Glad to hear we have common ground. However I don’t understand your anger at AFP for not disclosing contributors. Is that somehow different from not disclosing that this entire trust fund idea is from labor and that is a major reason the former governor and the democratic senate are behind it? Surely you don’t believe that only labor unions can have grass roots.

I think we should stick to the facts of the idea and whether it passes muster on its own. Selective use of facts is wrong for both sides.

Anyway, it is almost over for this year. Hope all is well in Maryland.

You & I have found common ground:

“I don’t think the issue is what they call this new fee/tax on the phone bill. I think the issue is what do they call it in the legislative bill and during the debate. If you can pass it by calling it what it is and by telling the truth during the public debate about what it will fund, so be it.”

I agree. I think Gov. Kaine proposed this in a transparent manner, and the Senate adopted it in a transparent manner. Both made clear in budget documents and legislation that the tax is an 18 cent surcharge fot the Line of Duty fund, providing death and disability benefits to uniformed first responders injured or killed on the job.

The deception and withholding of information was done by Americans for Prosperity, which did not reveal that the tax is only 18 cents a month, distorted the purpose of the tax, and refuses to disclose contributors with a mistaken idea of vested interest that might be paying AP to gin up a grassroots attack.

- Steve Lebowitz, Annapolis, Maryland

Thanks for the enlightenment. I am not a member of AFP and I don’t object to the new fee/tax so long as citizens acutally know what it is for and legislators vote on it accordingly. I believe this has been tried for the past several years and defeated each year. It was tried this year and again defeated (six different bills I believe). Now it is the budget process being used and that prevents public debate. Seems like the wrong way to do it if it is a good idea.

As I now understand this, it is creating a new “trust fund” with approximately twice as much money in it as the actual costs in the House budget to be paid out in benefits. I also believe that these benefits are paid out of the general fund (maybe by law). So I still don’t get why we are creating a savings plan with more money than is needed to cover costs at a time when there are painful cuts being made to other programs. That is why I believe the money will get used somewhere else. Not sure what would be worse, increasing taxes/fees to put in a savings plan when others are being cut, or calling it one thing when it is really another. But I don’t care so long as the public is informed.

While we are at it, I also don’t understand why death benefits wouldn’t be more cost effectively handled by a group life insurance plan (with a rider multiplying the value for dying on the job)and medical benefits by group health and workers comp. We ought to be able to get a heck of a lot of coverage for $9 million per year as currently budgeted.

I don’t think the issue is what they call this new fee/tax on the phone bill. I think the issue is what do they call it in the legislative bill and during the debate. If you can pass it by calling it what it is and by telling the truth during the public debate about what it will fund, so be it.

“The new fee is an effort by the senate to increase general fund revenues by $38 million over the two years and we really don’t know what it will pay for.”

but the Senate’s provision makes clear that the revenue does not go to the general fund; it goes directly and exclusively to the Line of Duty fund:

Benefits paid under the Line of Duty Act shall be funded by the $0.18
surcharge, which shall be billed, collected and remitted in the same manner as the E-911 fee and shall be deposited by the
Virginia Information Technologies Agency and the Department of Taxation, as applicable, directly to the Line of Duty Death
and Health Benefits Trust Fund of the state treasury and on the books of the State Comptroller.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?101+bud+13-6.02+pdf

From my reading of the provision, there may be a separate breakout on phone bills saying, “LINE OF DUTY FEE…. $0.18.”

Whether there is a separate breakout or not, there is a direct link from the fee to the recipient: When you call 911, a uniformed public safety officer responds, without regard to his safety, to rescue or protect others. This fee replenishes the Line of Duty fund that pays disability or death benefits to families of 911 responders injured or killed in the line of duty. Rarely is a tax or fee more directly linked to the service it funds than this, and rarely are the beneficiaries as worthy.

I’ve shown how Americans for Prosperity has concealed the facts, refused to disclose contributors that might have a vested interest in their opposition, and distorted the truth. Shame on Americans for Prosperity.

- Steve Lebowitz, Annapolis, Maryland

And for the record, I have four phones and I don’t mind paying the .72 cent fee…

“Will you square off with me at bearingdrift.com on the Virginia E-911 tax increase @kerpen ? http://ow.ly/1gTGo ”

Stay tuned.

- Steve Lebowitz, Annapolis, Maryland

http://law.justia.com/virginia/codes/toc0901000/9.1-400.html

I disagree with you about the impact an 18 cents monthly fee will have on the telecommunications industry. I don’t believe a single telecom will lose a single customer over 18 cents a month. Two dollars and sixteen cents a year.

Too bad this discussion has turned away from Americans for Prosperity’s deceit. AFP’s radio ads, direct mail, and website bloviate about a “24 percent tax hike,” never revealing that it’s only 18 cents per phone line per month. They call 18 cents “a huge tax hike.” Two dollars and sixteen cents a year is not a huge tax hike.

Even worse, AFP distorts the purpose of the tax, never mentioning the Line of Duty fund benefitting only uniformed first responders injured or killed in the course of protecting or rescuing others. Instead, AFP claims the tax will fund “an array of benefits for a wide variety of state and local government employees.” [NOT TRUE: Read the statute linked above to see for yourself.]

Notice how Ben Marchi has disappeared from this thread. Does he have the guts to defend AFP, to refute my contention that their campaign is deceptive? And will he answer my earlier question: Did telecoms “donate” to AFP to fund the attack against this tax? It sure looks like AFP is exploiting their followers’ good will, ginning them up about what they call a “24 percent tax hike” to fund “an array of benefits for a wide variety of state and local government employees,” never revealing it’s only 18 cents a month for uniformed public safety officer injured or killed on the job.

Speak up, Ben Marchi, or your silence will speak for you.

- Steve Lebowitz, Annapolis, Maryland

A good deal of us could face potential death. Heavy equipment accidents, machinery automation accidents, a teacher could be killed at school by a student, the driver’s ed guy could be killed in a wreck, a hospital worker could die of a communicable disease, a HRT bus could be smashed by a light rail train. Where do you draw the line?

If you draw the line……anywhere, you have by definition discriminated and attributed value.

If a delivery driver dies, I feel horribly for him and his family. Does that mean I should be obligated to fund his death benefits?

What? A pizza driver doesn’t save lives? Sounds like you just discriminated. How about that ABC guy/gal?

Certain professions put the employee in frequent danger in protecting others. War time soldiers, Seals, police, fire, etc. fit that category. I feel our government OWES those guys. The desk clerk,…….not so much.

I’m not the only one that values some professions over others. The voters do too. The firemen collecting for Muscular Distrophy would not bring in as much were they not obviously firemen. Some donors, ironicly, don’t pay attention and think they’re donating to something for firemen. I’ve heard as much from people.

In this legislation, once again, police and fire are being used to further somebody else’s design. Kinda like VB council does.

How is morale affected if you can’t afford to live in the city you protect? Get lied to about pay compression fixes? Told you’re equal to ABC? Told you’re equal to corrections. Told there will be pay parity because you’re equal. What if you are in corrections and you’re told that and you are told you’ll get pay parity with police during an election year for sheriff? How is that going for you, by the way? Think you weren’t lied to?

Public Safety deserves special treatment. And by that, I don’t mean being used like poker chips to continually hold homeowners hostage at the expense of safety of our police & fire.

So, yes, I value police and fire professions above ABC and even game wardens. I don’t apologize for that. Of all people, William, I would think YOU would understand.

I don’t value one person or job over an other. Male, female, black, white, firefighter or cop, it matters not if you get killed in the line of duty protecting the citizens of Virginia.