February 2010 – Page 2

WCRC meeting – February 2010

We had very good turnout for our meeting this month as nearly three dozen members came to see our featured speaker, District 5 County Councilman (and definite fiscal conservative) Joe Holloway.

But as always we put God before country by reciting the Lord’s Prayer prior to the Pledge of Allegiance, and once the minutes were approved and treasurer’s report uttered – including the fact we’ve already paid for reserving Schumaker Park for our Crab Feast August 28th – we heard from our guest speaker.

Since Joe also spoke at last month’s Americans for Prosperity meeting I had already heard many of the points he had made. But some were worth repeating and we now knew how the vote on the Pollitt’s Folly parking lot had turned out. Joe said that he thought the county needed more land for parking, just not at $300,000 per acre – closer to a half-million per acre once construction costs were included. (Works out to about $5,000 per space by my own estimation.) Yet no one had thought to study the existing parking and grounds to see if things could be done more efficiently, said Holloway.

And then there was the prospect of the county buying more land nearby – not just 10 acres for an 8,000 seat stadium which Rick Pollitt apparently wants but possibly for a new main library. Holloway opined that this Old Mall land purchase may affect the price we pay for those pieces of property should the other projects come to pass. He was in the process of asking County Council about drafting a letter to local legislators to find out whether Open Space money could be diverted to take care of the roads.

Turning to another sore subject of his, Joe recounted the lengthy process of getting the school administration to comply with his request for travel expense records – the process took about four months from start to finish. What it revealed was a pattern of expenses which weren’t generally extravagant (for example, none of the money was spent on alcohol and Joe was pleased to find that) but perhaps not necessary – should the morning coffee at Wawa be charged to the taxpayer?

While “a lot” of the expenses were justified, noted Holloway, it was time to adopt a line-item budget for the county board of education. Since they couldn’t truly cut the funding for education because of state maintenance of effort restrictions, the education dollars needed to stretch farther. One observer noted he couldn’t get advanced reading materials for his classroom and another pointed out the situations where teachers needed to go out-of-pocket for supplies while others used the taxpayers’ dime for their dinner at Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. The problem, one observer said later, was that county employees “feel entitled” to do these things.

One other observation about the board of education fiasco was that it got little coverage in the local media because “the newspaper will not step on the toes” of Wicomico’s BOE. Yet the BOE was “out of control” according to Joe.

Another financial misstep was much smaller but it was one which still upset Joe because of the reaction. In bringing up the perhaps excessive cost of refurnishing some of the county courthouse, Holloway found he got “one of the most disappointing reactions” from County Executive Rick Pollitt. To Joe, his job was oversight and “tell it to the judge” was not what he wanted to hear.

One thing Joe was “proud of” was ending the prospect of those county employees convicted of stealing county property getting their full pension as legislation he helped push through allowed the county to withhold their share of pensions for future scofflaws.

Regarding those he’d worked with over the last three years, Holloway thought “we’ve been a good council” because they work well together even when they disagree.

At this point, the session turned to more of a question-and-answer one, with one club member asking simply, “what can we do?”

One of the most frustrating parts of his job, Joe noted, was the “different money aspect.” I took this to mean that the strings attached to some of the money we get from higher levels of government or county restrictions make it difficult to react when required.

Joe also was critical of how our land deals were negotiated, as someone asked that question of him. Apparently the department heads involved do the negotiation, and Joe pondered whether this shouldn’t be done through the County Executive or a designee with a background in these sorts of negotiations. “Our method of acquiring land is wrong,” said Joe. (Personally, I’d like to see a little bit of divestment rather than acquisition – but that’s just me.)

Holloway also told us the county’s budget had increased 39% despite the revenue cap, but now “every revenue source in Wicomico County is down” and “the state is cutting the devil out of the county(‘s share of revenues.)”

So things may be tough ahead, and there are many (myself included) who think Joe would be a good County Executive. Holloway was “very honored” that people were asking him to run, and if he did it would be an “unorthodox” campaign and tenure in office – “things would change.” But as far as his decision, the “jury is out” on it.

We appreciated Joe’s remarks, and it was tough to cut off the questions. But we had other business to get through, most importantly electing new officers. Since no nominations came from the floor, we had no need for elections and the officer slate remained nearly unchanged – the only substitution was at the Third Vice-President where Carl Kurten, Jr. took the place of Ryan Hohman.

Mark Biehl gave a quick update on the Young Republicans, who had finalized the date and venue for hosting the state convention (June 18 and 19 at the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center) and their canned food drive, which is slated for Saturday, March 27.

The only item of business reported by Central Committee Vice-Chair Dave Parker was that we were still in the process of rescheduling our Lincoln Day Dinner based on Bob and Kendal Ehrlichs’ availability.

