Month: February 2007

Laboring to coerce workers

I knew this had been coming for awhile, but finally it got a name and a number put to it. Last week in the House of Representatives H.R. 800 was introduced, erroneously billed as the “Employee Free Choice Act”. In reality, what this bill would accomplish is end the practice of union representation elections held by secret ballot – rather, the workers would sign cards that state they would favor union representation. Apparently the 61% success rate for union elections in fiscal year 2005 isn’t good enough for the unionistas, who want to have the perfect right to strongarm and intimidate 50 percent plus one of the workers in a place of employment into signing a card guaranteeing that the union collects dues from 100% of the workers.

But this practice is not really for the workers’ benefit; instead, it’s to collect a piece of their wages to advocate for political favors. Not surprisingly, all but a handful of the over 230 co-sponsors to H.R. 800 are Democrats. The few Republicans who have signed on are from Big Labor strongholds New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Connecticut.

I did some checking on opensecrets.org and found out that these Republicans were (for GOP members, anyway) pretty deeply in the pocket of Big Labor. With one exception, they received 10% or more of their PAC money from labor groups, and most were above 25%. By comparison, local Congressman Wayne Gilchrest has only a 4.6% lifetime percentage of labor PAC contributions (none in the 2006 cycle) and California Democrat Rep. George Miller (lead sponsor of H.R. 800) had about 60% of his PAC money come from organized labor.

To be fair, I don’t have a problem with workers organizing, nor does a group that I’ve used as a resource in writing this post (and whose e-mail alerted me to this recently introduced bill.) In fact, The Center for Union Facts notes that they’re not against unions, but, “against union officials’ abuse of power, often at the expense of their own rank-and-file members. We are against corruption, violence, and intimidation. We are against the misuse of union dues. We support employees who elect to join a union, as well as the right of employees to remain non-union without intimidation.” A good summary of their position on “card check”, along with a copy of an ironic 2001 letter from many of these same HR 800 sponsors urging Mexican officials to support a secret ballot for unionization, can be found here.

(With regard to my stance on unions, I find it funny that I’m somewhat to the left of Gunpowder Chronicler, based on the post and comments he wrote a few days back.)

However, I’m bringing this subject up not because I’m under any assumption that this bill won’t pass the House (with over 230 sponsors passage there is a fait accompli); but it’s still possible that the GOP minority in the Senate can grow a pair and bring this to a halt like they did with the unamended minimum wage bill. Failing that, possibly President Bush would see the irony of signing a bill denying democratic rights to millions of America’s workers after expending billions of dollars and several thousand lives to bring democratic rights to millions of Afghanis and Iraqis, and properly veto the so-called Employee Free Choice Act.

There’s nothing wrong with the system as is. Workers should be free of intimidation from either side when making a choice whether to organize or not, and it’s been proven that a secret ballot is the best way to bring out the honest feelings on whether the union has made a good case for itself or not. Reverting to “card check” just stacks the deck in favor of the unions and against the employers who hire the workers in the first place.

 

Give Doris a chance

I really do not understand why this is such a big deal. From the Wicomico County Charter, Section 304, here are the duties of the Council Administrator:

Council Administrator. There shall be a Council Administrator who shall keep minutes of its meetings, maintain its journal, and perform such other duties as the Council may direct. The Council Administrator shall serve at the pleasure of the Council and shall receive such compensation as the Council may determine.

The County Council could theoretically have Doris make coffee for them if they so direct. And in both Daily Times articles I read about this appointment that’s the position she was named to. It’s almost making me wonder if her position is being confused with the Director of Administration’s position, which is a much more powerful post. From Section 412 of the Charter:

The Director of Administration shall perform administrative duties and exercise general supervision over the departments and agencies of the executive branch as the County Executive may direct. Prior to assuming the duties of the office, the Director of Administration shall be a resident of the county and shall continue to reside in the county for the duration of his term of office. The Director of Administration shall cause all county budgets to be prepared and submitted to the County Executive for modification approval and submission to the County Council. Such budgets shall be prepared in the manner and form provided in Article VII of this Charter. In addition, the Director of Administration shall study the organization, methods, and procedures of each department of the county government and submit to the County Executive periodic reports on their efficiency and economy.

And I think the reason for this confusion can be traced back to something Joe Albero said on Salisbury News. From January 26, 2007:

There is a buzzing rumor going around that Doris Schonbrunner is now THIRD in charge of the County. She was supposedly voted in yesterday as the new assistant county administrator.

However, it’s far from certain that, even if she is third in the pecking order, Doris really would have a lot of power – after all, in her position she serves at the pleasure of the Council with duties as Council may direct.

Some people on the local blog scene seem to be under the impression that Doris Schonbrunner will be a power-mad Cruella de Vil. Having met and spoken to her at some length on several occasions, I can’t see that happening at all. Her new position is an administrative job somewhat like the one she had in the Sheriff’s office, but without the law enforcement component. (Perhaps it’s a job more befitting a lady, since I heard some say during the campaign that we weren’t ready for a lady Sheriff.)

So give the woman a chance to do her job. If she’s not up to it, one of the four who voted for her on the County Council will certainly have the opportunity to change his or her mind, and they can dismiss her. I think she’ll do just fine myself, at least until a higher-level job that she’s interested in opens up.

Legislative checkup, February 2007 (Maryland)

After dealing with Congress yesterday, I’m going to look at the influence our local legislators have in Annapolis. Similar to Congress, I’ll look at bills sponsored or co-sponsored by each of our local Delegates and Senators in Districts 37 and 38. This information can also be found on the Maryland General Assembly website. Since there haven’t been many votes to speak of involving the General Assembly, I won’t have much of a voting record to go on quite yet (oh, but just wait.)

