Protecting our interests

My blogging friend Bob McCarty is a pretty good marketer, so I get a heads-up on what he writes on a regular basis. But today he has a post by guest blogger Paul Hollrah which could give one pause in this holiday season – the prospect of fighting wars on six fronts.

Paul points out that over sixty years ago during World War II we developed the military capability of fighting a war simultaneously on two fronts. Back then we took on the Nazi regime in Europe and northern Africa while warring with the Japanese empire all over the Pacific Rim, and with help of some erstwhile allies we proved victorious in about 3 1/2 years. Yet, Hollrah asks, with our military already tied up in battles in Iraq and Afghanistan, could we address needs which may crop up in other places such as Korea, Iran, our southern border with Mexico, or even domestically?

Not only that, given the fact we’ve been in Afghanistan for nearly a decade already and it took several years to bring success in Iraq – do we have the stomach anymore to outlast a determined enemy? Obviously, they believe that isn’t so and a Tet-like offensive (which was far more successful from a propaganda standpoint than from a military one) will evict us from the scene.

Complicating matters even more is the push for austerity in Washington, where even the military may not be completely immune from the budget cutting advocated by TEA Partiers. They want a strong America, but may not necessarily see wisdom in being the world’s policeman when other allies have already thrown in the towel. Furthermore, they see the threat to American citizens and interests along the Mexican border as perhaps more important than a thus far futile attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan.

Perhaps I’m getting a little more isolationist as time goes by, but there seems to be some priorities out of line among those who guide our military and foreign affairs. I believe in peace through strength, but unfortunately given the rules of engagement we seem to be fighting under in some locales it may be better just to either simply cut our losses or define victory on our terms (as opposed to the host country’s) and go fullbore toward the goal. Of late, we’ve shown more finesse than power when the opposite is required.

One aspect of our strategy Hollrah seems to ignore, though, is the care and support of our overseas personnel – not the ones in battle, but those cooling their heels in a number of bases far from the front lines. I’d be interested in having someone justify why we are spread out in a number of nations well away from the action, addressing a threat that may have ceased to exist a number of years ago. Is it now more of a matter of propping up the economy of the host countries? I don’t have the answer to that.

Yet if I were to prioritize things, I’d have to say our major threats may be closer to home than in the Middle East or Asia. Understandably we need to keep a check on radical Islam but I don’t think our current occupation strategy is exactly the right one. One obvious drawback of nationbuilding via democracy is that the people who are elected to build the nation might become the problem – then what do you do?

Still, the biggest issue we seem to have is a lack of leadership. We all know that nature abhors a vacuum, so the question becomes how the void will be filled. I’m doubtful we will like the answer if it doesn’t come from within, but the quandry is we can’t address the situation for some time to come.

Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t stop it

A couple things up front regarding the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ (DADT for short) policy which softened the ban on gays in the military:

  1. I’ve never served in the military, being fortunate enough to spend my draft-eligible age during a time where the extent of military action was to kick a tinpot dictator out in Grenada and capture a pineapple-faced one in Panama, in part by bombarding him with hard rock music at all hours. Oh yeah, we bombed Libya too. With my asthma and bad eyes I’d likely be 4-F anyway.
  2. I truly don’t care what consenting adults do in their bedrooms.

Over the weekend I got an e-mail from Barack Obama, excited about the demise of DADT. In part, he wrote:

When that (repeal) bill reaches my desk, I will sign it, and this discriminatory law will be repealed.

Gay and lesbian service members — brave Americans who enable our freedoms — will no longer have to hide who they are.

The fight for civil rights, a struggle that continues, will no longer include this one.

(snip)

As Commander in Chief, I fought to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” because it weakens our national security and military readiness. It violates the fundamental American principles of equality and fairness.

But this victory is also personal.

I will never know what it feels like to be discriminated against because of my sexual orientation.

But I know my story would not be possible without the sacrifice and struggle of those who came before me — many I will never meet, and can never thank.

I know this repeal is a crucial step for civil rights, and that it strengthens our military and national security. I know it is the right thing to do.

Supposedly, the impetus behind the repeal of DADT was a survey that strengthened the hand of those plotting for repeal. (Oddly enough, when the survey first came out gay and lesbian advocates were unhappy with it, but I suppose it’s served their purposes.)

