September 2008 – Page 3

Links with the best intentions

If you’re a sharp-eyed reader of monoblogue, you’ve noticed there’s fewer and different links on the left-hand side. (If not – hey, I changed the links you’d see if you looked left and scrolled down!)

Part of this was to reflect the results of Delaware’s primary last Tuesday, but the other reason was to point out some of the candidates which are backed by a number of political action committees I’ve drawn attention to. We all know this has become an issue here because of the bundling of contributions from backers of the Club For Growth to Andy Harris’s Congressional campaign, but the Club For Growth is supporting a number of other hopefuls who support their economic philosophy. Similarly, the other committees I focus on have their slate as well.

Originally, I had planned on actually linking to each candidate website but after seeing the number of candidates some of these groups have thrown their support behind I quickly realized that I’d have a helluva lot of links to come up with. So as a compromise measure I link to each organization’s page. Because of this, you’ll notice that Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC is also pledging themselves behind Andy Harris. (I’m thinking of placing the case for Harris on Huckabee’s site, meanwhile I don’t know who’s suggesting candidates to Fred Thompson’s newly-formed committee. Once he has some I’ll add the link.)

Soon you’ll figure out that there’s a lot of committees out there placing their donated cash behind candidates of all stripes. Certainly there’s others on the Left who I don’t agree with doing their part to elect more Democrats to grow government. (Frank Kratovil had 112 such donations from political and campaign committees as of June 30 while Andy Harris had 2,656 donations. Due to the technicality of FEC rules each Club For Growth bundled individual contribution counts in this category. If unions were forced to itemize each of their individual local dues they used for political contributions Kratovil would have a similar number.)

And when the next quarterly numbers come out you’ll see how much I gave Andy, too. Maybe I need to start the monoblogue PAC and get in on all this action. *ahem*

The next goal of link maintenance will be to segregate some of my right-hand bloglist out. I’m definitely thinking of adding more Delaware links, so suggestions for good local websites are welcome. In the meantime, go ahead and boggle your mind thinking about all the money in politics.

Reinventing the brand?

On Friday, during a fundraiser with former Presidential candidate Governor Mitt Romney, State Senator and Congressional hopeful Andy Harris announced that it was time for a new campaign slogan, at least according to this PolitickerMD story by Danny Reiter. Andy’s new tagline is “Freedom, Opportunity, Change.”

I’m not quite sure I agree with this decision. While I’m certain there’s been focus group testing on the new slogan, they didn’t come and ask me what I thought. And I think that “change” has been so overused in this political era that the word has all but lost its appeal. After all, everyone wants change but too often that phrase is just lip service to what would need to be a renewal. (Actually, “Renewing Freedom and Opportunity” sounds pretty good and hopefully is a more accurate description of what Andy would accomplish.) Remember, I’m the guy who came up with the 50 year plan for change?

Unfortunately, Andy is not the guy who’s going to be hiring new blood or firing an entrenched bureaucracy, that’s going to be up to President McCain. (I have no hope that Barack Obama will make any sort of positive change in the role of Fedzilla.) But there is one item I think Andy could sell as bringing freedom and opportunity (it goes without saying business as usual would end.) And it’s easily attainable within a two-year term.

Repeal those mandates which withhold federal money if state law doesn’t conform with an item Washington wants. Believe it or not, there is a Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. And while this practice conforms to the letter of that law, it certainly bends the intent well beyond anything the Founding Fathers dreamed up. This is the hammer that the federal government uses to intrude on the rights states have to dictate their own affairs, and getting rid of it will give the bureaucrats a little less to do.

And maybe that will call attention to the sheer amount of our tax burden that simply makes it into Washington just to be turned around and sent back out to a state capital. Being in state government Andy would be much more well-versed about this than I but I believe about half of our state budget is comprised of money received from the federal government. A goal of the Republicans in Congress should be to divest the federal government out of as many areas as possible – that’s not to say that services wouldn’t be provided but the money should be garnered from local sources. It would bring about a debate in each state capital (and in turn each county or parish seat) about what services are truly priorities if they knew that Uncle Sam wasn’t going to be the ultimate backstop to foot the bill. (We’ve already seen the mortgage industry screwed up and put on the backs of taxpayers, including the 95-plus percent who pay their mortgages on time. Thanks a lot.)

Americans crave change but fear the unknown. And in a world that is filled with those who would do us harm, the time has come to reevaluate the priorities of our federal government – hell, it’s long past time to do this at all levels of government. This election, though, shouldn’t be just about change as a concept – it should be about a renewal of Constitutional principles in a nation that for too long has ignored most of them.

Abating the ‘mommyocracy’

You would think that I’d have a day off from political discussion when I decided to stop by WinterPlace Park just down the road from me and scope out that portion of the Delmarva Bike Week proceedings – neither major-party Congressional candidate had planned to do any campaigning there. In truth, my two-wheel riding consists of my time on the manually-pedaled variety so I went when I did to check out the tunage of Crossroads. (Later tonight I’ll put some pics and thoughts over on my Myspace blog regarding that part of the day. Look for Weekend of local rock number 17 there.) But I did ride my two wheels over there since it was a nice easy two-mile ride.

Well, I thought it would be a day off of sorts until I saw this trailer.

I always wondered what the acronym stood for, now I know.