Matt Teffeau gave an abbreviated College Republican report, noting that state party Chair Audrey Scott would speak at their March 24 meeting, they are working on a fundraiser to be held at Uno’s, and their membership is up to 35 people.

With that, WCRC president Marc Kilmer announced next month’s speaker would be the rescheduled U.S. Senate candidate Corrogan Vaughn and the meeting will be March 22. As always, we enjoyed the get-together and look forward to hearing from Vaughn and any other GOP hopefuls who wish to speak before us. After March we have five meetings left before the primary so secure your speaking slots now.

Observations on the Conway-Mathias townhall meeting

Even with a camera-shy person, the attendance on Saturday wasn't half-bad for this townhall meeting.

On Saturday I was joined by about two dozen others – among them seemingly half the local blogger community – who wanted to pepper local Delegates Norm Conway and Jim Mathias of District 38B with questions about the direction this state is going and just what they would do to send it in the proper direction. At times this was a very contentious meeting when the questions began to be asked.

First they were introduced by Salisbury Mayor Jim Ireton.

Fellow Democrat and Salisbury mayor Jim Ireton introduced the pair and pitched a new downtown library while he was at it.

Part of his introduction was an appeal to keep the library downtown, but as for Conway and Mathias Mayor Ireton noted that, “one of the reasons I support them is that they don’t vote no for the sake of voting no and they don’t vote yes for the sake of voting yes.”

Mathias began his presentation by stating “I’m just like you in many ways,” pointing out he had been a businessman, vetoed two budgets as mayor of Ocean City, and argued about increasing fees. Along with us, he felt that the state “should have a dependable budget” and asserted that he’d “stand up and take responsibility for the good things we’ve done and the tough things we’ve done.”

Jim seemed very defensive throughout the presentation, and speaking on the budget remarked that “we thought we’d close the (budget) gap (in 2007)…but we didn’t know the ‘great recession’ was on the way.” He made it clear that there were “a thousand sets of fingerprints to blame” so we needed “a thousand sets of hands to lift us up.”

Noting that much of the industry which had once been the backbone of the Shore – companies like Campbell Soup and Dresser – had abandoned the area, those entities which had taken their place like Salisbury University, Wor-Wic College, and Peninsula Regional Medical Center helped take up some of the slack but our number one industry remains agriculture. On that note, Mathias pled the case that they “tried very hard to get building permits for the chicken houses.”

District 38B Delegates Jim Mathias (left) and Norm Conway listen and interact with their constituents at a town hall meeting held February 20, 2010.

Unlike Mathias, who sat throughout the meeting, Norm Conway stood up to give his remarks.

One thing I didn’t know about Conway is that he’d been an elected official since 1970, beginning with the Central Committee and graduating to Salisbury City Council in 1974 before running and winning his current post in 1986. He recounted some of the mentors who had led him into his lifetime of public service as a teacher, school official, and political officeholder.

As a committee head in the General Assembly, he “tried to build alliances…build bridges” as Norm reminded those assembled that the sum total of the Eastern Shore delegation was 13 – 10 House members and three Senators. (Seems like it should be 12 because there are only three Eastern Shore districts – 36, 37, and 38. Point is we have a small delegation.)

Certainly those in attendance had known that Maryland “had some rough times over the last 2 or 3 years” as “revenues dropped off a cliff.” In the last year the Board of Public Works had chopped $1 billion out of the budget – it had been in balance at sine die of the General Assembly last April but once the fiscal year started July 1 things were already behind.

Norm observed, however, that revenues may be finally leveling off. His anecdotal basis of that claim was seeing more people shopping and in restaurants over the last few months, and to him that was “clear evidence” of a recovery.

But now the General Fund budget being debated was less than that approved for FY07 four years ago thanks to the shrinking revenues. Yet the untouchable area has been K-12 education and it was only this year the tuition freeze had been shelved, after three years of no change.

Delegate Norm Conway addresses the voters at a townhall meeting held in Salisbury on February 20, 2010.

As for the actual budget process, this year it was the Senate’s turn to begin the budget process (it alternates yearly between the Senate and House of Delegates.) Conway predicted the budget would be on the floor by the second week of March. One lament Conway had was the difficulty of maintaining funding for roads because once that area was cut it was “tough to catch up.” Yet we had to balance the budget and create jobs since Maryland’s 7.5% unemployment rate, while well below the national average because of the insulation of federal jobs, was still at a “high water mark.”

So far the meeting had gone fairly smoothly and people had listened attentively. Then the questions began.

Local Americans for Prosperity co-chair Joe Collins got the ball rolling by pointing out the examples of Dresser leaving and the Evolution microbrewery deciding to locate just across the state line in Delaware (after considering a downtown Salisbury location) and asking what can they do for the business community?

