December 2008 – Page 3

More on the bailout – what’s next?

This may seem like Bill Wilson and Americans for Limited Government week on my site, but it just so happens they have some very good input on the pressing issue of the moment. Let me start out with Wilson’s take on the GOP opposition to the bailout. I was tempted to use it as a postscript to yesterday’s interview but decided to have it here as part of a standalone post.

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson praised Senators John Ensign (R-NV), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jim DeMint (R-SC), David Vitter (R-LA) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) for their efforts to oppose the $15 billion bailout package for the Big Three automakers.

There is a growing consensus in the Republican caucus against the bill. Top Capitol Hill sources suggest that the votes simply are not there to get the $15 billion in emergency loans to Ford, Chrysler and GM passed before year’s end.

“It’s about time that the Senate stood against the bailout madness that has permeated Washington this year,” said Wilson in a statement. “These Senators are heroes for fighting against this bill.”

“The American taxpayer cannot and must not be forced to perpetuate the mismanagement of the Big Three by financing failure. There is no excuse for putting taxpayers on the hook for keeping failed companies afloat that could much better be reorganized under normal Chapter 11 bankruptcy,” Wilson added.

Under Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, companies have the ability to broadly restructure the scope of operations, redo labor contracts, and otherwise scale back in order to emerge from bankruptcy with a profitable business model.

“Everything that Congress says it is attempting to do, to create a deal to reorganize these companies, to return them to profitability, is precisely the purpose of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The $15 billion bailout is just a reason not to go into Chapter 11. In fact, the real intention is to perpetuate bad management and Big Labor excesses at taxpayer expense,” said Wilson.

Wilson also suggested that a “structured” bankruptcy deal that has been floated in the media is just another excuse not to reopen labor contracts, “The Senators shilling for this bailout will stop at nothing to prevent normal Chapter 11 proceedings from occurring, because then the labor contracts would have to be reopened, management might be fired, etc.”

“Anything else that is being put forth by the companies or by Congress is just spin to mask this truth,” added Wilson.

The automakers have suggested that American consumers will not want to buy cars from companies undergoing bankruptcy proceedings. “That is just false,” responded Wilson. “The people are not buying the cars now, which is why they’re in this mess.”

Wilson believes that without bankruptcy, the companies are doomed to failure. “The real question everyone should be asking is, ‘Who is going to want to invest in a company that has to beg the government for loans that cannot be paid back every few months just to keep up its excessive operations?’ If these companies really are in that much trouble, then bankruptcy is their only option,” said Wilson.

“The American people owe a debt of gratitude to Senators Ensign, Coburn, DeMint, Vitter and Shelby for their courageous, principled stand. Any Senator who votes for this bailout will have to answer to their constituents and history for their destructive action,” Wilson added.

Speaking of Senator DeMint, the good Senator from South Carolina had a five-word answer about what may happen if the bailout is passed. And he has a great point.

Today it was learned that the number of people who applied for first-time unemployment benefits “unexpectedly” soared to their highest level in 26 years. Over half a million people applied for benefits last week, which may not sound like a whole lot until you realize that number exceeds the population of the entire Eastern Shore of Maryland where these words are written. Even more telling, that number exceeds the total membership of the United Auto Workers as of 2007, at least according to this Reuters story. And that UAW number is surely not increasing since that date.

So the essence of this bailout is that one group of workers who happen to have a large labor union (which contributes heavily to majority Democrats) backing them would be helped at the overall expense of the rest of us, more of whom joined the rolls of the unemployed last week than the number of workers helped. As I argued earlier this week as well, there’s a number of automakers who employ Americans who won’t get the help and actually could be harmed by any additional regulations put in force by the federal government.

Meanwhile, the overall “official” unemployment figure of 6.7% is probably half that found in the building industry. With the subprime mortgage crisis demolishing the housing market times are tough in my chosen field. When I moved to the Eastern Shore four years ago, I worked on little but condominium projects because there was a large demand to get in on the housing boom, particularly in this resort area. That ceased around the end of 2006 and I haven’t worked on one since. Fortunately, other projects have taken up the slack but the work comes in slowly.

One of the linchpins of Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan is an “investment” in infrastructure, which reminds me of the Works Progress Administration of Franklin Roosevelt’s era. It’s argued that this effort would help the construction field – and on a temporary basis it just might – but where would the money come from to fund these efforts except from the private sector? To logically follow the money, one couldn’t help but notice that Fedzilla’s gain would have to come from someplace, and that pot would be the cash successful people use to invest and (wait for it) develop buildings!

It appears that robbing Peter to pay Paul has become the new bailout plan in Washington, and the redistribution continues on its merry path.

Ten Questions for – Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government

I was pleased to have the opportunity to quiz ALG head Bill Wilson about a number of issues facing the conservative movement and the nation at large.

Bill was elected President of Americans for Limited Government two years ago, which was the latest step in over 30 years of work within the conservative movement. Wilson began as an organizer for Ronald Reagan’s 1976 Presidential campaign in Maryland and southeast Pennsylvania and later spent a decade at the National Right-to-Work Committee before spending the last 15 years with the Americans for Limited Government organization. He’s also been active on the political end, managing a number of Congressional, state, and local campaigns.

monoblogue: Obviously you’re an advocate for limited government, simply based on the name of your organization. With the recent election of Barack Obama and the promise of a more powerful federal government, how do we sell the benefits of limiting government when millions of people want to get their piece of the bailout, either via their employers or their mortgage companies?

Wilson: As a country we are at or very near the tipping point. With approximately 40% of the population now dependent on government support and 60% doing the supporting, the first step has to be to do no more damage. Organizing the producers of income to defend their position is the first and most important step we and others interested in restoring Constitutional government have to take. No American likes to be conned or ripped off. But that is exactly what is happening. Constantly pointing that out, giving examples, and providing ways and platforms for those paying taxes to fight back is our primary objective.

monoblogue: With that said, Obama won because he promised “change”, and many of his promises involved increasing spending in a number of areas. What do you see as the biggest threat on the Obama agenda?

Wilson: There are almost too many to list. Money to do many of the things Obama promised will simply not be available. The government is already putting the country in position for a massive inflationary cycle. Every new spending item only will make it worse and longer. So, I am betting Obama will push the ideological, non-spending items. Things like union-boss privileges with Card Check or forced local unionization, the gag law known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” and every loony environmental scheme Al Gore can come up with. These actions taken one by one may not appear to have that much impact. But taken together they comprise a radical shift in power.