But perhaps what bothers me most about President Obama and the various advocacy groups calling for DADT repeal is couching the issue as a civil rights one, much like the integration of the military after World War II. In that case, discrimination was based on skin color alone whereas sexual preference seems to be primarily behavior-based. And unike many other behaviors not deemed appropriate for a military environment such as being insubordinate or out of fighting shape, I’m not sure being attracted to the same sex can be addressed during basic training. (For that matter, neither can attraction to the opposite sex.)

And whether it’s desirable in all cases or not, the Millennial Generation seems to be much more tolerant of homosexuality than previous ones. Ask someone under 30 and its highly likely they know someone who is gay or lesbian. It’s almost the ‘in’ thing these days to at least present an image of being ambiguous about sexuality.

Yet the precautionary tale about those who are gay or lesbian (I would think this more likely among gay males since they actually do the preponderence of combat roles) is that, if you thought bullying against gay men was bad in schools, try surviving it in an environment where people carry automatic weapons. Why do I get the feeling that a larger-than-normal share of gay soldiers will be the victim of ‘friendly fire’ incidents? You can’t prove intent in the heat of battle.

It seems to me that the best course of action is the one they are abandoning. Yes, we have professional soldiers and the bad apples who would actually consider wiping out their homosexual brethren in a fragging incident is but a tiny percentage. But why take the chance by allowing openly gay and lesbian soldiers to serve in the name of ‘civil rights’?

We have only made this a controversy as a society by bringing what should be kept behind closed doors and between consenting adults out in the open, claiming the choice to sleep with someone of the same gender is a ‘right.’

But in order to promote discipline, soldiers in the field need to remain focused on the twin goals of victory and survival. While the repeal of DADT may not be a distraction to that effort, common sense seems to dictate that we shouldn’t mess with success.

A response on Station 16

It took a few days to come to fruition, but the Station 16 controversy isn’t dead yet – at least not herein. This was a comment (and response) that deserves a post since it would otherwise be buried – and it comes from Joe Albero:

Michael, I’ll try to keep this as brief as possible. It should be known that my original offer of $250,000.00 was well before they created a RFP. In fact, it was because of my offer that they came up with the RFP to assure Joe Albero couldn’t purchase the property, even as a highest bidder. They did the same thing wien they dismantled the Horse Patrol and I offered to buy the horses, if you’ll recall. I offered to buy a fire truck for $5,000.00 with a blown engine, they sold it to a dealer for $2,500.00 instead. Nevertheless, when they created the RFP I stood in front of the Mayor and Council and asked, does this sale INCLUDE the other two lots going to the river. Gary Comegys immediately said, no, are you crazy. He then, (at a different council meeting) said, I wouldn’t sell Joe a damn thing, meaning the Fire Station. Considering the other lots weren’t going with the sale and Comegys stating he wouldn’t sell me the building, there was no reason for me to move forward with a RFP to purchase a piece of property the City was refusing to sell me. Each one of my offers was with no contingency and each check could be cashed immediately. We had already known that Gillis didn’t have an agreement with UMES and that is why he exposed such the night of the meeting, we were on to him and he knew it. My challenge to sue the City is real. The taxpayers are being screwed out of a very valuable piece of property/properties. As you mentioned, I do own a building outright on the Downtown Plaza. If I purchased this property, it too, (along with 18 other properties I own in Wicomico County) would be owned outright. My original proposal, (again, before there was ever a RFP) was explained to the City Council to be an exact replica of Station 7 in Pittsville with the exception of it being an All-You-Can-Eat Seafood Restaurant. Kitchen in the basement, dining on the first floor and a bar on the upper floor. I still to this day have numerous local Doctors who would dive into investing along with me to make this a reality as partners. The restaurant would employ some 70 people and the impact economic wise on the Downtown area would be incredible, while not really competing with the other restaurants Downtown. I say that in the sense that it would not challenge their menu. So please recognize my offer as good clean business. It would not sit empty and it would go under construction immediately. I’d like to say this as well. I like Palmer Gillis and like Palmer, I’m all about getting a really good real estate deal. If he gets the property, well, I hope he does exactly what he says he’s going to do but before they even get started it has been proven his original proposal has failed and the City Council should immediately drop the deal until they see him under contracts with someone willing to do what they proposed. However, that’s not how the City of Salisbury politics works. One final comment. The City should keep the property and forget my offer or Palmer’s. Louise Smith making remarks about how the building will fall apart, PLEASE! Perhaps she should take a walk down the Plaza and look at at least a half dozen properties sitting vacant for the past ten years, there’s nothing wrong with them and if there was Code & Compliance would be all over them. Some of us bought our properties for a great price and we’re sitting on them until the real estate market has a come back. Until then, who cares if the building sits empty, that’s our problem, not theirs or anyone else’s. Since when is everyone else so worried about my investment or anyone else’s anyway. Thanks for letting me share my side of this story and Merry Christmas Michael.

