 2010 and by $793.5 million in FY 2014. Despite DLS’ assessments, the fiscal note stated, “to the extent that small retail businesses located in Maryland have been adversely affected due to lost sales resulting from increasing the sales and use tax to 6 percent, reducing the tax would presumably mitigate any negative effects.” They further determined that the reduction would result in approximately $9,500 in recouped sales (for a business with $1 million in gross sales). Furthermore, understanding the revenue void that could potentially result if the sales tax was reduced to 5 percent through the passage of my legislation, I have requested to become a co-sponsor to House Bill 1159, entitled, Budget Reduction Act.  
House Bill 1159 has identified structural changes to spending that would result in ongoing savings to the State General Fund.  In total, the structural changes would generate approximately $600 million in state savings to the General Fund.
Exasperated by the “changes” brought about by Governor O’Malley, Marylanders are still waiting for the Governor to “cash in” on his promises he made four years ago during his election campaign. These Marylanders should not be fooled that he will make “good” on such promises now or during the remainder of his term, because when the General Assembly dismissed my sales tax cut legislation last year, the Governor made no issue of it.
If the Governor does not hold himself accountable and redress these economic atrocities that he has placed on every Maryland taxpayer, the only “change” that could happen this year is a change in administrations.
The 2010 Legislative Session is Underway
- by Delegate J.B. Jennings  (R - 7) -
The legislative session officially began its first, full week in Annapolis. It has been an honor to serve as one of your delegates from the District 7 since I was elected in 2002. I have tried to represent the residents of my district with honor and integrity. I truly believe that the General Assembly’s purpose is to provide citizens of the state with a voice in hoe their government is run. Maryland Delegates and Senators in both parties really do embody the term “citizen-legislators”.
 There are important issues being discussed by lawmakers representing the State of Maryland. Some of these important issues will be addressed in the House Judiciary Standing Committee, for which I am now a member. Despite being on a different Standing Committee, I will continue to look closely at every bill that comes before me and vote with my conscience while keeping in mind the wishes of my constituents.
 We have bill hearings every day on the whole gamut of issues. The public is free to testify on any bill. If you would ever like to testify, please let me know and I can help facilitate your legislative testimony.
 If you are interested in visiting Annapolis and seeing what takes place here, I would be honored to have you as my guest.  Visitors can be given tours of the State Capitol, the House and Senate Office Buildings and the Legislative Support Offices.  My staff and I are eager to hear your questions, comments and complaints as well. We would love to see you here in Annapolis. The drive is about an hour from our district, and out state capital is beautiful even in the winter.  If you are interested in visiting us, call my Annapolis office at (410) 841-3698.  I commute quite often so we could ever carpool together if you like, just give me a call.
 Again, it has been an honor to be in the House of Delegates these past seven years and I look forward to doing whatever I can to serve the citizens of District 7 and the State of Maryland