January 2010 – Page 3

Hogan slams O’Malley budget (and more)

Moments ago, the Associated Press projected Scott Brown as the winner of the Massachusetts U.S. Senate race. He’s holding a five-point lead with 80% in. So now I can turn my attention to the Maryland race.

Larry Hogan, a potential candidate for Maryland Governor, said today that “the budget released today by the incumbent governor is the wrong prescription for Maryland’s ailing economy.”

“Martin O’Malley has been the worst anti-jobs, anti-business, anti-middle class governor this state has ever had,” charged Hogan. “For three years, the incumbent governor ignored all the warning signs of a recession and increased spending by over $3.3 billion. And, he ignored all history and common sense when he decided to push the highest tax increase in Maryland history at the onset of the recession.”

“His policies continue to drive employers out of state, or out of business and continue to cost us more jobs. His continued fixation to get the government to create jobs is having the reverse effect and keeping Maryland from experiencing what 42 other states saw last month – job growth,” said Hogan.

According to the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics monthly unemployment report, Maryland was one of just 8 states that had rising unemployment.

“The incumbent governor just doesn’t get it. While he is looking to government for a solution, our neighboring states, like Virginia, are looking to provide incentives to encourage businesses to expand and to locate there. O’Malley just doesn’t understand that, just like hard working families, government relies on a stable economy and good jobs to make ends meet,” said Hogan.

“The contrast couldn’t be greater. While our neighbors look to provide incentives to businesses to locate there and hire more people, our incumbent governor is looking at ways to increase taxes and burdensome regulations on the job creators,” Hogan said. “It’s not a strong government that will fix the economy, but rather a strong private sector that will fix Maryland’s budget problems.”

“Martin O’Malley’s failed record of lost jobs, higher spending, and record tax increases simply is not working. Marylanders deserve better,” said Hogan, who has begun to emerge as the leading potential challenger to Martin O’Malley in 2010.

Hogan a former cabinet secretary and congressional nominee is the founder and CEO of an Annapolis based business.

I don’t know if it was in an effort to be critical without being specific, but the lack of specific items pointed out by Larry Hogan is a bit bothersome. Most importantly, this release doesn’t point out whether the budget is larger than last year’s model. Granted, the General Assembly could take a hacksaw to the budget and make it significantly smaller than the FY2010 one, but I doubt that.

Then again, just crossing my wire is Larry’s reaction to Scott Brown’s victory.

In the wake of Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts, Larry Hogan potential candidate for Maryland Governor released the following statement:

“Maryland is not immune to the winds of change that blew through Massachusetts tonight. In nine short months we plan to accomplish the exact same kind of surprising upset victory here in Maryland.

I’ve been traveling all across the state listening to the concerns of a great many Marylanders – people from all walks of life. I can tell you that they are frustrated, worried and angry like I have never seen before.

People are concerned about the economy, worried about losing their jobs and their health care. They are concerned about out of control Government spending and oppressive tax hikes.

They feel that not only are our leaders not solving the serious problems, but that they are actually making things worse.

The election of Scott Brown should send a message to the arrogant monopoly in Annapolis. This is what happens when you ignore the people you are supposed to serve.

Like in Massachusetts, it’s not about Republicans vs. Democrats – it’s about our future. I think that Marylanders are completely fed up with a one party monopoly and with politics as usual in Annapolis.

I strongly believe that the people will rise up and fight back for a change and that in November we will send a loud and clear message to Annapolis that they will hear all the way in Washington.”

Recent independent polling shows that only 39% of Maryland voters would support the incumbent, Martin O’Malley, while 48% would prefer a new person. Larry Hogan has emerged as the leading potential challenger in the 2010 Maryland Governor’s race.

Larry may be right, but that also depends on a perception of just how arrogant Annapolis is. Arrogance of those seated in government is an issue which plays well on the Eastern Shore and in rural Maryland, but those in power along the I-95 corridor don’t mind that arrogance because they think they’re more important than the rest of the state anyway – or they are part of government and know which side their bread is buttered on.

I’ve waxed before about the prospects of an upset victory here in Maryland if Scott Brown wins. Well, now that has come to pass and it’s up to the individual candidates to study the Brown campaign and use what they learn to enhance their chances for victory. We have 9 1/2 months to find out how this ends up.

Speaking of things that may be dead…

One Democrat is a true pessimist about Obamacare’s chances with a Scott Brown victory. From POLITICO:

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) is the latest pessimist on the Democratic side of the aisle, saying health care may be “dead” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate race.

“I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead,” Weiner said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Weiner, one of the House’s more progressive members, said “it’s going to be very hard” to ask members of the House to vote for the Senate bill – what some believe would be a likely scenario if Democrats lose the Massachusetts Senate seat.

