January 2009 – Page 3

Standing by the hot stove

I’m taking a break from the political this evening and celebrating the fact we’re only 13 weeks out from the Delmarva Shorebirds home opener against the soon-to-be-departing Lake County Captains. (In 2010 their franchise moves from the South Atlantic League to the Midwest League.)

To begin, next Saturday night marks the Shorebirds’ 8th Annual Hot Stove Banquet. For the first time the event moves off-site from Perdue Stadium into the new friendly confines of the Black Diamond Lodge in Fruitland. (Black Diamond is quite appropriate, no?) While the dinner buffet should be tasty, and the silent auction and raffle once again benefit the United Way of the Lower Eastern Shore, the main attraction should be keynote speaker Dave Johnson.

Johnson, who hails from the Baltimore area, pitched three seasons for the Orioles after they acquired him from the Houston Astros as a minor leaguer. Not an overpowering flamethrower, Johnson still found some success with the O’s and put together his best year, a solid 13-9, 4.10 season, for Baltimore in 1990.

Dave is perhaps more famous as a color analyst on MASN, but also heads his own baseball academy and is Summer Camps Director for Baltimore’s RBI program, which is sponsored in part by Major League Baseball.

Also speaking at the banquet will be Orioles Assistant Director of Minor League Operations Tripp Norton and Shorebirds assistant coach Ryan Minor, a fan favorite.

Speaking of Ryan Minor, he will be the only holdover among the coaching staff when the Shorebirds gear up for 2009. The Orioles reassigned pitching coach Kennie Steenstra to Frederick after four seasons in a Shorebirds uniform, and returned Ramon Sambo to the Gulf Coast League managerial job he held prior to his arrival in Delmarva last season.

In their place the Orioles have named Orlando Gomez as manager and Blaine Beatty as the pitching coach. Beatty flip-flops with Steenstra as he comes to Delmarva from Frederick, while the veteran manager Gomez moves up from the Bluefield Orioles of the Appalachian League.

While it’s not yet known just who the on-field personnel will be for the Shorebirds this summer, next Saturday will provide a good opportunity to hear those in the know size up the prospect of another summer run at the playoffs at Perdue Stadium.

I’m certain Chris Bitters and his staff are putting together some fun events for the fans who come out once the weather turns much warmer and the hot stove sits unused. Until then, the dinner next Saturday will have to suffice.

Venting on Human Events

Regularly I get e-mail updates from the Human Events website. Generally it’s for columns I like to read by writers with a number of disparate styles – Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Pat Buchanan, Chuck Norris, Ted Nugent, and the Evans-Novak Report are among my favorites, even if I don’t always agree with them. It’s the latter which prompted the comments I’m going to revisit here.

I caught it at a time when I could have a front-page comment and steer an argument. So I wrote the following, based on quotes within the story:

“Republicans are comfortably settling into a minority position.”

Well, that’s problem #1 in a nutshell. And people wonder why conservatives are in a revolt?

“Indeed, some Republicans are quietly hoping Coleman will give up the fight.”

When stealing an election becomes an acceptable standard, it’s not just the Republican Party that’s in trouble, but the Republic itself.

Both these comments take the GOP to task for the very complacent attitude that I sense. Certainly there is an argument which can be made for giving the new Congress and President a chance, but I don’t really recall that same courtesy given to the last President – and he bent over backwards and forwards to exhibit his willingness to work with the other side. Remember the “new tone”? Continue reading “Venting on Human Events”

My first letter to Frank

I’m going to be curious to see when and how I get a response to this. Here was an opportunity to reach out and touch my newly and duly elected (despite my strenuous objections and serious reservations) Congressman. He has no Salisbury office yet, but e-mail is actually better anyhow.

The bill in question is S.22, which I wrote about last Friday.

On Sunday, the Senate allowed S.22, The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, to proceed by voting for cloture. Thus, it’s expected to get a vote in your chamber later this week, although my bet is that even more will be added to the 1,200-plus pages the bill already contains.

There are three main concerns I have with this legislation. First of all, as an omnibus bill there’s more than just land management added. One instance is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, which was a bill that didn’t get passed last session. The Senate sponsor decided to add this into the bill in hopes of sneaking it through without as much debate. Many of your fellow House members are notorious for doing the same thing to “must-pass” bills.