I saw the trailer and immediately thought of yesterday’s post. I believe I am exactly right when I say that there’s a political advocacy group for every single person in the country, and ABATE is the one for motorcycle riders. And when I spoke to their workers briefly, one of them used the term ‘mommyocracy’ and a post was born, along with the promise to allocate the word and make them slightly more famous. They had several people working the event today.

A number of people were working at the ABATE trailer today. I'm all for letting those who ride decide as well.

The group is probably most famous for its stance against helmets being required when riding motorcycles. And while I don’t ride a motorcycle, I can understand their desire to make their own decisions when it comes to that aspect of riding; to me these laws fall right in the category with seat belt laws in cars. (For the record, I do wear my seat belt and I ride my bicycle with a helmet. On a bicycle, a helmet is much more protective of a collision at 15 MPH than a motorcycle helmet would be with a collision at 55 MPH – unless you’re wearing a lot of shock-absorbing body armor the internal injuries which would result probably just mean you die with a pretty face.)

While they didn’t change any of the helmet laws in Maryland in the last General Assembly term, ABATE was pleased about helping to get three bills through and signed into law:

SB712 establishes a fine and licensing suspension for failure to yield the right-of-way if it contributes to an accident which kills or seriously injures another motorist.
SB713 allows specified auxiliary lighting on a motorcycle to improve nighttime visibility.
HB844 changes the size of Maryland’s motorcycle license plate to the standard 7″ x 4″ adopted by most other states. That’s going to allow situations like the one on this bike to be rectified:

After October 1st, cyclists will no longer need to place their Maryland motorcycle plates in sideways like this one has.

There were also two other bills signed into law that they were watching, one which altered the definition of a motorcycle (HB221) and the other for an ATV Safety Task Force (HB114/SB28). While the three bills I pointed out above sailed through with little to no opposition, the final three were opposed by a few GOP Delegates and Senators, including Senator Andy Harris who voted against HB221, HB114, and SB28 at each opportunity. Delegate Rick Impallaria also was steadfast against the three bills when the House voted on them. It’s also interesting to note on HB114/SB28 that as originally introduced it was a helmet law for ATV’s, but the General Assembly watered it down via amendment to simply be a task force to study the issue. ABATE wasn’t originally part of the task force; Senator Larry Haines sponsored the amendment to add them.

ABATE also has a political action committee called the Motorcycle Riders PAC, and while they’re not a big-money PAC they did chip in $4,700 during the 2006 cycle, according to the National Institute for Money in State Politics and their Follow the Money website. It’s a bit surprising that they weighed donations in favor of Democrats when the GOP pushed harder for their interests based on bill sponsorship and voting patterns. (Never mind that the Republicans tend to be against a ‘mommyocracy’ as a matter of principle too.) They should really reconsider the largest contribution, which went to District 38B Delegate Norm Conway – he did nothing to advance their interests and not much for the rest of us either.

This is just more proof that everyone has their own advocacy group, but for the most part ABATE seems to be one of the good guys. They didn’t set out to grow government or shift tax dollars their way, but instead advocated for what’s seemingly common-sense legislation.

Contributing to the problem

While doing my Friday afternoon road work I thought about more I wanted to say on the subject, so if you’ve already read this it may bear re-reading.

In Washington today it seems there’s an advocacy group to represent each and every voter in America personally. Because I’m a registered architect, I receive items pushing the agenda of the American Institute of Architects; needless to say there’s not much I agree with when they have a stated agenda of making buildings “carbon-neutral” by 2030 to combat “climate change.”

Today I received their wish list for the final four-week Congressional term before the election and naturally much of it was focused on the supposed need for “green” buildings. But they shrewdly couched it as “members of Congress will consider a number of proposals that could potentially result in more work for you and your firm.” Perhaps that’s true, but as I’ll explain later this shouldn’t be the aim of government.

For the record, here’s the two main items the AIA is pushing Congress to adopt.

Incentives for “green” commercial construction
Funding for school construction and renovation

The incentive for climate-friendly construction the AIA advocates is yet more tinkering with the tax code, a tinkering that would extend the Energy Efficient Commercial Buildings tax incentive beyond the end of the year. (As it stands, developers can qualify for a $1.80 per square foot tax deduction if they build in a certain manner.) And while the organization argues that this would appease developers who worry about the expiration of the tax provision and create more work for the architectural industry, my contention is that eliminating the complexity of the tax code would create a far better economic climate than yet another comparatively minor tax change. Besides, energy efficiency should be a goal which pays for itself and thus needs no other incentive. It’s yet another carrot placed in the tax code to regulate behavior and extending it for whatever amount of time Congress eventually would pick out will just assure that the lobbyists who favor this will have something to keep them busy for years to come.

On the second point, it goes without saying that I’m dead-set against federal regulations on school building in construction, simply because I don’t recall seeing anything about a federal role in education in my copy of the Constitution. Yet again Beltway bureaucrats would be telling local schools how to do their work if they accept the Faustian bargain of federal assistance for constructing or renovating schools.