And, of course, trumping all of this will be the Obama defense policy. Keeping Robert Gates was designed to calm fears. But with zealots like Barney Frank calling for a 25% reduction and key slots manned by anti-defense advocates, this could be the one ultimate battle everyone will have to fight.

monoblogue: Now letʼs look on the other side of the aisle. Many conservatives arenʼt fans of President Bush, and in many respects itʼs because he grew the federal government in a number of areas. While you and I probably agree thereʼs a number of programs and initiatives ripe for criticism, which Bush-era program do you think was the worst offender?

Wilson: Many of our supporters would say the so-called Patriot Act was the most offensive because of its destruction to civil liberties. I believe the most long-term destructive policy advanced by the Bush Administration is the $700 billion give-away package to Wall Street. Bush has legitimized attacks on the very concept of free markets. This one action will be seen as igniting an inflation bomb that, when it explodes, will destroy the savings and livelihoods of millions of families. Absent the bailout, I would have said No Child Left Behind. The federalization of education has accelerated, and will continue to exacerbate, the downward spiral of education in America, affecting the future of everyone in the country for the worse.

monoblogue: There is some tension in the conservative movement between those who favor a strict limit on the size and influence of government and the social conservatives who look to the federal government in order to limit or eliminate abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Does the limited government ALG favors leave an exception for social issues?

Wilson: Yes and no. Our view of limited government is based on the clear intent of the Founders for localities and states to run their own affairs. Those advocating a variety of social issues have seen great success on the local and state levels. I see our efforts running in parallel – to the extent we and others working in the area of limiting government succeed, social issue advocates will find they can expand their successes. Where we will not agree is looking to an all-powerful federal government to impose any set of cultural policies on the entire nation.

monoblogue: In that same vein, does the definition of limited government as you see it call for a non-interventionist foreign policy?

Wilson: Again, yes and no. The federal government’s primary responsibility is the common defense. And, I have no doubt that ensuring that common defense will from time to time require the U.S. to be very interventionist. But as a rule, any government powerful enough to intervene in the affairs of other countries on a whim is just too powerful and should be cut back.

monoblogue: On the federal level there have also been attempts to enact a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a call for term limits for members of Congress, with the argument that these would encourage a more limited government because members would have to prioritize spending and not be quite as likely to dole out pork to ensure perpetual re-election. Does this also fit into the scope of limited government as you see it or is that too much intervention in the process?

Wilson: It does fit into our view. For nearly 150 years of our history, men and women were elected to Congress, stayed a short period and, for the most part, followed the intent of the Founders by returning back home. Government started down the road to becoming the massive, centralized beast we see today when politicians began staying for longer and longer periods of time. Term limits were debated at the Constitutional Convention, but were thought to be unnecessary – which proves that even the great ones miss now and again.

The “process” has been so distorted and mutated by those looking to build power bases and expand the reach of government that now only counter-intervention can restore the rights of the people and return us to a system of true self-government.

monoblogue: Certainly the impact of big government isnʼt just felt at the federal level but at the state level as well. Given the number of governors forming a line to receive a federal handout from the bailout money, are there leaders we can point to at the state level as good examples to follow in limiting government?

Wilson: Absolutely. Mark Sanford in South Carolina has drawn a clear line in the sand over spending, taxes, and individual liberty. Rick Perry in Texas has been a leader, too. As for that mob of Governors running to the federal government for handouts, they really are pathetic. Having spent money like fools in the good times, they are now refusing to take the necessary steps to put their fiscal houses in order. They know they are spending more than they can ever hope to legitimately pay. But rather than rein in their wretched excesses, they go begging the Feds pay their bills. As for those ideologically blind who push for higher taxes, I believe they will find a very hostile and energized public.

monoblogue: In the previous election cycle, a number of Presidential candidates and others formed groups to finance chosen political candidates in the form of political action committees – some examples are Fred Thompson starting FredPAC, Mike Huckabee creating HuckPAC, and the Our Country Deserves Better PAC formed by Howard Kaloogian in California. Since itʼs not apparent that Americans for Limited Government participates in that arena, is this something ALG will be exploring for the next election cycle?

Wilson: ALG has no plans for a PAC that would spend hard dollars. Frankly, we have no desire or intent to be strip-searched by the Thought Police of the FEC. That said, ALG has and will continue to engage in free issue discussion. The Supreme Court decision in Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC sets out clearly the path to get in the middle of the debate without surrendering First Amendment freedoms to the bureaucrats of the FEC. We intend to be very active in speaking out.

monoblogue: Given that there will be 35 Senate seats, all 435 House seats, and 37 governorships up for grabs in the 2009-2010 election cycle, who would you most like to see ejected by the voters the next time theyʼre on the ballot?

Wilson: Oh, that is a long list. There is Harry Reid in Nevada, arguably one of the most ruthless hacks in Congress. And, it can be argued that Barney Frank has done more damage to America than any other single member with his defense of the theft by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As for Governors, I would personally hope that any of them who abdicated their responsibility by running to Congress for bailout money would be kicked to the curb.

monoblogue: ALG is trying to expand its influence on the internet with the Daily Grind update that you edit (and I subscribe to) along with the formation of the NetRightNation website, which promises to harness the power of thousands of grassroots bloggers to influence policy. While you are making steps in the right direction, what other steps are you contemplating to combat the massive Obama propaganda organ and e-mail machine?

Wilson: Building traffic to our sites and expanding our email outreach capacity is the first step, of course. But it will have to go a lot further. The real genius of the Obama operation was that he melded new media outreach with a wide reaching old-style on the ground organization. The GOP and many conservatives seem to miss that point. At the end of the day, boots on the ground capture turf. The Internet, with all the new and expanding methods of communication, is a tool for organizing on the ground. Our goal is to unite a growing Internet based presence with on-the-ground organizing in selected locations aimed at having maximum impact on the legislative and political process.

**********

Once again, my thanks to Bill for participating in what turned out to be an excellent exchange along with thanks to Alex Rosenwald of ALG for helping to set things up.

Fighting words to Big Labor

Dan Ikenson of the CATO Institute asks a valid question: why do we need a Big Three?

This video is a compilation of the longstanding libertarian group’s argument that the bailout isn’t necessary:

In a minute and a half there’s several compelling arguments that there’s more wrong with the Detroit automakers than billions in federal aid can fix. After all, if the Big Three are collectively losing billions a quarter doing things as they have, how long will it be before they’re either back asking for more from the taxpayer or the companies become fully-owned subsidiaries of the federal government? Or both?