Secondly, one provision of S.22 pulls an estimated 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 300 million barrels of oil off the market by restricting the use of the land overhead in Wyoming. At a time when we have energy companies willing to invest their own capital into our economy in order to secure new supplies, taking them “off the market”, so to speak, seems like a poor move given both our economic situation and dependence on foreign energy supplies. While I know you favor alternatives in energy, the technology isn’t ready for a switchover and may not be for some time.

My third concern comes out of respect for private property rights. By placing areas under federal control (such as “wild and scenic” rivers, for example) many of those new restrictions negatively impact landowners whose plans for their private property would be altered because they would run afoul of federal dictates. Moreover, any privately-held land directly acquired by governmental entities comes off the local property tax rolls, dealing a blow to the financial well-being of local governments.

I hope you’ll take these arguments into consideration and vote against the passage of S.22 through the House.

While it may do just as much good as my brief conversations on Friday with the staffers of Senators Cardin and Mikulski (both of whom voted for cloture), I decided to make my feelings known. It’s a good chance for Frank to establish those “independent” bonafides he campaigned on, because as I write this he hasn’t gone against his party brethren yet in any vote.

A leadership void

These are the first three paragraphs of an op-ed by Carter Clews at the Americans for Limited Government blog:

Every day in Washington’s political citadels, a new coalition triumphantly announces its emergence as the self-anointed savior of the increasingly moribund conservative movement. Or, some old organization “re-invents” itself and declares that it is now ready to lead as never before.

Most boldly proclaim their unbridled affection for the “New Media.” And some even demonstrate an admirable aptitude for digitalizing prose and pressing “Send.”

All of which is fine – as far as it goes. The problem is, it doesn’t go far enough. In fact, much of it at this point in time is dangerously going in the wrong direction. And the conservative movement desperately needs a few good men – and at least one good woman.

While the remainder is well worth the read, I’m going to take a slightly different angle on this and look at it in more literal terms. Continue reading “A leadership void”

Caldwell throws Superman hat into Mayoral ring

While I knew about this a few days ago and perhaps it may have been Salisbury’s worst-kept secret, I’m honoring Bob’s request and delaying the official announcement here until this point in time.

Here’s what he wrote, in its entirety:

I am pleased to announce my candidacy for the office of Mayor of Salisbury.

In the past, this City has overcome several major challenges, including two historic fires that threatened the town’s very existence. Salisbury not only survived, but emerged much stronger, and it became a bigger and better town. That success was due to the strength of character of the citizens, and to the quality of leadership.

In recent years, however, things have changed. We have experienced large tax increases and much higher fees and charges (often with no warning) while our infrastructure has deteriorated and become overburdened. City government operates with little public discussion or input, despite the promises of “transparency”. Periodic proclamations of “lower crime” and “sound financial health” are seen as political posturing. To put it plainly – – new leadership is needed.

And now we face another significant challenge. This time, it is not caused by fire or other natural disasters but by a severely damaged economy. The city will have less tax revenue, increased demands for service, and a probable reduction in cash flow from funds other than real estate taxes. It will take the combined efforts of Salisbury’s excellent employees, a dedicated City Council, and a strong leader to guide the city through very troubled waters.

I am prepared to be that leader. My background and my history make me uniquely qualified to assume the position of Mayor. I have been actively involved in many volunteer projects benefiting the community. I have been a member of City Council, and served as its president. During my time on Council, we addressed significant issues, including election reform and city agency realignment, and we created and passed Salisbury’s first rental property registration ordinance. In both elected and volunteer capacity, I have been able to bring people together. “Together” is the only way we will survive and thrive in the coming economic storm.

The leadership of an organization determines the tone of an organization. Under my leadership, the City of Salisbury will once again have an open government, marked by a return to civility on all levels.

If the citizens of Salisbury grant me the privilege to serve as their Mayor, they can be assured that I will work hard, and I will work smart. I am prepared for the challenges, and am confident that by confronting issues with Rational Thought, Experience, and Common Sense, I will effectively lead Salisbury for the next four years.

For Questions Contact:

Robert M. (Bob) Caldwell
1014 Evergreen Ave
Salisbury MD 21801
410-251-2799 (Cell)

(Emphasis in original.)