I’ll concede right here that for the most part the American Institute of Architects is pushing for this legislation as a way of making more work for architects, and that’s fine – they have every right to do so. They operate under the mistaken belief that the money being placed into these programs and tax changes doesn’t cost the economy anything, but reality is that both provisions make more permanent work for the lobbyists and special interests who swarm like locusts inside the Beltway and throughout each state capital. Sure, a local school district may receive federal funds or some developer gets a tax credit as a temporary boost to their coffers but I believe neither truly advance the interests of the architectural profession in the long run as much as streamlining the maze of federal bureaucracy and simplifying the tax codes would by putting more money in the hands of those who would be much better clients than Fedzilla would be.

The most recent tagline from the AIA regarding green construction is that they “walk the walk.” Unfortunately, they’re leading those of us in the profession down a primrose path to ever-expanding government influence where soon we’ll be told where and how to practice our craft to an even greater degree than that which we already labor. By giving in to the consensus of scientists more interested in bringing an end to capitalist society and punishing the one nation which has led the world in building innovation over the last century and a half, the organization which purportedly has our interests at heart is instead letting our collective selves down.

I’ve singled out the American Institute of Architects for two reasons – one is that it does affect my profession (the real one which actually brings me a paycheck) in advocating particular policy, and secondly because it’s one where I can understand their political aims in real terms. I’m familiar with the jargon and can break it down for those outside the profession to understand. Now imagine this group multiplied by the thousands who work in and around Washington and you understand why our nation is in the shape it’s in. It would not surprise me in the least if there were 200 lobbyists inside the Beltway for each member of Congress; in fact, I’m not certain that I’m not underestimating the figure. Each lobbyist has his or her agenda and, while I’m sure I agree with some of their aims, there are few who want to eventually put themselves out of a job by getting rid of the agency or department which they deal with the most.

Without reading a history of lobbying, I imagine it went something like this. A group of like-minded people decided it was time to hire someone to speak with members of Congress to address their concerns because they were too busy or too numerous to do it themselves. Naturally, once this happened a group who held the opposite viewpoint became alarmed and decided it was time to hire their own person, then others who had diverse aims saw the successes the first groups were having and decided to jump in. Each of them also came with big-money donors who could establish the offices and staffing required to buttonhole those in Congress full-time. It follows that the members of Congress, who only have so many hours in a day to deal with the issues on the table, began hiring their own staffers to meet with the increasing number of lobbyists and eventually the whole ball of wax has evolved to the situation we have now, despite numerous attempts at “reform” in Washington.

It has continually been my contention that true reform doesn’t occur unless two things take place: taking the money away from the black hole that exists along the Potomac and not allowing those who are elected to serve there to get too comfortable in the lifestyle by routinely sending them back every two to six years. Twelve years in each body seems to me a good lifetime limit for anyone. If it’s good enough to limit our Chief Executive to two four-year terms, then term limits are good enough for Congress too.

Instead of tying the hands of those who want to contribute to politicians with so-called campaign finance reform, let’s attack the root of the problem and starve the big-government beast. Then the AIA can go back to doing what it does best, providing sound contractual documents which are fair to owner and contractor interests alike.

Picks and pans from a Shorebirds fan – 2008 edition

It’s that time once again, time for a fan’s review of the 2008 Delmarva Shorebirds season. Last season I had five complaints (or pans) about the season and unfortunately they’re all still concerns of mine. I knew some would be long-term but some can be addressed during the off-season.

I’ve been told that it’s “on the radar” but the stadium really, really needs a new scoreboard and videoboard. From what I understand they were purchased second-hand for the stadium’s opening 12 years ago so I’m guessing these components are close to 20 years old. If we had to split the deal the scoreboard needs to be replaced first – it would be nice to have an operator who would update player stats and the like too. Along with that it would also be helpful to get an auxiliary scoreboard (just balls, strikes, outs, score) to be placed on the first base side.
In a way this is related to suggestion number 1. Because of the nature of the stadium’s setup, a fan has to constantly turn around to watch the game while standing in line for food or drink. Why not a CCTV system with a camera in the pressbox following the action? As a trial basis I’d suggest the main first base and third base concession stands be equipped. You already have the TV’s at the third level concession stand, those would just have to be hooked in. Perhaps they can place them at the “season ticket holder express line” they instituted this season.
There was some of this during this season, but it would be nice to have more player availabilities during the year where kids (and guys who pick Shorebirds of the Week) could get autographs and pictures. Seems like the “Bird Pen” was underutilized last season and even moreso this season. Oh, and a note to 2009 Shorebird players: we know you like the kids and giving out souvenirs, but save those cracked bats! That’s a key revenue source for the Shorebirds Fan Club.
About fireworks. Yes, I realize they are a huge draw. But I make a plea to 96 Rock or 93.5 the Beach: please outbid Froggy for the fireworks because man, fireworks with country music just don’t get it for me. Especially when they reuse the song list for a couple-three dates in a row.
Since we’re on music, you know I’m not letting this go by without my pet peeve. Thirsty Thursday is my favorite game day of the week but it’s just not the same as it was in 2005 when they had the local bands play pregame/postgame concerts. I recall it being a decent draw once the weather warmed up and you’ll have ten opportunities next season with seven of them after June 1st.
The only attraction this year that I didn’t care much for were the Zooperstars, so Chris and staff picked pretty well. Just don’t bring them back unless they update their shtick. It got old pretty fast.

Now to those things I liked about the season and suggestions for next year, in sort of a stream of consciousness order. This was my first season as a “true” season ticket holder, previously my seat was my employer’s but they opted to not renew the tickets so I bought the seat I generally used anyway.

