February 2010 – Page 5

Business-friendly? Don’t make me laugh.

Here’s another piece in the mounting pile of evidence that what’s going on in Annapolis and Washington just isn’t working. It’s part of a longer piece from the Maryland Senate Republican Caucus; I’m just borrowing a key paragraph:

The (unemployment) problem in Maryland is compounded by the fact that there are fewer private sector employers: “About 139,000 employers were counted by the state Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation at the end of 2009, the lowest number since 2004. Just as population typically grows, the number of employers opening for business usually outpaces closures, but not last year when a net of 2,900 employers were shuttered, according to the agency.

In other words, the number of businesses which closed up shop or relocated to other states outpaced the number of new businesses or those relocating to Maryland by 2,900. Being familiar with the building and construction industry it wouldn’t surprise me if the lion’s share of these closures weren’t small construction contractors who couldn’t survive a three-year (and counting) downturn in the building industry.

To me, this is the highest priority which needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, the state isn’t lending a helping hand by making most employers pay an artificial prevailing wage for state contract work while both the state and federal governments create a fiscal policy which sucks money out of the private sector and redistributes it to friends through the public sector.

Seemingly the new solution being offered at both the state and federal levels is a one-time tax credit for hiring workers off the unemployment rolls. While the idea of cutting taxes borrows from the conservative’s playbook, there is a difference in the approach which is telling.

First of all, a small tax incentive of $3,000 or $5,000 (depending on plan) only covers a small portion of the salary and benefits of a full-time worker. If a median yearly salary is $40,ooo and average for health insurance is about $13,000 this break covers less than 10 percent of the sunk cost of having an employee for a year. And obviously there has to be work for this employee to do – he or she needs to create production or provide a service which is at least as much as their financial burden and preferably more in order to cover overhead.

Currently the average of hours worked per week in the private sector continues to stumble along near its all-time low of just over 33 hours per week. Granted, the average has only declined by about 0.8 hours from our days of 5% unemployment just two short years ago but this drop is statistically significant because less overtime means less need to hire new workers. On a personal level, my overtime was significant the first year I lived here but declined steadily thereafter – first due to an influx of new hires but then because work dried up. Now we live in the age of furloughs and reduced hours, and that reduction in income eventually creates a stagnation and decline in demand for consumer goods.

The state of Maryland also is begging for federal help to cover its unemployment insurance shortfall, and Fedzilla is only too happy to help – IF Maryland changes some of its laws to better reflect the federal idea of what they should be. In the old days, that was called extortion. I think a better idea would be to repeal the law passed last year allowing part-time workers to receive benefits.

Another idea to bring back capital would be to repeal the so-called “millionaire’s tax” that was put in place in 2008 as a substitute for the ill-advised “tech tax.”

While we’re at it, let’s encourage the utilities to lower their rates by dropping out of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and repealing the renewable energy portfolio requirements, while allowing them to build new power plants to address Maryland’s growing energy needs. We could even make these laws effective once utilities agree to the rate reduction as incentive for them to follow through.

Obviously there are a number of ways Maryland could work to make itself more amenable to business growth. Supposedly they have the top-ranked schools in the nation and the state lies within the largest concentration of population in the nation as the southern terminus of the Boston to Washington megalopolis, so the market is practically ready-made.

Yet we lost a net of 2,900 business entities last year and our unemployment rate increased at a time when most other states are holding steady or decreasing. If it weren’t for the rapid expansion of Washington, D.C. Maryland might be an economic basket case mentioned in the same breath as California, New York, or Michigan. The official motto of “One Maryland” tends to assume that the whole state works like the I-95 corridor areas do and nothing can be further from the truth – in reality I believe we have at least three Marylands, and only one is showing some semblance of thriving (hint: it ain’t the Eastern Shore.)

I know it’s almost hopeless to ask this edition of the General Assembly for prudent across-the-board tax and regulatory relief, but to me as an armchair economist with some understanding of history that seems to be the ticket to prosperity. States with lower burdens on business tend to attract them while states who, consciously or unconsciously, punish entrepreneurs tend to drive them into the arms of other states.

If the idea of having each state be its own little laboratory of governmental policies is still holding true, I think we can easily figure out that the O’Malley/Democrat formula of tax, spend, and regulate is a noxious brew. It’s time to scrap that experiment and start over with new ingredients proven to work in other states. To do otherwise is to risk falling farther behind in the great economic race.

Time to seat Scott Brown

Scott Brown was elected by the voters of Massachusetts back on January 19th. Yet, 2 weeks and a day later he hasn’t been seated in the United States Senate. That’s all well and good, since the commonwealth of Massachusetts had to wait on military ballots and verify the count.