The Superman reference in my title is to a hat he often wears in public – certainly it allows me to pick him out in a crowd. As a cancer survivor, Bob does have that qualification for wearing the hat and perhaps he’s just the Clark Kent the city needs – arguably he’s the most politically experienced candidate running in the race.

With this announcement, the field for the city’s chief executive grows to four and now includes Caldwell along with current City Council Vice-President Gary Comegys, auto salesman Mike Della Penna, and onetime City Councilman and current member of the Wicomico County Democratic Central Committee Jim Ireton, who to date has had the most visible campaign.

Ireton is also the Chairman of the moribund Wicomico Neighborhood Congress, which oddly enough is planning a meeting on January 27th. Prior to that, the last scheduled meeting of the WNC was last August but that gathering was postponed indefinitely. According to my records, the last WNC meeting was April 29, 2008 – admittedly I may not be on their insider mailing list but I’ve kept their previous e-mails and attended the previous large-scale gatherings (last April, January, November 2007, and the September 2007 organizational meeting.) My guess is that there’s another WNC meeting scheduled shortly before the city elections.

While there’s still a week until the filing deadline and candidates have been known to wait until the last minute to get involved, it appears the mayoral field may be set. With the open seat caused by current Mayor Barrie Parsons Tilghman deciding not to seek another term, 2009 could mark the most exciting city election in decades.

Waste not, want not?

I wasn’t familiar with the ads in question, probably because I don’t hang out in the DC area. But writing in the openmarket.org blog, Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute thinks that Vladimir Putin should be Chevron’s Man of the Year because Russia recently cut off the natural gas pipelines to Europe which run through the Ukraine over a payment dispute between Naftogaz Ukrainy and Gazprom, the two state-run gas companies serving Ukraine and Russia.

Nominally, that’s not really worth the post by itself – after all, the Russia-Ukraine dispute has simmered for a few years and Europe has shivered in prior winters when one of the host countries for these vital gas pipelines decided to teach a lesson to a country farther down the line.

One has to wonder, though, about what happens if one of our energy suppliers gets into a disagreement with us. Suppose Israel escalates their excursion into Gaza farther and flattens the Hamas forces. Would our support for Israel be again translated into an OPEC embargo? While that would only take away perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 of our total usage since Canada and Mexico are our main foreign oil suppliers, the toll on our gasoline price and supplies would be severe. Overnight we could be back at $4 a gallon – or more. That cutoff could also leave many in colder areas of the country needing to decide whether to heat or eat because their heating oil would be spiking in cost as well.

While Europe doesn’t have a great deal of choice in the matter because of the scant reserves of oil and natural gas under much of that continent, America does have options because we’re blessed with abundant supplies of both.

Unfortunately, shortsighted people who seem to care more about what scare tactics they could conjure up of oil platforms blocking the sunrise on your favorite beach or vast environmental damage killing the caribou and polar bears frolicking like they’re in a real-life holiday Coke commercial on the snowy Alaskan tundra are hampering efforts to secure our own supplies of these vital fuels. They’re doing it through a compliant Congress or via a byzantine court system which has been a weapon of choice for environmentalists to block oil exploration because of the perceived impact on wildlife.

Recently my friend Jane Van Ryan at API pointed out to me that drilling expenditures in 2007 doubled their previous record, set way back in…2006. Each new oil well cost oil companies about $4 million apiece, while natural gas wells were ever-so-slightly cheaper at $3.9 million a pop. Overall oil companies invested $220 billion into oil exploration in 2007, and I’ll stack the jobs created by that $220 billion up against those created by the $700 billion bailout scheme Congress passed last year any day of the week.

However, one item that I could not find in the information provided by API is just how much of that $4 million or so per well goes to comply with the red tape created by regulations and the lengthy court battles which may need to be won before exploration can even begin. It’s overhead OPEC sure doesn’t have to put up with. (Maybe Jane knows that number too, she seems like a pretty smart lady.)

As a return to the Kazman piece, while Chevron advertises John Q. Public stating in various ways that, “I will use less energy,” (I found the ticker of oil and gas consumption running during my site visit fairly humorous), it’s interesting to note that the company itself is using plenty of energy rebadging their local gasoline outlets with the old “Pure” moniker. While it’s refreshingly retro, they have nothing on the Sinclair dinosaur signs.

