I’m sure not all that many of you caught my recent interview with Thom Hartmann regarding my last PJM piece. I knew they wanted me on Skype for a reason, but I was catching up on my Twitter mentions and it linked to this video. Enjoy me in living color, recorded as I was crammed up against my bookcase.
I have to say either my webcam or Skype makes me look 10 pounds heavier, though. (Yes, that’s a joke – I could stand to lose a few pounds.) But the video has 19 likes and no dislikes, plus the comments are almost uniformly either in my favor or constructive criticism of my point (as opposed to personal attacks.) It is sort of disconcerting seeing me larger than life on a video monitor, but I could get used to it.
More on the MDGOP convention later today – it’s already drawn some interesting comments.
As I lamented this time last year, it’s hard to have an indoor convention with this sort of thing going on right outside. Maybe it was a few degrees too cool for taking an ocean dip, but the ambience was certainly present.
There are some who arrived home last night and perhaps needed a calming scene like that, but I’ll get to that in due course. Let’s talk about the new leader of the band.
In his report Friday evening (which I can share because there was other press in the room, or so he said) Alex Mooney conceded fundraising was “harder than I expected” but he was still making several calls a week. On that front, Newt Gingrich would be lending a hand for the Red, White, and Blue dinner – a date still needs to be finalized for that. Alex also commended a number of people for stepping up and having house parties, but cautioned party regulars that they shouldn’t read anything into who the featured guest is (he used a recent event with Mike Huckabee as an example) because the idea is to raise money for the party and not a campaign.
Speaking of the Presidential race, there wasn’t much talk about that at the event. Only one candidate had anything there placed by a supporter.
On the other hand, Friday night was filled with statewide candidates trying to gain a foothold in their races. I caught up to Corrogan Vaughn – who formally announced yet another U.S. Senate bid at the event – before he changed into more formal clothes.
Another Senate candidate who hosted a hospitality suite was Thomas Capps, with the stylish green stickers marking the location.
Capps is pictured here with MDCAN’s Tonya Tiffany.
Yet another name being tossed into the 2014 mix is onetime gubernatorial candidate Larry Hogan. Will he try again?
I don’t think he was discussing that with Central Committee member Karen Winterling. Instead, he was in charge of a popular Change Maryland suite.
In fact, poolside was the place to be.
However, the host county wasn’t left out as they had their suite upstairs.
But hospitality suites weren’t the only way groups made their presence known. Down in the lobby we had the opportunity to sign the referendum petition for SB167. In his Chairman’s Report to the Executive Committee, Mooney believed “we need to use that petition to referendum more often.”
The advertising was even mobile, as I spotted this car Friday afternoon as I arrived.
Another group was comparing the upcoming General Assembly Special Session to a circus.
They even asked for predictions on what would occur this fall. I think I checked almost every box.
But Friday wasn’t all play. We had an afternoon seminar before the Executive Committee meeting, and while many attended a reception for 2010 candidates there were others plotting strategy, like the group backing this concept.
I was spending a good portion of that time with my Rule 11 resolution co-sponsor Heather Olsen trying to guess what would happen during the Saturday convention.
But allow me to backtrack a little and discuss Bob Ostrom’s report to the Executive Committee, for he was the chair of the bylaws committee formed in our last meeting. And while he was “extremely pumped” about the debate which was sure to occur – he believed it would continue to be “informative” and “helpful” – others worried about the effect certain changes would have on their organizations. For example, both the Teenage Republicans and College Republicans were lobbying for an Executive Committee vote while others thought the Maryland Federation of Women should be stripped of theirs.
Yet we were told by Bob to “keep it in perspective,” as our next priority would be the fight over redistricting.
Unfortunately, after a series of informative seminars (including an elected officials discussion I’m saving for a future post) we had to meet for the convention. Obviously this was the calm before the storm.
Early on, Montgomery County planted its flag, both figuratively and literally.
The idea of the agenda was to go through a series of reports while the Credentials Committee made sure we had the requisite number of participants. So we heard Chris Rosenthal give a mixed bag of a Tresurer’s Report – hey, at least the line of credit is paid off.
Then it was Joyce Terhes’ turn as National Committeewoman, and she warned us “we can’t fight about bylaws…bylaws don’t win elections.” That sentiment was echoed by National Committeeman Louis Pope, who told us “we have one job, to elect Republicans…all that defers from that takes up resources.” And even as Alex Mooney in his brief Chairman’s report talked about a plan for victory on the local level which was based on the Wisconsin plan, we were about to discuss…bylaws.