Working in district order:

Delegate Rudy Cane (District 37A) is a co-sponsor of a whopping 104 bills. The majority of these (60) haven’t even had a hearing scheduled yet. 37 bills have a hearing scheduled, and seven have had a hearing. One bill co-sponsored by Cane (HB 61) has cleared its committee.

District 37B’s co-Delegate, Addie Eckardt, has her name lent as co-sponsor to 92 bills. 45 do not have a hearing scheduled, 38 bills are scheduled for a hearing, and 7 have been heard. Eckardt is also a co-sponsor of HB 61, which got through committee, and HB 89, which didn’t survive committee. Her counterpart, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway, has co-sponsored 82 bills – 51 with no hearing scheduled, 26 that have a hearing scheduled, 5 which have been heard, and the above-mentioned HB 61. She’s also the sole sponsor of HB 540, which would set up a laptop computer distribution program to the state’s 7th grade students. No hearing is slated for this measure at this time. As a tandem, Eckardt and Haddaway sponsor three bills, two of which are to establish a state debt for items in Talbot County.

Turning to District 38A, I note that Page Elmore has co-sponsored 96 bills. 50 of these have not had a hearing yet, 40 have one scheduled, and 6 have been heard. Page has also been a solo sponsor of 6 bills, all having to do with Somerset County affairs. Two bills he’s sponsored are already through committee – HB 54, a bill that assists the seafood industry in Somerset and Queen Anne’s counties; and HB 145, a bill that will give the next Somerset County Treasurer a 35% raise beginning with his or her term commencing in 2011.

One of my Delegates is Norm Conway. He has co-sponsored a relatively pedestrian 45 bills, 2 of which he shares with his 38B cohort Delegate Jim Mathias. These bills (HB 683 and HB 964) would extend the power of Worcester County fire investigators and prohibit oyster dredging in the Atlantic Coastal Bays, respectively. 32 of these bills (including the aforementioned two) have no hearing set, 12 have a hearing scheduled, and one hearing has occurred for a Conway-sponsored measure. Conway also has a solo bill (HB 1078) for “(a)ltering the purposes for which the Maryland State Firemen’s Association may use money appropriated in the State budget.” No hearing is set for that one. Similarly, Mathias is a co-sponsor of 48 bills – 31 with no hearing set and 16 with one slated. Like Conway, Mathias is among the sponsors of the one bill which has had its hearing.

Additionally, Wicomico County’s delegation as a group sponsored HB 102, which exempts training fires from any “burn ban”. This bill’s already had its hearing.

Now I’ll shift over to the Maryland Senate and see how our two local Senators are faring. Those of you roughly west of Salisbury are represented by Senator Rich Colburn, who’s co-sponsored 81 bills in all. The Senate’s a bit more efficient in hearing schedules, with 37 of these bills having a hearing date scheduled while just 33 do not yet. Nine bills have already had their hearings completed.

In addition, SB 54, which Colburn co-sponsored, has been withdrawn (as of last Wednesday.) This was an act that would’ve mandated young female students receive the controversial cervical cancer vaccine. On the other side, SB 203, a bill he co-sponsors with Senator Stoltzfus of my District 38, has passed committee. It’s an interesting bill that has to do with the Salisbury Chamber of Commerce and existing law.

Speaking of my Senator, J. Lowell Stoltzfus, he has the fewest co-sponsored bills of any local Assemblyman (29.) But he has the highest number of solo-sponsored bills, 12. While most of these bills have to do with local issues within the district, there’s a couple other interesting ones which have to do with the practice of health care (affecting dental hygenists and radiologists) plus a bill requiring a hotel to keep on reserve an accessible room on the lowest floor until either an individual requiring its use reserves it or it’s the final room available. (It’s sort of like codifying common sense to me.) 19 of the proposals he’s sponsoring or co-sponsoring have a hearing scheduled while 21 do not, plus the aforementioned SB 203 that’s through committee.

With over 1800 bills already introduced, the pace will slow down as effective last Friday new bills are automatically sent to the Rules Committee first. So the last 2/3 of the session is set up for hearings and votes on things already introduced. In fact, a number of these bills bear watching as they embark on a path to become law. With over 100 bills co-sponsored and being in the majority party (not to mention an almost certain safe seat for as long as he wants to hold it), note that District 37A Delegate Rudy Cane is a co-sponsor of all of the following House bills (unless noted otherwise.)

HB 44/SB 51 is the “Maryland Clean Cars Act of 2007”. The bill has had its hearings already and awaits committee votes.

HB 148/SB 634 is the bill D.D. Crabb posted on a few days ago, a measure to change over Maryland’s Presidential electoral votes to reflect the winner of the national popular vote rather than Maryland’s results. This had a hearing in the House last week, no Senate hearing is yet scheduled. While Maryland has been a reliably Democrat state (thus sort of defeating their purpose if, as in 2004, a Republican wins the national popular vote), this is part of a nationwide effort to subvert the Founders’ idea of an Electoral College, a body that gives smaller states more power in determining national leaders. Rudy Cane is not a co-sponsor of this bill, surprisingly enough.

HB 225/SB 211 repeals Maryland’s seldom-used death penalty once and for all. A Senate hearing on this proposal is slated for February 21.

HB 273 eliminates the waiting period and other conditions already extant for felons to regain their voting rights upon release from prison. No hearing has yet been scheduled.

HB 288/SB 207 is the “Healthy Maryland Initiative”. It should be titled the “Extra Dollar a Pack Cigarette Tax” because that’s the true purpose of this legislation. Saying that, there’s a LOT more to it and it deserves a careful reading. The House hearing is set for February 16 and the Senate does its hearing February 21.