(snip)

“I’d have a very difficult time doing that,” Weiner said about voting “yes” to the Senate’s (more moderate) bill.

However, I’m nowhere near putting the champagne on ice yet, either for Brown’s victory or the prospect of Obamacare’s demise.

One needs to remember how this process has worked all along and what’s at stake for the Democrats. One way this could work out is that Nancy Pelosi buys votes on the Senate legislation with consideration for future “fixes,” reminiscent of President Clinton’s vow to liberals in his party to “fix” welfare reform during his 1996 re-election camapign. Once they get the base legislation out there, any number of changes can be made to it before it eventually becomes fully effective.

If you thought the bribery was in full effect for the Senate version, imagine what it would be like to buy off 20 or 30 recalcitrant liberals in the House. Mind you, they wouldn’t be paid off on this bill but an earmark here, an appropriation there, and a carve-out or two along the way and they’ll make their way back to the liberal plantation. Sure they’ll squeal for the time being but that’s all for show because their victory is at hand.

So Weiner is already making it known he’s expecting some sort of tribute paid for his vote, and chances are it won’t be cheap. When you read between the lines the sentiment of “I’d have a very difficult time doing that – but you can twist my arm a little and get me to do it” seems more likely.

Call it cynicism, but my instincts tell me that Washington brings out the worst in people and I’ve rarely been proven wrong. Taking statements at face value isn’t the proper way to go.

The late voters of Massachusetts

And the Obama Administration wants compulsory universal voter registration? Maybe we should work on culling rolls instead of adding to them! This from Robert Romano at the Washington News Alert:

As reported by CNS News, “In Massachusetts, 116,483 registered voters are dead, 3.38 percent of the state’s total of registered voters. Another 538,567, or 15.6 percent, had moved to an area outside of where they are registered to vote.”

Americans for Limited Government Foundation’s project leader, Dan Tripp, is on the ground in Massachusetts monitoring the special election, and said that “for fraudsters, it’s a numbers game. It only takes a few hundred people voting at multiple locations to change the outcome of any statewide election, including Massachusetts’ special senatorial election.”

Generally, in Massachusetts, voters need to provide a name and address associated with the voting list at the polling location in order to vote. There is no voter ID requirement unless a voter registered after 2003 by mail and is a first-time voter.

According to Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, “The implication of dead people showing up at the polls means that it’s no longer sufficient to win an election with a simple majority. Now, candidates need a 4 or 5 point swing just to pad against potential fraud.”

“And that undermines our free form of government at its very core,” Wilson concluded.

Chances are tomorrow’s turnout will be relatively low because most special elections only bring out the hardcore voters – casual voters don’t always go when there’s only one item on the ballot. If you assume 25 percent turnout, those dearly departed voters could be a 13 point swing if their ballots are abused and the most optimistic polls show Scott Brown with a high single-digit lead. Obviously that would be a concern!

Given some of the shenanigans we’ve seen over the last several years with post-election ballot counting, we truly need to work in the opposite direction with ballot access. I have no idea why Democrats are against photo ID at the ballot box unless they seek to use the lack of same to their advantage.

And since we have “shall-issue” absentee ballots in Maryland (another practice which should be tightened up somewhat) we really didn’t need to adopt early voting. Obviously the voters disagreed with me but I think if we don’t see any better of a turnout in the next couple elections the issue needs to be revisited. To me, there’s too much expense to local election boards and potential for fraud to continue with early voting unless we see at least a 10 or 15 percent increase in turnout.

A saying attributed to Joseph Stalin goes as follows: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Obviously it behooves the state of Massachusetts and poll watchers to make sure that only the votes of the living (and legal) are counted. If the votes come in properly and Martha Coakley wins, so be it.

But there’s been too many last-minute comebacks by Democrats to be sure everything’s above board when they pull off a victory, and Washington Democrats aren’t willing to hear the people’s voice if they don’t like the results in Massachusetts (by threatening to delay Scott Brown’s swearing in just to maintain their 60 vote majority for the maximum length of time possible.)

Maybe the best way to look at the situation is to quote Lord Acton – “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” It is only when the people are in power that a republic runs properly.

What can Brown do for Maryland?

Top of fold update: At least one Maryland U.S. Senate candidate is getting a firsthand look at the situation on the ground in Massachusetts – Dr. Eric Wargotz’s Facebook page states he’s in the Bay State helping out.

Unless you are still in a self-induced coma from overdoing it during the recent holiday season you’re probably aware of tomorrow’s special election in Massachusetts to fill the unexpired term (through the 2012 election) of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy.