Mathias, who reminded us he was on the Economic Matters Committee, told us that part of the issue was local regulation. But he and Conway had urged a reduction in regulations, and Mathias called the poultry industry regulations “overbearing.” Jim also called it “embarrassing” that a permit for a fishing pier desired by a local businessman had languished for two years – that owner “should have had it in his hand by now.”

The former mayor also made the complaint that “as mayor, I was closer to a one phone call fix” but the state is a “matrix.” The only group which stays long-term is the bureaucracy.

Collins interjected that it sounded like Mathias was “making the case for less government.” Jim agreed that there was a need for incentives, less regulations, and more opportunity.

Delegate Conway spoke his piece, talking about how the poultry industry could be gone in a decade if things continue on their path, but bringing up the point that he has to work with other members and “help them.” But as head of the Appropriations Committee, “I do” use that as a weapon against the Maryland Department of the Environment in an effort to help local poultry farmers.

So when it was asked what they were doing to get rid of the bureaucracy, Conway pointed out that 400 vacant positions had been eliminated this fiscal year – but that may not be permanent.

Delegate Mathias then pointed out that, “bureaucracy is not just numbers…every business needs to have trained people.” Yet the government will have to continue to shrink, added Jim. Earlier this decade, we were largely in the ‘roaring Twenties’ of the 21st century.

Local businesswoman Sally Jones then asked about unemployment insurance, noting how much it affected her business.

The problem, responded Mathias, was that businesses were moving to a higher table on the unemployment scale and that raises their premiums. One change last year was adding part-time workers to the rolls, a move the Chamber of Commerce supported but Jim opposed (as did I.) But Jim also couched it as an issue between big business (like Wal-Mart, as Jim naturally mentioned) against small business and the NFIB.

Yet I happen to know there’s also a federal impact, as the bailout being proposed comes with strings attached. With Maryland’s fund in peril, the state is looking for an infusion of federal cash but in order to get it they have to “reform” their system (after just doing so five years ago.)

At that point, a questioner asked about illegal immigrants and the fiscal impact they have on our state, but neither Delegate was aware of a financial number and Mathias “doubt(s) my committee” has ever asked for one. Remember, Maryland is well known as a sanctuary state and is adopting a two-tier driver’s license system just for them. (That was a contentious bill, and many Delegates – including Conway and Mathias – asked their name by withdrawn as co-sponsors after numerous changes were made to gut that bill.)

Shifting gears, fellow blogger Joe Albero asked about the death penalty in the wake of the Foxwell case. Conway expressed his support for the death penalty but voted to weaken it in order to make sure it stayed on the books, noting wistfully “they have it where they want it” for now. He’s working on a bill to be heard tomorrow which would add scientific evidence to the criteria where the death penalty can be sought. Delegate Mathias chimed in that there “will be improvements” to sex offender laws and echoed Conway’s support for capital punishment.

Another fellow blogger (and the other AFP local co-chair), Julie Brewington, asked about the gas tax and why so much of it goes to public transit. Mathias said that he wouldn’t support an increase but also countered that “we all know we have to make that contribution” and perhaps change the funding mechanism for fixing roads as cars get more efficient. After our economy finally recovers, this will be “a different country than we know.” (He also had a sidebar about the one staunch Republican who supported Obama’s stimulus plan – that man runs a paving company.)

But here was a case of the quid pro quo which permeates Maryland politics. Delegate Mathias recounted his first votes, which were to override vetoes by Governor Ehrlich of various Baltimore City and County issues. He was going to sit them out (since he never voted on the original legislation) but was reminded by Norm Conway that the items he liked getting as mayor of Ocean City had to have the approval of Baltimore-area legislators to be done. In this case, they support the public transit predominant on the other side of the Bay as a trade-off for things we need.

One item that Conway said has been proposed in the past and could be revisited to address transportation would be a regional sales tax.

Johnnie Miller, a proponent of energy legislation, wondered why renewable energy bills pass the House easily but die in the Senate Finance Committee. He pointed out Delaware is way ahead of us in that area. More interesting was the fact he and fellow advocate John Palmer had written the draft of legislation to be introduced this year (they were only awaiting the legal language to be set) for energy policy.

To address the question, Delegate Mathias pointed out these bills generally come with a “strong fiscal note” which seems to scare off support. (Tellingly he also said, “maybe one day I’ll be on the Senate Finance Committee.” File that under “worst-kept secret.”)

This touched off a long and sort of meandering discussion which eventually returned to jobs and development. While it was pointed out (properly) that renewable energy was only made competitive when subsidized by the government and certain interests were more focused on rent-seeking than energy policy, the philosopical question was asked “how is it that government ever thought they could create development?” To that, Delegate Conway replied that there were a number of public-private projects under discussion but when pressed couldn’t name any local examples.

Delegate Mathias attempted to bail Conway out by postulating that even with the increasing amount of real property now owned by government (such as the ever-expanding Salisbury University and even the newly-purchased Pollitt’s Folly parking lot for the Civic Center) there are still jobs and disposable income being created by them. With all due respect, Delegate Mathias, at what cost to us? (I used that term because Delegate Mathias used it often.)

