February 2013 – Page 3

Bongino: thanks, but no thanks to Anne Arundel, MDGOP posts

In a statement released on his Facebook page and Twitter, Maryland’s conservative wunderkind Dan Bongino revealed this afternoon that his next course of action will be conducted away from Annapolis, either as Anne Arundel County Executive or Chair of the Maryland Republican Party.

I would like to update you on rumors you may have heard about my interest in the Anne Arundel County Executive position and the MDGOP Chairman position. I will not be seeking either position at this time, although I am extremely grateful to all of those who emailed and called in their support to a number of elected officials.

Regarding the decision making process for the vacant Anne Arundel County Executive position, I have chosen to disengage from a process that has become weighted towards insider politics. This County needs a reformer, not an insider, and any illusions otherwise are driven by a political agenda and not the sentiments of actual voters on the ground.

Regarding the MDGOP Chairmanship, although I respect the MDGOP Party infrastructure for their recent outreach initiatives and I feel the Party is headed in a better direction, I have chosen to take my platform and my commitment to a Maryland government that is citizen-centric, rather than insider-driven, to the people via a continued, robust grassroots effort.

I tried not to spread any rumors, but there was a huge buzz about both possibilities.

Yet I think Bongino is making the right moves, for several reasons. One is the tremendous electoral headwind which will be facing John Leopold’s successor as Anne Arundel County Executive. While I’m trying my best to follow Dan’s admonition to “cede no ground,” the circumstances which led to the opening may mean the Anne Arundel race isn’t right for Dan, while it may be a better fit for others being considered. Obviously whoever takes over the position – Kendel Ehrlich and Delegate Steve Schuh are among the names being mentioned – will need to come in as a reformer and rehabilitate the image of the GOP in Anne Arundel County. Had John Leopold not resigned, the prospects may have been better for Dan to come in for 2014 as a new voice. But because voters don’t decide this time, the decision will be one of political gamesmanship.

And as for the party chairmanship: while I think Dan could have done a fine job as the party chair, I noted yesterday that he would have to sacrifice his 2014 chances to take the position, or else leave the party leaderless in the midst of a pivotal election cycle.

So now that he’s eliminated these two possibilities, the question becomes: what will he do? It’s doubtful that Dan would run in a contested primary for Anne Arundel County Executive unless the person selected to take John Leopold’s place by their County Council decides not to run for election in 2014 – an unlikely proposition.

But does he dare run for Governor and jump into a GOP field with several known quantities who have leadership experience? One knock on Dan’s record in 2012 was his lack of a political resume, and while he tended to make light of that for a Senatorial run it’s much less likely most Maryland voters would be comfortable with a political outsider running to be the state’s chief executive.

I suspect Dan is planning to run for something in 2014; unfortunately there aren’t a lot of races which would fit his ambition. Could Dan shift his political desires into a lower gear and run for the General Assembly or Congress? Obviously he could bring a lot of firepower to such a race, but there’s also the aspect of whether he would make another run in 2016 for a Senate seat which may be vacated if things go well for Republicans in 2014 and Barbara Mikulski loses her committee chairmanship.

It’s safe to say that, for the arguably most popular Republican in Maryland, there are a lot of options awaiting his future decisions.

Three bills worth testifying for

Thanks to Dee Hodges and the Maryland Taxpayers Association for alerting me to the fact there are three bills worth testifying over next week. This is a slightly edited summary of what’s coming up.

Tuesday, Feb. 12: SB 391 – Repeal of Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012, sponsored by Senator E.J. Pipkin, in Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs. This bill isn’t likely to pass – but it should. The act itself is about constraining farmers from being able to sell or develop their own property. The intent is to crowd people into the central cities. The obvious eventual result will be that costs go up, housing especially, while rural property will gradually become worthless. Even more people will choose not to live and work in MD. This is all in the name of preserving agricultural lands while other environmental laws and regulations are making it more and more difficult to farm.

Wednesday, Feb. 13: SB 275 – Offshore Windmills, sponsored by the President of the Senate (on behalf of the Governor), in Senate Finance. This bill has been rigged to pass out of this committee by the transfer of Senator Muse (a Democratic offshore wind opponent) to another committee. This is a bad bill which will prove excessively costly in future utility bills. Other states bordering the Atlantic have been at this for a number of years and still have not started construction. Outside consultants in New Jersey expressed high negatives about cost effectiveness several years ago. Some outside investors have been reluctant to invest in these projects so that they can move forward. A cost-benefit analysis has, to date, not been presented to legislators. All of these items should spark concern about committing to offshore windmills. Legislators, especially those on the Finance Committee, would be failing in their fiduciary responsibilities to the citizens they represent to pass this bill out of committee without complete and satisfactory answers. Call or write or email everyone on this committee.

Thursday, Feb. 14: SB 276 – Death Penalty Repeal, also sponsored by the President of the Senate (on behalf of the Governor). Will repeal mean our prisons will suffer from the restiveness of a growing population of inmates with no possibility of parole? What other obstacles will repeal present to our judicial system?

I’ve already spoken at length and provided testimony about the cross-filed companion to SB391, so I may just send along the same document to Senator Pipkin.

Meanwhile, we have played around with the concept of offshore wind for the last half-decade and have made no progress. The reason this effort is stalled isn’t because of lack of effort, but lack of economic sense. It’s the same reason Bluewater Wind pulled the plug in late 2011, according to NRG Energy President and CEO David Crane, who said in a release at the time:

Our people have worked hard and we’ve made a considerable financial investment in the Wind Park, but that effort cannot overcome the difficult and unfortunate realities of the current market. We’re not giving up, but at this moment we can’t rationally justify further investment in this project without the prospect that it can move forward within a reasonable timeframe.

Translation: it’s an economic loser the market won’t touch with a ten-foot pole, and the supposed $1.50 per month rate increase won’t cover the costs to the utility. At the very end of the fiscal note it’s worth pointing out that two similar projects are running (in current prices) between 18.7 and 24.4 cents per kWh, compared to the national average of around a dime per kWh.