Well, actually we had to get through the rules first. As in previous practice, we adopted rules in three parts: the noncontroversial Special Rules 1-6 went first, and were approved by a voice vote. After that, it got tricky.
Special Rule 7 was a lengthy rule which limited the time for the convention to three hours, the order in which bylaw changes were proposed, and the voting method to be used. There was a motion to strike Section C (the time limit) but it failed on a voice vote despite my objection. Because I objected to the time limit, I was probably the only one to vote against adopting the rule in the subsequent voice vote – but when you have principles, you follow them through.
But the Special Rule 7 uproar was nothing compared to Special Rule 8. Since Montgomery County had seemed to adopt a strategy of talking the voting method to death – and had almost 50 people who could have spoken against it – the motion to limit debate was the penultimate vote on the matter. It needed a 2/3 majority (ironically, using the one man, one vote system) and it passed 178-87 – almost exactly the 2/3 needed. After the question was called, Rule 8 was passed 189-76 and all subsequent votes used the modified voting system.
So we moved on to the bylaws after clearing out a resolution allowing Caroline County to expand its Central Committee to nine members.
Next up for consideration was what was deemed housekeeping measures, which renumbered the existing bylaws and added provisions termed “non-substantive” – except I felt that the final provision of that, which affected the threshold for approving bylaws in the future, deserved its own discussion (plus I wanted to leave the existing language in since I knew my Rule 11 amendment wouldn’t be heard because of the three hour time limit.) The group unwisely defeated my common-sense move 352-176 (the numbers hereafter are rounded from the decimal places.) They then limited debate by a 452-101 count.
So I was stuck with this so-called “housekeeping” provision, thus I voted against its adoption once we limited debate. Still, it passed 457-68.
But there was yet another twist. In an effort to create both something of value for the time spent and perhaps hasten my bylaw change, a motion was made to adopt the seventh item in line, which was the voting provision. This would enshrine it in the bylaws and make having to adopt it as a rule no longer necessary.
As you can imagine, Montgomery County was up in arms and attempted the same stalling tactics. The vote to limit debate was 443-82 and passage was assured by a 425-98 count as the meeting dissolved into confusion over just what we were voting on – Montgomery County had tried other procedural tricks to run out the clock, but eventually they failed.
Once it was over, they immediately began complaining about their fate to Alex Mooney.
Now, I could be cruel and tell MoCo to “get over it.” But the real result of yesterday’s events was to break up the gang of just a few counties which could run things. While their power is diminished to a degree, the voting results now simply mean large counties need to have buy-in from the smaller ones to get things accomplished, while smaller counties can now have some chance at their own coalition given enough broad-based support (and that’s not a given as Western Maryland and the Eastern Shore often part ways on things.)
And we have a lot on the table. Obviously they never got to my Rule 11 amendment, and since the bylaws committee ceased to exist after the meeting was adjourned, it appears that mine and any other proposed changes will have to go through the normal channels – submitted to the secretary and approved out to the floor by the appropriate committee. So the “star chamber,” the fate of MFRW’s vote on the Executive Committee (and the prospective votes of the other affiliated organizations), and a number of other changes which were hotly debated in Ocean City – well, guess what? We may be discussing them all over again come this fall.
True, these things don’t elect Republicans. But now that we have a voting system in place, let’s focus our efforts on getting the bylaws done this fall because the Spring 2012 convention will have its own election for Delegates to the National Convention. (I just might run again.)
I can’t say this convention was a success personally, but I’m really hoping that Montgomery County collectively puts on their big boy pants and adjusts to its new role as a teammate rather than a power broker. They still have a lot more say than most others, and a lot of work to do within their own borders.
This came to me from a source at the Washington Post who occasionally feeds bloggers interesting items:
The Montgomery County Council approved a 5-cent bag tax Tuesday that will go into effect January 1, a move environmentalists hope will revive a stalled effort to pass a similar tax statewide. The tax will apply to paper and plastic bags at thousands of merchants. Among the few exceptions are paper bags from restaurants and pharmacy bags holding prescription drugs.
Officials say the tax will raise about $1 million a year, some of which will fund free reusable bags for the poor and elderly. The money will also help fund cleanups of streams and rivers, although backers expect bag use — and tax receipts — to drop quickly.