This is basically how it ended, since the time allotted for the meeting room was only two hours and it was booked for another group. I didn’t get a chance to ask my question, but did say my piece to Delegate Conway about the increasing proportion of the state budget comprised from federal dollars. To him, it was just our money coming back to us but that doesn’t address the philosophical difference I have that the money belongs to us in the first place and all that having a middleman does is keep some pencil-pusher (who may or may not live in Maryland) employed.

There was also a comment made by a guy whose name I didn’t catch which, to sum up, said that we should watch the Delegates in action before being overly critical. Come to Annapolis and watch them work on a Monday night or some other time during the week, he said.

That’s all well and good for a lobbyist or perhaps CASA de Maryland, but most working people in far-flung regions of the state don’t have the time to drive up to Annapolis and watch the legislature grind its sausage. We count on them to do what’s right and what’s proper in being stewards of our taxpayer money.

Instead we get “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine” politics, trading favors at the expense of the taxpayer. So much for “One Maryland.”

Art imitating life – or vice versa?

When a company devotes millions of dollars to the production and airing of a Super Bowl ad, they are at the mercy of several factors – one of those being an exciting game if you happen to have a spot airing in the fourth quarter.

We all know that the game itself came down to a late interception returned for a touchdown to secure the New Orleans Saints’ victory; fortunately for Audi this occurred after their commercial aired. For all the pregame talk about the pro-life ad sponsored by Focus on the Family and featuring the mother of Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, the “green police” commercial sponsored by Audi may have the most lasting impact.

The ad opens with an innocuous transaction at a grocery store where the cashier cheerfully asks, “Will that be paper or plastic?” When the hapless customer answers “plastic” he’s rudely greeted by an officer from the “green police” who advises the customer, “you picked the wrong day to mess with the ecosystem, plastic boy!” From there, numerous people run afoul of the law for having batteries in the trash, throwing away an orange rind (a “compost infraction”), possession of incandescent light bulbs and plastic water bottles, and having the temperature of their hot tub too high. The only escapee is the one driving the sponsor’s diesel-powered car at the “eco checkpoint.” Even the classic rock band Cheap Trick redid their 1970’s song “Dream Police” into “Green Police” for the spot.

Great humor works because it has an element of truth in it, and this commercial reflects a number of moves already made by government. Indeed, traditional incandescent light bulbs will be going away after next year due to government edict and several regions of the globe ban the use of plastic grocery bags. Nanny staters constantly proclaim society needs to reduce, reuse, and recycle.

So far, though, America hasn’t gotten to the point where we have the government snooping through our garbage for contraband non-recyclable material or uniformed officers breaking into our backyards to check the temperature of the hot tub. But the spot is believable because we now can’t dismiss the possibility given the cap and trade legislation slowly seeping its way through Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency’s willingness to take advantage of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling allowing them to regulate carbon dioxide to promulgate new restrictions on commerce and daily life, all in the name of combating so-called manmade climate change.

It’s this climate fear that Audi plays to with their ad, on both sides. For those who believe they should do more to save the planet, the car is sold as an eco-friendly mode of transportation. On the other hand, those who are skeptical about our impact on the climate but believe the way of the future may well be reflected in the commercial might be persuaded to buy one simply to be left alone.

Obviously Audi is attempting to sell cars with this Super Bowl ad just as other sponsors pushed online services, beer, or snack food. While the vast majority of these ads were written and produced to be humorous in some sly way or another, the Audi spot will have a longer-lasting impact for its product because this humor made the consumer think.

Many found it funny only because it stretched what we believe into something of a tall tale. It’s when the tall tale becomes reality that the spot loses its humor, and in the coming decade we may see the Audi ad as prophetic of how society evolved.

Michael Swartz, an architect and writer who lives in rural Maryland, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer.

My latest LFS column to be released cleared on February 12.

Rutledge holds local fundraiser

On Wednesday those who are interested can meet U.S. Senate candidate Jim Rutledge as he holds a coffee fundraiser in Berlin.

Billing his candidacy as a chance to “Restore, Cherish, and Defend our Constitutional Rights,” Jim will hold court at the Ocean City Golf Club at 11401 Country Club Drive in Berlin beginning this Wednesday (the 24th) at 6:30 p.m. The RSVP can be directed to Kimberly Fernley at (443) 513-6542.

Perhaps most interesting is the fact that there’s no suggested amount. Obviously the campaign is looking for funds but there’s nothing which prohibits you from paying a dollar (or any amount up to $4,800 per Federal campaign guidelines – $2,400 for the primary election and $2,400 for the general.) Maybe that’s an omission on the part of whoever put together the flyer but it is curious.