This is an election most notable for Scott Brown’s response to a debate question on filling the “Kennedy seat”: “It’s not the ‘Kennedy seat’ and it’s not the Democrats’ seat – it’s the people’s seat.” After that remark and what was widely scored as a resounding head-to-head victory over his gaffe-prone opponent Martha Coakley, Brown has surged to the lead in many statewide polls, shocking the Democrat establishment and placing into question the Democrats’ 60-seat Senate majority.

(It bears repeating as well that the Democrats regained the 60th seat after Kennedy’s death by reversing a state law enacted in 2004 when Massachusetts had a Republican governor and there was the possibility Senator John Kerry would have to leave his seat if elected President. That 2004 law prevented the naming of a successor by the governor and allowed for a special election. Needing that 60th seat and knowing he was gravely ill, Kennedy himself pushed for the change and made it possible for Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to name a fellow Democrat to the Senate.)

Political mavens are quite aware that Massachusetts is one of the most partisan states in the country and Democrats there hold an enormous voter registration advantage over the GOP. However, unaffiliated voters make up the largest percentage of the Bay State electorate and Brown is carrying the day easily among the group, negating the Democrats’ numerical advantage.

Obviously a Brown win would hearten the Republican Party in Massachusetts, but it also brings with it the prospects of winning in otherwise unthinkable races – such as the U.S. Senate race in Maryland where four hopefuls (Daniel McAndrew, Jim Rutledge, Corrogan Vaughn, and Dr. Eric Wargotz) look to unseat longtime incumbent Senator Barbara Mikulski.

While the numbers in Maryland aren’t quite as bad as they are in Massachusetts, there are more negative factors at play here. Obviously the seat is still held by Senator Mikulski and, despite some recent health issues, by all accounts she’s still relatively active and of sound mind despite her advancing age (Mikulski turns 74 in July.) Unless something unexpected happens between now and November, Mikulski is a sure bet to seek a fifth term in the Senate.

The other disadvantage comes in the fact that Maryland’s race won’t be an outlier like this Senate race is because of its unique position on the calendar. On Election Day in 2010 over 1/3 of the Senate is at stake and national attention will focus on races deemed as toss-ups, including the contest in neighboring Delaware to finish Vice-President Biden’s unexpired term (through 2014 – remember, Biden won twice in Delaware in 2008.) A further handicap may be Maryland’s late primary, where GOP candidates have to work against each other until the middle of September before training their guns solely on Barbara. (However, if all four run against her that can be negated. She has a record which is worth assailing.)

But that’s not to say Maryland’s race is unwinnable. The nation is in an anti-incumbent mood and Mikulski isn’t known for much besides being a Democrat loyalist (some would say hack). Nor has Mikulski had to truly campaign, cruising to victory by margins ranging from 21 to 42 points in four elections (in 2004 she defeated State Senator E.J. Pipkin by a 65% to 34% margin.)

One has to ask just what Mikulski is doing for the state by being so compliant with the liberal Democrat line. Obviously I question the liberal Democrat line myself since it’s doing little good for the nation, but one needs to ask about just how well Maryland is being represented by a Senator who seemingly never leaves the Washington area. At least I’ve seen Ben Cardin in these farflung parts of Maryland, but of the representatives I’m currently saddled with I’ve yet to meet Senator Mikulski.

So the question becomes whether Senator Mikulski is in touch with her state or simply feels entitled to the seat, as in “the Mikulski seat.” Perhaps she votes in a way she thinks is in the state’s interest because the state is solidly Democratic in terms of voter registration.

But, as we see in Massachusetts, poor governance transcends party identification and in rural parts of Maryland being a Democrat doesn’t necessarily mean toeing the party line at the ballot box. Making an issue of Mikulski’s “politics as usual” can be a strategy which pays off, and working hard to get votes against an aloof incumbent could lead to a surprise November 2nd.

The question to be determined in the coming months is: ideological differences aside, who will become our Scott Brown and how hard will be work to pull off a victory?

A parting on the left

This op-ed was intended for publication in Maryland newspapers, but after giving them a few days to use it themselves I’m placing it here.

Late note: I didn’t see this online, but the Cumberland Times-News indeed ran the article on January 17th.

As he closes in on three full years in office, it’s fair to say that Governor O’Malley has dealt with a full plate of problems – most particularly in balancing the budget.

While he had a huge budget reserve to work with when he assumed office, it took less than a year for him to spend it down to the bare minimum to maintain the state’s bond rating. Then he expended most of the rest of his political capital on shepherding through a series of tax increases and Medicaid expansion during a 2007 Special Session of the General Assembly. Since then, the fiscal record has shown little improvement and time and time again Governor O’Malley has needed to revisit the budget and make further cuts to keep it in balance.