Sadly, all but one member of the MoCo County Council voted for the additional tax. The lone dissenter, Nancy Floreen, stated “It’s just another regressive tax that (adds) to the cost borne by our most vulnerable populations.” She’s right about that, and I’ll bet I’m right in asserting there will be jobs lost because of the tax, which won’t just apply to plastic bags but to paper as well. If you figure 8 to 10 plastic bags per grocery trip, it’s another 40 to 50 cents extracted from the pocket of MoCo shoppers.
I’ve already discussed the state’s most recent effort to enact a bag tax, and of course those tax sponsors were thrilled to see Montgomery County take the lead on the issue. They figured it would make it more likely the state will pass a similar measure, either in this fall’s Special Session or next year in the regular meeting.
While the stated aim of the tax is to reduce the amount of bags available to clutter up the landscape, it wouldn’t be a MoCo measure without a wealth redistribution effort, as part of the proceeds will go to securing cloth bags for the poor and elderly. Do the elderly get carts to carry these heavier, larger bags too?
This will be a boon for one group, though – grocers and retailers in areas close by Montgomery County. That’s why the push will be on to make this tax statewide; we can’t have people escape taxation by moving around to more advantageous locations for shopping. It may not raise nearly as much as the recently-passed alcohol sales tax or the proposed gasoline tax, but again government wants to reach into our wallets and essentially make a loser out of a politically incorrect industry which serves a need.
Don’t forget: our local government may be thinking about a different revenue grab than the nickel per hundred property tax debated Tuesday night. Speed cameras are on their agenda next month so let me remind you what they’re reallylooking for. It’s all about our Benjamins, baby.
I took a week off to recharge the batteries (literally) and now it’s time for more rock. But we’ll start out with something a little acoustic, as the Joel David Band recently did a Live Lixx gig.
Another guest in the studio was a band called The Lost Positives, with this little ditty called ‘Act IV.’
A few months before that, there was a benefit concert in Delaware called the Concert for Comfort, where donations were sought to keep the homeless warm. Mind Grenade was one of the bands giving their time to the cause.
Doing the Lennon/McCartney classic ‘Come Together’ is the band Deep Sea Research, with an assist from Derek White of Murray and White.
They’ll appear with The Lost Positives at Marina’s up in Blades, DE tomorrow night. That’s where this video was taken awhile back.
This video is close enough for ‘Horseshoes and Hand Grenades.’ The band is called To The Fight.
And lastly, I’ll close with another recent upload. It’s my friends from Semiblind with an original.
I dig originals from Semiblind. See what I come up with next time!
I don’t use the term in my title to be condescending, but the young whippersnappers over at The Other Salisbury News have taken a break from bashing the Camden contingent on Salisbury City Council (not that they don’t deserve it from time to time) and decided to attempt to begin some constructive dialogue on the city’s future. By gosh, they would like to stay and make a go of it in this fair city of ours after they graduate from Salisbury University, and I commend that thought.
Dubbing their effort ‘Operation S.S.F.I.‘ the crew at TOSN are beginning a multiphase project of kicking around ideas for the city’s improvement. (Perhaps they should see about what would attract these young entrepreneurs to the city as their own project matures and grows.)
Step one is a discussion of downtown Salisbury, and while I don’t want to make this a particularly lengthy post (after all, they deserve the dialogue and the readership for bringing the idea to the fore) I think I should note that there’s already plans which have been made and discarded about renovating the area. After all, creating the pedestrian plaza was one remedy for a downtown which saw its fortunes decline after the Salisbury Mall opened in the late 1960s – just as happened in thousands of other downtowns, big and small. (In my hometown this happened about 10 years earlier, but it’s a bigger city.)
The success of ‘Third Friday’ has been mentioned in other venues, and many have wondered why that couldn’t be replicated on a more regular basis. But what is attractive about Third Friday is its uniqueness as a date – just because once a month works, that doesn’t necessarily mean you can do it every weekend or even twice a month. If you had it 52 times a year instead of 12, the concept would cease to work after perhaps a year or so.
The key is mixing uses and making downtown a place to live, work, and shop. Unfortunately, old buildings don’t lend themselves to becoming a Walmart and people desire that sort of convenience, so tradeoffs have to be made. We don’t have nearly the urban density to be an area where a car is unnecessary, but we could do a better job of creating residential space where cars can be placed out of sight, with access to parking off alleys. It’s not to say a convenience store couldn’t work, although the crime issue needs to be addressed as well.
