WCRC meeting – January 2010

For the second time in the last three meetings, our scheduled speaker had to bail out on us at the last minute. If this keeps up our club is going to start getting a collective complex.

Actually, it was a weather-related incident which kept U.S. Senate aspirant Corrogan Vaughn at home, so we’re hopeful in rescheduling his appearance before September’s primary. Undaunted, we began as always with the Lord’s Prayer and Pledge of Alllegiance, both led by WCRC president Marc Kilmer, who also noted in his opening remarks that “Massachusetts went well.” So the year is off to a good start.

I read the minutes I compiled last month as the secretary pro tem, and the Treasurer’s report was related by our regular secretary, Dave Parker. We have a “significant amount” of money we can use for 2010, and opined that it was more than our Democrat counterparts have. (The trick will be to spend it wisely.)

Marc then regained the speaker’s role, appealing for members to pay their 2010 dues and noting that we had the preliminary meeting to discuss 2010 election strategy last month. This will be an ongoing effort.

The January meeting also begins the process of selecting 2010 officers, and with one exception all of the 2009 officers were willing to return to their positions. Fortunately we have a volunteer for a replacement, so unless nominations come from the floor during February’s meeting the WCRC officer slate will be essentially unchanged.

Dustin Mills gave the Young Republican report for YR president Mark Biehl, who was having weather-related problems of his own. They are still in the process of planning two events: their second annual food drive to be held in late March or early April (date to be determined) and hosting the 2010 state Young Republican convention, which Dustin promised would have “significant” guest speakers.

Matt Taffeau of the Salisbury University College Republicans briefly noted his own organization’s recent accomplishments (they are over two dozen strong and have heard from a goodly number of local and state candidates as their recent speakers) and promised a large presence at the Lincoln Day Dinner, which will be held February 6th on the SU campus.

We had a new report from the Republican Women of Wicomico and their president, Shirley Smack. She reminded our group that the RWW would be hosting a lunch with Maryland GOP Chair Audrey Scott on Wednesday, February 3rd at 11:30 a.m. at Brew River in Salisbury. They also have a monthly program which airs on local public access station PAC-14 and are looking for members. By the way, guys can come to the February 3rd luncheon too!

The most lengthy portion of the evening came from the Central Committee report. First, county Chair Dr. John Bartkovich announced our two new members, who were selected after the state convention allowed our ranks to expand. Also, due to the high number of quality people to choose from, we picked two associate members.

And, as noted above, Wicomico County’s Lincoln Day Dinner will be Saturday, February 6th at the Commons at Salisbury University. The fun there begins at 6:30 p.m. and speakers will be Kendal and Bob Ehrlich.

During our tri-county Central Committee meeting earlier this month members came up with several possible topics to use as the overriding messages we’ll encourage local candidates to adopt, and the meeting tonight was used as a focus group to test some of the concepts. Obviously candidates would have their own ideas on how to deal with these issues but the themes our group came up with seemed to resonate well with the group. The only addition was when Joe Holloway brought up the “arrogance” of those in power in both Annapolis and Washington, D.C.

Certainly it was fodder for a lively discussion as we debated the merits of a number of topics, but preferring to stay away from certain issues as part of an overriding message candidates could agree on seemed to be a consensus as well. Eventually we’ll hone these suggestions down and begin with three to four themes…but at this point I won’t tip our hand.

Our final business item came from Woody Willing, who gave the monthly voter registration status and announced our annual Crab Feast would be held about a month sooner than normal. The August 28 date was picked to maximize the number of candidates who would be present as early voting for the primary begins September 4th.

With that being said, our next get-together will occur on February 22nd. Yes, we are planning on a guest speaker and hopefully he or she will be able to attend!

The job losses continue

And so does the speechifying of GOP candidate for Governor Larry Hogan. He’s not pleased Maryland lost another 4,100 jobs last month.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released the December jobs numbers for Maryland today. Another 4,100 people were added to Maryland’s unemployment lines last month. Larry Hogan, who has emerged as the leading potential challenger for Governor, made the following statement:

“These aren’t just numbers. These are real people. They are fathers and mothers just struggling to make ends meet, put a roof over their family’s head, food on the table, and a coat on their kids backs. It’s real people like my youngest daughter Julie and 300 of her fellow coworkers who were laid-off by a Baltimore company just last week.

O’Malley officials revealed this week that they need to borrow another $300 million from the federal taxpayers in order to prop up the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Fund.  They admitted that ‘this is necessary because of the unprecedented joblessness Maryland has experienced since 2007’, meaning since O’Malley has been Governor.

The incumbent Governor recently has begun to say he cares about jobs, jobs, jobs, at several press conferences and photo ops. After today, I am sure he will throw together a press conference, or appoint another commission to study how to create more government jobs. But, no last minute campaign stunt can change the undeniable fact that this anti-business Governor has lost more jobs than any other in Maryland history.

It is time for a change. It is time we had a Governor who understood that it is the private sector that creates jobs and leads us into economic recovery – not more government.  Marylanders are looking for a leader who will take action immediately to stimulate our economy and encourage businesses to start hiring again. The people of Maryland deserve better.”

Larry Hogan is the founder and owner of several small businesses in Maryland. He has emerged as the leading threat to O’Malley and has more cash on hand in his campaign account than any potential gubernatorial challenger from either party.

More and more businesses are throwing in the towel as the economic recovery continues to sputter – meanwhile, Washington spends more and more money on who-knows-what. Well, we do know that O’Malley is in line for a nine-figure bailout to balance his FY2011 budget so we can account for that little bit.