Yet the Governor has been praised by those on the far left end of the political spectrum for expanding government as much as he can under the circumstances and signing legislation making Maryland a “greener” state. While the extra restrictions have done practically nothing to improve the quality of Chesapeake Bay, O’Malley’s allies on the environmental front have cheered these advances, emboldening him to further alienate the business community.

It’s this tumultuous three-year record which is sparking a fairly rare internecine primary fight against an incumbent Democrat. Certainly there are a few political cranks who regularly place their name on the ballot year after year with little hope for victory, but the challenge posed by fellow Democrat George Owings might be different and could cause Governor O’Malley some headaches on the campaign trail this year.

Owings has a very passable political resume as a former 16-year member of the General Assembly and as Secretary of Veterans Affairs under Governor Ehrlich, and could be best defined as a relic of a bygone era when the Democratic Party had a conservative wing not much different from today’s TEA Party attendees. His platform leans heavily on fiscal conservatism and cutting the size of government in order to address Maryland’s persistent budget problems.

The question for Governor O’Malley, then, is just how much attention he needs to pay to his challenger.

Given the governor’s tendency to blame all ills on his Republican predecessor, some in O’Malley’s camp might see Owings as a stalking horse entered into the race by allies of former Governor Ehrlich to set up a primary fight on the Democratic side. With Maryland’s comparatively late September 14 primary, the battle between O’Malley and Owings could take up a vast portion of the campaign season.

On the other hand, taking the challenge seriously could promote informative debate on just what functions are necessary for our state’s government to perform at peak efficiency before the final campaign between the GOP and Democrat primary survivors begins in mid-September. While the state of the economy is a issue most addressed on a national level, what a state does to attract jobs is something determined by its leadership in the governor’s office.

Under Governor O’Malley’s leadership, Maryland plummeted from 24th to 45th in The Tax Foundation’s measure of state business tax climates. And while the unemployment rate for the state as a whole remains below the national average of 10 percent, some of Maryland’s most rural counties have rates rivaling or exceeding double-digits.

Job creation and the impact of policies coming out of Annapolis are certainly legitimate issues worthy of debate. Let’s hope Governor O’Malley engages his primary opponent and doesn’t duck the issue because he feels entitled to his party’s nomination.

Clawing back for funds

It’s a new year and the economy can’t improve soon enough for cash-strapped cities, counties, and states across the country. With receipts from income taxes falling due to high unemployment, property tax dollars declining thanks to shrinking home values, and sales tax revenue flat despite increasing rates in many areas, state and local governments are searching hard for money to pay their bills.

When times were better, corporations shrewdly pitted cities and states against one another in a search for the best tax breaks. Local government was willing to give these large employers a break on some of their tax burden and help out with needed infrastructure in order to draw these companies and the employment they promised to provide to local communities. It was a win-win situation for both as companies had a willing partner in local government while politicians pointed with pride to the jobs they brought home to their districts.

Eventually the good times had to come to an end, however, and both employers and government struggle with trying to make ends meet. Yet those employers who took advantage of tax breaks to improve their bottom line have found difficulty meeting the numerical employee targets set by their agreements with local entities. Adding to their problem is having more and more local and state governing bodies use the “clawback” provision in their contracts with these corporations to cancel the tax breaks they gave away to attract the company in the first place.

Obviously a deal is a deal and local politicians rarely let the chance to add money to their coffers slip by, but perhaps in this case they are being a little hasty.

There are two categories of employers who have taken advantage of sweetheart deals with government to settle into a community. Some have never lived up to the employment promises made in their contracts for an assortment of reasons, but most were maintaining their employment numbers until economic conditions forced their hand, resulting in layoffs. Those companies are the ones who government should work with in order to find a suitable compromise measure instead of exacting a full penalty to a struggling company.

While economic conditions are difficult here, there are still hundreds of entities competing for large employers domestically, not to mention the siren song attraction of other nations who can woo manufacturers with the promises of cheaper labor costs and fewer regulations.

Certainly some companies who have never kept their word on employment numbers and feel pressured by local government to comply with their contracts to the letter may opt to bolt for greener pastures, but eventually that reputation will catch up to them and local politicians may be gunshy about believing the promises these scofflaws make. The ones who made the effort but decide to pull the plug because local authorities won’t work with them to find a sound middle ground for the time being would be the ones missed the most when they’re gone.

Unlike the popular perception created by Hollywood and the media, most employers attempt to be good citizens and improve the local cities, counties, and school districts in which they’re located. They give of their time through encouraging employee volunteerism and their money via charitable efforts as they strive to improve the places they call home. Shaking them down for a few dollars more may help the government’s bottom line, but that funding could come at some much larger expense if relationships become strained over a temporary setback.

Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

Another in my continuing LFS series, this cleared back on January 6th.