It goes without saying there also needs to be a toolkit for job creation – not just downtown, but throughout the city. People who live downtown need a job, and if it happens to be downtown, great. (My newest advertiser just opened up a business there – hopefully it will create a job or two.) But it’s not necessary for downtown’s prosperity because there’s already plenty of jobs down there from 9 to 5. The harder part is livening the place up the other 16 hours a day.
Things which would tend to draw young, single people downtown as residents are affordable housing and a thriving after-hours entertainment district. Salisbury’s downtown already has elements of both, but not enough to be a critical mass. The trick is figuring out how to make it cool to live downtown and not risky (as in taking your life into your hands venturing home after a night at the club.)
Wow. I went over 500 words in placing my two cents into the kettle. While you’re free to comment here, perhaps the discussion should migrate to their site.
In his last start, Scott Copeland returned to the form he had when he first arrived at Delmarva.
Last September 1st Scott made his one and only 2010 appearance for Delmarva, spinning six shutout innings and winning a 1-0 pitchers duel against Kannapolis. That followed a solid 12 starts for Aberdeen where Copeland was only 2-5, but sported a superb 2.91 ERA and held opposing hitters to a .197 average.
Fast forward a few months and on Monday night Scott found that form again, tossing 6 2/3 shutout innings at Charleston in the Shorebirds’ 8-0 win.
While Scott is deemed the fifth starter due to his spot in the rotation, he’s put together a pretty good campaign thus far in 2011. The native Texan and Southern Mississippi University product is 2-0 so far (including Monday’s win) with a 3.07 ERA in five starts. Picked as a senior and well down in the draft – Scott was a 21st round selection – it may be surprising to some that Scott has advanced this quickly, but as I noted above he mowed down Aberdeen’s opponents without a lot of problems.
Perhaps the one flaw in Scott’s game which has cropped up at times this year is a tendency to walk a lot of batters. He hasn’t escaped from any of his starts unblemished in that regard and has walked five in a start twice – back on Monday in 6 2/3 innings and April 21 at Augusta (4 2/3 innings.) A ratio of 19 strikeouts to 17 walks may signal he needs to be more aggressive, since he’s proven thus far to be a good ground-ball pitcher (3.13 ground outs for each fly out.) One would believe he could last longer in games by economizing his pitches and allowing a little more contact.
Starting pitching has been a key to the Shorebirds’ early success and Scott is pulling his weight in that regard.
During most years, the Spring Convention of the Maryland Republican Party is a pretty genteel affair – I should have some idea since I’ve gone to the last five. Unlike the Fall Convention where officers are selected or resolutions incite disagreement, the Spring meeting usually is very businesslike and features our annual awards.
Well, this year may be a little different. I hadn’t thought about writing a preview, but a Facebook friend of mine made the suggestion:
Just wanted to let me know how much I agree with your resolution regarding Rule 11… I think you need to blog about it to create a buzz among the cc members…
The resolution in question is quite simple, and its background – oddly enough – comes out of the last Spring Convention.
If you’ve read along this website over the last few years, you may recall that I fumed about the treatment of gubernatorial candidate Brian Murphy during that gathering. Little did I know at the time the Maryland GOP brass were covertly plotting to assist their anointed candidate (and former governor) Bob Ehrlich by allowing the national Republican Party to waive their rule against pre-primary involvement, known as Rule 11. (Andy Harris was also part of that waiver.)
Once I found out about the situation, I was good and mad because we on the Central Committee were never consulted for input. If they had only brought it before the convention as a resolution, I’m certain the measure would have passed overwhelmingly despite my principled objection.
So I decided to do something about it. Originally this was going to happen for last fall’s convention, but there was enough other business to contend with since the party Chair would be elected – and I thought I’d perhaps have an ally for this resolution in the spring. I’m not sure Alex Mooney fits this bill, however.
Written with Heather Olsen of Prince George’s County, I authored a resolution which would change the party bylaws and make the three representatives to the national party get permission from a supermajority (3/4) of the rank-and-file members before asking for a Rule 11 waiver in the future. Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried, common sense regulation doesn’t it?
Well, apparently not to those who set up the agenda and added a total rewrite of the bylaws (which were just revamped three years ago) onto the business of the convention – then wrote rules to limit the proceedings to three hours and made my resolution last on the list (it’s the only resolution up for consideration.)