Lastly, we have the death penalty, which is already been eradicated in a de facto way by Maryland’s refusal to execute any of the five death row inmates we have. Since Martin O’Malley doesn’t believe in the law, he won’t carry it out and instead wants to change it. (Gee, too bad we can’t do that with our tax burden.)

Now I’ve heard the argument that executions are more expensive than keeping the criminal in prison for the rest of his or her life. Yet the reason this occurs is the enormous cost of endless appeals in the process. If we limit the appeals to one per appellate level, that would do more to contain costs. And it seems to me that, if the government puts its mind to it, executions can occur in a relative hurry. (Timothy McVeigh was unavailable for comment.)

On the other hand, one also has to ask: what if you get a Chris Dorner situation, but he’s taken alive. Shouldn’t we have the death penalty as a deterrent and example? Why take it off the books?

I look at it this way: I am pro-life, but pro-death penalty. To explain away this apparent contradiction is easy: by making the conscious decision to kill another without provocation, in a premeditated fashion as part of the commission of a crime, is to forfeit your right to life. Whereas an unborn baby has no choice in the matter, the perpetrator does.

In a well-run state, the first bill would pass and the latter two would be laughed out of the General Assembly. Unfortunately, we don’t have a well-run state yet so the best we can do is stop the bleeding.

Mooney resigning as MDGOP Chair

In a letter set to Central Committee members, Maryland GOP Chair Alex Mooney announced his resignation effective March 1 to “pursue other ventures.”

Mooney outlined a number of accomplishments in his tenure:

First, the MDGOP is in a strong financial position. According to Treasurer Chris Rosenthal’s report distributed today at the executive committee meeting, the MDGOP raised $1.1 million in 2012, far exceeding our budgeted plan.

Second, we have experienced staff focused on grassroots, party building and supporting candidates. Your executive board team remains in place… Therefore, the party will be in good hands.

Finally, grassroots activism is at an all-time high. Over 300,000 people signed a petition to stop three of liberal Martin O’Malley’s agenda items. While the vote was not successful on Election Day, we must not overlook the fact we conservatives working together have the power to put the final vote to the people. MDGOP was a partner in this effort with MdPetitions.com, the church community and other activists.

Our new office offers a convenient downtown Annapolis location walking distance from the Capitol for legislators and Republican clubs to use. And we cut rent expenses in more than half compared to our previous location.

With the resignation of Mooney, it will automatically elevate First Vice-Chair Diana Waterman to the leadership post on an interim basis until the next state convention April 20. Waterman drew fire from conservative activists after comments last month at a Wicomico County Republican Club meeting, so it is unclear whether she would want the post on a more permanent basis.

Naturally the talk around the MDGOP will be who takes over for Mooney, and this places yet another opportunity for rising star Dan Bongino to cast his footprint on state politics – assuming he doesn’t instead secure the newly-created vacancy in the Anne Arundel County Executive post. Conversely, appointing Bongino would also either eliminate him from seeking an office in the 2014 cycle, or create another Chair vacancy in the spring of 2014, once the filing deadline for the 2014 election arrives. (Party rules stipulate a Chair cannot be a filed candidate for an elected post.)

Yet the decision will also be fraught with peril as yet another tug-of-war between the “establishment” and TEA Party activists – one obvious choice for the former group would be a second go-round as Chair for Audrey Scott, who took over the state party in 2009 after Jim Pelura’s resignation and, more recently, lost a bitterly-contested battle for National Committeewoman to Nicolee Ambrose.

The Mooney departure comes at an interesting time for the state party, which is fighting tooth-and-nail against a number of measures in the General Assembly like expanded gun control and an additional sales tax on gasoline. It will put Waterman in charge during a time when many of these bills come to a vote, meaning grassroots activists and groups may have to take more of a lead than usual.

It also leads to speculation on what Mooney is planning for 2014, whether it’s another run for Congress as he began to in the 2012 campaign before withdrawing just before the filing deadline, or a bid to retake his seat in the Maryland Senate. It’s not likely he will try for statewide office with an already-crowded field in the governor’s race and lack of qualifications for any other statewide contest (Attorney General or Comptroller.) Barring an unexpected vacancy, there will be no U.S. Senate election in Maryland in 2014.

And while Mooney leaves with a number of accomplishments under his belt, it’s worth noting that his grandiose plans for financial help for the state party failed to pan out. Yes, the state party has made a number of moves in the name of efficiency, but monetary numbers are still insufficient for the party to offer much in the way of help to 2014 candidates. Mooney’s successor will have a lot on his or her plate and a short time to put the pieces together before the 2014 campaign really gets underway.

Speed camera repeals receive hearing date

You know ’em, you hate ’em. Those inaccurate revenue generators which were placed for dubious purposes of “safety,” speed cameras, will have their repeal discussed in hearings in both the Maryland Senate (February 20, 1 p.m. under Judicial Proceedings) and House of Delegates (March 5, 1 p.m. under Environmental Matters.) We’ll deal with the same committee chairs many of us dealt with Wednesday when the O’Malley gun infringement bill and repeal of last year’s septic bill were discussed, Senator Brian Frosh and Delegate Maggie McIntosh.

For all the complaints they receive regarding the ongoing political soap opera in Cecil County, it should be noted that the lead sponsors for SB785 and HB 251 are Senator E.J. Pipkin and Delegate Michael Smigiel, respectively. Other Senate co-sponsors are Richard Colburn and Nancy Jacobs, while a bipartisan group of 12 Delegates co-sponsors the House version. (It’s bipartisan due to Delegate Nathaniel Oaks of Baltimore City.)

One group happy to see these bills get to the hearing stage is the Maryland Liberty Caucus, and they’re targeting Delegate McIntosh’s district with literature to make sure the message gets across. I would imagine they will make an attempt to do the same with Senator Frosh’s district, although Montgomery County isn’t as well-known of a speed camera haven as Baltimore City is.