Perhaps a better question is why are several other automakers succeeding in manufacturing good-quality cars and trucks at a profit for their respective corporations? It’s not just venerable American nameplates like Ford, Chevrolet, and Dodge being manufactured in America – over the last couple decades they’ve been joined by Honda, Toyota, Nissan, BMW, and soon Kia will open a plant in Georgia. Most of these plants are in the southern part of the country and pay wages which are a fraction of their UAW-organized competitors but still provide a solid living for their workers. And that seems to be where the answer lies.

While it is important to note that the United Auto Workers union has relented to some degree on wages for workers just starting out, the trouble is that with shrinking sales and fewer plants remaining open for more than one shift (if at all) the seniority-laden union work rules simply mean that the newer workers are the ones being laid off; this means wages on the average aren’t dropping significantly. Thus, in order to compete with imports the Big Three has to skimp on some aspect of their lineup. Perhaps the quality is one to two degrees less than their Japanese or Korean counterparts or the items found standard on the imports become expensive (read: profitable) options on the American models. They also may run a year or two behind on design trends, and let’s face it – there’s too many similar models in the Big Three lineups to pique interest.

In years past, automakers expired with nary a peep from Washington. In my youth Detroit actually had the Big Four but the former American Motors Corporation went out of business in the 1980’s leaving the Jeep nameplate the lone survivor as it was absorbed by Chrysler. (They first attempted a merger with the French automaker Renault. We see how well that worked.) AMC was a victim of tough competition from Japanese imports, shoddy workmanship (we used to call them AlMost a Car), and generally odd design – while I think the AMC Javelin is/was a cool-looking car, the appropriately-named Gremlin, Hornet, and Pacer only drew snickers and not buyers. The more senior among us probably remember well the DeSoto or Studebaker, two other long-time nameplates that ran out of buyers and folded their tents decades earlier.

While Detroit thinks that the Big Three are collectively “too big to fail”, the market seems to be dictating otherwise. And without the government bailout, it may be that bankruptcy and merger looms for at least one of the Detroit automakers – however that may also bring a dose of sanity to the labor market and bring the costs for the revamped survivor(s) down to be more competitive with the American-built import nameplates. Let’s allow the market to run its course; yes, there will be some bitter medicine to swallow but that may be the only long-term cure.

Crossposted for my Delaware friends at That’s Elbert With An E.

monoblogue’s Legislative Awards and Scorn for 2008

Back in July, faithful readers may recall that I published a post announcing the monoblogue Accountability Project, which extended the work of the former Maryland Accountability Project from the last General Assembly term.

At that time, I announced my 2007 picks and pans for the General Assembly and promised a post in December for the 2008 awards. Just a month before the next session begins, today I reveal the winners. They’ll be added to the 2008 General Assembly page as well, but this post brings them out onto the main screen of monoblogue. Without further ado, here are those deserving of praise and scorn.

I’ll start with the dubious distinctions, or what I call the Reasons To Adopt Recall. These legislators were the worst at taxing, spending, and generally taking away what little freedom we still have to do with our money and property as we wish. In the House of Delegates this group all had a zero or negative rating; in the Senate they rated less than 10. It’s my belief that each and every one of these folks needs to be thrown out in 2010, and I don’t care what the voter registration numbers in their district are!

What’s really sad is the sheer number of legislators on this list. There’s so many that in order to save space I’ll just do last names. You’ll see why they deserve scorn after reading the voting records of the House of Delegates and Senate. Note that names with an asterisk (*) are second-time dishonorees because they made the 2007 list as well.

Delegates: Anderson, Benson, Carter, Donoghue, Glenn, Hubbard, Hucker*, Levi, MacIntosh, Mizeur, Nathan-Pulliam*, and Pena-Melnyk.

Senators: Conway*, Currie*, Exum*, Frosh, Gladden*, Harrington, Kelley, Lenett, McFadden*, Middleton, Miller*, Pinsky*, Pugh*, Raskin, Robey*, and Rosapepe*.

While this hall of scorn comprises 8.5% of the House of Delegates (down from 12.8% in 2007), the share of Senators on the list increased from 29.8% to a truly stupefying 34.0 percent.

And then we have the RINO Huntee, the legislator who’s best at selling out to the Democrats and voting with them as they raise taxes and increase spending – all to suck up and maybe get a few crumbs for his or her district. In 2008, the person with that target on his or her back was:

Delegate D. Page Elmore, District 38A. Page is now a two-time “winner” of this award, and this year was outranked by five Democrats, including the two honored in the next category.

Turning to awards, next up is what I call the Top (Blue) Dog Award, given to the Democrat who best reaches across the aisle and votes with those of us who believe in limiting government while maximizing freedom – unfortunately, most of the time here in Maryland that vote is in vain. Nevertheless, my Top (Blue) Dogs for 2008 are:

Delegates Kevin Kelly (District 1B) and Joseph J. Minnick (District 6), who tied with the exact same rating. Kelly is now a two-time honoree.

I also have a group who I’ve dubbed the Legislative All-Stars. In most cases they score over 90% but also include at least the top scorer in a body who doesn’t make that threshold. They are the cream of the Maryland crop and those of us who desire a more sensible, limited state government would do well to have one like each of these men and women in every General Assembly seat. And I’m pleased that the ranks have grown from just four All-Stars in 2007 to seven in 2008. These honorees are:

Delegates Joseph C. Boteler III (District 8), Warren E. Miller (District 9A), Christopher B. Shank (District 2B), and Senators Janet Greenip (District 33), Andrew P. Harris (District 7) and Alexander X. Mooney (District 3). All three Senators are being honored for the second straight year, and another 2007 Legislative All-Star is my pick for 2008 Legislator of the Year.

So who is the winner of the coveted monoblogue award for the 2008 Legislator of the Year?

Along with Delegates Boteler and Miller, this man managed to achieve the highest rating for the 2008 General Assembly session. Because the three managed to all tie for the year’s top rating, the tie-breaker becomes the overall term rating, which became the basis for selection.

The 2008 monoblogue award goes to Delegate Anthony J. O’Donnell (District 29). We couldn’t have a better person as the Minority Leader in the House of Delegates and hopefully 2010 will bring more Delegates for him to lead.

2008 Maryland GOP Fall Convention (part 2)

We met at dawn. All right, those of us who had breakfast did, and we were treated to remarks from Harford County Executive David Craig.

Craig related that the GOP had “lost its way…its confidence…(and) its faith in ourselves” as a result of November’s election “setback.” But he also gave examples that showed the “phoenix will arise”, reminding attendees that the pundits wrote the GOP’s obituary after the elections in 1964 and 1976 as well.