Yes, it was all one paragraph; I didn’t change a thing. Here’s my response.

Well, since this is your side of the story the questions I have are thus:

First, if you had the money and “numerous local Doctors who would dive into investing along with me to make this a reality as partners” why didn’t you come in as a silent partner in an LLC? If you had a good RFP proposal that Council then rejected it simply because you were involved, then perhaps you would have a leg to stand on in court. Now, I’m no lawyer (far from it) but it would seem to me that you couldn’t prove discrimination simply based on an out-of-context remark by one Council member. If your proposal was properly submitted and that good then Comegys gets outvoted 4-1.

As it stands, the original proposal you outlined and the one Coastal Venture Properties presented are essentially the same aside from the usage of the upper floor (CVP proposes apartments while you propose a bar) and the exception of CVP following through the process where you did not. Your newer proposal would involve office space, which brings me to my other question.

You claim you own almost 20 properties in Wicomico County, a couple of which I’m familiar with – besides the occasional travel by 300 W. Main, I patronize Station 7 on a semi-regular basis so that adjacent property is most familiar to me. I would hope that isn’t representative of the state of your properties as a whole, but the ones which are most ‘famous’ are unoccupied. Seems to me you could use your existing downtown building for the office space for your ‘media empire.’ (I guess you already do since some of your videos were taped there.)

If you had a more successful record in refurbishing and getting tenants for your buildings, perhaps Council would look more favorably upon your ideas.

As for the Station 16 property, it will obviously be up to the citizens and City Council to hold them accountable for what they do. Granted, we don’t have a very good track record but there was a process in disposing of the property and it was done by the book, unless you wish to attempt to prove otherwise in a legal venue.

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

I suppose Joe is one of those occasional drive-by visitors so it took him a few days to comment. While I’m glad he gave his side of the story, my common-sense advice is to hope Palmer Gillis and the CVP group can get right to work on restoring the building and perhaps bringing some life to an otherwise moribund downtown. Save your lawsuit money, Joe.

And perhaps I’m opening a giant can of worms by bringing this further into the light, but I thought the response deserved more attention than it probably would have had being buried under nearly a week’s worth of posts. If he’s going to get involved in the discussion I’d welcome comments on what he has to say in this forum.

Conservatives in Maryland CAN

In three weeks, we may be seeing the beginnings of the TEA Party moving into its rightful place at the head of the Maryland political table. Yes, we have to wait until 2014 for the next statewide election but the process is moving in the right direction with a meeting of the minds coming up on Saturday, January 8th. Instead of being outside looking in (as they were at the recent GOP convention, where the picture is from) they are the organizers of the event – ironically set in the same locale of the Doubletree Hotel in Annapolis.

Organizers believe it will be the catalyst for future gains.

“To our knowledge, nothing like this has been done before in Maryland,” said Ann Corcoran, Washington County blogger and one of the organizers. “We expect like-minded activists to share ideas and talents, forge alliances, sound the call for action, and give rise to conservative voices so that political competition can thrive in Maryland.”

Added Howard County activist Tonya Tiffany, “We’ll be talking about 2010 campaign lessons, precinct organization, voter fraud, media outreach, running for office as a citizen legislator, and federal pressures bearing down on the state of Maryland. We’re not forming another political ‘group’ (but) trying to network people.” 

With a roster of speakers well-known to conservative activists statewide, this daylong event was set up to give TEA Party faithful and their allies around the state the opportunity to converse and plan a strategy for future political gains. The speakers include:

  • Marta Mossburg, Maryland Public Policy Institute
  • Claver Kamau-Imani, Raging Elephants
  • Anita MonCrief, ACORN whistleblower and creator, Emerging Corruption.com
  • Delegate Ron George
  • Congressman Andy Harris
  • Frederick County Sheriff Chuck Jenkins
  • Delegate-elect Kathy Afzali
  • Charles Lollar (2010 Congressional candidate)
  • Robert Broadus (2010 Congressional candidate)
  • Brian Murphy (2010 gubernatorial candidate)

All this (and more) packed into eight hours for a cost of $40, which includes a box lunch. A registration form can be found here, or by contacting Tonya Tiffany at marylandcan@yahoo.com.