HB 289 is a local interest “bond bill” – it establishes a $2.5 million grant to Wicomico County to fix up the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center if county matching funds are provided by mid-2009. This bill’s sponsored by local Delegates Cane, Conway, Elmore, and Mathias. No hearing is scheduled.

Similarly, HB 312/SB 373 is a “bond bill” granting $500,000 to the Salisbury Zoo for an Animal Health Facility with the same timeframe for matching funds. The same four sponsors are on the House bill; on the Senate side both local Senators are the sponsors for this measure.

HB 359/SB 91 is the “Clean Indoor Air Act of 2007”, which essentially bans smoking in any building open to the public. Along with Delegate Cane, District 38A Delegate Page Elmore is also a co-sponsor. (Uh, Page, how about leaving these things up to the business owner? Very disappointing.)

HB 365 codifies a date certain that absentee ballots must be received by, taking discretion away from the state Board of Elections. A hearing on that is set for February 28.

HB 400 is known as the “Maryland Universal Health Care Plan”. One of its purposes is to, “(p)rovide public financing of health care services for all residents of the state.” That hearing is slated for February 28.

HB 430 mandates state contractors and subcontractors to pay a “living wage” (set in the bill at $11.95 per hour less any health benefits) to their employees. They do exempt non-profit companies from this law, though. Does this mean a business that will lose big money by following this law? February 20 is the hearing date on this proposal.

HB 537 is a Republican bill (which our three local GOP Delegates are co-sponsoring) mandating compliance with the federal Real ID Act and preventing the issuing of drivers’ licenses to those who cannot document legally being in the United States. Not surprisingly, no hearing for this has been scheduled.

HB 620/SB 494 is a bipartisan (all local Delegates except Rudy Cane are co-sponsors) bill that mandates insurers cover property in “coastal areas” within 50 feet of certain bodies of water. No hearing has been set for that item yet.

HB 754 is the “Children and Working Families Health Care Act of 2007”. Along with Delegate Cane, Delegates Conway and Elmore also serve among the co-sponsors. The hearing on this bill is set for February 16. HB 754 is a long, involved bill that bears reading as well.

HB 890/SB 409 is entitled “Global Warming Solutions – Reductions in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Geez, like more regulations in Maryland will solve the problem. One nice part of this request:  

“MARKET-BASED COMPLIANCE MECHANISM” INCLUDES:

(1) A CAP AND TRADE SYSTEM THAT SETS DECLINING ANNUAL EMISSIONS LIMITS AND ALLOWS EMISSIONS TRADING WITHIN A SYSTEM THAT IS GOVERNED BY RULES AND PROTOCOLS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT; OR NONTRADING POLICIES AND MEASURES, INCLUDING

(I) TAXES ON EMISSIONS;

(II) LABELING REQUIREMENTS;

(III) LIABILITY MEASURES;

(IV) PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS;

(V) PROGRAMS COMMONLY KNOWN AS FEEBATES. (Emphasis mine.)

Anyway, that hearing is February 20 for the Senate bill.

HB 909/SB 674 is called the “Maryland Energy Efficiency Standards Act of 2007”. Once again, Delegate Elmore joins with the predominantly Democrat co-sponsors of this bill. This bill was just introduced Friday so all I have on it is essentially the title and a short synopsis. Thus, no hearing’s been scheduled yet.

The GOP is once again trying to enact “Jessica’s Law”, in this term it’s known as HB 930/SB 413. Our two local Senators, along with GOP Delegates Elmore and Haddaway, are among the co-sponsors. No local Democrats are on that list.

HB 994/SB 475 wishes to establish a “Task Force on the Policy and Funding Implications of Requiring Passage of the High School Assessment for Graduation.” So the poor souls who couldn’t pass the state graduation test (and most likely the teachers’ unions, who are held somewhat accountable by these tests) must have whined to the right people. Just introduced in the House Friday, no hearings are set yet.

SB 564 would submit a proposed Constitutional Amendment to voters in 2008 establishing that in Maryland, a legally recognized marriage is only that one between a man and a woman. Both local Senators are co-sponsors, as they should be. Look for a lot of gay activists in Annapolis on March 1st, the date the hearing on this Senate bill is slated.

Senator Stoltzfus is a co-sponsor of SB 597, which would require election judges to verify a voter’s identity and address. Like that has a chance in Annapolis? It’s not shocking to me that no hearing on this has been scheduled. 

He’s also a co-sponsor of SB 598, a measure that would put telephones already on the federal “do-not-call” list off limits to politically related calls as well. No hearing is set on that, which is surprising given the number of people I heard complaining about this very subject last fall.

******************************

It looks like I’ll be doing a LOT of tracking in the weeks to come, just to see how these bills fare in Annapolis. Those are far from the only bills of importance out there, but these 21 I picked out give a pretty good rundown on some of the most important issues.

Legislative checkup, February 2007 (Congress)

I’m going to try to make this about a monthly or so series – of course, sometimes Congress takes long recesses and our General Assembly only operates from January through April (thank goodness) so this time of year is probably going to be the busiest. And because this part dealing with the Federal side turns out so long I’ll do this one tonight and the state one tomorrow.

The information comes from the THOMAS website run by the Library of Congress. This is probably one of the best uses of the Internet out there. It’s also going to save me a lot of time linking these since anyone else can just as easily look up their particular Congressman on these issues (it’s quite simple to do there! One case where the federal government gets things pretty much right.) I’m just doing this as a “compare and contrast.”