But to win, noted David, we had to get “back to basics” like a good sports team does – registering voters, finding good candidates, and getting out the vote. A little shoe leather doesn’t hurt either, as Craig told us where he and 20 other dedicated volunteers knocking at each of the 4,500 households in Havre de Grace (where he served twice as mayor) five times apiece in the last month resulted in his being placed back in the mayoral chair with 68% of the vote. While the future wasn’t certain, concluded Craig, it was “promising” for the Republican Party in Maryland.

Before I rejoin the proceedings as we assembled for the convention session, it’s worth noting that much of what was said during the morning session was a repeat of remarks made the prior night to the Executive Committee. Generally I took the better notes on Friday night but the pictures came out better Saturday morning.

And while I didn’t take pictures of state party Treasurer Chris Rosenthal nor will I divulge exact figures, it’s also worthwhile to point out that through September 30th our revenues were about 10% ahead of projections while expenses were just about 1% under the amount budgeted. So the Maryland GOP’s finances weren’t the mess many have written them off as.

Now I’ll return to the convention floor beginning with remarks by State Senator Allan Kittleman, who was the first guest speaker introduced by Party Chair Dr. Jim Pelura.

The message Kittleman delivered could be boiled down to two simple requests: we “need to work together” and stand on our principles. Moreover, he added that even though we “all failed” in 2008, Allan predicted that 2010 would be a “good Republican year.”

As part of our working together, Kittleman was the first of a few speakers who cautioned Republicans to not air their dirty laundry in public. I hope that doesn’t mean we can’t be crtical where we feel it’s necessary, although Allan also said that we should come to them first with any issues we feel merit the Senators’ attention.

Republicans, added Kittleman, are the party of opportunity (as well as the party of ideas and the party of freedom) but not the insurer of success. It wasn’t enough to talk about Democrats – in fact Kittleman noted he was “tired of having the GOP talk about how bad the Democrats are” – but we needed to present good alternatives too.

Next, Delegate Anthony O’Donnell addressed the grassroots of the party, stating that “I understand the importance of Central Committees.” What he urged those assembled to do was “throw away the rear-view mirror” and encouraged the county-level chairs to access the resources of the Minority Leader’s office. Better communications and a better message would help us succeed, O’Donnell claimed, using Jessica’s Law as one example.

Looking ahead to the upcoming General Assembly session, the obvious issue was the FY2010 budget – as O’Donnell put it this wasn’t a budget “crisis” but simply “mismanagement.” But another issue where Anthony used a visual aid was driver’s licenses.

Obviously this will be addressed by our side in Annapolis next year but look for common-sense legislation to again be shelved or voted down by the Democrats. (And look for any such votes to be duly noted on next year’s monoblogue Accountability Project.)

Maryland GOP Chair Jim Pelura then delivered his Chairman’s Report.

While Pelura thought the recent election was “as bad as 2006 for Maryland”, he didn’t blame those in the room. Instead he noted that the Democrats energized their base, registered more voters, and repackaged their agenda in a palatable way – by the end of the campaign, Barack Obama was considered the tax-cutter.

However, the focus now shifted to doing things differently, starting immediately. First, the GOP has a need to “push (our own) agenda” in the upcoming General Assembly session. At the same time we have to make sure Martin O’Malley and the Democrats in the General Assembly “will be accountable for every dollar” spent.

One move toward that end Pelura has made was asking Charles County Chair Charles Lollar to head up the “Maryland GOP Anti-Tax Plan Commission”, tasking Lollar to analyze the FY2009 budget line-by-line to see where possible cuts could be made. (More on this momentarily.)

The other action item was revamping a Maryland GOP website that was simply “not acceptable.” Starting today (Monday), the website is updated and being made more user-friendly. (It even has links to blogs, including mine. How’s that for influence?)

In the near-term future, Pelura stated that 2009’s municipal elections would be “taken very seriously” as these candidates are the farm team for future regional and statewide races. He also encouraged us to talk up our principles to the younger voters and voters-to-be, engaging them wherever possible such as asking to be invited to speak to a high school or college class. “We need a face to our message”, noted Jim.

A few moments ago, I brought up Charles Lollar, the Chair of Charles County’s GOP.

While he humorously brought his youngest daughter’s desire to see Uggs under the Christmas tree and that she thought perhaps the family needed a bailout, in that was a parable for our state’s budget. In fact, Lollar brought up an interesting comparison, stating that two of our more-populated neighbors have budgets similar in size to our $31 billion behemoth – Pennsylvania’s checks in at $28 billion while Virginia’s is $33 billion. More importantly, Lollar claimed that in the first 13 pages of the budget there was $127 million which could be cut. On the whole, he wanted to “welcome (us) to the state where less will be more” – more money in our wallets and more personal freedom.

As always, we also got reports from our National Committeewoman Joyce Terhes and National Committeeman Louis Pope. Terhes exhorted us to “hold true to Republican principles” and presented a laundry list of to-do items for 2009, while Pope looked at some of the voting numbers and selected polling for 2008. While it’s probably common knowledge that 97% of the black voters picked Barack Obama, 69% Hispanics also went for the Democrat and the under-25 set was 2-to-1 in Obama’s camp. Meanwhile, 68% of Americans held a negative opinion of the GOP, so the need to “rebrand” and “resell” ourselves by being solution-oriented was apparent.

Finally, we got to a number of resolutions presented to us.

It was fairly simple to approve Talbot County’s request to expand its Central Committee ranks from seven to nine and establish study committees to weigh the pros and cons of instant runoff voting and the merits of a pre-primary caucus for 2012. But the other two proposed changes drew plenty of debate.

One was the issue of regional chairs, which has been debated over the entire time I’ve been on the Central Committee. While it passed easily in 2006, a procedural error nullified the decision. Having rectified the problems and rewritten the language to adapt to the revised by-laws from 2007, the issue was brought to the floor.

While 13 of the 23 jurisdictions present (Kent County had no representatives to this convention) voted unanimously in favor of the idea, three others were split in its favor, and the LCD voting came out as a majority (68.19 to 51.82) the measure finished 3 LCD votes short of the required 3/5 majority for passage. The counties which voted against the idea were Anne Arundel, Carroll, Caroline, Dorchester, Montgomery and Prince George’s. I’m particularly disappointed in my Eastern Shore brethren for voting no, although even had they switched the effort would have still fallen barely short.

The same style of parochialism was exhibited on another proposal which would have switched the LCD voting method from a basis in registered voters to that of actual votes in the most recent election for Governor or President. (I posted an explanation of this concept last Wednesday.)

This time only eight counties voted unanimously in favor, while two others split in the affirmative direction. Not surprisingly, of the counties where the McCain vote fell short of the number of registered Republicans (ones who would have received the steepest penalties), only Frederick County had the courage and foresight to vote for passage. In all, the measure failed handily by a 47.23 to 72.78 LCD count.