Friday night videos episode 54

Well, one last edition for 2010. I’m feeling these days like the proverbial old man wheezing to his end and yielding to a baby New Year, but still I’m finding a little bit of interesting stuff to share.

A couple weeks back, President Obama gave a Medal of Honor to SSgt. Sal Giunta for bravery above and beyond the call of duty in Afghanistan – the first time this century a living person received the honor. But there was one complaint about the treatment his family received.

Third row my ass. Speaking of unethical Congressmen, this is an amusing take on a familiar commercial from PJTV.

Americans for Limited Government notes how Congress is holding itself accountable to recent election results.

Something Congress did sometime ago is now beginning to manifest itself, as the Center for Individual Freedom’s Renee Giachino explains.

Enough politics. Let’s rock.

This is the local cover band Vivid Season doing their version of Smile Empty Soul’s ‘Bottom of a Bottle.’

I don’t know who finally got smart at YouTube but I’m enjoying the easier embed. (Well, I was until I found out the embed code doesn’t work after the post came up – grrrrrr.) Thanks a lot people!

Well, that’s a wrap on FNV for 2010, since both Christmas Eve and New Year’s Eve fall on Friday nights this year – I’ll bring it back in January for its third smash year.

Working them harder

While the running gag among TEA Parties is the fond wish that Congress would just pack up and stay away from Washington most of the time, a newly elected Congressman who TEA Partiers revere thinks differently.

Lt. Col. Allen West believes the schedule set up by Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia isn’t strenuous enough to address our national problems:

“As we know, Congress needs to work to create jobs, reduce the deficit, strengthen our economy, limit the size of government and contend with a plethora of national security issues,” West said.  “How are we to do that when, among other things, we start off being in session only ten days the entire month of January?”

Congressman-Elect West is concerned with the fact that Congress is only in session 123 days, only one-third of the entire year. He points out that Congress will not even meet the mark of 90 days in session until September of 2011, just a matter of days before the end of the Fiscal Year.

“I am sure we both agree that the issues before us today require the members of Congress to go beyond what has been the accepted practice in the past to meet the challenges of the future,” West writes to Cantor.

West is also concerned with the “retreats” in the month following the swearing in – some of them taxpayer funded- for members of Congress. Congressman-Elect West has already decided he will not attend at least two of the retreats.

“We have to show the American people we are going to be different than years past,” West said.  “We are there for one reason and one reason only, to work for the constituents of the districts we are so privileged to represent.  I hope that if it becomes clear that we are not meeting the promise we made to the American people, leadership will modify the schedule in order for us to accomplish the important task we have before us.”

Obviously being a Congressman requires a little time back home in the district – for West, that would require trips back to southern Florida. But most working folks put in around 250 days a year, so a schedule which essentially shakes out to that of a part-time job may not sit well with them – remember, it’s not the time they put into being in Washington which fazes the average citizen but what they do with it. If they are working to “limiting the size of government” as Lt. Col. West writes, well, that can and should probably be a 24/7 job for the foreseeable future. If expanding government is on the Congressional table then let Congress stay in its districts where they can’t do us any harm.

Perhaps the key criticism by West is that there will be a significant amount of time where the House will be out of session but the Senate will be in session. Since it’s presumed that much of the best legislation passed out of the GOP-controlled House will be swatted down by Harry Reid in the Senate, the House needs to keep the pressure on and perhaps wear out the Democrats in the Senate (many of whom will be up for re-election in 2012) through attrition. (And yes, we will likely see our fair share of vetoes even if the House wears down the Senate’s resistance. But it’s a fight worth having.)

In putting We the People back in charge of the House, it’s time for them to put their nose to the grindstone. When special interests take over again (as they invariably will) only then it will be time for the shorter session.

No business like snow business

I was having a discussion with a small business owner friend this afternoon with the obvious topic of conversation being the white shroud of death overhanging our area. (I realize that, growing up in northwest Ohio, a 2″ snowstorm is much more common to me so I try to account for the local hypersensitive attitude toward winter weather. But I can’t always cut the local natives some slack.)

Anyway, his complaint was that the snow would not just kill his business today but that their likely closing tomorrow will also hurt him. Yet those who actually work for the school district won’t actually be hurting since they are paid whether school is in session or not.