The part which interests me the most will be finding out who testifies at the hearings. Obviously the companies which operate the speed cameras will have representatives there since it’s their golden goose being threatened. The question to me is how much law enforcement backing these will get, because it makes their jobs easier – unless they have to clean up the accidents from people suddenly slowing down to avoid the fines. (Of course, then they write the citation for not maintaining assured clear distance.) Of course, the local jurisdictions will be testifying against the repeal bill as well because it’s a revenue stream they’d like to continue.

But if it were really about safety, there would be a physical police presence at a work site or school zone. Not only could they actually witness the speed of a car, they could also check for erratic driving and other offenses. All a speed camera does is track someone for speeding, at least in theory, even hours after school has let out or during school holidays when no children are present. (To me that’s proof it’s all about the Benjamins, or in the case of these cameras, the pair of Jacksons.)

And while I doubt the repeal would pass, the record will be clear as to who stands for the people and who stands for Big Brother. And it would be fun to watch the city crews remove all the cameras they installed – it would be something worth recording with a camera for the ages.

But you wouldn’t have to pay $40.

Another sucker play

If you don’t like the narrative, change it. That’s what proponents of in-state tuition for illegal aliens did in Maryland, resulting in the passage of Question 4 last fall. It became an issue of “fairness” rather than an issue of rewarding lawbreakers.

Now Organizing ~~For Action~~ Against America is trying this tactic on a national scale, with an e-mail from Jose Magana asking “where’s your family from?” (The answer in my case: Toledo, Ohio.)

I was brought to this country from Mexico when I was 2 years old.

I am an undocumented immigrant — and I am living proof that our immigration system is broken.

For the first 17 years of my life, I slept on a couch. My mom worked three jobs to support our family.

I worked hard, too. I did my homework, participated in class, and earned the opportunity go to college. But after I enrolled, state law changed and many undocumented immigrants were forced to drop out. Suddenly they could no longer afford the education they were eager to work for.

We started organizing. We’d go up to people on campus, and ask them if they’d heard about the DREAM Act, which would allow hard-working immigrants who grew up in the U.S. to earn a path to citizenship. For those who opposed it, we’d tell them what happened to us.

It was amazing: Just telling our stories would change people’s minds.

This is exactly how we’re going to persuade people across the country to get behind President Obama’s plan for comprehensive immigration reform.

Everyone has a story — I’m sure you do, too. As the President said last week, “Unless you’re one of the first Americans, a Native American, you came from someplace else. Somebody brought you.”

At this critical moment, will you share your immigration story? Organizing for Action will use these stories to move the conversation forward.

Now, almost six years later, I’ve completed law school and was fortunate to receive deferred action. I consider myself an American, and I want to play by the same rules as everyone else. But, as it stands, I can never become a citizen. I can’t adjust my status. For most of my life, I could have been arrested, detained, and deported.

I’m not alone. Millions of undocumented immigrants like me live in fear of being deported permanently to a country we may have never even visited. Our entire lives could be erased.

You might not live under the same shadow. But the best thing about this country is that we are more alike than we are different. We all have a story of a mother, or grandfather, or great-great grandparent who came here to find opportunity or safety.

Through this grassroots movement, we can raise our voices, tell our stories, and make sure Congress and all Americans better understand the ties that bind us. Our stories can drive our organizing. Share your own story today, and help Organizing for Action get the word out on why this matters:

(link removed)

The majority of Americans agree we need to fix our badly broken system, and we saw major progress last week. But it’s on us to keep up the momentum and make sure it gets done.

Thanks for speaking up.

Jose

Jose Magana

As usual, the links return to the my.barackobama.com domain, which is still active even though he won four months ago.

But to me what’s more important is what’s missing. For example, why was mom working three jobs? First of all, someone obviously hired her not knowing (or not caring) about her immigration status. Did she get a driver’s license, Social Security number, and so forth illegally? In and of itself, crossing the border illegally is not a serious crime – but forgery and passing yourself off as another person is. How about Jose? What sort of documents does he possess since he came here illegally?

Listen, I’m glad he went to law school. Hopefully what he learned there is that we are a nation of laws, and his very presence here violates a fair number of them.

So when immigrants are beseeched to share their stories, it’s not to “move the conversation forward.” It’s to obfuscate the fact that millions upon millions are here illegally. That’s a slap in the face to those who did things the right way for their American dream. I want to say it was my great-grandparents who came here from Germany and Poland; granted, the laws were much different back at the turn of the last century but undesirables could – and were – sent packing back to their homelands, even in that era.

Sadly, for all his good qualities, Jose seems to be the exception to the rule. He’s obviously one of those who got the pseudo-amnesty (known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) from Barack Obama last year so he wouldn’t have to go back to Mexico.

But let’s turn the story on its head. How fair do you think it is he got the preferential treatment of a tuition break, at least until, as he states, “state law changed and many undocumented immigrants were forced to drop out.” (We don’t know which state.) Presumably they no longer received the in-state tuition break meant for students who lived in-state legally.

More importantly: how fair is it that he can work legally (thanks to DAFCA) but his mother cannot?

Another thing we don’t know: how many brothers and sisters does Jose have, particularly those who were fortunate enough to be born here as “anchor babies.” Doesn’t matter who the dad is, he could be illegal, too. (Sort of like an alternate take on the “Julia” character from Obama’s campaign, we know nothing about what Jose’s father did for the family.)

In short, because the illegal alien advocates can’t win on the facts, the Obama administration recruited one of the few who seems to want to assimilate into American culture as a friendly, non-threatening spokesperson for the effort. But there’s a big difference between his generation and that of my ancestors who came from Europe. Of course, both had a language barrier and both were willing to work hard to make ends meet at “jobs Americans wouldn’t do.”