As a resident of a county who was one of seven to lose on both propositions, it’s quite worthy to note that the a large part of the opposition to these measures came from two of the three counties who hold more votes themselves than the Eastern Shore does in toto – Anne Arundel and Montgomery. (Prince George’s County also was against both.) Our group of seven was Baltimore County, Cecil, Frederick, St. Mary’s, Somerset, Wicomico, and Worcester – so the Lower Shore was whacked badly. I also would be remiss to not point out that both of these changes which were defeated were sponsored by Eastern Shore Central Committee members, including two of my fellow Wicomico County members who sponsored the registered voter to actual votes cast change in LCD voting composition.

With that said, there’s going to be a certain level of frustration expressed in the near future around these parts. However, local Republicans will soon have the Chair’s ear as Jim Pelura will be the speaker at our Wicomico County Lincoln Day Dinner on February 7, 2009.

We also had an informative luncheon session, but I’ve decided in the interest of time and space to leave that for another post, since I’ve asked to get a copy of the presentation.

I’ll leave you with two images of this year’s convention – one partisan and one pretty.

2008 Maryland GOP Fall Convention (part 1)

As I did back in May (and because I have a number of photos to place in each post) I’ve again decided to subdivide the coverage of this year’s Maryland Republican Party Fall Convention into two parts. The first part this evening will essentially talk about the social aspect of the convention, most of which occurred Friday night. Tomorrow’s second part will delve more into what was said and done at the Friday evening Executive Committee meeting and the convention itself, which took place Saturday morning. That part will also discuss our breakfast and luncheon speakers – Harford County Executive David Craig and Scott Migli of Wilson Research Strategies, respectively.

It’s a Friday night tradition for those Central Committee members to attend hospitality rooms and suites that adjunct groups like the Young Republicans or various campaigners put in place. This gives Republicans from all over the state an opportunity to mix and mingle with each other.

Normally these begin after the Executive Committee meeting closes, but this time many partiers got underway a little earlier. The hospitality suite put together by this group started before the others:

Because not all that many of the Central Committee people sit in on the Executive Committee meeting, this quickly got to be a hopping place. And I got to make acquaintances with the aforementioned Delegate Stifler.

A group known for having energetic and entertaining hospitality suites is the Maryland Young Republicans, and they did not disappoint in this instance either.

In fact, it was at this suite I finally had the opportunity to meet fellow Red Maryland bloggers Brian Griffiths and Greg Kline. Perhaps they have observations on the events as well, but they didn’t have camera or notepad on them as far as I could tell.

There’s no doubt that most in the venue would dearly love to see former Lieutenant Governor and U.S. Senate candidate Michael Steele become the new head of the RNC, and this sign makes it quite clear that no good logo stays unused for long.

The suite itself ebbed and flowed like the others did, although I think they had the best adult beverage selections. (Sorry, no pictures of the liquor stash.) The two gentlemen who hosted the party are immortalized here.

Perhaps it’s because Michael Steele likely knows he has much of our support in his back pocket, but he was a no-show at the party – and at the convention, for that matter. Had Steele made time for the affair, he would’ve needed a room more like this one.

Senator Pipkin was into the spirit of things. If you look closely the good Senator was attired in Hawaiian-style shirt, just left of center in the photo.

But it was indeed a rough election for First Congressional District Republicans. This board was on an exhibitor’s table, and it had a message for the GOP that perhaps things were taken too much for granted.

The exhibitor, Nancy Hoyt, is a cartographer and GIS expert who merged political and geographical data to show areas where the GOP had work to do. Indeed, we did have work to do and that would begin bright and early the next morning.

Response to comments 97238 and 97240

First of all, I’ve just returned from the Fall Convention of the Maryland Republican Party, which should explain why I hadn’t done any comment moderation. Tomorrow I’m going to do a full report on the proceedings, covering both the official and “unofficial” points of interest.

Because they were well off-topic for the post, I withheld approval for two comments from “Big Daddy”, who I’m guessing aligns more with that anti-monoblogue blog than with my interests. I would have explained my reasoning to him (or her, you never know with a pseudonym) outside the public arena of a post, but the commentor also left an obviously ersatz (and not so nice) e-mail address. The feedback is worth answering though, and I’ll spend a portion of my afternoon doing just that. Here are the comments in question, which I’ll answer one at a time:

Hi Michael… a little off topic but i was wondering if you agree with the stance that your group over at PMG is taking with the bashing and boycotting of the Salvation Army just because they let Joe volunteer to help?

Let me start out by saying that, with any multi-contributor blog group, you will have a divergence of opinions on what is appropriate for posting. But I think the criticism of the Salvation Army is a bit problematic because on the whole they are a worthwhile organization. And if Joe Albero wants to help them out by donating time as a bell ringer, that’s great.

I guess the issue is more along the lines of Joe being critical of one particular bell ringer but then turning around and shamelessly promoting his part in the Salvation Army’s effort, as if they couldn’t survive without him. Locally, there’s dozens and dozens of volunteers who take time out to help the cause and most of them aren’t in it to promote themselves. If I were to spend a couple hours tending a kettle, I may mention it in passing just to give my loyal readers the heads-up but that would likely be the extent of it.

Personally, I won’t boycott the Salvation Army kettles; usually I’ll drop a buck or some spare change in if I see them at a store. Since I don’t generally shop where Joe tends to collect it’s not an issue, but if he’s at other locations where I do make my grocery run I’ll decide then whether to drop some cash in his kettle or not.

Then you have the second comment, with minor editing:

Wow… this is from the latest post on PMG…

So is this stunt really to help the Salvation Army? Nah, it’s a modern day internet shakedown. I will bet money that after this publicity stunt is done with, he’s going to chastise those who did not help out. All these businesses are kissing his … ass so they aren’t the subject of his future attacks.

You really want to associate with people like this?

Again, I go back in part to my first answer regarding multi-participant websites. Certainly I don’t agree with the tenor of some things placed on PMG nor do they always agree with me (case in point: Harris vs. Kratovil.) Unfortunately, I don’t have the option to moderate comments on PMG posts but I do ask that people refrain from some of the nastier allegations of a sexual nature when it’s my byline at the top.

With that being said, every other one of those contributors has the right to their opinion and I’m pleased that they generally take my side when my site is demeaned on that other blog. And while I don’t often grace the pages of Pro-Maryland Gazette it’s nice to have that outlet available to me when I feel the need to post a piece on the state of affairs in the local blogosphere.