But once the election happened, many contend that interim Senator Paul Kirk should have lost his right to vote in the Senate, and Harry Reid told a worried public the Senate “wouldn’t rush into anything.” Yet they did and Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government called them on it:

“Anything means everything, not just health care,” said Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson. “Since Scott Brown’s overwhelming election, Senate Majority Leader Reid has scheduled and won votes that may have been contested or even blocked had Brown been seated.”

Scott Brown was elected to the open Massachusetts Senate seat on January 19th. But Reid has refused to seat the Senator-elect until February 11th.

“The people of Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to be the 41st vote against any and all controversial items as necessary, not just health care, and they’re already being deprived of their due representation,” Wilson said.

“Reid lied, there’s no simpler way of putting it,” Wilson added, pointing to Reid’s pledge after the Brown election: “We’re not going to rush into anything,” as reported by Politico.

Since then, the Senate has voted to raise the debt ceiling by $1.9 trillion, confirmed Ben Bernanke to a second term as Fed Chair, invoked cloture on Patricia Smith for Solicitor of Labor, “and now is moving to get Craig Becker onto the National Labor Relations Board,” Wilson noted.

Wilson said that “merely having Brown seated would have defeated the debt ceiling increase and Patricia Smith because no Republicans supported those two, and Senate Democrats would not have had 60 votes needed for passage. If Brown had been seated, it is highly likely Reid would not have even brought those items to the floor.”

Wilson added that “clearly indicates that the Majority Leader is attempting to rush through as much as he possibly can get away with prior to Brown’s seating, despite his vow not to. He is thumbing his nose at the American people. It’s disgusting.”

Wilson said Reid knows everything will change when Brown is seated, “and in the meantime is attempting to paint a misleading portrait of obstructionism, when quite the opposite is true.”

“Washington may be dumbfounded that Reid would lie about ramming important pieces of legislation and nominees through without seating Brown, but there is so little accountability in the nation’s capital it’s not at all surprising.

“These items would not have passed had Brown been seated, and there will be even more next week,” Wilson said, concluding, “which robs the people of Massachusetts their due representation on these critical issues facing the nation.”

Most of the time it doesn’t make a significant difference when a Senator is selected in a special election following the death of his or her predecessor, and had Martha Coakley been the winner I doubt the Senate leadership would’ve waited around to seat her.

But Scott Brown is “Mr. 41” and obviously he makes a difference to the balance of power. Ironically, it took a change in the law to place Paul Kirk in the Senate – before Ted Kennedy passed away he asked that Massachusetts repeal a 2004 law that wouldn’t have allowed then-Governor Mitt Romney to appoint a replacement for Sen. John Kerry. Had that law not been hastily passed, we would’ve seen a 59-40 Democrat majority in the Senate since Kennedy’s death and the dynamics of the body would’ve been significantly different.

So Harry Reid is trying to ram through everything he can at lightning speed before Scott Brown is rightfully seated. Partisan politics rears its ugly head as has often been the case over the last few years, and America isn’t being well served by it.

Will they buy the Brooklyn Bridge next?

Sometimes I take someone else’s comment left here and make it into a post, but in this case I’m going to take something I left in Right Coast Girl‘s sandbox and bring it on back here.

She noted that the Wicomico County Council held their public hearing on whether the county should use $1.5 million in Program Open Space money that’s apparently just laying around for our use and spend it on 5 acres to create more parking for the Wicomico Youth and Civic Center. While I heard a lot of proponents of the deal during the portion of the public hearing I watched on PAC-14, Julie pointed out that a number of opponents were likely unable to attend because they were working or watching their children who were home from school thanks to a snow day.

But here was my comment on her post.

Although I question the accuracy of the source, let’s talk about the “barter” idea. Why not sell some “surplus” land in order to purchase the 5 (perhaps eventually 20) acres on better terms?

Meanwhile, it was only a couple years back that some serious discussion was being made about relocating the WYCC to a lot adjacent to Perdue Stadium. Since Perdue Stadium is only used about 75 days a year, chances are that sharing parking with the stadium (and its capacity of 10,000) would create a win-win for the taxpayers and may end the subsidies necessary to continue propping up a building which is beloved by locals but becoming hopelessly outdated.

Mr. Urban may want to note that the OC Convention Center is getting $2.8 million in upgrades if the information given at the most recent AFP meeting is correct, so the taxpayers of Wicomico County may be faced with the prospect of losing business to their competitor to the east anyway.