But the children of my ancestors wanted to be American, so much so that there’s very little which belies my family’s ethnic heritage besides the name and my dad’s longtime enjoyment of polka music. Aside from that, we were thoroughly American two generations removed.

Instead, in this day and age many who come here, whether through cultural or religious preference, have two to three generations who maintain the ways of their homeland. Rather than actively seek to assimilate, they would rather America adapt to suit them. Growing up we weren’t subjected to bilingual society, nor was anyone else outside a few limited enclaves within large cities (like Chinatown.)

But in my travels, particularly along U.S. 13 south into Virginia, I find a number of businesses which cater to the 9 percent of Accomack County residents who do not speak English at home – the signage is in Spanish. (Amazingly, nationwide this number is at 20 percent.) One would think those who don’t speak English would want to be part of the 90-plus percent who do; that’s always been the norm. And I’m aware that the actual number of Spanish-speaking residents who reside there is probably double what the official Census data I looked up shows; even so, the vast majority speak English.

In the end, though, it’s about politics. Both parties believe that bending over backwards to cater to the Latino population will win them votes; however, Republicans – who are traditionally immigration and border security hawks – risk alienating more of their base than they would win among Latino voters. And Democrats know it, which is why the push to make immigration an emotional issue rather than a rational one. That’s the only way they can win.

If we are a nation of laws, Jose Magana goes back to Mexico. As a law student, he has the skills to get a green card and return to work here legally but I believe he should return to his native country to pursue the option.

Obviously some will howl that it’s not fair he has to do this, but the lesson here is life’s not fair. Some of us were blessed to be born in America, others go through the legal process to become naturalized, and still others choose to stay here temporarily. But they should do it legally, and that’s where Jose is lacking. Say “no way” to Jose and his sob story.

Testimony opposing SB281

I also had my say on the gun-grabbing bill.

**********
Testimony in opposition to SB281:
Firearm Safety Act of 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen of the Senate:

Let me begin by saying I find this bill to be improperly named, because its passage will not make Marylanders any safer.

As members of the General Assembly, you are charged with making laws. By definition, criminals break them.

Yet I predict this bill will make criminals out of law-abiding citizens.

Otherwise this law will deny the right to self-protection from many thousands of Maryland residents your government claims to be looking out for: the poor and disadvantaged among us. If one were to purchase a handgun after November 1, not only will they be responsible for the price of the gun but also hundreds of dollars’ worth of licensing fees, classes, and other costs associated with this law. They’ll be faced with a choice: self-protection or starvation. Is the state going to step in further and pay for gun safety courses for the poorest among us, waiving the $100 licensing fee on a sliding income scale? Of course not.

Certainly at this point you’re shaking your head at the crazy example I point out above, but I shook my head in disbelief when I saw this bill for what it is: a kneejerk response to a tragedy this law would not have prevented. Again, by definition criminals break laws. The very first victim of the Sandy Hook tragedy owned her weapons – the ones stolen to be a means for committing these murders – legally.

Logic and reliance on facts aren’t generally the strong suits of those who would take away the access to weapons, though, so that truism is lost on those who pushed for this bill in the name of “safety.” As you probably know – and will likely hear often throughout this day of testimony – the Second Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not go on to say “…shall not be infringed, except when they put scary-looking enhancements on the weapon” or “…shall not be infringed, except for the payment of $100 and taking of a training course.” I would further argue that the people aren’t the “well regulated militia” but the “over-regulated militia.”

It’s rather unfortunate that I can’t be there today to deliver this in person, to see the reaction on your faces when I take a page out of the old saw many of us grew up hearing, “Question Authority.” It’s the people’s job to do so when authority oversteps its bounds and turns a right into a privilege for the chosen few.

I understand this bill probably has enough votes to clear the Senate based on the number of co-sponsors; furthermore, I’m sure it’s no coincidence that this hearing was scheduled at a time when President Obama would be nearby.

But I guarantee to you that I speak for thousands and thousands of law-abiding gun owners in Maryland who have never fired their weapon in anger; in fact, I would wager that most have not fired their weapons in the last year. Luckily, society is still civil enough that the need for self-protection is a rare occasion for most of us.

Like the tool you may have in the bottom drawer of your toolbox – the one you only use once in awhile but the one you find indispensable when the need arises – having a gun for self-protection is something that those who wrote the Constitution knew in their minds would be necessary for succeeding generations. Their intent was not to make self-protection unworkable through exorbitant fees, time-consuming and expensive training, and registration of weapons so those who would be king knew just where to go for confiscation.

Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege. The Constitution makes it so, and regardless of all the sob stories and heartbreak you may hear about today, emotion does not change this fact. I daresay building your gun-grabbing platform on the coffins of 26 victims is an insult to their memory because the guns were not the cause. Let’s not use death as a way to advance the aims of overreaching government.

In time, I believe this law, if passed, will create far more than 26 innocent Maryland victims from those no longer able to defend themselves from lawbreakers. Don’t fall for the emotion and hype – say no to Senate Bill 281.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Swartz
Salisbury, Maryland

**********

So what do you think? Wonder how Slow Joe Biden liked that one?

Testimony supporting HB106

I submitted the following for consideration before the House Environmental Matters Committee.

**********
Testimony in favor of HB106:
Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 – Repeal

Ladies and Gentlemen of the House:

In the interest of restoring the primacy of local government, I stand as a common citizen in supporting this bill.

There is little doubt that Chesapeake Bay defines Maryland as a state, and, while there are differences in opinion as to the best course to take in preserving the quality of the estuary for future generations, the goal for all is a cleaner Bay. These concerns have already been addressed on many fronts, with assistance from both the state and federal governments.

That assistance is not at question here, because the law which this bill aims to repeal is not a bill to directly clean up Chesapeake Bay. Rather, HB106 corrects an ill-considered measure which, if not changed, will permanently and adversely affect the farmers who create much of the wealth in rural areas of the state like the local government as elected by the people of Wicomico County.