I went to enough games this year to actually get to know some of the fans who sat around me regularly, which was really good. The same goes for the concession stand; it got to be a standing joke between Jessica and I when I walked up and ordered “the usual”, my large diet Pepsi.

They didn’t change the Thirsty Thursday beer price; let’s hope that holds true for 2009.

Aside from the one attraction I ragged on above, the people who they brought in were pretty good. I really enjoyed the Bucket Boys and hopefully they’ll be back again – same goes for the Redskins cheerleaders. It would be nice to have another classic car show at the stadium, I think they did one in ’07 but none this season.

I think they ought to do an ’80’s theme night and while it’s tempting to think about doing a concurrent jersey auction, maybe that’s not such a good idea. Speaking of those, three jersey auctions seems like a nice amount but I’d like to have had another hat auction too. (Like I need another hat or jersey, but they are for a good cause.) You could even tie in an appearance by one of the ’83 Oriole players for an ’80’s theme night. (Gee, I notice we didn’t commemorate the 20th anniversary of that 0-21 Oriole start.)

One great perk of season ticket holding is having the Executive Club available for our use when no one else is using it. That was a great perk in April, let me tell you.

And we definitely need a day themed as a goodbye to Lake County, who we’ve done battle with for several years. I doubt the players or team personnel will miss that frequent eight-hour bus ride after next season. We don’t travel to Bowling Green, Kentucky next season so that’s no issue for us. (Both teams are switching from the South Atlantic League to the Midwest League for 2010.)

On the whole, I enjoyed all of the 55 or so games I made it to, even if I did freeze half to death a couple times and sat through an April doubleheader where we committed eleven errors. But there were a lot of fun moments too. The Shorebirds this season drew just a smidge more fans than last year’s edition in real numbers (this season’s total was 226,754) but the average attendance actually decreased very slightly because we managed 66 home dates this season compared to 64 last year. The average dropped by four fans, from 3,440 to 3,436. If it were a poll, we’re within the margin of error.

But I’m already saving my pennies for renewing my season ticket, hopefully next season in time to get a seat sticker. I never received one this season because I bought my ticket so late, the day before Opening Day. It’s an oversight I plan on rectifying for 2009.

And so I’m going to put my Shorebirds posts to bed for 2008, unless something major develops. I do encourage those interested to join our Fan Club, we do meet monthly during the off-season and those meetings are generally held the third Tuesday each month (this month is an exception, we meet September 23rd.) It’s not expensive and you get more opportunities to meet the players who could be the Orioles of the future.

Aside from that, I’ll finish watching the big leaguers play, start paying attention to the NFL and my Miami RedHawks after the World Series is over, and count the days until April 16, 2009 when we crank it up all over again at Perdue Stadium.

I’m still not forgetting or forgiving

Practically everyone remembers where they were on this fateful day seven years ago. But I wanted to talk about something else that may have been destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed and took nearly 3,000 lives with them, including many of New York City’s first responders.

Whether you thought his two terms were a success or a failure, this marks the final time we will commemorate the solemnity of 9/11 with George W. Bush as President. It was less than eight months into his term when this national tragedy occurred and obviously his Presidential priorities changed from the “compassionate conservatism” he espoused during the 2000 campaign to a security-first platform. Events since have forever marked his terms in office as ones where America was predominantly at war, and a strange war it’s been against an ememy with no flag, no borders, and just one overriding philosophy, that of radical Islam.

The Long War continues to be a hot topic of conversation, but there was a lot more that died in a philosophical manner after the response that nearly everyone wished for and welcomed once it happened finally came to fruition just over a year later. It didn’t take too long for many, particularly on the Left, to sour on the goals of the war and what they considered a detour into Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein from power and install a government elected by the citizens of Iraq. Domestically, we saw the reorganization of several agencies and bureaus under a newly-minted Department of Homeland Security and the passage of the PATRIOT Act. Unfortunately, the sheer amount of political capital President Bush had to expend to achieve these security goals came at the expense of some very good ideas he had domestically. I want to talk about just two of them this morning, as both of these ideas which were rejected by the hardened Democrats in Congress may have helped with two domestic situations we’re now faced with. While the human toll in the events which have transpired both here and abroad since the first plane struck the World Trade Center at this very hour seven years ago is staggering, future generations may see these failures as more important than the seven-plus years the Bush Administration was at war because of it.

One casualty of 9/11 was a bid for a more sensible energy policy. Back in 2005, the President was already leading the charge for more domestic energy, with proposals to open up more areas for drilling, make it easier to build more nuclear plants, and even use former military bases as areas where new oil refining capacity could be built. Given that we’re talking about many of these same issues as Campaign 2008 winds down, we’ve lost 3 1/2 years’ head start on much of this because obstructionist Democrats (and a few RINO’s) were scared of the fallout of following a President who was by then leading an unpopular war. (I happen to believe that some of the unpopularity was led on by a Goebbels-like refusal by the mainstream media to point out any successes in Iraq or Afghanistan.)

While energy independence is a large issue for the here and now, a centerpiece of President Bush’s second-term plans was a reform of the Social Security program that included allowing workers control over a portion of their contributions. Here was another domestic program where steps in the right direction were being proposed by President Bush; unfortunately his supply of political capital was all but exhausted from fighting the Long War. Democrats savaged his ideas, Republicans were loathe to step up and defend the program lest they be tarred with the same brush, and now we’re 3 1/2 years closer to a day of reckoning that could have been prolonged or even avoided had President Bush been able to show the same sort of leadership that President Reagan showed on his domestic programs.