More importantly, think of the energy used in the process of seeking and securing new sources of energy and compare that with the energy burnt up in some courtroom or back office inside the Beltway attempting to hold the former process up. Which is truly the better investment and which may leave us freezing like Europeans whose natural gas supply was cut off over a payment dispute between two faroff countries?

Odds and ends no. 16

This is yet another collection of little items worth a paragraph (or two or three) of comment but perhaps not a full post on its own.

First, I want to announce two changes in format for my site, both of which will begin with this post. One is already something I do on Red Maryland because that site is a muli-contributor post. Beginning with this post, I’m going to introduce the “more” feature.

I wasn’t originally a great fan of that feature because I like to have posts be a complete block, but in many respects there will be advantages to this system. Ideally the totality of my posts would run the length of the sidebars so scanning a week’s worth of posts for occasional visitors would still expose them to my ads. (Hey, I like making a little coin with this site, you know, and the more the better.) So instead of 8 posts on the front page, I’ll push the number to 12 because that’s roughly a week’s output for me.

The second change is just a matter of preference, for which this post will be the first in the new format. Since I began the site, it’s always had a numerical post tag; for instance the last post was p=3225. When I began the site, it made perfect sense because the numbers were sequential. But after a recent WordPress upgrade I made for the site I noticed my numbers were no longer sequential, which defeated my purpose for having that post format. So now I’ll make my site conform more with most other sites which use a title slug as a post tag.

(Late note: this also retroactively updated items so those who have existing links to posts on my site may want to check and make sure they still work.)

Here it works out to be a nice point to insert a “more” tag, which I’ll probably begin to add in on occasions the post gets up around 700 words or so. Continue reading “Odds and ends no. 16”

Time to sink a SCHIP

It’s a program which lends itself to a lot of great plays on words, but what’s not funny about the State Children’s Health Insurance Program is the means Congressional Democrats want to use to pay for it.

After an expansion of SCHIP was vetoed twice in 2007, the issue’s laid low for awhile but is likely to be reborn in Congress in the next few weeks. Already there are a couple shell bills introduced which can be vessels easily amended to not only expand the reach of the children’s health insurance program but increase the federal cigarette tax as well. In 2007, the figure used was a 61 cent per pack increase (making the revised federal tax a round dollar per pack) so most research has been based on that tax increase number. It comes on the heels of the General Assembly here in Maryland adopting a $1.00 per pack increase effective in January 2008. Other states have adopted similar increases over the last couple years.

Unfortunately for Maryland (and those other jurisdictions which have attempted bolstering the revenue stream from tobacco), the revenue generated by that 2008 tax increase has fallen short of expectations. Instead of grinning and bearing the added cost, many smokers voted with their feet and purchased their smokes in places where the tax bite was lower. Others managed to kick the habit, which was a goal the state had set but brings up the age-old question of why government at all levels levies a tax on something they simultaneously discourage the use of by restricting where the public can consume the product in question.

One study done using the 2007 tax increase figure of 61 cents per pack (h/t NetRightNation and Americans for Limited Government) illustrates the effect such a federal tax increase could have on residents in the Free State. In this case, the loss of revenue could reach $47 million, at a time when the state is already scrambling for funds. (Bear in mind this study was completed before the current economic recession reached its full fury so the shortfall could now be greater.)

In effect, one of three things needs to happen if the federal government decides to go this route in order to fully fund the Democrats’ vision of SCHIP:

The smokers who already have the habit would need to smoke more cigarettes, with a resultant increase in maladies from first- and second-hand smoke. (While the effects of second-hand smoke are debatable, most states and cities adopted their public smoking bans in order to combat diseases which were claimed to be linked to second-hand smoke.)
Related to the above, those same effects would result from the increased number of smokers required to keep revenue constant if per-capita smoking didn’t increase significantly. One source pegs the number at 22 million new smokers needed.
If neither of the above happened – and the long-term trend has been one of fewer smokers who smoke less per user – the revenue required would need to come from some other source (read: increased taxes on everyone, not just cigarette smokers.)