Something about the conversation got us briefly onto the “broken window” theory – an axiom which contends that breaking a window would lead to positive economic activity because the homeowner would have to either purchase the supplies to repair the window (making a shopkeeper more wealthy) or hire someone to fix it (giving the service provider a job, who in turn invests the money in his family.) Obviously a snowstorm puts some people to work who wouldn’t otherwise be needed – private contractors who plow out driveways and parking lots, for example.

Of course, the problem with that theory is that the destruction of the window and repairs needed prevents the homeowner from addressing other needs with his money – instead of the cash going toward a new, more energy-efficient refrigerator or another item he would like to purchase, he’s simply replacing the investment to restore its full value.

In other words, like the ‘benefit’ to local snowplow operators measured against the lost productivity that the unexpected closing of school tomorrow due to the storm will present, the positive of the homeowner’s investment in fixing the window is only – at best – equal to the negative of having to make the repair. It would be like telling the man who just had the tornado blow through and destroy his farm he’s lucky because he now has the opportunity to build a better one; the problem is that everything he had of worth is gone with the storm.

All this reminds me of the specious argument about extending unemployment benefits as a boost to the economy. We are told that these benefits are good because they enable those who aren’t working to spend that money on their necessities and boost their local economy. On the surface this is true, but there’s nothing of value being created by those who are unemployed. Listen, we get angry when we hear about the auto workers who were paid by their employer to sit home during the occasional necessary shutdowns so why shouldn’t we get angry with this argument as well?

While I’ve been in the working field for most of the last 25 years, there have been three occasions where I was laid off long enough to collect unemployment. Still, I would wager that the premiums my employers paid have more than offset the few thousand dollars I’ve collected. And the system was designed as an insurance policy, with premiums and benefits calibrated to limited and infrequent stretches of joblessness. With me, it worked as it was supposed to.

But states had no expectation of keeping people on the unemployment rolls for nearly two years (and counting), so it’s no surprise their systems have all but failed. Now Uncle Sam is the one stepping in to pay, and it’s yet another case of the federal government bullying their way into state-level affairs. Last year Maryland accepted an infusion of federal cash to its unemployment fund in return for making the changes to their rules desired by the federal government.

To be gainfully employed, whatever your profession, generally means you are a net asset to the economy. The problem with the statist’s approach, embodied by their continual call for extending unemployment benefits, is that nothing being “added” to the economy comes from value – either the money is being borrowed or printed. Aside from a few people operating a printing press and the pencil-pushers needed to make sure the unemployed jump through all the hoops necessary to keep collecting checks ad infinitum, there’s nothing of value being produced.

As a society, it appears we are happy to break windows in order to put people to work. Personally, I’d rather allow those who produce to put their money to work as they see fit and not throw it down the rathole.

But then I’m the guy sitting here watching the snow fall – what do I know?

Another falls for the ‘green energy’ scam

And to think, if I didn’t have Martin O’Malley as a Facebook friend I wouldn’t have noticed this. We’ll see how long that lasts before I’m defriended! Then again, just because I didn’t vote for him either time doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have a say in state affairs, particularly when a dose of common sense is needed.

It all stems from an article by Erin Cunningham in the Gazette detailing a Montgomery County resolution on wind turbines. The Montgomery County Council (all Democrats, of course) unanimously approved a measure calling on the Maryland General Assembly to “pass legislation requiring the state’s Public Service Commission to direct public utilities to enter into long-term contracts for offshore wind power.”

Gee, a little more government interference in business – just what the state needs! </sarc>

Needless to say, Governor O’Malley was thrilled about the news and asked a question on his Facebook page:

I believe that wind power and other alternative energy sources will help our state move forward in a sustainable way. Do you think it is important that we invest in clean, green sources of energy?

After reading about 50 or so mostly deluded sycophants and hangers-on, it was time to set them straight as I often like to do.

Sure, the wind blows a nice, steady speed all the time and the sun comes out 12 hours each and every day. Wait, you’re telling me that’s not true?

There’s a reason we depend on coal and natural gas to create the electricity we need – they are both RELIABLE sources. And, contrary to popular belief created by those with an agenda in both the press and in government, both are in plentiful supply. In fact, there’s a nice supply of natural gas locked under the hills of far western Maryland.

Instead, your administration would rather shake down energy producers and distributors with a phony carbon-trading scheme (RGGI) that simply serves as a device for wealth redistribution while propping up the ‘green’ energy industries with a subsidy to artificially make these other sources come to a competitive price point.