Hogan: where’s the jobs, Governor?

Talk about putting all your economic eggs in one basket:

On January 11th, 2010 Martin O’Malley announced the creation of the Federal Facilities Advisory Board to find ways for federal facilities to hire more Maryland workers. The advisory board is tasked with going out, listening to people and finding out what they need.

“On jobs, Martin O’Malley still doesn’t get it,” charged Hogan. “For three years, Martin O’Malley has pushed through some of the most anti-business policies in the country, driving many small businesses out of the state or worse, out of business altogether. And now, O’Malley forms yet another commission and this time tasked with figuring out how to receive a federal jobs bailout?”

“From balancing the budget to tackling unemployment, Martin O’Malley has only one strategy to get our state out of it’s fiscal crisis – federal bailouts,” charged Hogan. “Marylanders deserve better.”

“We deserve a Governor who understands that spending more government money isn’t the solution, but rather the problem,” Hogan said. “It’s time we had a governor who will stop talking, roll up his sleeves, and get to work helping Maryland’s employers and the unemployed.”

“O’Malley has already been down this road. In the fall, he formed a small business commission to listen to what people needed. The solution came in the form of a minority small business training session about how to secure government contracts,” said Hogan. “It didn’t work.”

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics most recent monthly report, Maryland was just one of eight states where unemployment rose.

Please reread that first sentence again, I’ll wait.

Okay, what O’Malley wants is for more Marylanders to live off the taxpayers by taking federal jobs. If it weren’t for an accident of geography he’d really be in trouble. A place like Kansas doesn’t get the benefit O’Malley does of having the seat of government so close, within commuting distance. Thus, they actually have to work at job creation and attracting businesses instead of depending on his political brethren to create some new bureaucracy and using the tax dollars siphoned from Kansas and the other 49 states to pay for them.

Perhaps that’s part and parcel of O’Malley’s background of doing limited work in the private sector (I suppose getting gigs for his band may qualify so I’ll grant him that much) but not creating jobs in the real world tends to translate into not creating jobs when given a position of authority.

Maryland has a number of assets in its favor, but if you threw out the geographical advantage of proximity to the practically recession-proof nation’s capital you’d likely find that our state is pedestrian at best in terms of economic indicators. Certainly as a whole we’re not a basket case like Michigan but if you drive up and down the Eastern Shore you might think things aren’t going swimmingly based on the number of homes for sale, vacant storefronts, and shuttered industrial buildings. Each of these former businesses represent a dream dashed and once-thriving employees having to scramble for a new livelihood.

And that’s not to mention the key local industries which seemingly have had a target on its back over the last three years – aquaculture (i.e. watermen) and agriculture.

If Governor O’Malley is reading this, what the people need is simply for you (and your friends in Washington) to get out of the way and stop reaching into our wallets every chance you get. Let’s prioritize what services, land acquisitions, and programs are truly necessary, fund those, and allow those things not as critical to sink or swim on their own merits. Families across Maryland have done this, so it’s state government’s turn to do so as well.

Cuts can be made without being too painful, and making a show of cutting the items people scream about most in order to make a point is beneath good governance. Then again, it’s a tactic we’ve come to expect from Annapolis.

Friday night videos episode 19

When we last left our fair protagonist, he was wrapping the first FNV of 2010.

Now I’m back with more political items, of course.

About a month ago, there was a rally at the Capitol on health care dubbed the Senate Emergency Rally. Since health care isn’t a done deal yet, it’s worth hearing radio talk show host Laura Ingraham’s take on this. From the Washington News-Observer:

Nor is the health care debate transparent (as promised by President Obama) – this is Rep. Joe Sestak (a Democrat) lamenting the lack of transparency.

So does Newt Gingrich…a victory for “bipartisanship”:

American Solutions (Newt’s group) also laments the lack of openness.

Until they came up with a last-minute compromise, even union leaders weren’t all that pleased about the health care bill. I have a lot of WNO material this week, but Richard Trumka of the AFL-CIO explains his side.

The Center for Individual Freedom points out trends in the fight against health care, too.

President Obama doesn’t seem to be following through on promises and nor does his stimulus, which is why the national Chamber of Commerce opposes the idea of a second one. Again, from WNO:

I wish they’d have been as careful about their support the first time, but I guess coming to the party late is better than not coming at all.

There hasn’t been much talk about this around here, but Rep. Jason Chaffetz of Utah is concerned about the prospect of same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C. It’s up to Congress to approve the local government’s endorsement of the concept.

Once again, that’s thanks to WNO.

I’m going to wrap this up by bringing back some original music. A few weeks back I attended the ’12 Bands of Christmas’ show and took a few video clips of various bands. This one was the Paul Lewis Band and an original song they did as part of their set.