In terms of limiting government, reauthorizing SCHIP and including a dedicated tobacco tax for purposes of funding it is another expansionistic step on the evolutionary path to nationalized health care. Government involvement in health care began with an idea proposed by President Truman in the 1940’s, became law as part of the Great Society (Medicare and Medicaid were enacted as part of Social Security reform in 1965 under President Johnson) and slowly morphed from strictly medical coverage solely for the elderly and poor into coverage for children with the birth of SCHIP in 1997 and the inclusion of prescription drugs (Medicare Part D) during the most recent Bush Administration. Other recent proposals like one lowering the age for Medicare eligibility to 55 haven’t cleared Congress – yet. But the possibility for more incremental steps always remains.

There is even a proposal in the current Congress to dictate that health care is a Constitutional right.

While taking care of one’s body and mind is of paramount importance in maintaining the lifestyle each of us wants, the solution to all ills does not lie in having someone inside the Beltway be the final arbiter of what is required for the purpose of keeping one’s self healthy. The basic economics of supply and demand for services and the real-life examples of other nations like Canada or Great Britain – where “free” health care comes at a cost of long waits for procedures and confiscatory tax rates – should easily and quickly teach America that a system such as theirs isn’t one our nation needs to follow.

While it won’t be an easy task to achieve nor a politically popular one, revamping SCHIP into total mandated coverage for almost anyone under 30 years of age and enacting yet another tax which never goes away but only increases is an idea which desperately needs to be placed into the circular file, never to be heard from again. The health of our Republic depends on it.

Quarterback sneak

If I’m to believe a fairly reliable source, Sunday will be the day that pork retains its supreme position on the mind of our Senators, whether newly sworn in or grizzled veterans of the halls of the Capitol. There is one exception, though; a taxpayer-friendly Senator has gone on record as opposing the bill (S.22) for a number of reasons – that man is Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn. (Fair warning: the bill is 1,294 pages long!)

Coburn’s point is that placing more land under federal control and restriction makes little sense when the land already under federal supervision has a serious need for maintenance. And while he attempted to add thirteen amendments onto the bill, each of them were tabled. The amendments would have corrected many egregious provisions in the bill, including, among others:

No initiatives or new national parks, monuments, Heritage Areas, etc. would be established until maintenance backlogs at a number of existing areas are eliminated.
Land could not be withdrawn from “disposition under the mineral leasing, mineral materials, or geothermal leasing laws.”
Prevent land from being acquired via eminent domain.
An accounting of the amount of land owned or controlled by the federal government compared to the total land area in each state and nationally, plus an accounting of the cost of maintenance backlogs and a tallying of unused or vacant assets.
A delay in the effective date until “which the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior issues a finding that no laws were violated by the employees of the National Landscape Conservation System in the investigation of the Inspector General relating to allegations of improper coordination between employees of the National Landscape Conservation System and environmental advocacy organizations.”
Allowing hunting on federal land, with prudent restrictions.
Prevents obstructions to building a border fence or affecting border security operations.

Since it’s an omnibus bill, you also get a number of provisions which failed to make the cut in the 110th Congress. One I found most interesting is the next-to-last Title in the bill, dubbed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act. It was a bill which didn’t make it through the last Congress, so it was thrown into this one in the hopes to sneak it through this way.

This is a symptom of the problem we have with our current form of government and the rules they operate under. Instead of each of these provisions being debated on its own merits, they’re approved as one lump sum and the pork is spread around without regard to taxpayer cost – just as long as each state gets a share. The Senate also seems to have little regard to the states and localities who may be affected when their tax base is taken away from them.

Another item I’d like to point out is my wondering if any Senator has actually read all 1,294 pages of the bill to understand it. While all bills aren’t that long, yesterday the Senate went over 180 bills already introduced for the session. That leads me to wonder just how many pages each Senator needs to read just to stay current with the legislation proposed. I know, it’s why they have staff.

Knowing that the vote will be held on Sunday, it seems to me that while many of us are watching the NFL playoffs, Harry Reid will call for a quarterback sneak of his own. Whether we can run the proper defense to stop this will depend on the willingness of Senators to listen.

Another sort of stimulus?

If you’re a longtime reader of monoblogue, you should recall that back in May I advocated for a particular industry’s expansion because they had the capital to help break our economic slide if they could put that profit to work.

The other day I received an e-mail note which suggested perhaps another approach could be tried, and it actually involves a legitimate function of our federal government. Since a portion of the Preamble to our Constitution is to “provide for the common defense”, certainly maintaining the best military we can rates as a priority. This tip also pointed me to two concurring opinions on the subject, Jeff Emanuel’s piece on Politico.com and another by John Ruberry, who writes for the blog Marathon Pundit.