And I’ll begin in the House. Thus far my Congressman, Wayne Gilchrest (MD-1) has sponsored just one bill, which has 24 co-sponsors – mostly comprised of Congressmen whose districts lie within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. H.R. 16 is better known as the “Chesapeake Bay Restoration Enhancement Act of 2007.” This bill was assigned to committee upon introduction January 4 and has not made it out yet.

Across the border in Delaware, Mike Castle has been somehat busier, sponsoring three bills. None of these bills have made it out of their respective committees yet. H.R. 96 and H.R. 97 were both just moved into a subcommittee, so there’s been some action on those bills recently.

The three bills Castle has sponsored: H.R. 96, the “Gun Show Loophole Closing Act of 2007” (with 3 co-sponsors); H.R. 97, the “Accountability and Transparency in Ethics Act” (which has one co-sponsor), and H.R. 334, which “require the House of Representatives and the Senate to each establish a Subcommittee on Intelligence in the Committee on Appropriations, and for other purposes.” The “other purposes” include placing intelligence-related expenditures “on budget.” That bill has no co-sponsors.

Now I’ll turn my attention to our four Democrat Senators from Maryland and Delaware.

Maryland’s senior Senator, Barbara Mikulski, has sponsored just one bill thus far. S. 414 is the “Cloned Food Labeling Act” and languishes in committee.

Newly elected Senator Cardin has done a little bit more, offering two amendments to bills that were tabled. His one sponsored bill, S. 137, is the “Preserving Medicare for All Act of 2007”. This bill is also bottled up in committee.

Turning to the First State, their senior Senator’s been a busy beaver (when not running for President), sponsoring five Resolutions and five bills.

Joe Biden’s Concurrent Resolution on Iraq (S. Con. Res. 2) was shut out when it couldn’t attain cloture (on a 97-0 vote.) But S. Res. 24, which declared January 2007 as “National Stalking Awareness Month” passed by unanimous consent (with 2 co-sponsors). 

It was not as quick for S. Res. 30, a resolution “regarding the need for the United States to address global climate change through the negotiation of fair and effective international commitments” – it’s standing in committee. The same fate is true for S. Res. 64 (regarding expenditures of the Committee on Foreign Relations) and S. Res. 65, which “condemn(s) the murder of Turkish-Armenian journalist and human rights advocate Hrant Dink.” Only S. Res. 30 has a co-sponsor.

Biden’s five bills are as follows: S. 345 is a “bill to establish a Homeland Security and Neighborhood Safety Trust Fund”; S. 368, the “COPS Improvements Act of 2007” (with 29 co-sponsors); S. 392, “To ensure payment of United States assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations for the 2005 through 2008 time period”; S. 449 (with 4 co-sponsors) is a bill that adds regulations for state and local law enforcement agencies; and this week he introduced S. 534, “A bill to bring the FBI to full strength to carry out its mission.” Each of these bills is still in committee.

On the other hand, Senator Carper is a comparative back-bencher, having introduced just one amendment that was tabled to show for his month plus in the 110th Congress.

Now it’s on to the roll call votes. In the House:

  • On H.R. 1, which implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest “no” (passed 299-128).
  • On H.R. 2, the “Fair Minimum Wage Act”, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 315-116).
  • On H.R. 3, the “Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act”, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest did not vote (passed 253-174).
  • On H.R. 4, the “Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act”; again, Castle voted “aye” and Gilchrest “no” (passed 255-170).
  • On H.R. 5, the “College Student Relief Act” (which lowered interest rates for student borrowers), both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 356-71).
  • On H.R. 6, the “Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives” act, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “aye” (passed 264-163).
  • On H.Res. 78, allowing the delegates from the District of Columbia and U.S. territories voting rights in the House, both Castle and Gilchrest voted “no” (passed 226-191).

So on 6 of the 7 votes here regarding “major” bills, Mike Castle voted with the majority Democrats. Are you sure you’re a Republican, Rep. Castle? Meanwhile, I’m not happy with Gilchrest on the minimum wage or energy bills where he voted with the Democrats.

The Senate votes are much easier. All four Senators voted as a block for the Democrat side in most instances (although Biden missed several of these votes.) The only exceptions were:

  • On an amendment to S.B. 1 to permit travel hosted by preapproved 501(c)(3) organizations, Carper and Mikulski voted “aye”, Biden and Cardin voted “no” (passed 51-46).
  • On another S.B. 1 amendment, this to “establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity”, Biden and Carper voted “aye” while Cardin and Mikulski voted “nay” (failed 71-27).
  • Another S.B. 1 amendment “to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee” was tabled. Sen. Mikulski was among those voting not to table the amendment (tabled 54-41). 

Because of its position as the “saucer that cools the steaming cup of coffee” (geez, what a terrible but often-used analogy) the Senate hasn’t seen the voting action that the House has; also, a number of their votes have been confirmation votes for various positions.

Tomorrow I’ll shift gears and look at our legislators’ roles in the Maryland General Assembly.

 

Reinventing the Republican Party

Lately I’ve been putting in a lot of thought about the political scene in general, and my small role in it. Some of that has been put down for all to see in my “50 year plan” series of posts, but other portions are still swirling around in my mind waiting to coalesce into the words I’ll eventually post on monoblogue. (Rest assured I don’t have writer’s block, more like life and time block sometimes.)

A couple items that I stumbled across thanks to my local blogging brethren have shifted my thinking into a different but just as tangible action. Crabbin’ linked up to a commentary by WorldNetDaily founder and columnist Joseph Farah while Delmarva Dealings hooked me up to a post on a website called “Conservative Times” which was also thought-provoking.

So it got me to thinking: is conservatism really dead as Joe Farah believes?