It may be a difficult pill to swallow in these economic times, but the reality is getting another parking lot isn’t going to make the Civic Center all that much more viable in the long run.

I also briefly commented on proposed stormwater regulations on her site but my main point was the idea of alternatives to the revised parking. As I noted, it was only a couple years back that there was talk about relocating the Civic Center to the Hobbs Road site but that chatter ceased once the county’s finances hit the skids. Perhaps it’s still a viable idea, but the rotten economic situation we find ourselves in means it’s an idea going nowhere fast.

Yet the Youth and Civic Center is likely approaching the end of its useful life. In this day and age of constantly improving facilities, a long lifespan for such a facility would be 40 to 50 years.

Recently the city of Philadelphia closed down the Spectrum. That facility was built in 1967 to house the then-expansion Philadelphia Flyers so its useful life turned out to be 42 years. An even newer facility, Giants Stadium in suburban New Jersey, closed up shop after just 34 years as a new facility is being built next door.

While the Youth and Civic Center doesn’t host a professional sports team, it still competes in a league of its own against newer and larger facilities throughout the region. In the next decade, it’s going to be up to the community to decide whether they want to use public funding to build a more modern facility and perhaps draw a professional minor league basketball, hockey, or even indoor soccer team – or, create the incentives to have a private developer build a new arena on the Hobbs Road site. (Baseball stadiums tend to have a longer shelf life, so Perdue Stadium has the potential of decades more service unless the accreditation process for class A ball becomes much more stringent.)

As part of the process of determining whether paying $1.5 million for a parking lot to serve the Civic Center as well as the funding necessary to rework the lot to conform with state regulations and create the 500 or so spaces on the site, much thought needs to be devoted to the prospect of selling the land once the Civic Center is relocated – given the restriction on alcohol sales at the present site, it’s doubtful the Civic Center will ever exist without a taxpayer subsidy otherwise.

With the backing of the majority of the testimony today and the slick marketing of the County Executive claiming the land will be bought with “free” money, the citizens of Wicomico County may end up buying a pig in a poke. (I predict a 5-2 or 4-3 vote in favor of the purchase.) But we may look back in 10 years and wonder about the wisdom of the white elephant we purchased at the old Mall site, a site which may yet be undeveloped in a decade’s time.

I don’t think this is the wisest move, but perhaps it can trigger further discussion of whether we find it necessary to have a county-owned civic center.

Two new entrants

With the holidays behind us and the 2010 election now in sight, it appears that this will be the season for people to jump into various races.

I noted yesterday that Larry Hogan had closed his exploratory committee and endorsed Bob Ehrlich for the GOP nod for governor. Little did I know that a couple weeks back someone else had dipped his toe into the race for the Republican nomination, but today I received word that Chevy Chase resident Brian Murphy is also seeking the GOP nomination. Murphy is an Easton native but went to the other side of the Bay to pursue his career – sound familiar?

Obviously Brian becomes the longest of long shots when you consider the Ehrlich machine already put into place, but assuming he gets on the ballot Murphy could serve as a barometer of GOP discontent with the dithering of Ehrlich and how he’s played the Maryland Republican Party like a Stradivarius over the last year or so.

Meanwhile, sources up Carroll County way tell me that onetime Delegate and Ehrlich administration official Carmen Amedori is considering jumping into an already crowded field contending for the U.S. Senate seat held by Barbara Mikulski. She would be the first candidate with state legislative experience to enter the field if this is borne out.

Since her time in the General Assembly predated the monoblogue Accountability Project I went back to its predecessor and found out that over the lifetime of the former Maryland Accountability Project Amedori had a rating of 66, which put her among the top 10 conservatives in the House during the time. While the former project may not be completely congruent with my current scorecard, it’s highly likely that Amedori won’t be running in an appeal to moderates (but I could be wrong.) With no one truly distancing himself from the field, Amedori could get some initial backing and place herself squarely in the mix.

Now we just need to get some other local entrants and the September ballot will begin to take shape as the July 6 filing deadline begins to loom.

Not everyone’s cup of tea

I was in an interesting discussion this evening about the role TEA Partiers may be playing within the Republican Party. While there are those like Michael Steele who purportedly embrace those in the pro-freedom, pro-limited government movement on the national level (while funneling money to candidates like Dede Scozzafava) this discussion was more about the GOP at the local and state level.

Those who would like to see the Republican Party become the big tent tend to want to stretch the tent toward the middle of the political spectrum and assume that those farther right will follow because they have no other natural political home – in other words conservatives are taken for granted.