What they have in common is a bid to save the F-22 stealth fighter jet, a program purportedly on Obama’s chopping block. The writer also noted a Maryland connection:

As you might know, Lockheed Martin, with offices in Bethesda, makes the advanced jet fighter. GE also works on the project at their Germantown location. These facilities will be at risk if the program is not funded. Many other facilities in states across the country will be facing similar uncertainty. By passing over the F-22 fighter project, the nationwide impact risks 95,000 jobs that contribute $12 billion of domestic production to the economy. With the federal government looking to boost economic activity and to stem unemployment, domestic manufacturing and production projects like the F-22 fighter are best suited to deliver maximum results on both fronts.

Living on the Eastern Shore, I actually didn’t know that. What I do know, though, is there are a lot of nations who are looking at the incoming President as one who may be easily manipulated into making a number of defense cuts and weakening our military in a time where they may be needed more than ever. It seems to be a roller coaster of late where Democrats in the White House cut military spending and Republicans have to ramp it back up in order to keep pace with those who threaten us.

Where this policy could more directly affect the Eastern Shore is in space exploration. Over the last few years the Wallops Island facility on the Eastern Shore of Virginia has increased its stature in the national space program, which in turn has helped an economically challenged area with job creation. Trading jobs at Wallops for infrastructure jobs which will be generally targeted for more Democrat-friendly areas will put our economic health at risk. I can see the pattern of pork now; despite what Obama says about earmarks he wouldn’t apply a veto to one of his cherished stimulus programs regardless of what’s thrown into them. True, some aspects of space exploration can be done better through the private sector but the military does have a stake in maintaining a healthy space program.

While the target has shifted over the weeks since his election, Obama has vowed to save or create a huge number of jobs – the latest number I’ve heard is 3 million. As one of a few specifically enumerated tasks given to the federal government by our Constitution, let’s hope that a large number of jobs saved come in maintaining our national defense.

Standing on principle (in part)

This item from the Maryland GOP just came across my e-mailbox this morning. Nice to see that we’re back in fighting mode now that the 90 Days of Terror is about to resume:

The Maryland Republican Party has established a Commission for Citizen Tax Relief to investigate Maryland ’s record of over spending by the Democrat controlled leadership in Annapolis. The formation of this Commission is in response to the historic tax increases from the 2007 Special Session, the Democrat policy promoting bloated state budgets and the anticipated $1.9 billion deficit in the upcoming budget year.

For the past two years, the MDGOP has closely documented the Annapolis Democrat’s agenda of burdening Maryland citizens with increased taxes to fund new and expanded government programs. “Today’s tough times make it imperative for the Maryland Republican Party to hold Governor O’Malley and his supporters in the General Assembly accountable for their chronic over spending,” stated Chairman Pelura.

The Commission will be directed by Charles Lollar. Lollar hails from Charles County where he is Chairman of the Charles County Republican Central Committee. As a former Marine Corps Officer and local Charles County business leader, Mr. Lollar brings extensive experience in corporate accountability and budgeting.

This Commission is comprised of two dozen Maryland Republicans and citizen activists. As Director, Lollar will lead the Commission towards sensible budget and accountability recommendations that will provide much needed tax relief for Maryland citizens. During his introduction as Director, Mr. Lollar stated to the MDGOP membership at their Annual Fall Meeting, “We need a balanced budget with fair cuts across the board…just as we all are tightening our belts at home, the State should be doing the same.”

Members of the Commission will be visiting each county in Maryland to engage citizen participation. These town hall meetings will begin in late January and will give Marylanders the opportunity to review the Commission’s initial budget analysis and to provide input.

“It is time for the fiscally-challenged Governor and his supporters in the General Assembly to come to grips with the economic impacts of their runaway tax increases and uncontrolled spending. We need a balanced budget with fair reductions and accountability across the board,” added Pelura. “ Maryland’s working families know that fiscal responsibility isn’t a choice, it is a must. Fiscal responsibility does not have partisan stripes, it is something we should all strive to achieve.”

In doing this, the Maryland Republican Party indeed is making a first good step because this effort serves to provide an alternative with grassroots support.