To me, the principles that are regularly considered “conservative” are generally correct; however, just as the left wing politicans abandoned the sobriquet “liberal” once the connotation was successfully changed by conservative pundits, it now appears those who favor a less intrusive government but also favor an interventionist foreign policy where it’s required may have to abandon the term “conservative”. (As noted in the Conservative Times post, many people who bill themselves true conservatives are isolationist, and I part from them in that regard.) The politicians and media on the left have successfully given the term “conservative Republican” an almost equally bad name as that assigned to liberalism – note the lefties’ pet term for themselves is now “progressive.”

In a way, the name changes are quite ironic, given that many of the principles of what’s been known as conservatism evolved from what’s known as “classical liberalism” – embodied by the writings of Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill among others. It wasn’t until the last century that those who favored a more interventionist federal government reallocated the term “liberal” for themselves.

But Farah’s article, in particular, got me to thinking. He notes, “First, one must understand that conservatism is, by definition, a defensive agenda. When one’s goal is simply to “conserve,” or preserve, or to hold onto what is good and right, you have abandoned the idea of advancing. In military terms, your objective would be holding on to turf, rather than attacking, defeating the enemy, taking new ground.”

If you’re familiar with the board game “Risk”, it’s a game that bills itself “The Game of Global Domination.” Quite simply, the object is to take over the world by eliminating your opponents’ armies off the board through a combination of good strategy and a little luck. One option in playing the game is to simply defend and build up a small number of armies on the territories a player holds, which would equate with Farah’s analogy. But, in Risk, by seizing territory one receives cards that entitle a player to eventually attain additional armies as well as gaining proportionally more armies as the number of territories held increase. Thus, holding on to a small number of territories in a defensive posture eventually seals a player’s doom as he’s overwhelmed by opponents who have become stronger by seizing the remaining territories.

But the way I see government is completely different. Perhaps it’s because I do planning for a living (granted on a small scale) but I feel that government should follow a few basic principles:

  • The government should be as small as possible with limited tasks, those that cannot be done as well by the private sector or the market. For example, a standing army is a legitimate federal task, but federal involvement in the health care industry is beyond their assigned duties.
  • The closer the government is to the people, the better and more responsive it is. Tasks which have been usurped by the federal government should, where possible, be reassigned to the states or even counties. I think this would encourage a bevy of possible solutions to problems which crop up, rather than the “one-size-fits-all” approach that the federal or state government seems to come up with.
  • Above all, the reason I prefer government that’s as close to the people as possible is that smaller government can more easily be proactive rather than reactive. It’s a lot easier to steer a rowboat around an iceberg than to steer the Titanic around it.

For all of these reasons I think that it’s time for people who feel like me to abandon the “conservative” moniker. Unfortunately, even though we’re really much more in favor of progress than the so-called “progressives” (a group whose idea of progress is adding layer upon layer of laws and regulations on average folks while exempting themselves), we have long since ceded the use of that term.

Saying that, though, there are elements of the past that we want to keep. I still believe that the Constitution as written is the law of the land, and where it says something like, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, that means what it says. Just as importantly, where the terms “right to privacy” and “separation of church and state” are not included, the silence of the Constitution on these matters meant that they were supposed to be determined by the states and the people – not by judicial dictate. The Founding Fathers have placed within the Constitution a means to change it, but they made it difficult on purpose – thus it’s only been successfully done 17 times, and just once in the last 35 years. (Awhile back, I had some suggestions for new amendments as well.)

As I’ve noted before, I’m a fan of two contemporary leaders in our government. One was Ronald Reagan and the other is Newt Gingrich. While I don’t agree with every little thing both these men have done or advocated in their exercise of governmental power, more often than not I’ve seen their ideas work when put into practice. And what I truly admire about Newt Gingrich is that he’s a forward-thinking individual. Like me, I feel he espouses government that’s proactive rather than reactive.

I’m on the e-mail list for “Winning the Future”. Last week I got an e-mail that spoke about something more important to him than running for President. Regardless of whether I or anyone else thinks he has a legitimate chance to become President, I’m enthusiastic about the idea of someone of his stature and beliefs putting together an organization like American Solutions; one that professes to work on solutions, that, as Gingrich notes, make it possible to, “move the entire system — if we can have school board members committed to incentives, hospital board members exploiting new technology, and state legislators who understand how to bring market principles to public problems — this country can and will fix itself.”

So I think it’s high time Republicans like me and dare I say Newt Gingrich (and on a posthumous basis Ronald Reagan) should really be known as “reinvention” Republicans. We want to move the party away from staid, defensive conservatism but also want to maintain the principles embodied by our Founding Fathers when they wrote the Constitution. Not only that, I think we’re in favor of keeping many of the ideas which were later written into our founding document.

Unlike the view of true libertarians, I think government does have a place and once in awhile there’s a compelling public interest that outweighs individual freedom. But the place we’ve arrived at after 230 years of independence does not leave the people too independent at all. It’s time to work toward rolling back the influence of the federal nanny state and shifting the balance of power in this nation back to where it belongs. And I think reinventing the Republican Party to one that advocates this change is the option we as the GOP need to follow.

So no longer am I a conservative. It’s time to go on offensive, retake our rightful territory, and become a “reinventionist.”

Quick link(s)

Well, the first one out of the chute for the Salisbury City Council insofar as the Internet goes is, not surprisingly, the incumbent Gary Comegys. Challenger Terry Cohen is probably going to be second since she’s secured a URL, just hasn’t placed anything on that website yet.