I have news for them, though: I don’t give up and I don’t give in. If I don’t get my up-or-down roll call vote this time, you can be sure you’ll see this again come fall. Why not get the debate over with and pass the resolution to allow those elected by the people a check and balance on executive power?
There’s another thing which bothers me about the proposed bylaws. No, it’s not the voting method discussion, which I’ll come back to in a bit. But there’s a proposal to form a Judiciary Committee, a star chamber of sorts to mete out party discipline. Again, my spider sense begins to tingle when we start talking about this sort of matter because I can guaran-damn-tee you there’s a lot in the party who think me at the very least a nonconformist and perhaps some sort of troublemaker. Luckily for me I come from a county which has my back. But what about other TEA Party members and those who don’t share the establishment political background – will they be subject to a witch hunt? I think this is a valid concern.
Now to the voting question. During the national party convention, delegates are each allotted a vote and a candidate needs to win the support of 50 percent plus one of the body there to secure the nomination. The number of convention delegates is known before the start, so the media can focus on the horserace to the magic number of delegates required. It doesn’t work that way in Maryland, though.
The other day I received an e-mail which beseeched me to maintain the one man, one vote principle at the convention (as does this blog post.) While it makes sense on a certain level to do so, the problem is that one county would have 1/6 of the possible votes while others have much smaller proportions. However, that’s not as bad as the previous proportional voting system in place, a different version of which has been in use during the last two state conventions. In those cases, the total delegation of the largest county had enough power to outvote the eleven smallest counties.
In a compromise move, members of a subcommittee got together and hashed out a system which is population-based, but both levels out the playing field somewhat and adds incentives for getting Republicans elected. Obviously the large (and heavily Democratic) counties cried foul about this and I’m betting that’s where the e-mail came from. But with the new system the small, rural counties aren’t completely powerless and can build a coalition among themselves when needed. I think the compromise isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the old system and an improvement over one man, one vote.
But it seems like in this go-round there’s something for everyone to hate. The party has a lot of adjustment to do since there was a lot of new blood added in 2010 and those rookie members have a heavy TEA Party influence (witness who’s taking the lead on the referendum drive to overturn in-state tuition for illegal immigrants – hint: it’s not the state party leadership, but instead a group of mostly freshman Delegates.) One has to ask: would someone like Sam Hale gotten any support at all four years ago?
Nor do I look badly at all the changes proposed – for example, I think two-year terms for MDGOP officers are a good idea for accountability. (Maybe we would have avoided the Jim Pelura controversy, for example.) But the proposal overall needs a lot more work to be acceptable, and I don’t think either the itinerary for consideration or the artificial time limit imposed is the way to proceed.
Our Fall Convention last year took about six hours to recite the reports and elect officers to lead the party. There’s no way three hours will be able to contain a reasonable and reasoned discussion of the bylaw changes; instead, perhaps this is a discussion for the Fall meeting when we can allow for a single-subject meeting at a less hurried pace. (I can also drop my proposal into the new bylaws if necessary.)
The by-laws aren’t going anywhere, so let’s take the time to do them right.
Update, 10 p.m. 5-5-11: My proposal and this post in general were discussed at length on Red Maryland radio (first 20 minutes or so) and I wanted to respond to the questions posed by Brian Griffiths, Greg Kline, and Mark Newgent regarding the 3/4 majority in my proposal.
If Queen Anne’s County Republicans don’t like the proposal, so be it. They can be wrong every so often too. But the reason I insisted on a 3/4 majority was to make it difficult but not impossible to adopt a Rule 11 waiver. I look at it this way: almost every resolution and vote between two options at these conventions turns out to be overwhelming, if not unanimous. (The best example I can think of would be Audrey Scott vs. Daniel Vovak for party Chair in 2009.)
Had the Rule 11 exemption been put up to a vote at the 2010 convention I’d be willing to wager there wouldn’t have been 12 people in the room besides me objecting. And I wouldn’t have objected because I eventually supported Brian Murphy (because at the time I was truthfully undecided between the two) but because I don’t believe in the state party taking sides – that was my experience in the Ohio Republican Party coming out. Remember, as I wrote at the time:
We’re not supposed to endorse candidates pre-primary, but by all appearances the Maryland GOP has placed its lot for better or worse behind Bob Ehrlich. Yes, it can be argued that Murphy has little chance but at least he put his name on the line while someone was dithering about which race to run in – if he would run at all. I think we owed him the opportunity to speak, or else be neutral in the race and find a different keynote speaker.