When the county places land in a tier where development is permanently limited by the newly-created law, I believe the landowner is harmed as the potential value of his property is decreased via the lack of development options. Though some landowners have already given up development rights, which was their decision, I do not believe this can be a one-size-fits-all approach as the state is dictating. Instead, I believe that farmers are the best stewards of their land and many have already taken common-sense measures to protect both their investment and the health of the Bay, with planting cover crops being one prime example.

Because they realized our job is to allow farmers and the agricultural industry to engage in the practices they find best, at the end of last year our County Council considered a provision which would allow an agricultural landowner to voluntarily opt into a Tier IV designation. But Maryland Department of Planning and Zoning Secretary Richard Hall made it plain that, “The law pretty much makes clear that agricultural zones are to be in Tier IV, and so to opt in or opt out is not what’s in the legislation.”

This attitude exhibited by Secretary Hall brings us to the second part of my objection, the idea of local control.

As I stated above, all of us agree Chesapeake Bay is worth preserving. Local governments are just as steadfast toward that goal as those who would dictate to us in Annapolis, and what the Wicomico County Council was proposing was simply another form of public input. It seems to me that’s the goal of good government, but this law as interpreted by Secretary Hall seems to reveal the true intentions of the state as sole arbiter of all issues regardless of the local situation.

As county residents we trust our local Planning and Zoning Department would come up with a sound comprehensive plan which addresses Wicomico County’s current and future needs. All the Sustainable Growth and Agricultural Preservation Act of 2012 has accomplished is to place another state mandate on what should properly be a local issue. Certainly we know what works in Wicomico County may not necessarily be the best approach for Montgomery County, and vice versa.

To that end, I ask that HB106 be adopted and local counties be allowed to resume the procedures they have found to work best for their local needs.

Respectfully submitted,

Michael Swartz

**********

Later this evening I’ll publish the testimony I wrote on SB281. It’s more biting than this one.

Ten Question Tuesday: February 5, 2013

This format of TQT is going to be a little different. I decided the other day that, rather than secure an interview for this week, I would follow my inspiration from the NAACP forum the other day and ask the questions they perhaps should have asked. I heard one participant complain he didn’t have enough time to elaborate on the questions presented – well, here’s your chance. You can take all the space you want to answer. The same questions can be asked of everyone on the ballot, whether for Mayor or City Council.

I look at it this way: these questions should be on everyone’s lips anyway.

From personal experience, I can tell you the building industry has been decimated in Salisbury. We’ve had a few opportunities to redevelop various properties in the city but nothing has come to fruition. While I’d prefer private investment, the question really is how do we get people building again?
And speaking of building, we hear a lot about how to redevelop downtown. But the city is far more than just downtown; neighborhoods are important as well. If you were to assign a percentage of importance that redeveloping downtown merits when compared to the overall picture, what would it be and why?
In the last few years we’ve seen a number of national chain businesses open in Salisbury; some examples are Hobby Lobby, Longhorn Steak House, Party City, and Dunkin’ Donuts. Yet there’s always been a group talking about “shop local” even if it means less selection at a higher price. What are your thoughts on the local vs. chain controversy?
We’ve already heard the contention about crime statistics in this campaign. Do you think the police department has the optimum amount of resources and manpower?
If not, where will we get the funding to pay for them?
The subject of annexation came up at a recent forum. In my (admittedly limited) experience with the topic, my recollection is that extending city services comes with the requirement of being annexed into the city. Yet we also want to avoid the “pipestem” annexations which have given the city a very irregular shape. What incentives would you recommend to “fill in” the city’s footprint and eliminate pockets of non-incorporated land surrounded by the city?
More and more, the state of Maryland is dictating how local governments operate: to me, a prime example is the Tier Map demanded from counties thanks to last year’s septic bill. How much interference are you willing to tolerate in city affairs from bureaucrats in Annapolis?
As a follow-up, do you see yourself as an activist for the city at the state level or will you just concentrate on what you believe you can control within the city limits?
City finances are always in a state of flux, and one bad revenue year can mean drastic cuts the next. But let’s say your economic plans are a success and the city is suddenly flush with cash. What do you do with the surplus?
Finally, we hear a lot about transparency in government and communications with the citizens. I know one candidate is a member of the “new media,” for better or worse. But how would you use technology to assist in creating a more informed citizenry?

These are ten questions I’d like to have answered by those running to represent me, the citizens in Salisbury’s other City Council district, and the city’s chief executive.

Next week I promise to get back to a regular format, with a guest to be announced.

Update: My guest next Tuesday will be editor and creator of the Brenner Brief, as well as founder of the PolitiGal Network, Sara Marie Brenner.

Working on a better Maryland

After the weekend many had, it’s probably good that we are back to work – more of a rest there than in overdoing the Ravens celebration. Maybe Joe Flacco is on his way to Disneyland as we speak.

There are a number of interesting bills being heard this week in the General Assembly. Of course, we all know about the setup for the eventual gun grab better known as Senate Bill 281, which will be heard Wednesday afternoon along with House Bill 106, a bill I’ve been following to repeal last year’s Septic Bill (which created the Tier maps we all know and despise.) As promised, I spent part of my weekend and today working on testimony since I can’t be in Annapolis Wednesday. (Alas, the days which work best for me aren’t days testimony is normally heard, Monday and Friday.) I’ll post my thoughts at an appropriate time.

But it’s worth noting that SB281 isn’t the only thing on the Senate Judicial Proceedings agenda – Senator Brian Frosh has three other bills being heard that afternoon, with all three having him as a lead sponsor. They’re all gun-related as well, but in hearing that testimony you may get a sense of where SB281 is going and where Frosh stands on the issue. (The other three bills are Senate Bills 228. 266. and 420.)

The same is true on the House side Wednesday, as seven other bills share the docket with the HB106 repeal bill.