They didn’t forget to say that checks should be made payable to “Rutledge for U.S. Senate” though.

Unfortunately, I can’t make it since I have another commitment (next week is really busy for me!) But those who would like to hear what one of the leading GOP contenders has to say about his views and goals for Congress should attend.

Conway/Mathias town hall meetings tomorrow

Tomorrow voters in District 38B get the opportunity to ask their legislators about what’s going on in Annapolis. I’m not on their mailing list but fortunately Julie Brewington is, so I owe her thanks for sharing. Now I share with you.

As part of an ongoing effort to keep in touch with community needs, Delegate James Mathias and Delegate Norman Conway will hold town meetings through February with the goal to help them make informed decisions during the 2010 session of the Maryland General Assembly.

“The 427th Session of the General Assembly is now underway and there are many measures up for consideration such as balancing the State Budget and bills that target sexual predators,” Conway said.

“These town meetings will be an opportunity to share any concerns you may have with your Delegates.”

Conway & Mathias are looking forward to hearing about issues important to the citizens of Worcester & Wicomico Counties. The pair held similar town meetings at the beginning of 2009, and they both want to encourage all their constituents to attend again this year. They hope citizens will take the opportunity to share their opinions and concerns with the Delegates, as well as learn what the 2010 General Assembly will involve.

“Please come and let us know what’s on your mind as we continue to work hard for you on the Eastern Shore.”, Mathias said.

Those who are unable to attend the meetings can Contact Mathias and Conway directly. Their district office numbers are listed below.

The following town meetings have been scheduled:

Sat., Feb. 20, 11-12:30pm Salisbury – Wicomico Public Library

Sat., Feb. 20, 3-4:30pm Town Hall of Berlin

For more information call:
District Office, Delegate Conway – 410 543 9060
District Office, Delegate Mathias – 410 352 3096

I went to one at this time last year in Pittsville and was frankly disappointed by the turnout – barely a dozen people bothered to come out. Hopefully this time will have a lot better crowd as there is more interest in government because we’re in an election year.

So come on out and see the show. It’s going to be a busy next couple days for me so I’m going to bag Friday Night Videos for the evening.

The coalition is fading fast

It hasn’t been well-publicized but over the last week three corporations withdrew their membership from the U.S. Climate Action Partnership – Conoco, BP America, and Caterpillar cut ties with the group in the wake of recent questions about the accuracy of the data used to support manmade global warming.

As Myron Ebell from the Competitive Enterprise Institute noted:

In dropping out of the U. S. Climate Action Partnership, BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar are recognizing that cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U. S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly. We hope that other major corporations will soon see the light and drop their support for cap-and-trade and other energy-rationing legislation.

These announcements are most welcome, but they do not mean that we can relax our efforts to defeat and roll back energy-rationing legislation and regulations. Many policies and proposals that would raise energy prices through the roof for American consumers and destroy millions of jobs in energy-intensive industries still pose a huge threat. These include the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, environmental pressure group efforts to use the Endangered Species Act to stop energy production and new power plants, the higher fuel economy standards for new passenger vehicles enacted in 2007, presidential executive orders, and bills in Congress to require more renewable electricity, higher energy efficiency standards for buildings, and low carbon transportation fuel standards.

Worthy of note that the three dropouts are two energy companies and a heavy equipment manufacturer, companies which would likely be in favor of alternative energy if they felt it were a profitable way to go.

Frankly, I was a little surprised to see my friend Jane Van Ryan downplay the withdrawal of two energy companies given her closeness to the situation. Then again, she points out that the unraveling of the climate change hoax is happening on many levels – everything from record cold and snowfall across the country to “hiding the decline” to the legislative failures both she and Ebell point out.

Yet big corporations are keen about shifting sides in a debate when they sense they’re no longer on the winning side. Most Americans don’t mind the occasional recycling program and taking other steps to protect the environment – that is until they feel compliance switches from voluntary to mandatory, as it would for cap and tax and other government mandates. As you’ll see Sunday (can you say foreshadowing?) the Audi “green police” commercial hit close to home because it’s just believable enough to be discomforting.

In the meantime, this may be a good opportunity to reward these companies for their farsightedness and belief in capitalism. Certainly they’re still going to have their lobbyists bending the ears of federal and state legislators, but at least in this way they have determined that government won’t be the solution to the problem.

Vote on the Contract FROM America

Earlier today I commented on the newly-minted Mount Vernon Statement, which to me is a noble gesture but seems to fall short on actionable items. After all, most conservatives are America-first, limited-government types who simply want Washington to get out of their way and allow America to continue to be the greatest country on earth – the “shining city on a hill” as it were.