While the patient took over seven years to succumb to his wounds from a day of infamy Americans of my generation should never forget, in many respects the presidency of George W. Bush will be the final casualty of 9/11. Of course, he was re-elected in 2004 but that was more of a case of not wishing to change leadership in a time of conflict and the Democrats putting up a candidate who was anti-war. Perhaps if a pro-defense Democrat like Senator Joe Lieberman had been the nominee we’d be discussing his re-election chances right now.

Since I’ve never met the man in person, I can’t say how the events of the last seven years have affected George W. Bush the person. My bet is that he’ll not be one of the longer-lived ex-Presidents as the stress of dealing with a nation at war has to have taken a toll on him, and it certainly spoiled his best-laid plans of making a difference for America.

Who will be voting in November?

I’m not quite waiting with bated breath, but I will be interested in checking an upcoming report out when it’s released next week:

In this contentious election season, one thing that’s taken for granted is that American citizens will be the ones choosing the next president.

But a new paper from the Center for Immigration Studies reveals a concerted effort gathering force to allow new immigrants to vote without becoming citizens. It is being mounted by an alliance of academics and law professors, local and state political leaders, and community and immigration activists.

In his paper, Allowing Non-Citizens to Vote in the United States? Why Not, Dr. Stanley Renshon offers the first comprehensive review and critique of this growing movement. Dr. Renshon, a professor of political science at City University of New York Graduate Center, warns that decoupling the legal standing to vote from American citizenship would be a mistake for both immigrants and their new homeland. (Emphasis in original.)

However, given the ease with which illegal immigrants can get a driver’s license in Maryland and the fact that the preponderance of new voter registrations in the state come through the MVA, methinks that more than a few have already slipped through the cracks. And just wait until early (and often) voting is passed without the photo ID safeguards that are so important in maintaining a fair and fraud-free electoral process.

Obviously the vast majority of MVA workers are scrupulous about checking out those they give the voter registration cards to but it only takes a couple bad apples who continually flout the rules for their side’s gain to eventually bring the percentages up. If you presume that the vast majority of those who are illegal would favor Democrats (not much of a leap of faith there), eventually this practice could add up to stealing a point or two in some election – a difference that has been within the margin of several recent races. And since the Board of Elections makes the assumption that one is a citizen when they fill out a voter registration application, it’s up to the originator to ascertain citizenship.

So while the CIS is addressing the problem as if it’s a coming attraction, I think the movie’s already underway here in the Free State. I’ll still be curious to check this out and if I see more interesting stuff I’ll pass it along.

Out to prove the critics right

A standard which generally has borne itself out in the field of economics is that, as far as taxes go, raising them is counterproductive because revenue declines despite the increased taxes; that is IF consumers have a choice in the matter.

The people in Maryland have apparently made their choice in the matter and it was announced yesterday that, even with the tax increases rammed through the General Assembly late last year in a special session, the Free State’s revenue is forecast to be $432 million less than originally expected. And I’m going to predict right now that you’ll see the sword of Damocles suspended over the head of Maryland voters in November – pass the Constitutional amendment permitting video slot machines in Maryland or face the prospect of still higher taxes and/or draconian budget cuts. And these cuts won’t be cutting the fat out of the budget – oh no – Martin O’Malley is going to select the most painful cuts he can find because he’ll need major-league scare tactics to force an issue that is sinking in the polls to pass.

On a personal level, I have no issue with gambling; after all, I’ve been known to drive up Route 13 and join many of my fellow Marylanders trying my luck at Harrington. Gambling on the ponies is a long-standing tradition in the state and there’s a small percentage of the proceeds from the new video slots that is promised to help the horse racing industry here in Maryland. More recently the state has adopted the Maryland Lottery and its array of number games like MegaMillions or Keno and the scratch-off tickets one can find at any corner store worth its salt. My beef with the issue is changing the state Constitution to address a problem that could have easily been solved legislatively and would have been if Maryland Democrats had placed political pride aside and made Governor Ehrlich’s slot proposals a bipartisan effort. But as always they played the political game and dared Republicans to come out against their ballot effort and appear hypocritical.

There is no hypocricy in holding a position favoring slots through legislative means but not through the sledgehammer of a Constitutional amendment which would need voter approval again and again when changes were required. Not everyone wants video slots in their area, here on the Eastern Shore there are officials in Ocean City who worry about losing a family-friendly image, or worse, that the traffic once bound for the beach will decide instead to stop at the Ocean Downs race track and proposed casino location several miles away and skip the beach because they’re too broke to go there after losing their spending money. And that’s their right as local officials to do what they feel is best for residents’ long-term quality of life. If they turn out wrong, the voters can reject their bids for re-election the next opportunity they get.

Martin O’Malley inherited a financial situation that was dire to some degree but nowhere near as bad as it’s become in the last year. Naturally he blames “the national economic downturn, national foreclosure crisis, and the increased price of energy, gasoline and food,” sighing that “these revenue estimates are not unexpected.” Nothing is ever his fault – never mind he instituted a budget-busting Medicaid expansion in the very same special session that raised the taxes of everyone living and working in Maryland who buys practically anything. A truly lean budget would have obviated the need for all these tax increases and for video slots, but there would have been no goodies to pass out to favored friends and special interests.