If you’ve read there recently you’ll note that I did offer to have myself delisted as a contributor there if Joe followed through on the request I made of him. Bearing in mind that I haven’t yet perused the local blogs today since I was away, thus far that request has gone unanswered as far as I know.

Hopefully this answers the questions, and I’ll now remove the comments from my queue. It’s relatively rare that I don’t put up non-spam comments but given the fact they were well off-subject for the post in question this required further explanation. I originally approved the first comment but when the second one came in I made the editorial decision to pull the first one and address both in a separate venue.

Answer to the question

If you saw this post right after it went up, my apologies for not having the charts come up. I forgot the source was a transient website address, now I’ve corrected the oversight. I also put in a short explanation of what the charts represent.

I told you Jane Van Ryan reads my site. Yesterday I received an e-mail in my box regarding a query I had in Wednesday’s post about gas prices and other oil-related news. In getting the answer, I found out that I misread the chart but lucked into asking the right question anyway. The date in question for the huge marketing/manufacturing bump was September 5, 2005 – not 2006. As most recall, September 2005 was the period immediately after Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc on the Gulf Coast. Naturally I would have realized the reason had I seen the date correctly – ah! right after Katrina!

But here’s her answer:

I’ve got the answer to the question posed in your blog post, and it’s is precisely as I expected. Here’s how one of our economists explained it:

First, it is important to remember that the 9/5/05 figure is a one-week snapshot in time…right after Katrina.

Second, the figure is for manufacturing and marketing (and transportation, margin (both wholesale, retail, and distribution), and all other costs.

This figure is very volatile—tending to broaden as prices go up (widening out the most when prices are spiking) and narrow as prices go down (shrinking the most when prices are plummeting). This is partially because it includes the expected costs of the next shipment. When refineries are offline it tends to rise as well (as with Katrina/Rita) and different product formulations also affect the price (higher costs for summer blends vs non-summer blends).

It is better to look at the numbers over longer periods of time instead of a weekly snapshot—over a month or a year, for instance…and better to look at same-month comparisons vs different months (with different product formulations).

For September 2005, the cost was $1.119, for September 2008 it was 82.7 cents.

Annual averages (inflation adjusted): from 1980’s peak of $1.1509, the manufacturing/marketing/transportation/margin component fell to 39.46 cents in 1999, rising back to 74.06 cents in 2007. For the first 10 months of 2008 it is estimated at 55.04 cents.

So far for 2008, the monthly averages have been well below 60 cents (with the exception on September and October in the aftermath of Gustav and Ike).

I hope this helps.

By the way, another interesting data point not in the Pump Price Update is the “Refiner Margin” (the difference in price from crude and gasoline in the spot/futures market). It is out of this number that the actual cost of manufacturing gasoline is taken…it has been NEGATIVE since October 3.

So far in 2008 it has averaged 11.05 cents…down from 2007 (27.58 cents), 2006 (22.13 cents), 2005 (26.77 cents), 2004 (21.62 cents), 2003 (16.48 cents), 2002 (13.77 cents).

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Jane

Can you tell an economist answered this? Holy smokes, that’s a lot of data – and all because I misread a number!

But Jane does bring up another good point, one that is often missed when talking about gas prices. The price at the pump isn’t set by what was paid for the gasoline that’s in the station’s storage tanks but rather by the next tankful the station owner has to buy. This tends to explain the phenomenon where prices seem to spike upward quickly but take their sweet time to decline. And the formulation aspect is also important around here because there’s a certain time of year (we just passed through it) where gasoline in Delaware runs cheaper than it does in Maryland – I’m told that is because of formulation differences between the two states. Now that both states are back on a level playing field the prices have reverted back to the norm of Delaware being a few pennies more than Maryland.

I don’t know if I can give you a college semester’s credit for reading this post, but I certainly imparted a lot of data to my readers and managed to get all the charts to come out. All told, I’m just pleased that the price of a gallon is back down to a level more in line with sanity – and I’m sure Jane and her cohorts would agree that now’s the time to work on keeping it that way!

A definite candidate for the circular file

I’m sort of surprised no one has commented on this on our allegedly thriving local blogosphere. I actually came across this gem in the Wicomico Weekly newspaper, which can be described as the fishwrap the grocery ads come to my house in. (In reality, the paper consists of a few key local news articles which ran in the Daily Times over the prior week – along with the weekly store ads – and is distributed to each house.) While I don’t often talk a lot about local politics, in this case we’re the canary in the coal mine.

The headline of the article, which was originally published way back on November 21 and penned by Daily Times staff writer Laura D’Alessandro is “Tilghman may sign climate agreement” – for those of you not local, the Tilghman in question is Salisbury Mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman. She’s been coy about whether she’ll seek re-election when her term expires early next year.

In true politician fashion, she kicked the idea to a committee called the Environmental Policy Task Force. In turn, that committee was nearly unanimous in recommending she sign the document. Tilghman stated she would sign it if there was no actual action required by the city of Salisbury; otherwise the City Council would also need to approve it. (Come on Barrie, that’s likely a 5-0 or 4-1 vote in favor.)

Unfortunately, the Daily Times article mostly glossed over what would be expected of the city of Salisbury should she decide to join hundreds of other mayors in signing the agreement, which was originated by Seattle Mayor Greg Nichols in 2005. Eleven of the signees are in Maryland, with the usual suspects like Annapolis, Baltimore, Chevy Chase, Edmonston, Gaithersburg, Kensington, Laurel, Rockville, and Takoma Park on the list but also joined by Chestertown and Sykesville – cities farther from the O’Malley/I-95 corridor. The sole Delaware signatory is Wilmington.

Forget the first two parts, which basically ask Congress to continue on its merry path of late of subsidizing every sort of alternative energy scheme under the sun (including the solar energy lobby) while providing as many roadblocks to securing and using energy sources that are inexpensive and relatively plentiful. What needs to be asked of the mayoral candidates and city council hopefuls is whether they support this idea, and if so where would they find the money for some of these key items:

Conducting an inventory global warming emissions in City operations and in the community, setting reduction targets and creating an action plan.

Maybe a better question is which consultant would we hand over thousands of dollars to in order to create this nice report which will eventually find space on the shelf next to all the other reports?

Adopting and enforce land-use policies that reduce sprawl, preserve open space, and create compact, walkable urban communities.

Whether you agree or not that growth should pay for growth, right now we have nothing paying for nothing and these land-use policies don’t promise any help in that regard.

Promoting transportation options such as bicycle trails, commute trip reduction programs, incentives for car pooling and public transit.