It’s getting to the time of year where most of the bills which won’t end up locked in a Committee Chair’s drawer have their hearings, although the schedule has been known to run into March. It seems to me, though, that bills which Committee chairs want buried (in instances where a hearing is granted) have them as late as possible – so it’s a little surprising HB106 got its hearing early. Yet there are a number of other bills being heard on the same day, with the biggest being the Senate gun measure.

Now that the House and Senate have eclipsed the 1,400 bill mark as an aggregate, the rules will change a little bit as bills now have to go to the Rules Committee first (because a certain number of session days have passed.)

Yet if you’re not good at writing testimony, there is something else you can do. I’m part of a worthwhile effort of volunteers called the Maryland Legislative Watch, where dozens of volunteers are assigned legislation to read and assess on the simple basis of whether it conforms with the Maryland Declaration of Rights. So far I think I’ve provided input on 8 or 10 bills, and have five more on my plate once the opportunity presents itself. So it’s not a huge time commitment; certainly Elizabeth Myers, the leader of the project, puts in her share of time but most of the rest of us can have it comfortably done in an hour or two a week. (Most bills are under 10 pages; once you figure out the legalese and method of writing it’s easy.)

If I get another 50 people to sign up, not only would Elizabeth likely love me forever, but we would only have perhaps a dozen apiece to deal with because many have already committed. There are people who say they want to get more involved and educated; well, here’s a great opportunity.

The campaign to change Maryland may not bear fruit until 2014, but the work is already underway. More help is always welcome.

Odds and ends number 71

Since it’s Super Bowl Sunday and the better part of my audience is going to be tuned into the game because the hometown Ravens are playing, I thought it a good time to clean out my e-mail box and join the celebration. (As a Lions and Browns fan, I’m watching for the commercials. Maybe someday I can have a rooting interest.)

Last week those of us in Maryland were subjected to the State of the State address by Governor O’Malley. In the footnoted version, it’s 14 pages of bilge and big government. The “official” Republican response by Delegate Andrew Serafini (the last 15 minutes here) seemed awfully tepid, so you knew others might have both barrels blazing.

Enter Change Maryland head Larry Hogan, who skewered O’Malley’s speech with a rhetorical spit:

Governor O’Malley’s slogan used to be ‘believe’ but that speech was pure make believe. The Governor continues to misuse facts to portray a false narrative of his administration’s legacy. Only Martin O’Malley could actually call a 30 percent increase in spending and a budget he has increased by $9 billion as making government smaller…The governor said he cut $8.3 billion but that’s just not true. He has increased spending every single year since he has been governor, a total of more than $9 billion. So his math is off by more than $17 billion.

He talked of making tough choices, but after 24 consecutive tax and fee hikes, the only tough choice he has to make is what can we possibly tax next?

Governor O’Malley said we have the worst traffic congestion in the nation. On this we agree. But he failed to tell you that he is the reason we are in this predicament because he diverted funds from the transportation trust fund to pay for other things, and then of what was left in the transportation budget, he only allocated a tiny amount to roads.

He talked about what he inherited. I was a cabinet secretary in the previous administration, and I can tell you that when we turned the keys over to the O’Malley administration, we had a billion dollar cash surplus in the bank, and the state was in the best fiscal shape it had been in decades.

Just six years later and by any objective measure, by any objective group, the state is in far worse shape than ever before. Businesses, jobs and taxpayers are fleeing our state in record numbers. We have fallen behind all the states in our region and most states across the country in nearly every economic indicator.

But Larry saved the best for last:

Unfortunately he checked out of this job some time ago, and is focused on his next one. His entire focus is about his national political aspirations and not about the needs of average hard-working Marylanders who continue to struggle.

I guess he means O’Malley’s future job as a consultant? Sure, he may run for the 2016 Presidential nomination and maybe try again four years later. But Maryland’s getting tired of his one-trick act.

While Hogan may or may not be running for governor, we know David Craig is. His reaction, in part:

Today Governor O’Malley offered a narrative about better choices in his State of the State Address. I share the Governor’s passion for better choices and a better Maryland. The Governor’s choices; however, have resulted in a higher tax burden for Maryland families and businesses, increased regulation, and a myriad of unfunded mandates passed on to local governments.

I would like to offer an alternative vision. We need to strive for the “Best Maryland”. The Best Maryland begins by government allowing individuals and business to lead in partnership with the State. We need to continue to improve our state, but not at the expense of the taxpayer.

We need to make pragmatic choices that balance our priorities and encourage private-sector growth and investment. The “Best Maryland” begins with an approach where our state is not dominated by one set of ideas and one set of leaders.

Is there really anything to that statement? Honestly, who wrote that?

At least with Delegates Susan Aumann and Kathy Szeliga, you have the scripted banter of a rebuttal. It’s worth pointing out that the wind turbines would be in the Atlantic Ocean, not Chesapeake Bay.

But the reaction to one portion of the State of the State address will be seen this coming Wednesday as Second Amendment supporters gather in Annapolis to protest the gun grabbing bill sponsored by Martin O’Malley. Those coming from the lower Eastern Shore to protest have an additional travel option. From the Wicomico Society of Patriots:

Things are heating up in Annapolis with two important hearings occurring on February 6th. The gun hearing will be held before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee at 1:00 p.m. and Mike McDermott’s repeal (HB106) of the 2012 septic bill hearing will be held before the Environmental Matters Committee (House of Delegates) at 1:00 p.m.

If you would like to attend to testify on either of these issues or to protest, then you can drive up yourself or you can sign up to ride on a bus with other patriots.

Bus Option #1: Worcester Tea Party and Stop Agenda 21 are sponsoring a bus to go to Annapolis on Feb. 6th. The bus will leave WOC Park & Ride at 7:30am and Boscov’s in Salisbury at 8:15 am. Call 410 251 3585 or 410 430 7282 to reserve your seat. Also, you can email: www.worcestercountyteaparty.com or stopagenda21maryland.org for more information. Cost is $10.