In 1994 Newt Gingrich took similar principles and, with the help of dedicated conservatives, created the Contract With America for Republicans seeking seats in the House of Representatives. The success was obvious as the GOP took over the House for the first time in 40 years and all but one of the ten principles spelled out had some kind of Congressional action (term limits being the exception.) By nationalizing the election, Gingrich and his allies created the impetus for voters to look beyond their district and support a principle of governance.

This time, Newt is a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the game, and it’s a coalition of conservative groups (including a large number of TEA Party organizers) which are spearheading the effort. And instead of a select cadre determining each planks, this contract is based on input from the grassroots. Ten of these 22 planks will be inserted into the Contract From America.

DEMAND A BALANCED BUDGET: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike.

STOP THE TAX HIKES: Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011.

COMMIT TO REAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY: Every bill, in its final form, will be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill will be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.

PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.

PASS REAL HEALTHCARE REFORM: Greatly improve affordability of health insurance by permitting all Americans access to all health insurance plans sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines and allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.

ENACT FUNDAMENTAL TAX REFORM: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the Internal Revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution.

END RUNAWAY GOVERNMENT SPENDING: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.

LET US SAVE: Allow all Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account they own, control, and can leave to whomever they choose.

PROTECT INTERNET FREEDOM: No regulation or tax on the Internet.

GIVE PARENTS MORE CHOICES IN THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN: Improve American education by reforming the broken federal role through eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school, and improving the affordability of higher education.

PASS AN ‘ALL OF THE ABOVE’ ENERGY POLICY: Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.

PROTECT FREEDOM OF THE PRESS: Prohibit the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine in any form, including requiring “localism” or “diversity” quotas.

RESTORE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY & CONSTITUTIONALLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT: Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states.

PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS: Block state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.

REJECT CAP & TRADE: Prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from implementing costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures.

STOP THE PORK: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent, including requiring a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark.

NO CZAR REGULATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION: All “lawmaking” regulations must be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president, as the Constitution requires for all laws.

AUDIT THE FED: Begin an audit of the Federal Reserve System.

NO MORE BAILOUTS: The federal government should not bail out private companies and should immediately begin divesting itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.

STOP CAREER POLITICIANS & CURB LOBBYIST POWER: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require Congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.

SUNSET REGULATIONS: All regulations will be “sunset” after ten years unless renewed by Congressional vote.

LET US WATCH: Broadcast all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Internet.

Talk about your tough choices! Most of the lot is good, but right off the top I would say that items 7, 20, and 21 would be my favorites.

Number 7 is a slightly adapted form of TABOR laws, with TABOR standing for Taxpayers’ Bill Of Rights. This provides for necessary increases in government but not excessive ones. Yes, there is the weakness of not requiring cuts which should be made (since the natural tendency would be to budget to within a gnat’s eyelash of the limit) but the principle is sound.

I would only change number 20 to a 12+12 rule (6 House terms and 2 Senate terms.) However, the one thing missing from this plank is to restore the states’ voice in the process by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. The idea of popular election of Senators has shifted the balance in Congress and federalized the government, when the intent was to create tension between states and Washington.

Number 21 might just have been my suggestion from three years ago, back when I did my ’50 year plan’ series. My argument now is the same as it was then – if Congress is busy justifying the renewal of old laws, they may be too busy to think of new ones.

I could probably vote for 10, but it’s likely I’ll only vote for a few to strengthen their position. Bullet voting may be a good practice in this case. In any case, here’s a chance for the people to decide what they think is most important and what they’ll vote to change come November.

On the Mount Vernon Statement

Every so often I suppose society feels the need to reinvent the wheel.

Much has been made of the recent resurgence of conservatism as a counterpoint to the statism being foisted upon us by those in power in Congress and the White House. In this instance, President Obama is just the head of the tiger but as a whole it remains a dangerous creature. Responding to this threat is a loose confederation of TEA Partiers who remain leaderless by instinct or by choice; regardless their influence has been credited with stopping the march leftward and winning elections in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.

One thing they have not been is – for the most part – a creature of Beltway conservatives. But, in their effort to create order where they see chaos, a group of Washington-based organizational leaders got together to create the Mount Vernon Statement. They see this as a necessary update on the Sharon Statement William F. Buckley and a small group of like-minded conservatives put together a half-century ago.

But it’s interesting to see where the conservative movement has gone in the interceding fifty years. A brief history sees that it influenced Republican politics to one degree or another, but it hasn’t always been successful in convincing the American people of its merits. Barry Goldwater was a disciple, but he was shellacked in the 1964 election. (One caveat is that this occurred less than a year after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, so LBJ could burnish Kennedy’s memory as needed. A little-known fact about JFK’s trip to Texas was that he was worried about re-election and wanted to shore up his base.)