Something which would be very useful but require a person with an accounting and budgeting pay grade above my own is to look at the state budget as currently constituted and determine what expenditures are absolutely necessary by federal fiat (with the amount of money that’s actually passed through to us by the feds) and then which ones are required by the state Constitution. That’s where the budget should start and only then should discussion begin about which programs are priorities and how they can fit within the amount of revenue we’re expecting (minus a little for cushion in rough times.) For me, something like Program Open Space is a waste of money but maintaining the Bay Bridge and addressing other transportation needs by keeping our highways in shape is pretty important.

My biggest fear is that, just like a problem gambler who takes his paycheck straight to the casino and dumps the money for rent into his favorite one-armed bandit, the state of Maryland will become overly dependent on revenue from gambling and shift the percentages promised to various functions (particularly education) around until more needs to be taken directly from taxpayers’ pockets. To me, the wager on Maryland taxpayers being the ones losing their shirt is the safest bet of all.

Delaware Democrats buck party line

The unofficial results are in and the anti-incumbent mood that prevailed on Maryland’s Eastern Shore spread across the line to Delaware voters, at least for the Governor’s race. Jack Markell won over John Carney by 2.4% and moves on to face Bill Lee, who swamped opponent Mike Protack on the GOP side.

I call it an anti-incumbent mood because Carney was endorsed by the state Democratic Party, but failed to capitalize on the endorsement enough to carry the day. It appears Carney was strongest in traditional highly Democrat strongholds, but he also did well in rural Sussex County too – all four districts which border Maryland on their south went for John Carney (Districts 38 through 41). But Markell was too strong in the center of the state and managed to squeak out the win.

While it’s not an Obama-Clinton type of battle where most on each side are partisan enough to hold a grudge, I think this shows why it shouldn’t be up to the party to endorse a candidate before the primary. Obviously the high-ranking Democrats in Delaware who run the party apparatus are going to have some egg on their face because they backed the loser as determined by the rank-and-file who actually cast the votes. Certainly they’ll mend fences enough to get behind Markell but what the Delaware Democrat machine now has to figure out is why their favored candidate lost with the full force and weight of their camp behind him – unless, of course, they only put in a half-hearted effort.

Because Markell has had the more difficult primary, he now has the advantage as far as name recognition and staking out positions on the issues. As I noted in my look at the First State governor’s contest, Bill Lee needs to flesh out his ideas in a much more comprehensive fashion if he’s going to have a chance to convince voters that Markell’s fairly far-left agenda, cloaked in the business experience and time as state Treasurer he continually touts, will take Delaware farther in the wrong direction and that Lee’s more moderate to conservative way is better. There’s just eight weeks to overcome Markell’s advantages, so Bill Lee better get to work early tomorrow.

Reminder to my friends up north

If you’re reading this from the First State, well, finish the article and then head to the polls because it’s your primary election day!

Obviously there are a lot of local races going on, but the statewide attention has been on the race for Governor on the Democrat side as State Treasurer Jack Markell and current Lieutenant Governor John Carney slug it out in an election filled with charges and counter-charges. A recent salvo from Markell’s campaign accused Carney of “Republican-style attacks”:

…more special interest money is being dumped into the race, with the National Rifle Association helping to prop up Carney’s failing campaign by using the usual untrue Republican-style attacks. The NRA is spreading the lie that Jack will take away law-abiding citizens’ gun rights.

Nothing could be further from the truth. To quote Jack’s plan from weeks ago: “Markell’s plan focuses on keeping guns away from criminals by making it harder for criminals to get weapons and getting criminals off the street.” The fact is that Delaware has seen significant increases in murders and gun violence this year. We all have a right to safety and to live in our neighborhoods without fear of being caught in the crossfire of illegal guns. (All emphasis in original.)

I guess it’s armed guards at every Delaware household if Markell is elected, since otherwise the only way to make it harder for the criminals to get weapons is to take away your right to purchase your own. (Perhaps the NRA has a point, or is my pointing this out a Republican attack? And I don’t even live in Delaware, I just bowl there and have a few good friends in the First State.) By the way, I wonder why the NRA isn’t helping out Republican candidate Bill Lee?

Anyway, as a refresher I discuss the Governor’s race here, and cover the federal races for Congressman and Senator as well. In all of these, the Democrats have all the choices as only one Republican stood for election (Mike Protack is still on the GOP ballot for Governor but also advanced to the November ballot on the Independent Party of Delaware ticket.) For the statewide downticket races, I link the candidate websites in the left-hand column.

Once Delaware’s results are known, I’ll go ahead and remove the losers from my link list and add the races of interest for a number of political action committees I’m following. It’ll be a good opportunity to see how much impact they have come November in swaying various races.

And because I posted this at an earlier time than normal, you may have not seen last night’s news item on a Democrat smear website. Who’s really buying influence?

‘Bought by Big Oil’, paid for by Big Labor

One of the many e-mail sources I get from the Democrats alerted me to a website that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee created. The website, dubbed “Bought by Big Oil“, makes the claim that thirteen incumbent Republican Senators or candidates for U.S. Senate seats are beholden to oil company interests through thousands in campaign contributions and in return many voted for tax breaks for these oil interests.