In a time where our budget needs to be prioritized and the burden on job producers needs to be lightened, these so-called ‘investments’ probably aren’t the best use of tax dollars. If the person from Dorchester County thinks wind power is that important and would be such a good investment they should be happy to pony up $40,000 and not rely on the state for a handout.

It’s also worthy to note that Cunningham’s article says Montgomery County gets 25 percent of its electricity from wind power. Perhaps someone should compare price and verify if that’s a prudent use of tax dollars?

I have little objection to the state making an effort to assist local property owners who wish to use alternative sources of energy (although I wouldn’t consider it a funding priority in these lean budgetary times) but I recall one expert in the field who would prefer to streamline the process and invested his own funding before getting a dime back from the state of Maryland. The state is in the position to make it easier and less expensive if they so desire.

My larger objection comes from the state mandating how the energy required to produce electricity needs to be harnessed. There are two good reasons we rely on burning coal and natural gas, as I alluded to in my comment: they are relatively inexpensive, quite efficient, and sources are fairly reliable. (They would be moreso if Washington scrapped its wrongheaded approach to energy exploration.)

Seems to me the usage of windmills as power providers in rural areas ended over a half-century ago once the government decided to force utilities to bring electricity to sparsely populated areas and farmers found being wired into the grid to be much a more reliable means of power – so the government getting its nose under the camel’s tent is nothing new! Where were the environmentalists objecting then?

I guess everything old is new again. In the meantime, how about terminating the program of wealth transfer and allowing instead utilities to invest in stupid stuff like improving infrastructure and building new power plants? Now THAT would be moving Maryland forward!

Milk it

Trying to get all he can out of a lame duck session, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is threatening to continue his session through January 4th.

In published reports, Reid vows the Senate will return after Christmas if necessary in order to address a number of what they consider loose ends – a deal struck to maintain the present tax rates for two more years in exchange for extending unemployment benefits for several more months and an omnibus spending bill to run the government through September 30, 2011 chief among them. Also included in the fast and furious agenda is the DREAM Act providing benefits for illegal aliens, the START treaty with Russia, the repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ policy for homosexuals in the military, and a huge land grab covering millions of acres which would become federally protected. All this could conceivably come to a head a full two months after Democratic control of all levers of government was repudiated at the ballot box (although the Senate remains in Democratic hands by a considerably smaller margin.)

It was last year about this time that the focus was on passing Obamacare, which passed one of its major legislative hurdles on a Christmas Eve vote. Why wouldn’t it surprise me to see the same thing happen this year? To be a member of Congress these days is to have not-so-happy holidays, with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi playing the roles of Mr. and Mrs. Ebenezer Scrooge. If you’re a taxpaying American you’re getting the lumps of coal in your stocking once again.

Never mind the fact that Congress had the better part of two years to address most of these issues, but holding court until almost the day the new members are sworn in is pretty rare – most recent sessions have come to an end well before Christmas. Even when the Republicans ceded control of Congress in 2006 (under a Republican president) they completed their duties by December 22.

But the Democrats have milked the sessions to regularly bump up against Christmas, presumably figuring the public wouldn’t pay much attention to what they passed at the last minute. Among other things, this practice was part of what we rebelled against on November 2.

Unfortunately, Senator Reid not only survived a spirited challenge from Sharron Angle – with the help of a massive GOTV effort from Las Vegas casinos who convinced their workers that Reid needed to stay – but got to keep his leadership position in the Senate as Republicans couldn’t run the electoral table. (In truth, the numbers game was going to make that difficult anyway since this year’s crop was mainly elected in the Republican boom year of 2004. The tables are turned in 2012 as a host of Democrats will be up for re-election.) Regardless, Reid will continue to play the schemer with a smaller majority in his corner over the next two years and a hostile House sending him legislation to bottle up.

So we will have to remain vigilant right on through the holidays, just in time for a new Congressional session to begin and the ’90 Days of Terror’ known as the Maryland General Assembly session to commence as well. Those who crave their freedom are beginning to realize it’s a full-time job to protect what’s theirs since those who oppose us aren’t willing to give up their power easily or happily.

Obviously Harry Reid doesn’t know the meaning of ‘no’ and it will be up to the 42 or so Republicans in the Senate to stand together and teach him that lesson.

