Last night I attended what I believe is the third meeting of the local chapter of Americans for Prosperity. (As I often ask, who are the Americans against prosperity?) This post isn’t meant to be a blow-by-blow account as I try to do with Wicomico County Republican Club meetings but a few highlights from last night’s gathering combined with my thoughts on the organization.
While local residents Joe Collins and Julie Brewington are the pair who have done much of the work putting this together, we also were graced by the presence of state AFP head Dave Schwartz, who noted that the Lower Shore chapter is the “biggest early chapter” in the state – that is, in terms of the number attending at this stage of development. In fact, there’s already a possibility Worcester County may split off from the Lower Shore group because of the interest there in their own club.
A key item Schwartz touched on while addressing the club was the Obamacare plan. It’s part of a “buffet” of AFP pet issues nationally that also included “card check” and Obama’a cap and trade proposal, but in this case AFP has already put up a patient advocacy website called Patients United Now.
That’s not to say they’re ignoring state issues either. Schwartz brought up the legislation authorizing speed cameras statewide (SB 277) and Collins once again mentioned an issue which helped him get involved, tax assessments. He passed out a handout explaining the concept of “constant yield”, which generally explains why tax rates get lower each year. On the other hand, he also noted that assessments continue to rise, leaving little to no benefit to taxpayers.
As for speed cameras, despite the fact a bid to take the proposed law to referendum failed, Schwartz pointed out the law can only take effect within each county after a public hearing and authorizing legislation on a local level. Thus, we can fight the idea this fall when the law takes effect. (Okay, Wicomico County Council, where do you stand on the issue?)
That makes for a nice segue into a comment I made midstream (since I got to the meeting a little late) where I asked about a legislative agenda. As I couched it, one criticism of the GOP – and by extension conservative groups – is that they can be tagged as the “party of no” if they don’t put up an alternative to ever-expanding government that addresses legitimate concerns.
Apparently the national AFP will soon be doing this for healthcare, but I’m wondering if this isn’t a job which can and should done at the state level. In terms of coordination on a statewide legislative program, one group I’d suggest AFP works with would be the Maryland Public Policy Institute. Meanwhile, a group our size can easily study the issues on a county level – after all, our protests worked to trim a proposed tax increase in Somerset County, but one can rightfully ask what needs to be made a priority and what is budgetary fat.
In return, one criticism I was asked about was why the local Republican party hasn’t shown a lot of interest in the club and some of its issues. It so happens I may have been the lightning rod because I was the lone GOP elected official there (based on my Central Committee post) but this was a legitimate question.
I can’t speak for everyone else on the Central Committee or our other Republican elected officials, but perhaps there aren’t the numbers yet to goad our party establishment into action. There were about 40 people in the room from the four Lower Shore counties, but there were three of what could be called “opinion leaders” – the local blogosphere was well represented with G.A. Harrison (Delmarva Dealings) and Joe Albero (Salisbury News) there as well. Most likely each will have their own take on the event, along with anyone who contributes to AFP’s own state blog (Subprime Maryland).
However, given the reluctance of the Tea Party movement (which helped spawn interest in AFP locally) and the Republican Party establishment to embrace each other despite what seemingly would be common cause, it may be a little bit of wishful thinking forseeing a host of local politicians to join the ranks – particularly when they often end up on opposite sides of issues.
I’ll close with one example of this. There was a brief mention of term limits – I think it was part of an offhand comment I made as a matter of fact. As it is the goal of practically every politician to be re-elected as often as possible, a group which advocates what to some is an artificial limit on the will of the people would certainly be at loggerheads with someone who enjoys holding office and wants to stay there for decades.
Thus, there may not be much hope that we become a classical political movement because most of us have no desire to be inside the system. Needless to say, fixing the system from without makes it a more difficult task. But it’s not an impossible one.