Bus Option #2: Jamie Wink at Wink’s Gun Shop in Princess Anne is also sponsoring a bus to go to Annapolis. Please call Jamie at 443 783 3993 for more information about this bus trip. Cost is $20.

I think Jamie Wink would be a great monoblogue advertiser, how about you?

One important note about the proceedings:

If you are testifying: Please arrive as early as possible to sign in, the committee will take sign ins until about noon. You will be given 3 minutes to speak.

If you are submitting written testimony you must bring a copy for each of the Senators who sit on the committee (11 copies) and submit them to Committee staff before noon so they can make sure all of the Senators have the materials on their desks.

There are various parking garages in Annapolis, or you can park at the Naval Academy Stadium and ride the Annapolis Shuttle/Trolley to Lawyers Mall – The Senate Building is right across the Street.

Be prepared to spend the whole day here, whether you testify or not, what is important is that we are there in numbers to stand in opposition. We need thousands of gun owners.

They have all night. However, a little organization may be in order as those who rode the bus (and may have to return by a set time) should speak first. Also be aware that the committee chairs (Senator Brian Frosh and Delegate Maggie McIntosh) are probably going to be more of a stickler for rules and time limits from the pro-liberty side than from those wanting gun restrictions and more oppressive government.

More on SB281 from the National Association for Gun Rights:

Senate Bill 281 drastically broadens the definition of an assault weapon and constitutes one of the most outrageous assault weapon bans proposed in the country.

This bill classifies 15 different types of semi-automatic pistols as “assault weapons” as well as certain types of shotguns and rifles.

This means that if Senate Bill 281 passes these guns will be illegal to purchase or bring into the State of Maryland.

This 38-page bill also bans high-capacity magazines limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

If this bill becomes law, it criminalizes all citizens owning newly banned weapons unless they immediately register their guns with the State of Maryland.

Gun owners who don’t register their “banned” weapons would face up to 3 years in jail or a $5,000 dollar fine under O’Malley’s Gun Grab Bill.

Current law governing carry permits in Maryland makes it almost impossible to carry, yet this bill will make it even harder by requiring a new 16-hour handgun training course.

To purchase or rent a handgun, citizens will now have to pay roughly $400 dollars in fees, background checks, training courses, and finger-printing.

How many criminals will this make out of otherwise law-abiding citizens? Registration can be the first step toward confiscation.

I can almost guarantee you that a vote on SB281 (whether a floor vote or committee vote) will be part of the 2013 monoblogue Accountability Project.

But let’s not forget the federal level. I received this note from Heritage Action for America, which alerted me that they are “…looking to build a movement of conservative activists in these areas to hold Congress accountable.” I think I have enough readers all across the Shore who can fit the bill.

These readers (and many others) owe it to themselves to consider a piece by Bradlee Dean at The Brenner Brief. You probably remember Bradlee from his visit last October to the Wicomico Society of Patriots meeting, but in this case he’s speaking more about the idea of obedience to the state rather than to God, and how to reconcile the two.

Finally, the question on everyone’s mind: who will win the big game, the Ravens or 49ers? For the Move America Forward group and their troop care package competition, it’s a razor-thin margin after the 49ers jumped out to an early lead. We’ll see if the real Super Bowl follows the same pattern.

My prediction: Ravens, 30-28. Not that I much like it, but Baltimore’s shown a history of winning games they had no business winning – just ask Cleveland, Kansas City, San Diego, Denver, and New England (arguably Dallas, too.) A little karma the other way and they may have been 8-8.

But at the end I’m going to say what I have said for many years, beginning with ex-wife #1:

Me: Well, the Super Bowl is over, so you know what that means…

Spousal unit: What?

Me: (in a rising voice): Only seven days until PITCHERS AND CATCHERS REPORT!! (Nine for Orioles fans.)

Bring on the baseball season, baby. My Tigers have some unfinished business to take care of. (Sorry, Orioles. Your time will come.)

The futility of incremental change

The story I’m going to reference is a few days old, but the point made is still valid.

On Monday the Washington Times ran this piece which simply restated facts many already knew, but made them clear for comparison’s sake: the entirety of this year’s tax increase on the rich was spent on one storm’s relief. Obviously insurance companies and other private-sector industries had sizable losses on Superstorm Sandy as well, but for the insurance industry it’s chalked up as the cost of doing business and over time they will raise rates (and/or deny coverage) to eventually make themselves whole.

But this piece isn’t being written to argue whether government assistance of victims of freakish weather is good policy. We’ve spent the equivalent amount to all these billions (and more) in recent years to prop up failed businesses, subsidize those in industries the market deemed not ready for prime time, and in giveaways to tinpot dictators around the world. We’ve created weaponry for which there may not be an application, paid producers not to produce, and tried to build nations out of subjects unwilling to cooperate. And $50 billion doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the overall sum millions feel they are entitled to by virtue of reaching a certain age and having a few pennies on the dollar deducted from their paychecks over the lifespan of their respective careers.

To sum up: it’s chump change.

Yet I don’t want to make the case that those who are affected aren’t going to miss it. While I don’t think anyone is going to go to the Jersey Shore specifically to see where their share of the $50 billion went – in many cases, the repairs and spending won’t be on the drawing board until later this summer anyway, with some infrastructure reconstruction still years away – the Times story illustrates once again the folly of Band-Aid solutions to our chest wound of deficit spending.

Moreover, the old saw about raising taxes in a recession? Well, if the economic figures from the fourth quarter of 2012 hold up, we’re halfway to a recession right now. Of course there’s always the prospect for an “adjustment” in the next quarter which will goose the GDP just to the growth side of zero, but most people are believing their own eyes rather than the media hype – consumer confidence is down, the 2012 holiday season shopping was pretty much a bust, and I read a Rasmussen Poll this morning that fewer than 2 in 5 of those surveyed think the economy will be better in five years; the lowest mark since the question was first asked in 2009. (At that time over 3 in 5 believed the economy would be better. Fooled you!) In the perception of many, we are indeed in a recession and the government’s only solutions seem to be promises and handouts. In the oft-quoted words of Margaret Thatcher, that works until you run out of other people’s money.