I’ve added Gary’s link to the side, and the 2007 Salisbury race will be on top of the board since my bloglist comes up in alphabetical order. Obviously, if more people have websites I’d love to know about them. I truly don’t have a horse in the race since I can’t vote in this election. But I will say that I know a few of the candidates a little bit, since I spoke at some length to the aforementioned Mrs. Cohen at our last WCRC meeting and know Louise Smith from her service as one of my predecessors on the Republican Central Committee. I also covered Neil Bayne’s County Council efforts last summer, so I’ve spoken to him briefly a time or two.

Soon I would think that the candidate forums and such will get underway and hopefully I’ll be able to devote a bit of coverage to this race to join Debbie Campbell and Shanie Shields on Salisbury City Council. (Speaking of Debbie, she had a quite informative 20 minutes on the radio today.)

I’m going to expect that I’ll end up with 4 or 5 linked sites when all is said and done. My feeling is that each of the three eventual winners will get their votes in part due to having a website. With the blogs in Salisbury becoming home to much of the political discourse, an Internet presence is vital in my opinion.

I have other surprises and events coming up in the next few weeks on monoblogue, so stay tuned.

Weekend of local rock volume 2

I’m a day or two late with these pix, but I did get out on Saturday night to Brew River for the delmarvanightlife.com 2nd Anniversary party. In all nine bands were featured on two stages: Nate Clendenen, Barking Crickets, Lime Green, The Making, Project Sideways, Lower Class Citizens, Falling From Failure, Hot Box, and Hard$ell. For much of the evening I was at the River Stage which had LG, PS, FFF, and Hard$ell. But I did sneak over to the Main Stage to catch a few songs from the other groups and take pictures of them as well. I ended up getting good pictures of five of the nine groups.

Barking Crickets, who I caught a little bit of for the second weekend in a row.

Lime Green opened the River Stage with a good alternative sound. 

I only caught a little bit of The Making, just enough to get the picture.  

Project Sideways did a great song called 'Wasted Dreams'. 

These three guys, Falling From Failure, played some really good hard stuff, too. 

Probably the best of the ones I saw was Project Sideways, but most of them I’d see again if I got the opportunity and had a few bucks in my pocket. Most of the bands that were there Saturday night are linked from monoblogue.

Oh, sorry about having the pix screwed up for a bit…server went down (again) for a brief time and I had to remember how to get to my HTML editor, which works much better for me when I post pictures up!

Not sure when the next show I’ll hit will be. I may decide to wait until a week from Sunday when guitarist extraordinaire Gary Hoey plays a concert at Seacrets. (This right after a guitar virtuoso of another stripe, B.B. King, brings Lucille in to play at the Civic Center.) Regardless, the local music scene is now a whole lot hotter than the weather!

Salisbury News wins again…

I figured I’d get people ready because I know Joe Albero will be excited again after he sees this.

On January 26 Joe placed a post on Salisbury News claiming that Doris Schonbrunner was to become the new assistant county administrator.

I was just looking over the Daily Times website and at 5:24 p.m. today Joe Gidjunis posted an article for tomorrow’s paper, “Schonbrunner to become Council Administrator“. However, this selection was only confirmed today by the Wicomico County Council.

So Joe’s going to be pretty pleased about beating the DT by what, 9 days?

As for myself, having supported Doris in the primary election I’m happy she’s staying in the county and I think the naysayers who commented on the Albero article will be won over by the professionalism that I’m sure Doris will handle her new duties with. If not, I guess they’ll just have to stew in it, won’t they?

The tradition continues…

My ex would know all about this.

Well, the Super Bowl is over, so you know what that means….

TEN DAYS UNTIL PITCHERS AND CATCHERS REPORT!!!!! Woohoo! Let the REAL season begin!!!!!

And…as a reminder of where the Shorebirds left off, in August I had my camera at the final home game and recorded the final out. (It’s a 6 meg .avi file, should play on Windows Media Player because it does on mine.) Color commentary by yours truly.

Replying to a comment I received…

This morning (before my server went down for about an hour – come on midPhase get with the program here!) I moderated my comments and came across this one regarding a post I did awhile back:

Bashiir wrote:

The war in Iraq obviously has degenerated to intra Iraq sectarian violence of the worst kind. Killings of children, bombing of schools, torture with drills to the face, the brain, the body are commonplace. Anarchy could easily be the result with the strongest and most violent the most successful. In the middle ages, this was a pattern as well. George W. Bush has created perhaps the most profound political mistake in history.

Instead of responding as part of a comments section of a post that’s now sort of buried, I’m going to answer this one right up front and center (at least for a few days.)

The background on the post in question stretches all the way back to a note I got in my e-mail box from Senator Cardin about the Iraqi situation back in early January. Issac Smith of The Old Line was offended and off we went.

But to address Bashiir’s comments, I’m going to ask a simple question: With the coverage of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that was broken by and amplified daily through the partisan media, how can you honestly think that the torture and mayhem you describe would not be known about if it were being done by our forces? I have yet to see or hear about anything of the sort being blasted over the airwaves.

However, if I’m misreading your comment and you’re inferring that the killing, bombing, and torture is part of the sectarian violence you speak of, you’re right. War does tend to feature tactics that aren’t conducive to survival amongst the unfortunates who are in its path, generally innocent bystanders. This was true in the Middle Ages and true today.

But I’m not of the opinion that President Bush is to blame. Tactics that won World Wars One and Two do not work when a) the enemy is not a nation-state or group of nations as the Axis powers were in WWI and Germany and Japan were in WWII; and b) the fighting is of an asymmetrical nature. In Iraq, we’re using the standard issue warfighting equipment against an enemy brazen enough to take advantage of our rules of engagement and use nonstandard weapons such as IED’s and truck bombs. They also have no qualms about taking innocent people with them, such as yesterday’s incident where a homicide truck bomber leveled a Baghdad market. However, the strategy is to eventually have the Iraqis police themselves, with most likely a small American force remaining there as backup. This strategy already works in much of Iraq.