But the TEA Party movement has shown that, if those involved wanted to, they could become a movement in and of itself. Needless to say, the problem with splitting the conservative movement is best summarized in the old axiom, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” As Republicans, we cannot assume that just because a movement is grounded in many of the same principles which are supposed to guide the party that they will automatically go along to get along.

Twice in the last thirty years the conservative movement finally felt they had found their way out of the wilderness, but in the end twice they were disappointed. In 1980 Reagan gained the presidency but didn’t quite have the coattails to secure the House. And while he did get a large part of his agenda passed, the real cutting of government he envisioned had to be compromised away and shelved.

Once Reagan passed from the political scene, it was just two years into a pale pastel imitation of his bold palette that a key promise of conservatism was broken and it took two years of overreaching by his Democrat successor to bring about the 1994 Contract With America. But the potential of that revolution quickly ran into the reality of a Democratic president shrewd enough to tack just enough to the center to win reelection over a forgettable moderate candidate who was selected because it was his turn to run. By the time the GOP majority wheezed to a stop in 2006, the brand had been truly sullied into having the perception that it was barely a step right of the leftist Democrats. To this day, that’s the handicap the Republican Party labors with.

Those Republican members of Congress who dared go against a president from their own party when principle demanded it have gravitated toward the endorsement of the TEA Party movement. However, it is a little bit disheartening to stop and realize that these conservative heroes like Pence, DeMint, Bachmann, and Coburn weren’t household names prior to last year when the TEA Partiers began in earnest, yet they’ve been slogging in the trenches for a long time under a party banner which was shot to shreds through no fault of their own.

It is these people who should become the leaders of a newly reborn national Republican Party, one based on sound conservative principles put into practice. They can create an obvious contrast to the current party in power whenever they are placed into positions of governance.

On a local and state level, the change can come later this year as party leadership will be determined by September’s primary election.

It’s no secret that the Maryland Republican Party is broke and broken. Some would say that it’s broken beyond repair, but I disagree. The problem is that some of those supported by the state party have betrayed the principles of conservatism too much, taking their few crumbs by working with the majority at the expense of giving the Maryland GOP a public perception of being sellouts when the going gets tough. It’s not easy being vastly outnumbered in the General Assembly but tougher still when you can’t be assured the cavalry’s not coming in behind you.

As I say in my little disclaimer in the left column, I don’t speak for the Republican Party – but maybe I should. As I said during the discussion we had earlier, my leanings are fairly libertarian but I’m a Republican because we win occasionally and they don’t. When I stood out in the rain in front of the Salisbury TEA Party in April I saw a lot of faces I’d never seen as part of the local political crowd, but I saw a group who was willing to work and be heard. More importantly, I saw a group who agreed with pretty much the same things I did politically.

Not everyone is destined to have a political career, but now is the time for good men and women to step up and try to make a difference. At the last Americans for Prosperity meeting I noted that, even if some of those in the room filed as Democrats or Libertarians, I’d rather have a couple good choices on the ballot than have to vote for the lesser of two evils. Too often lately we’ve been faced with that LOTE choice and frankly I could tell those TEA Partiers are sick of it.

Sometimes I see people who want to start at the top and run for federal or statewide office right off the bat. Folks, I appreciate the passion but that’s a lot more than 99% of political neophytes can handle. Besides, the Republican party needs a “farm team” to develop into good statewide candidates who have a legitimate shot at winning. If you don’t like the state government the way it is, well, there are 141 Delegate seats and 47 Senate seats calling your name. Yes, we own a few of them but no one has a right to a seat just because they’re holding it. (It’s that other party which thinks so.)

There’s also a multitude of positions available locally which are crying for someone to run them efficiently. Maybe you think some various aspect of the court system is being run improperly – well, become Clerk of the Courts or Registrar of Wills and you can change that. All three local seats on the Orphan’s Court are up for grabs, too – and you don’t have to be a lawyer (but you do to be State’s Attorney.) And needless to say, there are legislative opportunities on a county level too.

We have the opportunity to seize the mantle if we choose to do so and work hard at it. Even if you think you can run the local Republican Party better than the nine of us can, you have your chance this year.

I’m not a big fan of having elections in Maryland only once every four years, but at the moment those are the cards dealt to us. TEA Partiers have to seize the opportunities presented to them now because four years is a really long time to maintain a passion for change. When the primary election comes on September 14, I want to be able to choose the best of candidates instead of the least of evils.

Ask, and you may receive…but only on HIS terms

This just in from (former?) candidate for Maryland governor Larry Hogan:

Six months ago, it seemed Maryland Republicans had very little chance of capturing the governor’s seat. Democrats were still flying high from the big wins of 2008 and looked pretty invincible. Heavily in debt, and with Governor Ehrlich on the sidelines, our State Party appeared to have little hope leading into 2010. In that environment, I decided to step up to the plate and form an exploratory committee to consider running for Governor of Maryland.