Alex the attack dog

He may or may not have raised a single dollar yet, but I’m glad to see our newly-elected Maryland Republican Party Chairman standing up for the TEA Party. Alex Mooney sent along these remarks addressing a statement by Steny Hoyer:

Clearly Steny Hoyer did not get the message in November when concerned Americans, led by the Tea Party Movement, swept historic numbers of Republicans into office. The Tea Party Movement represents the mindset of a majority of Americans who believe in reducing government spending and cutting taxes. It is utterly irresponsible and disgraceful for Congressman Hoyer to brand an entire movement of concerned citizens as ‘poisonous’ to our future.  

The real poison pill to our future is the Obama, Hoyer, and Pelosi, tax-and-spend agenda. From overreaching on health care legislation to failed bailouts, Washington liberals continue to impede on our personal freedoms, while saddling future generations with more debt. If Democrat leader Hoyer had spent more time standing up to the poisonous agenda of the liberal special interest groups who have hijacked his Democrat Party, perhaps they wouldn’t have been swept out of power last month.

Shades of Jim Pelura. Now I’ll grant that Audrey Scott may have also said something along this line but I doubt she would have couched her remarks as a defense of the TEA Party movement; instead she would have defended the Republican Party as a whole. Remember, for her it was “party over everything.”

Luckily we are in a new era and I’m glad to see Alex hit the ground running with a defense of a group he realizes has become the backbone of conservative Republican support – even if Hoyer didn’t mouth the words “TEA Party” directly we know to whom he was referring. It’s just too bad Steny isn’t one of those lame duck Congressmen getting ready to leave the Capitol (only to land among the sea of lobbyists and hangers-on inside the Beltway) but perhaps we can take care of that issue come 2012.

That’s where strong leadership and good candidates come in, and securing the latter will be Mooney’s true test. But I applaud this first move by the new Chair and I’m glad he shared it with the rest of us.

He’s out, he’s in – Michael Steele looks like a contender

After spending a good part of yesterday salivating over rumors that Michael Steele would give up the reins of the Republican National Committee after his term is over in January, much of the media had to eat crow when Steele announced he was in last night. So what does this mean?

Currently there are several potential opponents for Michael Steele. Saul Anuzis of Michigan, who is one of them, claims that there are four announced contenders on his website and has already done his own video:

Perhaps Saul’s biggest selling point is the vow to be a “behind-the-scenes” chairman, which isn’t exactly Michael Steele’s forte.

But the other contenders aren’t letting Anuzis, who announced first, get a large lead. Here’s Ann Wagner of Missouri making her pitch.

It’s longer and less slickly produced than Saul’s, but Ann touts her experience.

Yet perhaps the most formidable contender is a former Steele supporter and party General Counsel, Reince Priebus of Wisconsin.

Obviously both he and Wagner can point to statewide successes where Steele cannot.

Others who have announced include Maria Cino from New York, who was a former Deputy Secretary under George W. Bush and former RNC Deputy Chairman, and Gentry Collins of Iowa, who has the slickest website by far.

Regardless of how many contend for the title, it’s highly doubtful that anyone in Maryland’s RNC delegation would vote against Michael Steele. But I believe it’s up to our three representatives – particularly newly elected Chair Alex Mooney – to carefully consider the alternatives. While Steele points to his electoral successes, there are others who contend that we left a lot of races on the table nationally due to a lack of fundraising just as Alex Mooney bemoaned the close races the Maryland GOP lost for much the same reason.

We’ll never know if one of the five contenders Michael Steele bested in 2009 would have taken the GOP to further victories. But the uncertainty of whether the party is positioned well for the 2012 cycle should give pause to those who reflexively believe Michael Steele deserves another two years at the helm. In truth, his position parallels the initial position Mary Kane was in for our state Chair race – Steele is the favorite, but by no means a prohibitive one. And we saw just how that favorite ran on Saturday as the state party decided a clean break from a previous era was best.

Our delegation might be forgiven to support the favorite son once, but as subsequent ballots go on – and I’m sure there will be – they should consider the other candidates remaining as well. Remember, you are elected to represent us and to do what’s best not just for Maryland but for the Republican Party at large. Don’t sell us short.

Update: John Gizzi at Human Events has his take on the race.

The fate of Salisbury’s old Station 16

I figured it would shake down this way: another 3-2 vote to approve – Comegys, Shields, and Smith approve while Campbell and Cohen oppose.

Tonight Salisbury City Council will discuss the question of what to do with their former downtown fire station. It’s a conundrum which would try the patience of Job, and the discussion is heated due to a number of vested interests at stake.