With the possible exception of Reagan, it seems Republican presidents who have ran and won as staunch conservatives moderated to various degrees upon taking office. Nixon started the Environmental Protection Agency and installed disastrous wage and price freezes for a time to combat inflation. George H.W. Bush told us to “read my lips” but knuckled under to Congressional Democrats who promised him spending cuts if he’d raise taxes – only Bush kept his end of the bargain. His son George W. Bush cut taxes but expanded the federal role in education with No Child Left Behind and created a new entitlement program with Medicare Part D.

In my lifetime, we’ve never had a conservative President and Congress simultaneously who have truly acted in concert to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Consequently, we’ve never had a populace who’s seen the principles in the Mount Vernon Statement (or the Sharon Statement for that matter) put into action.

Yet Presidents when inaugurated don’t swear their fealty to any statement but to uphold the Constitution, which brings me back to the idea I began with of reinventing the wheel.

I have the utmost respect for those who put together the Mount Vernon Statement, just as I do William F. Buckley and those who participated in crafting the Sharon Statement. But in neither case did they pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor as our Founding Fathers did when they declared their independence from the Crown and later wrote the document our system of government is based upon.

A lot changes in fifty years, and even that is miniscule compared to changes in the whole of our rich history. While Buckley and his cohorts were rightfully concerned with the Communist threat from outside our borders, today we face the danger of statism from within our seat of government. More troubling is that neither political party is immune to causing the backslide toward tyranny to continue.

Instead of trying to restate the Constitution to the issues of today, we may need to work all the way back to a new revolution – a revolution which begins at the ballot box in November and continues through 2012. Obviously a Congress dominated by conservatives won’t get a lot past a statist President unless they can achieve a majority able to override his vetoes, and the situation with Senate elections makes that impossible to achieve. Even if Republicans achieved an unprecendented miracle sweep of every Senate seat available this year they wouldn’t even have a clotureproof majority – it would be 59-41 GOP.

Luckily in this case we don’t have foreign soldiers protecting the Crown, but this revolution won’t be swift nor will it be easy. The battle continues for the hearts and minds of America, and the future of the Republic depends on our success.

It’s all in how you ask the question

One news item making the rounds today comes from a polling question. The ABC News/Washington Post poll asked Americans about a number of subjects, but the headline comes from a statement that 80% of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case.

Perhaps they do, but I think some of the disagreement comes in the way the question was asked. Here’s how the poll asked the respondents on the 35th of a grueling 40-question list:

Changing topics, do you support or oppose the recent ruling by the Supreme Court that says corporations and unions can spend as much money as they want to help political candidates win elections? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Well, shoot, when you ask it that way, I might even be inclined to oppose the decision. I wonder if the responses would’ve been different had the question been asked:

Do you support or oppose the Supreme Court decision which held that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals when it comes to political contributions?

But by couching in both political and monetary terms, the pollsters led people to what they considered the “proper” answer. It also shows that Americans are woefully deficient at understanding the Constitution because they agreed with the next question:

Would you support or oppose an effort by Congress to reinstate limits on corporate and union spending on election campaigns? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

Obviously they don’t recall the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.” The Supreme Court held money equalled speech in Buckley v. Valeo:

The Court concurred in part with the appellants’ claim, finding that the restrictions on political contributions and expenditures “necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of the exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because virtually every means of communicating ideas in today’s mass society requires the expenditure of money.”

Understanding that is the key to supporting the Citizens United decision. There are still laws on the books regarding disclosure of who contributes, and those are advisable.

What Democrats in Congress would like to do is put the genie back in the bottle for corporations, yet leave unions free to do whatever they wish. Obviously they’re a little angry that their key special interest now has to play on a more level field than they did before the Citizens United decision.

Every time someone tries to take the money out of politics, smart people figure out ways around it. When McCain-Feingold passed, millions of dollars just shifted to 527 groups who did the dirty work for politicans. At least with the Citizens United case we’ll have more accountability to just who gave money to whom, then try to figure out the quid quo pro.

If the press wasn’t worried about losing influence, perhaps they wouldn’t need to create an artificial issue by asking loaded questions on a poll. The SCOTUS may not have made the popular decision, but it made the correct one.

Taking the rumor seriously

On Monday, a slow news day in the nation’s capital because of the President’s Day holiday, a fellow Maryland blogger made a sensation by posting a rumor from an “impeccable source” that longtime Senator Barbara Mikulski was soon going to announce her retirement and not seek another term. (No, surprisingly the blogger was not Joe Albero.)*ahem* While I remain in the camp of “I’ll believe it when I see it,” I’d still like to see her days in the Senate come to an end soon, and preferably not feet-first.

It appears that one of those seeking to oust her is going to have some fun with the concept and provide another imaginative campaign tactic which shows he’s not going to stick with politics as usual.

On March 4th, the “Barbara Mikulski Retirement Party” will occur online. Borrowing a concept employed to great advantage by supporters of GOP Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts – nice to be able to write that phrase – the campaign of Dr. Eric Wargotz will be setting off their own “money bomb” where they hope huge contributions will roll in from across the country.