While the DSCC used figures from the reputable and nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and their website, opensecrets.org, they naturally left out much of the story. Before I get to that, though, I want to bring up what the Democrats considered to be the payoff for Big Oil by those who were in Congress at the time – a series of votes on a bill called the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (in the 109th Congress, this was H.R. 4297.) For most, the DSCC is in a snit over a vote to accept a conference committee report that had these so-called tax breaks for Big Oil – but also had $34 billion in tax relief for those who would have been bumped up into paying the Alternative Minimum Tax. These are the “increases in middle-class taxes” the BBBO site refers to. (It’s worth noting that one portion of these Big Oil “tax breaks” only lasted months before it was rolled back, as noted in this report by the Congressional Research Service. Nothing in Washington is ever permanent, at least when it comes to the tax code.) As always, the issue was offsetting money which was returned to the taxpayer, with the Democrats taking the stand that they should be able to determine how much money you deserve to get back instead of it simply being yours in the first place.

Seeing an opportunity to bring more harm to an industry that’s already heavily regulated, DSCC Chair Senator Charles Schumer of New York passionately argued against these supposed tax breaks (which were in reality accounting practices allowed by Congress in previous legislation) and finally got into the position to exact revenge on these Republicans whom he thought voted incorrectly – thus you have this attack website.

So what was left out? Let’s take a look at the Big Oil payola figures that BBBO attributes to each Senator/candidate:

Jim Inhofe (OK), $1,076,573
Mitch McConnell (KY), $649,011
Steve Pearce (NM), $596,324
Lamar Alexander (TN), $364,675
Pat Roberts (KS), $324,900
Gordon Smith (OR), $293,325
Elizabeth Dole (NC), $266,456
Roger Wicker (MS), $263,435
Bob Schaffer (CO), approximately $250,000
Norm Coleman (MN), $244,900
John Sununu (NH), $232,030
Saxby Chambliss (GA), $199,242
Susan Collins (ME), $124,943

That total of $4,885,814 seems awfully impressive, doesn’t it? Too bad that the BBBO hit squad fails to mention that the totals have accrued over several election cycles.

One great thing about the CRP website is that they break down contributions by election cycle and by industry, listing the top 20 donors by industry to those candidates who have enough donations to merit twenty different industries. For the most recent cycle, we can see just who has truly received big money from oil and gas interests. As you’ll notice, not all of these GOP Senators and candidates have gotten enough contributions in this cycle from the oil and gas industry to even place that business group in the top 20. Those who have enough include:

Jim Inhofe, $315,500 (Oil and gas ranks 1st among contributor industries)
Mitch McConnell, $255,750 (16th)
Steve Pearce, $223,784 (1st)
Pat Roberts, $159,100 (6th)
Lamar Alexander, $155,350 (10th)
Elizabeth Dole, $110,527 (12th)
Bob Schaffer, $104,900 (7th)
Saxby Chambliss, $98,000 (19th)
Roger Wicker, $84,800 (7th)
John Sununu, $69,900 (18th)

Collins, Coleman, and Smith did not receive enough from oil and gas interests to place that industry in their top 20 rankings. Still, that total between the ten of $1,577,611 is pretty impressive, is it not? And in the case of Inhofe and Pierce, does Schumer have a point?

Sorry Chuck, better luck next time. Let me throw one more set of numbers at you with this group of ten. It’s the percentage of oil and gas industry contributions vs. the total contributions each candidate has received in this cycle.

Steve Pearce, 8.15%
Jim Inhofe, 6.19%
Pat Roberts, 4.01%
Bob Schaffer, 2.26%
Roger Wicker, 2.2%
Lamar Alexander, 2.15%
Mitch McConnell, 1.7%
John Sununu, 1.03%
Elizabeth Dole, 0.98%
Saxby Chambliss, 0.92%

Yes, folks, it’s pretty much a proverbial drop in a barrel. If Big Oil is trying to buy these Senators with this contribution cash, it’s pretty certain that they’re someplace back in line. As a matter of fact, the oil and gas industry currently ranks 18th among all industries in political contributions. Over the last 18 years, the oil and gas industry has contributed over $221 million to candidates – but that pales in comparison to Big Labor, who’s shaken down their workers and otherwise managed to pony up over $40 million in PAC contributions in just this cycle alone.

And why would Big Labor want to be down on a business which employs over 1.8 million workers directly and creates 4.6 million ancilliary jobs? (One of these 1.8 million jobs is the position of one Todd Palin, who’s a member of the United Steelworkers union – the former Oil, Chemical, and Atomic Workers Union has become a part of that union after a series of mergers. You may have heard of Todd’s wife Sarah?) Perhaps the unions aren’t down on that aspect of Big Oil; however, they are a prime mover and shaker in Democrat circles. I’m going to turn Schumer’s game around and take a look at how much cash labor PACs have contributed to each of the 12 Democrat Senators who are up for re-election in 2008. Take a gander at these figures and tell me who’s bought who? The percentages of total contributions will be included this time:

