Day: January 10, 2014

Exploring no more: Douglas says no thanks to AG

It appears now the Maryland GOP will have to dig a little harder to find a candidate for Attorney General. Those who had hoped Richard Douglas would formally enter the race – a number which included me – will be disappointed to learn he’s taking a pass:

Exploring a race for the privilege of serving as Maryland Attorney General left me with the clear conviction that, under current circumstances, I would be obliged to put campaign responsibilities ahead of responsibilities to my new family. I am unwilling to do that.

I considered a race seriously because of our sitting Attorney General’s habitual failure to perform bedrock duties of his office:

  • To expose and eliminate corruption at all levels of Maryland government.
  • To hold all Maryland officials accountable (himself included) without favoritism.
  • To inform Marylanders fully and impartially about the implications of legislation, taxation, regulation, and judicial action for Maryland job growth and manufacturing.
  • To reduce barriers to individual, educational, and commercial success.
  • To shield young workers from high health insurance costs and prevent “physician flight”.
  • To help single mothers collect child support and protect their children from crime.
  • To make Maryland government friendlier to the families of deployed military personnel.
  • To fight mistreatment of aliens by Maryland authorities.
  • To improve conditions in Maryland jails for inmates and corrections officers.
  • To resist federal usurpation of Maryland state authorities.
  • To return common sense, integrity, and transparency to Maryland government.
  • To make Maryland a better place for all.

My conscience will not allow me to enter the Attorney General’s race. In the future, circumstances may permit me to re-enter competitive Maryland politics. Maryland is worth it. When the time comes, I will reassess the potential for making a positive difference.

Instead, Douglas vowed to “consider ways to effectively improve Maryland state government’s performance on public corruption, official integrity, and return on taxpayer investment.”

But with only about six weeks remaining before the filing deadline, the prospects of Republicans whiffing on the post for a second consecutive cycle loom considerably larger. Before 2010, the last time the AG slot had been uncontested was 1986. Douglas was ideal for the party since he had recently run a statewide campaign against Dan Bongino for the U.S. Senate nomination, losing to Dan by 5 percentage points, or 10,831 votes. Richard carried half of the state’s 24 jurisdictions, however, including here in Wicomico County. With the prospect of four Democratic contenders beating each other up during the primary season, the prospect of a single Republican avoiding the mudslide may have made this a winnable race. While most of the AG candidates in recent memory failed to crack the 40 percent barrier, the 1994 election saw Richard Bennett lose by a 54-46 margin to incumbent Joe Curran, who was then seeking a third term. Potentially the 2014 election could be a wave election for conservatives like 1994 was, even in Maryland.

There’s also the question, though, of whether the sins of the incumbent AG will reflect on any of those running to replace Doug Gansler as he runs for governor. Certainly each will promise to do a better job than Gansler, at least until they’re sworn in and continue the same old pattern of rewarding political friends while ignoring the foes who point out clear language in the state Constitution.

So that’s two good potential candidates who passed up the race. Jim Rutledge was a grassroots favorite for the 2014 AG nomination after losing the 2010 U.S. Senate primary to a better-funded Eric Wargotz, but he chose to instead run to become the president of the Harford County Council in 2014.

So the question for Maryland GOP leadership to ask: Surely there’s an ambitious conservative attorney out there who would like to run?

The real unemployment number

Forgive me if I don’t make sense today. I’m going to take a bucket of water and pour in a few drops at the top. Let’s call that job creation. What I’m going to gloss over is the gaping hole near the bottom where water is gushing out. Some skeptics might call that people leaving the labor force, but the shiny objects are those droplets of water and the trickle from last month we found was larger than we thought. So the bucket seems really full.

For the first time since 2008, the “topline” unemployment number is under 7 percent, as it was announced today that the rate dropped to 6.7 percent. But experts were “hard pressed” to explain why so few jobs were created.

The problem was summed up by someone who’s not an economist, but a frequent critic of the current regime. Nathan Mehrens of Americans for Limited Government noted:

Since Obama became president, the number of people who are considered to be in the civilian job eligible population has increased by just shy of eleven million people, but the number of people who have entered the work force has only increased by about 730 thousand people.  Quite simply our nation cannot survive when fewer than sixty six out a thousand working aged people are entering the workforce.  Of those sixty six who want a job, about five of them are unemployed.

I’ll grant that the Mehrens example is perhaps a little overblown, as more of those who would be considered job eligible also become eligible for Social Security and/or reached retirement age. There are also a growing number who claim disability, which is why the seasonably adjusted number for those not in the work force has peaked at 91.8 million while the labor participation rate slid back under 63 percent. They’ve talked for years about the fact that a shrinking number of workers contribute to Social Security while those who collect live longer; well, we’re now practically at a point where five workers support three who aren’t working. Nor do these raw numbers consider how many jobs are in the public sector vs. private sector work, so the ratio is just about to a point where one private-sector worker is supporting one of either the roughly 22 million public-sector workers or the nearly 92 million non-workers.

Bottom line: the system trend is unsustainable, So what is the solution being offered by the government? Barack Obama calls them “Promise Zones” and they are supposed to “cut through red tape.” But it looks to me like more of the same:

(Yesterday), in the East Room of the White House, the President will announce the first five “Promise Zones”, located in San Antonio, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Southeastern Kentucky, and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

These areas – urban, rural, and tribal – have all committed, in partnership with local business and community leaders, to use existing resources on proven strategies, and make new investments that reward hard work. They have developed strong plans to create jobs, provide quality, affordable housing and expand educational opportunity, which we’ll help them execute with access to on-the-ground federal partners, resources, and grant preferences.

“Make new investments” is codespeak for spending more money on the problem, and Democrats just love to utter that “investment” term. That makes sense when the vast majority of the proposed solution lies in more federal involvement. (There is a small component involving tax credits, but those are generally temporary and don’t cover all of the increased costs involved in locating in these areas.)

So the one-to-one ratio will probably continue, particularly since the first five mainly involve some sort of educational component. Of course, that won’t be done through private-sector means.

Has anyone thought to ask those who create jobs what gives them an incentive to do so? Certainly tax credits may help, but as I noted above those are of a fleeting nature. Unfortunately, it seems that government regulation is forever; well, at least until business learns to live with that which is in place – only then do the bureaucrats seem to change things for the worse. One study pegged the net cost of government regulation in 2013 at $112 billion; using that as a guide business spent that sum complying with regulations instead of creating 2.24 million jobs at $50,000 apiece. That would knock nearly one-fourth off the unemployment rate, putting it back to around the 5% “normal” the media regularly lambasted as a “jobless economy” during the George W. Bush years.

It seems like politicians pay lip service to the concept of business friendliness during election years because they know the voting public really, truly wants to work and advance their economic status. (I know I do.) Yet the results of the last half-dozen years or so have been those of government projecting more of its influence over the private sector when the reins should be slackened instead. In no way has the world reached a terminal point of satisfaction with its collective lot, so there’s much room for growth in the American private sector given the advantages our nation has in terms of natural resources and willing workforce.

So let my job-producing people go, and we can return to the full employment we enjoyed just a few short years ago.