Occurring as this rumor did on the heels of the surprise retirement of Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, the Maryland situation is different than Indiana’s. Bayh’s last-minute decision not only shocked Democrats, but left them with no one on the ballot – state Democratic Party officials will decide the nominee as the one candidate who attempted to secure signatures against Bayh was short of the number needed in at least one of the nine Indiana Congressional districts. (One name floated as a possible candidate is musician John Cougar Mellencamp.)

However, Maryland’s late primary would give Democrats an easy opportunity to gear up a campaign should Mikulski call it a career before our filing deadline July 6th.

And while Indiana Democrats might enjoy the lack of a contested primary while several GOP contenders compete for their nod, the Maryland rules make it much easier for candidates to get on a primary ballot – over the last several Senate cycles 2 or 3 minor candidates have popped up as opposition to an entrenched incumbent. Moreover, in 2006 Democrats had 18 primary contenders for an open U.S. Senate seat vacated by former Senator Paul Sarbanes, with just two (eventual winner Ben Cardin and former Congressman and NAACP head Kweisi Mfume) getting more than single-digit percentages in that year’s primary. It promises to be another free-for-all should Mikulski step aside.

In the meantime, Wargotz and his campaign attempt again to conjure up some of that Scott Brown magic – a shrewd step from perhaps the leading GOP contender.

After one year: feel stimulated yet?

Nope.

Remember when unemployment was 7.6% and not 9.7 percent? That was the rate last February.

And where are the 8,300 jobs promised for our Congressional district, let alone the 66,000 for the state?

Instead, we have fewer people working than the last time when the unemployment rate was 9.7 percent because many have given up on the search – 1.1 million fewer to be exact. Even illegal immigrants are leaving because they can’t find work, not doing the jobs Americans won’t do either.

If unemployment weren’t a big problem, why would Congress continue to subsidize it by extending unemployment benefits to nearly 100 weeks? That’s practically two years.

The only sector which is experiencing growth is the federal public sector. Obviously the First Lady is doing her part by employing 22 assistants, while her husband keeps dozens of “czars” on the payroll.

I thought Rush Limbaugh came up with an intriguing idea last year when the stimulus came out. Take the stimulus money and do two things with it: devote the proportion of it equal to Barack Obama’s vote to his ideas (essentially the stimulus package we have now) and the remainder equal to John McCain’s vote to tax cuts and business-friendly policies, and see which side of this bipartisan compromise did better. Obviously we didn’t get the GOP side so the lack of success all falls on the side of the statists, who keep spending way more money than we have available to us for bailing out favored special interests, unions, and key business contributors on Wall Street.

This is a good timeline to recall just how well the stimulus worked, thanks to Rep. Eric Cantor.

Wicomico County Council approves spending others’ money

In a hardly surprising move, the Wicomico County Council voted to accept the $300,000 per acre price for five acres across to the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center, spending $1.5 million in state money to purchase the land and put up a parking lot. The land had been used for years as supplemental parking for the WYCC anyway, but developers threatened to charge the county monthly rent and County Council chose not to call their bluff.

The vote was 4-3 to accept the offer, with Council President Gail Bartkovich and Councilmen Joe Holloway and Stevie Prettyman objecting. Previous to this vote, the Council did approve an amendment to make the purchase contingent on securing the promised Program Open Space money.

During the discussion preceding the vote, John Cannon asked whether the land was needed, but voted for it anyway based on the business interests behind it. Fellow Councilman Sheree Sample-Hughes termed her support as a “quality of life” issue. For his part, Bill McCain added the “stars are just right” for purchasing the land and spoke about the effort to secure the POS dollars – it was a “great deal.” David MacLeod cited a 3:1 ratio of e-mails in support vs. opposition.

On the other hand, “this is not a win-win situation for the county,” said Prettyman. Joe Holloway cited current economic condidtions as the reason for his opposition. Similarly, Bartkovich noted she could support this in “a better time and place” but for the public “the problem is the price.”

So now we’ve allocated the money to park near a white elephant with several weaknesses – the building is showing its age (built in the late 1970’s after its predecessor burned down in a spectacular fire), its capacity is too small to attract major sporting events and big-name concerts, and due to a legal covenant no alcohol sales are allowed on the site. In a decade or so, once regional economic fortunes turn around, the building will be a relic and the county will have this land – possibly along with another 15 acres adjacent to the newly purchased site at another $250,000 per acre.

Nor is the cost of converting the land from parking to parking factored in – the new purchase means the property needs to be compliant with new state regulations for storm drainage. Overall, the newly renovated site will provide parking for about 500 cars.

Perhaps the lot can be dedicated when it’s finished, and I have the perfect name to adopt for the new additional parking which will be used maybe 50 days a year: how about “Pollitt’s Folly?”