I’ve stated this before: the enemy has learned well from our missteps in fighting the Viet Nam War. When the enemy, both then and now, went toe-to-toe with our forces in conventional warfare, they’re usually wiped out by our superior firepower. Both the Viet Cong and the Islamic zealots we’re engaged with now have won their battles in the field of public opinion here in America.

The one difference between our era and the Middle Ages was that now there is one country that was founded on the belief that mankind yearns for freedom, not submission or simple survival to see another day.

History will judge in the years and decades to come whether GWB had a solid strategy against al-Qaeda and other nonnational Islamist enemies. But I don’t question the need to fight back in some manner, as attacks on U.S. interests here and abroad culminated in the terror of 9/11. Nor do I question the need to persevere and win the battle. While it may be a fatalistic view of the consequences of pulling out, I think Kevin McCullough’s column today on townhall.com is more plausible if we leave Iraq before the task is completed than if we don’t.

And another thing: (hate it when I think of stuff after I turn the computer off!)

I’d like to know if Bashiir, who remarked about staying involved in a sectarian civil war in Iraq, also felt the same way about our involvement in Kosovo (which was essentially a sectarian civil war where we took the side of the Muslims) and thinks we should get into the pet intervention cause of many Democrats, the sectarian civil war in Darfur.

A 50 year plan: Eminent domain/property rights

I actually wasn’t going to do this particular subject yet, but I received an e-mail at work yesterday that bothered me and I wanted to share my reaction. In turn, since I’d planned on doing a “50 year plan” post on the issue anyway, this was as good of time as any to do so.

Recently, partially at the behest of my company but moreso to keep my continuing education requirements straight (and maintain my architectural license) I rejoined the American Institute of Architects after a hiatus of about 5 years or so. So now I’m a member of AIA Chesapeake Bay instead of AIA Toledo, but the national song seemingly remains the same.

I figured out that my membership had gone through when I started receiving AIA e-mails at work, which I have zero problem with. But yesterday’s e-mail was a newsletter called The Angle, which documents their political lobbying efforts and other related items the AIA pursues. Part of this newsletter was soliciting input for an AIA position statement, as follows:

Proposed Position Statement 46 – Eminent Domain

The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. State and local governments must ensure that eminent domain laws do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.

Well, since they asked for my input, they got it…

I would feel much better about this if the statement read as follows:

“The American Institute of Architects believes that eminent domain is a critical tool for revitalizing our cities and improving the quality of life in urban and suburban neighborhoods. While the AIA acknowledges and agrees that private property rights are paramount in our free society, we also feel that state and local governments can and should balance the rights of existing property holders with eminent domain laws that do not curtail smart growth efforts, brownfield cleanup, or otherwise limit new development and improvements to existing development.”

As I read it, the AIA is taking a position of property holders be damned, we just want to develop sites regardless of who’s hurt in the process and all these damn libertarians who insist on actually following the “takings clause” in the Fifth Amendment are just meddling with our profession.

Many eminent domain proceedings in the last decade have stretched the term “public use” way beyond its intent. Personally, I do not believe in government using its power and taking one’s private property to benefit another person simply for additional tax revenue.

And so begins this portion of what I’ve come to call my “50 year plan.” It’s pretty simple, really. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution reads, in part, as follows:

(N)or (shall a person) be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court handed down what’s popularly known as the Kelo decision. In a 5-4 decision (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer the majority; O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas found for Suzette Kelo) the Court held that, despite the fact that “the city is not planning to open the condemned land – at least not in its entirety – to use by the general public.” They noted, “this…Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the…public.”

You know, sometimes the Supreme Court gets it wrong. The idea behind eminent domain was to allow the taking of private property for a public use, such as a highway, airport, or a building that would be owned by the taxpayers rather than a private entity. But in the case of Suzette Kelo, her property would be used by a private developer – a developer who was planning on developing the land to boost the city’s tax base.

In the time since, many states have enacted laws to prohibit this practice. According to the Castle Coalition, 34 states either have a prohibition on this practice or strengthened its position on the law in 2006. Maryland is not one of them.

There is a fairly weak reform bill in the hopper in the Maryland Senate this session, SB3. A similar bill last session, also SB3 (along with HB1137), was referred back to committee once it was amended to change from a legislative matter to a Constitutional amendment by an amendment from Senator Allan Kittleman. (The House bill did not make it out of committee at all.)

Interestingly enough, the eminent domain power in Maryland has not been used much recently for “traditional” items such as highways, airports, government buildings, etc. The heaviest user of eminent domain in recent years has been the Maryland Stadium Authority, as they cleared out blocks of homes and businesses to build, among others, M&T Bank Stadium and Oriole Park at Camden Yards.

I like the idea of a Constitutional amendment at the state level, as long as the amendment clearly states that the power of eminent domain is to be used only for the public good and not to enrich one powerful private entity at the expense of a class of lesser entities as happened in New London, Connecticut. Theoretically, the federal level is already taken care of in the Fifth Amendment; all that needs is a Supreme Court which remembers that our laws are based solely on what the Founders wrote, not what they feel is in our best interest at the time or on incorrect precedents.

Because this eminent domain issue has a fairly simple solution and can be settled rather quickly, it’s one of the easiest planks to rectify in my 50 year plan. So I’m going to expand on the subject a little by talking about private property rights and other property issues.