The irony is that another Washington policy presumably supported by O’Malley is making the problem with the MUIF worse. Continually extending the time period a person can collect unemployment is drying up the fund because jobseekers can now spend much more time collecting the subsidy from the state.

The MUIF balance, as most insurance funds are, is predicated on the probability that a worker will collect unemployment benefits a certain amount of the time balanced against the much longer time period his or her employers contribute to the fund. Ideally the rates are calculated to balance out or show a slight excess to the fund over the expected timeframe an employee works during his or her lifetime, and it’s adjustable based on the history of the occupation and employer.

However, these difficult economic times, coupled with the desire to continually extend the benefit period, completely play havoc with the actuarial math done to set rates. The unprecedented payout period and shortage of employers contributing to the fund have created this double whammy, and increasing the rates charged to employers to cover the shortfall only makes it more difficult for them to retain employees because their overhead costs increase. And you guessed it – that adds even more to the unemployment rolls. Can anyone say vicious circle?

On the other hand, perhaps it’s a little bit too much to ask but I’d like to know what specific changes Hogan is proposing to alleviate the problem. Certainly the O’Malley jobs record is worthy of criticism (although I’m curious if O’Malley is indeed the champion of Maryland job-losing governors) but just which policies would change under a Hogan administration, and how would he get them through a likely Democrat-controlled General Assembly? (Getting enough Republicans to sustain his vetoes would be a start, which means picking up 14 seats in the House of Delegates or 2 in the Maryland Senate, if memory serves me correctly.)

At least there’s a Republican in the race who’s calling O’Malley out – I’ll give Larry that much.

Supremes level the playing field

This happened late last week, but it’s interesting to collect various takes on the issue. So I have one from the left, one from the right, and then my own.

We’ll begin with Mitch Stewart of Organizing For Against America. I did a little bit of paring to get rid of the links.

(Last Thursday) morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It’s a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.

(snip)

The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn’t buy “issue ads” — which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates — in the closing days of campaigns.

The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.

With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans — and Republicans seem ecstatic.

While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy — and we need to show that the American people stand with him. (All emphasis in original.)

On the other hand, Bill Wilson and the folks at Americans for Limited Government were much more pleased:

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson (Thursday) praised the Supreme Court for overturning key aspects of the McCain-Feingold campaign restrictions, calling the decision “a decisive victory for the First Amendment, free speech, and open and fair elections.”

“The Roberts Court will go down as the greatest defender of the First Amendment since James Madison wrote it,” Wilson declared, calling the overturned restrictions “censorship.”

(snip)

According to the majority ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, “Limits on independent expenditures, such as §441b, have a chilling effect extending well beyond the Government’s interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. The anticorruption interest is not sufficient to displace the speech here in question.”

“Under this ruling, corporate entity restrictions on political campaigning have thankfully been overturned, as they have a chilling effect on legitimate political speech protected by the First Amendment,” said Wilson.

Wilson also condemned Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) for calling the decision “un-American.”

“Chuck Schumer needs to have his head examined,” Wilson said, adding, “the First Amendment was upheld in this case.  It doesn’t get any more American than that.”

In Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled against provisions that restricted Citizens United from broadcasting a movie it developed, Hillary: The Movie, that was supposed to air during the 2008 Democratic Primary.  In particular, the court ruled that federal restrictions on independent political expenditures by a corporation is a violation of the First Amendment.

The court ruled 5-4 in favor of Citizens United.

(snip)

Wilson said that the ruling “could set a template for groups to unhinge unconstitutional restrictions in the future through pre-enforcement challenges.”

Their release was actually much longer and featured commentary by their legal counsel, but you get the picture.

The aspect of McCain-Feingold which most gave it the perception as an “incumbent protection plan” was the artificial restriction on certain political advertisements 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election, which is generally the timeframe people begin to pay attention to the campaigns. (A 60 day period in a normal general election cycle begins roughly around Labor Day, the time conventional wisdom holds that the campaign begins in earnest.)

But the Supreme Court decision seems to indicate that the Citizens United case couldn’t be properly resolved without sweeping away other related precedent the majority found incompatible with the First Amendment guarantee on free speech. I tend to agree with that approach because when a decision is made, it’s far better to err on the side of freedom than it is to be overly restrictive. Could corporations abuse their newfound power? Perhaps, but it bears repeating that the final arbiter of their success will be the people who vote and elect leaders.

It’s also worth pointing out that unions, who typically side with Democrats on political issues, also had their ban lifted as well. Those special interests as well as trial lawyers, environmental groups, and other pro-statist advocates simply get competition from the corporate world now – and there’s no guarantee corporate interests will automatically favor Republicans. Democrats who assist in corporate rentseeking efforts won’t be the target of negative ads from corporations, and the states which do allow direct corporate contributions to campaigns don’t seem to have any greater number of problems because of that.

Vigilance is the price we pay for freedom. Instead of having legislation arbitrarily decide who gets to express their point of view and who doesn’t, it is now up to us to be more informed about who is backing candidates and why. Any journalist worth his or her salt is certain to point out that the favorable ads from corporation X are backing candidate A, and undoubtedly once word of that gets out environmentalist group Y will respond by bashing both the corporation and the candidate, throwing their support behind their favored candidate B.

With the $1 billion-plus spent on the Presidential campaign in 2008 it’s obvious that the stated McCain-Feingold goal of getting money out of politics has failed miserably. So why not try the novel approach of getting money out of government and lessening the incentive for special interests to interfere?