However, another contention I’ve made that’s not noted in the press release is a push to make the Democrats and Governor O’Malley publicly justify where they’re spending those rapidly-declining tax dollars we provide. Certainly one of my favorite whipping boys is Program Open Space, but there’s a number of other funds which were created pell-mell by the General Assembly and codified into state law that have either not served their purpose or become sacred cows, never to be touched by the hands of those who would hold Annapolis politicians accountable for the money they spend. While I certainly can’t say that our state budget needs to fit on both sides of a regular sheet of paper, the hundreds of pages to which our budget annually runs are filled with programs that either don’t work, can be trimmed, or can be done much more efficiently in the private sector.

In economic times such as those we’re faced with, the operative term should be “leaner and meaner.” Surely those bleeding hearts on the left who consider any reduction in even the unchecked growth of government spending as one which creates “victims” would stress the “meaner” part, but that’s just a fact of life in Maryland we’ll have to deal with. Being right doesn’t always equate with being popular, at least not popular with the news media and their editorial boards.

But taking the time to explain our side while simultaneously pushing for those who create the budget to justify extracting more money from hard-working Free Staters (whether in families or not) is something citizens should simply expect. It’s unfortunate that the Maryland GOP has to create a Commission to do the job everyone in our General Assembly and state government in general should be doing as habit.

I look forward to seeing what the Commission comes up with and putting in my two cents.

Subsidies for our plenty

I’m having an interesting conundrum pondering this particular video from the CATO Institute that came to my attention. It’s about 5 1/2 minutes long and may hit some of my readers where they live.

In a lot of respects I can see CATO’s point; however, there is something to be said for helping out the smaller farmers rather than the large multinational corporations. Perhaps there’s a better way than just handing them checks, though.

Farming is by all accounts a risky business. In order to make a profit, a farmer has to have three things simultaneously occur: good weather for growing the crops or allowing the purchase of their feedstock at a reasonable price, a steady market for the product (which can be an export market as well), and a price per unit which enables the grower to sell at a profit. Factor in the increasing costs for fuel, labor, equipment, property taxes, insurance, and regulatory compliance – mainly due to environmental concerns – and it’s small wonder that the tiny 40-acre family farm has all but disappeared.

On the other hand, a portion of the tax burden comes from paying for those subsidies the farmers enjoy and the price of many commodities is propped up artificially by mandates such as the one corn farmers profit from regarding ethanol. And in case the weather doesn’t cooperate, farmers can generally take advantage of federally-backed low-interest financing to stave off the bill collectors until the crops come in a more plentiful manner.

Like many other businesses, those who work the land for a living are forced to keep an eye on the doings in Washington and their state capitals. However, it’s also an unfortunate fact of life that just one regulation change can wipe out years worth of planning. While that is the right states are given thanks to the Tenth Amendment, I’m quite convinced that farmers in the end would be better off with at least the subsidies from Washington phased out – in return, federal regulations can and should be sunsetted as well.

Another topic which wasn’t brought out by the CATO video but I feel is worth discussing briefly is the relatively recent practice of rural landowners selling their future development rights for cash up front, akin to taking a smaller lump-sum payment in lieu of lottery winnings normally paid out over a number of years.

My contention is that these tradable development rights should not be made permanent but instead only be in effect for a limited period of time; appropriate to me would be a 20- or 25-year term. Since farming tends to be a generational pursuit and families have been known to stay on the same homestead for a century or more, I think it’s quite fair to allow each succeeding generation to decide for themselves whether they wish to place their land off-limits to development or not. They can re-evaluate their circumstances based on the conditions present at the time – perhaps they’d like to take advantage of their frontage on what used to be a sleepy country lane when it becomes a major artery decades later. Or, instead of going to the bank for another loan because of a poor harvest, they could sell a small portion of their land if local usage creates a demand for the acreage. It’s a matter of highest and best use, as land policy should generally be.

On a personal note, I appreciate the kind words about monoblogue which were shared by some of the attendees at our Tri-County Central Committee meeting tonight. I’m sure I gained a few extra readers there, so I hope this article served as a good introduction to what I try to write as thought-provoking insight and reporting. If I may, I’d also like to suggest reading two other sites I contribute to, Red Maryland and Red County, where I edit and contribute to the Wicomico County subsite as well as post to the national site on occasion.