Now, I’m pleased the trio brought up the “star chamber” aspect of the proposed Judiciary Committee because I think their take is like mine – glad they agree it’s spot on.
But again, I think the Rule 11 fiasco from last year is worth discussing because there’s a potential we could see the same thing happen this fall in the U.S. Senate race or even the Sixth District. (I don’t foresee any GOP challenger for Andy Harris, but you never know.)
The only thing I would have appreciated is the chance to say my piece on the radio show. Just ask.
I’ve had a lot placed in my e-mail box of late; fortunately this wasn’t time-sensitive.
It’s a look at how the other half plans to live in 2012:
The accompanying text noted the following, from campaign manager Jim Messina:
I want to show you a quick presentation I’ve been giving to the first staff coming on board here in Chicago, outlining our strategy to win and our overall approach to this campaign.
In the weeks and months to come, we’ll ask grassroots supporters like you to meet with one another and local organizers to take the first steps to victory on November 6th, 2012.
But before we begin meeting in living rooms and backyards across America, it’s important that we communicate with each other about a set of principles for the organization and our overall strategic thinking about how the race will shape up.
The most important aspect is this: Our campaign will be grounded in President Obama’s experience as a community organizer. This notion of ordinary people taking responsibility for the organization at the neighborhood level is not only the way to win, it’s also the way politics ought to work. Our campaign will be an example of innovation and efficiency, but it will also be an example of civic engagement at its best and most rewarding.
(snip)
This plan will evolve as we get feedback from grassroots supporters like you over the weeks and months ahead. That’s already happening — as you know, we’ve already started the process of having one-on-one conversations with people in every state to gather thoughts and ideas, and thousands more talks will take place over this spring and summer.
But this briefing should give you a sense of our current thinking about how we’ll build an unprecedented grassroots campaign to win — with you leading it.
No, that billion dollars Obama plans on raising will lead it – follow the money (if you can.) A billion dollars can slap down a whole lot of Astroturf. While they want to “act like an insurgent campaign,” the ugly truth is that Obama has an abysmal record of lacking accomplishments (save the bin Laden killing, which was in many ways handed to him by his predecessor – you know, that guy he likes to blame for all his problems.) And that thinking will by necessity evolve, based on current events we can’t yet foresee. How do you explain away $5 a gallon for gas, for example – blame the oil companies, of course!
It’s all about shifting blame for problems created or enhanced under the Obama regime.
Let’s look at a case in point, brought up by Messina in the video. Review the 2004 electoral map, which showed fairly solid Bush country in most places save along the coasts and the upper Midwest. By 2008 many of these areas had seen a slight economic decline, but a large factor in how the Democrats racked up such voter registration gains was their work in blaming Bush for every one of the country’s maladies, coupled with the drumbeat of a compliant media pounding home a message that we were stuck in an Iraqi quagmire which was sapping America’s resolve. No wonder people were ready for ‘change’ and they got it, voting out the continually moderating GOP majority in 2006 and finishing the job by electing Obama in 2008.
And regardless of who the GOP put up to follow in Bush’s footsteps he or she would’ve had a tough row to hoe. Yet John McCain was perhaps the most uninspiring Republican candidate to come along in some time. His one chance at the polls came when he picked a conservative firebrand as his vice-presidential pick, but he threw it away when he suspended his campaign to work with Obama to address the economy. It showed a lack of leadership as he played into the Democrat’s hands and, quite honestly, I think he was fortunate to only lose by 6 points. (Had McCain selected another moderate as VP, like perhaps – as one rumor had it – Joe Lieberman, I think he would have lost by 20 because conservatives would have stayed home in droves.)
But in 2012 the tables may be turned, with the exception that the media isn’t continually beating down Barack Obama. Still, the economy hasn’t improved from 2008, we’re still fighting a war on now 2 1/2 fronts (Libya rising while Iraq winds down), gas prices are back to summer 2008 levels, and government spending is surging well beyond even George W. Bush’s high deficit levels. In 2010, just as in 2006, the party in charge of Congress was tossed out. (It was only Senate demographics that saved a Democratic majority in the Senate, since they had a pretty much equal number of seats at stake with the GOP. In 2012, the large number of Democrat Senators who swept Harry Reid into power in 2006 are sitting for re-election – if Republicans make similar inroads next time they take back the majority.)