Obviously in our nation one has some restrictions on property rights, which are mostly common-sense sorts of things. For example, it would not be a good idea if I built a rifle range in the midst of a residential area. If I had complete property rights theoretically I could do this, but most areas have some sort of zoning to prevent such incompatible uses from occurring on adjacent plots. Generally things like usage, setbacks, building area as a percentage of a lot, and building height are covered. These can also be waived if the property owner presents a compelling reason to do so in front of an elected or appointed local body.

However, I see a trend where government is restricting land usage by regulation. A recent example was embodied by the number of National Monuments established by President Clinton by his interpretation of the Antiquities Act of 1906. Whereas national parks need Congressional approval, in many cases national monuments do not. Clinton established a total of 19 national monuments, mostly in the final year or so of his term. While much of the land was already federally owned, this action also further restricted its usage. With the strokes of his pen Clinton placed over 5 million acres of land out of reach to mining and development. (That’s about 2/3 of the size of Maryland.) By comparison, President Bush has enacted just one land-based national monument of about 1/3 acre in New York City. A summary of concerns can also be found here.

While local zoning codes are generally fair, the scale of regulation of private property by the federal government is much less so – and much harder to combat. Another area of regulation that concerns me is hypersensitivity by people concerned with environmental issues such as endangered species. A number of projects have been thwarted nationwide because some so-called endangered species MIGHT have a nesting ground or habitat there. While there’s a case for preserving habitat, the balance is currently way too far in favor of militant environmentalism at the expense of economy.

Now I’ll shift my focus to a more local level.

In last year’s state election, Maryland voters unwisely placed the General Assembly in charge of the disposition of state land rather than retaining it under executive authority. This ballot issue arose from the proposed sale of state land in St. Mary’s County to a developer – something I personally had no problem with. Just like the argument in the Kelo case about the economic benefit to the city of New London, the land in question could have possibly benefitted the coffers and overall economy of St. Mary’s County. But in this case government took the opposite side.

Ideally to me governmental entities will own the least amount of land necessary to function. Further, land that is owned by the government should be as free of restrictions to private use as possible. While development would have limits, something where the public good outweighs the risks (such as drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) can be done if managed properly and carefully.

This portion of the 50 year plan will take much longer to implement than the eminent domain issue will because again it’s going to take a sea change in attitude by the powers that be. The more land they have, the more power. It’s going to take a forceful voice from the people to make government give back to the private sector what is rightfully theirs.

Salisbury Mall Archive

I came across an interesting website in the last couple days called Salisbury Mall Archive. It’s actually been around since October and is apparently one of those labors of love from a onetime resident who now lives in Wilmington.

Being in the profession that I am, old buildings hold a fascination to me. It’s interesting to think about a time when the now-decrepit mall was the hot new thing in Salisbury. Makes you wonder if that instantly became the teen hangout back then or if hanging out at the mall was something my generation began to do in the late ’70’s.

Anyway, this blog has a lot of interesting old and new photos of the site and I enjoyed working my way through it. What would really be cool to me though would be to get the set of blueprints the mall and its addition were built from. 

But the SMA website got me to thinking about how things become obsolete so quickly. In essence, the Salisbury Mall had a two-decade lifespan from the time it was built to the day the Centre of Salisbury opened. Looking at it as an outsider who didn’t grow up with the mall, I would honestly have to wonder why it was placed in the location it was. To me, a better location would have been in the area that’s now bisected by the Northeast Collector. If the information I’ve gathered is correct, I believe the Ocean Gateway was built just prior to the Salisbury Mall. Instead of getting a large parcel of land along the busy highway, the old mall was placed on what amounts to a side street. Of course, the Ocean Gateway was later supplanted by the U.S. 13/50 bypass that originally terminated where the Centre of Salisbury stands now before the highway was extended to pick up U.S. 50.

The other misfortune befalling the old Salisbury Mall was having a series of uncaring owners. Perhaps the building could have been converted into another non-retail use. Former large retail spaces serve as college campuses, government buildings, call centers – the list goes on. Sadly, the building has gone without even basic repairs for so long that the elements have taken their toll and there’s little choice anymore but to level the structure. With the building being open to the elements, our humid climate, and plenty of material to feed on, the mold alone would render the building unsafe to inhabit. (You wonder if the homeless man recently found dead in the woods near the old mall was a person who regularly slept in that building and was sickened by the extreme mold exposure.)

When I first came to Salisbury, I happened to drive by the old mall as I wandered about town getting my bearings. (Wow – two malls, I thought to myself.) I remember driving by there during the evening and wondering why no one was at the mall, not realizing that it was all but abandoned by then. (This would’ve been about the time the final store that was left there closed up shop.) It was also when it struck me that the mall sure seemed like it was off the beaten path.

Of course, right across the street from the old mall is the Civic Center. Again, this is a case where a building seems to have a short-term useful life as Wicomico County is seeking millions to refurbish the place just to get a few more years out of it. I suppose what makes me feel old is that the Civic Center was built when I was a sophomore in high school and it’s almost functionally obsolete. At some point, there will have to be a decision made whether to pull the plug on the building as a concert and entertainment venue.

Personally I don’t think it’s a bad concert venue at all; however, given the dearth of acts that put Salisbury on their touring schedule it may be time to start planning for a successor arena. Obviously there’s not the capacity necessary to bring large national acts in, but we’re not even getting good second-tier groups. The last rock band I recall being at the WYCC was the Journey show I attended in November of 2005.

Along Civic Avenue we already have one white elephant. Unfortunately, the Civic Center isn’t going to be a top spending priority for the county anytime soon and I have yet to see anyone willing to put private capital into building a new arena here like is possible up in Laurel. So in the years to come we may have two white elephants reminding us of what Salisbury once was.