It’s rather unfortunate that Barack Obama and Harry Reid received another four and two years, respectively, to continue to plunder the pocketbooks of those they deem able to afford such a financial flogging, print more money, and create IOUs to handle the rest. Most of those who have even the tiniest sliver of common sense know that’s not the long-term solution, but voters placed Obama and Reid at the helm, the captains of the government Titanic approaching the financial iceberg dead ahead. And the leaky lifeboat commanded by John Boehner at the House is little better; look for small business owners to be swept overboard and drown in the sea of red ink created by a system which has finally shown itself to be the unsustainable one many seers knew it would be, a theory derived from a careful reading of history.

In general I’m an optimist, and perhaps we as a nation can avoid the iceberg and the rocky shoals which await us about our current course. With luck we can navigate a safe passage with the proper austerity program and leadership back toward a government restored to its rightful place.

But we have placed ourselves in a situation where the results are more likely to be worse than better, as tonedeaf Washington leadership continues on a course to economic destruction. If you thought the “fiscal cliff” was a steep precipice, the chasm of our unfunded liabilities could be the bottomless pit. Mixed metaphors aside, the reality is we aren’t in good shape and solutions won’t be coming very quickly from Washington.

A push from the top?

Indications are that Maryland’s emboldened gun control proponents will receive a boost Wednesday through a Presidential visit. As one legislator, State Senator Joe Getty, stated:

There is lots of chatter in the hallways of Annapolis that President Barack Obama will be visiting Annapolis to endorse the gun control legislation proposed by Governor Martin O’Malley.

That would make lots of sense on behalf of both politicians.

For Obama, it is unlikely that his gun control proposals will pass the U.S. House of Representatives, so positive benefits can be derived for him by aligning himself with the gun licensing requirements and weapons ban on the fast-track in a Democratic-controlled state.

For O’Malley, he not only get increased national exposure from the stature of a presidential visit but also the advocacy to bring potential recalcitrant Democrats into line with a presidential plea for party loyalty in the gun control debate.

Further credence is lent to the prospect through a note passed to me by a friend. This is a notice from the FAA regarding next Wednesday, February 6:

VIP Notice – Annapolis, Maryland

Notice Number: NOTC4556

Notice: Expect VIP movement February 06, 2013 in the vicinity of Annapolis, Maryland. Pilots can expect airspace restrictions in conjunction with this VIP movement. The FAA recommends that all aircraft operators check NOTAMs OFTEN for mandatory airspace restrictions prior to operations within this region.

Specific instructions and restrictions are available at http://tfr.faa.gov once the NOTAM has been issued. (Emphasis in original.)

The February 6 date is significant because the governor’s pet gun control bill, SB281, is being heard that day by the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. Among other things, the 38-page bill requires registration of so-called “assault weapons” by November 1, 2013, reduces the allowable magazine capacity to 10 rounds, and establishes “handgun qualification licenses” (read: a series of expensive and intrusive hoops to jump through in order to possess what is supposed to be granted you through an inalienable right to self-defense.)

So how will the President’s visit affect the proceedings? Well, as Getty notes, the President’s appearance could bring a few more House Democrats to the gun grabbers’ side (this term is literally used, based on the bill’s requirements.) The conventional wisdom is that it has enough votes to pass in the Maryland Senate but its fate is much more iffy in the House of Delegates.

But there’s the pro-Second Amendment side to consider as well. If downtown Annapolis becomes a security zone, particularly if Barack Obama chooses to speak at Lawyers’ Mall, it may well leave protesters nowhere to go. They’d be scattered around and scattered is not newsworthy nor is it strength in numbers. Of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if busloads of fawning Obama supporters are brought in to provide the President with a supportive crowd.

And let’s not overlook another calculation made by the Democrats. Two of the biggest pet issues pro-liberty forces are concerned about in this legislative session are the onerous (and ultimately futile insofar as preventing crime goes) gun control measures being pushed by Martin O’Malley and the Tier Map repeal bill (HB106) proposed on the House side by Delegate Mike McDermott. It’s not for nothing that both the SB281 and HB106 hearings are being held at the exact same time in a brilliant piece of divide-and-conquer strategy. Bad enough that many working people (like me) can’t get to the hearings because they’re held during normal business hours in Annapolis, but to have two bills strongly opposed by pro-liberty citizens go through a hearing process at such an inconvenient time is a huge obstacle.

A suggestion I’m making to counter that is to submit written testimony. I’m speaking off the cuff here – so input would be appreciated – but having submitted written testimony before, I seem to recall the idea is to keep it to a length where, if spoken, it takes about 3 minutes to deliver – about 600 words, give or take. I plan on devoting part of my weekend to submitting written testimony for both bills, whether it will be on behalf of the entire Wicomico County Republican Central Committee or my own personal viewpoint.

One final word. The last thing we need with a Presidential visit is for someone to go off-message by making this a personal vendetta against Barack Obama. We can – and should – say that the President is wrong in trying to usurp our inalienable rights and continues to go to the extreme of emotional appeal as a knee-jerk reaction to a problem where guns were the tool but not the cause. Our side has proposed common-sense solutions that don’t involve making criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens, such as allowing willing teachers who go through a prescribed and recommended gun safety course – a monetary and time investment they are willing to voluntarily make – to carry their weapons in schools. Note again that mass shootings tend to happen in so-called “gun free zones” and stop once authorities with firepower arrive.

We can win this fight, despite the obstacles and star power placed in front of us. Obviously the other side is worried, for if it were a slam dunk fait accompli that the gun bill would pass there wouldn’t be a visit from Barack Obama until the bill was on Martin O’Malley’s desk. So let’s get out there and fight!