Sounds like a subsidy to me, although more likely that funding will come as a grant from the state or federal government. Regardless, it’s tax money spent.

Increasing the use of clean, alternative energy by, for example, investing in “green tags”, advocating for the development of renewable energy resources, recovering landfill methane for energy production, and supporting the use of waste to energy technology.

This one I can agree with to some extent, although one needs to study the potential payback period for these investments. Worcester County has a landfill methane plant as I recall, so there’s a close-by case study.

Make energy efficiency a priority through building code improvements, retrofitting city facilities with energy efficient lighting and urging employees to conserve energy and save money.

Note to city employees: invest in sweaters for the winter and strong deodorant in the summer. And let’s hope the energy-efficient lighting isn’t dropped, broken, and creating a hazmat scene.

Purchasing only Energy Star equipment and appliances for City use.

Again, what’s the payback period for the premium?

Practicing and promoting sustainable building practices using the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED program or a similar system.

If you want to drive building out into the county, go ahead and pass this one. It’s guaranteed to work.

Increasing the average fuel efficiency of municipal fleet vehicles; reducing the number of vehicles; launching an employee education program including anti-idling messages; converting diesel vehicles to bio-diesel.

This one is a mixed bag, since the first two aren’t bad ideas. But I’m not sure the third one is practical given the usage some city vehicles receive, and the fourth one needs study as to the effects using E85 would have on the amount of maintenance required for vehicles so converted compared to vehicles using regular diesel.

Evaluating opportunities to increase pump efficiency in water and wastewater systems; recovering wastewater treatment methane for energy production.

Hasn’t the city of Salisbury already put itself enough in hock upgrading its wastewater treatment plant?

Increasing recycling rates in City operations and in the community.

Now there’s a subsidy waiting to happen. I’d be curious to know how the county recycling operations do as collection points, nonetheless it’s my admittedly foggy memory that curbside recycling tends to be a money pit yet the city of Salisbury has that program. I also know our company puts a lot of paper into the city’s recycling system, along with a slew of used 24 ounce diet Pepsi bottles (those would be mine.)

Maintaining healthy urban forests; promoting tree planting to increase shading and to absorb CO2.

All fine and dandy, but if the choice is between planting trees or fixing potholes, the roads should win.

Helping to educate the public, schools, other jurisdictions, professional associations, business and industry about reducing global warming pollution.

Despite Al Gore’s best efforts, you can tell this was written some time ago because it still refers to global warming. And considering this has been a very chilly fall about these parts, I say we could use a little dose of global warming. (The latter half of November featured a string of 12 straight days where temperatures fell short of normal.)

All these ideas sound great in practice, but committing to be advocates by signing a piece of paper is only good for a nice-sounding election eve press release. When the rubber hits the road and taxes continually go up in every jurisdiction because people like Greg Nichols in Seattle come up with brilliant ideas like this, it will do more harm than good to the noble idea that energy usage should be prudent – but not artificially limited.

The never-ending campaign continues

It was noted after the successful campaign by Barack Obama that he had an e-mail list of some 3 million people, of whom I happen to be one. Obviously I wasn’t exactly his staunchest supporter since the incoming President and I operate on completely different political wavelengths.

Much as Bill Clinton went about his terms in office, it appears the Obama presidency may be one of perpetual campaigning. I got a hoot out of the e-mail which showed up in my inbox yesterday:

This holiday season, celebrate the historic accomplishment of our movement for change. Treat yourself or a loved one to a limited edition Obama coffee mug.

Make a donation of $15 or more right now and get an official Obama mug to mark an amazing year:

Items purchased by December 15th are guaranteed to be delivered before December 25th.

When you make your donation, you’ll be supporting the Democratic National Committee. The resources they invested in the 50-state organizing strategy made this movement possible — help us build for future victories together.

Share this amazing moment with your friends and family. Thanks to supporters like you, we all have the opportunity to bring real change to America.

(Emphasis in original, modified to eliminate link.)

I suppose it’s par for the course since President Bush certainly made his share of pitches asking me to donate to the Republican National Committee. But it just seems a little, well…tawdry to receive a mug. (Then again, a coffee mug was my one of my premiums when I renewed my Limbaugh Letter subscription a couple years back. But my black-on-white EIB mug would clash with the Obama model, and in any case I’m not a coffee drinker.) Next thing you know, for a $100 donation people would receive a lovely tote bag made from recycled soda bottles or woven all-natural hemp. (And what is the carbon footprint on that coffee mug?!?)

But with even a 1% success rate on 3 million e-mail addresses, at $15 a pop that would be nearly another half a million dollars to the DNC for perhaps a $60,000 investment – I’m figuring $2 a mug and that may be a lot. That’s the beauty of having a large e-mail list; also by making the beneficiary the Democratic National Committee I believe the donation limits are larger so tapped-out Obama contributors can reach a little deeper in their pockets. Hey, I thought we were in a recession.

A week or so ago, I briefly brought up the name Richard Viguerie, best known as the man who pioneered the concept of direct mail solicitation for political purposes in the 1970’s. Say what you will about his ill-fated Presidential run in 2004, but Howard Dean may have done more damage to the conservative cause in running the DNC than he ever would have as President. This latter-day Viguerie was among the earliest to use the internet to fund a campaign and I’m sure his e-mail list was the kernel for Obama’s much larger e-mail list. While there is a percentage of e-mail addresses that become non-functional over time, there’s nowhere near the cost in e-mail distribution that sending out snail mail entails.

(Not only was that a complete sentence with sound thinking, I truly enjoyed rhyming three words in a row there.)

It will be interesting and perhaps worrisome to find out just how good of a marketing tool this will be for the Obama agenda. While the individual Congressmen may see this as so much spam, diligent and motivated people are valuable in any campaign and just by the sheer number on the Obama list it’s likely that he’ll have a lot of helpers in enacting his agenda – a point made clear by this most recent e-mail is that Obama and the Democrats are going to ask a lot of favors.

On the whole, while a coffee mug doesn’t stoop to the level of the “Yes We Can Opener” perhaps P.T. Barnum was more right than we know.

Still drilling here, drilling now, and paying less

Just imagine how we could do if there were more oil exploration opened up!

Every so often I get little nuggets from my friend Jane Vane Ryan at the American Petroleum Institute, and today was one of those days. She actually sent me two items, and I can distill both into one high-octane post. (I thought about adding a couple more oil-related metaphors and terms to that sentence, but I’d be fuelish to do so. You have my permission to groan.)