Hope you enjoyed the tune and the overall presentation – look for more next week!

If you believe the polls…

…we have what you might call an anti-incumbent mood among readers of my site.

Obviously I’m not running the most scientific of polls in my right column, but if you believe my readers are playing by the rules and not attempting to stuff the ballot box they think Larry Hogan should be the next Governor, as the onetime Congressional hopeful and businessman garnered 49% of the vote. Former Governor Bob Ehrlich trailed in second with 35% of the vote, while running a distant third was Delegate Pat McDonough with 6 percent. The remaining votes were equally scattered between Libertarian Susan Gaztanaga and two Democrats, George Owings and incumbent Governor Martin O’Malley. They all registered 2 percent.

Certainly if this poll were on Progressive Delmarva the results probably would have been opposite; Lord knows I have a readership which skews heavily conservative.

But, then again, perhaps the fact Ehrlich wasn’t an easy winner is newsworthy because, if you believe establishment Republicans he’s the best candidate to unseat O’Malley. He was a hero among those at the March on Annapolis as most wanted him to get to the podium and speak.

However, as governor Bob Ehrlich wasn’t the most conservative governor in the country by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe the conventional wisdom is that a governor who runs with a Sarah Palin-style conservative message couldn’t win statewide and perhaps that’s correct because our side hasn’t made many inroads into teaching those along the I-95 corridor the benefits of limited government.

Unlike 2006, however, the shoe is on the other foot – the Democrat has the more recent record of accomplishment (or lack thereof) and time has softened the negative perceptions about the party out of power. Despite Governor O’Malley’s continuing efforts to pin blame on his predecessor, that approach is becoming more laughable by the day because O’Malley’s entering his fourth year and most of what he wanted (read: tax increases and higher spending) has been granted to him by a compliant General Assembly.

One thing my results tell me is that the GOP wouldn’t be hurt by a spirited and friendly debate in the governor’s race. I’ve never been one for coronation of a candidate, so hopefully one of those men who’s already jumped into the race to be Maryland’s chief executive on the GOP side decides to stick it out regardless of who enters.

Our March on Annapolis in pictures and text

Damn, that was fun!

Some say the crowd was 2,000 and some say 3,000. But considering we did this on a weeknight, outdoors, in the cold, I think this was a pretty good turnout.

It was such a big deal that the local media covered our departure!

Julie Brewington of Wicomico County's Americans for Prosperity chapter was interviewed by WBOC-TV before our departure to the March on Annapolis, January 13, 2010.

I even had my five seconds of fame on WMDT-TV, uncredited. Maybe I’ll see if there’s a link.

More importantly, though, we had a full bus.

It was a full bus from Ocean City and Salisbury heading to Annapolis to register our concern with the direction of government.

We arrived in Annapolis just as the sun was going down. There was a reason we arrived fairly early, and it wasn’t just so I could get a picture of the crew setting up inside the venue.

Lawyers Mall was pretty empty when I took this picture, but just 2 hours later it was swarmed by freedom-loving people.

Nor was it to get the photo of this gentleman dressed for the next Revolution.

Give this man a musket!

No, the reason we were early was a pleasant surprise. State Senator Harris and other GOP members of the General Assembly hosted a reception for some of those arriving at the Senate Office Building. About a dozen members gave us a rundown on the upcoming session.

This room was twice as crowded once our GOP allies in the General Assembly spoke briefly.

State Senator Andy Harris speaks to those gathered before the March on Annapolis begins. This pre-rally event was held in the Senate Office Building.

Among the speakers, most noteworthy was Delegate Michael Smigiel’s call to us to look at the elected official’s term as a whole when considering them for re-election. He also pointed out the advice of Article 6 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights:

Legislators and executive officers are trustees of public; right of people to reform or establish new government. That all persons invested with the Legislative or Executive powers of Government are the Trustees of the Public, and, as such, accountable for their conduct: Wherefore, whenever the ends of Government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the People may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new Government; the doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power and oppression is absurd, slavish and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind. (Emphasis mine.)

Delegate J.B. Jennings addressed observers before the March on Annapolis, January 13, 2010.

Senator Allan Kittleman continued that the protest “is not a partisan movement.” But we were “fighting for open government and accountability” and Kittleman thought the General Assembly hadn’t properly held Governor O’Malley accountable.

Delegate Donna Stifler speaks to those gathered in the Senate Office Building on January 13, 2010.

Delegate (and candidate for Governor) Pat McDonough chimed in that this is the time to get involved, and “the sleeping giant in America has awakened.”

Delegate Joe Boteler (a monoblogue favorite) alerted us to the fact that the budget, which was only $11 billion 14 years ago, is now $32 billion and climbing.