The city only has to consider one proposal, since a second one for the property fell through. It’s from an investor group known as Coastal Venture Properties LLC, and they are offering the city $100,000 for the property – according to land records, the building is 7,680 square feet on a piece of property roughly 2/5 of an acre, assessed for taxation purposes at just over $400,000.

Coastal Venture is planning to use the lowest floor for a restaurant, with four or five apartments above. Speaking on their behalf via a letter to the Daily Times, Bradley Gillis states the case that “(o)ur offer of $100,000 reflects only the accusation cost; we will spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and completely redevelop the property into a historical, significant downtown destination.” In addition, Gillis points out, this will be a “regional self-supporting hospitality destination” and place a property back on the tax rolls.

But another group of business owners contend “(t)he buyers have failed to provide a clear picture of what they are going to do with this landmark structure.” The Local Owner Restaurant Association (LORA) objects to what they call a giveaway.

In an e-mail to supporters they claim that much of the study information used by Coastal Ventures is over thirty years old and lacks a current appraisal to reflect declining real estate values, nor have the city’s taxpayers been asked through a referendum. They suggest a better use of the property would be as “a firehouse museum, city historical site, or in the future, perhaps a part of the Eastern Shore Regional Library.” But their true objection?

We would not like to see the city of Salisbury become involved in enabling a venture group to buy a piece of property at far below its market value in order to assist that group to create a facility designed to undercut existing businesses within the city. Unfair business competition subsidized and assisted by the city cannot be tolerated by LORA, and the concept or execution of such activity should not be tolerated by any citizen of the city.

In addition, the restaurant Coastal Venture envisions would serve as a training ground for the University of Maryland – Eastern Shore’s culinary program, giving these trainees real-life experience but likely undercutting the costs incurred by LORA members. Whether that would be subsidized by the city remains to be seen, but LORA may have a case regarding unfair competition.

Complicating matters still farther is the renewed bid by Delmar blogger and political gadfly Joe Albero, who believes the property could be a office suite atop a fire museum. Purportedly he offered $250,000 cash for the building prior to the city declaring it a surplus property, but today he renewed his offer at the price of $110,000 and threatened to sue if the city accepts the Coastal Venture Properties bid. Albero already owns a building in the downtown area.

Generally I’m in favor of shifting property off the non-taxable rolls and putting it to productive private use. And while I’d prefer the price be a little bit higher and that the purchaser assumes a little bit more of the risk, they are taking some significant chances here. While LORA sees this as competition, this new venture would actually face a number of competitors already in the downtown area including Escape, Market Street Inn, Flavors, and Brew River, among others.

Unfortunately, as we saw with the Civic Center parking lot controversy earlier this year, government has a penchant to buy high and sell low. But rather than the building sit idle and use taxpayer money, on balance this is probably as good as the city will get for the property. Certainly I don’t like the idea of giving this enterprise an unfair advantage of using UMES as inexpensive labor, but on the other hand the expertise these students gain could benefit LORA members in the longer term. Meanwhile, the remining downtown restaurants will now at least have the luxury of knowing they have competition coming so they can work to improve their facilities, menus, and service.

As for Joe Albero, all he had to do was put together his proposal for consideration. I don’t think the city of Salisbury wants the building to simply go to the highest bidder – there should be a development plan and strategy for investing in the facility. Waving around a check for $110,000 or even $250,000 is great for now, but what if the building sits empty for another half-decade because his dreams of an internet empire don’t come to fruition? If there’s a more competitive arena than the restaurant business, the internet may be the one.

So we will see what happens tonight – chances are the Coastal Venture proposal will be accepted, LORA will be left fuming, and Albero will run to the nearest courtroom to plead his case. All this to divest itself of a small parcel of land with a building.

Postscript: I have been told that this deal would include a pair of city-owned lots on the river side of East Market Street. While the assessment figure is correct for the 115 South Division Street lot (Map 107, Parcel 882, 16,640 square feet with a 7,680 square foot building) it doesn’t take into account the vacant lots known as 201 South Division (Parcel 883, a 14,365 square foot lot assessed at $172,300) or 300 East Market (Parcel 884, a 4,761 square foot lot assessed at $57,100.) But the question would be whether these are buildable lots anyway given Maryland’s highly restrictive coastal regulations – for example, a 100 foot waterfront setback would render these lots essentially useless.