And while it’s no safe bet that Republicans won’t wear out their welcome, much of their success hinges on Barack Obama’s continued failure. It’s why killing Osama bin Laden was a godsend for President Obama, and we’re sure to be reminded thousands of times that Obama was in charge when Osama assumed sea temperature.
Hey, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile. But, as it was in 1992, it’s the economy stupid. President Obama better have less than 8 percent unemployment by the middle of 2012 or he’s toast – you can take that to the bank and hope the financial institution is ‘too big to fail.’
It seems to me that political theater in Wicomico County only comes around once or twice per annum, and that occasion reared its head again last night.
Since I have a life which doesn’t revolve completely around local politics, and since I already knew just how the proceedings would go from previous experience, I chose to sit and watch the hearing from the comfort of my living room on PAC-14. And while there were a couple occasions when I was ready to bolt out of my chair and make the five-minute drive down to the Civic Center, I refrained knowing that I would have the opportunity to say my piece in this space. Besides, I write better than I speak and I’m not limited to five minutes at the mike sitting here in my easy chair.
In essence, what this fight boils down to is whether we need to tax ourselves into oblivion or not. Sure, it’s only a 5 cent per $100 tax which affects only property owners that’s the largest controversy. But increasing the property tax rate also increases the personal property tax (also known as the ‘inventory’ tax) because it’s calculated on the property tax rate, times a factor of 2.5. So that rate will leap 12.5 cents per $100. Other fee tax increases proposed (remember, according to the Democrats, a fee is a tax) include charging homeowners more for mosquito spraying, setting a minimum tipping fee of $5, and increasing the price of solid waste permits by 9 percent.
A large part of last night’s discussion seemed to center around the Board of Education’s budget, with one commentator stating the case that a decrease in the BOE budget would end up increasing the budgets for law enforcement and the county corrections facilities. The school board seemed to have the largest lobbying group there.
However, the grousing shouldn’t be at the local board of education. Nope, our problems began when no one had the guts (or a judge who exhibited a little common sense) to tell the Thornton Commission to go pound sand. Supposedly the state didn’t fund education enough, so a formula was established to mandate how much counties were required to spend per pupil. Whether the number has any basis in reality or not, that’s what the state and county has to come up with to meet ‘maintenance of effort’ requirements. Some whined about the fact Wicomico needed a waiver from MOE, but I think we should have a permanent waiver. The state would be far better served to let the money follow the child and allow the parent more choice, but that’s a discussion far beyond the scope of a modest-sized county’s budget.
G.A. Harrison brought up a point I’d brought up before, and one promised by the County Executive before he was even elected. We were told that the budget would be stripped down to nothing (as County Executive Rick Pollitt claimed to do in Fruitland) then rebuilt as needs were apparent.
Unfortunately, our process seems to lean too heavily on department heads who aren’t even willing to level-fund their departments, let alone make cuts. Perhaps the budget building needed to proceed as follows – and bear in mind Rick Pollitt has threatened to create a ‘shadow budget’ in the past.
We generally have an idea of what our revenues should look like before the budget is even created. I’ll present the following scenario, with numbers that are generally close to the mark but may not be exact.
Let’s assume that projected revenue without tax or fee increases of any sort is $110 million. By prioritizing what services need to be provided, the budget is prepared as if that would be the actual revenue. We should have an idea of what employees are paid, how much facility costs are, price of office supplies needed, and so forth.
At that point, we can estimate the impact of any tax or fee increases, regardless of how small, and then assign an extra expenditure to each – it doesn’t necessarily have to be in that department. Let’s say the $5 tipping fee creates $100,000 in revenue and thanks to that influx of cash we can hire (or retain) two teachers. For that matter, it could be any of a menu of options that we can think of – it’s two teachers, or staffing for an economic development office, or new radio equipment for the sheriff’s department, or HVAC renovations to a county facility. Whatever it is, at that point we can determine whether we want to bear the extra cost among ourselves for (the statists’ code phrase for this would ‘invest in’) the additional service or improvement.
Instead, we are just told that to maintain this county’s ‘quality of life’ (and how do we measure the cost/benefit analysis of that?) we have to increase these taxes and fees to match the budget wants County Executive Pollitt has set forth. If we don’t tax ourselves this way then someone has to suffer.