I believed very strongly that the incumbent governor’s failed record of lost jobs, higher spending, record tax increases and broken promises was unacceptable. We just could not afford another four years of Martin O’Malley. I felt that we needed to stand up and fight back for struggling families and small businesses, and believed that the people of Maryland deserved to have a strong clear choice for a change. As I traveled across the State I found that a lot of people felt the same way and that they were fed up with politics as usual in Washington and in Annapolis.

Our exploratory effort succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. Our message has been resonating and our movement has been growing. We have thousands of committed supporters and volunteers across the entire State of Maryland. We earned the support of state and national party leaders, have been receiving media attention and are being taken seriously as a viable and credible challenger to O’Malley. We invested the initial money necessary to get started, have a winning campaign plan and have built an organization second to none. It has been such a rewarding and humbling experience to gain the enthusiastic support of so many wonderful people.

The environment for challenging the status quo and taking on the monopoly has become much better since we started our effort. The energy and enthusiasm has continued to grow and the wins in Virginia, New Jersey, and Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts have energized even more people. The winds of change are blowing and Maryland is not immune to that change. I am now absolutely convinced that we could put together a winning campaign that would send a loud and clear message to Annapolis that they would hear all the way in Washington.

This effort has never been about me. From the beginning, it has always been about all of us, and about Maryland’s future. Maryland Republicans certainly cannot afford a bruising and expensive primary. If we are to be successful here in Maryland, we simply must all get behind one candidate. While I am convinced I could win this race, I also know that there is another candidate with more name recognition, and the ability to raise more money, who will allow us to put our best team on the field.

From day one, I said that if I were needed, I would step up to the challenge on behalf of the party and the State, but that I had no intention of running against my friend Governor Bob Ehrlich. Bob Ehrlich and I have been close friends for 30 years, since back when I was Chairman of Youth for Reagan and President of the Young Republicans. His involvement in politics started as a volunteer in my dad’s race for U.S. Senate, and he worked hard for me in my race against Steny Hoyer. I supported him in all his races, and had the honor of serving as a Cabinet Secretary in his Administration.

Today I am officially concluding my exploratory committee and calling on my friend Bob Ehrlich to enter this race for governor. Not only do I believe that Bob Ehrlich should run, but I am convinced he will run and that we should all push in the same direction to elect him as Maryland’s next governor. He not only has my endorsement, but he will have my enthusiastic support, as he always has, and nobody will work harder to make sure we win in November. It is my sincere hope that all my many great friends and supporters will join me in getting behind Governor Ehrlich and helping us take back our State in November.

I am honored and privileged to have received so much support during this exploratory effort. And, while today marks the end of my exploratory effort, I will still be standing on the frontlines continuing the fight to change Maryland.

Now we’re going to have to wait and see if Ehrlich takes the bait or continues to maintain his “wait-and-see” approach until March as the schedule seems to be. Obviously Larry Hogan and the Maryland GOP are screwed if, in the end, Ehrlich says no.

It’s what happens when a person gets to be bigger than a party. Maybe it’s just a perception I have, but I think more people would be disappointed if Ehrlich runs and loses yet we gain a couple dozen seats in the General Assembly and regain the First Congressional District seat than would be the case if Ehrlich won but otherwise the status quo remained. Long-term I think the former would be better for the Maryland GOP in building a farm team for the remainder of this decade and beyond. (And that’s not to say Ehrlich can’t win, but I think he should’ve jumped in much sooner.)

We have known all along, though, that Larry Hogan (and Mike Pappas before him) were, in a sense, “placeholder” candidates. But I believe no one person has a “right” to run for a particular office because they held it and lost – it’s as obnoxious a concept to me as saying it’s so-and-so’s “turn” to run for President as a reward for long years of service. That’s a surefire route to defeat.

I disagree with Larry Hogan in that a primary isn’t a bad thing if done correctly. Some may point to the 2008 1st District GOP primary as proof that contested primaries are a bad practice, but things were just fine until one losing contender took his sour grapes across party lines, reinforcing the opinion voters had of him being a sellout to the other party in the first place. If all the contenders in a primary have the character and fortitude to remember that their true opponent is on the November ballot (and not the September one) a primary is a good idea for judging contenders on their merits.

So now we’ll all be forced to see whether Bob Ehrlich will indeed go ahead with his grudge rematch with Governor O’Malley. I think he enjoys this attention, don’t you?