Tim Johnson (SD), $297,250 (5.79%)
Frank Lautenberg (NJ), $253,000 (3.09%)
Dick Durbin (IL), $244,500 (2.36%)
Tom Harkin (IA), $241,275 (2.96%)
Max Baucus (MT), $210,725 (1.94%)
Jay Rockefeller (WV), $204,500 (3.91%)
Mark Pryor (AR), $199,000 (3.53%)
Jack Reed (RI), $195,450 (4.47%)
Mary Landrieu (LA), $193,150 (2.13%)
John Kerry (MA), $191,111 (1.85%)
Carl Levin (MI), $149,300 (1.94%)
Joe Biden (DE), $78,500 (1.13%)

All that union money adds up to $2,457,761 – far outstripping the oil and gas contributions to the GOP thirteen. Perhaps the total would be even higher but Big Labor is pretty cagey and certainly is aware that most of these thirteen have only token opposition in their re-election races. It’s also worthy of noting that Landrieu and Pryor also have a large contribution base from oil and gas interests. Senator Landrieu has accepted $251,700 in oil and gas money (placing it fourth among her industries) while Pryor has taken $103,250 (14th). Not only that, Pryor also voted with the GOP on the Senate vote which so incensed Schumer; however, he’s not been bought by big oil like the Republicans have.

Pryor is also one member of the newly-expanded “Gang of 16” who introduced a proposal that the American Petroleum Institute called “light on new production but heavy on new taxes.” Other members of this 16 Senator group who happen to be seeking re-election in this cycle are Republicans Saxby Chambliss, Norm Coleman, and John Sununu, along with Democrats Tim Johnson and Mary Landrieu. Looks like that oil company largesse is really bearing fruit, huh?

As is often the case, taking more than a superficial look at what is said by liberals generally shows the Potemkin village aspect of their arguments. Moreover, many’s the time that they don’t have their facts straight. One of my favorite regular commentors on the left made the claim to me recently that much of our Alaskan oil is being exported to Japan, so opening up ANWR wouldn’t do anything to help ease our dependence on foreign oil. I’m going to conclude with this document which uses Energy Information Administration data to show that the claim is bogus, and what we export in oil products are essentially the portions we no longer use because of environmental restrictions.

It’s apparent Senator Schumer and the DSCC aren’t interested in getting out all the facts and context with their website, which makes me think that most of their other rants should be taken at much less than face value as well. If Big Oil were truly buying these Senators it would be one thing, but these so-called tax breaks are money that’s being returned to shareholders and put to work finding new products and creating jobs. What is all the money Big Labor donates to the Democrats doing for us?

Maybe the better question is what is that union money doing to us?

I’d also like to thank Jane Van Ryan and Mark Kibbe at the American Petroleum Institute for their assistance with my research for this post.

Two more PAC’s to follow

There’s just something about the campaign finance stuff that draws in groups of all political stripes. Being one who thinks in a conservative frame of mind, I’d prefer to see those who are for government being smaller and returning to its proper Constitutional role. So I’m pleased to help announce a couple new political action committees are gearing up for the 2008 campaign, although one of them comes from someone returning to the fray after an absence of several months.

The pro-troop organization Move America Forward has already picked a number of candidates to support with their PAC, with the MAF Freedom PAC website coming online this weekend. As the newly-minted PAC notes on its blog:

Until now, we had no political action committee, or PAC. Now we do. We will now comment on specific campaigns. We will call out candidates who are hurting our country. We will nail them in no uncertain terms, and nobody is safe. Republicans, Democrats, Independents – whatever. We are watching and the gloves are off.

(I’d like to make a suggestion to MAF Freedom PAC’s “chief blogger”, Catherine Moy. In the interest of making life easier for the rest of us – set up the site so individual posts can be linked. It’s likely not your fault, but the webmaster needs a refresher course in Blogging 101. A friendly word from one who knows a little about this stuff.)

Be that as it may, their aim is pretty simple. This is from the presser announcing the effort:

MAF Freedom PAC will draw on the expertise and experience of Move America Forward and apply them to the political field in this election. Their media savvy and good relationships with many in the conservative community are expected to enable them to play a major role in this pivotal election year.

The PAC will focus on very competitive congressional races, but will also address the presidential race, in which Vietnam veteran John McCain is touting his support for the surge strategy and Barack Obama is promoting his plan to withdraw troops from Iraq upon entering office. Targeted candidates will be announced soon, but the PAC’s website already features many races which they judge to be important and competitive.

While Move America Forward is justifiably excited about this new venture of theirs, I don’t think their PAC is going to have nearly the impact or donations that will go to Fred PAC. (h/t to Ted Pibil.) As Fred Thompson writes in introducing the new political action committee:

I formed Fred PAC to help identify and support candidates on every level who support a platform of conservative, principles-based leadership and policies. I’m working for Fred PAC with one overriding mission; to secure the future of our country and preserve the freedoms you and I and millions of our fellow citizens hold so dear.

We conservatives need to elect men and women at every level of government who will develop and promote the kind of innovative, free market and principles-based policies that led our great nation to the pinnacle of western civilization. We conservatives need to shake-off the few recent past defeats and remember that when we go directly to the American people with solid facts and honest solutions founded on the principles of the Constitution, we win.

Fred is definitely correct in that assumption, and it will be interesting to see who he throws his support behind as the election draws closer. Thompson is the third former GOP presidential candidate to enter the PAC field, with Mike Huckabee’s HuckPAC and Mitt Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC the subject of previous posts of mine.