Finally, Delegate Steve Schuh emphasized that a “show of force” had worked before in Annapolis, citing the repeal of the “tech tax” and adoption of Jessica’s Law as examples. He also quoted Jefferson, “when government advances, freedom retreats.”

State Senator Alex Mooney makes a point to a group awaiting the March on Annapolis rally, January 13, 2010.

It then was time to head over to Lawyers Mall, where I ran into friends old and new. Obviously the people organizing this had little idea what to expect, least of all the weather. They did have a “snow date” picked out, but as it turned out the weather was chilly but clear and not much wind. Quite honestly, being up front where I was I stayed pretty warm.

Much as the several other TEA Parties and related events I’d attended, by and large most of the speakers weren’t your typical politicians. Rather, it seemed that the itinerary of speakers were there to represent both a sponsoring group and a different topic. A number of speakers stuck with one topic such as property taxes, the impact of government on small businesses (“the role of government is to stop punishing success”), redistricting after the 2010 Census, legislative pay and pensions, and the Tenth Amendment.

Acting as master of ceremonies was Dave Schwartz of AFP Maryland, who opened the rally by telling us to understand that government can’t solve our problems – rather, it was profit and prosperity that makes us great. He continued, “for the first time in a long time, taxpayers have a chance to take back our state.”

Andrew Langer of the Institute for Liberty was a featured speaker.

Speaking on behalf of the Institute for Liberty, Andrew Langer told those of us who were braving the cold that, “we have to hold government accountable – that’s why we’re here!” He announced a project called the Liberty Scorecard, which graded legislators based on their voting records. (Gee, that sounds familiar!)

While there were a number of GOP Delegates and Senators in attendance, they weren’t brought to the podium to speak. Obviously this saved time, but it also made the event less overtly political or partisan. But we did hear from one man who is running for Congress in Maryland’s Fifth Congressional District – the highly polished and passionate Charles Lollar.

Candidate for Congress Charles Lollar vowed to beat Steny Hoyer because 'Marines don't lose.' He spoke at the March on Annapolis on January 13, 2010.

Lollar told us what we already knew – 149 years of one-party rule in the Maryland General Assembly was enough! Taking shots at Democrats like Senator Harry Reid, he noted “conservatism is not a racist message” and that the 2010 elections are “about America.”

All the while, the crowd was definitely into the message – some even had their own:

This man had a lengthy message on his sign and a member of the media to help spread it as she took notice.

Can you say anti-incumbent mood?

While Lollar was at the podium to help promote his run, other would-be elected officials were working the crowd. One who stopped and said hello was U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge.

U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge was among a number of conservative candidates working the crowd.

And we didn’t forget the roots of the protest.

We didn't forget that this all started as a TEA Party.

Aside from AFP, another sponsor was the Campaign for Liberty.

The Campaign for Liberty had a tent right next to the Americans for Prosperity tent. But AFP had flashlights and hand warmers.

Remember the early shot of Lawyers Mall? This is one I took later on from my spot in the crowd.

The crowd was estimated as one between 2,000 and 3,000.

I was surprised to find out our local AFP chapter had asked a speaker to come to the rally, and her introduction made certain to point out she was a Democrat who worked for fiscal conservatism. In fact, I believe she was the only actual elected official to speak.

Salisbury City Council member Debbie Campbell preached a message of fiscal conservatism and community involvement. She was on our bus heading up.

Debbie Campbell noted that, “until people who think like we do get on the policy side of the table, we won’t change.” She also pointed out Salisbury’s wastewater treatment debacle. Just hope that she’s not thrown out of the local Democratic Party for showing up here.

Unfortunately, coming up on the bus meant that I had to leave just a little early as the final speaker was slated to be Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. I think this gives you a pretty good flavor of how things went, though.

The overall theme of this rally was one of continuing to work on a daily basis. It’s great to be with hundreds of people of like mind but most of the hard work comes from each individual spreading the word and being an advocate for limiting government’s size and responsibility over one’s life. If each of those 2,000 to 3,000 people spreads the message daily between now and Election Day, chances are good that we’ll shock the world and succeed with a seismic shift of governance in Annapolis.

We were told that this was the very first TEA Party of 2010, so hopefully we’ve set a good tone for the rest and all that work pays off come November!

The issues at stake

Today marks the opening of yet another “90 days of terror” known as the Maryland General Assembly session. My plan is to be at the March on Annapolis tonight so I’m writing here this morning about key issues which need to be addressed and why.

Obviously job one for the General Assembly is approving the budget. But Maryland is unique among states because the General Assembly can’t legally add one dime to the budget Governor O’Malley presents – they can only cut from it or move money around. On the other hand, revenue increases can’t magically be placed by O’Malley but need to have enabling legislation from the General Assembly introduced on his behalf.