This method is working the system exactly backwards – it’s like walking into a restaurant with $15 and wanting the $19.95 buffet. They’ll let you up to the serving line, but you can’t have the steamed crabs, prime rib, or cheesecake. All you can eat are the items no one else will have like the Brussels sprouts and tofu. Maybe – just maybe – we’ll allow a plain lettuce salad; no dressing.
The better way would be to have the buffet come with a selection of inexpensive foods and cost $15, with the steamed crabs, prime rib, and cheesecake a $4.95 additional option if you desire to pay for it.
Our problem is one of perception. Everything goes up in price constantly, and the pound of flesh the federal and state governments extract out of us every year is beginning to feel more like they’re extracting five pounds apiece. Meanwhile, the quality of services doesn’t improve as quickly as the costs escalate. People notice this most in the perceived quality of our educational system, citing anecdotal evidence of high school graduates who can’t count change, speak proper English, or fill out a job application. Roads which were fixed a couple years earlier are already falling apart, they say, and they have to visit four governmental offices to get a simple permit. We all have our horror stories of dealing with government bureaucrats.
Of all the suggestions made during the portion of the county budget proceedings I watched, I thought those made by Tom Taylor made the most sense. His campaigns were always ones of thinking out of the box, seeking limited government solutions. (It was surprising that Tom twice sought the Democratic nomination for County Executive, but perhaps he’ll change those political stripes someday.) Contrast that with the person who spoke after him, Joe Ollinger – he basically said go ahead and raise my taxes because you’ve always (except for last year) raised them the maximum amount allowed. Sometimes precedents are made to be broken, and he of all people should realize there was a reason taxes weren’t jacked up to the max in 2010 – it was an election year! Rick Pollitt may not look like the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he possesses some political savvy.
If my math is correct – and generally it is – doing without the 5 cent tax increase would require about $4.5 million in cuts from a budget of $111 million. (Property tax revenue consists of about $3.9 million of that, with the corresponding inventory tax increase accounting for the other $600,000 or so.) That’s essentially a 4 percent across-the-board cut, and I believe that’s doable if the budget is pieced together in the proper fashion. (Remember, my theory is that it should have been based on the lower number, with optional buys and personnel placed as extra line-items.)
Instead, we get this annual (or semi-annual, as lean times have sometimes forced a mid-year course correction) whinefest where everyone pleads to either not have their pet services cut or not have their taxes raised. It’s pretty apparent whose side I’m on, because I don’t equate spending taxpayer money with gaining a better quality of life like Brad Gillis does. In my eyes, we should worry about the core of the core services first, then come up with the extras as we can afford them – taking into consideration their economic impact.
I trust our County Council will do just that, and the ball is now in their court. They just have to stand strong against the seductive pressure of constantly hearing that it’s only a little tax increase of money we’re entitled to anyhow under the revenue cap. Until the working people don’t have a revenue cap placed on them, the county government needs to do with less.
One final note: the speed camera legislation we thought was dead is rearing its ugly head again. Be at the County Council meeting June 7th and tell them they don’t need Big Brother as a revenue source. Speed cameras are not about safety, they’re about the cash. And Wicomico County will be the first to tell you they need more cash.
A slew of news reports late Sunday night confirmed Osama bin Laden has died. While original news reports stated bin Laden’s death occurred a few days ago, later remarks by President Obama detailed the operation as happening Sunday. Whichever version of events is true doesn’t truly matter since the end result is the same: America’s ‘Public Enemy Number One’ is no more among the living.
But my personal take as a political observer on how this will affect our nation’s immediate future is complex.
I’m pleased to announce that I have a deal with the Robinson Family of Businesses to come onboard this blog as an advertiser.
As I build this brand and my writing career, I need the support of fine people and businesses who may or may not agree with the message but believe in its presentation: a website which doesn’t stoop to the level of being personal but delivers news and views in a readable and occasionally humorous style.
People tell me the first one is the hardest to get, but I have no illusions that I can slack off now. Yet getting John on board will hopefully pave the way for more local businesses to expand their advertising reach. While I have a pretty good share of the local audience, the dirty little secret is that my readership spans all fifty states (I just checked last night, and my Vermont reader must have returned because that was my most recent holdout state.) Thus, your message may resonate with someone who’s coming to the area or is interested in your internet presence.
I updated my ads page earlier today, so check out my affordable rates!