What’s quite serious of late is the precipitous drop in the price of crude oil, which begat the unprecedented slide in gasoline prices since July. Today the API put out a Pump Price Update based on information obtained from the federal Energy Information Administration. We are now back to the pump prices in non-inflation adjusted terms we paid back in 2005, but there were two charts in the API document which truly piqued my interest.

If you look at the chart on the first page of the API report, it graphically shows the average inflation-adjusted price of gasoline from 1918-2007. At the moment, our average price is near the bottom of the charts, although there was a long and recent period where we were doing even better compared to the overall term. The spike over the last half-decade seems to coincide with the Long War, and probably began shortly after 9/11 with the uncertainty created by Islamofascist terrorism originating in an oil-rich area. Obviously the API-member oil companies made a lot of profit over that timespan as well, but for all the maligning they’ve received in the press over these supposedly ill-gotten gains, the item I’ll get to toward the end of the post will be instructive.

The other chart that I found intriging was the bar chart below the gasoline price graph, which sorted the price of a gallon of gasoline by each component. As you can see, the one constant is the tax bite, which now consists of about 26.7% of the pump price. (Yet the federal and state governments want more because they have potholes to fill, not to mention budgetary holes.) Since I can be almost certain Jane is a monoblogue fan, she may be able to answer a question I have in seeing that chart: how do you or your friends at API explain the huge share of cost for manufacturing and marketing just two years ago ($1.30 per gallon) declining to just 20 cents per gallon now? Is that a component of hurricane damage being repaired, more efficiency at the refinery level, less profit on the books, or some combination of those and other factors?

We know that crude oil is now running south of $50 a barrel when it was nearly triple that just this past summer. Yet those oil companies haven’t exactly been placing their profits in the bank and collecting the interest (which may be a good thing seeing the condition of many of our major financial institutions); instead they do things like drill a really long way down, as this AP story by John Porretto relates.

Folks, we’re talking nearly two miles deep just to get to the bottom of the water, let alone through what’s under it.

Royal Dutch Shell isn’t talking specific numbers on this exploration bid, but Porretto notes that these efforts can run into the billions of dollars. Certainly that’s not just investment in the actual oil rig and drilling down through thousands of feet of water depth, but in all the planning and permitting that’s needed to occur since they (along with partners Chevron and BP) secured the lease twelve years ago. Half that time had elapsed before they determined hydrocarbons were there – imagine if they’d started the work and found a dry hole.

This is the point those who whine about the 68 million acres or whatever is leased by oil companies but not in production don’t seem to understand; much of that area has been explored on at least a cursory basis and found to be most likely lacking enough product to make the area worth further exploration. And if you return to the API data I cited above and refer to the 1918-2007 gasoline price graph, you’ll notice that back in 1996 we were in the midst of that pricing valley. Still, Shell and its partners were interesting in seeking more domestic oil because the infrastructure was available – even with a less-than-friendly President in office at the time. (However, we had a much business-friendly Congress at the time, which provided some balance.)

The other argument drilling opponents make is that getting new oil would take years, and surely they could point to this as an example. However, it’s obvious that the technology has advanced enough to continue exploring in deeper and deeper water if that’s where the oil can be found; on the other hand the technology for many other areas of “alternative” energy and associated products would need government subsidies for a decade or more before they could reach an affordable price point for the market. Witness the Chevy Volt – a mid-size car that could well run $40,000 but qualify for a $7,500 subsidy from the federal government when (or maybe if, given GM’s current state) it comes out in 2010.

Oil companies play a high-stakes game. If the Perdido field can come through on the potential 130,000 barrels a day of “oil equivalent”, daily revenue at even just $40 a barrel would run over $5 million. Shell and its partners would surely make up a $1 billion investment fairly quickly (now THAT would be an acceptable payback period to me.)

Not only that, the federal government also collects its share in taxes and lease payments – and do you notice the oil companies aren’t in the bailout line? If anything I say makes the argument that we should drill here, drill now, and pay less, it’s my prior questioning sentence.

Will the voting ranks change?

While this could be a little bit of inside baseball for a number of readers, the Maryland Republican Party is slated to consider a different proportional voting method at its upcoming Fall convention next weekend. This voting comparison serves as a guide to what will change.

In prior years, the voting strength of each member was dictated by a formula that took the proportion of each county’s registered Republican voters to the overall state total and multiplied that by 141, which is the total number of Delegates in our General Assembly. As an example, Wicomico County (which I represent on the state’s Central Committee) has 19,380 of the state’s 925,027 registered Republicans. When you take that 2.1% and multiply it by the 141 Delegates statewide, our local voting strength is equal to 2.954 total LCD votes out of 141 – thus, far from “one man one vote”, my actual vote counts as 0.422 of a Delegate (as 1/7 of our Central Committee.) The entire nine counties of the Eastern Shore add up to 15.529 LCD votes – compare that with 18 or more LCD votes apiece held by Anne Arundel, Baltimore, and Montgomery counties.

Something that we’ve contended for quite awhile is that the Eastern Shore counties (among others) should be rewarded for outperforming our actual registration numbers. There are a lot of Democrats who stay registered that way but vote Republican more often than not in this end of the state, so this suggestion was brought up for consideration that the voting strength be recalculated based on the votes in the most recent race for President or Governor. With that, the Eastern Shore’s aggregate strength would increase by some extent to 16.676 LCD votes. However, the region which takes a large hit is the western end of the state, along with Prince George’s and Montgomery counties. Those same three counties I discussed earlier would continue to outrank the entirety of the Shore although we practically would balance out Prince George’s under the new calculation. (On a percentage basis, the biggest gainer is Somerset County, which moves out of the rankings basement to overtake Kent County. Still, neither county would even manage 1 full vote.)

But can this proposal pass, particularly as it affects one of the heavyweights and an entire region of the state? I did a calculation based on the existing numbers, and if you use an assumption that each gaining county’s full delegation votes in favor and each county which declines in strength has their delegation voting no, the result is that the motion would fail by a margin of 68.68 LCD votes for and 72.31 LCD votes against. So the forces in favor would need to convince at least some members of the recalcitrant county delegations to put aside their temporary loss of strength and vote for the betterment of the party as a whole. (Perhaps the best candidates to switch are Talbot County, which is the lone Eastern Shore loser under the plan, and dependably Republican Carroll County, which will probably return to form in 2010.) As a group, the decliners stand to lose 6.31 votes so some counties would be more difficult to convince than others.

All this could make for a contentious Saturday morning this weekend. As I said, this is inside baseball to a degree but perhaps the LCD rules are the most fair way of sharing power amongst the disparate regions of the state. I’m one of those who thinks this is a solution that rewards those counties who turn out their voters as we regularly do on the Eastern Shore.