The Spending Affordability Committee recommended last fall that the Fiscal Year 2011 budget should maintain the level of spending present in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget, which took effect last July. Yet it is up to O’Malley whether to follow the SAC’s advice or do what politicians facing re-election like to do leading into the campaign and increase spending at a faster clip in order to buy a few votes here and there.

Yet O’Malley has one problem – he doesn’t know just who his opponent will be yet. If he seeks the nomination, the odds-on favorite would be former Governor Bob Ehrlich. Then O’Malley could bring out his tired old diatribes against the “prior administration” and direct his political payoffs accordingly. However, if Larry Hogan or Delegate Pat McDonough secure the GOP nod the chips may have to be distributed differently. It’s hard to target the largesse when the target’s not in sight yet.

Look for O’Malley to beseech his friends just down U.S. 50 in Washington, D.C. to produce a bailout just for him so he can increase spending at a level he deems appropriate.

Part of the reason O’Malley is in such a spending pickle is that the eggs he filled his economic basket with, assuming the revenue would be there, were increases in the sales tax, cigarette tax, and eventually a “millionaire’s tax” which replaced the unpopular “tech tax” originally passed in the 2007 Special Session. There were problems with each approach:

If people are losing their jobs or having their hours cut, they spend less – hence lower sales tax revenues.
Maryland isn’t exactly a broad state, so smokers found it easier to travel a few miles for cheaper smokes. And has it ever made sense to spend money telling people not to use a product, but then depend on taxes from the product to help balance the budget?
People who were in the tax brackets affected by the “millionaire’s tax” were also those who could afford to move to lower-tax states like Florida – so some did. Others lost their jobs or found their business wasn’t as lucrative so they fell out of the tax bracket entirely.

I know better than to expect taxes to be lowered, but not enacting any new taxes or fees would be a step in the right direction. If we can stop the bleeding of jobs and capital out of the state it would help the situation.

Another step in the right direction would be to stop regulating citizens out of existence. Annually the General Assembly passes dozens of new environmental regulations because apparently they expect Chesapeake Bay to be cleaned up overnight thanks to the regulations they passed before – when it doesn’t happen they have no thought but to pass more! Never mind the effect on agriculture and industry.

There will be thousands of people in Annapolis tonight who want the General Assembly to consider and pass solutions to these issues and more, such as stopping the tide of illegal immigrants settling in Maryland and strengthening laws against child predators in the wake of the murder of Sarah Foxwell. While it’s not completely unusual to have a public protest at Lawyers Mall, the size and vociferousness of this crowd tonight could give a clue as to public unrest with the General Assembly in this, an election year.

Found money

I can almost hear the Church Lady now: “isn’t that conveeeenient!” But I suppose Wicomico County dodges a bullet:

With the recently completed official audit for Fiscal Year 2009 now in hand, Wicomico County Executive Richard M. Pollitt, Jr., has announced that an additional $3.5 Million are available to support the county’s Roads operation until the end of the current Fiscal Year on June 30, 2010. Until the County received the final audited fund balance report on the Roads fund, records indicated that these funds were encumbered and, therefore, not available. As a result of the updated information, Mr. Pollitt has withdrawn his pending budget amendment request for the use of General Fund appropriations to support Roads.

Mr. Pollitt commented, “This new information somewhat changes the overall budget amendment which the County Council has been considering since I submitted it in early October. In the General Fund, neither the revenue nor expense portion now includes additional appropriations for Roads, and therefore helps to conserve the County’s General Fund reserves. I believe the adjusted amendment now conforms to my wishes and to Council’s stated intent to place Wicomico County in the best possible financial position to enter the upcoming Fiscal Year 2011 budget session.”

The county has been forced to consider using General Fund support for Roads operations since last summer’s State cut of roughly 94% in traditional Roads revenue. Pollitt has repeatedly pledged that he will not allow the Roads Department to close and that the roads will be kept safe.

However, I don’t think that because of this “found” money the county should abandon the cost-saving measures they were considering in order to keep the roads department going. It should also be an opportunity to look into privatization of certain functions as is prudent both fiscally and servicewise.

Again, this goes back to having the budget compiled from scratch each year, something which was promised by Rick Pollitt when he ran for office in 2006. In this case, though, someone messed up and placed the $3.5 million in a column of money thought untouchable. Obviously the buck stops with the County Executive and it makes me wonder what other mistakes have been made which wouldn’t have been discovered without an audit and how much they may have cost county taxpayers.

But it does take away another excuse to remove the revenue cap and means county roads may not be in such bad shape after what’s shaping up to be a tough winter.